Free speech is considered to be a very important topic in mainstream political discourse, in fact it is considered to be one of the fundamental values of the world as we know it, that helps separate people into the “good” and “bad” guys. Good guys support free speech, bad guys are against it. However, the reality is that free speech in its current narrative is mostly an overblown balloon of hot air, all but ready to burst – recent events are pushing at its limits, before the facade will finally fall away.

The modern narrative about free speech can be easily destroyed in but one sentence: today National Socialists, the quintessential and universally designated “bad guys”, Nazi Thugs… are for freedom of speech. The mold is immediately broken and one has to ask “well how can that be?” The more realistic people, though they still hold the delusion of freedom of speech being an “intrinsic value”, comment that the Nazis only support freedom of speech for now, to spread their message so as to take power – once that is achieved they will suppress freedom of speech, thus they are ultimately against it, and so the narrative is preserved… except that these same people then turn around and say that to defend free speech they have to limit our access to it, which likewise destroys the entire narrative.

At the same time, one of the most common, and likewise one of the most ridiculous arguments that we are used to when dealing with our opponents, is one that goes a little something like this: “you nazi scum, only reason you are able to say the kind of things you say is because of the freedom of speech THIS society provides for you!” The idiocy of this statement should be clear to anyone with half a brain: why would a National Socialist state that we fight for NOT allow us to speak freely the dogma of National Socialism while also condemning its enemies? There is an old Cold War era soviet anecdote that works as a perfect rebuttal to this “argument”:

An american and a soviet citizen are arguing. The american declares At least MY society has freedom! I can walk up to the White House and shout ‘Reagan is a fucking idiot!!’ The soviet citizen just chuckles and says So what? I can walk up to the Kremlin and shout ‘Reagan is a fucking idiot’ too.

People at large can easily succumb to the delusion of free speech being some intrinsic value or right due to their nature as lemmings – the majority of the population is always supportive of the status quo just by virtue of it being the status quo. Unconscious conformity makes one believe that they are free, and since they play by the rules of the status quo they get all the benefits and punishments that it upholds as part of its rules.

Yet this creates the question: if free speech can be utilized in the way described prior at all, then surely it no longer has the properties of an absolute value, but that of a weapon. Much like a sword or a gun can be used to both commit and fight against injustice, same can be said of free speech and of its suppression. Thus it becomes a question of who wields free speech and the tools to suppress it, and for what ends, meaning that it can be used for good and ill by anyone, there is no fundamental value to it whatsoever, no more than a sword or a gun in of itself has fundamental value.

What has already been said above is really enough to  end the whole discussion on the nature of free speech, but we all know that people will build further rationalizations to support their delusions, unless we look under the hood and point out every single flaw in their primary argument and possible followup counter-arguments. So let us have a detailed and realistic look into the issue of free speech, and prove it to be the weapon that it is, and likewise look at the weapons deployed to suppress speech, how this completely erodes the mainstream conception of it as an intrinsic value, and what is the general Fascist/NS attitude towards free speech.


In order to make our point we must explore the context in which free speech is unmistakable for the weapon that it is, and answer if that context takes primacy over any other. To do this we will look to IMPERIUM by Francis Parker Yockey (all underscores in quoted segments of IMPERIUM in this article are my own, quoted texts in the same box are not necessarily presented in the same order as they appear in the book), namely the chapters of “The 20th Century Political Outlook” segment.

We will begin with the fundamental basics of the world of true politics (stripped of any other veneers, facades and window dressings, what one would be inclined to call the Machiavellian understanding of politics), which we can name “Power Politics”. Here Yockey provides us with the following crucial definition: Politics is activity in relation to power”. The inevitably necessary followup definition is that of power itself: “Power is a relation of control between two similar organisms.”

The world of Power Politics is made up of  political units. The simplest way to sum up everything that will be said about the nature of political units, is that they, for all intents and purposes follow the same fundamental principles as living organisms: “[…] the State can only be comprehended organically”. For example, these units are subject to what Yockey calls the Laws of Totality and Sovereignty. These laws, simply put, mean that the political unit, as any living organism, must be in full control of itself, least its very existence be threatened:

Totality refers both to issues within the organism and to persons within the organism. Any issue within the organism is subject to political determination, because every issue is potentially political. Any person in the organism is existentially embraced in the organism. Sovereignty places the decision in every important juncture with the organism. Both of these laws are existential, like all organic conditions: either the organism is true to them, or it is faced with sickness and death.


The Law of Sovereignty is the inner necessity of organic existence which places the decision in every important juncture with the organism, as opposed to allowing any group within to make the decision. An important juncture is any one which affects the organism as a whole, it’s steering in the world, its choice of allies and enemies, the decision of war and peace, its inner peace, its unchallenged inner right to decide controversies. If any of these can be called into question, it is a sign that the organism is sick. In the healthy organism, this sovereignty is absolutely undisputed, and may continue so for centuries.

If the political unit does not maintain its totality, it becomes divided, meaning that there are, in fact, several political units present, and what used to be whole becomes fractured and there exists a potential for conflict between the fractured parts (the topic of conflict will be discussed in the following segment of this article). If the fate of the political unit is being decided by one of its component parts, or a force that resides outside this particular political unit (ergo by a foreign political unit), then the laws of totality and sovereignty have been broken and the political unit ceases to exist in point of fact – it is now no more than an extension of another political unit.

The first crucial lesson to take away, one directly relevant to our primary topic of discussion, is that free speech is one of the issues that can, and inevitably does become political, thereby also becoming subject to the world of Power Politics and everything that entails. In the context of this purely political outlook, where all activity exists in relation to power, free speech is likewise a form of activity that can only be evaluated in terms of its relation to power. In true politics there are two simultaneous consequences of any action, including free speech and the suppression of speech: every action serves to increase power in one political unit and decrease it in another. Yockey covers this by talking about the Laws of Constancy of Inter- and Intra- Organismic Power:

Law of Constancy of Inter-Organismic Power: “In any age, the amount of power in a State-system is constant, and if one organic unit is diminished in power, another unit, or other units are increased in power by the same amount.

Law of Constancy of Intra-Organismic Power: “The power within an organism is constant, and if individuals, groups, or ideas within the organism are diminished in power, some other individuals, groups, or ideas are increased in power by that amount.

