All posts by Hangman

WHY?

I close the bathroom door behind me and stand there in the hallway for a moment, shame and disgust taking hold of me. Why am I doing this? Why am I doing this for the 3rd time today? I didn’t even feel like doing it for the first time and yet here I am, 6pm and already masturbated 3 times this day.

What is wrong with me?

I enter my room and even though it’s still day outside it’s filled with darkness. The only light source is my desk lamp. I go to my desk and move the mouse. Computer screen turns back on and I sit there staring at it. Some dumb fantasy wallpaper is on the desktop. I am bored. Like I always am. I click around with my mouse and then open my browser to play some EDM. After that it’s time to play the latest game I torrented.

Same routine like every day. Maybe I will masturbate again afterwards. Not like I have anything else to do.

Days pass, months, even years. Nothing changes. Same shit over and over again. Maybe sometimes I feel like making a change. I make new plan. I will get up early tomorrow and go for a walk, maybe exercise a bit. Maybe even read something other than stupid fantasy books. I drink more water, I eat healthier. I go out with “friends” I haven’t seen in months. That lasts for week, maybe two. But the old routine is calling me, the abyss is pulling me back. And I’m too weak to fight it.

Because I lack that “Why?”.

That meaning to my life that will give me strength to overcome. To fight off my demons, to crush them and leave the abyss forever.

And I found that meaning in Adolf Hitler and National Socialism.

His hand reached down and pulled me out of the bottomless dark pit that was my life until then. He shook me up and gave me a sword. Turned me into another warrior for his Last Battalion. But it was not easy. It didn’t happen overnight. Slowly over time I gained ground against my demons. Inch By inch I pushed them back, won more battles than I have lost. I would fall and not get up for weeks at a time. But he would pull me back to my feet again. I would listen to him speak and my whole body would get energized, tears would stream down my cheeks. Resolve would again light up in my chest, burning stronger than before. The struggle continued.

I was always skinny so I decided to eat more and hit the gym. One of the best decisions in my life. Before I would exercise at home but had nothing to motivate me and push me to train harder. Now I was lifting not primarily for women, but to prepare myself, physically and mentally, for the bloody future that awaits us. As my lifting numbers went up so did my confidence. With healthier diet my skin cleared.

I looked people in the eyes when talking to them. No more muttering either. I spoke clearly and strongly. Started reading real books now, specifically Fascist literature and eventually discovered another person who affected my life greatly, Savitri Devi. The flame that was burning inside me thanks to Führer now turned into a bonfire and is still burning with the same intensity to this day.

I am still fighting my demons and I am sure I will do it until the day I die. The struggle never ends. But I am not alone now and I finally know what path to take. I finally have that “Why?”.

By Anonymous
Submit your 1488 Confessions to admin@ropeculture.org

PURPOSE TO LIVE

The hurricane winds, heavy enough to rip trees out of the ground as if by Kalki himself, blow through the night. I’m alone in my room. A cultureless, true-blue American boy, crying and wishing that he could die right then and there. This was my first true awakening, however in the stead of eternal truth, I had formed a blackpill.

It started around a February, when I had decided to try and learn German. Now, I was an edgelord, completely and totally; the next logical thing was to essentially larp as a Nazi. I ultimately considered it a joke; after all, I loved America and Nazis were terrible people who threw babies in fires at the bottom of smoke pits right in front of their mothers and family (That’s from “Night”, which our class had read earlier that year).

So I had started learning German. As a first reading I decided to buy an ebook of Mein Kampf for .99 shekels, but I didn’t read more than the first 40 pages or so before dropping it. Pondering on why I was attracted to German, I thought that, as an American, I really had no culture. I was always told the joke about White people doing nothing and how Blacks were cool and stuff. Now, I had always hated niggers but never spics until that year, and I didn’t even hate dunecoons until my awakening. I latched onto the German culture as I had some of it in my ancestry. My Grandfather identified himself as a German-American and his grandfather could speak the language.

I quickly became attached to the heritage aspect of that side, learning all about German history. I got the urge to pick Mein Kampf up again, and resumed my reading. I had recently moved to the windy location, and was surrounded by people I hated now more than ever.

I had gotten to about halfway through the first volume. I don’t know what really triggered the crying. Maybe it was the weather. But I know that I had realized by now that America had been on the wrong side of the war and that I was going to be a minority. The white and therefore Aryan race would be gone forever.

Blackpilled by myself, I really had nothing to do. Nothing to live for. Compound that with the Dylann Roof incident, and it appeared to me that no damage could be done against these Jews. The song “Voices in the Wind/Stimmen in Wind” was something I listened to almost every day.

School started up again. By now, I had found out Ironmarch and decided to sign up. Immediately in my first thread I was bombarded with questions on all sorts of things, and one of the first replies to my intro was Odin talking about Atomwaffen.

I was surprised, I had never expected this state full of spics and nigs to have Nazis in it; I was hesitant to say the least. I was let in almost instantly, and in a couple of months we met at a shooting range. I was in utter shock, he was not only an actual Nazi but a great guy himself and him being such a happy personality had such a profound experience on me. I could live a happy life in accordance with National Socialism. He showed me the book SIEGE when the group first got it. I had gotten the main point (action, not politics, is the answer) across within the first 80 pages, but it took a couple months to read the rest of it.

This began my kind-of-shitty skinhead phase. Since I was just a happy kid, I also always talked with everyone about Hitler. This is what I thought that I could do as a kid, unless I wanted to pull a Columbine – and I viewed those people as having no purpose in life.

The thing was, I was also beta and caused the look of NatSoc to be weak. The end to this shitty skinhead phase was that I found out I had ancestors from a different side than German actually die fighting for the Confederacy. I felt honored for once in my life. It inspired me to try and live for a true cause, combining National Socialism with the actual culture my ancestor had and become a man. To not be just some kid now, but a real man with a cause and goals to work towards. Combine that with the work of Evola on culture and America and I realized my part in the great work.

Since then I had joined sports, causing my body to develop into a better shape. I have had girls and not hated them with a MGTOW-tier passion, and a job for me to start saving up for total SIEGE. For the past couple of years I have accepted that I will die, but now I know that my life is for the cause of National Socialism. If I die it is spreading the cause of true Fascism, not some sacerdotal version of Skinheadism and Walmart Nazis with Soccer Moms.

To paraphrase, “I live again”.

By THRAX
Submit your 1488 Confessions to admin@ropeculture.org

OSWALD MOSLEY – EUROPEANS

A powerful documentary by The Vindex that we wanted to publish and bring our readers’ attention to much earlier, dedicated to the life and struggle of one of our movement’s great Champions – Sir Oswald Mosley.

Nothing more needs to be said or written, as the documentary will speak for itself. We would only like to note the incredibly high quality of its production – truly a work of unrelenting faith and dedication, which, when combined with the kind of quality talent that exists among us Fascists and National Socialists, can produce something truly great and worthy of our forefather’s memory.

The Blackshirt is a revolutionary dedicated to the service of our country. We must always possess the character of the true revolutionary. It is not the character that you observe in the little men of the old parties, blown hither and thither by every gust of convenience opinion, elated by a little success, downcast by a little failure, gossiping and chattering about the prospects of the next five minutes, jostling for place, but not so forward in service. Without loyalty, endurance, or staying power, such a character is the hallmark of financial democratic politics. It is the opposite of National Socialism.

In the true revolutionary, the first quality is the power to endure. Constancy, loyalty to cause and comrades, manhood and stability of nature. These are the qualities of the true Britain and the true revolutionary. In our movement that great character of the British has been reborn. And for that reason we carry within us the destiny of Britain. We care not whether we win tomorrow morning or at the end of a lifetime of labour and of struggle. For to us the little calculations of the little men mean nothing. All we care is that win we will because Britain demands it and no power on earth can hold down the will within us.

Struggles we have had and will have. Blows we have taken and will again. Victories we have had and will have again, yes greater victories than even Britons have ever known. Through good and ill we march on, till victory be won, for this is the character of the true revolutionary. In the great moments of supreme struggle and decision it is easy to hold that character, even in supreme sacrifice. It is not so easy in the hard daily task. It is then even more that in the great fights we have together that I would like to be the companion of every one of you. I would like to be with every action team that carries the message of our new faith to new streets. I would like to be with every man or woman during the hard but vital job of giving leadership to the people in the block of houses for which they are responsible.

For these are the jobs that come, by the dedication of thousands to that mission of leading the people in their own homes and streets, revolution is won. In that task I cannot in body be with everyone of you every day. But in spirit I am with you always. Because this work of the dedicated Blackshirt will win the Britain to which my whole spirit is given. Together in Britain we have lit a flame that the atheists shall not extinguish. Guard that sacred flame my brother Blackshirts until it illumines Britain and lights again the path of mankind.

-Sir Oswald Mosley

 

THE REALITY OF FREE SPEECH

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.

BASICS OF POWER POLITICS

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.

CONFLICT IN POWER POLITICS

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.

LIBERAL “POLITICS”

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 Minds.com 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.

FREE SPEECH AND NATIONAL SOCIALISM

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.

WE ARE AT WAR WITH THIS SOCIETY…

SIEGE, 7.3

The Years of Lead are coming back.

A CALL TO RADICAL ACTION

Introduction

Subcomandante Marcos from the Zapatista Army of National Liberation

In the light of recent events, it has felt necessary to not only criticise the current  path by many self-professed “radicals”, but to show ways in which people can choose a more radical path rather than participating in the Elite’s game of political control, which ensures the entrapment of the radical. 

The following passage is divided into three parts:

  1. The Failure of Political Struggle
  2. The Path We Take
  3. The Strangling Grasp of the State
  4. Conclusion

For further reading, the following authors are a must:

  • Rene Guenon [Traditionalist]
  • Julius Evola [Traditionalist]
  • Savitri Devi [Esoteric Hitlerist]
  • Sergey Nechayev [Nihilist]
  • Corneliu Codreanu [Fascist]
  • James Mason [National Socialist]
  • Mikhail Bakunin [Anarchist]

1. The Failure of Political Struggle

Within the light of the events unfolding at Charlottesville, Virginia, in which the rally Unite the Right took place, one should be – if previously in support of ‘peaceful’ action – utterly demoralised: GOOD. Ever since 1945 the call to a political struggle, the one of the ballot box, the one of playing their own game, has utterly failed. It has never been achieved. Indeed, with the demographic shift – in which Europeans shall start becoming a minority in their own nations by the end of this century –  a democratic option will be even less of a ‘possible’ option.

When Mussolini marched on Rome, did he ask for the ballot box? When Hitler became Chancellor, was he voted there? No! In fact, upon his becoming of the Fuhrer, in the year 1933, the National Socialist German Workers Party received 17,277,180 votes, 43.91% of the vote, 288 seats, an increase of 92 seats. Why the gain? Failure of the state and the prowess of the Brownshirts on the streets, smashing through the communist hordes on the streets. The banning of the Communist Party after the Reichstag fire only cemented his power within the Reichstag to usher in total control – it was a legal loophole via Article 48 of the Weimar Republic’s constitution, not one of the ballot box! Did Codreanu rely on his elections? Nay, they continued in perpetual struggle against all odds, aiding the peasants and striving to pure excellence of the virtue of self-sacrifice.

The March on Rome, Mussolini and his Blackshirts, 28-29th of October 1922

The arguments used by modern Fascists for winning via the ballot box are absurd. They change their ways to accommodate more-so to the public. They liquidate their message and become more materialistic in nature, they become subdued to the demands of the masses.

Even the Anarchists, who hold the opposite of our worldview, which advocate  the domination of the Shudra caste and the destruction of  all hierarchy in the material and spiritual sense, still see the issues of the ballot box.

The National-Syndicalist thinker George Sorel In Reflections on Violence (1908),  stated that a revolution would come about through a general strike, a ‘revolution of empty hands’. The general strike was a political myth, a belief that has the capacity to provoke political action by virtue of its emotional power rather than through an appeal to reason. Through this appeal to the emotion of the people would a universal strike occur, causing the capitalist infrastructure to collapse. They believed that boycotting products, sabotaging machinery and organising mass strikes would help ushering in said collapse.

The Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin led a conspiratorial brotherhood named the Alliance for Social Democracy. Errico Malatesta in Italy, Russian Populists and Zapata’s revolutionaries in Mexico worked for a peasant revolution in the 19th and early 20th century. Some still placed emphasis on terrorism and violence. The late 19th century and the 1970s were peak periods of said action via clandestine violence through bombings and assassinations to create an atmosphere of terror or apprehension. Victims include Tsar Alexander II (1881), King Umberto of Italy (1900), Empress Elizabeth of Austria (1898) and Presidents Carnot (1894) of France and McKinley (1901). They justified this by stating that it mirrors the everyday violence of everyday society hence it is revolutionary justice. Russian populists portrayed violence as propaganda by the deed. The Russian Nihilist Sergey Nechayev ensured that the Narodnaya Volya – People’s Will – assassinated Tsar Alexander II, rather than using their resources to free him as was originally perpetuated by the group. In Catechism of a Revolutionary, Nechayev realised that the revolutionary is a doomed man. If his comrades succeed because of him taking a sacrifice then he had fulfilled his ‘duty’.

March 13th 1881: Alexander II assassinated by the People’s Will

But said revolutionary violence and direct action is not limited to them, indeed the Bolsheviks – a faction in the Social Democrats – took power via the October Revolution in 1917, using weapons given to them by the 2nd Minister-Chairman of the Russian Provisional Government Alexander Kerensky during the Kornilov Affair. The Bolsheviks made an alliance with the Kronstadt Sailors, and with their ship the Aurora they enclosed the city, taking over communications and key strategic positions, and storming the Winter Palace.

Indeed, further violence took place in many less-economically-developed-countries [LEDCs] using the idea of Lenin’s Revolutionary Vanguard. Said Vanguard was comprised of devoted revolutionaries, well versed in Marxist ideology, who would lead the working class towards class consciousness to help provoke revolt.

These groups have one key thing in common with us, the Traditionalists: they are radicals.


2. The Path We Take

Julius Evola

In Julius Evola’s Heathen Imperialism, Evola states that we have three possible paths to take as “the rhythm accelerates, [as] the circle of Western ‘civilisation’ threatens to close’ [Our European Symbol, Nietzsche Misunderstood]. He mentions that we can:

  • Withdraw, putting up barriers and leaving everyone else behind, the lemmings, and to break the bridges before the sons of Muspell think of it (a reference to Ragnarok when the sons of Muspell ride over Bifrost) and hence prevent them from reaching us
  • To accelerate the ongoing closing of the circle, provoking it, to give way to a new beginning
  • Or we unite to revolt, with a ‘destructive force on one hand, with a creative force on the other’

To summarise, we either flee to the hills and never return, accelerate the decline in any way possible, or we mass-revolt and plunge the West into chaotic violence.

To note, Heathen Imperialism was written in 1928  and then again in 1933. In 1928 the Italian Fascists were well situated, although he particularly notes in The Path of Cinnabar that:

“The Fascist ‘revolution’ in Italy had only affected certain political bodies: even from a political perspective, it had only been a half-hearted attempt at revolution, which never led to the development of a coherent, systematic and uncompromising doctrine of the State.”

As such, the Italian ‘revolution’ of the Fascists led by Mussolini was ultimately one of failure. It was materialistic, it did not change society in the manner Evola perpetuated.

As we well know, times have changed. No longer is WWI weaponry circulating our markets, no longer can we avoid the ever-growing eye of the state through their means of electronic over watch, no longer can we battle the state in the streets without superior technology flying over us, and no longer can we rally enough men to the streets to take action like the brave men of the Blackshirts, the Brownshirts, the Legionaries; nay, for our men lack the heroic courage such heroes held. We shy from violence, we shy from wanting bad public reputation, we shy from any concrete action!

Of course, the latter bullet point does not necessarily dictate a mass revolt, but a battalion, Nietzsche’s “last Battalion” of men who, unlike the other men of the period, will shape the destiny of the future of the West against all odds. For Savitri Devi, the fallen fighters of 1945 were “against Time”, as are their heirs, they are “the bridge to supermanhood”. We are the sword of the Last One, the avatar of Vishnu, Kalki, of which the Vedas foretold, who shall come striking down and create a world anew. With or without a wielder, the fight must continue.

“Out of the surface of her (Durga’s) forehead, fierce with frown, issued suddenly Kali of terrible countenance, armed with a sword and noose. Bearing the strange khatvanga (skull-topped staff ), decorated with a garland of skulls, clad in a tiger’s skin, very appalling owing to her emaciated flesh, with gaping mouth, fearful with her tongue lolling out, having deep reddish eyes, filling the regions of the sky with her roars, falling upon impetuously and slaughtering the great asuras in that army, she devoured those hordes of the foes of the devas.”   Hitlerian, https://hitlerian.tumblr.com/

This overlaps with accelerationism. Indeed, with such times one must not give way to too much emphasis on violence, for the state shan’t be pleased. Accelerationism not only denotes violence (see the Years of Lead), but it also denotes the idea of breaking the System by any means possible. Actively take yourself out of the System. Go off-grid, do not feed the System! Be self reliant, not reliant on the state. Five, ten, one hundred, one thousand, one million – it does not matter how many do, it is still a punch to the System.  The socialist Charles Fourier made experiments in communal living, such as 1800 member phalansteries. Harmony in Indiana (1824-9) was set up by Robert Owen, modelling it on the Israeli kibbutz system which was a cooperative rural settlement system. Many other such communes were established by both socialists and anarchists, with the majority being incredibly self-reliant.

As for Evola’s first point, this does convey the idea of total withdrawal, being completely off the grid, completely self-sufficient, isolated and hence a total recluse… From the perversions of the modern world, of the Kali Yuga. A path can be forged in which the hero, the Solar Warrior, the Men Against Time, can prevail and aid the ushering in of the new age – the Golden Age.

But this is only possible not just through the damaging of the System, but through the pursuit of the path of the Warrior, the becoming of the Aristocrat of the soul. Men must become and fulfill their destiny, they have to embody Evola’s Solar Warrior, the Man with a higher cause than himself, a Man fighting not just for his blood, his soil, but for the very spiritual foundation the West lays upon. He must fight for Truth.

“The good fighter does ‘what has to be done’ and does not let himself be troubled by any scepticism’  – Evola 

He must not be stopped by petty materialistic desire, nor by himself, he must strip aside the petty I, the ego, the body – and conjoin his soul and spirit into one. He must manifest the being of a god, to become the overman.

“The blood of the heroes is closer to God than the ink of the philosophers and the prayers of the faithful.” – Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World

It is not by words, but by deeds.

“Fascism is not Tory Reaction in a black shirt or a brown shirt, but the steel piston of realist revolution.” – William Brooke Joyce


3. The Strangling Grasp of the State

As such, the matter of being a radical is not simply committing to senseless acts of violence, but for a larger purpose. You are no longer invested in yourself but for a higher cause, a justification from the spirit. You must be radical in deed, not by thought – the pen does not change society. As we face an uncertain future, one must look away from conventional politics which have entrapped not only us – the Traditionalists – through the means of the ‘Alt Right’, but also the socialists through the Fabian Society which was founded in 1884 which took up the cause of parliamentary socialism in the UK, taking the name from the Roman General Fabius Maximus who was a patient and defensive tactician against Hannibal’s invading armies. They accept the use of the state as a neutral arbiter, rather than the Marxist belief of it being as an agent of class oppression. Eduard’s Bernstien’s Evolutionary Socialism (1898) developed ideas that paralleled the Fabian belief in gradualism, progress brought about via gradual improvement rather than dramatic upheaval and is thus achieved through legal and peaceful reform. The traditional working class, composed of manual labourers in established heavy industries have declined in size, giving rise to the idea of two-thirds, one-third societies, giving the socialist the belief that they can gradually shift society through the ballot box. Both ends, for the Traditionalist and for the Communist, are dead ends and dead weight. As such, the ruling Elite have entrapped the radicals which threatens them most via the appeasement of the proletariat (be it through utilitarianism or social welfare) to halt any uprisings.

Charlottesville and the fiasco of the Unite the Right Rally should hence serve as a primary example as to how the Elite can keep the ‘Right’ subdued. The false lead of change through protest, through ‘numbers’ (albeit not many considering the hype towards the event and the actual number of viewers/members for all the websites/groups combined for this event), and through legality has caused such membership to become eunuchs. Eunuchs of whom are not willing to go further, who are emasculated by the state through such false hopes. Even now in the aftermath, with the comments of President Donald Trump denouncing the so-called ‘Alt-Left’ gives such members a false hope. They made no impact whatsoever, indeed their actions – rather ironically – has caused the further destruction of Confederate statues, monuments and even possibly graves (as some leftist groups claim to be plotting), and hence their idea of defending Robert E. Lee’s statue through legal means, of winning over both the public and government authorities, did not work. And now members who attended this event are facing consequences via the release of their personal information on social media, and is being encouraged not just by the public but also by the media and officials. As such their potentiality of losing their stake in society through means of a career and social standing is high. And without a stake, these disgruntled young men will have no means of economic prowess.

The Conservative One Nation view on this matter would be thus; growing social inequality contains the seeds of revolution, and without members of society fulfilling an acceptance of duty and obligations, the individual would succumb to a rebellious attitude. To quell such rebellious attitude, the Conservative Party Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli implemented the Second Reform Act of 1867, giving the right to vote to the working class, and improving the housing conditions and general hygiene. An analogy can be made to our current situation, with the unemployed being given free housing and benefits, such as a monthly income. As such, the newly unemployed due to their actions at this rally have two choices: to either remain cushy with the state and maintaining their so-called ‘stake’ in society, or they can turn to more radical measures. Thus far we have established that: the radicals of the left took power through non-conventional means of revolutionary violence and direct action, the need for the individual to fulfill the role of the Solar Warrior for a higher cause than himself, and the fact that the state has ensured entrapment of the radicals through false-leading incentives. As such, the participants from Charlottesville should pursue a new path as dictated; one of accelerationism.

Accelerationism denotes different things to different people: a total withdrawal, terrorism, or random mob violence. A clear-cut definition of accelerationism is simple: to speed up the decline of the state. Such a method should be employed by all those who are certain that:

  •  The decline of the state is occurring and its collapse is inevitable
  • They have no obligations but to their cause
  • They are willing maximum sacrifice

The revolutionaries who fought and died for the Anarchist utopian dream were not held back by material luxury, they were not held back by pondering on ‘what if?’. They were dedicated, they were fixated, and they knew what they wanted. One cannot and should not expect to be able to employ similar tactics to the ones of old in the 1920s and 1930s, nor indeed during the late 19th century under the various Anarchists. Instead, we have to look to a newer, updated vision. Upon using the three options given by Evola in part two, we can conclude that the best path forward is a self-reliant, effective route: and such a route would be the initiation of not only self-withdrawal from society, becoming autonomous and self-reliant, but of a decentralised framework of radicals whom – not endangering the larger group as a whole [as is the danger with a centralised system being infiltrated] – operate on, largely, their own. Of course, to go into depth on the matter would ensure not only the author and potentially reader being put on the watchlist of the state, but to get a lovely knock on the door by authorities. As such, the matter of much more radical and devoted matters shall remain untouched, leaving it to the reader’s imagination. However, one can explore methods employed by groups already in effect in the modern world.

The tactic of fear shall always remain an effective choice. Whereas it does not accelerate the decline per say, it does ensure that: the enemy knows of your presence, and the attraction of radicals to your group. I point to groups such as Atomwaffen Division and Antipodean Resistance, with their posters not only explicitly stating their views and intentions, but give them attention and a spotlight – allowing the establishment to spread their message far and wide. The tactic of self-reliance has been dropped around this post rather frequently. Self-reliance and offgrid living come hand in hand; you do not rely on the state for your electricity, you do not rely on the corporations for your food; instead you supply your own energy, instead you grow your own crops. Such independence grants you autonomy, such independence grants you a cheaper, humbler way to live. Indeed, with soaring prices of both land and houses in the UK – for example in 1987 the house price to earnings ratio was 3.2 compared to in 2015 5.1  – and the same trend occurring across Europe due to the growth in housing demand, there is sensibility for not only buying land and living cheaper, but to group together for such a purchase. Such a group purchase is a risky move, for not only do you throw yourself completely into the group you will be sharing with, you make a financial commitment. You effectively throw all your wagers in. All or nothing. Codreanu, although not going so far with this, ensured that all members for example paid a membership fee – their stake was now in the group, in the ideology, rather than with society. The Anarchist communes previously mentioned had operated in a good manner, with people from varying economic backgrounds being able to participate in such group purchases.

Finally, the tactic of compassion. What is meant by this is not one of peace, love and happiness, but one of doing good in the world. Casapound for example put to use the idea of squatting, illegally taking buildings for their own and aiding the poor, those without a community. This doesn’t just infer squatting, but taking up the aid of your local community, too – helping with projects around say your village, your town, your city block – resurrecting the lost community spirit, which has been ultimately fractured by the atomisation of the individual and the concern of the I. Such tactics seem obvious, but they help breed and attract the radical. The masses aren’t going to come flocking to your banner, we have seen the failure time and time again. You don’t want moderates who aren’t wholly committed, who back out at the last moment and say “well, I’m not a racist!” or “I’m not a Nazi, I just want to protect history!”, or whom do not stand by their comrades and abandon them for their own safety. What we want is to forge a community, a community of radicals who become a family, and not atomised individuals. We must escape from the snare of the state, who wish to impede our efforts, and not feed it – after all, the Alt-Right only give way for the Elite to play at their own game.


4. Conclusion

Become the Man Against Time, become part of the sword which will begin a new Golden Age, and do not be swallowed into the false ideals of hope through comfortable, democratic means. The path forward is one of hardship and sacrifice. It is one where you take the plunge, removing yourself from that stake which pins you to the government, and using that stake, plunging it fully into the Truth. Your stake must not belong to the government, but the Truth. Your stake is not theirs to hold onto. Become radical in motive and you shall become the man who you were destined to be.

 

JAMES MASON IS BACK!

When IronMarch discovered James Mason’s book SIEGE, it was something of an “ah ha!” moment for us. Mason, a veteran in the American fascist movement, had deep insights into the various strategies that had been used by various people and groups.

Studying his work allowed us to consolidate our understanding of the practical aspects of the struggle, and clear up the way forward. We quickly got to work making a new, sleeker and more readable version of SIEGE in order to spread the message.

We also set about to find out more about the author, who seemed to have completely disappeared after his last known interview in 2003. Had he started new projects? Did he write new books? Would he be willing to communicate with us? These questions got us started on our quest to track down James Mason in search for answers.

This has turned out to be a long and difficult process, which stretched out over several years.

But after being frustrated by multiple dead ends in our research, the members of the AtomWaffen Division have finally managed to find Mason and thus make this interview possible.

Most of this interview was conducted during the first meeting between an AWD representative and Mason, which occurred on the 25th of March in 2017.

AWD search party on deployment.
Alive and well!

Interview

There’s been a revival in interest in your book, SIEGE, in recent years. We’ve counted 16,000 downloads and 10,000 online consultations on our server alone.

“Jesus Christ, that’s amazing.”

Since the book is hard to find now, a new version was released by IronMarch. Thoughts on that?

“Yeah, fine with me. The object isn’t to make money, any money you make wouldn’t be much, anyway.”

What have you been up to since your last public interview in 2003? Are there any particular stories that you’re willing to share?

“That’s when the second edition of Siege came out. I tried to get “The Theocrat” published, but that never materialized. I was also the head of security for several K-Marts, I guess that they didn’t realize that they were hiring the Gestapo. Also, I saved some money, and self-published books, but they never got much circulation. In 2002, I saw William Luther Pierce on TV, and I called his number, and we planned dinner. The same evening that we planned dinner, he died. They (the National Alliance) had me come to their next meeting, to give Dr. Pierce’s eulogy. I produced 3 documentaries on George Rockwell, and 3 on me. Now, I’m waiting for somebody to step up. I’m trying to work with people, but they are all dead, or out of the movement”.

Have these documentaries been released? If not, do you have the tapes, so we can release them on the internet, at least?

“These documentaries aired on DCTV. And yes, I can give you some copies.”

Do you use the internet to keep up with events? How familiar are you with the political scene online?

“No, and not at all. All I know, is that it has changed a lot of minds.”

In your 2003 interview, you mentioned your move towards Christianity. Are you still Christian? Can you shed some light on this change?

“Well, like I said about “The Theocrat” and “Mein Kampf,” Mein Kampf is the third testament. I started out NS, and I’ll die NS. When I wrote the Theocrat, I said “These stupid bastards who call themselves Christians don’t know what they’re talking about.” About twenty years ago I stopped worrying, because we know how it ends, we’ve read it in the book of Revelation. I know that there are parallel universes, that’s how deja vu exists. I had an experience on Capitol Hill, a feeling that made me know that parallel universes are real”.

There’s been an upsurge in interest in so-called “Esoteric Hitlerism” in the past few years, including the works of Savitri Devi and Miguel Serrano (as well as Evola). Considering your opinion that Mein Kampf is the third testament, how do you view this direction of National Socialism as a self-contained religion?

“Hitler himself is the Elijah spoken of in the final verses in the old testament. Hitler is right in line with any of the prophets in the bible.”

What’s your opinion on Savitri Devi, and Rockwell’s admiration for her work? You did have some quotes from her in Siege – are you very familiar with her works?

“If anybody was Esoteric, it was her. Savitri Devi, or anybody who is pro-Hitler, Esoteric or not, is as good as gold.”

Are you willing to share the aforementioned experience on capitol hill?

“I wrote about that in my book “Revisiting Revelation.” So, my answer is Yes.”

What was your relationship like/what was your opinion of William Luther Pierce?

“Dr. Pierce was a great guy, he was my mentor, even my savior. A friend of mine introduced me to the idea of doing lectures to kids in school. I told the kids, and this really got their attention – I told the kids “When I was 16, I was trying like hell to get out of school. I was going to be sent to Boys’ industrial (pretty much a lockup). My dad had an arsenal, and I was going to go into the school, and blow myself and the staff up. I called Arlington, called the ANP, and only Dr. Pierce was there, he picked up. I asked him if he needed any help, and he said yes. He saved my life and other people’s lives. I said this at the eulogy. Dr. Pierce was a giant, 6’5, and a family man. He got divorced, sadly, no family can handle that level of stress”.

Harold Covington, who’s widely considered as a slanderer, has said some negative things about Pierce. Can you debunk them here for posterity since you’ve known him personally?

“Covington has said negative things about everyone, including me. After he failed in all of his endeavors, he became a slanderer just to keep himself in print.”

What do you consider to have been the most crucial political events in that period (2003 to present day) in the USA and Europe?

“Probably the election of Obama, that was a big step down. Not that things changed, but that was one of the darkest moments. What a terrible, terrible signal”

Some have considered that Obama’s election has been a huge boon the the nationalist cause. Do you think that, from the SIEGE mindset, his election could have been positive, in that it made the situation worse?

“Rockwell started out by saying “When things get bad enough, they’ll come flocking to our door”. They didn’t come out in those days, and they’re not coming out now.”

What is your opinion on Anders Breivik and his actions?

“The guy was dead on. I’m never gonna disown anybody who does something like that. But, you’ve gotta understand, doing something like that, it’s the end of your life. You’re not gonna start a revolution, and nothing is gonna change. You might be a hero, you might be a martyr, but you won’t start anything.”

Have your views on Charles Manson changed? Was any of your promotion of him “played up” to gain attention? Did you stay in contact with him all these years?

“My views on Manson have not changed. We had a society post-WW2 that was disintegrating, a mile a minute. We had a hippie generation, a country that was heading headlong into National Suicide. Manson’s commune was solidly, solidly White. Then, after the arrests took place, the Left, the Jewish left, tried to make him a symbol. And, as a reaction to that, he carved a big Swastika into his forehead. Dr. Pierce first realized that. My opinion of Manson has not changed. All of the institutions of our system have been changed, they’re being used against us. Manson dropped out of this. Also, Lynette Fromme’s attempt on President Ford was not a serious attempt, it was a protest against not being able to correspond with Manson”.

Can you tell us more about what Pierce thought about Manson? We’ve never come across his comments in his lectures or writings.

“Well, I used to get his newspaper ‘Attack’ every month. I always looked forward to each issue of that. Soon after the Manson thing, Pierce said that, after Manson carved the swastika into his forehead, he said “The Jewish/leftist Peanut gallery that had been cheering Manson on fell silent.” After I dedicated SIEGE to Manson, he called me on the phone and said “Maybe we ought to distance ourselves from Charles Manson.”

What’s your opinion on Trump? How similar is the Trump phenomenon to the Ronald Reagan situation?

“I think it’s a lot deeper, a lot more radical. In that sense, I’m mildly encouraged by it. Trump is certainly no answer.”

Some people in the alt-right believe that Trump is swaying people towards National Socialism. Do you think there’s any chance of that?

“Not a chance in hell. Trump is probably a ringer. The Jews will realize that a lot of hate and resentment needs to be let out, and they’ll send out a phony like Trump.”

We’ve shown you some footage of National Action in the UK and their banning by the authorities. What is your opinion of this phenomenon?

“How many times was Hitler banned in Germany? They banned the brownshirts, so they wore white shirts. They banned Hitler from speaking, so he sent out Rosenberg or Dr. Goebbels.”

What do you think is the way forward for nationalist groups?

“Forget about legalities, forget about economics. It’s about demographics. The nations of the west are being purposefully made non-white. Just like the Caananite tribes, when they decided that they couldn’t take Israel head-on, they decided to intermix with them. You need to focus on demographics, not legalities or Economics. Illegal Immigrant, Legal immigrant, doesn’t matter how they got here, just that they’re here.”

Is there hope for America? What is your prognosis on the future – are we looking at balkanization, collapse, or something else?

“Well, you know, Balkanization is not gonna be allowed to happen. They want us all in one bucket, so we can all go down nice and easily together. You’ve heard of those Nazi groups in the Northwest, right? They’re being murdered by the FBI. The future is not bright for this country. Most of what it has done by the US government over the past centuries, has been anti-civilization. The prognosis for this place is disaster.”

Do you plan on publishing or releasing the books that you’ve written since SIEGE was released?

“Well, I’ve tried. I’m just one guy.”

You know how Rockwell talked about “Sneaky Nazis,” (i.e. racist conservatives who pretend to otherwise be “politically correct”)? Those are still around. What’s your opinion on the phenomenon?

“It’s just cowardice. Rockwell also said “You can’t outsneak the master sneaks”. “

One thing that’s been happening in the past few years (and to a lesser extent, the last few decades) is the extreme normalization of homosexuality and other perversions. Some on the current “right wing” are going along with this, under the logic that perverts can be nationalists too (or just useful as promoters). Thoughts on this?

“Rockwell used to say “No civilization has survived that tolerated that very long”. If a society allows that, it’ll also allow things like race-mixing, and other perversions. There’s this idiot Yiannoupoulos, and he goes out there and makes a fool of himself, and the movement.”

Much has happened since this initial interview was conducted, AWD had experienced what is likely going to be its darkest moment, however it was not broken, and now, today, on James Mason’s 65th Birthday, one of its greatest achievements is being brought to light.

AWD remained in regular contact with Mr. Mason, and along with IRONMARCH.ORG, had pledged him our full support in publishing and promoting the various works he’s authored in the past years. These include multiple books and video documentaries. James Mason had also agreed to write a foreword for the IM edition of SIEGE [DOWNLOAD NOW!]

