Right Wing Fiction vs. Socialist Reality

[ogenoct]

from: http://journals.aol.com/newdawn70gpm/THETHIRDPOSITION

Right Wing Fiction vs. Socialist Reality


Racialist author William Pierce ( aka Andrew Macdonald) had some good ideas. He knew of the plight that many white Americans were facing due to multiculturalism and Zionist media control. He created an alternative media of sorts to help counter these negative realities. Unfortunately, Pierce also had some shitty ideas. He wasn't too crazy about working-class or poor whites. In fact, he seemed to purposely evade the class question altogether.

Pierce is quoted as saying this about the readers of his book, The Turner Diaries, in Robert S. Griffin's biography of Pierce, The Fame of a Dead Man's Deed:

"Although I must say that many of the lower-class people who are affected by the book are not the kinds of people I am trying to recruit, because they are not particularly useful people. They don't have good character, and they aren't really strong or capable people."

I will admit that Pierce was no dummy for taking such a position. After all, lower-class people couldn't shower him with donations and other gifts. But I will laugh in your face if you ever tell me that Pierce was a revolutionary!

A revolution cannot be made without the lower classes. If "white nationalism" is just simply a DEFENSE of the white American middle class and its shitty values then I will gladly hoist my red flag and bare my Bolshevik fangs! Bye-bye, Miss American Pie...

And, by the way, both Tim McVeigh and Bob Mathews were working-class guys. Both of these men were influenced to a certain extent by Pierce's writings. In any case, it's not surprising to see that the bourgeois idlers talk the talk, while the lower-class revolutionaries walk the walk. Both of these proletarian white men , of course, sacrificed their lives for The Revolution and a New World.

The Turner Diaries was inspired by Jack London's The Iron Heel which is a blueprint for Marxist revolution in the form of a fictional narrative. The Iron Heel is a much better novel with a much clearer ideology. It promotes violence as a means to an end: To kick off a revolution and establish a socialist society. While Pierce's book promotes violence, it offers no concrete revolutionary ideology to go along with it. Zilch! The Turner Diaries is a nihilistic daydream disguised as a "revolutionary" novel.

I'm afraid that "racialism" is insubstantial BY ITSELF.It is not the Jews or non-whites who are the problem. And simply securing a "white world" is not the solution. Especially when that "White World" is sustained by the sweat and labor of exploited workers- of all races- and imperialistic wars.

At this point fomenting a race war is NOT revolutionary! It is downright reactionary.

To the capitalists, human beings are merely raceless consumer units: most of us are wage slaves to be chewed up & spit out or cannon fodder to be used in one of their insane foreign wars. Fighting amongst ourselves (as black versus white, blue collar versus white collar, Left versus Right, Western versus Islamic, etc.) only strengthens the economic elite who don't give a rat's ass about any of us.

Now I'm not telling you to love anybody. And it is certainly impossible to love EVERYBODY. It is also unrealistic to believe that different races and cultures are going to live together peacefully and permanently.

But save your hatred for the REAL bastards.

CAPITALISM IS TREASON!...Slavery served the large plantation owners just as open borders and illegal immigration serve the corporations. The economic elite (parasites) profit while the populace- both white and non-white alike- struggle with unemployment and dismal futures.

REDDER IS BETTER!...Forget your racialist fantasy fiction! Pick up London's The Iron Heel or Upton Sinclair's The Jungle instead. Better yet, read Lenin's essay What is To Be Done?...and get things done!

There is nothing unpatriotic in flying the RED FLAG OF REVOLUTION and declaring war on our nation's vile enemies within! In fact, according to Thomas Jefferson, it is our patriotic duty to do something like this.

These Enemies of the People: the warmongers, the culture distorters, and the multinational corporate traitors must be dragged into the open light and brought to justice! Only a SOCIALIST revolution, a revolution of THE PEOPLE, can accomplish this.

We can never solve our national and racial problems until we have first rectified our economic and political ones.

Think about it: By attacking the racial problem first and IGNORING the crimes of the economic elite, you are simply giving the economic & political criminals time to readjust their position and time to cover up their crimes. For the sake of argument, let's say that the right wing racial revolution succeeds (though I seriously doubt that it could), many of these economic & political criminals, who worked both up front and behind the scenes to destroy us, will simply resurface and possible even emerge as supporters and leaders of the right wing circus! And a right wing reactionary circus is all that it will really be- but not a true revolution, because the power structure will, in fact, remain unchanged.

White Patriots should work to restore the dignity of our race and nation by bringing down the inhuman capitalistic system that works against the best interests of our race as well as the interests of other races.

"Year Zero" can only arrive when we have wiped the slate clean.

Am I still proud to be a Euro-American? Am I still proud to be a tribalist? Of course! But I am, first and foremost, a SOCIALIST and I truly believe that the only way forward is through socialist revolution and the mass expropriation of our nation's wealth and resources.

Anything else would be reaction, compromise, and failure.

[Jake Featherston]

Am I still proud to be a Euro-American? Am I still proud to be a tribalist? Of course! But I am, first and foremost, a SOCIALIST

I guess that's where we differ. In the words of Jack London, as he resigned from his membership in the Sonoma County Socialist Party Central Committee, "I may be a Socialist, but I'm a White man first!" Mr. London was angry about the majority of the central committee's support for a resolution condemning the pro-segregationist stance of the Woodrow Wilson administration.

The Iron Heel was definitely one of London's best, right up there with The Sea Wolf. I've been planning to read it a second time soon. Upton Sinclair's The Jungle was good too. I bought my wife a copy for Christmass a couple years back, but she doesn't seem to have any interest, alas.

[ogenoct]

I guess that's where we differ.

I did not write this article. I merely posted it because I agree with its main argument.

Constantin

[Daniel Shays]

Very good, someone should post this at racialist forums. Part II isn't bad either.

Possibly the author could insert these quotes from Marx and Lenin where Part I mentions slavery:

"Labour with a white skin cannot emancipate itself where labour with a black skin is branded." - Marx

"It is instructive that among the whites in America the proportion of illiterates is not more than 6 per cent. But if we divide America into what were formerly slave-holding areas and non-slave-holding areas we shall find 11 to 12 per cent illiterates among the whites in the former and 4 to 6 per cent in the latter areas! The proportion of illiterates among the whites is twice as high in the former slave-holding areas. It is not only the negroes that show traces of slavery!" - Lenin

[Daniel Shays]

Mr. London was angry about the majority of the central committee's support for a resolution condemning the pro-segregationist stance of the Woodrow Wilson administration.
Intra-state segregation serves only the interests of the capitalist class. The bourgeoisie supported segregation because it was at the time a profitable regional strategy that placated many Euro-Americans while still maintaining the economic and cultural oppression of Afro-Americans. Africans in America are a nation, not a class and they should have their own socialist republic where state power is utilized to advance the specific ethnocultural interests of the Afro-American working class. The Afro-American struggle for an independent state didn't begin and couldn't possibly have begun until they were free from segregation (flagrant domination by capitalism) although Communists first suggested this solution in the 1920's. The struggle for an Afro-American state began to wane in the the years after segregation as the leading Afro-Americans were lured into the capitalist system (see Jesse Jackson's business dealings (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200104/ai_n8948203)). Programs like Affirmative Action exist because the capitalists want Afro-Americans to have a vested interest in the capitalist system.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0609807366.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,32,-59_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

