View Single Post
Old August 30th, 2011 #223
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Marr View Post
Excellent. We're still very much on topic with the original post.

The topic of the swastika's utility was the initial point of contention, a year or two ago, between Matt Parrott and me. While it wasn't justifiable to classify him as a philo-Semite merely because he objected to the association of the swastika with White Nationalism, I think that has proven to be largely true over the long term, and I am pleased to have made a note of that tendency for future reference when similar situations develop with other activists.
The swastika can't be falsified into pro-jew, but it can be worn falsely by jews (see Frank Collins), and it is also associated with Nazism. I don't wear a swastika because I'm not a Nazi. There's also the problem that most people, including most declared Nazis, do not understand what Nazism is. I'd include myself among that number. The reason for this is that a very good deal of bad or misleading information out there hides what NS actually is. I've tried to clear this up lower down on the forum.

It's complicated by the fact that the junkmedia call anyone who criticizes jews, much less those, like me, who make a main point of it, "Nazis," even if those people, like me, aren't Nazis.

I don't agree with an all-powerful central state. I support, as I've written lower on forum, in a monofunctional overstate focused on defending the race, defined as broadly as needed. Beneath that racial umbrella, I believe in decentralization. Hitler did most emphatically NOT believe in decentralization.

Just as jews routinely mislabel me a Nazi, WN enemies routinely mislabel me a libertarian.

I don't know what to do other than simply continue to make the case for the arrangment I think best. I don't have a cool symbol. Personally I don't like jewelry and symbols of any sort. Of course one is needed at some point, but that point is not now. What is needed, so far as WN put forward a positive vision, rather than a critique of AmeriKwa, a ZOG production, is, in my opinion, is to stress that our solution is the only one in which you have the independence that befits a white MAN, and you can exercise your whitemaniacal creativity and intelligence in the WHITE context most suited to its flourishing. Imagine a country in which you could be both WHITE and a MAN. Under ZOG, you can be neither WHITE nor a MAN. Under NS you can be WHITE but not a man. Under libertarianism you can be a MAN but not WHITE. I want to be both WHITE and a MAN, and I think about half of WN feel the same way I do; the rest are either outright NS or social-democrats (European type) or welfare-statists (American type). Men can agree that we need all-White nations without agreeing on the scope and role of the government within that all-White nation. This is fairly obvious, that there's no agreement on the deeper how-we-live-together stuff, that there's a basic split, but it gets confused because so many WN come from conservatism and essentially just add race to their politics. Leading outsiders and insiders alike to think that WN is just another petty party political option on the democratic-electoral menu rather than a fundamentally different and all-orienting worldview. Which is why I've insisted against all others, basically, that our practical political goal in this period ought to be attacking conservatives and replacing them in the eyes of the people rather than mixing with them and trying to influence them as MacDonald and James Edwards do. My view is that altho KM and Edwards call themselves (as far as I know) White Nationalists, or at least don't mind being called that, they are better viewed as implicit conservatives (IC). Because functionally that's just what they are - conservatives. Their mindset is defending/appealing, not attacking and attracting. While many of the ICs' positions overlap with WN/NS, the mindset is completely different. I see them as simply repeating failure patterns of the past without ever putting any conscious thought to why the Lindbergh on their party actually failed.

Back to my own view, WhiteMania, WhiteManistand, whatever you want to call it... In the setup I describe, no one is free to question or undermine the racial basis of the state - if they don't agree to it, they leave. If they feel they can only be men by living amud third worlders, they have either fought to prevent the birth of our new state, been killed, or fled abroad. If any of these are left after Whites take power, they will be dealt with in one way or another, but in no way will anyone ideologically opposed to the racial basis of the new states be allowed to remain within it. Race is NOT a matter that can be compromised, but it IS a matter worth killing over. The same goes for Catholics, or other goddists. If their religious weltanschauung demands race mixing, or race-neutralism at all levels, and they are actively going to teach and incite on that demand, then they too will be forced out of the new state. If they can live within the confines of the new founding on an explicit racial basis, then perhaps they can set up a neo-Maryland microstate for their type beneath the umbrella. But it must be absolutely clear that absolutely no political opposition to the basis of the new state will be tolerated. And if it is discovered, the leaders will be executed and the followers expelled or executed. Call it sicut catholicus non.

Beneath that federal level -- the collective racial defense umbrella -- white MEN may group themselves as they like, and build such subcommunities as they see fit. They could be welfare-statists, they could be libertarians. They could be 1001 other things I can't imagine. But they will be responsible for building their own intermediate institutions if they feel they need them. In this way their freedom, honor, need to assume responsibility and manliness are preserved. The central state provides the drainage - keeping anti-White shit on the other side of the borders and out of the streets. The dreams are the responsibility of the men themselves.

To me, what I describe is both possible and desirable. I fancy it is hard where needs hard, and loose where needs freedom. It takes into account both racial laws AND economic laws. For the great truth of our time, which has not yet been realized in minds and matter, is that the state is outmoded for nearly all, if not all, purposes. That means the state is the worst way of accomplishing almost any given task. I recommend WN take some time to educate themselves in the LIMITS of politics (read Burke, Kirk, and other classic conservative thinkers) and get up to speed on the latest triumphs made through private, voluntary arrangements (read lewrockwell.com). And then you've got VNNF for tying it all together through the insights of the best racialists on the 'net. Or at least a few dozen good smart white men on the same page seeking the same basic thing.

One counter view to mine is that genuine National Socialism has all the answers any white men need (adapted to their particular nation and circumstances), and we should simply don the swastika with pride and make our way forward.

I don't agree with that view, which I take to be the view of NSM, but it is psychologically right and strong, whereas the whining, remonstrating, complaining approach of, for example, the A3P ICs is psychologically wrong and weak - mere conservatism with a racial veneer.

That sums up my position. I don't wear swastika because I'm not a National Socialist. If I were a NS, I would wear it. I'm not NS because I don't believe the government should be running White men like children. I don't believe White men need public schools, socialized health care, or anything but collective racial defense out of their central government.

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 30th, 2011 at 01:05 PM.