Boleslaw
10-06-2007, 05:46 PM
Here's a rather interesting essay that exposes much of what is wrong with so many "pro-White" movements and why they ultimately fail.
I don't agree 100% with the author, especially on his views concerning class. I believe a true nationalist movements needs to be built around true men of character, whatever their class, as opposed to trying to concentrate on gaining support from one section of the social strata. True nationalism needs to cut across class boundaries. The perspective presented here pertaining to class seems to reflect the general elitism that is at the heart of the New Right; while I OTOH have always been a defender of the common man - the "old beer-drinking, creed-making, fighting, failing, sensual, respectable man" as Chesterton put it.
Despite that, and a few other things, this makes invaluable points.
http://newrightausnz.blogspot.com/2006/07/freaks-in-movement-this-is-statement.html
FREAKS IN THE MOVEMENT
This is a statement from one of the members of the New Right Australia New Zealand Committee and is representative of our views. It is intended to be a critique of nationalism as it exists today, particularly in America and Australia, and, despite the critical tone throughout, is intended to be constructive. Our aim in posting it here is to do something good for nationalism by making it more viable and help achieve the breakthroughs we are all striving for.
New Right Australia New Zealand Committee
I have been following the recent scandal in the American National Socialist Movement (NSM) with some interest. For those nationalists who are not in the know, it was revealed that some of the NSM's prominent members are involved in Satanism and other disgusting things. These unsavoury facts have been disclosed at, among other places, a former leading member of the NSM, Bill White, website, Overthrow.com. Bill White himself has been forced to resign (he denies that he was forced to resign and that he did it on his own accord) from the NSM and set up a splinter movement that he is currently organizing to get off the ground.
Bill White's career sums up a lot of what is the good, the bad and the ugly in today's nationalist politics. He is a very successful business man which is a rarity for Nationalists in the USA. Bill White began his political career as a left-winger, before becoming, like so many left wingers today, interested in the ideas of Third Positionism. He read Francis Parker Yockey's Imperium, and was unimpressed by it. But Julius Evola's books, particularly "Revolt against the Modern World", converted him. He used to be a writer for the internet version of Pravda, a Russian publication and he also wrote some articles for the Mathaba News Service, an alternative internet news provider with strong ties to Africa and Muslim organizations. He became, over this period, more and more anti-Semitic, and wrote a good many essays containing penetrating insights into the Jews and Zionism. He is not a trained intellectual, but still wrote some intellectually stimulating pieces of writing. His site, Overthrow.com, at the time was one of the more professional, and enjoyable, nationalist sites on the web.
His downfall began, in my view, when he took up the ideas of Savitri Devi, a great female thinker, but one whose ideas - particularly the doctrine that Hitler is a reincarnation of Krishna or whatnot - must be taken with a grain of salt. Bill swallowed Devi-ism hook, line and sinker. He ended up joining a Nutzi movement, the National Socialist Movement (NSM) in America and soon he was wearing a homemade Stormtrooper outfit complete with a swastika armband and marching at the head of Rockwellian demonstrations against Negroes and Hispanics. His writings developed a ranting style against Jews, Negros, Communists, et. and rather pornographic attacks on anybody he didn't like.
In short, he lost the plot.
Eventually, with the revelations of the Satanism of a prominent NSM member, he snapped. He initially tried to argue that Satanism was, being an 'Aryan' and 'Pagan' doctrine, reconcilable with Devi's Esoteric Hitlerism to a certain degree. Perhaps one can reconcile the two (although I doubt it). But one thing is for sure: Satanism is not reconcilable with Hitler's National Socialism - the only real National Socialism - and would have been rejected by the German National Socialists, as filth, pure and simple, and Jewish-inspired filth at that.(In fact, if one wants to be a Satanist, and adopt a Nietzschean master-morality, one should convert to Judaism. The similarities between Judaist and Satanist ethics are many). Satanist freaks, along with the "Hollywood" skinheads, and the uniform-wearing Nutzis themselves, would have been locked up in a camp in Hitler's Germany, and not let out until they had proved themselves to be decent members of society.