More information on Black liberationist turned capitalist tool, Jesse Jackson and his family:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27032
Noah Robinson, Jesse Jackson's half brother, graduated from Wharton School of Business in 1969. He had a promising career ahead of him. Jesse Jackson said, "No, brother, come with me in Chicago. I want you to be my partner." He brought Noah Robinson into Operation Breadbasket. They subsequently went into business in the Breadbasket Commercial Association and into Operation PUSH as well. Jesse then introduces Noah Robinson to Jeff Fort, who was the head of Blackstone Rangers. This was the biggest – and at the time, the most violent – street gang in Chicago, subsequently convicted of killing more than 200 people. Jeff Fort and Jesse Jackson are closely tied. Noah Robinson gets involved in the gang, he gets lots of business, he becomes a businessman in Chicago – partly with the gangs, partly with Jesse Jackson. He gets lots of contracts with the city government that Jesse helps him get through these minority set-aside programs.

[...]

When Viacom was trying to – and they did successfully – merge with CBS but wasn't sure it would be able to, Jackson originally was filing papers with the FCC to block the merger, like he did with so many other corporations. You're talking about mergers in the range of $50 billion to $100 billion – huge deals requiring federal approval. And in these federal approvals, you have the possibility for interest groups such as Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH or Citizenship Education Fund to say that they object and to give reasons for their objections.

[...]

I've had a number of CEOs come to me and say paying Jesse Jackson $400,000 or $500,000 was the price of doing business. By the way, I think that shareholders have something to say to corporate leaders who do that.

[...]

And No. 3, and most importantly, I think, will the black community continue to stay silent about him? I wrote this book because black pastors came to me and said, "You've got to write this book. We can't do it. We can't talk out against him." So I tried to give voice to them in my book. Now, I hope that would give them courage and let more leaders of the black community come forward and speak their mind about Jesse Jackson.

[Vindex]

I agree this is where I wash my hands of socialism-ism's when it becomes just christinsanity part two. I will take organic fascism/Nazism.

I guess that's where we differ. In the words of Jack London, as he resigned from his membership in the Sonoma County Socialist Party Central Committee, "I may be a Socialist, but I'm a White man first!" Mr. London was angry about the majority of the central committee's support for a resolution condemning the pro-segregationist stance of the Woodrow Wilson administration.

The Iron Heel was definitely one of London's best, right up there with The Sea Wolf. I've been planning to read it a second time soon. Upton Sinclair's The Jungle was good too. I bought my wife a copy for Christmass a couple years back, but she doesn't seem to have any interest, alas.

[Thomas777]

The author sort of misunderstands what Pierce was getting at. I am no fan of William Pierce, but what he was suggesting was that the only way that Revolution could be effected was by professional cadres of intellectuals (the Marxist-Leninists on board should appreciate this tactic). He was not saying "the proletariat does not matter". In all honesty, Pierce was correct on this point (even a broken clock is right twice a day). The Trotskyites did not destroy the ancien regime in America by organizing general strike...they did so by infiltrating the academy, the judiciary and the learned professions. Pierce felt that National Socialists should adopt the same tactic as did the Frankfurt School revolutionaries.

[ogenoct]

from: http://journals.aol.com/newdawn70gpm/THETHIRDPOSITION

Right Wing Fiction vs. Socialist Reality Part 2


If Europa is to be realized, as either a living, breathing socio-political organism or even just as a spiritual impetus, there must first be a unity of purpose. A mating of Tradition and Revolution (Ice and Fire) must take place.

Socialist revolution (Fire) is the necessary bridge to national resurrection.

One either upholds the old order and all of its failed ramifications: democracy, liberalism, globalism, reaction; or one marches onward, dutifully, into the fires of change and revolution! There is no middle ground.

Liberalism, Globalism, Fascism, and National "Socialism" were all actually cut from the same cloth. They were all desperate attempts to save crumbling and corrupt Western capitalism and its moneyed elite. They were all shields of reaction. They were all, each and every one, an insane world's last attempt to stave off the inevitable fires of true revolution. They were all ultimately molded by the same old, decaying order of things.

As absurd as it may initially sound, Soviet socialism came much closer to realizing the radical traditionalist or nationalist (or even "Aryan") ideal than did any other self-proclaimed revolutionary order of the previous century.

The Soviet state did not destroy the vital cultural or biological make-up of the various Slavic and Germanic populations under its tutelage. In all actuality, it protected and preserved and cultivated these "conquered" masses. All the while, Western capitalist democracy turned the other half of Europe into a new America: a soulless marketplace for the populace and a den of iniquity for usurious aliens. Americans and Western Europeans have become Godless and self-seeking, while Russians and other Slavs bask in a new dawn of spiritual and national rebirth.

Meanwhile, nationalist movements of the West continue to preach their outdated and counterproductive anti-socialist rhetoric without considering the facts of the matter:

1) Socialism is the glue that will bind the nation together. Under the "free market" economy we have become selfish, isolated individuals. We are constantly in search of a "new high." We become like fish out of water. We flounder. We search for something. We search up and down the marketplace for a new product to buy or maybe a new religion to embrace- but we always end up feeling empty and let down by whatever it is that gives us momentary pleasure. Under true socialism, we shall revive our collective consciousness and rediscover our lost loyalty to "the people" or the tribe. We shall once again have a direction and a purpose and a meaning. We shall become whole beings only by embracing the whole being!

2) The purpose of true socialism is to cultivate and ennoble man. (Isn't the purpose of both Pagan and Christian Traditionalism much the same? Therefore, couldn't socialists be following the same path of tradition just under a different name?)

3) Both nationalism and socialism are collectivist ideas- one complements the other. For example, Stalinist Russia was not a Marxist state at all. It was a socialist state complemented by heavy nationalistic tendencies.

4) Socialism works in accordance with evolution. As technology continues to evolve and populations continue to grow, (like it or not) there will be a need for greater centralization and organization in all areas of life.

5) Socialism is civilized and just. Capitalism is barbarous and predatory. (Which do you prefer?)

Nationalists and traditionalists should seriously reconsider their position on socialism. Predatory capitalism, with its soulless materialism and alien pop culture, has truly destroyed Western tradition and culture. Revolutionary socialists remain adamant in their opposition to the prevalent nihilism of the modern age and are likely to be at the forefront of any national resurrection to come.

[Isra'il Yahya]

I agree this is where I wash my hands of socialism-ism's when it becomes just christinsanity part two. I will take organic fascism/Nazism.

What is organic about Fascism or Nazism? Does is stand among the roots of cultures? Most cultures practiced some form of True Socialism before the rot of modernity set in. How does Fascism or Nazism oppose modernity? Doesn't it just dress a whore like a nun?

[Vindex]

Depends on what you mean by socialism we are probably thinking two different things for the same term.