We will discuss how this turns free speech into a weapon in greater detail in the segment on conflict.

The second crucial lesson that can be learned from what has been explained thus far, is that any political unit is “totalitarian” – if it were not, it would cease to exist by virtue of all the laws we had discussed so far. We are all well aware of the modern narrative when it comes to this word and the kind of whining, whaling and cautionary tales that it evokes. However these are all futile, for even the most freedom loving groups that engage in true politics – Power Politics (and engage in them they must if they truly want to pursue and enact their beliefs in reality rather than just pay lip-service to them) – are subject to these laws.

All political units are “totalitarian”, regardless if they are liberal, democratic, communist (and it pains me to once again point out how the real stated goal of communism is a stateless, classless society, rather than any form of an all-powerful nanny state, hence it likewise seeks some form of freedom)  or anything else. However, as we will discuss in the segment on liberalism, these lovers of freedom operate under a delusion of not pursuing a totalitarian goal by virtue of consciously operating in a different, non-political context. Nevertheless, in point of fact they are unconsciously operating according to all the rules of Power Politics. One may think they oppose “totalitarianism” in favor of “freedom” per the context of their outlook and its stated narratives, however, if they wish to enact real social change, then by necessity they must engage in Power Politics and the only way to win in that field is if they follow all the laws, principles and tactics thereof. That is how their cognitive dissonance is born. Again, more on this later.


If it is not yet clear, in the world of Power Politics everything revolves around the acquisition and retention of power. As a result, everything within the scope of the world of politics becomes divided in any given situation into two sides: friend and enemy. This is ALWAYS the case, whenever someone attempts to introduce a different way of division, that means that they are regarding the situation from a NON-POLITICAL viewpoint. As Yockey remarks, Morality distinguishes between good and evil; aesthetics between beautiful and ugly; economics, in its initial phase, between utile and inutile, and in its later and purely trading phase these become identical with profitable and unprofitable. The distinct division between Power Politics and these other viewpoints is that only the former deals with assuring the existence of one’s respective political unit:

“The enemy can be good, he can be beautiful, he may be economically utile, business with him may be profitable – but if his power activity converges on mine, he is my enemy. He is that one with whom existential conflicts are possible. But esthetics, economics, morality are not concerned with existence, but only with norms of activity and thinking within an assured existence.”

This is where we define the primacy of Power Politics over all other outlooks: it is only by virtue of Power Politics and its respective laws that the very existence of a political unit, like the State and the society it governs, is assured, hence demanding one to follow the laws of the political outlook. Only after existence is assured is there room for other considerations. The only way one can truly change a society is if they engage the ruling State as a political unit at war with the political unit of the State, and freedom of speech becomes one of the weapons in that war. If the changes one seeks to enact can be accommodated by the State, then in point of fact they are not vast enough to threaten its existence as a political unit, they take on an entirely secondary characteristic, and are most likely just a variation on the norms of activity and thinking already embraced by the State.

The State as a political unit can be founded on certain principles and a certain outlook, however when conflict arises, internal or external, as it inevitably does, the State will by necessity have to engage in its natural mode of action as a political unit, regardless of its professed principles and foundations, for if it does not it will inevitably perish. The same is true for whomever wants to change society according to their outlook and the values of that outlook.

A truly Organic State, which is the goal of National Socialists and Fascists, seeks to put all things in their proper place and make sure that they follow their inherent nature. Therefore, our understanding of the State follows its natural Power Politics dynamics at all times in perfect harmony, as opposed to what occurs in Liberal politics – more on both later in their respective segments.

For the purposes of our discussion of free speech we need only to focus on the internal conflict of a political unit, for if one political unit could affect the utilization of speech in another, foreign political unit, then in point of fact the latter unit’s Totality and Sovereignty have been broken and it ceases to exist as a true political unit in its original form. So let us consider the dynamics of an internal conflict.

If a religious difference, an economic contrast, an ideological disjunction, were to reach the degree of intensity of feeling at which it would range men against one another as enemies, it would thereby become political, and such units as formed would be political units and would be guided by a political way of maneuvering, thinking, and valuing, and not by a religious, economic or other way of thinking.

The seed of internal conflict most always resides in some outlook that is not accommodated by the existing status quo, established by the political unit of the State, because this outlook is contradictory to the one professed by those in power, and thus this competing outlook is regarded as a potential threat to the existence of the political unit.

There are, of course, scenarios where two or more groups within the same State may reach a level of opposition between themselves that may lead to armed conflict and civil war, in which case the Laws of Totality and Sovereignty are likewise broken and several political entities come to exist instead of the one. However, for the sake of our discussion on free speech we are only focusing on the opposition between a single internal group and the State.

The conflict between them can take on only two distinct forms. The first is where the political unit of the State is sick and thus cannot mount real resistance to the competing political entity, thereby its slow loss of power results in the rise of its enemy’s power. This is often the case, when the ruling Power refuses to act according to the laws of Power Politics because it refuses to accept the political outlook on the situation, in place of its own (whatever it may be). When the State, as a political unit, does not act according to its nature as such, it is in effect sick and gives up its power without a fight.

An organism either follows its own law, or it becomes ill. This is organic logic and governs all organisms, plant, animal, man, High Culture. They are either themselves, or they sicken and die. Not for them is the rational and logical view which says that whatever can be cogently written down into a system can be foisted on to an organism.

One can easily see examples of this in the history of our own struggle, where the political units of the German and Italian states had willingly given up their power to our predecessors, whereupon those political units ceased to exist, only to be replaced by the Italian Fascist State and the Third Reich. They had done this because they either outright refused to fight (Victor Emmanuel the IIIrd conceded to Mussolini’s demands after the March on Rome), or because they maintained loyalty to a non-political outlook that created a conflict between their upheld values and the action that was necessary to maintain their power (Weimar Republic unable to contain Hitler’s ascent to power by democratic means, not that they had, by then, any chance to contain him by forceful means of Power Politics either), resulting in the ultimate defeat of their values. Something similar is likewise described by Savitri Devi in her book “Lightning and the Sun”, when she speaks of the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhnaton.