The fact of the matter is, Devi's Esoteric Hitlerism is not German National Socialism, and never will be. Only because she idolized Hitler and used the symbols doesn't make her a political National Socialist, especially not a German one. Her "National Socialism" is a distortion. Or, more accurately, she has selected some of the minor, peripheral points of the doctrine and then brought them to the forefront; by doing so, she has invented a new doctrine which has only a superficial resemblance to the original. This is how Bill White, and other sincere, self-professed 'National Socialists', ended up becoming swept up in Nutzism and associated movements which have radically diverged from National Socialism, and Mussolini's Fascism. (And no American, especially in 2006, could be a National Socialist anyway; for National Socialism was a German, and to a lesser extent, Dutch, Swedish and Danish, movement relevant to a particular place (Western Europe) at a particular time (the 1930s and 1940s). The same goes for the fascist movements of Degrelle, Vidkun Quisling and the others).
Why is it, though, that a large number of nationalist movements - including the Nutzis, but not restricted to them - today attract such freakish people: Satanists, Odinists, Christian Identity-ists, Church of the Creator-ists? Why is it that some nationalists cannot accept ordinary Protestants or Catholics, or agnostics and atheists? Why are they attracted to made-up religions?
There are, in my opinion, a number of reasons. Firstly, it is a question of the class base. The fascists in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s recruited from a middle-class base, and often the lower-middle classes. Their cadre of support tended to be salary men (and women), often used to working for large organisations and not owning or running businesses themselves. They were inclined, because of this (and the fact that many of them were employed, or would have liked to have been employed, by the government), to gravitate towards socialism. Inexperience with capitalism and business made them suspicious of capitalist methods. What is more, they had suffered, as Hitler and Mussolini did, during the bust periods of capitalism. Both of these men had lived a secure existence in the army - an experience, despite all the blood and suffering of the First World War, which they had both very much enjoyed. But, after demobilisation, both fell into bitter poverty.
Today the fascist class base, with its statist and socialist inclinations, would vote Democrat in the USA, for Labour in Britain (Tony Blair, in the past, has exploited middle-class fears and insecurities, particularly on crime and juvenile delinquency, brilliantly) and for Labour in Australia.
We can say that the men and women of the lower-middle class in America, Britain or any Western country today tend to deport themselves with a modicum of decency and professionalism; they could not work as typists, civil servants, architects, etc, otherwise. They need to conform socially in order to keep their jobs: it is a case of professional necessity. Their income would be endangered if they were to dress freakishly with a SS Uniform or publicly espouse Satanism or Christian Identity. One cannot say the same, however, for the average Nutzi, or “Hollywood” skinhead, or indeed many of the nationalists I myself have met. They are lumpenproletarians; the NSM's followers, who appear to have stepped off the set from a Jerry Springer show, come from that class.
Bill White may boast that all the NSM members he knows 'have jobs', but jobs at what? Chicken pluckers? Fruit pickers? Shelf stackers? The American labour market always has jobs, but it is a question of how low, in terms of class and income, one wants to go. (Many lumpenproletarian in Australia or Europe do not have this option, and are more often than not forced to live on welfare). Because one has no career to speak of, merely a service-level job in a chicken factory or supermarket, one can afford to march up and down in a homemade Stormtrooper uniform, or espouse Christian Identity. What does one have to lose? Nothing!
Another trait of the lumpenproletarian, and, admittedly, the working-classes, is a lack of educational, or at least, intellectual, attainment. When one of them encounters a unified system which explains how the world is what it is - whether it be Satanism or Christian Identity or Communism - they are immediately overwhelmed. They are not accustomed to thinking outside of themselves and their narrow preoccupations. What is more, they do not have the training or the discernment to see through the fallacies of Communism, for example, or see Satanism for the fourth-rate pseudo-philosophy that it is.