More importantly still, from these past few months of communications and exchanging of materials (including certain materials published on NOOSE itself!), James Mason has been so impressed with what he had learned of AWD and IM exploits, that he has decided to once again continue the SIEGE newsletter, which will be released, along with all other exclusive materials he is handing over to AWD and IM, on the official SIEGE websiteWe urge everyone to give their support to this project, to make a good deal of these materials available for purchase in print.

THE LEGEND AND LAST TRUE HEIR OF THE STRUGGLE GEORGE LINCOLN ROCKWELL HAD STARTED IN THE UNITED STATES IS BACK!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY AND SIEG HEIL, JAMES MASON!

YPERVOREIA -WOLFNACHT ALBUM REVIEW

Ypervoreia is the 7th full album released by Wolfnacht, which is one of Hellas’ most notorious one-man NSBM (National Socialist Black Metal) projects. It’s fronted by Athalwolf, who is a veteran in the Greek NSBM scene – he was behind numerous one-man projects, Zofos and Wolfnacht being the most famous. He is also known for his work as a session/live drummer for another of Hellas’ most famous NSBM acts, Der Stürmer.

In the early years of Wolfnacht, he played a healthy mix of RAC (Rock Against Communism) and NSBM, although the RAC influence is almost entirely gone at this point. Wolfnacht’s early works were in German, which slowly transitioned into English. This album, Ypervoreia is almost entirely in English, save for several verses and the track “Ypervoreia Acropolis”, which is in Greek.

Ypervoreia is Wolfnacht’s first concept album telling the story of a group of SS soldiers who are tasked with finding the mythical land of Hypervoreia. The story keeps the listener captivated as the soldiers make their way and arrive to the fabled land. You can image yourself riding the waves, braving the storms, and moving through the coldest reaches of the world to reach Hypervoreia.

The album comes with a booklet containing the English lyrics, but sadly the Greek lyrics were not included. Inside the booklet one will also find artwork of SS troops, a Kriegsmarine, and Greek architecture on the last two pages. The CD case also comes with a “thank you” note to the German authorities, for their decision to ban previous Wolfnacht albums.

The album pulls no punches. Right from the beginning of “Chasing Chimera” you get screaming rasps to kick off the album. You can envision the gloomy weather in which the soldiers are preparing to set sail. The first Greek verses rear their head during “Entrance to the Frigid Zone,” followed by the groovy “Surrounded by Fimbulwinter,” with an acoustic intermission, which are present throughout the album. The drum solo is joined by the distorted spoken word on “Penetrating the Cosmic Bonds,” creating a contrasting calm. The stand out “Ypervoreia Acropolis” is a hybrid of Ancient Greek music reminiscent of the Hymns to Apollo, mixed with black metal. “Isle of the Blessed” describes what wonders are to be seen in the land of Hypervoreia, which leads to the journey’s end, “At the Threshold of Madness.”

The album is full of atmosphere that transports the listener to the ends of the world: the music sets the tone of crushing waves and blistering winds at the journey’s onset, to the land of Hypervoreia itself and the captivating final moments of the story, where the SS troops find what awaits them.

Athalwolf certainly isn’t lacking when it comes to his musical ability. He’s proficient at everything he plays. There are no weak spots where he compensates one instrument over the other. Those who know of his previous works will enjoy the familiar sounds found on Project Ordensburg and Zeit der Cherusker. The bass guitar is present throughout the album, which is very similar to the bass work of Project Ordensburg. The lyrics are very audible and easy to comprehend even to those who are unfamiliar with metal. The blatant NS lyrics that are commonplace, do not appear on this album, with the very few mentions of the SS, swastikas, and U-Boats. The drum work is great as always, with the trudging mid-paced guitars setting the vibe of the album. The 4 year gap between releases has really allowed Athalwolf to polish the little details.

This is definitely an album I’d suggest even for those not usually into NSBM. The atmosphere is great, the story is enjoyable, and it certainly was worth the long wait between releases. This is likely one of Wolfnacht’s most accessible albums, which could be a nice starting point for one’s own journey to become familiar with NSBM. The official sample track for the album can be found here:

The album can be purchased in North America via Behold Barbarity, which offers decent shipping for our friends down under and in Europe through Christhunt Productions.

Review sent in by Another American

THIS TIME THE WORLD – GLR99

99 Years ago one of the Great Champions to our Struggle, and indeed, one of the truly Great Americans, was born – Commander George Lincoln Rockwell.

Most everyone in our ranks have heard the Commander speak, for some it were his words that got them involved in our Cause in the first place, however not that many have familiarized themselves with his written works. We sought to rectify that, starting with ourselves, and the consequences should be familiar to regular NOOSE readers and those who follow the IM twitter. We’ve grown even more uncompromising and steadfast in our hardline loyalty to the principles of Fascism/National Socialism and seek to advance the eternal work of its Champions, like Commander Rockwell.

To our amazement, shock and righteous anger we discovered that nothing had changed since Rockwell’s time, that he had faced all the same tired, fraudulent, disingenuous and cowardly criticisms and whining that we’ve come face to face with ourselves. The conclusion was self-evident: we cannot afford to be gentle with the various right-wing sissies and frauds that pretend to be our allies in order to avoid getting what’s coming to them, all the while desperately holding us back from success into the quagmire of their own ineptitude. We must be resolute and destroy anything and anyone who so much as raises a finger in objection to our actions, least we insult and trample the memory of Commander Rockwell, who had suffered and persevered despite everything that was tossed at him, until he was finally killed by an idiot-puppet of our enemies.

To commemorate George Lincoln Rockwell’s memory, and to make sure that his life’s story and invaluable lessons for our Struggle become widely known and recognized, it is with great honor that we release an official IronMarch edition PDF of the Commander’s autobiography:

THIS TIME THE WORLD! [PDF LINK]

We urge everyone to read this book, regardless if you are American or not. It is a matter of principle and duty for any faithful Fascist and National-Socialist to read it, for in it one will find what true dedication to our Struggle looks like, and we dare you not to tear up, grow angry, and find boundless inspiration in the life of this great Man, who had dedicated himself, mind, body and soul, to the eternal cause of the Swastika Banner and to Total Aryan Victory worldwide!

On this day we salute the Commander and promise to fulfill his glorious charge: This Time – THE WORLD!

Your White Aryan brothers in England, Sweden, Nigeria, Iceland, America, South Africa, Italy, France, Denmark, Argentina – EVERYWHERE – hear you! We are COMING! MARCHING! FIGHTING! The Great Day of JUSTICE DRAWS NIGH!

THIS TIME the traitors will not be able to find any group of White Men anywhere who will listen to their lies and go and murder the Jews’ enemies for them. There will be no place to hide. ..no place to start their eternal game of friendly subversion of their unsuspecting hosts … no place to generate their infernal hates and fratricidal wars … no place to set up their anvil of capitalist exploitation and their hammer of Communist revolution and slaughter.

THIS TIME the traitors will have only one place left in which they can at last find respite from the insane hate- monster which has been eating out their diseased hearts for six thousand years! … And we shall provide that final solace. With deadly, incredible irony, fate is now repeating what happened in Germany — on a world — wide scale!

THIS TIME we shall not be softhearted and gentle like the Great Man who refused to use his tanks to slaughter the helpless British at Dunkirk because he believed even Churchill had some honor and loyalty to Britain and the White Race left.

THIS TIME we shall not be content with “minding our own business”here while the Jews stir up another, world war to wash us away in oceans of irreplaceable White blood!

THIS TIME we shall not permit traitors to “escape” so that they can move in and betray them as the German Communist Jews did to America. None shall pass or escape retribution, not one!

THIS TIME we shall not put our faith in anything or anybody but our-selves, and our unshakable will, impelled onward by an inscrutable des-tiny which has already demonstrated its determination to resurrect the good whenever it is crucified by evil, as it is now all over the wretched planet.

THIS TIME we shall not rest nor lower our arm until the very last human rat and red snake is beaten to death, no matter how they squirm and crawl from pole to pole or from mountain top to jungle swamp!

THE LAST TIME our leader showed the way to victory in one single area of the earth. “Today Germany!” he predicted “TOMORROW THE WORLD!!”

Now it is TOMORROW! Now is the time, White Men!

THIS TIME THE WORLD!!!

HEIL HITLER!!!

ZERO TOLERANCE

In the time that it took to write this article (from December 7th 2016 to January 9th 2017) and to finalize its editing (from January 9th to the date of the article’s release) a number of events had transpired that had only proven further the need for it, it’s clarifications and the conclusions it draws. In that period some mild, lukewarm turn towards positive developments did occur, however they have no bearing on the subject matter of this article, which represents in some ways the result of about a year’s worth of our exposure to what is called the Altright and its various persona’s and groups.

Certain things could have been avoided had there been more clarity, however, for reasons that we’ll go over in this article, it is apparent that this was never an option. Nevertheless, through those unavoidable engagements and following observations we had extrapolated a complete image of what the Altright represents, and this article is the totality of our conclusions. If nothing else, this will serve as the all-inclusive one-stop-shopping masterpost answer as to why we have issues with any given group and the Altright scene in general. Perhaps, then, we won’t be questioned as to why we “can’t all just get along”.

We’ve quite literally had enough of the Altright and everything associated with it, so we are set on moving on and leaving it behind for good, as we no longer wish to bother – this was our attitude for several months now, but let this article be our New Year’s resolution, as we issue a call to all our true Fascists and National Socialists comrades – a call for Zero Tolerance.

Zero Tolerance for anyone who isn’t a Fascist or National Socialist, for we march alone. This article is our final call for everyone to decide if they do share this vision, as it will be explained below, and realize that there is but one way towards its achievement. Alternatively, if they find that they have nothing in common with us, then let us part ways and hear no more talk of “alliances” and “punching right”.

This article is bound to ruffle some feathers, all the feathers in fact. However if you set out to read it then we urge you not to ragequit a quarter of the way in, for its best if you just ignore it entirely. The article is  divided into four primary parts with 3 segments discussed in the second part, dealing with the nature of the Altright. All in all this article, which was started back in December, has grown into a literal Wall of Text (or a short book, and we do plan to release this material in a PDF file format)and the Altright are going to pay for it.

1. Where We Stand
2. The Weapon of Criticism

  • Altright – Entryism tactic?
  • Altright – Hipster conservatism?
  • Altright – Racist liberals?

3. The Criticism of Weapons
4. Total Aryan Victory

One of the prime features in this article is the heavily prevalent usage of quotations from a number of notable Fascist and National Socialist Champions, as well as official NS documents. One of the primary reason for this, beyond providing substantial examples of how everything we say is in line with the hardline orthodoxy of our views, is to also preemptively nullify a very disingenuous  practice that we have by now come to expect from our detractors, namely in how they misrepresent our Champions in attempts to chide us with select quotations that do not, in fact, counter our own stance. For example we are often told that Hitler valued the mass movement approach to which we display our uncompromising opposition. In reality Hitler likewise never believed in mass movements or any other of the tactics practiced by the Altright, as will be made very clear in the course of this article.

The other reason for providing these quotations is to help us discern who does not respect our Worldview and its Champions in the slightest despite their calls for “alliances” and “not punching right,” all the while dismissing us on the basis of non-stop quoting people who have, in fact, helped shape and bring into focus the orthodoxy of our views. It would be as ridiculous to chide Christians for always quoting Bible passages, to chide us for referring to those who had carried the Swastika Banner before us, if we think ourselves to be worthy of carrying it forth ourselves.

So then, without further ado, please proceed with reading the article proper.

[ALTRIGHT TRIGGER WARNING: you will be triggered]

 


Where we Stand

We have repeatedly insisted on the Fascist Worldview being the Worldview of Truth, one that is rooted in seeking to know what the world is, rather than what we want it to be, rooted in a desire to know the eternal, unchanging laws by which the world is governed. We can refer to the totality of these laws, both physical and spiritual, by many names: Universal Truth, Cosmic Order (Natural Order or Laws of Nature referring to the physical side of the total Cosmic Order), God(s), The Absolute, The One, Providence, etc., however these are all one and the same.

“The moment the plan’s creator attempts to consider so-called “convenience” and “reality” instead of absolute truth, his work will no longer be a star seeking humanity and will become nothing more than an everyday procedure.”

“[Man] must understand the fundamental law of necessity rules in Nature’s domain, and realize how completely his existence is subject to these laws of eternal battle and the struggle for dominance.”

-Adolf Hitler

National Socialism serves eternal laws. This requires acceptance of the eternal laws to unselfishly serve the community and the welfare of the German nation and to live according to the eternal laws of our blood as they are expressed in the National Socialist Worldview. This is where the party member seeks and finds the purpose of his existence ultimately expressed.

-The Responsibilities of Party Members (Official NSDAP Document)

“I realized that this new and wonderful doctrine of scientific truth applied ruthlessly to man himself, as well as to Nature and inanimate matter, and that it was the only thing which could save man from his own degradation in luxury, self-seeking short-sightedness and racial degeneration.”

“You either believe in the scientific method and the truth, and you apply it to yourself without egotism, otherwise you don’t believe in the scientific method and you’re kidding yourself.”

“Anyone so conceited and foolish as to be determined to flaunt Nature’s Laws may do so but only for a limited period of time. He cannot go on doing so indefinitely.”

“National Socialism is nothing more or less than NATURAL ORDER.”

“National Socialism, as a PHILOSOPHY, embodies the eternal urge found in all living  things – indeed in all creation – toward a higher level of existence – toward perfection – toward God.

-George Lincoln Rockwell

Let’s realize that the Truth has a value in itself, and that dedication to the truth is a virtue in itself, more so in a world in which falsehood seems to rule.

-Dr. William Luther Pierce

“As opposed to today’s carefree relativism, where all ideas – in principle at least – are equally acceptable and valid, National Socialism represents the unremitting effort to find the absolute truth and to make this truth the foundation of human society.

“… National Socialism is based on common sense, and it seeks its arguments in the real world, where the difference between truth and lie and between good and evil is determined by facts and not by wishful thinking and theoretical reveries.”

“Unlike all these other philosophies, National Socialism has never been invented – it has been derived from the eternal Laws of Nature, which have existed as long as the universe and which have governed all life since the first primitive organism came into existence.”

“National Socialism was not invented by Adolf Hitler, but is the conscious expression of the fundamental Laws of Nature governing our lives.”

“As National Socialists we follow no other voice than the voice of Nature and no other ethic than the ethic of Nature, and we know only one mortal sin: to try to revolt against this ethic.”

“If the world does not accept National Socialism as its only hope of a future, man will be facing destruction. This will be a logical consequence of his continuous violations of the Laws of Nature.”

-Povl Heinrich Riis-Knudsen

“Whatever People’s perception of God, or Gods, or the motive Force of the Universe might be, they can hardly deny that Nature’s Law are the work of, and therefore the intent of, that Force.”

“Nature evidences the divine plan, for the natural world is the work of the force or the intelligence men call God.”

-David Lane

“In its essence, the National Socialist idea exceeds not only Germany and our time, but the Aryan race and mankind itself and any epoch; it ultimately expresses that mysterious and unfailing wisdom according to which Nature lives and creates: the impersonal wisdom of the primeval forest and of the ocean depths and of the spheres in the dark fields of space; and it is Adolf Hitler’s glory not merely to have gone back to that divine wisdom, but to have made it the practical regeneration policy of world-wide scope.”

“It is the acceptance of this more than human wisdom, it is this accord with the spirit of the Nature, which Hitlerism implies, or disintegration, ethnic chaos, the degeneration of man – separation from the Heart of the cosmos; damnation.”

-Savitri Devi

“Only man in his ignorance, pride and conceit, his off-base worldview with himself as the center of the universe and above Natural Law, has made possible the awful mess people are living in today.”

“National Socialism has been the closest thing yet to approach successfully the task of putting the Truth to work in reality.”

-James Mason

The truth is only one. Who believes in it has to defend it with his life. And whoever does not believe that he possesses the truth, absolute and sole, cannot be a Fascist, that is, cannot challenge death.

-Italo Balbo

If you believe in the existence of this objective, universal and absolute Truth in the world then it becomes your duty to uphold it. It’s very nature excludes any possibility of compromise – the Truth is what it is and it cannot be changed, it is non-negotiable. Integrity and loyalty to the values and principles of Truth are the fundamental aspects of those who follow it, and so they will never, under any circumstances, ever, agree to compromise on it, even “a little” – for what starts as a small angle of deviation invariably proceeds to grow larger the further you follow it’s course.

ohnoes
How could this happen to me, I made my mistakes, I’ve got no where to run!

It is far too easy to abandon our principles and values arguing pressure of circumstance. It takes strength of character, fortitude and resilience to resist the corrosive ideas of our enemies who bid us take the easy way.

[…]

We have only to compromise once and we are on the slippery slope that leads to betrayal.

-Derek Holland, “The Political Soldier”

Compromise is where the Truth goes to die, because if you are willing to compromise on one thing then how far are you willing to go, how much are you willing to compromise? How much of the Truth remains after all the compromises have been made? Who wins in the end? Certainly not the Truth.

The Truth is that 2+2 is 4, and we are intolerant of the liars who claim that 2+2 is 6, and we will never compromise with them by “agreeing to disagree” or “agreeing to meet them in the middle” on 2+2 being 5.

But natural law cannot be smashed any more than you can “smash” the fact that two plus two equals four.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, White Power, Ch15

Indeed, anyone ostensibly “on the right” would claim that they agree with the above, and stand on the side of truth, as opposed to those “deluded leftists” who wallow in wishful thinking.

Yet we know that they all have a “limit,” beyond which they will flee from the truth, for fear of endangering their own personal safety and comfort. For the “cuckservatives,” this limit may lie at racial issues. For racialists, it may be the Jewish question. For others, it may be faggotry. But the defining difference between the fascist and all others is precisely this willingness to make any sacrifice in the upholding of truth.

Even those who may superficially promote the same positions as we do, could still be doing so with the reserve that their lifestyle should not be negatively affected. For example, they may criticize Jews, yet stubbornly advocate ineffective (but safe) methods to combat them. They may speak harshly of homosexuals, but without casting degenerate friends (or donors) out of their lives. They might accept the principle of hierarchy, yet still favor a political system in which they would be free from control by superiors.

So, what is our experience with the alt-right? Of course, many would assure us that they are, like us, selfless seekers of truth – and yet, we are chided by the compromisers for “purity spiraling,” as if it is an insult to uphold the purity of Truth. They think that by compromising they are being clever (as clever as saying that 2+2 is 5), and are annoyed when we attack them for it. They toss nonsense like the “Overton window” at us, saying that at least by promoting 2+2 as 5 they are moving the 2+2 is 6 liars closer to the truth of 2+2 equaling 4, when in reality all they have achieved was obscure the Truth with another lie. 5 is not a “better” answer than 6, because they are equally wrong. In the end it is them alone who made an “Overton window shift” closer to the liars and further away from the Truth, not the other way around.

The NSDAP must not be a follower of public opinion, but must become the master of public opinion. It must not be the masses’ servant, but their lord.

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, V2, Ch6

The practice of mixing Truth with lies in an effort to formulate something that the sick masses might accept without much struggle has resulted in the Right having built for itself an insurmountable obstacle of self-imposed hang-ups and restrictions.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 9.6

Imagine if this sort of reasoning was applied in hard sciences, imagine if this mentality was in charge of constructing the building you are living in – how soon before that building would collapse on your head? In fact, would said building ever reach completion in the first place? Would you trust such “builders”?

Compromisers will likewise scream at us about “punching to the right”, calling for alliances and unity, for some loyalty rooted in us all supposedly being on the same side of a relative “spectrum”. The very nature of the “Left” and “Right” dichotomy is that it’s a relative scale. It lacks any conception of an Absolute reference point – it lacks the Truth. Should we view as allies anyone “to the right” of Marxism? Social Democracy? Liberalism? Where is the line drawn and based on what standard if not the Absolute one? Why should loyalty or alliances be forged on a relative premise?

Were we to take into account that Truth, the absolute anchor point, for reference, then any spectrum is shattered and all relativism is abolished – there is only the Truth and deviations from it, lies, regardless if they are “Left” or “Right”. Even if we were to give the “Right” a more solid value as something that exists in relation to the Truth, then the only relation it could possibly have is that of being a deterioration of it, effectively rendering it “to the Left” in regard to the Truth. We hold no allegiances to any spectrum or scales, only to the absolute Truth in its purity above all else, anything less than that, “Left” or “Right” is no ally of ours.

Back then Right wing catholic centrism had become the dominant force in the country, and soon enough, thanks to Palmiro Togliatti, and with some help from our pseudo-“fascist” leaders, the notion that “right wing” and “fascism” are the same thing took hold. Us, young fascists, despised and rejected this notion.

-Pier Luigi Concutelli

leftrightpunch
You can only punch Right if you are on the Left.

That is why Fascism/NS has no need of the Left/Right dichotomy at all, it only needs the eternal values of the Truth, and the only thing we need to judge who is our ally or not is to see if in what they do they actively strive to reach that Truth, in which case we see them as potential and hopeful allies who need guidance before they join our ranks as proud Fascists and National Socialists; or if they pursue any other goals which invariably come into conflict with that Truth, in which case they are at best irrelevant or an obstacle, and at worst potential, if not outright enemies.

This problem is epitomized very well in Plato’s allegory of the Cave: the liars and the compromisers are staring at the dancing shadows, enthralled with them, arguing and bickering with each other over their nature and value, never having seen the light of the Sun, of Truth. To them the world is a multitude of dancing shadows and shades, a spectrum with no Absolute. Those who had seen the Sun, however, can no longer distinguish between the shadows that well, thus to them there is only the dichotomy of the light of the Sun and Darkness, the Truth and Lies. Some would argue that one who has never seen the Sun is not a liar, but simply ignorant, however, his ignorance is the source of rootless opinions that serve to obscure the Truth, as they can never be correct, only wrong, therefore they ultimately amount to nothing more but lies. How is one, who had seen the Sun, supposed to compromise with someone who had never seen it, but argues that his shadow (and all the shadows “on the right side” of the Cave wall) is very much the same thing as the Truth of the Sun?

lies

So why should we compromise? Why should we make allies out of the people who fight over shadows? Are the shadows beloved by the guy closest to the exit from the Cave truly any better than the shadows of the guy furthest from it? Is 5 better than 6 as the answer to 2+2? Should we prize modern “monarchists” as more righteous allies than conservatives? Should we count both as allies? Why?

We’ve already said that there can be those who are looking for the Truth, searching for the exit from the Cave, even if they don’t quite realize this themselves – their motives are True, and we would help them make it out of the Cave to gaze upon the Sun. However, are all our detractors and compromisers truly like that? Let us consider whom we are dealing with, these shadow gazers, and see what their motivations might be, as opposed to our own, how the vast difference between the two affects their reasoning towards actions, and how that shapes their criticism of us.

The motivation behind their criticism towards open and fanatical Fascists and National-Socialists can, obviously, either be earnest but misguided, provided that they are searching for that exit from the Cave; or subversiveconsciously so or not doesn’t matter, since in either case it reveals their goals being entirely different to our own. The essence of our Worldview is that the world operates according to specific, objective laws, and that we have no say in the matter, we can only choose to comply with or try to reject these laws. Living in harmony with the natural order of things, with the Truth, leads to happiness and prosperity. It’s rejection leads to degeneracy, death, decay and misery. It is our goal to create a society that complies to these laws (the Organic State), not necessarily for the prosperity and happiness this brings, but because we feel duty-bound to serve and uphold the Truth – everything else is simply a reward for that loyalty.

The Political Soldier is the man sustained by an Eternal Ideal who will act positively in any and all situations in the defense of what is Right, Good and True.

-Derek Holland, “The Political Soldier”

The power of ideas is in that they demand one to sacrifice himself for it without promise of raised wages.

-Ernst Junger, “Our Stance”

The path of faith is before each of us. Even if it is not the path of fame and honor, it is still the path of duty and of greatest happiness. To find it means to gain a part of the eternal strength that moves the worlds.

-Helmut Stellrecht, “Faith and Action”

Oh, you who exalt the fight without end, be it without hope, attach yourself to what is eternal!

-Savitri Devi, “The Religion of the Strong”

There has GOT TO BE ABSOLUTE LOYALTY to a higher ideal and that ideal must be THAT WHICH WILL CARRY THE MOVEMENT TO POWER OVER THE STATE.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 4.6

Noble thoughts and ideals. Irrational as hell. But this provides us with our biggest advantage over our enemies; our legitimate reason for existing as individuals; our purpose in Life. Something bigger than ourselves, and certainly, as big as the universe itself. That is an experience these liberal types can never know and can never understand. Alone, it sustains us. COMBINED with the weaponry of cold thought process, it will lead us to victory over all odds.

SIEGE, 7.4

The motivations of our cause are selfless, they are not derived from personal or group interests. We wish to protect our Race and Nations not simply because they are our own, or because our individual interests are intrinsically tied with larger group interests, but because all of these things are manifestations of Truth.

We love our Family, Race, Nation. That is a great part of why we do what we do. But we likewise feel a powerful and irresistible compulsion to serve that Truth which governs the world and is present in all things – the Family, the Race, the Nation, and ourselves. This drive to serve something greater than ourselves will always lead us down the path of self-sacrifice for those things, or to simply do that which is necessary.

“The arguments of blood are not convincing, they are compulsory.”

We do not mule over benefit and practical gain, we have no need of comfort, we only require that which is necessary – that which fate desires.

-Ernst Junger, Forward to  F.G. Junger’s book“March of Nationalism”

“At once, a great weight lifted off my soul. I knew that I had found my way to the sun at last and the days of mental darkness, searching and endless frustration were over. But at the same time, an immensely heavy burden replaced it, but in a different, even satisfying way. I knew that I had to, I must do what I could, to spread the new and wonderful idea and secure its victory in the collapsing world – no matter what it cost me, or even if I were to become a ‘failure’ to be ‘fed to the lions’ in the ‘Colosseum’.”

-George Lincoln Rockwell, This Time the World, Ch7

Meanwhile, some people may only pay lip service to the idea of defending Family, Race and Nation as mere means to protect their own individual interests, and all interests are inherently contradictory to the Truth. One may be an absolutely selfish degenerate and throw in his lot with a group to which he can claim to belong to without honoring that connection, he is in it simply for the safety and strength of numbers. Faggots are throwing in their lot with our supposed “allies” “of the Right” for that very reason – they seek defense against the threat of Islam that would throw them off rooftops. Their motives are entirely selfish and they are using ideals of defending Family, Race and Nation as a vehicle for those selfish interests – they feel no true love for those values, and certainly feel no obligations – they simply make a calculated decision that provides them the most chances for a positive outcome.

Faggots are not the only ones who follow this logic and only pay lip service to these values, while in reality acting selfishly.  The only thing that compels this sort to act as they do is a desire to maximize their individual chances of survival whilst also seeking material comfort and pleasure (their tastes are simply not as “advanced” as those of faggots). Hence, they will never commit to any real struggle in defense of Family, Race and Nation, for to do so would put at risk their true motives. If your motives are selfish and egotistic they are invariably narcissistic and thus invariably hedonistic. This sort will avoid the fight at all costs – the dead can’t enjoy material comfort and pleasure.

That is why we do not automatically view people who claim to be fighting for Family, Race, Nation and etc. as being our allies – they may very well do things that on the surface may seem to serve that purpose but their ultimate goals are selfish, so their motivations will always lead away from the creation of the Organic State (the goal of our struggle) that upholds the Truth in favor of any mechanical system that will simply serve their petty wants and desires.

Any such system must always collapse back into the state of decay we bare witness to today (see our previous article on The Face of Decay), the decay that supposedly prompted these frauds to “join” our Struggle. Hence why we are not impressed by formulas like the “White Ethno-State”, as they are vague enough to encompass any mechanical system and any form of degeneracy, so long as all of its inhabitants are white. A “White Ethno-State” may very well be communist, libertarian, liberal, etc. It can be exactly the same as what already exists minus all the non-whites. That is not good enough.

This is where our supposed “allies” would reveal themselves as our enemies, for they will not like the Organic State we strive for any more than the Jews. If your motives are selfish, egotistic, narcissistic, hedonistic – no matter how much you pretend to the contrary, no matter how much lip service you pay – you will not benefit from the Organic State, if anything you will find yourself in great distress under it, for it’s fundamental core is one of loyalty, selfless service, sacrifice and duty to that which is greater than ourselves:

Fascism promises neither glory nor titles nor gain – only duty and struggle.

-Benito Mussolini

Modern nationalism does not wish to float in the airless space of theories, it does strive for “free thinking” but desires to gain strong ties, order, to grow roots in society, blood and soil. It does not wish for socialism of opportunities, it longs for socialism of duty, for that rigid stoic world that the individual man must sacrifice himself to.

-Ernst Junger, Forward to  F.G. Junger’s book“March of Nationalism”

Each has but one proper path. To follow it makes one happy to the highest degree, even if it is a path that brings only poverty and toil.

Any path that leads away from the meaning and purpose of life is death and sin. And even if the path seems ever so pleasant, you will sin every day of your life.

-Helmut Stellrecht, “Faith and Action”

Well-being – beyond the minimum that is necessary for each to fulfill his task – does not count. Only the task counts: the quest for the essential, the eternal, through life and through thought.

Attach yourself to the essential – to the eternal. And never worry about happiness – neither your own nor that of other men; but accomplish your task, and help the others achieve theirs, provided that it does not thwart your own.

-Savitri Devi, “The Religion of the Strong”

Indeed, it will be in the interest of people who are motivated by selfish interests to prevent the establishment of the Organic State at all costs. Our supposed “allies” will actively work against us. This is why we only readily accept as our allies other true Fascists and National-Socialists, for their open identification as such tells us that they understand the nature of the Struggle at hand and work towards the same ends as ourselves (or at the very least are close to finding the exit from the Cave), whereas the other “right-wing” “allies” can only be either potential Fascists and NS who will come to call themselves that in time… or underhanded rats trying to hold us back.

Us and our supposed “allies” are worlds apart. It becomes our task to figure out which of them are the potential comrades who will come to join our ranks, and which of them are the rats that must be exterminated if we are to achieve Victory. The primary tool in this process is criticism, both the criticism we dish out and the criticism we hear back, for if one is a true searcher of Truth, struggling to find the way out of the Cave, he will recognize our criticism and answers as the path that leads outside and into the light of the Sun. However, if one’s motives are anything else, that is to say if one is driven by selfish interests, wants and desires, then they will reject that criticism vehemently and will keep arguing about their shadows. Moreover, while our enemies like the SJW crowd sincerely believe in the shadows and think no such thing as the Sun exists, our supposed allies will reject the light of the Sun exactly because they understand what it is and what it implies for their interests.

Ask a selfish liar who professes his selflessness to go ahead and act selflessly (beyond any token gestures that he is ready to practice to give the illusion of being selfless as such gestures cost him nothing), and he will come up with all the excuses in the world not to. These “allies” will reject our criticisms and solutions, coming up with any number of excuses as to why they are “ineffective” or “wrong” not because they are so, but because they want to discredit that which would force them to act against their petty interests. A faggot will never fight in the ranks of the vanguard on the battlefield, his cummies are more precious to him than anything else. However, you will find plenty of them in rear, acting as the “intellectual” “vanguard”, the “planners” and speakers, actively working to rationalize their presence in this group and in this struggle as being something other than them seeking security, explaining away why there is no need for an actual battlefield, lest they be put in that front line vanguard. The assorted “allies” motivated by selfish interests will act in exactly the same manner.

That is the great divider that helps us establish who our true allies are and who are not, who has character and who is only in this for their safety, comfort and pleasure. Let us now examine “our ally’s” criticism of us and how we carry on in our Struggle, and examine it for the possible underhanded motivations to said criticism, which would distinguish the rats from the hopefuls. All the while we will reveal further and in more detail our own stance and why these criticisms are unacceptable to us, and where our own criticisms stem from.


The Weapon of Criticism

Let us summarize what has been elaborated on so far in a succinct manner: we cannot accept compromise because those who have differing views ultimately have a different objective which is not in accordance with the Truth – to compromise with them would be to reject the whole reason for our Struggle. Moreover, those who disagree with our methods and ways ultimately have a different understanding of reality and laws of nature, therefore they are not seeing the Truth, but a distorted image, a lie.

We’ve also already covered a few points of criticism thus far in this article, so we’ll return to them and flush them out some more as the starting point of our analysis.  Namely we talked about the criticisms of “Purity Spiraling” and “Not Punching Right,” as well as the call for unity and alliances. All of these are part of the same narrative of posing a united front against a common enemy. Of course, the very subject matter of this article deals with figuring out if the people who call for these alliances are in any way our actual allies or something else, perhaps something subversive. Nevertheless let us address the call itself – we do not approve of alliances.

Nowadays all Fascists and National Socialists around the world form a unified Struggle against a common enemy towards the exact same goals, thus one can only call it an alliance from a technical viewpoint in the sense that various nationalists come together, however they make up one cohesive group, as Aryans and as fellow Fascists/National Socialists. The only alliances that we can forge are with entities that exist outside the NS/Fascist sphere, with those who are not us.

Beyond what we have already highlighted, namely that others either do not follow or struggle to find their way towards the Truth (the Sun outside the Cave), one of the fundamental reasons not to engage in alliances was highlighted by one of the great Champions of our Struggle (who makes this observation with the presupposition that all the parties involved truly want the same thing):

Too many people believe that combining the strength used by the groups traveling down different roads into one unified journey would be more certain to bring success and bring it faster. But this is not the case. Nature herself, using pitiless logic, decides who succeeds by putting the various groups in competition with one another and forcing them to struggle for victory.

[…]

At this time, all those leaders who could not stand on their own feet united into these worker coalitions in the belief that eight lame men, arm in arm, would create one big gladiator. If there were one healthy man among the lame ones, he needed all his strength to keep the others on their feet and ended up paralyzed himself.

[…]

It must never be forgotten that nothing truly great in the world has ever been achieved by an alliance. It has always been through the triumph of the individual. The very origin of joint forces carries with it the germ of its own later decay. Great intellectual revolutions that shake up the world are only conceivable and only possible when they are monumental struggles by individuals and never when they are enterprises of coalitions.

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf V2, Ch8

As long as the Movement remains part of the defense of something that it does not belong with then it will continue to share in the unremitting defeat of the past sixty years.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 7.1

To summarize: the chain is only as strong as its weakest link, to form an alliance is a handicap for the strongest elements in it as they have to spread themselves out to protect the weakest elements and make up for their handicap, which nullifies the strength of the strongest. As the title of that chapter of Mein Kampf goes: “The Strong Man is Mightiest when Alone”.

Thus, beyond our general distrust of other groups who do not openly profess to following the same Worldview as ourselves, there is a strategic argument for avoiding coalitions. The distrust, however, stems from another legitimate issue which gets criticized by would-be “allies” as Purity Spiraling – should we join a coalition then we do so based on some vague common denominator at the expense of all the more specific and exact aspects of our Worldview and what it is we Struggle for, in order to avoid “punching Right”. The group becomes something less than what it was on its own as a result, it’s ultimate goals obscured.