The second form is the one, where the political unit of the State does offer resistance to the enemy that seeks to take the power for itself. In this situation it is the State that acts out in defense of its existence, and in doing so provokes an open conflict that may escalate to war: “[…] it is the victim who makes the war.” 

The State can decide to either carry out preemptive, non-violent means of containing and neutralizing potential threats before they have the power to truly converge against it, or it can wait until such a point in time when it will have no other resolve but to use force against a fully realized enemy, a rival political entity that challenges its own existence.

If however a disjunction occurs in the population of a State which is so deep and strong that it divides them into friends and enemies, it shows that the State, at least temporarily, does not exist in fact.


If the State has to resort to force, this in itself shows that there are two political units, in other words, two States instead of the one originally there.


The essence of the State is that within its realm it excludes the possibility of a friend-enemy grouping. Thus conflicts occurring within a State are by their nature limited, whereas the truly political conflict is unlimited.

From what has been said so far the goal of utilizing preemptive countermeasures to the growth of any group into a real political enemy should be self evident, as these means prevent, or rather delay, an unlimited, political conflict – war.

[…] war is an armed struggle between organized political units.


[…] the State never permits subjects to make war. If a group of subjects assume this power, a new State has arisen.


War is the highest possible expression of the friend-enemy disjunction.  It confers the practical meaning on the word enemy. The enemy is he upon whom one is preparing to make or upon whom one is making war. If there is no question of war he is not an enemy. He may be a mere opponent in a contest for a prize, he may be a mere heathen, a mere ideological opponent, a competitor, a hateful thing for reasons of antipathy. The minute he becomes an enemy, the possibility or actuality of armed struggle war, enters.


War does not have however a motivation of its own – this is supplied by politics. As is the intensity of the political struggle, i.e., of the enmity, so is the war.


Motives other than strictly political ones can indeed actuate a war – but the war takes them up into itself, and they vanish into it.


The phrase political soldier is only ad hoc, to designate anyone fighting from conviction, rather than from profession.

To sum up what has been said in regards to a State that is willing to fight for its existence against a threat of a single group: the State may use various means of preventing (or only delaying) the formation of an internal grouping that may become a perspective threat in the first place; if such a group does come about the State may attempt to deploy means that would prevent (delay) the growth of this group into a a true political enemy; and if it fails at that it will switch over to means of unlimited warfare against a fully developed enemy. Thus revolutions are born.

Such groups may arise out of motives rooted in conviction and dedication to a certain outlook, however, as we have already established by now, if a group wants to enact the values of their outlook in reality, they must submit to the rules of Power Politics.

Let us now introduce free speech into a conflict within the world of Power Politics:

To ensure their own existence AS the status quo, the powers that be (the Rulers) provide sanctions and punishments for those who would take up views that are contrary to the views on which the power of the Rulers resides (the Opposition). Thus the conflict of freedom of speech is born: where the Rulers do provide some scope of free speech, but only so long as this speech does not defy the status quo upon which their power resides; and where the Opposition take up the weapon of free speech as a means of overcoming the Rulers.

The Rulers represent an entity that holds the power, and when it feels its power threatened it becomes an existential conflict, within which no other distinction than friend and enemy may exist. This is what defines the scope of permitted free speech in a given society: so long as your speech does NOT threaten the existence of the status quo that maintains the Rulers in power (in other words the Totality and Sovereignty of the political unit of the State) you are not regarded as an enemy and your speech is not a threat. As a result you are relegated to a different, secondary viewpoint from which you may be regarded, one of morality, economics or whatever else.

The Opposition, if it is real, is by necessity an entity that holds views that definitively threaten the existence of the status quo (the Totality and Sovereignty of the political unit), and the Rulers that rely on it. They are regarded as an enemy, they exist outside the scope of that which is permitted, hence their speech must be limited and the necessary weapons of suppressing it are employed, while the Opposition may employ the weapon of free speech to destroy the existing status quo, the rival political unit, and substitute it with its own.

Were that to occur, the roles become reversed, and the former Rulers become the Opposition, and thus their methods, tactics and weapons become those of the Opposition – likewise the former opposition become Rulers with everything that entails, all of this, of course, strictly existing within the realm of Power Politics.

This is the naked truth of Power Politics, one that takes primacy over any and all other considerations and viewpoints if the political unit wishes to assure its existence. Let us now proceed towards examining the modern, liberal outlook on politics, which is the source of the delusions and cognitive dissonance on what has been posited herein so far.


As we established, in order for a political unit to assure its existence it must follow its own nature as such and submit to the laws and workings of the world of Power Politics. If it does not, then, as a political unit subject to these laws, it is sick and dying, its existence is now under threat.

Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is this: if a political unit puts primacy into an outlook that is anything but political, that pertains to anything outside the world of Power Politics, and this outlook does not coincide with the necessities of Power Politics, the political unit is doomed. If the political outlook demands one thing, while the outlook of the status quo demands another, either the political unit will sacrifice itself for the sake of the non-political outlook (which in of itself is a non-political decision, signaling the primacy of that outlook), or it will sacrifice the outlook inasmuch as it has to in order to survive (which makes it a bad representative of that outlook).

To put it bluntly: if the non-political outlook is not one that is harmonious with the political outlook, the political unit will inevitably either cease to exist or betray its values. Extinction or hypocrisy are the only outcomes in this scenario. Simplest example of this would an outlook that prizes pacifism and neutrality:

For a country to become neutral as a form of existence would be to cease to exist as a political unit. It might continue to exist economically, socially, culturally, but politically it could not exist if it were neutral.


Politics and neutrality exclude one another, as do neutrality and continued existence.


To renounce politics – which is what total neutrality means – is to renounce existence as a unit. 

Any political unit that declares its neutrality in effect simply ceases to exist as a political unit within the world of Power Politics and instead becomes a game piece and resource for political units that do exist – remember the Law of Constancy of Inter-Organismic Power.