Ironically, Bill White is always denouncing left-wing activists as being more or less of the same mentality. To him, the average anarchist or communist, especially the anti-racist type, lives off welfare or off his parent's money. They are unable to accomplish much in life, and not uncoincidentally, have little personal wealth; so they engage in nihilistic, pointless activity, and adhere to Judaised left-wing doctrines which claim to be the champions of the poor end of the community. (This tallies with my own experience of the anti-racist Left, with the exception that in Australia, university education is normally free and students are subsidised by the government for a short period of time). Some of the left-wingers may come from good middle-class families; but the lifestyle encourages a certain lumpenprole-ism. And they are just as intellectually vulnerable as your average chicken-plucker, and so tend to swallow Marx, Chomskyism and the other Jewish creeds whole.
So we have two sides which are remarkably similar: on one, the Far Right (for want of a better term); on the other, the Far Left. Both of them have a disproportionate appeal to drop-outs, the Far Left taking in middle-class drop-outs, the Far Right the working-class drop-outs. The dropping-out in question is to the lumpenproletarian level. That is, they are falling, a few rungs in the ladder, to the lowest possible class.
It is this isolation from reality, from mainstream life (eg, participation in everyday politics, and participation in the labour force) which breeds a certain underground mentality in the Far Right in particular. Which explains why its members are attracted to what Julius Evola would classify as 'subterranean' or 'ghetto' cults, cults such as Satanism, Heathenism and the like - that is, religions which appeal to those on the fringes of civilised life, to what the Hindus call the untouchable caste.
So how is nationalism to be saved from the Bill Whites, the World Churches of the Creators and the rest? The answer is obvious enough: nationalists must recruit from the middle-classes, not from the lumpen. Nationalism, if it found its electoral base in the middle-classes (especially the lower middle-classes) would more closely resemble the historical Italian Fascism and German National Socialism than Bill White's Nutzism.
The original Fascism and National Socialism were socialist, and Left, movements. The goal of them was to maintain the economic position of the middle-classes who had been ruined by a succession of economic catastrophes since the First World War. In that respect, they were not much different from the mainstream Australian conservative agrarian party, the Nationals, who exist to redistribute taxpayer's money to the rural class (or, for that matter, the farming lobbyists in the EU, France in particular). In both France and Australia, farmers are increasingly unable to make a decent living or at least live in the style they became accustomed to. How much of that is due to inefficiency or to bad luck is difficult to determine.
In any case, the farmers certainly feel entitled (out of a sense of 'social justice') to government remuneration. The same is to be said of the German middle-classes in the 1920s and 1930s, who perhaps were rather indifferent to the Jewish question but understood instinctively that Adolf Hitler was one of them and that his party was acting in their class interest. (It must not be forgotten, either, that failed farmers formed a large part of Hitler's constituency. Again, the farmers wanted socialism, and got it: the National Socialist government, among other things, wiped out their debts).
But here is the paradox. I have castigated the Nutzis, and the Far Left, for attracting misfits, dropouts, losers and fringe dwellers. But National Socialism and Italian Fascism attracted the same sort of people. We all know that Hitler, Mussolini, Goering, Goebbels and the rest experienced great hardship in their younger days; this fact is often used to explain their bitterness, their sense of deprivation, their radicalism and their cynicism. But socialism gave them someone to blame for their troubles: the Jews, the capitalists, the irresponsible parliamentary democrats, the Freemasons. If they had been inculcated with a sense of responsibility for their own failures, and taught not to blame them on other people, the world would never have seen fascism.
In other words, one could say that both fascism and certain elements of today's nationalism the fascists appeal to the less evolved sides of the human character. There is no reason why such a socialism as Hitler's and Mussolini's cannot win over the middle-classes of today's Germany and Italy, or for that matter America and Australia. Socialism is still going strong in 2006. But whether or not socialism is good for nationalism, or, for that matter, the West itself, is another matter entirely.
We, the members of the New Right Australia New Zealand, do not want nationalism to be bourgeois, ossified and reactionary, like Le Pen's or De Villiers'; at the same time, we should not be aiming at people who are naturally going to be attracted to a socialism - that is, the failures in life who are going to attribute their own deprivation to mysterious Jewish and capitalist conspiracies. This is not to take a soft, pro-Jewish line: it is merely to examine our own motives for thinking as we do and considering what is in progressive nationalism's best interest.