… we cannot afford any longer the stupid mistake of mixing and confusing our goals and priorities like so many Right Wing types have done in the past.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 7.5

In short: alliances come at a price of maintaining one’s own principles and goals as they are expected to simply button up and not bring up anything that would “rock the boat” of the vast variety of elements that make up the alliance. The demand of any alliance is for all involved groups to submit to a certain level of passivity and give up the freedom of action that they may deem fit to exercise when on their own. The social equivalent of this would be to host a Horror Movie fans club and then have it integrate into a larger Movie-Goers club and end up watching romantic comedies and other genres you don’t like more often than your preferred Horror genre, all the while keeping quiet and not complaining about it.

The only way we can maintain and pursue our own distinct and precise end goals, which are defined by our staunch adherence to the Truth, is to remain steadfast in our own path that stands alone from all the rest (in as much as the Truth stands alone from the countless lies), rejecting the idea of any coalitions and their inherent vagueness, that would handicap us in achieving the goals that nobody else in the coalition shares. Moreover, it becomes beneficial that we should criticize such coalitions and their vagueness in order to make our own path, with its distinct and coherent strict ideals, shine all the brighter for its clarity and consistency, as opposed to the muck that surrounds it on all sides and tries to encroach and absorb it.  The radiance this produces only attracts to us the exact type of people we should hope to have join us, those who search for the Truth and who do not have agendas which are actually contrary to our own.

If we are to assume malicious intent behind dragging NS/Fascists into coalitions then the obvious aim of that action is to make us reject our own ideals and bolster someone else’s numbers; or to manipulate us into “temporarily” subsiding our uncompromising fanaticism towards the promotion of our ideals and taking action that would lead to their realization. Coalitions hold no benefit for us even with benign intent behind them, and the subversive intent is realized by the very nature of coalitions with no other special effort or distinct trait by which the malicious nature of the proposed alliance can be identified, hence it becomes hard to tell if a given “ally” promoting a coalition does so out of naivety… or because he is an enemy seeking to anchor us down in the mud and make us submit to passivity. Either way: we will never accept any coalitions – we cannot afford to. There is only one front in this Struggle, NS/Fascists vs the rest.

We fight against everyone. That, is Fascism.

-Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, “Fascist Socialism”

This, of course, prompts another criticism from the would be allies, namely that of “why can’t you just leave us/them alone? Let everyone do their own thing, follow their own tactics/path to Victory, every bit helps, we’re all contributing and helping the same ends”. This argument is not new:

Many right-wingers are sincerely concerned, I know, about my battles with men such as Maguire, Snowden, Welch, Hargis, et al., and my revelations of what they really are. “They are doing good,” I am told, “why not let them go about their business their own way. They are helping. Don’t hurt them”.

I maintain they are only giving the appearance of helping-but are actually hurting.

Before a mass of people will rise up and do anything effective and forceful about a tyrannical situation, there must be built up a certain emotional pressure. A firecracker has not the force of a rifle bullet because it explodes harmlessly in all directions. But the gas from a rifle bullet cannot escape, except by forcing the bullet out at terrific speed, because it is confined, directed into useful channels.

As long as Welch and all the rest of his ilk, rich and poor, can give themselves the illusion of “fighting the Jews” by exploding the pressure inside of them verbally and harmlessly, in all directions, and without ever hurting a Jew traitor, they keep the pressure we need to get mad and fight from ever building up.

The Jews know this, and permit these hundreds and hundreds of harmless rightwing organizations to spout endlessly in silence behind the Jewish “paper curtain”. They don’t reach any significant number of people outside their own group. Even when they do, their approach is so feeble and so psychologically wrong that they win only a few rare types.

They never, never get out into the public, into the streets, and reach the masses with an inspiring and driving masculine movement, which alone can win the hearts of the masses! They pass literature and talk only to each other.

If just one tenth of the money which pours every year, year after year, into such “fire-cracker” movements were to be contained, directed, and used behind an ideological bullet forced out by fighting men, the Jews would stop at nothing to crush and destroy that deadly “bullet”. Even without that money, with only a few grains of “powder,” but confined and directed with force, we have already earned the all-out hate of the Jews, the only sure sign that we are not firing the eternal rightwing “gas” at them, but the deadly bullets which they know will eventually destroy their illegal, tyrannical power.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, White Power, Ch12

George Lincoln Rockwell would sometimes copy over entire segments of his autobiography, “This Time the World” into his last work “White Power”, and it is there that we can pick up the further conclusions Rockwell drew from his experience with the American “right-wing”:

It is for political reasons, not personal animosity, that I consciously and calculatingly expose these political frauds. The doctor cannot cure as long as the patient is chasing after quacks and imagines himself ‘getting better’. The patient, our White Race, is dying! The situation is desperate, and it is viciously criminal to be a millionaire and then take the dimes and dollars of sincere little people in exchange for sugar syrup!

The right-wing cannot be wheedled together, but it can be driven together. This is our naked purpose. We intend to make it impossible for the fakes to keep up their medicine show, no matter how they pound their drums next to our office. Sooner or later, our mastery of the right-wing is assured. We have faced and beaten the worst the Jews have. We will have little trouble conquering and organizing the feeble right-wing. Exposing the simple truth about such men as Russell Maguire is part of that cruel but utterly necessary conquest. No matter how we are cursed and hated by the short-sighted, we will win all sincere Americans and White Men, when they see that we have done what they have so long prayed for: united the right-wing and driven steel into its backbone. The process is never easy or pleasant, but we mean to save Our Country and Our Race. The hurt feelings of a few millionaires, hobbyists and incompetent leaders will not deter us from our holy mission.

In addition to trifling with a deadly danger, as these people do, the phony and feeble leaders and tightwad millionaire ‘patriots’ also have a fearful effect on the real leaders who might otherwise lend their talents to the effort to save ourselves. DeWest Hooker is now working in Italy with a bottling company. He is disgusted and discouraged. His experiences with Maguire and the others, the same experiences which have made life so miserable for me and my family, have driven him back to the arms of the Jews and their money. We can’t afford this, Americans! Every day I am told breathlessly what an indispensable leader I am, and how the movement needs me, and how terrible it would be if anything happened to me. This is indeed true. To the devil with phony modesty! Without me, there would still be only babbling and whispering and sneaking and publishing and hoping in America, while the Jews counted their money, pushed the Blacks into your schools and homes and made token gestures of attack from time to time as such feeble ‘anti-Semites’.

Three years ago, I wrote the prediction that a spearhead ‘Nazi’ attack would revive the whole right-wing, by giving it courage — and it has! The Jews are revealing that we have given them the ‘heebie-jeebies’ by spewing forth more anti-Nazi lies and hoaxes than ever before!

But Hooker is one of the men who could have led fighting young men, as I am, in a fight to save America! The ‘nice’ people who back such ‘wake up America’ ‘patriots’ as Maguire drove a great White leader into the arms of the Jew money-masters! How many more Hookers there are is a tragic, unanswerable question.

No, America, it. is not wicked to expose and attack Maguire and his ilk. Such phonies have been wrecking the movement they are supposed to be creating for many, many years. Until these ‘patriots’ pitch in with their money, their brains, their guts and their blood, they are frauds, and I intend to drive them out of our way.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, This Time the World, Ch11

To summarize: we cannot accept the very existence of other groups that may be diverting the forces and energies of potential and hopeful, but so far unrealized, Fascists and National Socialists away from the path they are meant to follow, the path that puts them in our ranks, and into the arms of various quacks and frauds that for all intents and purposes puts them into a passive, catatonic state, if for no other reason than that they have to do so in order to play nice with others in the alliance of muck they had been dragged into. These strong men, whose might would be allowed to unfold fully within a Fascist/NS group, are instead subjected to the rule of the weak chains with whom they had linked up.

It is imperative to our Victory (and the best way we can honor Commander Rockwell’s legacy as one of the Great Champions to our Cause) that we must leave no more room for frauds and quacks, as such the “right-wing” spectrum is once again of no use for us as it exists exclusively as a premise and rallying cry for unity and alliances of these very frauds and quacks. There is only Fascism/NS and the rest, (invariably “to our Left”) and the part of the rest that exists solely as a cancerous tumor that diverts the lifeblood of our Struggle – the so-called “right-wing,” which exists simply as a last ditch “easy way out” that potential and hopeful Fascists/NS waste their time on; or as a playground for the worst kind of frauds – must be cut away.

Rockwell had personal experience with all of these same arguments and calls for unity that we hear today. The aptly named “50 years of Failure” chapter that we quote above from “White Power” refers not to the period from 1950s to 2000s but to the 50 years leading up to Rockwell setting course on an openly National Socialist activism in the late 50s. We already showcased how little has changed in the 50 years since Rockwell, amounting to over a 100 years of failure total now, yet our would-be “allies,” namely those carrying the mantle of the “Altright,” still insist on being something new and original, rather than walking down a beaten path to obscurity.

There is only two or three ways to really judge what the Altright is:

  • either it is a continuation of the Third Position and New Right trend of “being a nazi while avoiding being called a nazi” entryism tactic bullshit, which puts them into the earnest idiots category for us,
  • a continuation of American conservatism (read: liberalism) via a new brand that appeals to a younger demographic (conservatism for millenials),
  • or it is a bunch of liberals (i.e. American conservatives) who suddenly realized that they don’t like niggers and Jews, but have otherwise not given up on all their liberal values and just want more of the same, just minus the niggers, Jews, mexcian and muslim immigrants.

So let us go over each possibility and discuss them in some detail.

Altright – Entryism tactic?

If the Altright is the continuation of the Third Position and New Right trends, then we are dealing with the now 60 years old argument of “you can’t be an open Nazi!,” an argument that our “allies” will bring up even if this particular assessment of the Altright is invalid (and by all accounts this possibility is the least likely, though the Altright nevertheless obviously attracts the same old gang of Third Position, New Right idiots and other “sneaky nazis” into their ranks).

The notion that you can’t be an open Fascist/National Socialist has existed ever since the end of the Second World War. It owes itself to the perceived totality of our enemy’s victory, if for no other reason that we perceived the enemy to be a singular dominant force orchestrating everything, thus its totality would surely bring us down by force again should we ever label ourselves as Fascist/NS again. This is the “retribution from above” side to this argument, that the powers that be will attack us directly with full force.

We are likewise repeatedly told that we can’t openly proclaim ourselves to be Fascists/NS because of the “bad image” that entails with the general public who’d never support Fascism/NS as our victorious enemy gets to write us as the villains of history for the masses to accept as gospel through education and mass media. This is the “lack of support from below” side of this argument, that the masses will never aid us in our fight.

This argument was discredited and utterly destroyed by George Lincoln Rockwell, and if you have read GLR’s “This Time the World” and “White Power” then you should be well familiar with the incredible outrage and desperate, exasperated agony one feels when they discover that nothing has changed, that the same non-arguments have existed unchanged for decades. Moreover one feels a great sense of shame before the man who has done so much for the Struggle, a true Champion of our Cause, and yet we haven’t moved beyond the same old bullshit that his supposed “allies” threw at him.

“We can never win with open adherence to National Socialism and the Swastika,” these gentlemen explain feebly. “The Jews have taught people to hate them too much,” they add. “If we use the Swastika and praise Hitler too openly, they will throw us in prison or kill us!” And did they not throw ALL makers of revolutions, including the Jew makers of the Red revolution, in jail – and even kill some of them? Are we National Socialists to be more fearful and cowardly than a gang of Jews? The very persecution and bloodshed such irresolute characters seek to avoid is the *sine qua non* of our victory!

These are not empty words. I have personally proved their truth here in America, the power center of world Jewry, by being beaten, by going to jail and the insane asylum, losing my dear family, and living like an animal. Twelve days from today, as I write this, I face jail again. These things are unpleasant and even heartbreaking – but they MUST BE!

I have risen in two years to a commanding position in the worldwide fight for the White man, starting as a penniless, unknown and unaided single individual like millions upon millions of others – simply and solely because I have gratefully and lovingly used the precious names and symbols which have been bathed and soaked in such oceans of blood and tears – the Swastika and the name of the Leader, Adolf Hitler.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, “In Hoc Signo Vinces”

See more quotations from the same GLR article in this image.
For other relevant GLR quotes from “White Power” see this image.

The nature of this argument, if anything, was far more potent immediately after the war, when the majority of the people alive world wide had actually been contemporaries to that period of history, when the anti-nazi propaganda was part of their daily lives in a far more definitive and intimate way than it is today. Indeed, the “you’re a nazi!” accusation had been put into practice almost immediately after the war to make the “right-wing” toe the line the Jews wanted them to toe, it was a fear tactic that would leave the “right-wingers” rendered as helpless as a turtle on its back, cooking in the sun. It doesn’t matter if one truly is a Fascist/NS trying to conceal it, or if one is a lukewarm conservative who tentatively opposes Jewish plans, the accusation will be thrown out there regardless with the express intent of putting the accused on the defensive.

One of the best contemporary examples of this tactic and its outcome in practice, is that of Nick Griffin’s humiliation on Question Time, when he ended up stuttering and tried to say something about European Law, after being confronted by a strategically placed Judeling in the audience, as to his past statements on the validity of the Holohoax. Video below, timestamped.

“I cannot explain why I used to say those things […] because according to European Law” gets a rightful reaction of “are you fucking kidding me?” from the audience, and one doesn’t need a carefully vetted crowd of conformist lemmings, or an electric board flashing hints to the audience when they should laugh or gasp or boo, to get such a reaction to that reply. It was weak and pathetic, leaving Griffin to sweat on his back in the heat until he is thoroughly cooked.

To the conservatives and the rest of the “right-wing” who have to deal with the “you’re a Nazi!” accusation we can only say one thing: “tough shit”.

As Commander Rockwell said in the 1960’s, if you’re racialist and aware of the role of the Jews and are willing to discuss it, then they’re going to brand you a “Nazi” regardless of what you may call yourself or your group. You can even try cursing the Nazis and they’ll STILL call you a “Nazi”.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 6.19

Of course they will call you Nazis, moreover, you might as well be a Nazi to them if you don’t keep up with the ever shifting goalposts of “progress,” for such is the nature of that relative Right/Left spectrum that gets so much credit – if one were to look “to their Right” they would inevitably see down the line, at the very end, Fascism, where the constructors of this spectrum have put it. So if you move an inch “rightwards” you might as well go all the way – this is their equivalent of the slippery slope attitude: “if you don’t allow transrights today you’ll be gassing Jews and abolishing all freedom tomorrow!” 

However it does seem like the American “right wing” managed to come up with a counter to this by trying to redefine the spectrum, as well as Communism and Fascism all at once, placing them together on the “far Left” (defined as NO FREEDOM) end of the spectrum, with Anarchy on the “far right” (defined as TOO MUCH FREEDOM) and “good ol’ conservative US of A values” in the fucking middle (JUST THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF FREEDOM!). Never mind that American conservatism, i.e. classical liberalism, has more in common with Anarchism than Communism and Fascism have in common – this is simply a defensive strategy devised by American conservatives against the “you’re a nazi!” accusation, which in practice amounts to the following: “No, YOU’RE THE NAZI!”

The “NO U” defense – flawless victory!

Simply brilliant. Actually, in some ways it is, as it tries to usurp the accusation and use it against the accuser, trying to fight the enemy with his own major tool. Given the conditions the “right wingers” find themselves in this was probably the best they could have ever hoped for. Moreover, us actual Fascists and National Socialists didn’t have any big issue with this beyond the ridiculous claim that Fascism and Communism are the same, as in effect this still fed into one of our major principles, namely driving away unwanted elements (more on which later) as the “Left” and “Right” played hot potato with the Nazi label.

Going back to our primary point, Rockwell had proven the “you can’t be an open Nazi!” argument to be entirely false and he had proven it false back when the anti-Nazi sentiment was still far more intimate for the majority of people alive at the time.

I was determined, of course, to set up a program which was essentially National Socialist – Nazi – but for a long time I toyed with the idea of ‘disguising’ it, as do most other right-wingers, by using some other name and a slightly different symbol. At that time, an openly ‘Nazi’ party seemed too fantastic even to think about.

But then I began to reflect that the ultimate smear of the Jews was always, “You’re a Nazi!” And I wondered what it would be like to answer, “You’re damned right we’re Nazis, and we shall shortly stuff you Jew-traitors into the gas chamber! “

At once I had the answer! By being an open, arrogant, all-out Nazi, not a sneaky Nazi, but a Nazi with the Swastika, storm-troopers and open declarations of our intentions to gas the Jew-traitors (after investigations, trials and convictions), I would not only make an end of the filthy ‘silent treatment’ – for they could never ignore Nazis with Swastika armbands and talk of gas chambers – but I would also force the Jews to publish my propaganda in their press! Every time they would howl that I advocated ‘gas chambers’, people would be shocked, but they would also lose a tiny bit of their ‘fear of the Jews’ as the Bible calls the filthy terror inspired by these ‘apostles of tolerance’.

If millions of people kept reading in the Jew press about a man who was not only an ‘anti-Semite’, but an open Hitlerite, a Nazi – and survived as such – the myth of Jewish invincibility would be smashed. The timid little people all over the country who have been silently and fearfully reading all this material designed to ‘wake them up’ all these years would begin to creep out of their closets. While the Jews were desperately busy combating me, the little fellows would become bolder and would begin to act more like their American forefathers.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, This Time the World, Ch12

Commander Rockwell had proven that (at least in the US) being an open Fascist/NS does not lead to the kind of immediate retaliation against all the people involved with the label on the spot, leaving them free to operate in some capacity.

This effectively proved that our enemy, despite indeed having total control, is not so monolithic and unrestrained that it can act directly, openly and with impunity. In reality our enemy presents a vast multitude that simply shares a common opposition to our goals, meaning they have their own internal conflicts and rivalries. Moreover, they have to follow their own rules either because they believe in those rules or because they need the lemmings to keep believing and playing by those rules. Both of these revelations would be expounded upon by future Champions of our Struggle that would come after Rockwell, namely Dr William Luther Pierce and James Mason.

Even beyond the US, however, this holds true, as even in countries with the strictest of laws aimed to hinder and suppress Fascists and National Socialists our comrades manage to keep carrying out the Struggle while openly proclaiming who they are and what they stand for. This effectively puts to rest the “retribution from above” side to this argument. Some, however, will argue that the situation has changed since the 50s and that our enemies and the Jews have a much stronger death grip on the world today – while it is true that many things have gotten worse, this lesson from Rockwell still holds true and is self-evident in how many openly Fascist/NS groups get started and operate today.

That is not to say that we do not face retribution and suppression from our enemy, however it renders obsolete the idea that openly proclaiming oneself a Fascist/NS would have immediate consequences, meaning there is no particular unique danger or obstacle in doing so as opposed to trying to hide one’s true convictions, if anything there are more benefits to it, whereas hiding it puts one on the constant defensive against the enemy’s accusations. All the hurdles that exist beyond that point are essentially the same regardless of what one calls themselves – if you don’t keep up with the progressive agenda you’ll be branded a Nazi regardless, as we’ve explored earlier.

The only other dangers that exist beyond that point deal with how much success one achieves in the Struggle and how desperate our enemies are to stop us, in which case they will readily resolve to killing, regardless if one is an actual Fascist/NS or not. However, as we’ll explore further, only Fascism and National Socialism present any real danger to them, specifically because of our unyielding and absolute, fanatical nature and the success we have thanks to said nature, as opposed to our “allies”.

Decades have passed and the initial societal shock worldwide that Fascists and National Socialists do, in fact, still exist after World War 2 and openly, boldly proclaim their loyalty to the vision of Adolf Hitler and other Champions of our Worldview, had subsided. The existence of Fascism/NS in the post-war era became more accepted and lost some of its potency on its own.

Strong leaders would always breathe new life into the struggle and make themselves noted by the world, which would proceed with its usual indignation at this audacity. Recent history, however, has ushered in the next stage of societal collapse and involution. A new generation of easily offended progressives has revitalized that panic the mere idea of the existence of Fascism and NS in the post-war history would elicit immediately after the war. 50 years ago the reaction was most likely “how can there be Nazis, how can you call yourself a Nazi, we JUST defeated them!!!,” whereas now we hear “how can there STILL be Nazis, it’s the current year, I literally can’t even!!!”

The other side to this argument, the “lack of support from below” has been likewise discredited in part by Rockwell, but even more so by Dr William Luther Pierce and by James Mason and many other of our Champions all the way down to Hitler himself, if we consider the reasoning behind seeking “support from below”. The desire for that support comes as a package deal with our “allies criticism that we shouldn’t be driving people away, that we should follow a mass movement approach, that we can’t achieve anything without the masses. Fascists and National Socialists give a resounding refutation of these points and proclaim the primacy of quality over quantity, an eternal aspect of Truth that holds itself true even when dealing with movement politics!

This does not mean that the membership has to continue growing indefinitely, quite the contrary. Only a limited portion of mankind possesses the energetic and bold qualities a movement needs, so any organization that continues to increase its membership indefinitely would one day become weak and inert. Organizations that continue to grow their membership beyond a certain number gradually lose their fighting power. Then they are no longer able to take the offensive which means they cannot support their propaganda, and if they cannot support it, they cannot benefit from it.

The greater and more revolutionary an idea is, the more active the membership becomes. The revolutionary power of the doctrine spells danger for its ambassador. This danger keeps away the small, cowardly members of the middle or privileged-class. Privately they may consider themselves followers, but they fear to confess their beliefs to the public by openly becoming members. This is how the organization, promoting a truly revolutionary idea, takes in members—only the most active of the followers who have been won over by propaganda. This process of receiving only the most revolutionary membership into the movement, which is a result of natural selection among its followers, guarantees it will actively spread the message in the future and will fight successfully to make the idea a reality.

The greatest danger any movement faces is when the membership grows abnormally fast after a large success by the movement. All the cowards and petty selfish onlookers will shun a movement when it is engaged in a bitter struggle. However, once the movement has either gained a big success or such a success seems likely, these people will usually try to join at that time. The last-minute-joiner is the reason many movements, which are victorious in a battle before they achieve their final success, or rather before the final completion of the idea is achieved, suddenly retreat. They develop a vague, inner weakness, which forces them to suspend the fight and finally the movement dies. Their first victory drew so many bad, unworthy and particularly rotten elements into the organization, that these unworthy creatures eventually superseded the fighting strength of the movement in an effort to force the movement to serve their own interests. They reduce it to their own level of petty heroism and do nothing to achieve final victory for the original idea. The fanatical goal has been erased from their minds, the fighting strength becomes crippled, or as the privileged-class world would rightly say in such cases: “Water has been mixed with the wine”. When this happens, indeed, the trees can no longer grow up to heaven (meaning great things cannot be achieved any longer; the tree has grown as much as it can and decline will follow).

Therefore, it is essential that a movement interested in self-preservation cease adding members as soon as it has become successful. From that time on, it should exercise the greatest caution before allowing any membership changes and should examine the situation carefully before enlarging its organization. This is the only way it will be able to keep the nucleus of the movement pure, fresh, and sound. It must also be sure that this nucleus is the only group to lead the movement or decide on the propaganda, and as the center of power, this nucleus will perform all actions necessary to make its ideals a reality.

[…]

If we allowed people like these, who lack the spirit of revolution, to join our Party as members in the early days, then we would be nothing more than a pious brotherhood because we would no longer be a young movement filled with fighting spirit. The spirited and daring form that I gave our propaganda back then established and guaranteed the radical nature of our movement ever since. From that time onward, only radical people, with a few exceptions, were willing to become members. Nevertheless, our propaganda was so strong that, after a short time, hundreds of thousands not only agreed in their heart with us, but wished for our victory, even though they were personally too timid to make any sacrifices for it and some were too timid to even argue on behalf of it.

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, V2, Ch11

This World-Concept does not build on the idea of majority, but rather on that of character.

[…]

If the National Socialist program sought to crowd out individuals and replace them with the masses, that would mean National Socialism itself was already eaten away by the poison of Marxism, just as the world of our privileged-class political parties are today.

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, V2, Ch4

Most of all, it is our duty to restrict admittance to the party to those we are certain belong to that minority that by virtue of their value, always wrote history.

-Adolf Hitler

The subsequent Champions who came after Hitler only reinforced his warnings on the cowardly masses that would swarm and suffocate the movement from within, and expanded further on how their cowardly nature makes them absolutely useless to our Struggle, the most notable contribution being the Lemming Principle as defined and explained by Dr William Luther Pierce:

“Revolution is a spectators sport. The majority will sit in the stands and watch the factions fight. At the end they will choose side with the team that is winning.”

“So we are ideological and idealistic fanatics; just like the Communists by the way. In between the Communists and the Nazis is the great mass of non-fanatics: the TV watchers and the comic book readers.

-George Lincoln Rockwell

For more relevant GLR quotations from “White Power” see this image.

The masses, or the “mass” as a whole, can only be looked upon as a coward.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 2.20

Only after the System is BROKEN and DISCREDITED will there come a hope of mobilizing the masses of Whites to tackle the job of winning what will soon enough assume the characteristics of a civil war.

SIEGE, 2.24

The reasons why no mass movement has existed in this country on the part of Whites to defend themselves and what is theirs have been extensively dealt with by Movement scholars, probably more than any other single topic. There of course is the media brainwash which not only denies all Truth, but pumps the head full of lies and poison and robs the thinking and decision-making processes of any chance to function. There is the comfort corruption which softens and saps the spirit and will. Then there is also dysgenics which means, though a person is nominally “White,” he is so only in color, there is nothing underneath. This is the product of fratricidal wars and total lack of breeding: the creation of a race of boobs. These are some of the reasons… they may help us to understand but they excuse no one.

SIEGE, 4.10

A skillful hypocrite (i.e., “good citizen”) in a sick society, one that really knows how to assimilate or conform and generally doesn’t rock the boat, is a disgusting System Suck. I can have more respect – if that’s the right word – for the rabid liberal or Red than I can for the System Sucks and the Establishment Creeps. In any event, to go from one to the other is a national pastime and involves nothing more than a change of clothes, an expensive slick new hairstyle, and that certain mercenary acquisitive drive. But a good solid anti-social streak born right in the BLOOD cannot be changed by anything: physical suffering; brainwashing; disillusionment; discouragement; defeat… absolutely nothing. It’s been rightfully referred to as the common denominator of ALL “True Believers,” that is, of all fanatics.

[…]

We can’t quit. Nor can we be thinned-out or watered-down. Our very guts are on fire. We are the only real revolutionaries!

SIEGE, 7.1

As revolutionary National Socialists, we denounced and abandoned the so-called “mass idea” as worthless.

SIEGE, 9.16

They then built on the legacy of Adolf Hitler’s work, utilizing the negative stigma created by the Jews around Fascism and National Socialism to only further reaffirm its radical nature that would attract only the radical sort to our ranks:

By being a Nazi, with the Swastika, I would also gather the only kind of people I wanted around me: the tough, dedicated idealists ready to fight for those ideals and give their lives, if necessary. And even more important, I would automatically scare off the millions of blabber-mouths, cowards, fools and crackpots which infest the rest of the ‘movement’. The Swastika would probably not bring me many supporters, but those who came would be men.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, This Time the World, Ch12

Yet some of our critics insist that this way we can only attract the “wrong kind” of people, their definition of wrong, of course, depending on their own sensibilities, though in the case of our would-be “allies” they will accept most anyone in their ranks, except for us unless we toe their line and pipe down –“not punch right.” Some of them will lay down the claim that we’ll attract only social outcasts and unstable psychopaths. This criticism is likewise not new, and was, in fact, a point of contention between George Lincoln Rockwell and Dr William Luther Pierce, yet in the end Pierce had recognized the truth of what Rockwell had experienced for himself:

This touch of Hollywood in Rockwell’s approach to revolutionary politics always was a bone of contention between him and me. I argued that the uniforms, flags, and theatrical behavior — even the name “American Nazi Party” — made it difficult for serious people to take him seriously. His medium got in the way of his message. He replied that if he put away the flags and armbands, wore a business suit, and shunned theatrics, the news media would ignore him and no one would hear what he had to say.

His aim, he said, was to make people pay attention to his simple core message of the need for rebuilding a White, Jew-free America based on the principles laid down by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf. When he had tried to present that message in a sober, serious way, no one had paid any attention to him. The newspapers and television stations wouldn’t send reporters to his press conferences, they ignored his press releases, and the public didn’t even know he existed. But as soon as he raised the Swastika banner, the news media went crazy and swarmed all over him. He was seen on all the TV channels and what he said was reported in the newspapers.

Yes, I answered, the theatrics get attention for you — but your message gets badly distorted. The media try to make you look like a madman and a clown, and to a large extent they succeed. The result is that most of the people attracted to you are losers, social outcasts, freaks. If you want to attract winners — serious, competent, idealistic people — you need a serious image.

Rockwell responded that it is the losers, the social outcasts, who make up the ranks of every revolutionary movement. They’re the ones who are available, the ones who don’t have anything to lose by becoming associated with a politically incorrect cause.

Individually they may not be very impressive but large numbers of them, organized and disciplined, would make a revolutionary army. He had tried appealing to what I called the winners: to the teachers and professors, to the doctors and lawyers and engineers, to the writers and artists, to the businessmen and the craftsmen, to his fellow military officers, to the careful, responsible men and women with steady employment and stable families. And he had found that while many of them agreed with him in principle, almost none had the moral courage to stand up and be counted among the righteous.

He had given speeches to groups of these people under the cover of several ostensibly conservative organizations. They would come up after his speeches, shake his hand, and tell him they admired him for saying what they also felt. But the merest suggestion from Rockwell to one of these people, that he ought to participate in an effort to take America back from the Jews and their collaborators would send the fellow scurrying away in fright. They were too comfortable, too corrupted by good living and materialism, too unaccustomed to taking risks and facing opposition. Only in the masses, Rockwell had finally concluded, were the recruits to be found that he needed to launch a political campaign to take America back — and the masses could be reached only through the mass media.

I still had serious doubts as to whether the type of people Rockwell was attracting with his flamboyant tactics could be disciplined and used to build an effective organization, and these doubts made me hold back from a whole-hearted support of his efforts. We collaborated on the publishing of National Socialist World and we continued to argue about other things. I gradually found out, however, that Rockwell was dead right about the moral cowardice and the servile conventionality of the great majority of Americans. Most of them would rather lose an arm and a leg than be suspected of thinking a politically incorrect thought, and as I worked and argued with Rockwell, my appreciation of his own courage and idealism grew.

-Dr William Luther Pierce

Thus, by taking a position and making statements which seemed extreme and even ridiculous to the “average citizen,” he could entice publicists to quote him widely, thinking thus to discredit both the man and the philosophy with these average citizens. What they failed to understand was that before the Movement could profit from any mass appeal, it had to appeal to a large number of very un-average citizens–fearless idealists who could form the National Socialist cadre.

And these men responded in a very different way to Rockwell’s message than did the liberal publicists or their average audience. They saw beyond the superficial “ridiculousness” of his message to the kernel of deep truth that it contained. While the average citizen, incapable of thinking beyond the immediate problems of the day, found Rockwell’s message “too extreme,” just as the publicists intended, those who could extrapolate in their minds the developments of the present to the consequences of tomorrow – and of a century hence – saw the compelling necessity of his demands. But such men are rather sparsely distributed throughout the population, and to reach them Rockwell needed to cast his net very wide; this the publicists helped him do while they thought to smear him. Rockwell also understood that the image of him being erected in the minds of the masses, while a liability now, had a value for the future, when conditions had ripened so that at least some of those masses were ready for an “extremist.”

-Dr. William Luther Pierce, “A National Socialist Life”

And to be sure, there are those among the social outcasts who can become fanatical and disciplined warriors for our cause. It becomes simply a matter of first attracting the outcasts and then filtering out the ones who are beyond redemption, that is to say, those who do not find salvation in the Worldview of Fascism and National Socialism. For not all social outcasts are such because they are degenerates, some are social outcasts because this society is degenerate. Those among them who will join our ranks will become disciplined warriors in time, for they will then serve something greater than themselves.

[…] we should be aware that in a sick or even mildly mediocre society such as exists today, it is a badge of honor to be possessed of an anti-social streak. It will keep you safe and high above the trash and poison of the milieu – right from birth – where no amount of “proper education,” “good background,” “upbringing,” etc., could.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 7.1

Discipline comes from within yourself. You accept it because you follow a higher will.

-Helmut Stellrecht, “Faith and Action”

The major problem of this world is the spiritual depravity that has left people atomized, bereft and alone, dispossessed – this can bring down and suffocate even the strongest of men, especially with the growing amount of material luxuries and self-indulgences to keep one distracted. Indeed, one can find drugs more readily available and socially acceptable to deal with their spiritual syphilis, than the real answer to their loathsome state of affairs, that answer being the Fascist/NS Worldview of Truth. Should one stumble upon it and truly grasp, understand and internalize its message, and if they possess the kind of character that is of absolute necessity to brave and champion our ideals in an open struggle, then they will no longer be outcasts of a dying and degenerate society, but fanatical fighters in the Struggle for their people.

These are the people that we are looking for among the outcasts, to whom we issue our provocative and radical message, those who belong in our ranks, even though they may not even realize it yet themselves.

Character is not acquired, it is given unto man at the whim of divine unjust fate, recognized by nationalists and denied by liberals.

Ernst Junger, “Character”

One does not become a National Socialist. One only discovers, sooner or later, that one has always been one — that, by nature, one could not possibly be anything else. For this is not a mere political label; not an “opinion” that one can accept or dismiss according to circumstances, but a faith, involving one’s whole being, physical and psychological, mental and spiritual: “not a new election cry, but a new conception of the world”— a way of life — as our Führer himself has said.

-Savitri Devi, Gold in the Furnace, Ch9

I can think of nothing more formidable than a band of malcontents who know exactly who they are, what they want and how to go about getting it!

-James Mason, SIEGE, 7.1

And Rockwell had proven himself right, one only has to read the “Spiritual Syphilis” chapter of White Power to see the example of a discovered Aryan Viking warrior, once he was cleansed of the chapter’s namesake, that had turned him into a social outcast and burnout who was desperately searching for himself. And that cleansing process is exactly what we must adapt in order to discover these hidden warriors and keep out the undesirable degenerates who seek to join our ranks for whatever other reasons they may have.

The guy at the door of Nazi Headquarters was the living embodiment of the national suicide I have set forth in chapter 1. He seemed young. But you couldn’t be sure, because he was wearing a matted red beard.He wasn’t wearing clothes just a raggedy blanket and sandals. “Shades” (sun glasses) covered his eyes. Unkempt hair covered much of the rest of his face.

[…]

I have often found that I learn most, not from books and literature, but from people and events themselves. And this guy looked like a whole encyclopedia of everything degenerate.

I invited him in. We talked. He couldn’t stay still, but kept moving around the room, seeming to float a few inches above the floor. (I later learned that he was on pills and narcotics.) After an hour or so of talking, he began to change a bit. He appeared unsure of himself in the presence of something he’d never experienced before – men who were sure of themselves and had a purpose. A look of unbelieving wonder came over his blue eyes, even through the “shades” as I talked to him of what we really were and why we had given up everything of fun in life to fight for our nation and White Race. Little by little, I began to get the story out of him. He was only seventeen years old, and had lived an entire lifetime. He’d done everything, tried all kicks, and was already bored to death with an empty life. He’d made a mistress out of his art teacher, he’d run a den of degeneracy and debauchery called “Mule’s Pad” where the local beats and wild crowds did anything, including enjoy dope. He’d shot a man, gotten off, and lived as fast and hard as he could until finally, he contemplated suicide in utter despair of finding ANYTHING worth doing any more all this at seventeen! Before he committed suicide, he told me, he decided to come to see the Nazi “cats,” figuring it might be one last kick. What he found, unexpectedly, was what every human being needs to survive this life a PURPOSE – something which gives life more meaning than a constant search for more pleasure and kicks. He actually convinced me he wanted to try to be a Storm trooper!