Here we finally come to the world of Modern Politics, namely Liberal “Politics”, the quotation marks signifying a drastic departure of the Liberal narrative from the laws of real politics – Power Politics. The entire foundation of Liberalism has always been one that purposely sought to leave behind all realities of Power Politics, declaring them to be a “thing of the past” in the face of a brave new world, where there would be no more wars and other such nonsense. It was always the express goal of Liberalism to depart from this fundamental reality in favor of its own made up formulas, as it does with all things. Classical liberalism screams that it wants nothing to do with the real world, the world of Power Politics, as it declared the State to have no more function than to be the “guard dog” of Society, one that defends it from external threats via the military and maintains internal order via the police.

Liberalism is in essence nonpolitical; it is outside of politics. It would like to have politics serve as the handmaid of economics and society.

Laws of Totality and Sovereignty are immediately sacrificed to liberal whims with that proclamation, thus the notion of a political unit upholding liberal values inevitably faces that very choice we have isolated prior: extinction or hypocrisy.

Let us further dive into the nature of Liberalism:

The touchstone of any political theory whatever is its attitude to the fundamental ethical quality of human nature.


Every Rationalistic political or State theory regards man as “good” by nature.


All Liberalism predicates a sensualistic, materialistic philosophy. Such philosophies are rationalistic in tendency, and Liberalism is simply one variety of politically applied rationalism. 


Liberalism is Rationalism in politics.


Liberalism, however, with its compromising, vague attitude, incapable of precise formulation, incapable also of rousing precise feelings ,either affirmative or negative, is not an idea of political force […] it was not a political idea, but only an idea about politics. Its followers had to be for or against other ideas as a means of expressing their liberalism.

Having completely denied the political outlook, Liberalism instead sought to elevate the outlooks of economics and ethics to primacy over all else, subjugating the State and politics to this outlook, giving them an entirely different meaning, one that is foreign to their inherent nature.

Here Liberalism found its two poles of thought: economics and ethics. They correspond to individual and humanity. The ethics of course is purely social, materialistic; if older ethics is retained, its former metaphysical foundation is forgotten, and it is promulgated as a social, and not a religious, imperative. Ethics is necessary to maintain the order necessary as a framework for economic activity. Within that framework however, “the individual” must be “free”. This is the great cry of Liberalism, “freedom.” Man is only himself, and is not tied to anything except by choice. Thus “society” is the “free” association of men and groups. The State, however, is unfreedom, compulsion, violence. The Church is spiritual unfreedom.

All things in the political domain were transvalued by Liberalism. War was transformed into either competition, seen from the economic pole, or ideological difference, seen from the ethical pole. […] The State becomes society or humanity on the ethical side, a production and trade system on the economic side. The will to accomplish a political aim is transformed into making of a program of “social ideas” on the ethical side, of calculation on the economic side. Power becomes propaganda, ethically speaking, and regulation, economically speaking.

Hence, liberalism goes further still against the Laws of Totality and Sovereignty: first with the diminishing of the State’s natural domain of power, second with the purposeful division of society into a fractured multitude of individuals and groups. Liberalism then seeks to establish a “balance” between these fractured pieces and employs Democracy as its tool of choice for this purpose, which only creates further, devastating contradictions, leading Liberalism down the path of its own demise:

Another important by-product of Rationalism is Democracy.


[…] to Rationalism, not quality but quantity determines, so the mass became the nation.


Democracy is not a retreat from Reality, from war, History and Politics, like Liberalism. It remains within politics, but seeks to make politics a thing of mass. It seeks to make everyone subject to politics, and to make everyone into a politician.

[…] it forced everyone to have an opinion on matters of government, it forced him then to express the opinion in plebiscites and elections. If he had no independent opinion – and more than 99% of men do not – it forced an opinion on him, and told him it was his.

Liberalism employed Democracy to serve its outlook of ethics and economics: the former is where the contradiction lies, as Liberalism thought Democracy would create the necessary compromise and balance of powers within society fractured into individuals and groups. Never mind that this organization of society into free groups and free individuals once again goes against the nature of the State as a political unit, hence placing it in danger of extinction along with its Liberal values:

All the organizations would have their claim on the individual, who would be bound to a “plurality of obligations and loyalties.” The organization would have relations and mutual interests but no subjection to the State, which would be merely an organization among organizations, not even primes inter pares.

Such a pluralistic State is of course not a political organism. If an external danger were to threaten such a State, it would either succumb at once, or else fight, in which case it would become at once a political organism, and the “pluralism” would vanish.


In reality there is no such thing as a “political association” or a “political society” – there can only be a political unit, a political organism.

The bigger issue is that in reality, democracy only facilitates a struggle for power that is fully in line with the political outlook that Liberalism sought to escape. By forcing politics onto every single individual and group, it created a potentiality of every individual and group becoming the seed of a political unit, and where the masses lack comprehension of the theoretical, they make up for with raw instinct, hence they all inevitably, unconsciously submit to the laws of Power Politics. Thus every potential political unit became a potential enemy.

Democracy seeks no compromise, no “balancing”, no destruction of authority – it seeks power.

And yet the liberals are somehow actually surprised that their fostered system of opposing views leads to an internal conflict that follows the laws of Power Politics, and are appalled by the idea that the conflict is meant to reach its natural conclusion of someone winning and the rest losing, hence destroying their entire desired balance and pluralism of opposing thought. Any competition by its very nature must have a winner, and in the world of Power Politics that competition is war, and the prize is power. Meanwhile Liberalism wants to do away with this reality in favor of some mythical state of a perpetual balancing act, where everyone competes only within certain limits.

There certainly can be that kind of competition, but only for so long – the very moment an outlook takes root anywhere within this balancing act, that is fundamentally opposed to the entire Liberal status quo, a potential enemy in the political sense has appeared, and his victory signals the dissolution of the balancing act and of the entire Liberal structure, if it keeps true to its values, as it did in Weimar Republic. Liberalism fosters the seeds of its own inevitable destruction, and so it again faces the choice: extinction or hypocrisy.

When it comes to economics, on the other hand, Democracy was successfully utilized by Liberalism in its battle against Authority.

A moment’s reflection shows that Liberalism is entirely negative. It is not a formative force, but always and only a disintegrating force. It wishes to depose the twin authorities of Church and State, substituting for them economic freedom and social ethics.


Liberalism can only be defined negatively. It is a mere critique, not a living idea. Its great word “freedom” is a negative it means in fact, freedom from authority, i.e., disintegration of the organism. In its last stages it produces social atomism, in which not only the authority of the State is combated, but even the authority of society and the family.