I don't agree 100% with the author, especially on his views concerning class. I believe a true nationalist movements needs to be built around true men of character, whatever their class, as opposed to trying to concentrate on gaining support from one section of the social strata. True nationalism needs to cut across class boundaries. The perspective presented here pertaining to class seems to reflect the general elitism that is at the heart of the New Right; while I OTOH have always been a defender of the common man - the "old beer-drinking, creed-making, fighting, failing, sensual, respectable man" as Chesterton put it.
Despite that, and a few other things, this makes invaluable points.
http://newrightausnz.blogspot.com/2006/07/freaks-in-movement-this-is-statement.html
FREAKS IN THE MOVEMENT
This is a statement from one of the members of the New Right Australia New Zealand Committee and is representative of our views. It is intended to be a critique of nationalism as it exists today, particularly in America and Australia, and, despite the critical tone throughout, is intended to be constructive. Our aim in posting it here is to do something good for nationalism by making it more viable and help achieve the breakthroughs we are all striving for.
New Right Australia New Zealand Committee
I have been following the recent scandal in the American National Socialist Movement (NSM) with some interest. For those nationalists who are not in the know, it was revealed that some of the NSM's prominent members are involved in Satanism and other disgusting things. These unsavoury facts have been disclosed at, among other places, a former leading member of the NSM, Bill White, website, Overthrow.com. Bill White himself has been forced to resign (he denies that he was forced to resign and that he did it on his own accord) from the NSM and set up a splinter movement that he is currently organizing to get off the ground.
Bill White's career sums up a lot of what is the good, the bad and the ugly in today's nationalist politics. He is a very successful business man which is a rarity for Nationalists in the USA. Bill White began his political career as a left-winger, before becoming, like so many left wingers today, interested in the ideas of Third Positionism. He read Francis Parker Yockey's Imperium, and was unimpressed by it. But Julius Evola's books, particularly "Revolt against the Modern World", converted him. He used to be a writer for the internet version of Pravda, a Russian publication and he also wrote some articles for the Mathaba News Service, an alternative internet news provider with strong ties to Africa and Muslim organizations. He became, over this period, more and more anti-Semitic, and wrote a good many essays containing penetrating insights into the Jews and Zionism. He is not a trained intellectual, but still wrote some intellectually stimulating pieces of writing. His site, Overthrow.com, at the time was one of the more professional, and enjoyable, nationalist sites on the web.
His downfall began, in my view, when he took up the ideas of Savitri Devi, a great female thinker, but one whose ideas - particularly the doctrine that Hitler is a reincarnation of Krishna or whatnot - must be taken with a grain of salt. Bill swallowed Devi-ism hook, line and sinker. He ended up joining a Nutzi movement, the National Socialist Movement (NSM) in America and soon he was wearing a homemade Stormtrooper outfit complete with a swastika armband and marching at the head of Rockwellian demonstrations against Negroes and Hispanics. His writings developed a ranting style against Jews, Negros, Communists, et. and rather pornographic attacks on anybody he didn't like.
In short, he lost the plot.
Eventually, with the revelations of the Satanism of a prominent NSM member, he snapped. He initially tried to argue that Satanism was, being an 'Aryan' and 'Pagan' doctrine, reconcilable with Devi's Esoteric Hitlerism to a certain degree. Perhaps one can reconcile the two (although I doubt it). But one thing is for sure: Satanism is not reconcilable with Hitler's National Socialism - the only real National Socialism - and would have been rejected by the German National Socialists, as filth, pure and simple, and Jewish-inspired filth at that.(In fact, if one wants to be a Satanist, and adopt a Nietzschean master-morality, one should convert to Judaism. The similarities between Judaist and Satanist ethics are many). Satanist freaks, along with the "Hollywood" skinheads, and the uniform-wearing Nutzis themselves, would have been locked up in a camp in Hitler's Germany, and not let out until they had proved themselves to be decent members of society.