As a matter of policy, whenever I hear that (as I do every day), I do all I can to discourage the applicant. We want no dabblers, but dedicated, fanatical fighters who will STICK through hell itself. With this crazy character, I went even further. I made fun of him. I told him he’d never make it, that we’d run him off the first day.

He rose to the challenge.

“You name it, and I’ll make it!” he said.

Strangely, I could sense a fiercely burning WILL behind the words. I told him he couldn’t come up to try life as a Nazi Storm-trooper until he was eighteen. He left, vowing to return in a few months. He did return – without the beatnik get-up. He turned out to be a blonde, young Viking, built for combat.

We poured it to him.

There was no place left inside for him to sleep. So he was assigned to a wrecked car out back. It was still winter and cold. But the kid moved into the wrecked car with a couple of blankets. We put him to work cleaning the toilets, and yard.

He worked.

Spring came, and then a broiling summer. He was still in the wrecked car, eaten alive by mosquitoes. I tried him on the printing press, and never saw such a bear for work. He was all dried out of booze, off the pills and dope, exercising plenty, and showing every sign of ‘making it.’

-George Lincoln Rockwell, White Power, Ch2

“Get the fuck off my porch, lemming!”

To summarize: we must avoid bloating our ranks for nearly the same reasons as we must avoid alliances, as their effects are the same, difference being only between Fascists and National Socialists being subdued into passivity from without by the coalition “allies”, and the Fascist and National Socialist spirit being extinguished from within the group they had built up to advance our common ideals by the dead weight that was allowed to join its ranks. Even when you look back all the way to Hitler, the necessity for the movement, group or party to consist exclusively of fanatics and be a vanguard, rather than a mass movement, has been made obvious, with clear warnings given against falling to the allure of quantity.

It is our duty, if we wish to achieve Victory, that we accept only fanatics within our ranks and keep the passive supporters outside the boundaries of whatever groups and movements we wish to establish, outside the nucleus of the Party. If, that is, passive supporters are allowed to join it’s rank and file, with nothing expected of them in return beyond their passive support.

The fastest way to grow in mass is to grow fat, but if you are fat you will not be winning any races or fights, let alone competing against a real runner or fighter, who trained to get only the kind of muscles he needed for the given task. And as everyone knows, fat and muscle of the same weight have a vast difference in their volume. Mass movement is the approach of growing fat, cowardly and lazy (as even the members of your mass movement might be literally fat, cowardly and lazy themselves), a fanatical group of idealists, on the other hand, is the approach of growing muscle, there will always be less, but it will be capable of packing a punch and getting the job done.

These Champions have shown us how we can successfully build our movements by simply being honest about who we are and about our intentions, all the while pushing unwanted elements, who weren’t scared off by our honesty, out and away from our ranks. We are not beggars to ask every passer by to join us, we are not choosers to pick out the least bad out of available options, we are Demanders who will not allow in anyone who is not up to snuff, who is not a fanatic, moreover a fanatical and true Fascist/NS.

We thus reject the very idea of mass movements and with it the idea of a need for popular support in order to engage in activism – we must instead drive away the vast majority of the people from joining us, and put those who do wish to join us to the test, so that only those who are true may stand with us. In the end, should we remain fanatical and pure in our vision of this Struggle, we will retain the potency and energy of our groups, which is the key to success and our inevitable victory, and that will be what will drive the masses to support us and rally around us.

When you rise and stand up and the masses see what a man of FORCE looks like, they will love you, as they now imagine they hate you.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, “In Hoc Signo Vinces”

Those who handicap their actions to first gaining mass appeal effectively shoot themselves in the foot before even making their first step on the treacherous path ahead, and immediately stumble and fall over in inactivity, as the bloated mass defuses the fighting spirit of the group. For truly, if the lemmings could actually be engaged in action against our enemies, wouldn’t they have done so themselves already? Would they have allowed the enemy enslave them in the first place?

This should be enough to successfully showcase the futility of the “lack of support from below” side to the “you can’t be an open Nazi!” argument. We must now conclude, that if the Altright is actually a “Nazis in hiding” entryism tactic, then this tactic has been proven to not only be based on false fears of immediate “total annihilation” retribution, but also futile in its attempts to  appeal to the masses, as they instead elicit negative emotions from the public. This is because they appear to be weak and cowardly.

Moreover, this approach is not new and has been proven to be an abysmal failure in practice numerous times.

Though what a dreary, tiresome task it would be, someone should try to catalog the number as well as the names of all the microscopic “groups” which make up the galaxy loosely referred to as “the Movement”. A study in futility and impotency. Every one of them “disguised” as something or another and with all their effort going toward the upkeep of the disguise rather than the expressed purpose. Commander Rockwell referred to these types as “Sneaky Nazis”. Mostly, they knew and understood what National Socialism was and is about but had no stomach or self-discipline to join the real fight in earnest.

[…]

Who are we trying to hide from? What are we trying to conceal? Who are we trying to kid? We, after all, are the ones representing Life, we have the answers, we have what it is everybody needs and wants. So why should we sneak? (If a person likes to dress up in a 1930’s German uniform, for example, I can understand the need to sneak and hide.) But we go forth among our fellows ready at any time to impart Truth to whomever seeks it or will hear it. Second, the “Sneaky Nazis” are several steps below “open” Nazis because they are aware of what they are doing and yet lack the courage and honesty to correct themselves.

[…]

Do not deny your prophets, your heroes and your saviors. As long as there is any breach of faith anywhere, nothing positive can ever proceed. It is something that the ignorant and the stubborn will have to live with.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 9.20 

See more relevant quotations from George Lincoln Rockwell’s  “White Power” in this image.

The only “positive” argument that is promoted in favor of the “sneaky nazi” approach (as opposed to the negative argumentation in its favor based on fear of immediate retribution from above and lack of support from below) that we’ve come to hear quite often is simply that “we’ll wrestle power back from the Jews the same way they took over, with a sneaky long march through the institutions.”

The hilarious absurdity of this argument is that showcases exactly the same kind of naivety that permitted the Jewish take over in the first place! The Jews managed to sneak their way in not only because they are natural-born sneaks, but because the decadent societies that allowed them in were gullible enough to trust them! Thus the premise of this argument is that the Jew will not only be just as gullible as the people whom he swindled, but that he’ll be an absolute idiot on top of that and fall for his own swindle! “Sneaky nazis” are in for a rude awakening when the Jew either calls their bluff or actually plays along with it long enough to cause untold amount of damage.

By all accounts, being honest and direct Fascists and National Socialists yields greater results than being sneaks.

You can’t out-sneak the System. But neither can any number of sneaks, or scum, or whatever withstand the onslaught of berserk, Viking warriors!

-James Mason, SIEGE, 6.4

This, of course, says nothing about open and honest Fascists and National Socialists engaging in possible sneaky tactics of our own, of which you can learn from such materials as SIEGE or Colin Jordan‘s “Uprising”, but we will never turn them into the definitive modus operandi and primary front for our entire Struggle.

Lastly, on top of the “sneaky nazi” approach being ineffective in its intentions, as its practitioners always find themselves on the defensive and make themselves appear weak, pathetic and cowardly, had this approach actually ever worked it would still be a most despicable and reprehensible act. Once the deception is discovered or made known to the public it would carry over an immediate backlash from both the masses and the immediate supporters of the actual group that utilized this method, assuring the group’s immediate downfall through disintegration, splintering and subterfuge carried out by the disenchanted and angry followers. The “sneaky nazis” would rightly become scorned as nothing more than backstabbing liars and terrible, untrustworthy leaders, as they promise their followers one thing and then deliver something else entirely. Public opinion will always yield to whatever is the dominant force, but the human disdain for weakness and cowardice is instinctual and unyielding through time. The very underhanded nature of this notion speaks of one’s ill, weak and tiny character that is by definition incompatible with the Fascist and National Socialist Worldview.

Of course, today, we face the destructive barking of our nation’s enemies at home. But we National-Socialists should never be swayed from our course of proclaiming what is absolutely necessary based on our inherent convictions. It is true that we must endure the flow of public opinion, which has been misled by the cunning Jewish exploitation of German thoughtlessness. It is true that sometimes the waves around us roar with evil fierceness, but those who swim with the current are more easily overlooked than the one who swims against the current. Today, we are just a rock sticking out of the flowing current. However, in only a few years Fate will elevate us to become a dam which will direct the flow of the current into a new riverbed.

Therefore, it is necessary for the National-Socialist movement to be recognized and established in the eyes of the rest of the world as the representative of a definite political idea. Whatever Heaven may have in store for us, let everyone know who we are by the caps we wear.

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, V2, Ch14

However, we don’t actually believe the Altright to be “sneaky nazis” in the least, although we, again, can’t discount the high probability of those existing beneath the Altright’s colorful “big tent” circus top, albeit they are likely to be but a small fragment of their total mass.

Let us then move on to the other possibilities.

Altright – Hipster conservatism?

When the Altright first began to gain more traction it created a distinction between itself and the mainstream American “right wing” of the conservative Republican Party, hence the name “Alternative Right”, as in an alternative to Republican conservatism, which has been discredited for cucking on its principles and giving into liberal “left wing” demands and narratives, thus earning itself the denigrating title of cuckservatism”. This term was used to further draw the line of distinction between the Altright and the mainstream American “right wing”. There had later been talk of substituting mainstream conservatism and the Republican Party, with supporting memes of “Look at me – I’m the GOP now”.

If we take this alone into consideration then we do indeed get an image of the Altright as a kind of “hipster conservatism” or a “conservatism for millennials”, a new and hip brand that revitalized old conservative values for a younger generation, making it fun. In the overview of the last possibility of what the Altright might be (Racist liberals) we will look at what it actually is, as there is more to it than just this. However, when we take only the highlights above into consideration, as well as their implications, we still get a legitimate insight into certain events which we will address later.

The irony here is, of course, that the inception of the Altright apparently owes itself to what our “allies” criticize ourselves for repeatedly, namely “punching right” – the whole reason the Altright exists is because it punched the GOP for either cucking/betraying conservative values, or apparently for not being “right wing” “enough”. However, the bigger issue at hand is that American conservatism has never been “right wing” by European standards – again we must deal with the relative nature of this Right/Left dichotomy. Moreover, conservatism itself is a relative concept with no fundamental values to its name, something we explored in quite some detail in another previous article: Con/Cuckservative, Reactionary, RevolutionaryOne can certainly ascribe more definitive traits to a given form of conservatism by giving it a clarifying denomination, such as American Conservatism, as per our primary discussion venue, – and yet when you do that you are still left with something that takes its origin in what was called “left wing” in Europe, namely in the model of classical liberalism.

Thus American Conservatism is nothing more than the defense of classical liberalism on which the United States of America had been originally founded, with Enlightenment and Rationalism values at its core, including the germ of that poisonous idea of equality. Whatever hopes the United States had to escape those values in favor of an organic national identity, instead of a fake paper identity issued by the State and reinforced by one’s adherence to its liberal values, were repeatedly and thoroughly smashed by our enemies, including the Jews. This was elaborated on in some detail by Francis Parker Yockey.

America began its independent political existence as a creature of Rationalism. Its politicians agreed to the proposition— externally— that “all men are created equal,” and even said this was “self-vident.” To call it self-evident, and thus dispense with proof, was easier, and perhaps wiser, than to prove it. Proof would have spoiled what is actually a tenet of a Faith, and thus above Reason. The religion of Rationalism dominated America in a way that it was never able to dominate Europe. Europe always had resistance against Rationalism— based on tradition until the middle of the 19th century, and after that based on anticipation of the coming anti-rationalist spirit of the 20th century — as exemplified in Carlyle and Nietzsche. But America did not possess the first because it had no tradition, and had not the second, because Cultural impulses and Culture-forwarding phenomena come from the Mother-soil and are thence radiated outward, as the Rationalistic religion of America came from England, through France.

America, as the country most completely disintegrated by Rationalism, exhibited the least understanding of the nature of the Jew, while there were always some people in Europe— for instance, Carlyle— even during the 19th century who realized the total, and not merely political, alienness of the Jew. But in America, with its complete lack of tradition, there were no Carlyles, no de Lagardes. Thus America decided, in the middle of the 19th century, that a Chinaman born in the United States thereby acquired exactly the same American citizenship as the white native population of European derivation. Characteristically, the decision was not made in a responsible fashion, but as the result of a lawsuit. This was in pursuance of an American custom of deciding political questions in a pseudo-legal form. Obviously a regime which did not differentiate between Chinese and native American would oppose no political barrier to the Jew. And so, by 1928, the French writer on historical and world-political topics, Andre Siegfried, could say that New York City had a Semitic countenance. By the middle of the 20th century, this development had gone further, and New York City, the largest city in America, perhaps in the world, was almost half Jewish in population.”

-Francis Parker Yockey, IMPERIUM

As such, the entirety of the mainstream American “right-wing” is by definition no ally of ours, as it is rooted in everything that we vehemently oppose and see to be at fault in the world. In fact the entirety of the American State exists as a direct enemy to our values and goals. The only valid Fascist/NS action in America is that of the absolutely leveling of the existing State, state culture, it’s values – in short, the total destruction of “Americanism” as such. Only then can something organic (and thus Fascist/NS) be grown in its place.

Here the sickness has been coming along, unabated, for at least three generations, and probably more. It’s their own baby and they love it. They wouldn’t be parted from it. It’s part of “Americanism”. This sickness is home-grown and it is from the inside out.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 3.9

This concept has been promoted as “American Futurism”. The entirety of James Mason‘s SIEGE deals with the very goal of leveling the American System, to which he referred as the “Beast System, a thing more loathsome and evil than any which appears in the Bible”.

The enemy today is the U.S. Government itself and it is, by every standard of measure, the most evil thing that has ever existed on earth. This, once it has sunk home, should be a good enough indicator of the sort of struggle we have ahead of us.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 2.2

This should only further illustrate how little relative terms of “Right/Left wing” mean, and exactly why we will never accept calls of allegiance on that premise. We judge things based on the values they promote – if those values are not our own, then we are enemies.

Even if we were to be convinced that the United States were at one point founded on something real and worth preserving, we would still call for an all out attack on its institutions, for Victory of the Race will not be achieved in defense of some dying an decrepit structure, but only through life-affirming ATTACK and CONQUEST.

The very word and idea of “conservatism” guarantees that the victims of this delusion will merely try to “conserve” what is already GONE (such as the Constitution, etc.), thus condemning themselves to a pitiful, rear-guard DEFENSIVE action.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, White Power, Ch12

Nazism replaces the collapsing “conservative” defense with vigorous ATTACK.

And when a people are as near to historical death as the whole White Race, attack is not only the best defense, it is the ONLY defense.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, White Power, Ch5

The whole basis of the Right Wing was to try and “hold,” defend a shrinking perimeter, shouting “Never!”anti-this and anti-that. One can only be shoved over the brink so many times, or trampled and annihilated up to a certain point when one must admit that, if it was a defensive struggle that was being waged, it was lost a little while ago.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 2.1

The job is to build a world of our own, not to pull someone else’s chestnuts out of the fire. Not a defense but an attack! To borrow a revolutionary press statement by Ed Reynolds, “We don’t want to rock the boat, we want to SINK it!”

-James Mason, SIEGE, 7.1

Fascism is not Tory Reaction in a black shirt or brown shirt, but the steel piston of realist revolution.

-William Brooke Joyce

Everywhere else, where there exists the natural, organic national and racial identity, nationalists, let alone Fascists and National Socialists, realize that the State is a separate thing  that exists as an expression of the nation, as part of its cultural expression, one that is organized towards manifesting the collective will of the nation in action for both internal and external matters.

The State is the form of a nation for action.

-Francis Parker Yockey, IMPERIUM 

However, through decay the State may cease to be an expression of the Nation, it may grow rigid and mechanical, very much in accordance with Oswald Spengler‘s concepts of Culture and Civilization. When this happens, nationalists have no qualms with laying to ruin the decadent and mechanical state along with all of the symbols which once expressed the pride and glory of the national culture. For when the state grows decadent and mechanic all symbols and institutions become worth no more or less than the physical materials through which they were expressed – institutions become just buildings, banners just colored rags. They may retain their cultural value in the memory of the nation, memory of the times when those institutions and symbols still retained their national essence, but they cannot become a value in of themselves, worthy of defense at the expense of the nation’s essence.

In short: organic identity has nothing to fear in the loss of what it had produced itself in the first place, the Nation takes primacy over the State and thus the Nation can always build a new State, but the State can never revitalize national health and restore the Nation’s spirit if the State itself had already ceased to be an expressive force of that Nation. If the spirit and will of that identity, the essence of the Nation and its character, still retains its vigor and vitality, then it will express itself anew.

Nationalists can destroy the State in the name of their Nation, so that a new, once again truly National State may be built on the ruins, and a new flag unfurled to signify its rebirth. New in form and appearance, yet in reality but a new manifestation of that Nation’s distinct character, the expression of the eternal Truth in its blood.

Our flag is neither red, nor black-red-gold, nor black-white-red; it is the flag of a new, vast reich that resides in our hearts, attaining in them its gestalt. The day will come when we will be able to unfurl it.

-Ernst Junger, Forward to  F.G. Junger’s book“March of Nationalism”

As sacred and dear as the old and beautiful colors must be, especially when they were fresh and youthful, to every decent German who has fought for them and has seen the sacrifices of so many under those colors, that flag is not the symbol for a battle of the future.

In contrast to the privileged-class politicians, I have always maintained the view in our movement that it is a real blessing for the German nation to have lost the old flag. What the new Republic does under its flag is unimportant to us. But we should thank Fate from the bottom of our hearts that it was merciful enough to protect the most glorious battle-flag of all times from being used as a cover for the most shameful prostitution. The present Reich, which sells-out itself and its citizens, must never fly the heroic black-white-red flag of honor.

As long as the November disgrace lasts, let it wear its own outer garment and not steal one from a more honest past. The conscience of our privileged-class politicians should tell them that anyone who desires the black-white-red flag for the current State is stealing from our past. The old flag really was beautiful, but only for the old Empire, just as the Republic has chosen a new one that is suited to itself.

This was the reason why we National-Socialists could not consider raising the old flag as a symbolic expression of what we were working for. After all, we did not want to awaken the old-dead Empire, which was destroyed by its own faults. We wanted to build a new State.

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, V2, Ch7

However, USA is not an organic nation, as we’ve already stated, it was founded not as an expression of an organic nation’s character and will, but instead an idealistic experiment of Rationalist thought, rooted in Enlightenment values. Here, the State takes primacy over the vast array of people of different national and racial backgrounds, and imposes on them the values on which it was based, artificial values created from the imagination of men. The American State is a product of Intellect, not of Blood. There is no space for any organic nationalism here, only for the liberal civic nationalism of the nation-state with its paper identity of citizenship, permitting anyone to become an American. As a result the “American” identity is one that has been artificially grown in accordance to State interests; one that disregards the organic national and racial backgrounds of the people who came to settle and populate USA; one  that has been planned and directed in its growth by those in power, and if you take to heart what Francis Parker Yockey said in IMPERIUM, then this identity has also been the plaything of the Jews since the 1930s.

Thus Americans are by far and large no more than civic nationalists and patriots, and whoever tries to walk outside that mold is immediately chastised for being un-American. To be an American is to wave the State flag and to praise the piece of paper on which this artificial construct was founded (The Constitution) as well as the men who had concocted it (The Founding Fathers). The latter two elements hold no more intrinsic value than the Communist Manifesto and “The Founding Fathers” of Communism, Marx and Engels – USA might as well have been set up on those grounds and then it would have been un-American to not praise the Manifesto. There is no national character to fall back on because there is no one single nationality that can lay claim to the US for its conception, moreover there is nothing to fall back on period, because Americanism has for the most part effectively wiped out any and all national and racial identity and conscious heritage of its European settlers.

What sort of Movement would it take to represent the will of the American people today? With some variations, several are already on the scene and, I might add, none of them remotely resemble anything National Socialist. Then too, there is no “American People,” only Whites who, for the most part, have lost all racial pride and identity. But they are only reflections of what their rulers, the upper classes, have made themselves into. In a plutocracy, which this is, the wealthy decide and control the mould of the society, how the future generations will take shape. And, like any god, they can predictably be expected to fashion the people of the future in their own image. Meet the future today as it was envisioned forty and fifty years ago! And tomorrow?

-James Mason, SIEGE, 3.9

As a result Americans are heavily dependent on their State/paper identity, which goes a long way to ensure its survival, as the American “right-wing” by definition stands in defense of that, on which the State relies for its power and control of the populace. Whatever “alternatives” get formed continue to rely on that same premise and thus invariably handcuff themselves to the System, as they effectively do not wish to fight and destroy it, but rather come to control and change it. Hipster conservatism does the same thing, but makes it “fun”, leading the American youth to further comply with the fake paper identity of the State as they put on their MAGA hats, though from everything that has been said so far it should be clear why no Fascist or National Socialist will ever agree that America had ever been great. An American Fascist/NS, if he is truly NS, cannot agree either, to him American Futurism and SIEGE are the only ways to liberate the people from the clutches of the System, in order to foster something truly organic in its place. With the destruction of the System in America, the ensuing conflict and strife will by necessity give rise to something organic and full of vitality, capable of establishing its own State as the expression of that new organic identity, full of life and creative force behind it. What that new entity will be cannot be predicted any more than one could predict what the Germans, French or English would grow to become at the dawn of their inception, for that mystery of their blood, imparted on them by the Absolute/Truth/God etc, had not yet come to express itself.

To conclude: Fascists and National Socialists, including American ones, have no allies in the american “right-wing” scene as they are hopelessly enslaved to an entity that is fundamentally contrary to everything we stand and fight for, hence they are incapable of even mounting an effective attack against it, let alone of pursuing the same goals as us. This only compounds the criticism of the American “right-wing” that has already been presented via the Rockwell quotes earlier. Altright as hipster conservatism simply falls into the same category as old and tired mainstream conservatism, just younger and “hip with the times”. The only path American Fascists and National Socialists have before them is that of American Futurism.

Still, as we said at the start of this segment, we do not believe that this alone is the original Altright, however the Hipster Conservative Altright has come into existence once the term Altright had reached mainstream notoriety, of which we will speak more in the next segment dealing with the real nature of the Altright.

Altright – Racist liberals?

We come to the final possibility as to the nature of the Altright, and by all accounts we find this one to ring the most true. Taking into consideration the same initial premise as the one introduced in the previous possibility, namely of the Altright appearing as an “alternative” to the mainstream American conservatism, which it had accused of betraying American conservative values, the core from which the Altright label had sprung also contains elements of vague racialism, including some sort of awareness of the Jewish Question, and no less vague white nationalism.

In total we find only two definitive elements to the Altright: it’s adherence to Americanism and, ironically, its vagueness when it comes to the very issues on which we supposedly share some common ground with them, which prompts their calls for “alliances” and “not punching right”. The incredible vagueness that is the definitive trademark of the Altright is due to it’s “big tent” approach when it comes to both what people make up its followers and the people it finds itself in alliance with. For all intents and purposes the Altright is the quintessential example of everything that our Champions had warned us against. Just go back and read their criticism of alliances and mass movement approaches that we presented earlier in this article, you’ll find that the Altright has been consistent in ignoring all those warnings.

By trying to amass itself as many followers as possible the Altright has made itself too vague to identify, only things that it definitively advertised were that it is “Right wing”, a “new alternative” to mainstream American conservatism, and that it seeks to establish a “White Ethnostate” (yet more vagueness). However, in its pursuit of becoming something “hip”, as is even advertised by the use of the Alt prefix itself (Alt is the new New/Neo/Post/Meta), it had delved into contemporary youth and internet/meme culture, becoming that “edgy” Hipster Conservatism for millennials. This method in theory sounds oddly similar to the American 90s marketing craze for appealing to teenagers with “XTREME” themes.

“No, this isn’t your grandpa’s conservatism, this is the new RAD AND WIRED ALTRIGHT BRAND X-TREME CONSERVATISM!! WE HAVE FUN, MEMES AND MICROMACHINES!! R U XTREME ENOUGH TO HANDLE IT?!? GET YOURS TODAY!! PEEEHPAAAY!!! warning:micromachinesnotofficiallyaffiliatedwiththealtrightandaresoldseparately.”

Of course, despite the labels and the appeal to internet culture, Altright is still deeply rooted in Americanism and thus in liberal logic, but combined with vague racialism, in effect becoming nothing more than Racist Liberalism. The Altright simply feels that Americanism has been “ruined” (vehemently denying that it was never any good in the first place) by non-whites. Indeed the ranks of the Altright are full of former liberals and libertarians who had been shocked into their newfound racialism by the new progressive generation of SJWs. Now to protect their beloved Americanism they wish to arm themselves with that vague racialism and the goal of a “White Ethnostate”.

We’ve already covered the issue of Americanism extensively in the previous segment, so now let us discuss this vague racialism and what it effectively amounts to. The vagueness of the Altright racialism is present throughout its entire narrative and is defined by the end goal of establishing the “White Ethnostate”, which holds no more specific aspects to it other than that it would be a “homogeneous society” and that alone is the key to success. As a result the Altright requires only just enough racialism to prove how a homogeneous society is better than a multicultural one and… that’s it. Anything else becomes just icing on the cake after the fact, depending on what kind of racialists the Altright had managed to attract into its fold, thus the degrees of racialism varies. 

There was a reason the young movement settled on a definite program and avoided using the word “Racialist” in it. The concept of “racialism” is unclear and indefinite which makes it impossible as a basis for a movement. It also does not offer any standard to judge what the members actually stand for. The more vague this concept is and the more open to interpretation it becomes, the more it appeals to everyone. Anyone can see whatever they want in the movement.

Injecting an idea into a political struggle that is vague and capable of many interpretations will ultimately destroy the solidarity and lead to harsh fighting within the fellowship. A political movement cannot survive if the individual is allowed to decide on his own what he believes the movement stands for. It is outrageous that people are running around today with the “Racial” symbol on their hats and how many of them have created their own definition of what the idea means.

[…]

Everyone interprets the idea as he happens to understand it. Such a wide variety of opinions is unacceptable as a basis for a fighting political movement. I am not even referring to their separation from reality and particularly the ignorance these people display when it comes to the soul of the nation which is commonly seen in these racialist movements, these John the Baptists of the twentieth century. The value of these people is clearly illustrated in the way they are treated by the Left-Wing parties. They find them ridiculous so they let these people rant and rave and just laugh at them.

Anyone in this world who is not hated by his enemies is worthless as a friend to me. 

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, V1, Ch12

There’s the crime statistics, the IQ charts, the comparison of cultural achievements, white flight, all sorts of arguments that to Fascists and National Socialists are entirely secondary. We’ll use them, but they are not our primary and definitive arguments, which further showcases how much our goals and those of our Altright “allies” differ. Their “White Ethnostate” goal amounts to little more than a white liberal gated community expanded to the size of a whole country, something we’ve already outlined in one of our previous articles. No wonder they are excited about Trump’s promise of a literal big wall – it is the ultimate, yuuuuge picket fence around their neighborhood, now they just need to get the whole of society to agree with them on keeping the Jews and darkies out of the neighborhood with their Overton Window petition.

What happens, is that the Altright finds itself between the average contemporary Americanism that doesn’t mind non-whites and “treats everyone as individuals” (the mainstream American “right wing” to which it poses itself as an alternative), and the progressive liberal SJW crowd that are taking Americanism to its logical self-destructive conclusions (the mainstream American “left wing”).

The altright wants exactly the same as the former group, minus the non-whites and the kind of whites that promote the latter. They fail to realize, that the latter are a direct product and result of the liberal mentality of the former, the SJW scene is the logical progression of the kind of Rationalist/Enlightenment principles on which the US was founded. The altright attacks the late-stage symptoms of natural death compounded by disease, not the reason for natural death, and is therefore ineffective against the opportunistic disease itself as well, as their solutions are always half-measures, an attempt to freeze the decay and disease at a certain stage of their development in perpetuity and proclaim that to be their ideal.

Their conflict with the American political mainstream, both “left” and “right” is premised on the same notion: “nonwhites get out, we don’t want to share the “fruits” of liberalism they’re all ours, OURS! REEEEEE DON’T TOUCH MY TOYS SHITSKIN!!!,” whereas the American “right” does want to share on “equal” and “fair” terms, and the American “left” is willing to sacrifice whites in order to give all of it up to the nonwhites. Sure, the nonwhites ruin the “fruits” of a liberal society and break all of the toys, however those things were no good to begin with. A further interesting point to highlight would be the prevalent opposition to socialism that exists within the Altright, including the Socialism of National Socialism, and not just Marxist Socialism or its successor, Cultural Marxist Socialism. OG Marxist Socialism, which aims towards Communism, pursues the goal of the formula “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”; Cultural Marxist Socialism develops that formula further into “from each white according to his ability, to each non-white according to his needs”.

However the Altright likewise opposes National Socialism, the entire foundation of which is, of course, duty and service, of which the liberal mindset wants neither, just as much as it opposes the idea of having to give up its cummies and general liberal frivolities for redistribution among other whites or giving them all up to nonwhites. “Comfortable and safe suburban bourgeois Life, Liberty from responsibilities and duties, and the pursuit of Happiness, i.e. hedonistic pleasures and cummies”that is the true slogan of Americanism, and thus the slogan of the Altright, which only attaches to that a sign reading “no niggers, Jews or other nonwhites allowed!” It comes then as no surprise why so many in the Altright worship the American 50s, when Americanism was strong and the nonwhites were fewer, but they ignore that the 60s had come about as a direct result of the previous decade(s).

If this society were not ripe for death, would it so willingly harken to the Jewish and liberal song of death? Would it cooperate so readily?

-James Mason, SIEGE, 7.19

It is not physical lacks or hardship which bears down or our people and drives them unconsciously toward national and racial suicide.

It is a SPIRITUAL failing, a DISEASE of the spirit, which has our people down and beaten. 

Our people are rotting from the inside, no matter how the outside gives the appearance of prosperity and happiness.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, White Power, Ch2

Fascists and NS, on the other hand, want to eradicate the very core underlying problem, hence there is no room for idolizing the 50s or Americanism in general – it’s all wrong. We cannot be allies with those who are employing half measures for, what is to us, half-goals. Therein is hidden the lie of us having the same goals based on the idea that both sides are rooted in racialism. Sure, we have some similar starting point if we bring everything down to a common denominator of actually recognizing that races exist and matter to social organization, yet our “racialism” is anything but vague, and when taken to its logical ends it will necessitate the destruction of liberalism, even if it calls itself Americanism.

The Altright wants to stop the train halfway to its final destination – by addressing some symptoms of the degeneracy, while leaving the core of modernity intact. We want to go all the way, so a conflict between us for the train controls is inevitable. To call us “fellow travelers” would be as delusional as it would be to say that a priest going to church is a fellow traveler with a sodomite who is going to a gay bathhouse located halfway down the same road.

As we deal with absolutes of Truth and Lies and not practicality for the sake of an “all-white-liberal-playground”, our own “racialism”, goes far beyond the limits of what the Altright requires for their goals. Moreover, Fascism and NS in reality hold a monopoly on racial values as it was only the Fascist and National Socialist Worldview that took the fundamentals of racial principles to their logical conclusions and stuck with them as the end goals, ready to not only promote but to fight and die for them. Only Fascists and National Socialists can declare themselves to be real proponents and defenders of racial values (moreover, to be their sole champions) as opposed to the big, vague tent that is the Altright and its intellectual “racialist sleepwalkers,” whose idea of “active struggle” is as laughable as it is sad evidence of the current state of affairs.

If National Socialism is to conquer, it must declare this set of ideas absolutely and exclusively as its own. Here too it has the duty and the right to stress that any attempt to maintain the race-based idea outside the confines of the National-Socialist German Workers’ Party is pointless and impossible, and in most cases, such claims are outright fraud.

If anyone today accuses the movement of acting as if it “owned” the race-based idea, there is just one single answer: We not only own it, but for all practical purposes, we created it.

Nothing that previously existed under the name racialist was fit to influence the destiny of our people in the slightest because these ideas all lacked clear, unified formulation. In most cases, these ideas were a collection of mere isolated, disconnected convictions, which varied in their soundness. They often contradicted one another and never had any cohesion among themselves. Even if this cohesion had existed, it was too weak to build a movement from. This is what the National-Socialist movement accomplished alone.

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, V2, Ch5

Indeed, Fascism and National-Socialism are the only logical conclusions to any legitimate racial values and racial thinking, whereas Altright “racialism” has more in common with the kind of “redneck racism” imagined by mainstream liberals.

Redneck racism was based on hate, fear, ignorance and plain snobbery, etc. Hitler’s kind of racialism – and Manson’s – was, and is, based upon Natural Order.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 4.19

With the Altright the intellectual “racialist sleepwalking” is a product of their redneck racism. They simply hated other races for immediate emotion-driven reasons (“not that there’s anything wrong with that,” as this is an instinctual manifestation of a deeper Truth) rather than by virtue of having any fundamental reasons rooted in a definitive Worldview (of which there is only one, that of the Truth, of Fascism and NS).

Redneck racism is fine by us when it comes to the average folk, however if you wish to lead your people with racial values you are obliged to know the fundamental underlying reasons for this instinctual behavior and turn it into a social doctrine.

They utilized racialist thinking for pragmatic and utilitarian reasons alone, to justify their emotional drives after the fact, without ever taking that thinking to its logical conclusion (Fascism/NS). Again – they need it only in as much as it helps them create their all-white-liberal-playground ethnostate, where they don’t have to deal with nonwhites at all and can wallow in liberal degeneracy that fully comprehensive racial thinking would fundamentally oppose. Their racialism serves the goal of excluding nonwhites from white societies and that is it, merely a means to an end.

Fascism and National Socialism take racial thinking to its logical conclusions and uphold racial values AS VALUES  in of themselves within the model of the Organic State. Where a vague racialist can at most be simply proud of having been born a certain race, in the Fascist/NS Worldview being born into a certain race is but a premise, as that alone it is not enough. To be born Aryan is not enough to justify pride, it is a life-long obligation of duty and service to live up to the destiny of your Aryan blood. When racial origin is taken for granted with a sense of entitlement, it will inevitably lead to decay and racial ruin. Instead one must view it as a mighty responsibility before all those who came before, those alive, those who will come after, and to the Truth itself. There is no room here for egotistical pride and conceit. This is the meaning of the medieval chivalry motto “Noblesse oblige”“nobility obliges”, meaning that one’s noble ancestry constrains to honorable behavior, thus privilege entails to responsibility, NOT conceit and entitlement. This notion has existed in literature as early as Homer’s Iliad.

When we say “Romanian Nation” – we understand it as: all romanians, alive and dead, who lived on this land since the start of its history and those who will live on it in the future.

-Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, For My Legionaries

The nation is a being of a higher order, existing independently of those individuals of whom it is temporarily composed. It is not a physical being, with a head, arms, legs, eyes. It is a moral and historical entity, which lives and acts in human history, carrying its national symbols.

-Dimitrije Ljotic

I am not free to think as I wish. I can only live in relation to the dead of my race. They, and my country’s soil, tell me how I shall live.

-Auguste-Maurice Barrès

Once we let self-interest become the ruler of a people, the bonds of social order are broken. When man focuses on chasing his own happiness, he falls from Heaven straight to Hell.

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, V1, Ch11

Meanwhile the attitude of our would-be “allies” has been elaborated on in the same older article that we are now linking to for a third time. Yet let us go back to a claim we made just a bit earlier, namely of the methods employed by the Altright and how laughable and sad they are. The Altright’s insistence on it and its methods being “new” leads them down the path of the predictable claim that since they are new they are untried and “prove” themselves to be “successful” by claims the true consequences of which will be made apparent only sometime in the future, had we not already seen this “new” path been done to death before.

If one is to actually read the works of George Lincoln Rockwell, the parallels between what had been advertised by his “allies” at the time, and what the Altright advertises now are so great that we have released a bait and switch article a couple of months ago, publishing exempts from Rockwell’s books and substituting some names in there for those relevant to the contemporary situation. How is it that the entirety of Alrights schtick has been around since the 50s and yet they imagine themselves to be “new” and “innovative”?

Frankly, the only difference between then and now is the appearance of the internet, which, however, is but a new tool or medium for the same old methods, methods that we have already discredited earlier in this very article. Mass movement approach doesn’t work, mass conversion via propaganda doesn’t work, purely intellectual appeal doesn’t work, presentability and respectability of the suit and tie look don’t matter, and it doesn’t matter if you have a new tool to play with if the very premise of these methods is faulty. The new tool may be well and good but the way and the goal for which it is used renders that tool useless. Why hasn’t anyone learned their lessons and continued to repeat the same mistake for decades?

What repeating the same stupid mistakes for 50 years looks like. Keep watching the gif for the next 50 years for the full experience.

These know-it-alls cannot understand that being “dignified” or “refined” or “reasonable” has not helped any of the right-wing movements so far to SUCCESS.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, This Time the World, Ch20

The most likely primary reason why these mistakes had formed an inescapable loop, is that these very practices always lead a group to a quiet death in obscurity and irrelevance, thus nobody in the next generation of would-be political activists even realize that there used to be this one, two, ten, thirty groups over the decades that have attempted this song and dance already. Each new generation succumbs to these same rationalistic “reasonable” ideas as the default “logical” path to take and are not aware of the existence of the mass grave of forgotten groups and organizations that had died on this road, with the only warning being a sign with a Swastika, saying “turn back”yet none will listen. Nobody is willing to learn from the experience and vast knowledge of our Champions as they are dismissed out of hand for the same rationalistic “reasonable” mindset, that upon seeing the Swastika immediately jumps to the same tired assumptions that we had already criticized here earlier. “Dumb nazis, this isn’t how you win, I know best, so I’ll do this NEW and GENIUS in its SIMPLICITY approach” – yet they never seem to wonder why this self-evident and simple approach “hasn’t been done before”, for if they had, they would have discovered the mass grave right beneath their feet. Instead they go ahead and venture forth to assured failure.

To summarize: a group appears on the scene, does the “respectable, presentable entryist mass movement “we’re not nazis plz stop saying that!” mass appeal big tent” song and dance, dies in obscurity and departs from the fringes of public consciousness where it was trapped for the entirety of its existence. New group, ignorant of all this and naive, repeats the exact same steps and ends up the same way. Rinse, repeat, over and over for the last 50 years. An accursed loop perpetuating itself from sheer arrogant ignorance and naivety.

This is, of course, exactly why the Altright poses no threat to the System and the Jews – it’s already seen this before and knows how it will go. To paraphrase an earlier Hitler quote we’ve given: “The value of these people is clearly illustrated in the way they are treated by the System. It finds them ridiculous so it lets these people rant and rave and just laughs at them.” And let us be honest here, there is plenty to laugh at:

First thing we hear when watching the Spencer talk in Texas is “You went to a startrek convention” – shit, must have clicked something else by mista… no wait, this is the Spencer talk. Surprising at first, but with the benefit of afterthought it does seem fitting for just who Spencer is.

“You like to wear sweatpants, it’s all… … woo!” 

-SPENCER! SPENCER, SLOW DOWN THE CRINGE ENGINE!
-NO CAN DO CAPT’N, I’M GIVING IT ALL SHE’S GOT!

“These are elective identities” – being a “trekkie,” yes, perhaps, if you’re a complete loser. But wearing sweatpants is an elective identity? Who the hell wears sweatpants as a definitive part of who they are? It would appear that Spencer can only communicate with those like himself – utter losers and cringy imbeciles.

The way he talks, like he’s almost whispering in that faux soothing tone, just making him look like that much more of an emasculated creep, like he’s trying to emulate Mr Rogers, with a vest instead of a sweater.

“As a European” – you’re an ameriburger, lad – “I can tell the story of the Greeks and the Romans…”

coukusquaaes-wi
He sure can tell some bullshit stories alright.

“… about the coming of Christianity” – but you’re only a self-professed “cultural Christian,” Spencie, you don’t know jack shit about actual Christianity. Maybe if you listened to some Mysterium Fasces you’d know a bit more.

He takes long pauses, allows the hecklers to shout some quip and replies to it in that same passive, soothing fashion “no, you’re wrong, sir” – you’re in enemy territory Dickie, nobody there is your friend no matter how much of a passive pussy you present yourself as, which isn’t hard, it’s in your nature. Dickless Dickie allows the people in the crowd to direct the talk by responding to every heckler he hears, like this wasn’t a planned talk but a heart to heart conversation between a councilor and some troubled youths (channeling Mr Rodgers hard), and perhaps that was exactly the angle Spency was going for – however that angle is weak, pathetic and completely ineffective. The Sesame street approach may seem appropriate in that modern college students are easily triggered little children with designated “safe spaces” decorated like baby rooms, however they are trained to be mindless and foaming at the mouth attack dogs whenever presented with anything that challenges their delusions. Either way the constant distractions to talk to hecklers renders this entire exercise in futility unworthy of even being called a talk or presentation.

It’s Spencer trying to be the “nice guy” with SJW’s. Why, however? For the fame and popularity? Is that all this is for Spencer?

“Oh, he’s a professor, so that means he must be correct” *chuckles* – further cringe. To which the audience, predictably, reacts, but what is truly interesting is how Spencer reacts to the crowd:

GHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!!!
fagspencer
“Tee hee, don’t hit on me you silly boys!”

How does one manage to be a bigger presenting faggot than an outright faggot like Milo?

More talking to hecklers. Also note all the weird pauses. One lasts up to 9 or 10 seconds straight as he stands there awkwardly.

Joke about a fat clown that Dickie himself is just so fucking giddy over that he laughs, like a little boy who just said a naughty word, into the mic with a huge grin on his face.

All of these horrible hindrances dominate the presentation or whatever the hell this trainwreck is supposed to be. Some might argue that he made a few good points, but this is a backwards logic as you make up excuses for single, miniature instances, which are more or less  okay or moderately good, which are obscured by and large by the overall spirit of awkwardness and weakness. This is a downward spiral, for while NPI conferences were cucked and weak, here Spencer presents himself not only as that, but also as a joke.

>listens to heckler
>does weird hand gestures
>”alright, let’s cool down the autism a little bit”
>GIGGLES

*OHEEEEMGEEE I SAID DAT INTERNET MAYMAY IN REAL LIFE LIEK OHMYGOSH GIGGLE*

>”Just joking!”

The mentality is amazing: “I did something naughty and it was so exciting but now I should cuck myself over it”. In the meantime his supporters in the back go bananas over hearing a meme *offline*. And it is an utter joke, cringy as all hell, but apparently this is what deserves praise.

This defines the entire next segment as well, as Spencer finally gets to deliver actual points, but at the end, in another pause, replies to a heckler “I’m not paranoid, they’re just out to get me” effectively undoing all of what he said prior. Instead of driving home those points on globalization and rootlessness by showing how the leftist/sjw narrative says some of the same things in different words, he effectively painted himself to be an awkward cook with that ‘joke’. Another pause.

He goes back into the actual meat of the presentation only to engage another heckler over some sign that he is shown and each time Spencer readily takes the bait and addresses it and makes a long spectacle of it which brings him back into that awkward cringe territory. In effect it is not Spencer running the crowd but the crowd controlling Spencer, which is easy because he is very responsive, too slow, makes long pauses, leaves all the possible ways in for hecklers and the crowd to exploit and it is truly pathetic how much of a hapless leaf in the wind he is during the entirety of this event. And his reaction to the hecklers is always the same thing: awkward pause analyzing what is happening – replying or explaining what is happening – then giving it a soft chuckle or making a “funny” “joke” or “maymay” and then giggling to himself like a schoolboy.

prestonfine

Finally the SJW part of the bored-to-death crowd decided to add some kind of excitement to the even and a lot of commotion happens with a crowd obscuring the view of the stage. “Let’s sit down and talk with each other!” – so talking to the hecklers was always part of the goal for this “event”. “I’m about to finish up and will give everyone a chance at Q&A”THAT’S IT? You did nothing BUT reply to them anyway, where is the actual talk? We’re 25 minutes in and half, if not most of it was lame memes, awkward pauses, answering hecklers and Spencer giggling at his own jokes and how clever he thinks he is. But that is most likely Spencer’s strong suit to talk with people rather than talk at people, he’s certainly a failure at the latter.

Spencer’s whole style at this event and the way he tries to calm down the crowd makes it look like he is going for an “SJW-whisperer” counterpart to Cesar Millan, however lacks any success, so he finally tries raising his voice momentarily, before once again returning to the real points and manages to keep going alright, until he is once again distracted by a heckler, to whom Spencer responds: “This world needs a better class of heckler” – proof to the contrary Spency, as you take the bait and allow him to control you. Every time Spencer does something that is moderately alright – his talking points being already passe within our own circles, their delivery being fairly flat, though steady – he immediately stumbles and ruins everything on demand of some random body in the audience, reacting in a way that makes him look like a fucking buffoon: “You know who I am!” – wtf was that? Was that another reference? In some half-assed delivery of a whisper-yell?

He wraps up and does a wide wave into the audience like a 5 year old. The Q&A goes along in the same pace, it feels more dynamic as it is conversations but ultimately it’s just more cringe.

>Hitler and nazi salute
>just memes and irony my nig-dawg!

>it’s all very exuberant
>THAS OFFENSIVE THAS OFFENSIVE HOW U EXCUSE DAT?

>it’s just exuberance and nothing more, I swear my african american brotha!

And then Spencer gets attacked on the premise of “are you an american? why do the nazi salute if you’re proud to be an american? should we have won ww2?” And the answers are just WEAK. And how truly pathetic is that, when you think back to how Rockwell handled all those exact same questions, essentially handed a blueprint for this type of engagement. But then again Dickless Dickie is just a schmuck-right pansy.

Spencer: I’ll actually agree here, find some common ground” – in other words “no seriously, let’s be friends dawg, I’ll even concede some things, I’ll cuck a bit for you to accept me, please! We’ll maybe knock some of that stuff off and…
Nig: MAYBE?  

NOT CUCKING HARD ENOUGH SPENCER! PICK UP THE PACE!

Nig: Are you Christian?
Spencer: I’m a cultural christian, yes.
Nig: What the hell is that?

The nignog immediately zeroes in on any opening of weakness and since Spencer is nothing BUT weakness he can just take apart each of his points immediately on delivery (r u huwite nationalist? what’s identitarian?), this is literal interracial rape on live television! Change the title of the video to “Young white buck gets fucked by BBC”. Spencer just proceeds to babble incoherently at this point and has nowhere to go other than to say “this isn’t about me!” He does retaliate alright later on about historic Christians but ultimately this is a weaksauce punch because he didn’t deconstruct the predominant narrative that modern Christians are “the true Christians;” all the lemming Christians at home will agree with the nignog.

This is followed by a tiresome argument on slavery building america and Spencer still fucks it up completely. Then he gets raped some more on federal hiring. And throughout the whole fucking thing Spencer looks like he’s fucking lost and defenseless and he starts smiling to put up a front of “oh youuuu, you, youuuuu, haha, oh you“. And then he seriously, actually, literally says “give me a break”.

Nig: Who created affirmative action?
Spencer:  *lost daze* white people… probably?

Loses the entire argument on affirmative action. Pause the video at 17:17. That fucking profile, that mouth-breathing braindead expression – that says it all. Then it goes further downhill when he tries to make a valid point that Egyptians aren’t Africans (in the racial sense) BUT THEN ALLOWS THE NIGGER TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE AND RESHAPE DEFINITIONS (he talks about Africans as people located on the African continent) TO STATE THE OPPOSITE. Then he actually allows the Nigger to get away with saying that while “black” egyptians built the pyramids, Europeans “were still in caves”. He just lets him get away with that blatant lie on top of reinforcing a different lie!

And then nignog tells Spencer he is afraid, putting the final nail in the coffin. He utterly raped him and then “psychoanalyzed” his stance (lack thereof) into a rationalization – you don’t have ideas, you’re just afraid of competition!

Nig: We’re not going anywhere and you’re gonna have to suck that bbc up.

Spencer walks away a complete fucking loser.

spencercringe

1-currentyear2-pepe3-magick4-altlogo5-neocons6-relativism7-understandblm8-eurodog9-zionism10-conspiracy11-insultJew12-whitopia13-meltingpot14-negative15-homeland16-mixing17-fagspics

The fakers know why they are fakers. They have too much to hide, too much to protect, too much to lose. The attraction of any real talent or genius or personal drive is a direct threat to them as it threatens to “take away” not only their livelihood but also rob them of their “star” status.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 8.21

We can already hear the rushed objections of our Altright “allies” as they hurriedly try to present examples of their “success”. Namely, they legitimately seem to think that they “memed” Trump into the presidency of the United States. The absolute absurdity of this claim is indescribable. The Altright had not even registered in the widespread american public consciousness until Hillary Clinton had put it there with her Altright speech, which likewise ushered the birth of the Hipster Conservatist Altright without the racialism aspects, that we had explored earlier.

Time for an overdue reality check: the Altright did not make Trump possible, but the exact opposite, which is precisely why they have been riding his coattails online via memes, podcasts and some articles, which apparently in their mind amounts to “activism”.

In reality, as per the Lemming Principle, the masses, including mainstream conservatives, simply did not speak out in force against the progressive liberal SJW bullshit as it was the dominant narrative that was unopposed in the public discourse at the highest level, hence nobody felt safe criticizing it. Until Trump, who legitimized that criticism and thus carved out a “safe space” for lemmings to voice their discontent (which they would have never voiced otherwise, further showcasing their cowardice) – however the wide masses and overwhelming bulk of Trump support did not share in any sort of racialist thinking whatsoever, instead falling back on the mainstream conservative individualist fairness principles “of each man being able to make his own way regardless of skin color”.

It were these people, the average conservative lemming who isn’t racist in the slightest but does not support progressive liberalism and feels betrayed by the Republican party, that got Trump elected, not the Altright, which presents only a fringe element of Trump support. The actual figureheads of this core of Trump supporters who had contributed to his victory are actually figures like , outlets like Rebel Media and Info Wars (who had overtaken The Young Turks in their subscriber count), as well as various “rationalist” YouTubers like Sargon of Akkad. These are the real sample representatives of the core of Trump’s supporters who got him elected, not the Altright.

They often self-identify as the “new media” that is rooted in American conservatism, including Sargon of Akkad, even though he says he is a center-left liberal, since that translates from European to American “right/left” scale as something pretty close to American Conservatism. So if anyone got Trump into office then it was this “new media conservatives”. Hell, even Campus Reform had done more for Trump’s victory than the Altright with such real life actions as the one in the video below, though let us be fair and admit that lemmings stick to their bias regardless of what facts are presented to them (which holds true for both Trump and Hillary supporters), so you can safely bet that most of them voted for Hillary regardless of having been made to look like absolute idiots.

These people have been actively, visibly and publicly campaigning for Trump ever since he started, whereas the Altright, with its online “activism” was known to nobody outside the fringe political circles. It gained any level of public recognition only because Hillary Clinton had attempted to use the Altright as another way of attacking Trump to discredit him, just as it was done when he was pressed about his apparent KKK support-base (now imagine if the KKK claimed that it was them who got Trump elected – it is just as farcical and laughable as the Altright claim). In the long run one could say that the Altright actually owes far more to Hillary for their meager level of publicity than to Trump. Mark Dice (another representative of Trump’s real support base) Video below timestamped.

Search results for Altright starting from Trump’s announcement that he’ll be running for President and ending with his victory in November. The spike coincides with Hillary’s speech about the Altright. “Oh yeah we got Trump elected, fam!”

And what had effectively happened as a result of that speech? The Altright brand was somewhat fractured, as all the Trump supporters took on that mantle and started skewing it from its original sources and its racialist aspects to just refer to the Hipster Conservatism for millennials, so now you have pointless and moronic videos on the issue of the hijacked brand name, like the one where Red Ice Radio talk about Paul Joseph Watson of Info Wars misrepresenting the meaning of the Altright. Hipster Conservatives be like: “Look at me – I’m the Altright now.” Now the OG Altright is being pushed out even further into the category of an unfortunate and unwanted fringe, whose existence can be explained away in the same fashion one negro Trumpist explained away Trump’s KKK support-base:

Altright and people like that, they come out from under the rocks all the time around this time, that got nothing to do with Donald Trump, we’re all Americans.” This is the definitive attitude of the majority of Trump’s support, the actual support that did get him elected. They regard the Altright, to be but a fringe element that is irrelevant. And to add insult to injury, with the appropriation of the Altright label they can now relegate the OG racialist Altright as a fringe element of the “real” Hipster Conservativist Altright. Now go back and read once again Hitler’s warnings about mass movements and alliances and how they would defuse a group and render it immobile, not that the Altright had much going for it in the first place anyway.

And while the Altright is absolutely harmless to the System, for it practices the same, time and again failed approach, they do give it a fair share of coverage, however it is not done out of fear of the group itself (indeed they manage to successfully mock it nonstop), but for the exact same reason that Hillary brought it up in the first place: they are trying to use the Altright to smear Trump, which is of course completely futile, but it gives the Altright itself a false sense of its importance and achievements. They love telling the media that they got Trump elected, a delusion that the media is only too glad to capitalize on, regardless if they realize the truth of the matter, because that claim fits into their own narrative. The Jew-run media doesn’t actually attack them as a credible enemy, it only uses them to try and discredit Trump. What’s more, the Lugenpresse would have utilized the Altright for its narratives in either Trump or Hillary victory. With Trump’s victory they showcase how “evil racists had been emboldened by it” hence all the fake attack stories on Hillary supporters that have become so prevalent. With Hillary’s victory they would have instead talked about how “evil racists are lashing out against Trump’s defeat” (even the term “whitelash” would have still existed in case of Hillary’s victory), each time using the Altright as an avenue of attack on Trump.

The fantasy world in which the Altright lives is a fantasy world that the Jew media is only too happy to fuel, as they both pretend that the Altright is something more than what it actually is, which makes it all the better for the Jews when they easily beat it down with sheer mockery. The Altright huffs and huffs but cannot produce a single puff, but the Jew giddily pretends to be walking against a powerful gale, to look all the more heroic for it. Although, there is always another additional possibility as to why the Jew media pays so much attention to the Altright, which is likewise rooted in its harmlessness:

During all their direct attacks against the staunch patriot, the Jewish ‘lovers of sweet reason’ employ two equally dirty indirect plays: They build up sincere, but harmless anti-communist outfits, like the John Birch Society, by showering them with publicity to draw off the growing hordes of maddened Americans from any real and therefore dangerous activity and, secondly, they open up a heavy media bombardment of lies about Hitler and National Socialism, in order to destroy by discrediting ‘Nazis’ like ourselves, without giving us any publicity.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, This Time the World, Ch12

Yet the Altright insists on having “memed” Trump into office, using nothing but their online presence, of which the wider masses were not even aware of until that Hillary speech, and even thereafter the interest dropped again as real core of Trump’s support regard the (racialist) Altright as nothing more than another weak lying press attack on his persona. All this online “activity” and the power of the internet could not do jack shit to transform what the Altright was doing into anything tangible, and what they were doing was producing content for the immediate consumption of their own, already existing audience, and not the wider masses, despite their praise of the mass movement and “Overton window” approaches. The Altright racialist sleepwalkers had in effect done nothing other than partially substitute the intellectual methods of message delivery for the meme method.

This whole line of thinking stinks of the kind of weak character types that are afraid of any real action and seek the easy and comfortable way out, and what can be safer, easier and more comfortable than “memeing” your “victory”. These very same people, our would-be “allies” wanted us to in effect do nothing as well, for anything that we, Fascists and NS, promote and do, they decried as “larping” or as something that “pushes the masses away”. Or perhaps they do it because it effectively makes them look bad and forces them to face the reality of their own irrelevance and weakness. Yet they have the nerve to claim themselves to be the “brains” to our “muscle”, the presentable and respectable vanguard of the thug rank and file, all the while their sole “claim to fame” is the “silent work” of online “activism”.

Therefore the friendship of these people for our young movement was not only worthless but downright dangerous. In fact, that was the main reason we chose the name “Party” in the first place. We hoped that this would scare off a whole swarm of racialist sleepwalkers. This is why we also described ourselves as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

The word Party scared off the fanatics who live in the past, as well as the big talkers who spout meaningless phrases about the “racial idea”. The other part, National Socialist German Workers, freed us from a whole parade of knights of the “intellectual” sword and all the ragged misfits that carry “intellectual weapons” as a shield to cover their cowardice.

Naturally the most violent “attacks” on our new movement came from these racialists. Of course the attacks were not physical, but only with their favorite weapon of pen and ink, just as you would expect from such racialist pen heads. To them, there was something revolting about our principle which stated, “If a man offers us violence, we will defend ourselves by violence”. They criticized us profusely claiming we possessed a rude type of worship for the rubber club and that our ranks lack any form of intellect. These quacks fail to realize that in a meeting of racialists, a Demosthenes can be silenced by just fifty idiots who rely on nothing but their lungs and their fists if those idiots do not want to let him speak. The inborn cowardice of the racialist always keeps him out of any such danger. He does not make noise when he works and he never steps out of the crowd – he is always careful to stay silent.

Even today I cannot warn our young movement strongly enough against falling into the trap of these “silent workers”. They are not only cowards, but they are all incompetents and do-nothings. When a man knows something is going to happen, and he realizes it is a real danger, and he sees, with his own eyes, the mere possibility of solution, he damned well has the duty and obligation to act. He must make a public stand against evil and openly work for its cure, not work “silently”. If he does not do so, he is a miserable weakling who has forgotten the meaning of duty and a failure either through cowardice or through laziness and inability. The great majority of the “silent workers” merely pretend to know what Heaven knows. None of them has any ability, but they all try to fool the whole world with their smoke-screen. They are lazy, but with their alleged “silent” work, they appear to be enormously active and productive. In a word, they are swindlers and political day-workers who find the honest work of others disgusting. When one of these racialist moths prefers the darkness in the valley of “silence”, you can bet a thousand to one that in the dark, he is not producing but stealing and stealing from the fruit of others’ work.

In addition, there is the arrogance and conceited disrespect that this lazy, night owl crowd dumps on the work of others. They constantly complain about the works of others in a condescending way, and in so doing they actually help the deadly enemies of our nationality.

Every last follower who has the courage to stand on a table in a tavern surrounded by his enemies and boldly and openly defend his views accomplishes more than a thousand of these lying, treacherous sneaks. He definitely will convert and win over one man or another to the movement. His achievement can be tested and proved by the success of his activity. However, the cowardly frauds who boast of their “silent” work and hide themselves in disgraceful anonymity are worthless and may be considered in the truest sense of the word useless when it comes to working for the revival of our people.

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, V1, Ch12

As far as this type of “racialist” fighter is concerned, I can only say to the National-Socialist movement and to the German people most sincerely, “Lord, guard us from such friends and then we can easily deal with our enemies”.

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, V2, Ch10

As for the very few of their figureheads and groups that had managed to actually go out and attempt real life activism, we had already provided some criticism of their conduct earlier in this article, but there is still more to be said and more of their own points to be refuted.


The Criticism of Weapons

One of our primary arguments is that today we are left no other viable options to achieve our goals but Revolution and thus we promote education in revolutionary activity, foremost with James Mason‘s SIEGE. It is the timeless and inevitably repeating truth of the world that violence is the last resort. The only ones to believe differently are those who had never actually experienced a situation in which they have been deprived of any other way of achieving what they want, and if they had, such people are most likely to bend to the will of whomever holds power to deprive them of what they want. In our struggle, however, if you bend even a little then you might as well bend over and take it. 

If good men abandon and denigrate force, then bad men will take it up and beat us to death with it.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, White Power, Ch13

Nevertheless, our would-be “allies” still delude themselves with notions of legal victory.

We’ve already criticized and thoroughly discredited entryism, mass movement approach, mass propaganda “Overton window” approach, and the “meme” “victory” of the Altright. The only straggling argument they may have left in their employ is that they are not attempting entryism, but are trying to be open in their own way. After all, we did concede that the Altright are not “sneaky nazis” and that they do in fact stand on some vague racialist notions, about which they are absolutely open.

Frankly, the only reason we’ve had as many encounters and arguments with the Altright  as we did was entirely their own doing. In their attempt to be as big of a “big tent” as possible, and through adoption of internet culture, they had taken on a presentation that is supposedly welcoming of Fascists and National Socialists, but, as we’ve outlined earlier, only if we toe the line and button up about our principles, as our principles are incompatible with the inherent liberal (Americanist) values of the Altright. In fact, the only aspect of Fascism and National Socialism they had truly welcomed was none of its core and fundamental elements, but a modernist byproduct of them – memes. Internet culture had a prevalent layer of ironic Nazism for quite a while now, used in the first place simply for trolling purposes, and this is the only sort of Nazism that the Altright actually welcomes – when its just a meme.

They’re actually utilizing this element of internet culture as a means of self-defense against the accusation of being actual Nazis. As opposed to the mainstream conservative self-defense of “NO YOU ARE THE NAZIS!” that we’ve discussed earlier, the Altright’s defense is not to throw the accusation back at the accuser, but to defuse it into a joke, an accusation that they feel they unfortunately have to deal with, but would ideally prefer not to. When accused of being racists they say “racism is not a real word, it is made up by leftists, its only used to shut down an intelligent conversation when we are winning” – we do not fear being called racist, we openly declare ourselves to be Racist.

In the same vein some of them literally and in all seriousness say that Nazi is the “white n-word”, which exposes their true attitude towards National Socialism. Still, they’re ultimately trying to cope with the accusation and use the benefits of internet culture to their advantage: “Yeah I guess I’m not totally on board with democracy, that is what Fascists are like right? Guess I am a little fashy, teehee!” This “dumb but cute” high-school girl routine is, of course, infuriating to any real Fascists and National Socialists, as well as the words “fash” and “fashy” which convey that same ironic, disingenuous attitude, coined by some degenerate bitch Rachel Haywire.

We have likewise tapped into internet culture to advance our ideals, however this resulted in the formation of our own post-ironic Nazi humor, when our apparently ironic presentation is nevertheless used to deliver the earnest message of our ideals. We do believe in what we promote, it is not a meme, it is not merely a means of defense, it is exactly who we are.

While I have always been an atheist, Hitler, to me, is larger than life – an immortal if there ever was one. To HELL with any who think differently! He is my life’s inspiration and shall always remain so.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 8.24

Thus our conflict with the Altright was all but inevitable as they insist on using ironic Nazism in a political environment only to then proceed and ignore anything that deals with true Fascism and National Socialism, all the while calling on us to join them as “allies” but only so long as we are not authentic in our beliefs. Hell, it would seem that some of them don’t even understand that we truly are “literal Nazis,” that we are not larping or memeing nazism or 1930s NSDAP, but that we are true believers and fanatics of the National Socialist Worldview, a Worldview that transcends time and national boundaries, to whom Adolf Hitler is not just some unfortunate burden of history not to be “counter-signaled against” for merely pragmatic purposes, but a Champion of what we believe in and whose name, among others, is a crucial element of what it is that we do and fight for. For example:

“People place you into the caricature of the emotional unstable ugly-neo-nazi, so you ought to just own up and become that caricature!”

What a ridiculous misrepresentation of our actual criticism towards “sneaky nazis” which is premised on the people being criticized actually being nazis (or at least insisting on being such) and trying to hide it. When dealing with the Altright, however, our criticism is rooted in the fact how they are the ones who insist on using Nazism as an ironic meme, and the point of our criticism to them is simple: if you are not actually Fascists and National Socialists then stop using Nazism as a meme in what you do, and if there are Fascists/NS among you or at least those who claim to be such, then stop pretending to be something else. And the “emotional unstable ugly” part is of course derivative of the notion that our approach can only attract this type of people, a criticism we had likewise addressed and refuted earlier, as was much of the rest of the article we link to above for reference. One is more than welcome, however, to see what was the general reaction from other people who openly and sincerely declare themselves to be Fascists and National Socialists.

In fact, the only way in which the Altright is seriously interested in something Fascist/NS is for liberal reasons, making the proposed calls of alliances even more laughable! The classic liberal model has always been that the state is supposed to be no more than a “guard dog” of society, maintaining internal lawful order and external military security, without interfering in societal and economic affairs with regulations and oversight. And what do our would-be “allies” want? “Fashy borders” – a strong state limited solely to its function of a strong picket fence around their liberal shithole society that keeps the nonwhites out and that’s it. What they want is a “fashy guard dog state” for their suburban bourgeois swamp of decadence and decay.

Libertarianism, i.e. rebranding of classical liberalism (and also very EXPLICITLY JEWISH, but nah it was “implicitly fash”), would work JUST GREAT if it was all white! FASH THE BORDERS! LIBERATE THE INTERIOR! NO NIGGERS ALLOWED IN OUR GAY BATHHOUSE!

So let’s recap real quick: the Altright is a Racist Liberal variety of Americanism that seeks to gain power by legal means, acquired through a mass movement approach and a big tent alliance of the “Right wing” (unless they are cuckservatives or purity spiralers) and a shift in public consciousness with mass propaganda as per the “Overton Window,” in order to create an all-White-liberal-playground, putting up a presentable and respectable image of an intellectual vanguard, all the while utilizing internet meme culture to appear hip with the times, and using ironic Nazism specifically to deflect the “You are Nazis!” accusation.

That is actually our objective and impartial assessment, as our more earnest description would relegate their legalism, respectability and presentability to cowardice, and their intellectualism to stupidity, or to be more exact “smart idiocy”. We’ll talk about those aspects more thoroughly further along, but right now we’d like to highlight how the Altright’s use of memes and internet culture stands in direct conflict with their attempts to look intellectual and presentable. One would imagine this contradiction to be blatantly self-evident, as internet trolling is by definition of its nature informal and is utilized to upset, including upsetting the status quo that the Altright at the same time tries to emulate for its look of presentability. One can think back to any number of great trolls that had been used to make fun of the System status quo, including Bane-posting and Ben-garrisoning the news.

This is what the Altright attempted to tap into for its “X-TREME” appeal, seemingly trying to form a kind of counter culture, yet at the very same time they are hard at work to be palatable to the masses with a professional suit and tie look. This mainstream notion of respectability and presentability is directly dictated by the System status quo, hence why the masses of lemmings uphold it, yet they wish to at the same time utilize something that is inherently used to disturb established conventions, as a result the Altright looks at best inconsistent and at worst like sad nerds trying to be cool.

Spencer is the biggest offender in this regard and one can go back to our mockery of him to see exactly what we mean. You cannot hold a serious, respectable, mainstream style press conference and at the same time talk about “PEEEHPAAAAY!” considering that the reaction you will get from the press is exactly the same confusion as the one in the video above. The guy who shouted “PEEEHPAAAAY!” at Hillary Clinton‘s speech (who most likely served as the inspiration for Spencer’s “PEEEHPAAAAY!” screeching) did so anonymously and from the ranks of the audience, which is why it worked, it was a random bomb that hit everyone present with confusion, to pick up the pieces of its implications only so much later, adding to the hilarity. That confusion is of course the exact thing trolling is built on, to drop it on, or to make the status quo repeat something like that without knowing the context or understanding its nature, thus mocking them. However when you are the one openly delivering that meme live and are the object of everyone’s attention in an audience of people who are just as clueless, all you do is make yourself look like a cringy idiot who is chuckling at his own jokes awkwardly – you are only making fun of yourself, not the status quo. You’d do better saying a holocaust joke and laughing at it out loud yourself to emphasize the deadpan silence of the shocked audience. The only people who get excited over real life memeing by Spencer are other idiots who get giddy over hearing a meme “offline”, looking like a bunch of underage boys laughing at a naughty word being spoken out loud in such context. Of course Spencer ends up being called a “Nazi Dork” – YES to the latter, HELL NO to the former.

So let us go back to the initial premise of this segment, namely of Revolution being the only path left open to us. We’ve already elaborated on much of the reasons why the legal way will never work by means of countering the mass movement approach and other points covered thus far.

It’s arguable that Rockwell was the last chance America had for any kind of legal revolution and yet he did this without banking on presentability and respectability as it were defined by the status quo that he was opposing. That is something that our “allies” can’t seem to quite grasp as they are banking on a suit and tie presentability in their presentation as it is defined by our enemies, the System/ZOG, as the sole approach available, which is likewise why they cannot afford to be associated with actual and earnest Fascists and National Socialists, not unless we pipe down or take the “sneaky nazi” approach for which their big tent acts as a vehicle – as if Fascism/NS needs to hide behind the skirt of the Altright.

Rockwell’s approach was always meant to be a multi-leveled one, so as to appeal to people of different kinds, but never once did that mean sacrificing being an open and honest National Socialist, nor did he allow himself to be trapped in complacency of safe routine to avoid further development and progress of his movement. Rockwell’s Three Phase plan coincided quite heavily with his great understanding of propaganda:

As mentioned before, the first two phases of Party activity overlapped to a large extent, and the transition between the two was marked primarily by a shift of emphasis. Phase one was the “Nazi” era of the Movement. Phase two is the beginning of the National Socialist era. In line with this re-emphasis, the American Nazi Party officially became the National Socialist White People’s Party on January 1, 1967, and that date can reasonably be considered to mark the transition. Six months earlier, the appearance of National Socialist World was a major step in this direction. And six months after that date – in June, 1967 – a historic reorganizational conference of the Party leadership was held in Arlington. There Rockwell set the Movement on its new course, explaining the need for a total professionalization of every activity, from fund raising to propaganda writing, in order to meet the severe demands to be expected during the long period of growth and struggle ahead.

-Dr. William Luther Pierce, “A National Socialist Life”

If each of the men in the fable about the blind men and the elephant were required to construct a model of an elephant, there would be three very different models. The blind man who felt only the tail would build a model as he described an elephant in the fable – as “a sort of rope.” The blind man who felt the leg and said an elephant was like a tree would produce a tree-like “elephant,” while the man who felt only the trunk would construct his “elephant” like a snake.