Liberalism was never entirely successful in its fight against the State, despite the fact that it engaged in political activity throughout the 19th century in alliance with every other type of State-disintegrating force. Thus there were National-Liberals, Social-Liberals, Free-Conservatives, Liberal-Catholics. They allied themselves with democracy, which is not Liberal, but irresistibly authoritarian in success.


The idea of “balance of power,” a technic of weakening the State, is Liberal throughout. By this means the State is to be rendered subject to economics. It cannot be called a State theory, for it is a mere negative.

One may be so inclined to stop us and say at this junction that we have just argued against our point with one of the quotes above, that states democracy to be “irresistibly authoritarian in success”. The crucial part of this quote, however, is “in success”, because in success democracy ceased to be itself:

One characteristic of Democracy was that it rejected the aristocratic principle which equated social significance with political significance. It wished to turn this around and make social dependent on political. This of course was merely the foundation of a new aristocracy, and in very fact democracy was self-destructive: when it attained power, it turned into aristocracy.


For, in everything, Democracy must fail, even in success.

If Democracy is to remain true to its principles then once an undemocratic political force takes over by democratic means it will abolish Democracy, and if Democracy attempts to resist this advance, it will cease to be democratic – extinction or hypocrisy.

In modern Liberal politics there likewise exists a new kind of aristocracy in the form of the existing political and media classes. The real power, however, lies in the anonymous business class, which democracy had served to empower for Liberalism.

Thus Democracy in fact was throughout most of its history a servant of Economics in its battle against Authority.


[…] this followed inevitably from the idea of independence of economics and law from political authority. There is nothing higher, no State, it is only individuals against one another. It is but natural that the economically more astute individuals accumulate most of the mobile wealth into their hands. They do not however, if they are true Liberals, want authority with this wealth, for authority has two aspects: power, and responsibility. Individualism, psychologically speaking, is egoism. “Happiness” = selfishness.


[…] it was solely the financier whose interest was served by the constitutionalized anarchy called Democracy. The word democracy thus passed into the possession of Money. 


But Democracy perishes with Rationalism. The idea of basing political power on the masses of the population was a technic at best. Either it proceeded to authoritarian rule like that of Napoleon or Mussolini, or else it was a mere cover for unhampered looting by the financier.


Having leveled all the political and social powers, Rationalism can now look upon the monster of its own creation, the absolute power of Money. This new power is unformulated, anonymous, irresponsible. The most powerful money-magnates are not well-known to the masses, nor do they wish to be. Fame, responsibility, and sanctions go together. The Master of Money desires no limelight, no risk of life, but only money and ever more money. Party politicians exist only to protect him and his operations. The courts are there to enforce his usury. The remnants of the State are there to do him service. Armies march when his trade system is challenged. He is subject to nothing, he is the new Sovereign. He is above nations, and his banking operations transcend national laws.

How vividly familiar that last quote sounds, “almost” like we are living it right now.

By now it should be clear that Liberalism has purposely created a precarious house of cards doomed for failure by ignoring the fundamental realities of Power Politics, sacrificing them in favor of their theories and values that only create further instability and the ever encroaching inevitable choice between extinction and hypocrisy.

Modern day realities are mounting evidence of hypocrisy gaining favor with the Liberal states of today, and any person can easily think of several examples off the top of their head. This article was foremost prompted by the recent events in the aftermath of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, so we will focus on the example of the United States to make our case.

USA is clearly heading into the direction of choosing hypocrisy in order to maintain its existence, proving that all of its fundamental rhetoric and values will only remain such until push comes to shove. It does, however, as any political unit will, everything it can to prevent the formation of a true political enemy by various means, some of which do not yet expose the encroaching hypocrisy, while others do.

This organic right to determine the inner enemy is not always exercised in the same manner. It may be open: arrest, sudden attack, shooting down at home, butchery in the streets. It may be concealed: drawing up of punitive laws general in their terms but applying in fact only to one group. It may be purely formless, but nonetheless real: the ruler may attack verbally the individual or group in question. Such a declaration may be used only to intimidate, or it may be a method of bringing about assassination. It may be economic pressure – such a tactic is naturally the favorite of Liberals. A “blacklist” or boycott may destroy the group or individual.

It goes without saying that the exercise of such a right has no connection whatever with any written “constitution” which purports verbally to distribute the public power in a political unit. Such a “constitution” may forbid such a declaration of inner enemy, but units with such a constitution have never hesitated in need, and have often invoked such procedure independently of need.

Suppression of free speech is one of the tactics that can be employed by the State to prevent the formation of a true enemy, or to combat one when it forms. However the methods of suppression can differ, from “hard” censorship, to “soft” and indirect censorship. Most people can only imagine censorship as being hard, the way it was described in “1984”. Orwell’s primary sin with his novel is that he made people all the more blind to the more subtle approaches of speech suppression (for all intents and purposes all he did was point out the obvious until such a point, when people couldn’t see anything but the obvious), that in their nature seem to only uphold free speech further, rather than suppress it. The prime example of this type of “soft” censorship is oversaturation of the channels of expression with “white noise” – useless information, the sheer quantity of which will be enough to bury out of sight, and thus suppress, other forms of speech.

The Liberal state and its primary benefactors, anonymous money-magnates, have superior resources to produce such noise at a constant pace and will gladly give a helping hand to independent noise makers, by placing them front and center, suppressing the speech of undesirable actors by simple omission. The next logical step to this approach would be to separate undesirable speech into a specially designated area, which is still kept out of sight of the public.

It doesn’t matter what platform of medium of speech one uses, all the same methods apply across the board, because the real subject is not the medium, but speech itself, thus the Internet offers no real breakthrough. In fact, the anonymous power of money actually holds even more sway online, as the nonstop hounding of the DailyStormer proves. The ongoing situation with YouTube serves as an example of the white noise method and the subsequent isolation of undesirable speech, and even supposed platforms of free speech like have shown themselves to be no different, as it likewise favors only certain kind of speech, and discriminates which users can, in effect, utilize one of its fundamental features –  “boosting content”. White noise and permitted speech can be boosted to make a wider audience pay notice to it, undesirable speech is rejected from utilizing this function, and is thus buried beneath the nonstop flow of the former.