What is organic about Fascism or Nazism? Does is stand among the roots of cultures? Most cultures practiced some form of True Socialism before the rot of modernity set in. How does Fascism or Nazism oppose modernity? Doesn't it just dress a whore like a nun?

[Isra'il Yahya]

Depends on what you mean by socialism we are probably thinking two different things for the same term.

I agree. It's just a matter of terminology. Pointless to argue over terms.

[Tchort]

Pierce felt that National Socialists should adopt the same tactic as did the Frankfurt School revolutionaries.

Pierce did no such thing. He was a self-serving academic with intense racist bigotry and sexual devience (the latter was proven after his death with the factionalism and implosion of the National Alliance). The Turner Diaries implied the future government would be National Socialist, given the numerous references to the greatness of Hitler and Nazi Germany, and ambiguiously pro-Nazi/Nazi-esque descriptions of the future society after the race wars. During his life he chose to reach out to and cater to the 'Silent Majority'- the white middle class bourgoisie Suburban underbelly of America. It seems to me that he did not want a 'revolution' in the Marxist sense, but a middle-class hysteria like the French Revolution to happen in modern America. Pierce was no where near the social, cultural and political revolutionary-intellectual that the 'Frankfurtschoolers' were. However, I have for awhile advocated my own personal brand of Fasco-Leninism and a future Black, not Red or Brown, Frankfurt School/Critical Theory philosophy.

[Greg_M]

I have to agree with the above post. William Pierce was more of a racist utopian dreamer than a revolutionary realist. His seemingly leaderless organization survives to this day only because it runs a thriving "white power" record company (promoting a form of music that Pierce personally hated).

I'm the author of the above essay, 'Right Wing Fiction vs Socialist Reality'. Though I'm not the one who posted it here, I wrote it for my blog to hopefully generate a discussion much like the one taking place in this forum.
I just used Pierce as an example of the kind of dubious "leader" who should be avoided at all costs in the future.

[Wanderer]

Pierce did no such thing. He was a self-serving academic with intense racist bigotry and sexual devience (the latter was proven after his death with the factionalism and implosion of the National Alliance).


Sexually Deviant in what manner?

[Ixtab]

__In the words of Jack London, as he resigned from his membership in the Sonoma County Socialist Party Central Committee, "I may be a Socialist, but I'm a White man first!"Source ?

[Ixtab]

____Source ?Source ?

[Vasily Zaitsev]

Pierce was indeed a national socialist (the NA member handbook made this clear) and the way he ran the Alliance is an excellent illustration of the way NS lends itself to bourgeois inertia. Pierce, though brilliant, had no idea of how to get a movement started. He was too bourgeois for the proles and lumpen proles, and too lumpen for the bourgeoisie. While he harangued the petty bourgeoisie week after week on American Dissident Voices the people living in the white ghettoes of Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, etc grew bored of hearing him quote Brooks Adams at them. For their part, his fellow middle class people thought him unforgivably rude with his talking about Jews and negroes in public.

In the end, Pierce's legacy is as a bookseller. His merchant activity through National Vanguard Books helped stock the libraries of countless alienated bourgeois closet racists. Commerce, however, is not revolution. It's exactly what we expect from the bourgeoisie.

I will defend the Turner Diaries a little, though. The work did not set out to present the ideology underpinning Pierce's fictional revolution. When first published the book was serialized in either Attack! or National Vanguard (I can't remember which). Those reading it were already being ideologically educated through the other articles and the Diaries served to entertain and to outline the mechanics of vanguardist revolution.

[Thomas777]

Pierce did no such thing.
Sure he did. Pierce parted ways with Rockwell because he thought that Rockwell's tactics were too vulgar and that NS mass-politik was doomed to failure in America. Pierce openly acknolwedges in "Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds" that during his years in Washington DC, he was operating with an eye to court fellow intellectuals so as to cultivate NS philisophical tendencies among the intelligensia. Revolutions are not made by rabble-rousing and stirring up the underclass...professional cadres are needed to effect revolution. The Bolsheviks, the Fascists, and the NSDAP all understood this...so did pierce.

He was a self-serving academic with intense racist bigotry and sexual devience (the latter was proven after his death with the factionalism and implosion of the National Alliance).
I tend to agree with this assesment.

The Turner Diaries implied the future government would be National Socialist, given the numerous references to the greatness of Hitler and Nazi Germany, and ambiguiously pro-Nazi/Nazi-esque descriptions of the future society after the race wars
That is correct. And in the book, the revolution was led by the Organization (an elite cadre of ideologues and professional revolutionaries) the inner party of which was The Order.
During his life he chose to reach out to and cater to the 'Silent Majority'- the white middle class bourgoisie Suburban underbelly of America. It seems to me that he did not want a 'revolution' in the Marxist sense, but a middle-class hysteria like the French Revolution to happen in modern America.
Pierce wanted a Revolution...he wanted Whites to embrace a dogmatically racialist politik, abandon Christianity, violently attack Jewish power, and facilitate the ultimate establishment of a National Socialist-esque/technocratic government.

Pierce was no where near the social, cultural and political revolutionary-intellectual that the 'Frankfurtschoolers' were.
He was not as saavy as they were and he lacked a receptive audience in the halls of the Academy.


However, I have for awhile advocated my own personal brand of Fasco-Leninism and a future Black, not Red or Brown, Frankfurt School/Critical Theory philosophy.


I would like to hear more about this.

[Captain Marinesko]

My response to this article from another forum.

http://vivamalta.org/forum/showpost.php?p=112536&postcount=5

[Rusty Mason]

It's important to distinguish between social class and economic class. Marx broke people up by economic class, dismissing the idea of social class altogether (a noble idea which is still incomprehensible to Jews). We should not use commie definitions to describe Western situations.

Pierce, like any "aristocrat of the soul" was not indifferent to some people because they were poor but because they did not have social class. That is, they did not exhibit honor, courage, perserverance, etc. They could not even lead themselves, so they were the worst candidates for leading others.

[Captain Marinesko]

It's important to distinguish between social class and economic class. Marx broke people up by economic class, dismissing the idea of social class altogether (a noble idea which is still incomprehensible to Jews). We should not use commie definitions to describe Western situations.

Pierce, like any "aristocrat of the soul" was not indifferent to some people because they were poor but because they did not have social class. That is, they did not exhibit honor, courage, perserverance, etc. They could not even lead themselves, so they were the worst candidates for leading others.


And Pierce had "honor"? There is no way to quantify people's honor or perseverance; the world is full of honorable, honest, hard-working people who still live a poor life. Surely if Pierce were asked if Jews had so much power due to "social class", he would be angered. This is particularly offensive to someone who puts so much power into the hands of Jews.

[Rusty Mason]

...the world is full of honorable, honest, hard-working people who still live a poor life.
That's the point exactly. Just because one is poor does not mean one is not capable of being honorable. However, being poor is not, as Marxists would have us believe, honorable all by itself. Aristocrats of the Soul can readily identify each other, we don't need something as crass as money, as Jews do, to tell who's worthy and who's not.