Most men I have met in politics consider themselves automatically experts in the field of propaganda. But almost all of them make the same type of basic error in their propaganda as did the blind men in describing and reconstructing an elephant; both suffer from insufficient experience with the subject.

[…]

In almost every case he produces propaganda which he likes, completely forgetting in his political excitement that the art of propaganda (and advertising) is not in producing that which one likes and admires one’s self, but that which will produce the effect desired – sales in the case of advertising and political conviction in the case of propaganda. Because he is able to think, he presumes that his audience is also able to think – a completely unwarranted assumption. Because he himself is repelled by crudeness and exaggeration, he makes his pitch factual, logical, and usually subtle. In addition to this foolishness, he also forgets that the average man in the street is emotionally assaulted during all his waking hours by advertising brilliantly designed by experts to capture attention through the most powerful kind of psychological impact. The average right wing piece, crowded onto a page, verbose, and dull, is not only not able to win the attention of the average man amid all this competition, but positively repels him.

[…]

Does this mean that the Birch Society’s high-level appeal is a total waste? Should all their propaganda be like that of the Klan? An elephant is neither all leg nor all tail nor all trunk. A complete, whole elephant needs all of these parts to live. The Jews, masters of the art of propaganda that they are (unlike the right wing), have understood this fundamental truth and have organized their “pitch” to appeal to all levels.

[…]

Hitler had Julius Streicher’s Der Stuermer, full of the wildest and wooliest sensationalism, designed to smash its way into the consciousness of the masses, as it did. He also had the regular party press, designed to reach and convince the great middle class. And, for the university community, he had the esoteric material of Alfred Rosenberg, Gottfried Feder, et al.

[…]

When I began, I purposely made my propaganda as brutal and shockingly rough as I could, simply to force attention. And I have kept everlastingly at the business of building a simple and direct image of all-out hostility to “Jews and niggers” in the minds of millions of Americans, regardless of the costs in other respects. (And when I have the rare opportunity to use some mass medium, as was recently the case when I gave a long interview to Playboy, I am forced to walk a careful line between what I should like to say and what the enemy would like to hear me say. Unless I deliberately sound at least halfway like a raving illiterate with three loose screws, such an interview would never be printed. This is another thing that most people fail to understand about my “Nazi” technique.) After I had become known to most Americans, I published the Rockwell Report at a somewhat higher level than my previous material to begin to recruit some of the brains and funds we needed to proceed. When this had begun to bear fruit, I used the talents obtained with the Rockwell Report to get back down to the people’s level and produce a publication designed for the masses, for the “average” man, the comic book reader, kids: the Stormtrooper. As planned, this is now our most popular and largest-circulation publication. And were it not for the Jewish ownership of the news distribution business, we could sell Stormtroopers literally by the millions.

[…]

With a base of operations established and with successful publications directed at both the lowest and the middle-class levels, the movement is finally in a position to afford the relative luxury of a publication directed exclusively at the academic intellectual-professional class. The National Socialist World, now in your hands, is designed not only to reach but to move people in that category. Perhaps our material is not what you, personally, enjoy most. But our aim, and the aim of the World Union of National Socialists, is not to produce material to please our friends – but to win over millions of those who are now our enemies or who are oblivious to both sides. The years of success with the Stormtrooper and the Rockwell Report give me confidence that the new National Socialist World will also do what it has been carefully designed to do – that National Socialist World will beat its way into the highest intellectual circles just as the Stormtrooper smashed its way into the minds of the juveniles and working folks.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, “From Ivory Tower To Privy Wall: On The Art Of Propaganda”

Rockwell‘s approach and methods followed a distinct path of elevating his organization to a more professional outfit on the back of what he could achieve through propaganda, doing this without ever letting go of all that is National Socialism, the swastika would remain, the criticism of Jews, niggers and traitors would remain but the form of criticism would depend on the propaganda outlet utilized towards a specific stratum of the populace: from crude to common sense to intelligent. Starting off with crude propaganda for mass spread by Jew media the Party would attract the fanatics and outcasts, of which only the tested and true would be allowed to join.

Once this was done and with the ANP becoming a group well-known to the public consciousness even without the Jew media coverage, the propaganda efforts were shifted towards a more “average” audience, and from there to the intelligent propaganda of “Ivory Towers” – all beneath the sign of the Swastika and the words “Nazi” or “National Socialist”.

It is self evident, that expanding into intelligent propaganda did not mean abandoning the crude approach, which likewise meant that the Party would not abandon the boots and uniform presentation, but if anything, have it stand with the suit and tie look. Rockwell’s strategy was thus entirely viable for taking power legally through elections, as the cowardly masses would at least have enough courage to cast a secret ballot for the Nazis, once they were swayed with its radical message, whichever approach of propaganda that was directed at them specifically, and the ANPs actual readiness to engage their enemies in direct physical confrontations.

That is also how Hitler has done it. And this is what our critics would often like to bring up to argue against our contemporary revolutionary strategy: “Hitler won through elections, Rockwell wanted to win through elections, so we can win through elections as well!” Two crucial facts are forgotten when this criticism is issued: in Hitler’s time society was in disarray, there was no strong System in charge of society, holding onto power with a death’s grip, if anything it was a mad political free for all frenzy where the Jews simply enjoyed and exploited the chaos without having to engage too much in the kind of  total control that they employ today.

Yes, they still infested, corrupted and manipulated society, but they did not guard the avenues of power directly, instead they merely bribed and manipulated the existing political forces vying for control. In short there was no System at all as we know it today. Under such conditions, with the wider masses themselves abandoned, and not just a few social outcasts, the NSDAP had much better conditions to take over. The Jews simply didn’t even understand WHAT they were dealing with. Since then, however, they know exactly who their true mortal enemy is, and have declared “Never again!”

“Never again!” was the name of the bullet that killed George Lincoln Rockwell – that was the Jewish System’s final answer to the danger that this man had posed to it.  As we have said, violence is always the last resort, and the Jews know this too. They dragged Rockwell through the streets, through the courts, through the jails and even a mental asylum AND HE HAD BEATEN THEM EVERY STEP OF THE WAY! Until they finally had found a useful pawn to pull the trigger for them to stop him.

There is no question that a man who has survived all these attacks will be killed, if possible, by the Jews or their agents. The Jews have no choice. They are too guilty to permit anybody to expose them and organize any effective resistance against them. Traitors cannot survive such an exposure. With such as the Jews, it is kill or be killed.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, This Time the World, Ch12

Adolf Hitler had shown the way to survival. It would be my task on this earth to, carry his ideas and his living example to total, world-wide victory. I knew I would not live to see the victory which I would make possible, but I would not die before I had made that victory certain.

-This Time the World, Ch25

The legal path is closed to us because today, having learned from the past and with USA having been under total Jewish control since as early as the 1930s, as per Francis Parker Yockey‘s assessment, they will simply not allow anyone to undermine them by legal means again as they are the ones who define what is legal and target all legal means against anyone who would upset or resist their plans even a little, let alone try to stop and expose them outright.

The game board is rigged against us and so we are constrained to kick over the gaming table itself.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 8.15

The only countries where some measure of legal approach may still be viable are the ones where the System’s power is not absolute, where the majority of people live dispossessed and are not provided for. This is exactly why the Golden Dawn is so successful in Greece, having gone through many of the same steps as Hitler and Rockwell, all the while staying true to the Worldview of Fascism and National Socialism:

We are the faithful soldiers of the National Socialist idea and nothing else.

-Nikolaos Michaloliakos, 1987

 

What would the future of Europe and the whole modern world be like if World War II hadn’t stopped the renewing route of National Socialism? Certainly, fundamental values which mainly derive from ancient Greek culture, would be dominant in every state and would define the fate of peoples. Romanticism as a spiritual movement and classicism would prevail against the decadent subculture that corroded the white man. Extreme materialism would have been discarded, giving its place to spiritual exaltation.

-Ilias Kasidiaris, 2012

The viability of the legalist approach does not hinge on how presentable one looks or how intellectual one sounds, as we have consistently proven in this article, but in how affluent and decadent a society is (which is the second crucial fact that is forgotten), and on how strong the Jewish System’s grip is on the institutes of power. If one is to look at the United States then one finds the homestead of the System, a monstrous behemoth just as James Mason described, one that will never allow anyone even remotely close to its assets. In reality the System was already too strong for the legal approach in the 50s, but society, the people themselves, had not yet been as sick as they are today.

Hell, things were so comparatively healthy in Weimar Germany, as opposed to what they are here, that Hitler was fully able to work within the framework of that system and WIN! No way in hell we can do that here today!!

-James Mason, SIEGE, 3.7

And yet our “allies” still want to pretend that the legal approach can work, all the while repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot every step of the way. One particular Altright flagship organization would do well to learn from Rockwell‘s lessons on propaganda as they have been repeatedly engaged in the kind of mistakes he highlighted in the article we’ve quoted some passages from. We’ve repeatedly criticized Identity Evropa for their vague as all hell Greek statue posters complete with obscure messages like “Become who we are”. These are the definitive example of what Rockwell calls “making propaganda that you yourself will like and enjoy” and you will be doing so alone. Moreover, it is the only sort of propaganda that they are making, like a the blind man describing an elephant from just holding his trunk.

The other repeating issue for this group is their logo, and for all appearances it would seem that they have been bullied into changing it from an incomprehensible set of squiggles… to a generic triangle logo that is overused as a mobile app icon, gaming logo or hipster tattoo – that is to say, the thing is so generic that it means absolutely nothing to a passerby without context. However, considering the nature of the group, even in context the logo wouldn’t mean jack shit to a passerby.

Of course when it comes to symbolism we get shots taken at us as well for the use of the Swastika. We’ve already covered some of the major aspects as to why the Swastika is effective via a number of previously provided Rockwell quotations, but we will provide a couple of additional points on the matter. For one thing, the Swastika is brilliant in its simplicity and the hypnotic power with which it conveys strength, even without its Fascist/NS context, which is of course of great necessity in a symbol, which is only emphasized ever more the weaker and more degenerate a society grows:

The liberal pacifists and humanitarians, with their momentary power of the press and dollar, HATE all symbols of strength and masculinity and they therefore seize upon all the strongest, most outstanding of these very things and hold them up to ridicule.

-James Mason, SIEGE 3.1

Symbolism, the more basic the better, is the only thing that can penetrate the mass mind in this mass-opinion society.

-SIEGE, 6.14

The other point is that the Swastika, just as Adolf Hitler’s name and visage, elicit an immediate array of emotions and ideas, most of which have been instilled in the masses by the Jews, true, however we have covered earlier how this only plays further to our advantage over them.

It was once said of Hitler and the Swastika that they represented the “threshold of anger.” At the very mention most will curse you, a few will join you, none will remain neutral.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 7.3

Moreover, association with these things as well as the clear profession of one’s NS and Fascist views immediately does most of our marketing the job for us and we only need to educate further those who come to us and are accepted into our ranks, while the masses will come to know who and what we truly are through our actions.

Meanwhile our would-be “allies” are constantly engaged in a brand war with literally everyone, hence the appearance of the various peripheral names around Altright such as Altlight or Altkike and so on – they have to fight to put a specific image of themselves in the minds of the masses all the while fending off the “You’re a Nazi!” accusation. And that, while fighting to preserve what they want their brand to mean as it either gets hijacked by the Hipster Conservatives or gets divided up from within. All of this is due to their vague big tent approach. No wonder the Altright has NO strong symbols to its name.

There is also a conjoined argument we often hear, that the Swastika is a “German NS” symbol and that overall one should never associate with “German NS” unless they are German themselves. This argument can only come from people who either don’t yet grasp the full scope and nature of the Fascist/NS Worldview… or from cowards. We come back to the starting segment of our article, “Where we Stand,” to reinvigorate this point and once again shed light on the monumental difference between us and our would be “allies.” Again, the difference between us and them is greater than the difference between them and what they insist is our common enemy. That is to say our “allies” have more in common with our enemies than with us, as they are rooted in the same Liberal and Rationalist thinking.

They share the same ultimate goals, namely those of human safety, comfort and affluence and thus invariably and inevitably hedonism, all these things powered by egoism.

All the arguments of social and economic organization are predicated on the goal of serving these selfish and merely human wants and desires. Our “allies” are simply concerned with the spread of these things to a lesser scope than our humanist multiculturalists enemies, focusing on a specific group. Which is to say, the group that they happen to belong to, because their own individual prospects of achieving these goals rely on their group’s success. In all likelihood, had multiculturalism not interfered with liberalism they wouldn’t have any motivation to adopt whatever vague racialist thinking in the first place.

All society, all “civilization” that proceeds from the same aspiration to human well-being above all, to well-being or human “happiness” at any price, is marked by the seal of the Powers of Decadence, enemies of the cosmic order of the play of forces without end.

-Savitri Devi, “Religion of the Strong”

And what are our goals? To ensure the global dominance of Truth on Earth, worldwide, without exceptions, manifested in the form of Organic States that are rooted in selfless service and duty – it is rooted in a loyalty to something more than human and thus eternal and unchanging. Fascist/NS economic and social concepts are thus not derived out of utilitarian concerns for material goals and the human imagination trying to produce the best working system, but only from the eternal laws of Truth, which dictates only one possible solution in all matters, and Fascism/NS is the sole force on earth to be motivated by these eternal laws.

Anyone who today assumes that a race-based National-Socialist state is only differentiated from other states by emotionless qualities, such as better construction of its economic system, does not have the faintest idea what a World-Concept really is. If they think it is created through a better balance of wealth and poverty, or a greater voice in the economic process for the broad masses, or by more equal pay through the elimination of excessive wage differences, they have been blinded by the superficial aspects. Everything I have just described offers no security and does not guarantee our permanent survival. It offers even less of a claim to greatness. A people who become bogged down in these outward reforms would not have the slightest chance of victory in the struggle for the nation’s existence. Any movement that believes balancing the social classes and promoting equal economics, though noble, are the sole core of its mission, will not produce any great results or any true reform of existing conditions. All of its activity eventually becomes wrapped in showiness and totally preoccupied with appearances, without giving the people the inner preparation that they need to finally overcome this I say with certainty, those weaknesses we suffer from today.

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, V2, Ch4

Indeed, the true and full scope of the Fascist/NS Worldview would become apparent only close to or after the end of WW2, namely that Italian Fascism and German National Socialism were not just new man-made ideologies seeking mere material goals, but a singular force for the restoration of Truth in human affairs, as perceived by Italians and Germans respectively.

This world-wide appeal of Adolf Hitler shows sufficiently that, although in its modern form it originated in Germany — and could not possibly have originated anywhere else — the National Socialist doctrine transcends Germany. As I have said, it is the everlasting truth about the laws of life and the evolution of human races, apprehended from the angle of the Nordic race.

-Savitri Devi, “The Philosophy of the Swastika”

We’ve elaborated on this in the Year One Anniversary Issue of NOOSE, in the exclusive “History of IronMarch” article and will repeat here:

Fascism and National-Socialism appear as the latest militant vanguard of Truth in a world of Lies, carrying the torch passed on to us by countless other men who fought this same Struggle long before us, beneath different banners, carrying other names, and which will be fought long after we are gone, by new men beneath different banners still. Yet now, right now, is our time. Italian Fascism, German NS, Spanish Falangism, Romanian Iron Guard and all the rest – these appeared as individual rays of sunlight, piercing through the pale of Modern Ignorance, induced by the Age of “Enlightenment,” and as they dispelled that dark shroud it became clear that they all come from the same source – the brightly shining golden Sun of Truth. All these groups appeared different on the surface in as much as their respective nations and cultures differ from one another, and yet in all of them exists the all-pervasive spark of Truth, bonding them together as the same force in a common struggle. This is all the more proven by the legacy left behind for us by the Champions of our Worldview, as in their works we see a common thread, we see, written in their own hand, how they all fought for the same thing.

There is indeed clear evidence that German National Socialism specifically had realized the full nature of its mission within the scope of our Worldview during the war, shifting from being simply something in the service of Germany to the surface of a higher ideal.

In a speech delivered at Poznan on 4 October 1943 Himmler spoke about the SS as of an armed Order that in the future, after the elimination of the Soviet Union, would have to stand guard for Europe against the ‘Asiatic hordes’ on the Urals. What is important here is that a certain change of perspectives had taken place at this juncture. The Aryan was no longer identified with the German. The plan was to fight, not for an expansionist National Socialism based on a unilateral racism and for ‘Pan-Germanism,’ but for a higher idea, for Europe and a European ‘New Order.’

-Julius Evola, Notes on the Third Reich

To summarize: the variety of Nationalist/Fascist movements that existed across Europe after WW1 and until the end of WW2, were the manifestations of the same exact Worldview, one that believes in the existence of an Absolute objective Truth in accordance to which all must live, however these movements only partially expressed different aspects of this Worldview, aspects that most spoke to their respective national character, which created the different forms of expressions of this same Worldview in these different movements, much like how the same ray of light creates a variety of colors once it passes through a prism.

However the followers of these ideals would only fully comprehend the full scope and nature of their common Worldview during or most notably after the war, which served as a cleansing fire that removed their particular national and historically-conditioned expressions, leaving behind knowledge of the eternal core from which these aspects originate, and how they all relate to one another in a single Truth. Italian Fascism, German NS, Spanish Falangism, Clerical Fascism of the Romanian Iron Guard and etc – all form coherent individual pictures, all the while acting like pieces of a single puzzle, one only has to be capable of realizing that they fit together and comprehending the larger image.

Fascism is preoccupied by the clothing (namely the forms of state organization), National-Socialism by the body (namely the racial eugenics), whereas Legionarism is preoccupied by something much deeper: by the soul (namely by its strengthening through the cultivation of Christian virtues and its preparation with final salvation in mind, salvation dealt with by the Christian Church in the most perfect fashion).

-Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, “The Nest Leader’s Manual”

That image being the Worldview of Truth, otherwise called Worldview of Tradition, one that we name after the Champions who had pioneered the fight for that Worldview in the Modern World we know today, hence when we say Fascism and National Socialism we do not mean specifically Italian Fascism and German National Socialism, but the much grander image to which they belong and to which they lend their names in this day and age – that Worldview of Truth.

So while there is a German National Socialism and an Italian Fascism, different inasmuch as Germans and Italians are different by national character, there are likewise the Eternal Fascism and National Socialism, which are one and the same and transcend all limitations of time and space. This Fascism and National Socialism had existed since before time itself, and in reality what they are has no permanent name and no word of any language will ever be truly apt to describe it, though we have listed all the other names for it at the start of this article. However, here and now it bears the names of the only force  loyal to it to have come about in this day and age. 

And just as this force had elevated these names, so it too had elevated the symbol of the Swastika to be the universal symbol of our struggle, the symbol of that eternal Truth. And one can very well suspect providence having been at work behind the choice of this symbol over all others by Adolf Hitler, as its deeper original meanings that predate the appearance of German National Socialism and their use of it, in fact, convey that very eternal idea for which we struggle. A solar symbol, a symbol of pole, a symbol of the immovable mover, a symbol of eternity and all its laws.

This is why we do not shun away from the Swastika despite all criticism, for it represents the very essence of our struggle and our goals, moreover it is a symbol that is widespread among those of Aryan heritage (throughout all of Europe and among Slavs) and in areas of original Aryan expansion and conquest (certain areas of the Middle East, India, China, etc). If one shies away from the swastika then it is most likely that he is a coward or not an actual Fascist/NS.

Mind you, we do not believe that every Fascist/NS movement worldwide should use the Swastika as their symbol; each movement needs its own logo and brand to stand out and be recognized for itself. However, we are talking about two different types of symbols: symbol of the movement or group and symbol of the struggle. There are plenty of groups that do not utilize the Swastika and yet they do not shy away from it in fear. Such was the case with the now banned National Action, whom we have always extended our full support to. The same can be said of Golden Dawn and the Nordic Resistance Movement.

We often hear the criticism that since Hitler lost the War and Rockwell was killed then clearly Fascism/NS had failed, but the war was instead a cathartic experience which served to reveal the full scope and nature of their mission. Fascism and National Socialism have not failed, for our ideals and mission are eternal and thus the Struggle itself is eternal, and their triumph is not dictated by any given defeat.

Every negative event in the world can be turned into a positive one. Every defeat may father a later victory. Every lost war may be the cause of a later resurgence. Every distress may inspire a new surge in man’s willpower. A new spiritual rebirth may spring from every oppression, but this can occur only as long as the racial blood is kept pure. The loss of blood purity by itself will forever destroy inner happiness and forever lowers man. The result of impurity can never be eliminated from man’s body and spirit.

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, V1, Ch11

In the eyes of others we were losers. Vagabonds without a homeland. The minority against the majority. However such perception was not in line with my own. I did not see myself a loser, more importantly, I wasn’t one. I was on the side of the defeated. Those who fought, and not those who gave up without fighting.

Pier Luigi Concutelli

So what if these warriors did not get to experience external success? Heroic values are not the values of merchants, they value principles, not success.

-Ernst Junger, “Mechanized Warfare”

Hitler’s and Germany’s ‘crucifixion’ was all according to the inevitable workings of this unknowable Scenarist. Even the eleven hanged disciples in Nurnburg were not without significance! The most hated and dreaded idea two thousand years ago was Christianity, and the most hated and cursed man on earth was Jesus Christ. His followers were bitterly persecuted and murdered by the ‘good’, ‘sensible’ people who could see that anybody in his right mind recognized Rome and the Empire as the solid, substantial reality. I realized that today’s Marxist-Democratic world is another sprawling ‘Roman Empire’, and today’s Nazis the early ‘Christians’. What is going on is far more than a battle for political supremacy in the present social and political situation. it is the utter smashing and destruction of a society which has become so rotten that it will tolerate and even love its own Marxist destroyers, just as it hates, despises and fears the slowly-growing Nazi society which will replace it. Such mighty, awesome thoughts come to a man but once in a lifetime, if ever, and when they do, that man changes for all time.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, This Time the World, Ch7

But this ritual [consecration of new Swastika Banners with the “Blutfahne”], to which many others can be added, would never have sufficed to give Hitlerism the character of a religion, if it had not already been a more-than-political doctrine: a Weltanschauung. And above all, it would have been unable to make it a true religion, if, at the base of this Weltanschauung, there had not been eternal truths and a whole attitude which was not (and does not remain), in last analysis, anything other than the quest for the eternal even in what changes — the traditional attitude par excellence.

These words may seem strange in 1969, more than twenty-four years after the defeat of Hitler’s Germany on the battlefield and the collapse of its political structure. They can seem strange, now that one would seek in vain, in the whole geographical region covered by the Third Reich, a visible sign of the resurgence of National Socialism such as the Führer intended it, and that the majority of the organizations which, beyond the old frontiers of the Reich, claim they would rescue the condemned Movement, are just pale imitations without heart, or just lamentable caricatures, sometimes in the service of other goals. But the value of a doctrine — its truth — has nothing to do with the success or the failure of its members on the material plane. This success or failure depends on the accord or discord of the doctrines with the aspirations of people at a given moment of history, and also on the fact that its adherents are or are not, from the military point of view, the diplomatic point of view, from the point of view of the art of propaganda, able to impose themselves — and consequently do impose themselves — on their adversaries. The fact that the doctrine is or is not an expression of cosmic truth is of no account here. But it submits in the long run, right or wrong, to these doctrines, in the sense that a society that refuses to accept a teaching in harmony with eternal laws and prefers untruths works for its own disintegration, in other words, damns itself.

-Savitri Devi, “Religion of the Strong”

We have been defeated before, yes, but we have not lost, and in many ways that defeat had only served to reveal to us our true path and make us all the stronger for it when the final confrontation arrives. As our goals are in loyalty to that which is eternal we can never be dealt a final blow so long as those of pure blood and strong character still exist, unlike the meager, temporal and merely human goals of our enemies and “allies” alike, which will always condemn themselves to defeat and damnation as their goals invariably oppose what is eternal and serve only one’s own weakness.

This is exactly where we see our would-be “allies” – in a place of service to their own weakness, which leads to cowardice, and “smart idiocy,” far away from our eternal goals. The idiocy is well on display as they attempt legalism, which will not work for them either, because the Jews decide what is legal and they have the entire System at their disposal to keep you out. Moreover their legal tactics are subpar and in error compared to the ones utilized by Rockwell. In fact, he criticized exactly these tactics 50 years ago and nobody learned a damned thing since!

The cowardice is manifest in their refusal to move on to the only recourse left, namely Revolution, which of course betrays the fact that they have no common ground with us, for cowards are such out of fear for their own hide and well being, whereas heroes are those who will sacrifice themselves in the name of the eternal. Behold our would-be “allies” that dare chastise us: cowardly idiots and racist liberals!

We shouldn’t limit ourselves to exclusively “legal means” either, which are not of the least importance. Only mediocrity and weaklings cling to them, meaning their defeat is assured.

-Ernst Junger, “Unite! Final Word”

Men will talk about almost anything. Men will fight for very few things. 

-George Lincoln Rockwell, White power, Ch14

If a man isn’t willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he’s no good.

-Ezra Pound

Stupid people are more dangerous than any time bomb.

[…]

Regardless whether they are with you or against you, stupid people are equally disastrous to have around.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 2.36

More often, these days, it is intrigue and guile which decide the course of the future. To be undone by a bastard who has not declared himself your foe, or who has actually painted himself as a “friend,” is one of the worst fates imaginable. If just that much can be avoided in a person’s life, or in the life of the Movement, then we will be halfway home to victory.

-SIEGE, 4.18

… I was frequently attacked by people whose total nationalist convictions consisted of a mixture of stupidity and showy displays intended to enhance their self image. These were the people who shouted with others because it gave them a thrill to suddenly act like a “nationalist” without putting themselves at risk. I considered this “united front” as the most miserable and most ridiculous demonstration possible and history has proven me right.

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, V2, Ch15

Who dares chide us because our eyes are open?

-Helmut Stellrecht, “Faith and Action”

Considering that the real motivation of our “allies” is the pursuit and defense of materialist, liberal comforts then it stands to reason that their ranks are made up of people who already have something that they want to keep and are afraid of giving up (afraid of the niggers coming over and taking away their toys from them), hence their sudden racialism. Once again we reiterate that our supposed “allies” seem to be little more than racist liberals who are afraid of losing the benefits of liberalism that they are presently enjoying or wish to enjoy in the future, and idolize the 50s suburban liberal “utopia” but refuse to recognize how it was exactly that mentality that allowed multiculturalism, Jews and niggers to advance as far as they did. These are what Hitler had called privileged-class idiots and patriots.

[The National-Socialist movement] must never let itself be influenced by the privileged-class idiots who think they know something about everything but have tossed away a great State along with their own existence and the dominating control of their own social class. They are enormously smart, can do anything, and understand everything. There is only one thing they could not do. They could not prevent the German people from falling into the arms of Marxism. Here they were a wretched and pitiful failure. Their present conceit is caused by their cockiness, which is well known to be the companion of stupidity. Ignorance is the mother of audacity.

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, V2, Ch6

We National-Socialists must be especially careful not to be taken in by our Jew-led privileged-class patriots who prefer to battle with words. Our movement will be in trouble if it indulges in protest speeches, like they do, instead of preparing to fight!

-Mein Kampf V2, Ch13

However their inherent motivation prevents them from conducting any true action that involves risk to themselves or can result in them losing their toys as a result of System punishment. Hence they will never conduct any true attacks on our enemy and will rationalize away any calls for such action as being wrong on some fake premise or because “it makes them/the movement (which movement? Altright? NS? Speak only for yourselves!) look bad”.

Some have said and still say that these are “pre-revolutionary times”. That’s a pretty good intellectual cop-out for a professional faker.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 4.12

No wonder the System does not fear these clowns and only utilizes them as ammo in some petty internal power struggle of its own, the ultimate outcome of which brings us no closer to our own goals. The Jews know the Altright will never step out of line and if push comes to shove they will run away.

Big Brother loves talk, loves debate, adores paper pushers but is frightened to death by ACTION! Even more than that Big Brother is terrified by the kind of action that the White masses might identify with!!

-James Mason, SIEGE, 6.11

This weakness is apparent even in the propaganda employed by other groups. The entire narrative of “white geNOcide” is weak and pathetic! Arguments like “Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White Countries for everyone” and “We have a Right to Exist” is akin to walking up to the Jews that run the world and pleading with them, “please massah, it’s not fair, can’t I have the same rights as the nonwhites? Please massah!” Crying about injustices to your enemy who wants to destroy you is the height of cowardly non-action! Are we not AT WAR with the Jews and their System? And it doesn’t matter if you are aiming that propaganda at the powers that be, or at the masses, or are trying to convey the hypocrisy of the powers that be to the masses because THAT is the mental image being produced in their minds, of pleading and rationalizing what you want and trying to gain it by pure rhetoric rather than declaring your intention of simply taking it.

It is not the half-hearted and neutral who go down in history, but those who take on the fight.

-Adolf Hitler 

Do not make fools of the rest of us by complaining to, pleading with, or barking at the System.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 4.11

How can there be any talk of “injustice” when our sworn Enemy holds all the power? What can you expect from a mortal enemy other than to try and wipe you out, any way and all? There is no middle ground, no one to go crying to. There is only ourselves and our Enemy…

[…]

Let there be no more talk about injustice. Let there only be talk of WAR!

-SIEGE, 7.8

WE ARE AT WAR WITH THIS SOCIETY…

SIEGE, 7.3

And of course, being cowards but not wanting to admit to that, one is inevitably going to hear all sorts of disingenuous “arguments” against Revolution from our would-be “allies”, which are purposely designed to make that prospect sound either absolutely hopeless or ridiculous. They will come up with the stupidest example of revolutionary activity done wrong in every way possible. Of course, if these “arguments” are sincere and genuine, then all it does is prove further that we are dealing with utter imbeciles who are a liability to be around. If there is any benefit in these “arguments”, then it must be that it at least tells us exactly what sort of mistakes and dumb things to avoid.

There are no such things as desperate situations. Only desperate men.

-Adolf Hitler

STOP rationalizing a situation you know to be deadly serious. STOP temporizing with halfway measures in a situation that screams for decisive action. STOP using business, social etiquette, family and security as an excuse for downright cowardly behavior. If you hesitate very much longer, the fight will be over-and the White Man will have lost!

STAND UP AND FIGHT!

-George Lincoln Rockwell, White Power, Ch16

Blueprints for successful revolutionary movements have been set down for us from Hitler to Rockwell to Tommasi and any number of other great revolutionaries not of the National Socialist spirit. Why then has the Movement continued to attach itself to the decrepit and utterly ridiculous Right Wing and chosen a course that has perennially doomed itself to failure?

-James Mason, SIEGE, 4.7

Some might even try to dissuade us from Revolutionary activity by “scaring us” as to how “hard” it will be.

You neither do, nor refrain from doing, anything because it’s “easy” or “hard” or because everybody else is or isn’t doing it. You instead follow your instinct. As revolutionaries, we have it easier than most in determining our own actions.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 7.7

Our struggle is hard, because we are fighting for something great, and great things are not lightly or easily gained.

-Sir Oswald Mosley

And of course, the last bastion of excuses against Revolution is always how powerful our enemy is, that there is simply no way to topple it by force, because its own force is greater, it has all these technological advancements on its side and the conditions will never be good enough for revolution – all excuses made by those who wish to stay inactive, for the old saying is true: where there is a will there is a way!

As far as creating the appropriate conditions, as well as almost all extensive and sober points on NS revolutionary activity are concerned, one would have to read the entirety of SIEGE and not just some of the meager scraps we had provided in this article. Technological advancements of any given age have always been to the benefit and bane of both revolutionaries and the state they had to topple, so in that sense we are no worse off than any other successful revolutionaries of the past, however the hardest truth that cuts through all other whining and pleading for avoiding commitment to Revolutionary action is the fact that Race War is simply inevitable. And the most recent events, namely the kidnapping and torture of a White kid by a gang of niggers, stands as further evidence of that.

Ahead lies all-out world race-war…

-George Lincoln Rockwell, White Power, Ch14

Regardless if one wants a Revolution or not, the choice will inevitably be out of their hands, for the NS Revolution and Race War are events joined at the hip, only question is which one will come first and usher in the other: will the NS Revolution happen first and begin the Race War or will the niggers in USA and Muslims in Europe start the Race War and force the NS Revolution?

The former scenario is only possible if it is actively worked towards by dedicated and fanatical National Socialists who prepare themselves and act accordingly to their own strength, slowly building themselves up and undermining the System in as much as their means and preparation permits. And if the Race War happens first and not as a result of their own revolutionary action then they will be at least already somehow prepared for it and ready to take the fight to the Jews and their pawns!

The latter scenario, however, if one has not engaged themselves in revolutionary activity at all and persisted in their suit and tie approach, then they will be caught with their pants down and unable to put up any resistance, but then again such cowards would run for their lives, as their entire political engagement was only ever about their own benefit. Those who wear suits can’t fight – they might ruin the suit and it was expensive! Moreover, even if the Revolution and Race War won’t happen in our lifetimes we must do everything in our power to hasten the process regardless and make sure that we have left plenty to work with for the next generation of Fascists and National Socialists who will finish the job – to do otherwise is clean cut betrayal.

Only our descendants can finish what we didn’t have the time to.

-Ernst Junger, “Differentiation and Connection”

“Tell me your relation to pain, and I will tell you. who you are!” -Ernst Junger, “On Pain”. Those who wish to avoid pain are cowardly hedonists. Those who wish to overcome pain in the pursuit of higher ideals are heroes.

Whom would you believe were ready to fight in the streets against niggers and muslim rapefugees once the Race War hits? The presentable gentlemen on the left? Or the “delinquents” and “social outcasts” on the right? When Race War kicks off and the System will topple, White people won’t be running to the protection of some vague, presentable suit and tie group that they barely remember or understand, no, they will remember “those evil Nazis” who have been engaged in real action and looked violent and tough, and so the normal average folk will see the Swastika Banners as their only salvation and the former “Nazi thugs” will become their most venerated protectors.

Those out front, putting themselves on the line and taking the action, as Tommasi wrote, are in fact the real LEADERS and are at the top level of the struggle. All else pales to insignificance…

-James Mason, SIEGE, 9.5 

Let us make a quick detour on the issue of suits and ties and talk about aesthetics. Our suit and tie “allies” seem to fully believe in the notion of “normalizing” “our” views, however in the case of their vague racialist Americanism there isn’t that much to be normalized to begin with anyway as it coincides so much with the System status quo. We’ve already essentially criticized this kind of thinking at the very start of this article when we made our more “mathematical arguments” – you are not normalizing 2+2=4 by taking a step towards the 2+2=6 crowd and saying 2+2=5, you are just compromising and thus surrendering to their demands and their lies. In a world where everyone buys into the lie that 2+2=6 and THAT is the “normal”, to tell the Truth is a revolutionary and despised act.

However the actual ideals that we fight for are not as simple as basic math, you can make all sorts of elaborate, intellectual arguments and the lemmings will still refuse to go along with you or else they’ll just nod their heads and agree for the moment but revert back to their conditioning the very next hour. To “normalize” yourself with this gray mass is to blend in and be forgotten as part of the status quo. This of course manifests itself in the aesthetics one employs.