The fact of the matter is, Devi's Esoteric Hitlerism is not German National Socialism, and never will be. Only because she idolized Hitler and used the symbols doesn't make her a political National Socialist, especially not a German one. Her "National Socialism" is a distortion. Or, more accurately, she has selected some of the minor, peripheral points of the doctrine and then brought them to the forefront; by doing so, she has invented a new doctrine which has only a superficial resemblance to the original. This is how Bill White, and other sincere, self-professed 'National Socialists', ended up becoming swept up in Nutzism and associated movements which have radically diverged from National Socialism, and Mussolini's Fascism. (And no American, especially in 2006, could be a National Socialist anyway; for National Socialism was a German, and to a lesser extent, Dutch, Swedish and Danish, movement relevant to a particular place (Western Europe) at a particular time (the 1930s and 1940s). The same goes for the fascist movements of Degrelle, Vidkun Quisling and the others).
Why is it, though, that a large number of nationalist movements - including the Nutzis, but not restricted to them - today attract such freakish people: Satanists, Odinists, Christian Identity-ists, Church of the Creator-ists? Why is it that some nationalists cannot accept ordinary Protestants or Catholics, or agnostics and atheists? Why are they attracted to made-up religions?
There are, in my opinion, a number of reasons. Firstly, it is a question of the class base. The fascists in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s recruited from a middle-class base, and often the lower-middle classes. Their cadre of support tended to be salary men (and women), often used to working for large organisations and not owning or running businesses themselves. They were inclined, because of this (and the fact that many of them were employed, or would have liked to have been employed, by the government), to gravitate towards socialism. Inexperience with capitalism and business made them suspicious of capitalist methods. What is more, they had suffered, as Hitler and Mussolini did, during the bust periods of capitalism. Both of these men had lived a secure existence in the army - an experience, despite all the blood and suffering of the First World War, which they had both very much enjoyed. But, after demobilisation, both fell into bitter poverty.
Today the fascist class base, with its statist and socialist inclinations, would vote Democrat in the USA, for Labour in Britain (Tony Blair, in the past, has exploited middle-class fears and insecurities, particularly on crime and juvenile delinquency, brilliantly) and for Labour in Australia.
We can say that the men and women of the lower-middle class in America, Britain or any Western country today tend to deport themselves with a modicum of decency and professionalism; they could not work as typists, civil servants, architects, etc, otherwise. They need to conform socially in order to keep their jobs: it is a case of professional necessity. Their income would be endangered if they were to dress freakishly with a SS Uniform or publicly espouse Satanism or Christian Identity. One cannot say the same, however, for the average Nutzi, or “Hollywood” skinhead, or indeed many of the nationalists I myself have met. They are lumpenproletarians; the NSM's followers, who appear to have stepped off the set from a Jerry Springer show, come from that class.
Bill White may boast that all the NSM members he knows 'have jobs', but jobs at what? Chicken pluckers? Fruit pickers? Shelf stackers? The American labour market always has jobs, but it is a question of how low, in terms of class and income, one wants to go. (Many lumpenproletarian in Australia or Europe do not have this option, and are more often than not forced to live on welfare). Because one has no career to speak of, merely a service-level job in a chicken factory or supermarket, one can afford to march up and down in a homemade Stormtrooper uniform, or espouse Christian Identity. What does one have to lose? Nothing!
Another trait of the lumpenproletarian, and, admittedly, the working-classes, is a lack of educational, or at least, intellectual, attainment. When one of them encounters a unified system which explains how the world is what it is - whether it be Satanism or Christian Identity or Communism - they are immediately overwhelmed. They are not accustomed to thinking outside of themselves and their narrow preoccupations. What is more, they do not have the training or the discernment to see through the fallacies of Communism, for example, or see Satanism for the fourth-rate pseudo-philosophy that it is.