Surely if Pierce were asked if Jews had so much power due to "social class", he would be angered.
They do not have power because of social class, they have power because they have money and use their base obsession to undermine their host society. White aristocratic ideals are very foreign to Jews. Pierce knew this as did many thousands of White leaders through the centuries.
This is particularly offensive to someone who puts so much power into the hands of Jews.
I don't understand what you mean. "This" what? "someone" who?

[Daniel Shays]

However, being poor is not, as Marxists would have us believe, honorable all by itself.
Where did Marx claim this? When has a Marxist party claimed this? Marx was no fan of the lumpenproletariat.

[Vasily Zaitsev]

If "social class" had been so important to Dr. Pierce he would have groomed a proper successor instead of a deviant fool devoid of charisma, character, and intelligence.

[Captain Marinesko]

Aristocrats of the Soul can readily identify each other, we don't need something as crass as money, as Jews do, to tell who's worthy and who's not.

As Shays says, Marx never claimed being "poor" was some kind of virtue. The problem with this "Aristocrats of the Soul" thing is that there is no way to quantify or identify it. If there was such a thing, why was the NA routinely filled with nutjobs, traitors, sexual deviants(though no more so than most WN organizations)? As Zaitsev pointed out, how could a man like Gliebe even GET into the National HQ? Was Pierce's "Aristocrat of the Soul" detector broken that day?



They do not have power because of social class, they have power because they have money and use their base obsession to undermine their host society.

So whites get money and undermine society- they are "Aristocrats of the soul".

Jews just have money?

In a capitalist society, money=power, plain and simple.



White aristocratic ideals are very foreign to Jews. Pierce knew this as did many thousands of White leaders through the centuries.

Was Pierce "honorable"? Was he hard-working? Many of the worst Jewish businessmen in Hollywood are probably more hard working that any WN leader.


I don't understand what you mean. "This" what? "someone" who?

The idea that powerful Jews got their power from working for it in one way or another. Most Fascists/NS types have this idea that rich whites are just fine because they got the money through "honorable" means and if they screw us over it's only because of the Jews making them do that. At the same time, they assure us that Jews never deserve their money.

Our take is that the ruling class is the problem, white, Jewish, black, Latino, or even canine(Lassie was very anti-union)!

[Fenris]

__Source ?

http://www.freedompartyuk.net/public/articles/london.html
London would often state that:-"I am a white man first and only then a socialist".

[Greg_M]

From The Third Position Blog
http://journals.aol.com/newdawn70gpm/THETHIRDPOSITION


[Some thoughts on capitalism's strange bedfellows: liberalism and fascism, and why we must overcome these deceptive and destructive 'Elitist' ideologies. I call these ideologies 'Elitist' because, unlike socialism which is selfless and collectivist, liberalism and fascism are merely extensions of capitalism's degenerate and atomistic "values"]

"What is a true bastion of iron? It is the masses, the millions upon millions of people who genuinely and sincerely support the revolution. That is the real iron bastion which it is impossible, and absolutely impossible, for any force on earth to smash. The counter-revolution cannot smash us; on the contrary,
we shall smash it." Chairman Mao


Elitism is a hideous disease of the mind. It infects both the rational man and the already unstable-minded individual. Those who claim to be "elite" or "enlightened" or "aristocratic", or who simply feel that they are somehow above the sewer that surrounds them, are the antithesis of the involved revolutionary. The elitist's thoughts are always self-centered (though they may claim otherwise). Their interests and their "ideals" are always transient.
Any permanent or fixed tradition, or collectivist ideology, is incomprehensible to their self-serving agendas and all-devouring egoism.

Elitist ideologies are manifestations of opportunism and conflict fundamentally with socialist values. In the eyes of the elitist, "the people" as a whole are merely an underclass to serve and obey. Ideally, the only beneficiaries of an "elite ideology" are the "elitists" themselves. (Of course, THE TRUE ELITE, the capitalist overlords, will be the ultimate beneficiaries of ANY such system.)

Two excellent examples of this phenomenon are the bourgeois liberal and the reactionary fascist. The former claim a sort of ethical superiority based on the fact that he or she is somehow more enlightened or possibly more evolved than the backward thinking masses. Of course, what makes the liberal more enlightened or evolved is never fully disclosed. (Which is odd in itself, given the fact that most liberals are quite voluble.)

Deep down, where it counts, in their blemished souls, the liberal humanists are committed only to themselves. Their "egalitarian" agendas have more to do with their own self-preservation than with bettering mankind as a whole.
Their "love" for non-whites is either insincere or dangerously delusional, but in the long run, it ultimately serves their self-gratifying egos to no end. From their economically comfortable positions, they support ANY measures that will benefit THEMSELVES above all. Non-whites and illegal immigrants are simply exotic pets that the liberal humanist showers with affection, mainly for ego gratification- but to what end? This is NEVER considered. If it was, the liberal might (if a conscience existed) reconsider his or her position on this matter.

By pretending to embrace and welcome every culture (except for their own!), the liberal bourgeoisie is just creating an entirely new (and unnecessary) servant class: A newfangled "working" class to compete with, and possibly wipe out, the traditional working class.

Instead of supporting ANTI-CAPITALIST REVOLUTIONS in the non-white world, the numb-headed liberal elite gleefully envision a kinder, gentler form of globalist capitalism that will "uplift" the non-white worker (though seldom empower him) and downgrade the white worker (who may cease to exist altogether). The result is, of course, "more of the same," as the old saying goes. While the white worker dies off (or resorts to REVOLUTIONARY action-
his only real hope at this point in time!), a newer and darker working class emerges in the West. This new, dark-skinned class will be even less inclined to effectively produce and will eventually REVOLT against their new masters-
just as they have been doing for decades (and with good reason) in their native lands.

Western colonialism and slavery never really ended, the capitalists just made some slight cosmetic changes and became equal opportunity exploiters-
and astute workers of ALL races know this all too well! The liberal, the globalist and the race-mixer are among capitalism's final pathetic defenders.
And, in time, these elites of "the left" will effectively be knocked off their high thrones by their own beloved subjects.

It is no better for the "revolutionary" fascist. Like the liberal, the fascist views himself as belonging to an "elitist" order or fraternity of sorts. Not surprisingly, the fascist is just as delusional as the liberal. And he is also just as bourgeois. Whereas the liberal elite prefer a global type of "egalitarian" capitalism, the nostalgic right wing fascist simply wants an old-fashioned, segregated version of the same thing. To the fascist, open border-free market-global capitalism is an evil that must be destroyed, mainly because it allows non-whites into the equation; but an exclusivist, nationalistic sort of capitalism is the preferred alternative. Exploitation of non-whites (and poor whites), union busting, and monopoly are all right as long as the interests and privileges of the 'silent majority' (the white rich and upper middle classes) are upheld. I repeat: mere cosmetic differences are at play here.

(Also, take note of how both liberalism and fascism are, at heart, pseudo-collectivist and anti-socialist. The liberal and the fascist both wish that their intentions were truly collective and altruistic, but they can't be, for there is no honor among thieves- and opportunists. So, out of spite and envy, they both go on condemning socialism.)

Capitalism, whether global or "national" in character, is the disease from which all of our oppressive and counter-revolutionary symptoms are born.