Throughout history aesthetics have been a powerful tool that exerts influences on the masses and in order to shape and organize society, in particular to separate the normal from the special. Aesthetics are used to designate the boundaries between what is casual and everyday, from what is formal and celebratory. Religion utilizes aesthetics to separate the profane from the sacred. To submit to the demands of the existing status quo is to say that there is nothing special about you, which seemingly contradicts the intentions of our “allies,” or rather betrays further still how much they have in common with our enemies.

Our struggle carries a transcendental character, we fight for a higher ideal, the ultimate ideal of Truth in a world of Lies. Here lies and falsehoods are the norm, thus complying to what is considered “normal” in a world of lies is as good as in all seriousness claiming that 2+2 is 5 or 6. Aesthetics have always been self-evidently important to Fascists and National Socialists. Some might argue that the foremost pioneer and facilitator of Fascist aesthetics had been the Italian poet Gabriel D’Annunzio, who in his city state of Fiume had created a whole new world of his own that heavily utilized impressive theatrics that stood out as absurd to most. Overall the Italians had a brilliant knack for opposing the tired social norms of their time in favor of something new, radiant and odd, such was the work of the Italian Futurist movement for example. Soon enough all Nationalist/Fascist movements of Europe, including the NSDAP, utilized aesthetics in brilliant ways, to demonstrate that they represent something else, something different to anything else that contemporary society had to offer.

Their particular aesthetics were genuine, honest, which is why they worked. Some people mistakenly take to outright copying these Champions of our past and for the most part look ridiculous for it. Rockwell had made his uniforms work because he didn’t copy them completely, and because he too was authentic and genuine, unlike the LARP uniform cosplaying of NSM who never could look the part of true and dedicated Fascists/NS as the fatness of their uniformed members betrayed lack of any discipline or willpower that are a cornerstone of our Struggle.

There are those who deck themselves out – not in serious, dignified National Socialist attire – but in authentic World War Two German costumes complete with decorations, awards and insignia rank of that period. I don’t know which is worse, rendering themselves utterly ridiculous or insulting the memory of genuine heroes.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 4.5

The contemporary Fascist/NS groups likewise have to utilize aesthetics to demonstrate fully how they stand APART from the Modern World of lies, not try to integrate into it. One of the most successful examples of doing that in recent history has been, again, National Action, who have pioneered a new trend of aesthetics which are now being successfully used by our Lithuanian comrades in SKYDAS. Their use of the skull mask had made it a more widespread piece of unofficial Fascist/NS attire that serves our purposes and our Struggle perfectly. Overall, to be APART from this contemptuous society of lies, skull masks, boots, swastikas and military casual style of clothing is infinitely superior to suits and ties. We are revolutionaries not only because we promote a revolution to topple the System but because we promote a spiritual revolution, and thus nothing about us should feed into the Jewish status quo.

Perhaps once we have won there will be a place for suits and ties, just as there was a place for them after Fascists came to power in Italy and National Socialists came to power in Germany, however before those suits there were blackshirts (in both Italy and Great Britain), brownshirts, greenshirts (Iron Guard) and others. All of them had been social outcasts and rogues of some description or another, however once they came to power they dictated what was normal and what was to be cast out, for real respectability is earned through power, not image alone.

Let us return then, to the subject of Revolution. Here we must bring up one point that should be clear to anyone with half a brain and goes without saying: Revolutions are always bloody, and we expect that. The bloodletting will be necessary, however, not only the blood of our enemies, but of our own people.

The most fundamental rule of such a cataclysmic social upheaval as a revolution is: “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church!” Perhaps it sounds cruel and brutal, but it is nevertheless true, that the greater the proportion of human upheaval aimed at, the greater quantity of blood and torrents of tears which must be poured out in vast quantities to gain the goal. The kind of unprecedented, colossal movement which can alone reverse the suicidal trend of the Western world, and usher in even another thousand years of survival for the White man, can never be launched – let alone won – in any safe, painless, or easy way. Even ordinary sufferings and martyrdom are too minuscule for the kind of movement we must set aflame to survive. Everything about the current deadly battle for world mastery is and must be Olympian, and we cannot shrink from Olympian AGONIES if we are to hope to win.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, “In Hoc Signo Vinces”

But there is no way we can destroy the System without hurting many thousands of innocent people – no way. It is a cancer too deeply rooted in our flesh. And if we don’t destroy the System before it destroys us – if we don’t cut this cancer out of our living flesh-our whole race will die.

Dr. William Luther Pierce, The Turner Diaries

Our disingenuous “allies” will hold this against us, trying to assess that we are not truly fighting for the well being of our people if we are willing to to subject them to the horrors of Revolution and accept the inevitable casualties as exactly that, inevitable. Frankly they will criticize us in the same vain for our insistence on the validity of the Lemming Principle alone, as they think it to be false in some description or deprecating of White people.

Of course, this criticism is likewise fueled by the inescapable fact that our “allies” are very much the same as our enemies. They refuse to recognize that the liberal, rationalist, Americanist goals that they fight for are a sickness, a disease that must be destroyed. They relegate everything to simply the presence of nonwhites who ruin these “great” things by afflicting the stability of a homogeneous society. Their attitude is that “the problem with liberalism/libertarianism/Americanism is all these niggers and Jews everywhere! Without them this would work perfectly!” as opposed to our attitude that “the problem with liberalism/etc is LIBERALISM.

It is the initial decay introduced by conceit and weakness of well-to-do bourgeois Whites that allows for the Jew to weasel his way in and fester until he has the power to open the borders all the while getting the decadent whites to agree and enable him every step of the way. Had the Jew not appeared this society, it would still be developing all manner of degeneracy and depravity and just dying a slow and quiet death. What is essentially the contention of our “allies” is that the Niggers and Muslims are ruining their idyllic and hazy slow death with the prospect of a more violent one. As if these people are not dead inside already.

A country has the Jews it deserves. Just as mosquitoes can thrive and settle only in swamps, likewise the former can only thrive in the swamps of our sins.

-Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, For My Legionaries

The more materialistic the Culture became, the more it approached the Jew, and the greater was his advantage.

-Francis Parker Yockey, IMPERIUM

The most deadly enemy of the Jew is order and national health. […] Jews can’t prosper in a healthy, well organized, ordered society.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, White Power, Ch6

A healthy state will expel – or kill – the Jew; a decadent one will take him to its bosom.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 2.14

The situation in many countries is desperately bad, far worse than what was going on in Weimar Germany, because back then the decay and degeneracy was complimentary with a weak System and decrepit social and economic order. However, today degeneracy is propped up as a wonderful benefit of affluence, it is polished and sold as a commodity that most people do, in fact, buy. The fact is that the USA in particular is a hotbed of degeneracy among White people, and all these degenerates hardly deserve any consideration beyond what they represent in the crudest sense possible: genetic material.

Any time that a man of good race, cheerfully integrated into “consumer society,” disappoints you, tell yourself that he does not count as a conscious individual; only his blood counts. See in him only what the breeder of horses or dogs considers in his subjects: his pedigree. Let us be frank: what he says, believes, and thinks is of no importance.

-Savitri Devi, “The Religion of the Strong”

Take a look at the armies of mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers on these streets and realize that they are what pass as “White”!

-James Mason, SIEGE, 2.21

To us they are merely the unconscious, unwitting, and unwilling carriers of the genes that can, under the proper care and leadership, re-achieve greatness and pull this planet out of its quicksand.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 2.15

When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”

-Adolf Hitler

It is no use crying and protesting that this is somehow harsh and cruel. What is truly cruel is the completely irresponsible behavior of those who had put the survival of their Nation and Race at risk for their own short-sighted self-interest. Some will cry out “how can you claim to love your nation if you promote such contempt?” which is a desperate attempt at muddying the waters and substituting the facts.

The contempt is promoted towards the subhuman scum who have ignored the responsibilities of the blood they were given and put the continuation of their Nation and Race at risk, for let us remind you once more: the Nation/Race is not only those living, but all the dead and those yet to be born. It is in defense of those honorable dead and the innocent unborn that we must practice contempt for those living, who spit on the former and threaten the purity and existence of the latter!

We’ve mentioned how it is not enough to be simply born Aryan, to be born White. That is not the start and end of the matter, you don’t get to smugly sit your ass and bask in self-importance, entitlement and conceit – it is but only the beginning, as it imparts a mighty responsibility on the one who carries that blood, that he may prove himself to be worthy of it, for what good is pure, noble blood if it is carried by subhuman filth. Conceit on the grounds of having been born into superior blood is just as bad as conceit on the grounds of having been born into nobility, wealth, status, etc, for it leads one not to appreciate those things, what they entail, nor the duties that they impart.

Nations who become mongrels or allow their people to be bastardized, have sinned against the will of Eternal Providence. Their collapse at the hands of a stronger force is not an injustice done to them, instead it is the restoration of justice. If a people no longer respect the qualities given to it by Nature, qualities which are deeply rooted in its blood, it surrenders its right to complain when its earthly existence is at an end.

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, V1, Ch11

Subhumans exist in all peoples as a leavening agent.

-Paul Joseph Goebbels

The unity of the noble soul and a noble body is the goal to which we strive. But we despise those whose noble body carries an ignoble soul.

[…]

Inherited honor does not last forever, but always demands work and struggle. Honor is like a crown. He who ceases to live and act like a king loses it – and has lost it, even if he still wears it on his head.

-Helmut Stellrecht, “Faith and Action”

But despise the mass man with his empty heart and shallow mind; the mass egoist, mean and pretentious, who lives only for his own well-being and for what money can buy.

-Savitri Devi, “The Religion of the Strong”

Which could be lowest, the Jewish Systematarian or White capitalist traitor, or the hordes of don’t-give-a-damn “White” fun-seekers and escapists? Somehow, I can’t find it in my heart to hate anyone with a direct purpose – however vile – nearly so much as an irresponsible shirker.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 7.1

Which is all precisely why we do not share the same goals as our “allies,” for what they seem to prize most is exactly what allows for the Jewish takeover. That is to say, the individualistic, materialistic and hedonistic “culture” of modernity. They prize the very sickness of decay that invites rampant degeneracy and the rendering of blood a mere biological fact, inherited by white subhumans. They quite literally think that the SWAMP OF THEIR SINS would be the most amazing thing ever IF ONLY IT WERE NOT FOR ALL THE MOSQUITOES!

And this decay has always been initiated by conceit and it is the eternal truth that all such decay starts from the top, going back all the way to the Antique Greek concept of Anacyclosis and well before then, and it is that very same truth that demands a REVOLUTION to fix things!

Our “allies,” Weak Men, idolize the Good Times which THEY have ruined and think it will take more of their WEAKNESS to fix it. Reality is that these Hard Times can only be fixed by STRONG MEN – only Fascists, only National Socialists.

The curse of “liberal,” “humanitarian” mankind is egocentrism, conceit.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, White Power, Ch3

What we are fighting has always been, and will always be, a sickness from within.

[…]

The White upper classes – which, make no mistake, rule this land – have long since been alienated from their own people, their own past; the great struggles and causes of White history are forgotten; today these people are merely managers and custodians, albeit damned well-paid ones at that…

[…]

A ruling body with its own, peculiar world view in which they believe, for they are quite sincere. The Whites of this country and indeed most of the West have been betrayed by their own rotten leaders. yes, their natural leaders, the nation’s elite! That is why no renaissance can be possible here. Only revolution.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 3.9

Again, let us state this to be clear: our contempt is for the degenerate subhuman filth who desecrate their blood purity. Wherever those who have not succumbed to the degeneracy of the Modern World will be found they will be treated as true members of their Nation and Race, and thus as true individuals rather than merely genetic material. However the likelihood of finding such survivors in this world are directly inverse to the level of affluence and decadence that is enjoyed by a given region or country. Perhaps some of the criticism towards us on this point originates with exactly this sort of degenerate filth that had attached itself to the wider group interests for the sake of their own security, for example the faggots (for example Grindr Greggy), as we’ve discussed earlier in this article.

This is the true extent of the awesome responsibility that all Fascists and National Socialists face. The only means left to us may be crude but they serve a higher purpose, whereas our “allies” boast about their impotent methods that just sound swell on paper in how easy and nonviolent they are (how bourgeois they are), yet are completely ineffective and are meant to serve petty and contemptuous goals.

[Violence is] the quickest and most definitive way of reaching the revolutionary goal. […] No bourgeois hypocrisy, no sentimentalism; action, direct and sharp, carried out to the end, at whatever cost.

-Italo Balbo

Before we move on to the final segment of our article let us address the ever prevalent suspicion and accusation towards various Altright circles and individuals as to their implicit or explicit friendliness or non-hostility towards faggotry. Now that we have established that the only goal of the Altright is restoring an affluent bourgeois-liberal society of decadence and degeneracy with no nonwhites, how is it a surprise that such suspicions can exist?

Nothing in this goal is mutually exclusive with allowing rampant faggotry. Moreover, faggotry is the very pinnacle and natural product of such aspirations. The only point where conflict should arise is the vague racialism of the Altright, however we’ve already showcased how this racialism only exists in as much as it serves their liberal agenda and thus has nothing to do with survival of one’s Race and Nation.

And while some figures and circles in the Altright are very explicit in their approval of faggotry, others get upset and offended at the accusation, yet repeatedly refuse to make definitive statements of opposition to faggotry, disavow known Altright faggots, think to exploit faggots in their favor (as some believed Milo, the black cock gobbling Jew would serve as some kind of introduction to the Altright sphere – AND WHAT AN INTRODUCTION IT IS!), or try to play down the nature of the issue if not outright attempt to attack their accusers. However, there is no smoke where there is no fire, those who make their contempt for the degeneracy of faggotry clear do not have to deal with that suspicion hanging over their heads.

Consider some of the popular ways in which people from the Altright try to ignore or downplay the fag question: “Why do you obsess with faggots so much? There’s not that many of them anyway, statistically they’re not even a problem and not all fags are degenerate, in fact I know some and they’re great! Some can even be of help to our movement. Frankly, your obsession with fags means there’s something wrong with you!”

Now read this: “Why do you obsess with Jews so much? There’s not that many of them anyway, statistically they’re not even a problem and not all Jews are subversive, in fact I know some and they’re great! Some can even be of help to our movement. Frankly, your obsession with Jews means there’s something wrong with you!”

The final level of irony being, of course, that both of these statements above are what we have come to normally expect to hear from the progressive liberal crowd in response to us on the dangers of Jews and Fags.

How much more evidence does one need to see that our Altright “allies” are simply a different variation of the same liberal disease that had ruined Western civilization? And recall our point from the start of this article: faggots will pay lip service to Western civilization and the White Race only because they happen to belong to them and wish to save themselves from the violent fate that awaits them, should the West be finally overrun by muslims. AND HOW IS THAT SO MUCH DIFFERENT FROM THE ALTRIGHT who only pay lip service to Western civilization and the White Race, only because they happen to belong to them and wish to save themselves and their cummies from the violent fate that awaits them, should the US be finally overrun by niggers, mexicans, muslims, etc?

Their supposed ties to the West and the White Race, however, are likewise a mere formality as they have lost all connection with that civilization and race and only identify with the liberal bourgeois denigration of it, which looks back to the height of Western civilization as nothing more than decor, something nice to look at, and evaluates it only in utilitarian terms, foremost as a life-preserver to try and maintain society, as they themselves cannot continue it.

In truth, the West today has no culture. These consumers hang onto the language and customs of a bygone age because they can’t come up with anything so organized and intricate on their own.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 7.17

Of course Modern Men (and the Altright which they have created) wish to go back to the 50’s and are constantly playing a defensive game, as they completely lack the spirit in which their civilization and culture were created in the first place, though in the case of USA the conditions are even worse, as it is an entirely artificial construct, as we’ve discussed earlier. They cannot build anything worthy of their ancestors, they cannot make anything new to continue the culture further, the creative spark of their Race is not within them and thus all they can do is try and preserve the merely material legacy, even if that same spark, that spirit, no longer dwells inside the material vessel.

Timestamped. Relevant message ends at 55:15

They are but dead automatons, custodians and tourists to a museum of dead things. Such is the fundamental condition of all Modern Men. They regard their own Civilization and Race as mere commodities, like antiques collectors, who simply wish to own the material object and have it be a piece of decor or a conversation piece, to be shown off. Ask them to try and make something that would be worthy of the same craftsmanship and they will either stand there in total confusion or go back to enjoying modernity in all its glorious rot. They are but parasites inasmuch as the Jews or niggers.

For all intents and purposes, the Altright can be symbolized by a pretentious and snobbish homosexual art-collector who holds a private decadent party (no nonwhites allowed), where he shows off his collection of antique European art before asking for everyone’s attention, toasting the accomplishments of Western Civilization and the White Race that provided him with his collection as well as the security that he enjoys, and then telling his guests that the orgy will be held in the 16th century European classicism gallery wing.

Fine, not all of them are faggots, it’s not always a literal gay orgy, not all of them approve or support of faggotry or gay orgies – but they downplay it well enough and support the conditions for it well enough to warrant all the scrutiny they get, so indignant whining in outrage over that scrutiny is mute and pointless, and the scrutiny will remain valid so long as they refuse to acknowledge that there can be no compromise on the fag question and refuse to openly condemn and attack all faggots, regardless of who they are, who they claim to be and what they do – this attitude must be adopted to all fag apologists and fag enablers.

True nationalists, and especially Fascists and National Socialists, are the only ones who still have the living essence of their Nations and Race, which is why their are motivated by a sense of higher duty and not pragmatism or utilitarianism in the service of one’s own interests and pleasures. To us this struggle isn’t about just saving some material objects in a museum or to ensure the safety or comfort of degenerates (“FASH THE BORDERS, LIBERATE THE INTERIOR!”), let alone join them in their degeneracy. To Fascists/NS the accomplishments and glories of the past are a benchmark, they are a visual and material representation of the spirit that resides in the blood, they are, in the words of Bob Mathews, a call to ACTION and a DEMAND for adherence to DUTY! 


Total Aryan Victory

We’ve thoroughly criticized our would-be “allies” and have shown how little they have in common with us and how much they have in common with our enemies. The distance it takes them to travel to their end destination is so short from where they started, that they might as well have not left at all. However they are unable to realize that, to them it might seem like a big journey, and they would only realize how inconsequential their “strides” are if they knew how far us Fascists and National Socialists intend to travel. We talk about something eternal and Absolute.

To someone who has no comprehension of the truly Absolute, being simply stubborn in defense of something, anything, for purely personal gain may indeed seem like having an absolute position.

One can only truly see the full scope of things once they achieved knowledge of the existence of the Absolute and of its fundamental nature. When that is accomplished they begin an eternal struggle towards the full understanding of the Absolute and find themselves at odds with those who still cannot see the forest for the trees, who still gaze at the shadows in the Cave and refuse to hear talk of the Sun outside.

If they do realize how far we wish to go, then they must likewise realize how little we have in common and, moreover, as we’ve mentioned earlier, they’d be frightened by the prospects of our victory if our assessment of them is correct (which indeed it is, the only question that remains is how many of them are redeemable). For that which we strive for does not serve man and thus does not operate in a utilitarian fashion to provide one with safety, wealth and pleasure.  Instead it is expected that the whole of society, down to the last man, serve something greater than themselves, with true joy as the reward for that service. Yet to those who seek pleasures service will only ever feel like slavery, and thus they would oppose us in our pursuits, for we don’t just seek to “fash the border,” but the interior as well. Indeed, we will not stop at any borders, for we want to spread Fascism worldwide.

To the end goal of our “allies” – the all-white-liberal-playground; whites-only-gay-bathhouse; “White ethnostate” that simply wants to “fash the borders and liberate the interior” and have a nationwide white liberal bourgeois suburbia gated community, that is to say, an isolationist state that just wants to be left alone to die a slow and hedonistic death – we oppose the goal of nothing less than Total Aryan Victory. What we mean by that is exactly what it sounds: we are not content with just a state or even all of Europe, our goals demand global totality. Total Aryan Victory means the absolute global dominance of the Fascist/NS Worldview across the entire world which is guided by the descendants of the original Aryan race who had once again lived up to the glory of their ancestors and answered the eternal call of their blood! TOTAL ARYAN VICTORY MEANS A PAX ARYANA!

Make no mistake about it, I am advocating total and complete WHITE POWER in this world!

-George Lincoln Rockwell, White Power, Ch16

For the ultimate political goal of the Movement was the establishment of an Aryan world order, a pax Aryana, as a prerequisite for the attainment of the long-term racial goals of the Movement.

-Dr. William Luther Pierce, “A National Socialist Life”

To make the whole world once again follow the eternal laws of that which we call different names: Universal Truth, Cosmic Order, God(s), The Absolute, The One, Providence – that which bestowed all with their rightful place in this world as per their unique nature in a grand Hierarchy of Hierarchies which accounts for all things that make up life as we know it, as they all are manifestations of that same force. There is a hierarchy of men in a given nation, a hierarchy of nations in a given race, and hierarchy of races in the human species. Each man, each nation, each race has their appointed place in this Hierarchy of Hierarchies. We are all some kind of reflection of the eternal Truth and to follow one’s nature is to live in accordance with that Truth and thus to be at harmony with life. The only social organization that can successfully bring about this harmony on a grand scale is the Organic State, where all exist as parts of a greater whole.

The purpose of the Organic State is to create a society in accord with the Cosmic Order, to be its functional manifestation on earth, in human affairs, so that each individual may live in accord and harmony with himself and the world around him.

The Ultimate Truth defines us all, you are a product of its manifestation in variety of lesser Truths that had come together to form your own, personal Truth.

The Organic State is meant to put each man in the place he was meant for, according to his personal Truth, so that he may serve it and that which is greater than himself. Your personal Truth is not the same as a selfish interest, for your personal Truth is an expectation that you have to live up to, to that inherent potential hidden within that is called Destiny (utilizing Francis Parker Yockey’s definition).

A personal Truth is a great many truths that come together and define you, but these many truths pertain to things greater than oneself, from his family, ethnicity, race, sex, all the way up to that Ultimate Truth, God(s), etc. If you are born a man then you have expectations and obligations that come with being a man, and the same is true for women. Same kind of expectations and obligations exist  depending on your ethnicity and race. In realizing these obligations you are striving towards the ideal of each: the ideal of man/woman, the ideal of your ethnicity/race, and in striving towards these ideals you strive towards the ideal of perfection, towards the Absolute.

The entirety of the Modern World and all its ills come from a rebellion against these obligations, which started with denying the Absolute itself and then with all the particular manifestations of Truth, and so you have today the progressive liberals and their chanting of “Fuck you God, State, Mom, Dad, heteronormative cisgender binary norms! Race is a social construct!” – a literal rebellion against each level of the Hierarchy or Hierarchies.

In the Organic State each person is nurtured, guided and evaluated according to his nature, to help him discover where he belongs, whom he was meant to become, so that he may be placed in a position to realize his potential and find true joy in that, all the while contributing to his community, for that is why it is called and Organic State.

The crucial salient characteristic of the National-Socialist idea is precisely that it induces the unfolding of the configuring forces and creative values of personality within the community, and exerts them on behalf of the community.

-Dr. Otto Dietrich, The Philosophical Foundations of National-Socialism

It is truly an organism where all cells have their role to play and in doing what they were meant for help organs fulfill their roles which allows the overall organism to be healthy and fulfill its role. It is thus by necessity a community based on service and duty. You have a duty to all things that make up your personal Truth and in fulfilling that duty you realize your Truth and gain true Joy of Life. You serve your Nation. You serve your Race. You strive for the ideal of Man or Woman and towards overcoming all that which is merely human. In doing so you have likewise fulfilled a duty to yourself and your own, personal Truth. This, is how one attains what men call honor, measured by his service and loyalty to others of his community and to that which is greater than himself. Being loyal to Truth and vanquishing falsehoods – that is Justice. And who are our enemies if not those who have rebelled against any kind of loyalty and truth?

The purpose of life is not that of being more or less happy, but to make oneself and others better, and to combat injustice and error is not a right, but a duty.

-Italo Balbo

What exists exists because of loyalty. If that which exists ceases to be loyal, it returns to nothingness. That tears the bonds that hold everything together, it shatters camaraderie; it shatters leadership; it shatters honor; it shatters confidence in the law; it shatters the army; it shatters the state; it shatters everything that exists.

-Helmut Stellrecht, “Faith and Action”

It is when man tries to immediately serve himself, his petty immediate interests and welfare, that he begins to act as a rogue against the natural order around him, upsetting it and only growing ever more frustrated that he cannot find happiness in his ceaseless rebellion against the “oppressive” forces that make up his nature, thus man only rebels against himself and can only ever experience misery for it, becoming a slave to mere material wants and desires. Such is the eternal irony, that the “freedom” he sought truly was but slavery, in ways that Orwell, of course, could never imagine. And that is the eternal choice all men face as it is the foundation of the dual nature in the human condition: to willingly choose to serve the path that was prepared for them and find joy as their reward, becoming more than merely human… or to rebel against it and succumb to base wants and desires, rendering one less than human or animal, making one subhuman.

Fulfilling one’s duty to the utmost is required of each of us. Who will wait until the demand comes, until it is required? He who does his duty of his own free will, he is a free man and not a slave.

[…]

Slaves believe that they only need food and drink to live. The free man knows that he needs honor first of all.

[…]

Freedom is choosing to follow the path that duty requires. The others are slaves of themselves.

[…]

He who thinks of himself is a slave and bound; he who thinks of others is master and free.

-Helmut Stellrecht, “Faith and Action”

The individualistic concept of freedom however wants to liberate the individual from this duty toward the community.

[…]

… natural freedom is the freedom of personality, which means the freedom of the man who creates for his community. This uniquely true concept of freedom was taught as far back as Aristotle, who attributed freedom only to the creative man. One can only be creative, however, for a community.

[…]

Only he who is conscious of his duties toward the community and acts accordingly can be creative. And therefore the concept of freedom presupposes connection to the community. Whoever possesses this sense of community and acknowledges its moral obligations is free and feels that he is free, since his free activity can never be directed against the rules of the community, but instead runs in harmony with it.

[…]

… whoever does not possess this sense of responsibility toward the community and does not acknowledge his moral obligations places himself outside the community. What he calls individual freedom is not freedom but rather unbridledness.

-Dr. Otto Dietrich, The Philosophical Foundations of National-Socialism

One achieves true human dignity only when one serves. Only he is great who subjects himself to taking part in the achievement of a great task.

-Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera

When men concentrate only on themselves and their own animal lusts, they begin to despise themselves, they become despicable and hated by other men, and they become unhappy and hateful, in turn.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, White Power, Ch2

Any form of liberal society is thus fundamentally incompatible with our goals, any society that is rooted in pursuit of self-interest and hedonism that passes for “happiness” today and is concerned with standards of living as the alpha and omega of all things is what we seek to root out in its entirety, for this society will only produce the kind of loathsome subhuman parasites that will inevitably subvert any and all Truth in the pursuit of their insatiable and bestial desires, from which blood purity cannot protect alone.

We shall create a spiritual atmosphere, a moral atmosphere, in which the heroic man may be born and on which he can thrive. This hero will lead our people on the road of its greatness.

-Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, For My Legionaries

So can it be any surprise that those who believe in the Absolute, in the Truth and are loyal to it, feel compelled to do that which is necessary, to fight and if need be die for that which is greater than themselves and in doing so actually realize who they truly are? Such men cannot fear death, and their actions are what defined courage for all times.

He who loses his life shall find it. When you are ready to die for something, then you’re alive.

-George Lincoln Rockwell

Courage means, in the last moment of life, to still show allegiance to the thought for which one stood and fell. To the devil with the times that want to take from us courage and men.

-Ernst Junger

True bravery is a constant. It is a singleness of purpose. A complete devotion to a Cause higher than one’s self.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 9.23

That is the kind of world we wish to build and those are the kind of men we want to populate it. So that every community is organized in an Organic State. Only such an organization can sustain the sort of structure for racial unity that is required, when all Europeans come together to form their Imperium (Europe a Nation, Europe of Fatherlands) – a civilization-scale organism based on common racial ties that exists as a singular entity towards the rest of the world, but is made up of these individual organs, these ethic, cultural communities of France, Germany, Italy, etc., that are in turn made up of self-actualized persons, each in their proper place, like healthy cells. Other such organizations may very well form alongside it to unify the other races and their own communities, so long as they realize their own proper place in that Hierarchy of Hierarchies, where the restored Aryan Race stands at the helm and guides the rest of the world in this new Golden Age of living in accord with life itself, with the eternal laws of God/Absolute/Truth etc. This is Pax Aryana.

The White Man once ruled the world with an iron, relatively just and humane hand. There were abuses, but nothing like what happens when rule is turned over to the colored races the White Man has dominated and civilized.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, White Power, Ch11

This vision is the true legacy of all Fascists and National Socialists of the past, as they together had contributed to its revelation. Even Italian Fascism, that gets wrongly declared to only care about the State, in its focus on the purpose of the State had contributed very important lessons. Mussolini‘s famous quote “all within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state” only serves to protect the Race and Nation when they are organized within the Organic State as the “form of a nation for action”. For this organism can only be ruined by rogue cells, by individuals who begin to think only of their own interests.

And the only “organization” towards which all rogue cells in an otherwise healthy organism can commit is that of cancerous tumors that are at war with the healthy organs and the entire organism. There can be no other force within the state that competes with its power, that is against it, and worse still if it exists at the behest of some outside force. All of that is, in fact, the very premise of Capitalism, Liberalism, Democracy, Marxism and etc., as they throw an organism in disarray and pit all of its cells and organs against one another and at odds with the overall organism itself, as each of its individual cells or organs attempts to compete with and usurp the power of the whole, to elevate themselves over it. All of those things are none other than diseases.

The Jew elevates the part over the whole.

-Miguel Serrano, The Golden Cord

So long as we are talking about a healthy organism (and not a mechanical monstrosity or a living and disease-ridden corpse, as all states are today), the Organic State as the form of a nation for action, that is to say the manifestation of the nation’s will, then there can be no question that we should not tolerate anything that opposes it from within or without, for it is an attack on the nation itselfFrancis Parker Yockey described these same themes in more familiar terms of power dynamics when he addressed the Laws of Totality and Sovereignty and the Law of Constancy of Intra-Organismic Power. An even simpler explanation is that the Organic State, if it is healthy, cannot exist divided within itself by individuals or groups, which must exist, but all living in harmony with one another – it exists not as a society, but as a community.

… no joy can exist wherever exclusivity and division of the whole dominate in place of the integrity of being, as there is no point of contact or unity with the living, breathing cosmos.

-Miguel Serrano, The Golden Cord

Universalistic thought, community-conscious thought, must take the place of individualistic thought; and the universalistic – or if one wishes, the organic – picture of the world must take the place of the mechanical picture of the world.

-Dr. Otto Dietrich, The Philosophical Foundations of National-Socialism

Which inevitably brings us to the issue of the apparent opposition between the modern state, product of enlightenment and rationalism, and anything spiritual that it had purposely separated from via the principle of secularism. This is an artificial splitting of what used to and always meant to be a singular whole and one that must be done away with. The Organic State by definition cannot be secular as that creates one of those power conflicts that upsets the internal harmony of the organism, thus it must exist as the domain of both Spiritual and Temporal authority, either by principle of reunification of these powers, or through the Byzantine principle of Symphonia, where State and Church support one another, the former of the two options being the most ideal.

The issue of how exactly will this manifest is not well suited for this article least we wish to expand it to twice its current size to take into account all the nuances and caveats, so we will limit ourselves to only a couple of non-negotiable fundamental points:

  • That the spiritual formation (religion, faith, esoteric teaching) is legitimate, which can be verified through what Julius Evola called the Traditional method and is otherwise referred to as Perennial Philosophy. This legitimizes, for example, Orthodox and Catholic Christianity, but disqualifies all the bastard children of Catholicism as heresies and likewise disqualifies various crackpot cults and new age nonsense;
  • That a people adopt only the spiritual formation that is “native” to them, that is to say a people cannot be forced upon a foreign spiritual milieu that is a product of a different nation’s interpretation of the same Truth in accord to their own unique character.  This matter is still under dispute for many of our comrade when it comes to the legitimacy of Christianity in Europe, and that is something that we hope to see addressed in full in the Mysterium Fasces podcasts and a series of articles dedicated to this and other intimately related questions. However one thing is certain, that Europeans must never accept the wholesale adoption of clear cut foreign spiritual teachings such as Islam (the very legitimacy of which we question as per point one, with some due consideration given to Sufism, which, however does not exclude it from what has been said so far in this point) or Buddhism (which is legitimate, but nevertheless foreign).

When we’ll have achieved Total Aryan Victory and thus Pax Aryana it will inevitably come to pass that new sacred monarchies shall arise from the ranks of the new Fascist and National Socialist elite, which in turn shall be formed by the struggle against this sick world we live in today and its custodians: the Jews, their System and their house goyim race traitors.

And if a nation has no real elite – a first one to designate the second? I answer by a single phrase which contains an indisputable truth: in that case, the real elite is born out of a war with the degenerate elite, the false one. And that, also on the principle of selection.

-Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, For My Legionaries

So again we must ask: who will fight this war? The intellectual suit and tie sort? Their entire narrative is premised on avoiding and denigrating the very idea of open conflict! Their method is appeasement, appeasement of the masses at the cost of the Truth to gain their passive support of inaction and appeasement of the System to avoid direct confrontation. They are cut from the same cloth as that which we must fight, which is exactly why they cannot commit to its total destruction, and yet they claim to be “allies” to our cause, which is nothing less than revolutionary, one that promotes the only true revolution that is possible, as opposed to the fake revolutions of one way to secure one’s pleasure and safety over another: the revolution against one’s self-interested concerns of pleasure and safety!

Intellectuals turn out to be womanly and hysterical as often as the masses.

-Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, “Fascist Socialism”

… we don’t need any more informed people WHO WON’T STAND UP AND FIGHT TO OPPOSE TYRANNY!

-George Lincoln Rockwell, White Power, Ch12

Nobody ever heard tell of a “noble intellect”. Intellect doesn’t MOVE people, if anything it serves to hold them back from bold and daring action.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 7.16

Forget about middle America or any one of those slobs arising out of the middle class or the “Silent Majority”. Expect them to remain silent throughout.

-SIEGE, 8.5

The gallows long cry for the pseudo-revolutionaries! The mudflow has passed, the time has come for the real revolution!

-Ernst Junger, “Revolution and the Frontline Soldiers”

And as we have stated earlier: this conflict is now inevitable, the only question is who makes the first move, them or us, and when it does hit the question will be the same as the bloody struggle will determine who will decide the future of the world: THEM or US. The time for empty talk is fast approaching its end, and the coming Race War will make it impossible for the rats to pretend as to their real motivations, and the bloody nature of the struggle ahead is a terrifying prospect for them, as all conflict purifies of weakness. The cowardly talkers and frauds, the underhanded rats and degenerate subhumans who sought safety behind happenstance of belonging to the White Race will be driven out and exposed, leaving behind only those worthy and capable of fighting for Total Aryan Victory and establishing Pax Aryana.

Just as the hardest tests cull out weak individuals, it also cuts out weakness in the strong individuals and this is what accounts for the phenomenon of the strong getting even stronger under fire.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 7.18

REALITY has arrived and business for fakers is bad.