The last step in this progression is the “hard” censorship everyone expects: to outright forbid and remove and undesirable speech altogether. While the anonymous power of money can do this rampantly online, where companies can outline the terms of service of their platforms as they see fit, this is not as simple to do in reality if the Liberal status quo wishes to maintain its facade. The United States, however, attempts to, and ultimately has to do just that, as free speech ranks #1 on the Bill of Rights. To hide the inescapable fact that USA has already chosen hypocrisy over extinction it must find ways of direct speech suppression that go around its stated values.

Hence, the status quo commits to indirect censorship as it takes into its employ “independent” actors (and perhaps these actors don’t know who is really pulling their strings) to do the dirty work for it. In a liberal society of balancing acts there are plenty of sides to choose from that exist in tension or open conflict with one another, making the choice of a pawn with a common enemy to the status quo easy. Enter the Antifa and SJW crowds, who act as censors where the State cannot, and moreover, much of the ideas these groups promote are readily enacted by the State into law, so long as these ideas don’t overstep certain boundaries and likewise don’t go against the facade of the State. Such is the case with the constant SJW demand to denounce “Hate Speech”, as doing so would indeed dismantle the facade being so desperately preserved. This, of course, points to either these groups being an extension of the State, or, more likely, both the State and these groups exist as an extension of the anonymous power of money, and the name of George Soros serves a prime example of this kind of power influencing both, though he is certainly not the only one engaged in such machinations that Liberalism made possible.

Soon as any kind of undesirable speech makes its way into reality in the form of a public engagement, such as a speech at a university, or a public gathering, the State will allow the opponents of the message being promoted to show up and cause trouble, as this gives the officials responsible for hosting the event an innocent reason to shut it down on grounds of concern over safety and security (and if the event is staged solely by the Antifa itself, it provides the justification the State needs to shut it down all on its own). Meanwhile Charlottesville has already proven that the State will gladly allow and even facilitate physical confrontations to occur in the first place with the specific intent of shutting down an event they deem undesirable, thus maintaining the Liberal facade while engaged in Power Politics. The event also served to provide the necessary excuse for radically increased censorship of undesirable speech online by private companies, which is all, likewise, in line with the ultimate goal of suppressing speech of the potential enemies.

In short: if you are a potential threat, a potential enemy to the Liberal state, and this state has chosen to secure its own existence at the expense of its liberal values, all the while desperately trying to maintain the facade of upholding them, it will:

  • Drown your speech out with noise,
  • Cordon it off in a proverbial speech-ghetto,
  • Manipulate an unwitting pawn to forcefully censor you for it.

And all of this will be facilitated by the anonymous power of money. The facade will fall only when these measures are exhausted and the State faces an immediate threat of war and extinction on its hand, when the opposition has successfully grown into a political unit and an enemy of the status quo. When one considers our modern day circumstances they will inevitably have to admit two things: that the Liberal state has already made its choice in favor of hypocrisy, rather than extinction; and that free speech and the suppression thereof are weapons in a conflict of Power Politics.

The only people who will hold out against this conclusion are the self-professed classical, rational liberals (a good amount of whom one is most likely familiar with today via their YouTube channels), who are in effect Liberal idealists with no political power what-so-ever. Having no real political power in their hands they do not have to consider the world of Power Politics and the choices it presents at all, in fact they don’t have to comprehend anything outside the Liberal outlook, because that is the predominant outlook that exists today. Only thing that differentiates them from lemmings, is that they are actual, true believers of the liberal outlook, rather than passive conformists to whatever status quo exists.

Since these types have no engagement in real Power Politics but only theoretical Liberal “politics” they don’t have to face the dilemma of extinction or hypocrisy, instead they enjoy the luxury of dealing exclusively in the liberal ideals, hence their constant baffled reaction to most all of the realities we have outlined this far. Since they don’t have to acknowledge or face the dilemma presented by the undeniable primacy of Power Politics, they are free to pay lip-service to their ideals and scold everyone else for not playing by the rules, which is the only real defense liberalism can mount: pacifying its enemies into accepting its rules and to play by them, rendering them likewise non-political. In other words, they demand that one disengage from Power Politics and engage solely in Liberal Politics, thereby crowning Liberalism the default winner.

The fighting proletariat of the Communists became in such a pluralistic State also a politically neutral trade-union or party.

They likely don’t themselves comprehend that this is what they are in effect doing, and recognize even less how this can never, in effect, restrain Power Politics from taking over. Liberal politics do nothing for their participants, regardless of their creed, as all are meant to be pacified for the sake of Liberalism. Say a party or candidate professing certain views and policies take power – they can only enact those policies within certain limitations established by this system, which prevents them from changing the System drastically (and if it did allow this, it would cease to exist then and there, as we have repeatedly established prior); opposing parties are often permitted to get in the way of these policies being enacted; sometimes the leader of the state does not belong to the ruling party and thus continue to nullify each other’s policies; limitation of successive terms prevent a popular leader or party from continued realization of their policies, and suffer constant setbacks when the opposing side is elected into office and dismantles their work; and, of course, the anonymous power of money rules from behind the scenes and can easily manipulate all parties and leaders involved towards its own benefit. In the end the entire practice of party politics is an extension of fracturing and division, all of which exists in clear contradiction to Power Politics, thus everyone involved in the practice lie not only to their electorate, but to themselves as well.

[…] party-politicans deal in lies from inner compulsion, for their activity itself is an organic lie.


One can retain non-political ideas privately, but if they become public they vanish into the political. The result is politics dressed in moral clothing.


Thus morality in politics makes bad politics if taken seriously, and if used cynically, it dishonors him who uses it.

All this does is perpetuate Liberal Politics without ever enacting any real change or achieving any substantial goal, other than preserving the power of money. This, of course, is what Sir Oswald Mosley had talked about in his own time, and what he sought to rectify with his proposals, the full context of which may now appear clearer, if one keeps in mind what we have established in this article.

We have no real democracy at the present time, because again and again since the war the country has voted for great changes and for decisive action, yet again and again their will has been thwarted by obstruction in the talking shop at Westminster. True democracy only begins, when the will of people is carried out.