Ironically, Bill White is always denouncing left-wing activists as being more or less of the same mentality. To him, the average anarchist or communist, especially the anti-racist type, lives off welfare or off his parent's money. They are unable to accomplish much in life, and not uncoincidentally, have little personal wealth; so they engage in nihilistic, pointless activity, and adhere to Judaised left-wing doctrines which claim to be the champions of the poor end of the community. (This tallies with my own experience of the anti-racist Left, with the exception that in Australia, university education is normally free and students are subsidised by the government for a short period of time). Some of the left-wingers may come from good middle-class families; but the lifestyle encourages a certain lumpenprole-ism. And they are just as intellectually vulnerable as your average chicken-plucker, and so tend to swallow Marx, Chomskyism and the other Jewish creeds whole.
So we have two sides which are remarkably similar: on one, the Far Right (for want of a better term); on the other, the Far Left. Both of them have a disproportionate appeal to drop-outs, the Far Left taking in middle-class drop-outs, the Far Right the working-class drop-outs. The dropping-out in question is to the lumpenproletarian level. That is, they are falling, a few rungs in the ladder, to the lowest possible class.
It is this isolation from reality, from mainstream life (eg, participation in everyday politics, and participation in the labour force) which breeds a certain underground mentality in the Far Right in particular. Which explains why its members are attracted to what Julius Evola would classify as 'subterranean' or 'ghetto' cults, cults such as Satanism, Heathenism and the like - that is, religions which appeal to those on the fringes of civilised life, to what the Hindus call the untouchable caste.
So how is nationalism to be saved from the Bill Whites, the World Churches of the Creators and the rest? The answer is obvious enough: nationalists must recruit from the middle-classes, not from the lumpen. Nationalism, if it found its electoral base in the middle-classes (especially the lower middle-classes) would more closely resemble the historical Italian Fascism and German National Socialism than Bill White's Nutzism.
The original Fascism and National Socialism were socialist, and Left, movements. The goal of them was to maintain the economic position of the middle-classes who had been ruined by a succession of economic catastrophes since the First World War. In that respect, they were not much different from the mainstream Australian conservative agrarian party, the Nationals, who exist to redistribute taxpayer's money to the rural class (or, for that matter, the farming lobbyists in the EU, France in particular). In both France and Australia, farmers are increasingly unable to make a decent living or at least live in the style they became accustomed to. How much of that is due to inefficiency or to bad luck is difficult to determine.
In any case, the farmers certainly feel entitled (out of a sense of 'social justice') to government remuneration. The same is to be said of the German middle-classes in the 1920s and 1930s, who perhaps were rather indifferent to the Jewish question but understood instinctively that Adolf Hitler was one of them and that his party was acting in their class interest. (It must not be forgotten, either, that failed farmers formed a large part of Hitler's constituency. Again, the farmers wanted socialism, and got it: the National Socialist government, among other things, wiped out their debts).
But here is the paradox. I have castigated the Nutzis, and the Far Left, for attracting misfits, dropouts, losers and fringe dwellers. But National Socialism and Italian Fascism attracted the same sort of people. We all know that Hitler, Mussolini, Goering, Goebbels and the rest experienced great hardship in their younger days; this fact is often used to explain their bitterness, their sense of deprivation, their radicalism and their cynicism. But socialism gave them someone to blame for their troubles: the Jews, the capitalists, the irresponsible parliamentary democrats, the Freemasons. If they had been inculcated with a sense of responsibility for their own failures, and taught not to blame them on other people, the world would never have seen fascism.
In other words, one could say that both fascism and certain elements of today's nationalism the fascists appeal to the less evolved sides of the human character. There is no reason why such a socialism as Hitler's and Mussolini's cannot win over the middle-classes of today's Germany and Italy, or for that matter America and Australia. Socialism is still going strong in 2006. But whether or not socialism is good for nationalism, or, for that matter, the West itself, is another matter entirely.
We, the members of the New Right Australia New Zealand, do not want nationalism to be bourgeois, ossified and reactionary, like Le Pen's or De Villiers'; at the same time, we should not be aiming at people who are naturally going to be attracted to a socialism - that is, the failures in life who are going to attribute their own deprivation to mysterious Jewish and capitalist conspiracies. This is not to take a soft, pro-Jewish line: it is merely to examine our own motives for thinking as we do and considering what is in progressive nationalism's best interest.