-SIEGE, 9.16

That is the harsh reality of the times ahead. Which is why we can do no less than offer the harshest of criticisms to those who refuse to accept this reality, for either they are frauds, rats and degenerates as we have said, or they are deluded and misguided, if well meaning, idiots. If the latter is true then they should recognize this article for what it is: a call for them to WAKE UP and start preparing, so that they are not caught off guard when the time finally comes. If there are those among our would be “allies” who truly search for the way out of the Cave, then they shall find it sooner or later, however we’d prefer that it’d be sooner, as soon as possible in fact, so they don’t waste their own time. And if to do that we must bruise some egos and step on some toes THEN SO BE IT.

… those who start with the Truth, though they may do so separately, ultimately end up together with the Truth, regardless whether they be hailed or cursed by the masses.

-James Mason, SIEGE, 9.17

… if you cannot make a revolution in your own mind, in your daily life and habits, then you certainly cannot do it in any other way.

-SIEGE, 9.35

When chaos prevails, as it does now in the right-wing, it is inevitable that people get hurt when you apply that force to establish order, but the hurt to one or two people who claim to believe in Our Holy Cause will mean nothing later, when we have demonstrated, as we are doing, our ability to help even those we might now ‘hurt’ to win, beside which even a severe ‘hurt’ is nothing.

If we cannot win the most desperate battle for survival in the history of humanity, it will not make me proud to have been a ‘good guy’ and to have failed to bring order and victory to the pitiful right-wing. Even those who may be personally angered at the exposures here will know that they are true, and those with which they are not familiar are equally true.

-George Lincoln Rockwell, This Time the World, Ch14

Our vision is clear, the path stretches out before us, and so we must commit to it. Let those who are afraid of what dangers lie in wait for us, and of that which awaits us at the path’s end speak no more of being our “allies.” Let their futile reproaches and criticisms fall on deaf ears for we will hear no more – let those who are true join us, and those who are false hide on the sidelines and stay out of our way, that is all that we have left to offer. It doesn’t matter if someone swings to the left or swings to the right, come Day of the Rope anyone who does not share our vision and stands in its way will swing by the neck.

Ahead is only Total Aryan Victory or Total Aryan Defeat, but in either case the world will tremble by how loudly each of us had proclaimed our oath to this Struggle: I FIGHT!

We do not argue with those who disagree with us, we destroy them.

-Benito Mussolini

… it is our duty to ignore all reproaches and begin the offensive.

-Ernst Junger, “The Frontline Soldier and Wilhelm’s Era”

No, we won’t be judged by our success – they will only ask how loud was our “Yes,” how brightly the flame of will burned in us.

-Ernst Junger, “Blood”

Defeat never. Victory forever!

-Bob Mathews

Hitler or hell.

-Savitri Devi, “Gold in the Furnace”

… I want to ask the young to look up to their predecessors in the Movement as examples so that they will realize that there is nothing superficial in being a National Socialist. It is not a matter of clothes, meetings and stars… but it is the heart that matters! …For them it is not enough to simply confess “I believe” but to take the oath: “I Fight”.

-Adolf Hitler

NA BANNED

As of today, Friday, December 16th 2016, National Action will be proscribed as a terrorist organization in the UK, an act that has been highlighted by the media well ahead of the proposal being brought to parliament, and lauded as a “landmark first” that a far right group would be banned  in the UK.

What this, of course, in effect means is that National Action was the only group in the UK that was not only legitimate but also the only group that posed a real threat to the System and its cronies in Britain, forcing into effect this ban, which has no solid footing.

The excuse utilized in order to justify this unlawful ban was the murder of the Labour party MP for West Yorkshire, Jo Cox. The murderer, 50+ years old Thomas Mair, had no affiliation with National Action, however was rightly celebrated by the group and any honest and true Fascists and National Socialists worldwide for his heroic action, especially when one considers who Jo Cox was. For further context we’d like to direct our readers to the following articles from the DailyStormer (+1) and The Occidental Observer. The tl;dr is that Jo Cox was the patron saint of immigrant child molesters and rapists in West Yorkshire. One might also be inclined to recall the Rotherham scandal in South Yorkshire, where the police, perfectly aware of the ongoing rape of 1400 White Children of Britain, refused to act “for fear of being branded racist”.

Initially the murder was utilized to smear the Brexit movement in an attempt to influence the British populace into staying with the Jewropean Jewnion. With that falling through and, obviously, not wanting an excuse to go to waste, it was used to declare National Action a terrorist organization for expressing support for Thomas Mair and posting scary tweets, the nature of which would get even Gilbert Keith Chesterton declared a terrorist and his works banned.

Dare to compare: 

“Only 649 MPs to go” – one of the “terrorist tweets” by National Action

“It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged” – G.K. Chesterton

When asked for his name upon arrest Thomas Mair introduced himself as “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain!”, which is not only a display of a verily healthy patriotic attitude, but also a correct and the only kind of call one can make when faced with overwhelming evidence for Britain being clutched in the hands of traitors, who first import the rapists and then turn a blind eye to their activities. To support this statement is to support Britain, her people and her children, like the 1400 victims of the Rotherham grooming gangs, bringing forth the full potency of the 14 words: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”

National Action comes forth as Britain’s only hope and sole defenders, surrounded on all sides by her enemies, so it is no wonder that our enemies and in particular the traitors in British government would like to do away with them, for they all surely know what awaits them for their betrayal of Britain. This ban is nothing more than a desperate attempt for this scum to cover their asses, to preserve their political careers and their very lives.

The true absurdity of the situation comes into light when one looks at the almost cynical statements of the British MP’s responsible for the ban, such as the following statement by the home secretary, Amber Rudd, who introduced the proposal to proscribe National Action as a terrorist organization in the first place: “I am clear that the safety and security of our families, communities and country comes first.” Now, think back again to the Yorkshire rape and molestation epidemic perpetrated by foreign invaders that had been invited into Britain and then permitted to go on unimpeded in their crimes by these same officials. Only one of those was dealt righteous justice. Meanwhile National Action was feeding the homeless native British people, whom the traitorous government has completely abandoned, thus “spreading race hate”.

The move to proscribe National Action was introduced past Monday and was put up for “debate” on Wednesday, December 14th. With only about two dozen or less MPs even present in the House of Commons, the whole affair was not a debate but a circle-jerk where all the officials agreed that they cannot allow the murder of their fellow traitor to go unpunished and that National Action would be made an example of. The motion was agreed upon and passed up to the House of Lords for another “debate” on Thursday, December 15th, both sessions are called “Prevention and suppression of terrorism”.

The full transcripts of this circus is available via the Hansard Online website, and is provided below in full with our highlights:

 

[PARLIAMENT TV SESSION – At 19:14]
14 December 2016
Volume 618

    • That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 12 December, be approved.

      The threat level in the UK, which is set by the independent joint terrorism analysis centre, remains at severe. That means that a terrorist attack in our country is highly likely and could occur without warning. We can never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, but we are determined to do all we can to minimise it and keep the public safe. The nature of terrorism is constantly evolving. There are organisations that recruit, radicalise and promote and encourage terrorism, as well as those that commit terrible acts of violence against innocent people.

      Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to disrupt the full range of terrorist activities. The group we propose to add to the list of terrorist organisations, amending schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000, is National Action. This is the 21st order to be made under section 3(3)(a) of the 2000 Act. Hon. Members will be aware that this is the first time we have laid a proscription order for a far-right group. The Government are committed to tackling terrorism, regardless of what motivates it. National Action is a group whose views and ideology stand in direct contrast to the core values of Britain and the United Kingdom.

    • I welcome the decision to ban this group. Have there been any deproscriptions since the last time the House passed an order proscribing an organisation in July?

    • Despite its name, National Action seeks to divide communities and stir up hatred—actions that are entirely contrary to the interests of our nation. Proscribing this neo-Nazi group will prevent its membership from growing and prevent it from spreading propaganda, which allows a culture of hatred and division to thrive. It will also help to prevent National Action from radicalising people who may be vulnerable to extreme ideologies and at risk of emulating the terrorist acts it glorifies.

    •  
    • Anyone who seeks to glorify the Nazis is a threat to this country and our values. Members of this House died fighting Nazis to keep this country and Europe free. I would describe people who think that this country would somehow like to follow a Nazi course of action as twisted to say the least.

      Under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation if she

      believes that it is concerned in terrorism.”

      If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. The Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors in considering whether to exercise that discretion, including the nature and scale of the organisation’s activities and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.

      The effect of proscription is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the United Kingdom. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, support or arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation, or to wear clothing or carry articles in public that arouse reasonable suspicion that they are a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. Proscription acts to halt fundraising and recruitment, and makes it possible to seize cash associated with the organisation.

      Given its wide-ranging impact, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence on an organisation, including open source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across Government, including with intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The cross-Government proscription review group supports the Home Secretary in the decision-making process. The decision to proscribe is taken only with great care and after careful consideration of the particular case. It is appropriate that it must be approved by both Houses.

      Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that National Action is currently concerned in terrorism, and that discretionary factors weigh in favour of proscription.

    • The Home Secretary told us just the other week that she was particularly concerned about the increasingly sophisticated methods that this group was using on the internet both to recruit new members and to promote its warped ideology. Will the Minister share a little more about how, if the order is passed, he and the Home Office will ensure that this organisation is held to account and any material it puts online is removed?

    • I have to be careful that we do not undermine the operational capability and effectiveness of the law agencies, which may take action. But it is certainly the case that, when an organisation is proscribed, it allows us to bring the full force of those agencies to bear on the threat posed by the proscribed organisation and the individuals within it. Within that, I would expect measures to make sure that any use of the internet for what is a kind of grooming is restricted or, I would hope, stopped completely, along with other measures. But I will leave that up to the security services and the police, as that will get the best effect, and it would be wrong of me to speculate further about what they may or may not do.

      Although I cannot comment on the specific intelligence behind the decision to proscribe, I can provide the House with a summary of the group’s activities. National Action is a racist neo-Nazi group that was established in 2013. It has a number of branches across the United Kingdom, and conducts threatening street demonstrations and activities aimed at intimidating local communities. Its activities and propaganda materials are particularly aimed at recruiting young people. National Action’s ideology promotes the idea that Britain will inevitably see a violent race war, which the group claims to be an active part of.

      The group rejects democracy, is hostile to the British state and seeks to divide society by implicitly endorsing violence against ethnic minorities and perceived race traitors. National Action has links to other extreme right-wing groups abroad, including in Europe. In May 2016, National Action members attended the Buchenwald concentration camp, where they made Nazi salutes and posted images online.

      The Government’s counter-extremism strategy challenges extremism in all its form. Alongside the strategy, our Prevent work will continue to monitor whether extremist groups have crossed into terrorism. The group is relatively small and has been in operation in the UK for only a few years, but the impact of its activities has been felt in a number of United Kingdom communities.

    • In the evidence presented to the Home Secretary by the agencies before the decision was made to proscribe the group, was there any evidence of any links with other organisations in different parts of Europe? We have seen that far right groups tend not to operate in only one country.

    • Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether any other groups similar to this particularly unpleasant group are near to having the same sort of decision made about them by the Government?

    • There are obviously other groups out there promoting hate. We keep under them review where they wander close to terrorism, and I would come straight back to this House should we gather the evidence or intelligence that meant we must do so. As I have said, other European far right groups are active in the United Kingdom, either at other people’s rallies or through having a presence among their ethnic grouping here—the Polish far right, for example, would be active in the United Kingdom or have a branch.

      Since early 2016, National Action has become more active, and its activities and propaganda material have crossed the threshold from extremism into terrorism. Its online propaganda material, disseminated via social media, frequently features extremely violent imagery and language, and condones and glorifies those who have used extreme violence for political or ideological ends. This includes two tweets posted in 2016 in connection with the murder of our friend Jo Cox, which the prosecutor described as a terrorist act. One stated:

      “Only 649 MPs to go”.

      Another, containing a photo of Thomas Mair, reads:

      “don’t let this man’s sacrifice go in vain. #Jo Cox would have filled Yorkshire with more subhumans!”

      The group also disseminated an image doctored to condone and celebrate the terrorist attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando and another depicting a police officer’s throat being slit. People might have become aware of these messages who could reasonably have been expected to infer that these acts should be emulated, and therefore such propaganda amounts to the unlawful glorification of terrorism. The Orlando massacre was an atrocity in which 49 people lost their lives. Jo Cox’s murder was a tragedy, familiar to us all, and closer to home. Both are examples of attacks committed for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause, and both were terrorist attacks. If we allow such events to be celebrated and encouraged, we live with the risk that they will be repeated.

      Our strategy to combat terrorism looks at the full spectrum of activity, and that includes ensuring that groups that unlawfully glorify horrific terrorist acts are prevented from continuing to stir up hatred and encourage violence. It is right that we add National Action to the list of proscribed organisations in schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Subject to the agreement of the House and the other place, the order will come into force on Friday 16 December.

    • The Opposition welcome this order proscribing the new Nazi group National Action and give it our full support. We have heard from the Minister and others on both sides of the House about some of its appalling actions and propaganda, whether Nazi salutes in Liverpool or online communications glorifying the killing of our late colleague Jo Cox.

      Terrorism has become the scourge of society, but we cannot give an inch to this plague of our time. Our swift action in proscribing this far-right group will provide some reassurance to all parts of the community in these increasingly difficult and unstable times. This week, I visited the Metropolitan police’s counter-terrorism unit and saw at first hand the difficult work it does to detect terror threats. It was clear that in an increasingly digital age, ideology has become more extreme and more pervasive, and that digital technology is the key recruitment tool for terrorism. We can only imagine the effect it can have on some impressionable young people sitting in their bedrooms and seeing the online propaganda put out by such groups. That is why proscription is so important.

      Because of the advances in technology and the changes in our media, specifically social media, terrorist ideology has become a cancer. We need to remain vigilant, faster, smarter and swifter in dealing with the threat. It is completely right, therefore, that we take this action. As we look forward to 2017, the major threats we face are asymmetric—a couple of young men in their bedroom can wreak terror in their community—international and deadly, and they are so rapidly changing that we could not in the House have foreseen them a decade ago. This far-right group is a genuine threat to our domestic security, and Parliament’s legislation must reflect the urgency and complexity of the situation.

    • We in the SNP support this organisation’s being added to the proscribed list. I struggle to say its name in the House, for risk of glorifying it, so I will refer to it as NA. Issues of national security are of course reserved to this place, but there has been close co-operation between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, and that will continue. It is our desire in Scotland, as much as in the rest of the UK, to do everything possible to meet the threat of terrorism.

      On the basis of the tweets alone about our departed and much loved colleague Jo Cox, which will have disgusted anybody with a sense of reasonable objectivity, as well as the appalling words it put out about the terrible attack in Orlando, we have no hesitation in backing the Government’s call to add this organisation to the proscribed list. Of courses, all additions to the proscribed list must be necessary and proportionate. We must always have those two criteria and qualifications in mind, and we believe it is abundantly clear that they are met in this case.

      We came to the House a couple of months ago to add another four or five organisations to the proscribed list, which was successfully done with our support. When we debated that statutory instrument, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who is not in his place today, and I called on the then Minister, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), to contact the British Broadcasting Corporation to see whether it would desist from using the phrases “so-called Islamic State” and “Islamic State” when referring to the organisation that the Government now rightly call Daesh. The Minister gave clear commitments to contact the BBC and make those representations, but I must admit that in my very occasional watching of BBC News, I have noticed that the phrase continues to be used, perhaps more than ever. I therefore respectfully ask the Minister today, for whom I have great respect, whether he will take that suggestion away, perhaps talk to the previous incumbent, and contact the BBC so that it stops using this awful phrase, which frankly gives legitimacy to an organisation that is neither Islamic nor a state.

    • I along with others in the House completely support the Minister’s decision to proscribe this organisation. Ministers obviously have important and sensitive information that they are unwilling to share with the House on such occasions, but the Minister has gone a long way to reassure the House that the information he has is more than sufficient to take the action he is proposing today.

      National Action will be the first extreme right-wing organisation to be banned, which is a very welcome step. We certainly need to be very strong in dealing with right-wing extremism and we need to be very concerned about it. I raised the issue of what was happening in Europe. The world can never forget the 77 victims of Anders Breivik in 2011. The Minister mentioned the words of the organisation in question when it praised the killer of our colleague Jo Cox. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree Luciana Berger was right to remind us of what the Home Secretary said only this week: that this group has no place in our country.

      The shadow Home Secretary—for whom I have enormous respect and who has campaigned all her political life against right-wing extremism and extremism of any kind—has visited the counter-terrorism unit, as she said. I am sure she will join me and the rest of the House in praising those who are part of that unit, who day after day, day and night, work so hard to keep us safe. Under the incredible leadership of Mark Rowley, they ensure that many of the plots that we do not know about are dealt with and prevented before they come to fruition. Mark Rowley has recognised that increasing numbers in the United Kingdom are “gravitating towards extremism” and has talked about 60 to 70 cases each month. This is a very large figure indeed.

      It is important to recognise what has happened since the referendum this year. The number of hate crimes, especially against Polish and other eastern European citizens, has increased by 41% since 2015.

    • I note what my right hon. Friend has said about the number of people of concern. Does he share my concern that the latest figures from Prevent show that around 300 young people under the age of 18 have been identified as posing a threat of extremism from the far right? That figure should concern us all and should embolden the Home Office to do even more to ensure that the next generation embraces equality, not division.

    • I am astonished at those figures, but I think they are witness to what the shadow Home Secretary has said about access to the internet and social media. Individuals who may be very young could be operating from their homes, involving themselves in this kind of hatred. It is very easy to disseminate hatred, as my hon. Friend will know—she has been one of the victims in this House of hatred coming from social media and the internet. She has behaved with absolute dignity in the face of it. She is right to raise these figures. These are issues of enormous concern. The younger the people who get involved in these activities, the more difficult it becomes to turn them around once they become ingrained with them. There has also been a spike in anti-Semitic incidents across the country—11% higher than last year. We should thank the police and the counter-terrorism unit for the work they do in trying to combat this.

      Oddly, just before this particular debate, the House unanimously endorsed without any debate the Government’s decision to opt into Europol—one of the very few organisations in Europe that we are joining at the same time as we are leaving the rest of the EU. Europol has an extremely important role to play in ensuring that we combat far-right extremism and extremism in general all over Europe. It has an amazing head in Rob Wainwright, who is a Brit, and it is able, through the capacity that we have helped to build as part of Europol, to ensure that we deal with these organisations.

      I end by asking the Minister the question I asked a little earlier, as I think he may have misunderstood it. I asked how many organisations had been de-proscribed since July. I think the People’s Mujaheddin were de-proscribed several years ago—not since July. The Minister is right to prescribe that we should keep on monitoring the de-proscription process. On numerous occasions when these orders have been discussed, I have raised the situation of the LTTE—Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam—and my Tamil constituents, who still feel stigmatised by the fact that the LTTE is banned, even though it no longer exists. We need to be very aware of the need to look at the issue of de-proscription and keep it under review, while of course welcoming what the Minister has done.

      The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, had made it very clear that he thinks there should be a time limit. In the case of this particular organisation, I think we are all agreed that the Minister has come to this House and made a powerful case. The House will speak with one voice in supporting what he has done absolutely. We look forward to this organisation being monitored very carefully indeed, so that none of its evil tentacles are passed on to other organisations, perhaps bearing a different name, but with the same personnel involved, who will seek to poison and destroy the minds of the people of this country.

    • I am very pleased that we are having this debate today, but I am surprised and a little disappointed that we did not have it earlier. In the wake of Jo’s murder, the entire media coverage was dominated by issues about Thomas Mair’s mental health and the idea that he was a lone wolf. It was exactly the same after the atrocities committed by Anders Breivik. We should compare and contrast that with when Muslims commit terrorist atrocities, and the entire public discourse is about the ideology that motivated them to commit those horrendous crimes. There are demands for Muslim leaders to condemn and apologise on their behalf. Yet here we are, six months after Jo’s murder, and only now are we debating the extremist perverted ideology that inspired Thomas Mair to commit his horrific crime.

    • It was felt that bringing this proscription forward earlier could have jeopardised a fair trial. To avoid undermining the trial of Jo Cox’s murderer, it was best to delay to ensure that the trial was completed, given the murderer’s link to far-right groups and far-right ideology.

    • I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I was by no means criticising the Government when I mentioned the delay in bringing the proscription forward; my comment was more about the media’s treatment of this atrocity and the general public discourse. I wholeheartedly support the Government’s intention today and welcome the proscription of National Action. It is clearly a terrorist organisation, and I note that it changed its slogan in the wake of Jo’s murder to “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain!”, in the light of Thomas Mair’s plea hearing.

      I also want to take this opportunity to call on the Government to give time to debate the proscription of Britain First. I called for such a debate last month. I did not call for Britain First’s proscription; I just called for the House to be given evidence and to look at the details of the group’s paramilitary activity and anti-democratic behaviour. As a result of that and of how the media covered my call, I have received very explicit death threats. I have been called a traitor and a Muslim-lover. On Friday, an individual went through every one of my YouTube videos and said he would not rest until I was murdered. If that is not evidence that Britain First should be proscribed as a terrorist organisation, I am not sure what is. I hope that the Minister will consider seeking time in the House to debate just that.

    • It is important that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) knows that everyone in the House stands with her. The Minister will say that at the end, but it is important that hon. Lady knows that we stand shoulder to shoulder with her.

      I come from Northern Ireland, where we have great knowledge and understanding of the Terrorism Act 2000. I thank the Minister for his work in proscribing membership of National Action, which has been labelled by the media as a neo-Nazi group. Members of what is commonly known as a racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic group will now understand that it is illegal to be a part of it and will have to question why it has been made illegal.

      I agree with the Minister’s decision to ensure that the group is proscribed and see it as a cog in the wheels of ensuring that while people are entitled to their own politics such opinions are viewed as warped and can never and should never be expressed in the way this group has expressed them thus far. The vile way in which the murder of our colleague Jo Cox was touted by the group says a lot about its warped, demented ideology.

      Without disclosing anything that he should not disclose, will the Minister tell us what is being done to monitor other far-right groups that skirt the limits of the law but are close to stepping over the line and working towards evil ends?

      I caution Members that proscribing an organisation unfortunately does not signify the end of the group. I only wish that it did, because it would be a great day for everyone in this House and further afield. Dissident Republican groups have been proscribed for many years, yet there were 52 bomb attacks in Northern Ireland in 2015-16—the highest in years—so the fears are real. Only this week, I raised that matter at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and asked representatives from the Police Service of Northern Ireland about the relationship that dissident Republicans have with international terrorism in the middle east and north Africa, which are awash with explosives and guns. Dissident Republicans have access to Semtex and the threat to mainland GB is serious, so that needs urgent attention. It is wonderful that the Minister has stated that this behaviour will not be tolerated, but the Home Office must make available the resources that put the teeth into this legislation—counter-terrorism-trained officers who can gather intelligence and do the business to keep us safe in this House and our constituents safe across the whole of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not simply from this group, but the other 70 groups that have been proscribed under this Act and the further 14 groups that were proscribed before the enactment of legislation in Northern Ireland. This is a watch list of the lowest of the low and those who threaten the very democratic process that we are privileged to be part of. The Police Service of Northern Ireland and the police service in Great Britain must have the resources to contain the threat that exists, making it necessary to proscribe these organisations.

      I very much welcome the Minister’s statement here tonight, but I also encourage a greater allocation of resources to deal with the threat, and to keep people safe and able to carry on with their lives—we have a responsibility in this House to ensure that.

  • I am grateful for the support of the Scottish National party, and I can confirm that my predecessor did indeed get in touch with the BBC. I also say to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) something that may frustrate us from time to time: the BBC is editorially independent. We both need to continue to press the case on the point he makes; the media have to very careful with language in all these areas.

    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) rightly made the point that the media have a strong role to play. We did not take our eye off the far right. We have been making sure we watch where these people go, and when they cross from hate speech into extolling terrorism. We have all been involved. The Prevent programme has involved a considerable number of referrals of people on the far right, but the media have for a long time chosen to focus on one section of society, sometimes too much so and at the expense of others.

    The lesson from this, as I see when I go out and about around the country, is: if you do not think this applies to your area, think again. People are being radicalised and groomed, perhaps in their bedrooms, on the internet, and this knows no boundaries, be it class, background, race or religion. The ability for the internet to radicalise people and for those behind this to manipulate the internet to do that is incredible. Tragically, in today’s society we are going to have to deal with more of that, not less. I go to local authorities that clearly do not think this applies to them, but I am afraid I know that it does.

    What we have seen with the far right is that there are parts of this country where it is successfully recruiting people and they are part of that Prevent programme. The good news is what can happen when they are into that programme. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree Luciana Berger mentioned the Channel referrals. I spoke to someone in the north of England recently who had referred a 15-year-old to that programme for the far right, and that child is now back in mainstream education, has gone on to further education and has built a future for himself. Prevent is there to help; it is there not only to prevent people from being radicalised into extremism and terrorism, but to make sure that people are given help and support.

    The points the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) made about the internet are absolutely right. We use the counter-terrorism internet referral unit to work with internet providers to remove material as it comes online, and since 2010 they have removed 220,000 pieces of terrorist-related material online. That work is ongoing and constant, and we must make sure we do it.

    The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) does not need lessons from me on Northern Ireland-related terrorism, as the people involved have not gone away and it is still an active problem that we are trying to deal with. I am afraid that they have moved with the times and used many of the smooth, slick recruitment materials that we see across the board.

    I am grateful to the House for its support. We should also take this opportunity to remember that some people will not be celebrating Christmas this year. Some of our security services and police will be on duty keeping us safe while we are having our breaks at home. They will be making sure that hon. Members in this House who are under threat and the wider public are protected. I want to place it on the record that we greatly appreciate the work that they do. They are not allowed to shout about it. They get almost no recognition in public. I know from the job that I do how important they are to keeping us safe. Proscription is one of the measures that we can give them to tackle the threat.

    Proscription is not targeted at any particular faith, social group or ideological motivation. It is based on clear evidence that an organisation is involved in terrorism. It is my firm opinion and that of the Home Secretary that, on the basis of available evidence, National Action has promoted and encouraged acts of terrorism. This includes the unlawful glorification of the murder of Jo Cox, committed by Thomas Mair, and the unlawful glorification of the massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. It is therefore appropriate for the Home Secretary to exercise her discretion to proscribe this group. The proscription of this group demonstrates our condemnation of its activities. Proscribing it will also enable the police to carry out disruptive action and ensure that it cannot operate here. It will prevent National Action’s membership growing, or help to stop those who might be vulnerable to radicalisation and possibly at risk of emulating terrorist attacks. Being drawn into the group’s extreme and distorted ideology is what we are trying to stop. Therefore, I commend this order to the House.

    Question put and agreed to.

[HANSARD ONLINE TRANSCRIPT PAGE]
[PARLIAMENT TV SESSION – After 17:26]

15 December 2016
Volume 777

Motion to Approve

5.06 pm

Moved by

    • That the draft Order laid before the House on 12 December be approved.

    • My Lords, the threat level in the UK, which is set by the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, remains at “severe”. This means that a terrorist attack in our country is highly likely and could occur without warning.

      We can never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, but we are determined to do all we can to minimise it. Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to disrupt the full range of terrorist activities. The group that we now propose to add to the list of terrorist organisations, amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000, is National Action. This is the 21st order under Section 3(3)(a) of that Act. This is the first time we have laid an order for a right-wing group. Proscribing this neo-Nazi group sends a strong message that we will not tolerate terrorist activity here, regardless of what motivates it.

      As noble Lords will appreciate, I am unable to comment on specific intelligence. However, I can provide a brief summary of the group’s activities. National Action is a racist, neo-Nazi group that was established in 2013. It has a number of branches across the UK, which conduct threatening street demonstrations and activities aimed at intimidating local communities. Its activities and propaganda materials are aimed particularly at recruiting young people.

      National Action’s ideology promotes the idea that Britain will inevitably see a violent “race war”, which the group claims it will be an active part of. The group rejects democracy, is hostile to the British state and seeks to divide society by implicitly endorsing violence against ethnic minorities and perceived “race traitors”. National Action has links to other extreme right-wing groups abroad, including in Europe. In May 2016, National Action members attended Buchenwald concentration camp, where they carried out Nazi salutes and posted images of this online.

      The Government’s counter-extremism strategy challenges extremism in all its forms. Alongside this and our Prevent work, we will continue to monitor whether extremist groups have crossed into terrorism.

      This is a relatively small group which has only been in operation in the UK for a few years, but the impact of its activities has been felt in a number of UK communities. Since early 2016, the group has become more active and its activities and propaganda material have crossed the threshold from extremism into terrorism. National Action’s online propaganda material, disseminated via social media, frequently features extremely violent imagery and language. It condones and glorifies those who have used extreme violence for political or ideological ends. This includes two tweets posted by the group in 2016 in connection with the murder of Jo Cox, which the prosecutor described as a terrorist act. One states, “Only 649 MPs to go”. Another contains a photo of Thomas Mair with the caption, “Don’t let this man’s sacrifice go in vain. Jo Cox would have filled Yorkshire with more subhumans!”. The group has also disseminated an image which was doctored to condone and celebrate the terrorist attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando in which 49 people lost their lives, and another depicting a police officer’s throat being slit.

      There are people who may have become aware of these messages who could reasonably be expected to infer that these acts should be emulated; therefore, such propaganda amounts to the unlawful glorification of terrorism. Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is currently concerned in terrorism. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Home Secretary takes a number of factors into account, including the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.

      Proscription in effect outlaws a listed organisation and makes it unable to operate in the UK. Proscription can also support other disruptive activity, including prosecutions for other offences, and acts to support strong messaging to deter fundraising and recruitment. Additionally, assets of a proscribed group are liable to seizure as terrorist assets. The Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after a thorough review of the available relevant information and evidence on an organisation. This includes open-source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The cross-government proscription review group supports the Home Secretary in this decision-making process. A decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration of the particular case, and it is appropriate that it must be approved by both Houses.

      Proscription of this group will prevent its membership growing and help to prevent individuals who might be vulnerable to radicalisation, and possibly at risk of emulating the terrorist attacks that National Action glorifies, being drawn into the group’s extreme ideology. I beg to move.

    • My Lords, I think the Government are doing the right thing with this organisation and the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for having set out in some detail why action is necessary. I have just one question. The noble Baroness rightly said that if an organisation of this kind is proscribed it is possible to seize its funds, but I take it that any organisation that knows it is going to be proscribed would takes its funds out of the jurisdiction, or otherwise distribute them so as to put them beyond reach. Has it been possible in this case, and would it normally be the Government’s practice, to freeze these funds in some way before the announcement of the proscription?

    • I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the purpose of the order. The order was, as I understand it, agreed by the Commons yesterday and we hope that it will be agreed in your Lordships’ House this afternoon. We welcome and support the order. As the noble Baroness said, it amends Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 by adding the neo-Nazi National Action to the list of proscribed organisations concerned in terrorism. The Minister also set out the provisions of the relevant parts of the 2000 Act, as well as the relevant part of the 2006 Act, which amended Section 3 of the 2000 Act. I do not intend to repeat those provisions.

      5.15 pm

      As has already been said, National Action is a racist, neo-Nazi group. It was established some three years ago and is virulently racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic. Its online propaganda material, which it puts out through social media, frequently features extreme violent imagery and language. It condones and glorifies those who have used extreme violence for political or ideological ends. As the Minister said, this has included tweets posted by the group in 2016 in connection with the murder of Jo Cox MP, which the prosecutor described as a terrorist act.

      I would like to ask just two questions, although I want to make it clear that we welcome and support the order. First, how easy or otherwise will it be for this organisation to get round the order? Can it do that simply by renaming itself or setting up another organisation, which may not be all that difficult? Is it more complicated for an organisation in this position to get around the order which we hope will be made this evening? Secondly, are there any other right-wing organisations—I stress, without naming them—of similar views, means of operation and objectives to National Action in the sights of the Government for adding at some future stage to the list of proscribed organisations?

    • My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her careful explanation. I will not oppose the order, but this is a moment for reminding ourselves of the distinction between distasteful and, in a non-technical sense, offensive speech and the promotion of terrorism and other actions which are the criteria for proscription. In that connection, I would like to remind myself and the House of the importance of freedom of speech.

      The Minister described some of the activities of National Action. I have read of its advocacy that, when it assumes power, those who promote liberal values, tolerance and multiculturalism will be “in the chambers”. She referred to photographs taken in what had been gas chambers. It has used the phrase “Hitler was right”; it is quite clear what it means by “the chambers”. When one of its members was jailed for a series of anti-Semitic tweets against the Member for Liverpool Wavertree, National Action led a campaign to have him freed. It clearly supports violence to achieve its political goals and has gone well beyond the bounds of free speech, into advocating violence and engaging in acts to “compel, coerce or undermine” the Government, which is engaging in terrorism.

      However, that is a stronger definition of terrorism than in the current legislation. This definition was first advocated by my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew in 2008, when he was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. It was supported by David Anderson, the current reviewer, in 2014. National Action clearly falls within both the legal and recommended definitions of a terrorist organisation, but I wonder whether the Minister has anything in her brief about these recommendations. David Anderson also recommended that proscription should be for a limited period and subject to renewal. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether this order is time-limited or in some way subject to review.

      As the Minister said, this is the first order against a right-wing organisation that advocates terrorism. I understand—I think these figures are from the National Police Chiefs’ Council—that the number of far-right referrals to the Prevent programme increased from 323 in 2014-15 to 561 the following year, which must be the most recent year for which we have figures. Does the Minister have any comments on that?

      These Benches support freedom of speech and this proscription, and it has occurred to me, listening to this debate, that an organisation such as this infringes the right of free speech for the rest of us.

    • On how easy it is to get round the order if an organisation is renamed or a new organisation is set up, if organisations change their name, they remain proscribed. We can, of course, also lay a name change order to clarify that they remain proscribed. We most certainly keep extreme right-wing groups under review, as we would with any other type of proscribed organisation, but we do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is under consideration. I hope that answers noble Lords’ questions. I thank noble Lords for their comments.

Motion agreed.

What is incredibly clear from this circus, is that while the faults of the traitorous British government and its crimes against its own people are plain as day for all to see for themselves in their daily lives, the supposed evidence of National Action’s “terrorist activities” amounts to nothing more than a couple of tweets and a few memes. This lack of evidence is being covered for by excuses as to how supposed “sensitive information” on NA’s actions cannot be revealed to members of either Houses!

“This bit really convinced me of the need to ban NA. What is the ZOG hiding? Did NA plan to nuke London? Or are they just unwilling to crash the value of the ultra rare Mair Pepe that started this whole thing? Only Alex Jones can solve this.”

This baseless and absurd ban imposed on National Action is clear evidence of the System shills being scared out of their wits, as they realize that they are the only guilty party in the equation. Expulsion of traitors such as them is not unlawful, let alone terrorist activity, but the duty of the native British population, which could find itself authentic leadership in National Action.
We are certain that this ban will not stop our comrades from carrying on the Struggle in ways that will not violate the ban, exposing it for the mockery that it is. However, in anticipation of the ban, National Action has disbanded before the motion was finalized in both Houses of Parliament, with Benjamin Raymond releasing an official statement as to this fact.
We’d like to reiterate our full support for our comrades in National Action and hope that they will challenge this unlawful ban in court.