Fascists and National "Socialists" may appear radical and revolutionary on the surface, but they are, in reality, just capitalism's black-shirted defenders and dupes.

Fascism, in the pure ideological sense of the word, is DEAD. It died with Il Duce. Fascism could not outlive the socialist-turned-reactionary Mussolini.
And it was a dubious ideology to begin with. After all, it centered around one man and when that man died the Fascist "ideal" had no place to go. Whatever revolutionary intentions it may have had in its early days (care of D'Annunzio and Marinetti) were quickly overshadowed by the portly, middle-aged figure of reaction and ineptitude who ultimately led the Italian people into the bowels of humiliation and defeat. As for the Salo Republic: It was a poor attempt at trying to win back "the people" that Benito had long ago betrayed ... (To the worms with your decadent and deceptive emperors!)

Much the same could be said about National Socialism. Though Nazism had a little more meat on its ideological bones, whatever decent ideology existed was eventually betrayed by Hitler and the right wing of the party. To this day, it is still impossible to completely separate the few positive aspects of National Socialist ideology from the suicidal warmonger who ultimately led it to ignominious defeat. In the minds of the masses, National Socialism will forever be associated with war, genocide and Hitler worship. I think that it's safe to say (in spite of the hysterical proclamations of latter-day right wing Nutzis) that National Socialism, and any credibility it had, died in Berlin in 1945- or perhaps it died in the brutal intra-party purge of 1934.

But the "revolutionary" fascist can't see past the starting line. So he goes on believing in a bourgeois solution (fascism/Nazism) to a bourgeois problem (liberal capitalism).

Compare fascism's pathetic rise and fall with communism's impressive history: When Lenin died the socialist revolution continued to evolve- just as Lenin expected it to. And that long march toward true socialism didn't end with the deaths of Stalin and Mao. On the contrary, the deaths of these noble men inspired thousands, possibly millions, to continue that long march to victory. Such is the way of revolution. Socialism was and is an ever-evolving idea. It may have stagnated at times , but it never completely died out because its intentions are pure and noble. And as the capitalists desperately try to destroy and discredit it, revolutionary socialism quietly waits in the wings- and when all is said and done, it will be the only ideal
left standing.

In the future, we must not be deceived by those who proclaim "National Revolution" whilst harboring selfish and reactionary intentions.

On a personal level, we must always be wary of excessive pride and "elitist" belief systems: Those who proclaim themselves to be "men of destiny" or who take the Nietzschean superman idea to gross and distorted ends are perfect examples of this. Or, on the other hand, those who champion liberal values and "compassionate" capitalism, which are always to the benefit of themselves, are another example. Such feelings are ultimately anti-socialist and anti-collectivist.

Besides, the future will most surely belong to a revolutionized and enlightened people: The socialist vanguard of tomorrow. This new revolutionary class shall unleash rapturous tidal waves of revolt and liberation and progress on every level of our existence.

True socialism will usher in an era of collective economy and COLLECTIVE ENERGY that shall create a new world of amazing and unforeseen possibilities.

[Vindex]

All animals are equal, some animals are more equal then others.

[Tchort]

That 'Third Position Journal' is far behind in contemporary and historical revolutionary-political theory. The author sounds as if they're on to something new.

[ogenoct]

Fascists are enemies of the nation and the race. Fascism was and is violently opposed to the class struggle. It presupposes "national unity" as a prerequisite for "national liberation." Fascists forget that there is no such thing as "national unity" when one class oppresses another. The Fascist strategy never worked and can never work. The parasitical elements in the nation are the ones that use and abuse, through usury and exploitation, the productive elements in the nation. The productive elements - proletarians and workers - are the majority, the masses, and thus represent the nation and the race. The parasitical elements take without giving while the productive elements give without taking. The productive elements work for the collective interests of the nation and the race. The parasitical elements work against the collective interests of the nation and the race. Hence, the parasitical elements are racial enemies. A socialist Semite is worth more than a bourgeois Aryan. There is no Aryan nation, there is only an Aryan class. The only nation that is worth saving is the proletarian nation.

Constantin

[Isra'il Yahya]

All animals are equal, some animals are more equal then others.

Leaders are leaders.

[Isra'il Yahya]

That's the point exactly. Just because one is poor does not mean one is not capable of being honorable. However, being poor is not, as Marxists would have us believe, honorable all by itself. Aristocrats of the Soul can readily identify each other, we don't need something as crass as money, as Jews do, to tell who's worthy and who's not.

They do not have power because of social class, they have power because they have money and use their base obsession to undermine their host society. White aristocratic ideals are very foreign to Jews. Pierce knew this as did many thousands of White leaders through the centuries.

I don't understand what you mean. "This" what? "someone" who?

Marx often said that he was not a "Marxist". Karl Marx never spoke of blind egalitarianism. Marxism does not seek to give power to the degenerates, but actually completely casts them away. The lumpenproles, prostitutes, and the gangsters would be gone. They are parasites that feed upon the labor of the working people and utiilze the more wealthy classes to keep them alive. They are trash and must be "abolished" aloing with the scum that allow them to exist.

[Vindex]

Maybe to the communists a Facist is, a successful Facist nation removes all need for communism, class cooperation instead of class conflict and war, removal of capitalist policy without shooting a few million of your own people. Bringing harmony back to the nation without massive violence and upheavel. No longer labelling people by class but by fellow Folkman or woman. The creation of free healthcare, schooling, workers rights.etc Without a marxist group to prod for thier wanted mass revolt so they can take power. Bringing your Nation together peacefully in health by class cooperation and Tradition.


In the end Organic Facism removes all the power factors the communist needs for control of the masses and their wanted take over and curbs peacefully any mob revolt before it happens. And restores a Nation back to health without the need for them at all. So naturally they would resent it.

And yes Aryan is class of natural aristocrats, nature is the aristocratic principal. Not egalitarian nonsense.


Fascists are enemies of the nation and the race. Fascism was and is violently opposed to the class struggle. It presupposes "national unity" as a prerequisite for "national liberation." Fascists forget that there is no such thing as "national unity" when one class oppresses another. The Fascist strategy never worked and can never work. The parasitical elements in the nation are the ones that use and abuse, through usury and exploitation, the productive elements in the nation. The productive elements - proletarians and workers - are the majority, the masses, and thus represent the nation and the race. The parasitical elements take without giving while the productive elements give without taking. The productive elements work for the collective interests of the nation and the race. The parasitical elements work against the collective interests of the nation and the race. Hence, the parasitical elements are racial enemies. A socialist Semite is worth more than a bourgeois Aryan. There is no Aryan nation, there is only an Aryan class. The only nation that is worth saving is the proletarian nation.

Constantin

[Isra'il Yahya]

Maybe to the communists a Facist is, a successful Facist nation removes all need for communism, class cooperation instead of class conflict and war, removal of capitalist policy without shooting a few million of your own people. Bringing harmony back to the nation without massive violence and upheavel. No longer labelling people by class but by fellow Folkman or woman. The creation of free healthcare, schooling, workers rights.etc Without a marxist group to prod for thier wanted mass revolt so they can take power. Bringing your Nation together peacefully in health by class cooperation and Tradition.

In the end Organic Facism removes all the power factors the communist needs for control of the masses and their wanted take over and curbs peacefully any mob revolt before it happens. And restores a Nation back to health without the need for them at all. So naturally they would resent it.

And yes Aryan is class of natural aristocrats, nature is the aristocratic principal. Not egalitarian nonsense.

Fascists allow the degenerate to flourish? I do not recall il duce allowing any gangsterdom and neither would the reds. Fascism uses the same avenues to power as any group vying for it does. You're idealizing a long dead ideal while the red flag continues to live. What you described isn't Fascism at all, but rather a different sort of Socialism.

When is Marxism-Leninism-whatever egalitarian? There are clearly designated and defined ranks. Almost in a way that a caste system devises itself.

[Vindex]

I support Fascism only as long as it carries elements of Cosmic order, and no more. Fascism failed because it became the domain of the bourgeois and stagnated and became a symbol of the hollow spirit of the mordern era. It could have served as a transitional system to higher Order. But it is still a shade more sane and healthy then marxism.

It does not surprise me the red flag flies still, the current world is going downward and is unhealthy. So it makes sense a ideology reflecting that would have a mass amount of power in that environment.

No what I describe is what I describe you are the one who has to run it thought your own personal ideological filter of perception. Not me, please do not project that onto myself.


Fascists allow the degenerate to flourish? I do not recall il duce allowing any gangsterdom and neither would the reds. Fascism uses the same avenues to power as any group vying for it does. You're idealizing a long dead ideal while the red flag continues to live. What you described isn't Fascism at all, but rather a different sort of Socialism.

When is Marxism-Leninism-whatever egalitarian? There are clearly designated and defined ranks. Almost in a way that a caste system devises itself.

[Isra'il Yahya]

Ideas exist. You have them too. You have your own ideology that you process as well. Now answer questions instead of batting them off. You appreciate a Totalitarian society and that can exist in many dofferent forms.

We are against the bourgeois as well and are seeking to steer the world away from them. The awareness that they would destroy the world, do not lead, and suck like leeches upon us all. Rajas became worker. The Kshatriya when not allowed to lead and fight gets thrown into the pit to labor. How do solve the problem of their destructive nature? We must fight them. No trusting nobles either. They are often just the merchants/bourgeois in disguise and we hate them.

The class problem is something that sprung out of modenity. Economic fairness is noble but you mistake it entirely for egalitarianism. A person is not their class first of all but they can certainly be affected by it.

[Vindex]

I have been answering questions but the answers are not what others want to hear and therefore become "wrong."

Yes it is a sympton of modenity, but will not be sloved by more and more modenity, in it's worse forms like communism. The West has spiritual AIDS and either it will be finished off by one or more of many diseases such as capitalism, communism, liberalism, a combination or just general lazy stupid apathy.etc

The problem is the spiritual crisis how your interperation of spirit is up to prehaps psyche for some. All the problems of today are symptons just as AIDS weakens the immune system and anything for cancer to a common cold can finish the organism. So too is our problem of today on a larger scale a spiritual sickness. All else stems from this sickness.

The class problem is something that sprung out of modenity.

[Isra'il Yahya]

I have been answering questions but the answers are not what others want to hear and therefore become "wrong."

Yes it is a sympton of modenity, but will not be sloved by more and more modenity, in it's worse forms like communism. The West has spiritual AIDS and either it will be finished off by one or more of many diseases such as capitalism, communism, liberalism, a combination or just general lazy stupid apathy.etc

The problem is the spiritual crisis how your interperation of spirit is up to prehaps psyche for some. All the problems of today are symptons just as AIDS weakens the immune system and anything for cancer to a common cold can finish the organism. So too is our problem of today on a larger scale a spiritual sickness. All else stems from this sickness.

Socialism does solve the problem of modernity because it seeks to make the people more tribal, more communal, and close to one another. It is the methods that must be held openly criticism while the people learn to become racialist, tribalist, and community oriented once again. We want the world to start over again, but we refrain from the insanity of Christianity, and the craziness of Hinduism. You may be stuck in the phase of a yuga cycles but we want an eternal golden age or Satya Yuga if possible. Most want to try and halt time. They say it has always been this way. We are radical to going extremely forward in order to obtain our so-called "backwardness".

Most people do not agree that abolishing the family works. It does not because the family is the first collective unit of society. North Korean and China solved this problem by enlarging the family to the folk. Science must also be applied to this path otherwise it becomes messianic or utopian. There must be no dogmatism.

[Vindex]

Socialism creates more problems and is a band-aid solution, in a healthy nation there is no need for socialist movements. I don't want hinduism or marxism. Let us start over again with the spark of Aryan spirit not christianity and it's secular off-shoots. Marxism is a failure and belongs in the trash heap of history.


Socialism does solve the problem of modernity because it seeks to make the people more tribal, more communal, and close to one another. It is the methods that must be held openly criticism while the people learn to become racialist, tribalist, and community oriented once again. We want the world to start over again, but we refrain from the insanity of Christianity, and the craziness of Hinduism. You may be stuck in the phase of a yuga cycles but we want an eternal golden age or Satya Yuga if possible. Most want to try and halt time. They say it has always been this way. We are radical to going extremely forward in order to obtain our so-called "backwardness".

Most people do not agree that abolishing the family works. It does not because the family is the first collective unit of society. North Korean and China solved this problem by enlarging the family to the folk. Science must also be applied to this path otherwise it becomes messianic or utopian.

[Isra'il Yahya]

Socialism creates more problems and is a band-aid solution, in a healthy nation there is no need for socialist movements. I don't want hinduism or marxism. Let us start over again with the spark of Aryan spirit not christianity and it's secular off-shoots. Marxism is a failure and belongs in the trash heap of history.

A healthy nation has found a solution because they have learned to be more collective, more communal, and more selfless. They are not governed by money. I believe that Fascism or the Corporate State is also a failure. If you're willing to step out into reality you can plainly see where Capitalism or "Fascism" has brung us. Capitalism brought us into open conflict, Capitalism opened the borders, and more. Fascism doesn't care about anything but money.

[Vindex]

Um.....where did I state capitalism is good, I did state the truth that Fascism has it's flaws but it is a shade more saner and healthy then marxism it's successor. Facism was anti-capitalism as well as socialism.

There are no healthy Nations at this point in time so none has found a working solution. But in the perceptions of a marxist naturally the marxist Nations would be grand.


A healthy nation has found a solution because they have learned to be more collective, more communal, and more selfless. They are not governed by money. I believe that Fascism or the Corporate State is also a failure. If you're willing to step out into reality you can plainly see where Capitalism or "Fascism" has brung us. Capitalism brought us into open conflict, Capitalism opened the borders, and more. Fascism doesn't care about anything but money.

[Captain Marinesko]

Um.....where did I state capitalism is good, I did state the truth that Fascism has it's flaws but it is a shade more saner and healthy then marxism it's successor. Facism was anti-capitalism as well as socialism.