“Democracy is authoritarain in success”. In true democracy, once a side wins, it gains the power to unrestrained political action. Liberalism introduces these restraints because it has sought to destroy authority but maintain the state as a means of serving its economic and social outlook. And what if it is the will of the people to END democracy? As was the case in Weimar Germany, considering how Adolf Hitler had expressly promised as part of his campaign to put an end to chaos of innumerable political parties, and so he did.

This situation of constant pacification will inevitably lead to unrest of those true believers of their outlook, who refuse to be pacified, and can identify how Liberal Politics present not a path to power so that they may enact their sought after societal change, but rather a trap to prevent them from ever achieving their goals. The entire nefarious setup can be depicted as a mouse in a running wheel, desperately pursuing a morsel of cheese suspended out of reach. Thus Liberal Politics are cast aside and Power Politics inevitably take their place, creating the potential formation of a real enemy to the Liberal status quo, forcing onto Liberalism the dilemma of extinction or hypocrisy, and free speech becomes the offensive weapon of the competing outlook, while its suppression becomes the defensive weapon of the status quo. As we have stated earlier, the division and competition promoted by Liberalism serves as its own undoing.

The self-professed classical, rational liberals that we have mentioned prior are the only side in the topic of free speech who operate from a purely non-political outlook, since even their own Liberal state has now opted for hypocrisy in order to assure its own existence, a fact that these true believers cannot appreciate. They insist on maintaining free speech as an absolute value, because they believe that everyone will operate under the rules of Liberal Politics, hence the “bad messages” can be heard out loud and dismissed. Reality, however, is much different for those who have engaged in Power Politics, where having your message heard is not the definitive tool for victory, but an auxiliary one. Free speech assists revolutions, but the actual revolution is the work of revolutionary hands, those who had stepped outside Liberal Politics into the world of Power Politics.

Liberalism, thus, can offer no defense of itself within its own rules against a political force acting according to the laws of Power Politics. Liberalism, as the negative and critical phenomenon that it is, is most effective and true to itself only on the offensive as a force of dissolution, much like its relatives Anarchism and Communism, although the latter of the two has been effectively dead for decades, with its remnants having been absorbed into the so-called “regressives”, a.k.a Social Justice Warriors/Neoliberals/Cultural Marxists. Frankly, any one of these labels is far more accurate than “regressives”, which is used by classical liberals to distance themselves from their own spawn. Indeed, “regressives” are merely a younger breed of liberalism, one that still has criticism to offer where classical liberalism does not, thus the former is still an active force, while the latter is a static force. Quite paradoxically this proves that Liberalism can only continue to fight for its existence successfully, within the framework of its own outlook so as to maintain its idealistic integrity, only if it begins to consume itself.

When it comes to Anarchism and Communism, we’ll provide the following Yockey quotes:

The assumption of the goodness of human nature developed two main branches of theory. Anarchism is the result of radical acceptance of this assumption. Liberalism uses the assumption merely to weaken the State and make it subservient to “society”.


Thus Liberalism has no objection to individuals being more powerful than the State, being above the law. What Liberalism dislikes is authority. The  State, as the grandest symbol of authority, is hated.


Rationalism became more extreme with each decade. Its most intransigent product is Communism.


Communism is the symbol of the transference of the democratic struggle to the sphere of economics.

Liberalism feeds the goal of Anarchism on its way to dismantling the State altogether, as well as validates Communism in its economic struggle. Where these things differ, however, is that Communism and Anarchism are actual ideas of political force, unlike Liberalism, which we have already identified to be as nonpolitical, or even anti-political by nature.

Anarchism, the radical denial of the State, and of all organization whatever, is an idea of genuine political force.


Anarchism was able to rouse men to sacrifice of life, not so Liberalism. It is one thing to die to wipe out all order, all State; it is quite another to die in order to bring about a decentralization of State power.


It would be cruel and insane to ask men to die in order that the remainder would have an unimpaired, or higher standard of economic life.


But Communism was political, unlike Liberalism, and named an enemy who must be annihilated – the bourgeoisie.

What this in effect means, is that at this stage Anarchism and Communism (not so much, due to it extinction) still have something to fight for, they have either a fundamental goal or a fundamental enemy against which to rouse their adherents as a real political unit. All Liberalism can offer is for men to fight and die for consumerist goods and economic well being, for pure hedonism with no greater value attached even as a nominal rationalization for sacrifice. Atomistic individualism = egoism. Happiness = selfishness. One who values their own well being and pleasure above all else cannot be motivated to give up their life, and to demand that they do so in order that others may carry on doing that while he cannot is absurd. And at the end of the day, nobody, liberal or otherwise, will sacrifice their life for a toaster.

Reason is quantitative, not qualitative, and thus makes the average man into “Man.” “Man” is a thing of food, clothing, shelter, social and family life, and leisure. Politics sometimes demands sacrifice of life for invisible things. This is against “happiness,” and must not be.

Meanwhile the “regressives” simply fight against further vestiges of authority while trying to maintain the state as the servant of ethics and economics. They are the logical progression of liberal ideals and values, or rather of liberal criticism of any real ideals and values, going further still than merely denying the reality of Power Politics to deny basic reality that exists in hard facts of biology.

Regardless, all of these sides, except for the true believers of classical liberalism, are engaged in Power Politics, and thus utilize free speech and suppression thereof as a weapon, The competing sides other than the Liberal State promote their own speech as free speech, and demand the suppression of speech for their competition in the struggle for power. This goes against the liberal narrative of free speech as a fundamental right, but exists fully in line with the realities of Power Politics, where free speech is naught but a weapon, and limiting your enemy’s access to weapons is only natural, and to be expected.

In the end Liberalism will not prevail and will perish by virtue of its opposition to reality and Truth. And reality has come a-knocking.

Using inorganic logic to construct a program for actuality does not change the fact that an organism has its own structure, development, and tempo.


In a crisis, Liberalism as such was not to be found.


We have started out this article positing that in the current climate National Socialists are actually in favor of free speech. This is indeed the case, because in the current climate free speech serves us as a weapon in the fight against the status quo, which we wish to overturn and establish in its place the Organic State of Fascism/National Socialism. However one will be logically inclined to ask if free speech will be curtailed immediately thereafter.