There are no healthy Nations at this point in time so none has found a working solution. But in the perceptions of a marxist naturally the marxist Nations would be grand.

Fascism claims to be anti-capitalist but every Fascist movement makes deals with the devil and it buries them. Fascist parties did not succeed due to ideology, but rather the usefulness they offered to the ruling class. As long as the Fascists could protect them from the Communists, they were happy to go along with all the nationalism/patriotic bullshit. Hitler had his capitalist financers, as did Mussolini, Franco, etc.

Nowadays Fascism, at least ideologically, has no appeal for the ruling class. Nationalism and racialism are bad from their standpoint, ergo Fascism is on its own without any rich financers. In this time, we have seen the WN movement become a comedy of errors in a relatively short time. This is because as stated before, Fascism is weak ideologically, and the lack of political success unlike in the 20s and 30s allows these parties to degenerate philosophically. When you have success, it forces you to think practically. In generaly, NS/Fascists don't think practically but idealistically.


In summary, Fascism can never win because it can't come to terms with its own history, objective reality, and it seeks to preserve capitalism but has nothing to offer the capitalist ruling class.

Say what you want about Marxism, but Fascism is a smoking crater in the ground.

[Vindex]

Well Hitler was thinking practically hence he made a deal with the upperclass to gain power to help unite all the classes in Germany under his banner. He need time the next German generation was to be the real NS one. And he was creating a new society based on merit.

Each situation is unqiue unto itself, and can not be hedged into the communist ideology worldview. Hitler did what he had to do in his time and with what he had and did it the working way. As we known ideology reflects the times it was made in, and is more of a religious force for the masses that deals with emotional conceptions. Then a exact science of how logic/reality workings of the universe. Even christianity was and is a ideology.

You are mainly correct but I would say in times of trouble any political warlord who could hold and keep the masses from cutting the thoats of the rulers would take power even in the mordern era that is what a neo-Facist organization could offer them protection. But we all know the old order does not like to share power for every long if at all.

I think the time we are coming to now as all times will be different in it's dynamics and shall need a new and intelligent method of dealing with it. I put communism, facism and even NS in the bin of the past.

Fascism claims to be anti-capitalist but every Fascist movement makes deals with the devil and it buries them. Fascist parties did not succeed due to ideology, but rather the usefulness they offered to the ruling class. As long as the Fascists could protect them from the Communists, they were happy to go along with all the nationalism/patriotic bullshit. Hitler had his capitalist financers, as did Mussolini, Franco, etc.

Nowadays Fascism, at least ideologically, has no appeal for the ruling class. Nationalism and racialism are bad from their standpoint, ergo Fascism is on its own without any rich financers. In this time, we have seen the WN movement become a comedy of errors in a relatively short time. This is because as stated before, Fascism is weak ideologically, and the lack of political success unlike in the 20s and 30s allows these parties to degenerate philosophically. When you have success, it forces you to think practically. In generaly, NS/Fascists don't think practically but idealistically.


In summary, Fascism can never win because it can't come to terms with its own history, objective reality, and it seeks to preserve capitalism but has nothing to offer the capitalist ruling class.

Say what you want about Marxism, but Fascism is a smoking crater in the ground.

[Captain Marinesko]

Well Hitler was thinking practically hence he made a deal with the upperclass to gain power to help unite all the classes in Germany under his banner. He need time the next German generation was to be the real NS one. And he was creating a new society based on merit.

All of Germany save for those he had sent to camps for having the wrong ideology. Hitler was a tool of the wealthy business owners, selling the myth that race could supercede class- something that can only happen when class is eliminated.

[Vindex]

Yes we all know that Hitler put his ideological enemies in camps it was the smart move to make, the communists did and do the same. Both used the same tactic for their own ends. Because it works, Hitler was dealing with bringing together different groups of people to create a new Order out of the old, so he was doing it in a more slower way as that was the situation for the best success, as pointed out the next generation would not share the flaut of character of the previous one. Race and caste are part of each other Hitler was removing the old ecomonic class structure which is a artifical construct and harmful to healthy evolution of the People, and creating a natural caste system. I'am not a marxist so I do not view everything around the pole of marxist ideology ie like class this and that. So we are viewing it from different angles of reference.

All of Germany save for those he had sent to camps for having the wrong ideology. Hitler was a tool of the wealthy business owners, selling the myth that race could supercede class- something that can only happen when class is eliminated.

[Tchort]

Say what you want about Marxism, but Fascism is a smoking crater in the ground.

From your description of what you coined 'Fascism', I agree. However, idealistically, Fascism as practiced by Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, etc and their capitalist, monarchist, industrialist leaning puppetry is vastly different from Strasser's Fascism, based on socialism, aristocracy, localized democracy, nationalization. I do not consider the neo-Nazi/WN sects to be Fascist, or even NS for that matter; Rockwell is the idealistic grandfather of White Nationalism and neo-Nazism. Yockey is the same idealistic grandfather of modern Fascism. They are not the same thing, or even branches off the same tree. Just like members of the NSDAP hated the Black Front, WN's would hate Yockey-Fascists for the same reasons. The Fascism of Evola, Yockey, Strasser, is not dead, it is the most dynamic possibility for Western revolution if properly researched, documented and amalgamated- then propogated.

[Vasily Zaitsev]

From your description of what you coined 'Fascism', I agree. However, idealistically, Fascism as practiced by Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, etc and their capitalist, monarchist, industrialist leaning puppetry is vastly different from Strasser's Fascism, based on socialism, aristocracy, localized democracy, nationalization. I do not consider the neo-Nazi/WN sects to be Fascist, or even NS for that matter; Rockwell is the idealistic grandfather of White Nationalism and neo-Nazism. Yockey is the same idealistic grandfather of modern Fascism. They are not the same thing, or even branches off the same tree. Just like members of the NSDAP hated the Black Front, WN's would hate Yockey-Fascists for the same reasons. The Fascism of Evola, Yockey, Strasser, is not dead, it is the most dynamic possibility for Western revolution if properly researched, documented and amalgamated- then propogated.

Good to see you posting again.

Please start another thread wherein you explain why you think a new youth subculture is a key part of bringing your brand of fascism to the West.

As a veteran of the anarcho-punk youth subculture I'm curious to know why you think a fascist equivalent would be useful.

[Tchort]

Good to see you posting again.

Please start another thread wherein you explain why you think a new youth subculture is a key part of bringing your brand of fascism to the West.

As a veteran of the anarcho-punk youth subculture I'm curious to know why you think a fascist equivalent would be useful.

I plan on making a declaration to the forum soon.

[Ilych]

Some highlights which I definitely agree with:

I'm afraid that "racialism" is insubstantial BY ITSELF.It is not the Jews or non-whites who are the problem. And simply securing a "white world" is not the solution. Especially when that "White World" is sustained by the sweat and labor of exploited workers- of all races- and imperialistic wars.

These Enemies of the People: the warmongers, the culture distorters, and the multinational corporate traitors must be dragged into the open light and brought to justice! Only a SOCIALIST revolution, a revolution of THE PEOPLE, can accomplish this.

Think about it: By attacking the racial problem first and IGNORING the crimes of the economic elite, you are simply giving the economic & political criminals time to readjust their position and time to cover up their crimes. For the sake of argument, let's say that the right wing racial revolution succeeds (though I seriously doubt that it could), many of these economic & political criminals, who worked both up front and behind the scenes to destroy us, will simply resurface and possible even emerge as supporters and leaders of the right wing circus! And a right wing reactionary circus is all that it will really be- but not a true revolution, because the power structure will, in fact, remain unchanged.

White Patriots should work to restore the dignity of our race and nation by bringing down the inhuman capitalistic system that works against the best interests of our race as well as the interests of other races.

But I am, first and foremost, a SOCIALIST and I truly believe that the only way forward is through socialist revolution and the mass expropriation of our nation's wealth and resources.

[Greg_M]

[This is, hopefully, my final statement on a subject that I've been ranting about for the last five months or so on my blog and elsewhere. Am I flogging a dead horse? You decide.]

Modern day America, that imperialistic, multicultural and crass consumer behemoth, is a perfect example of why white nationalists are only half-correct in their belief that RACE- and race alone- is the overriding factor in determining the fate of nations and civilizations.

There are other factors.

America's sorry state cannot solely be the result of lowering white birthrates or race-mixing or "the browning of the nation." After all, long before this mess transpired, America was still a nation that promoted unbridled capitalism and consumerism instead of collectivism; "multiculturalism" in the form of alien (Semitic) religion, the Jazz Age and similar trends; and the continued utilization of non-white (dirt cheap) labor for obvious reasons. Those were "the good old days," according to certain right wingers who pine for the past, but I would certainly hesitate to call them good. In fact, "the good old days," the days of alleged prosperity and free markets and red scares and burgeoning suburbs and John Wayne, those smug days of wine and roses were, in fact, the BEGINNING of what has NOW come around full circle: Foolish capitalism eventually devours itself and we are now seeing this take place before our very eyes.

The Rightists, of course, have their dogma to adhere to so they will not consider this. They would rather believe that the good times were disrupted by the social turmoil of the sixties with its peaceniks and "Judeo-Communists" and the Kennedys and Martin Luther King Jr. (that evil God-fearing Christian "Communist") and Jane Fonda, etc. You know, the usual list of "bad guys" that the right wing still love to refer to on a regular basis.

They conveniently ignore economic trends that demanded the expansion of a servant class and a "culture" that promoted the selfish interests of the individual over the collective. And then they wonder WHY the hippies and secular humanism and Affirmative Action and gay marriage and hordes of illegal immigrants came along! They constantly blame "Communism" or some other vague, amorphous scapegoat for the 1001 evils that have plagued this country- but they NEVER blame the obvious.

The right wing (and many racialists) often reduce history into a simplistic "Us Vs. Them" type of scenario. The problem with this is WHO EXACTLY they are categorizing as "Us" and "Them". "Us" is, of course, the "silent majority": the great white middle class (that is rapidly ceasing to exist, thanks to unbridled capitalism) and "Them" are, of course, the usual suspects: commies, immigrants, non-whites, the unemployed- "the parasites" who supposedly feed off of the "productive" white collar Ward Cleaver class. But herein lies the greatest problem: Nowadays, more whites tend to identify with "Them," not in a cultural sense- of course, but in an economic and social sense. We're finding ourselves among "Them"- not out of CHOICE but because of CIRCUMSTANCES that the ringleaders of the "silent majority" have neither the ability to comprehend nor any intention of trying to comprehend. (And, for the record, the TRUE parasites are the economic elite who feed off of both the productive middle and working classes.)

The problem with the sixties wasn't that the Jewish commies and blacks were rioting in our streets- the REAL problem was that the white worker wasn't out there rioting along WITH them!

America has never been taken over by Communists, but rather it's been compromised by the economic elite and their political lackeys, including watered-down, establishment "left wing" progressives and "right wing" Judas Goat reactionaries who pretend to stand for the best interests of their race and nation.

In fact, the best interests of our race and nation involve freeing our people from a system that has never existed for their best interests. It is that simple.

We need the sage advice of Lenin and Mao just as much as that of Washington and Jefferson. My own feelings on the American Revolution is that a constitutional republic was a good start as it was necessary for the colonists to free themselves from the tyranny of a monarch. (Just as Russians liberated themselves from a similar tyranny in 1917, I might add.) Our Founding Fathers were progressive national revolutionaries for THEIR era. Monarchy and colonialism were replaced by a constitutional republic, indirect democracy and free enterprise which were certainly revolutionary concepts at the time. But these concepts were NOT ENOUGH. As America's (mostly European) population expanded with the arrival of more and more of our people, "democracy" and free enterprise, with their emphasis on limited state power and the importance of individual rights over COLLECTIVE survival, became more and more of a hindrance to our racial and (eventually) our socio-economic well-being. Witness the millions of urban and rural poor in America today (a good number of whom are as white and as "Aryan" as our Founding Fathers were) and you will begin to see that OUR enemies are clearly not the "commies" or even the rank and file race-mixers (who actually know no better, thanks to being brought up in a liberal-capitalist culture that actively promotes such activity.)

While a constitutional republican form of government served our people well two centuries ago- as did a capitalist economic system at the outset of the Industrial Revolution when our population was still relatively low and racially homogenous, this system has since become the greatest obstacle to our survival as a people.

Marx and Engels gave us the solution. (And I would add Lenin and Mao as well as Spengler and Niekisch to my own peculiar form of 'National Bolshevism'.) That solution is SOCIAL and ECONOMIC revolution- and, beyond that: Revolution on every other level of our existence. We must finally embrace a thoroughly COLLECTIVIST revolutionary program if we are to salvage our once great nation of pioneers and builders- and socialist revolution is the beginning of a collective reawakening in our people.

Yes, race matters, but "racialism" goes nowhere fast within the confines of an antiquated and reactionary right wing belief system that only upholds the old, self-destructive order of things.

Our race can only be "reborn" through the destruction of capitalism, the construction of a socialist state and, following that, a reaffirmation of our collective will as a people.

As for "the other races," they are not our enemies. They are only our competitors within this completely unnatural and corrupt capitalist system.

Communism does not "promote race mixing"- that, like so much else, is a blatant right wing lie. Read Marx and Engels and Lenin and please point out to me just where these gentlemen promoted the active MIXING of races. Communism never sought to DESTROY races and racial distinctions, but it does seek to IMPROVE each and every one of us- and certainly our relations with one another. It does not seek to destroy nations, traditions or cultures- on the contrary, such a system would PRESERVE and MULTIPLY what is best in every people and culture.

Liberals, capitalists and Judeo-Christians, on the other hand, promote the destruction of racial and cultural distinctions as well as the abrogation of national sovereignty for their own selfish reasons, the widespread destruction that they have caused on a worldwide scale can be seen by one and all. We must counter this destruction caused by capitalism and its ideological allies with a renewed spirit of creative collectivism.

For Class War and National Resurrection.


The Third Position Blog:http://journals.aol.com/newdawn70gpm/THETHIRDPOSITION