We have likewise talked about how all political units are “totalitarian” by their nature because they retain in potentiality the power to influence and control any issue or person within their domain. Let us now clarify this further with an explanation on the polemical nature of political language.

Invariably the concepts, ideas, and vocabulary of a political group are polemical, propagandistic. This is true throughout all higher history. The words State, class, King, society – all have their polemical content, and they have an entirely different meaning to partisans from what they have to opponents. Dictatorship, government of laws, proletariat, bourgeoisie these words have no meaning other than their polemical one, and one does not know what they are intended to convey unless one knows also who is using them and against whom.


This use of the word “people” shows again the necessarily polemical nature of all words used politically. “People” was merely a negative; it merely wished to deny that the dynasty, or else the aristocracy, belonged to “the people.” It was thus an attempt to deny the monarch or aristocracy political existence; in other words, this word implicitly defined them as the enemy, in the true political sense.

Thus, the word totalitarian can be regarded in different ways. The polemical definition of “totalitarian” that dominates today is one promulgated by liberalism, it is one of an all powerful state that has direct power in the affairs of all people and has the final say on all issues. However in the world of Power Politics all of this is a concrete reality that exists in any political unit, in any state, including a liberal one, hence why it is capable of committing to the path of hypocrisy in the first place. That is how Communism could produce dictatorships, and the same is true for Liberalism (Napoleon). All states contain totalitarianism as a potentiality by virtue of their nature as a political unit, and as we have by now proven, when a state decides to secure its existence, it will utilize means of its totalitarian arsenal. Liberalism, freedom, democracy – all these things are in effect totalitarian if they wish to exist, because they demand dominance, as all ideas do, and only Power Politics can supply that  dominance. Should they wish to stay true to their ideals they will be swiftly done away with. This likewise applies to free speech.

Hence the accusation of “totalitarianism” is a mute one, for it exists as a universal potentiality in all political units. The difference is how much any given ideas chooses to enact that potentiality outside of a crisis, when the very existence of the unit is in question, and thus the full scope of totalitarian means becomes a necessity, which is where Liberalism throws its accusations of “trampling freedom” towards us, Fascists and National Socialists.

[…] every organism, by its very existence, has the characteristic that it assumes power over the determination of all issues. This does not mean that it plans the total life of the population – economic, social, religious, educational, legal, technical, recreational. It means merely that all of these things are subject to political determination.

The Worldview of Fascism and National Socialism is one that follows Truth in all things, as our regular readers should know, hence it seeks for all things to follow their proper nature. This likewise includes the realities of Power Politics and the nature of a State as a political unit. As a result we do not try to hide its totalitarian potential with polemical language that is foreign to reality of Power Politics, thus our presentation is by far more honest. However this still does not mean that we are looking to create “1984”.

Instead, what we seek is the Organic State, the name alone denoting how it coincides with the real nature of the State as a reality of Power Politics. It is a whole organism, not fractured, not divided, not at war with itself, but instead a gestalt – the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Here organisations, individuals and structures are not competitors but complimentary elements in the makeup of a bigger entity, like cells and organs within a living body, all acting independently within their respective domain, but fulfilling a singular purpose.

A State is organic when it has a center, and this center is an idea that shapes the various domains of life in an efficacious way; it is organic when it ignores the division and the autonomization of the particular and when, by virtue of a system of hierarchical participation, every part within its relative autonomy performs its own function and enjoys an intimate connection with the whole. In an organic State we can speak of a “whole” — namely, something integral and spiritually unitary that articulates and unfolds itself — rather than a sum of elements within an aggregate, characterized by a disorderly clash of interests.

-Julius Evola, “Men Among the Ruins”, Ch4

The center of our Organic State is the Truth, Cosmic Order, God – the laws by which all of life, physical and metaphysical, is organized. This State will exercise its totalitarian potentiality exactly inasmuch as is necessary in order to maintain and preserve the Truth in all things, but allows the necessary autonomy within the purview of its organs and cells. The human body is not all strictly controlled by the conscious mind (imagine having to consciously put in effort into every heartbeat, ever contraction, every action of every organ), the work of our internal organs is regulated by the vegetative nervous system, creating their autonomy from the conscious mind and vice versa.

Here, once again, Yockey provides a succinct explanation:

The State is the form of a nation for action.

The Organic State, presenting a singular organism, is the true manifestation of the spirit of its Race and Nation, this is what Mosley talked about regarding the will of the people being carried out, when real action is taken by the whole organism to assure its existence, and more importantly, actualize its inherent nature, its own Truth.

Then what of free speech in this Organic State? Frankly different Champions of our worldview offered different solutions to the matter, as it will inevitably happen again, since freedom of speech is not an absolute value or intrinsic right at all, but a weapon. Thus its implementation or limitation is a matter of individual policy, so long as that policy serves the Truth and opposes lies. George Lincoln Rockwell stood by the idealized attitude towards free speech, saying that everyone should be free to say whatever they want, however soon as that speech turns to action the action must be met with direct opposition. Meanwhile Sir Oswald Mosley had proposed introducing a court, where the State could sue the press for libel.

Whatever policy any given Fascist/NS state may adopt towards free speech, the true fundamental consideration that will have to be taken into account is the following: we uphold and defend the Truth. However the scope of the Truth is narrow and rigid, for the Truth is ever singular. The scope of lies, on the other hand, is infinite, and thereby lax, more is permissible, only Truth is not allowed. Lies present a threat of obscurification to Truth, all of them. Truth represents an existential threat to Lies, to all of them. Hence lies allow more debates and free speech and Truth allows less.

Opinions are born of ignorance. And in a world where Truth has triumphed free speech will be the exclusive weapon of lies. However, for the time being, in a world of lies, free speech is a weapon for anyone involved in Power Politics, who wishes to determine the future, provided that they have the WILL to take up other weapons as well.

And oh the “irony”, that the weapon of free speech gives us the tool to tell everyone what those other weapons are.


SIEGE, 7.3

The Years of Lead are coming back.


  1. It’s real simple you need free speech now but after you take power you don’t let your enemies have free speech.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *