In response to Hunter Wallace's 'White Collar Supremacy': only Neo-Nazism will work

The New York Times published an anti-Trump, anti-nationalist op-ed piece ('White Collar Supremacy', 25/11/2016) and Southern nationalist Hunter Wallace wrote a rebuttal to it. I think Wallace's reply will become a landmark essay; at the least, he intended it to be.

Here is an extract:

I’ve been involved in this scene for 15 years now and know it inside and out. I think I know what makes these people tick. The ideal of the White ethnostate – a vague, romantic vision of White kids running through cornfields in some place like Iowa – isn’t motivated by hostility to other races.

The White ethnostate is attractive because racially and culturally anxious Whites associate it with security and stability. In the White ethnostate that White Nationalists envision, there are no non-Whites. No one is lording it over oppressed black people. There is nothing like slavery or Jim Crow. There are no gas chambers or cattle cars. It is more a vision of Mayberry than the Third Reich. Mayberry, that’s dark.

Imagine a world of cishet White males going about their lives with nary a thought about social justice. In the White Nationalist utopia, you can turn on your television and Jamelle Bouie isn’t there because multiracial democracy and all the perpetual strife and racial antagonism it generates has ceased to exist. To be sure, Ta-Nehisi Coates hasn’t been reenslaved on a Southern plantation. He isn’t stepping into the sidewalk and tipping his hat and saying “howdy, bossman” either.

Maybe Ta-Nehisi Coates has reached a zen-like state of self-fulfillment after becoming a senator in a dashiki in Liberia? In this world, Jamelle Bouie can finally sleep at night in a Tanzanian ujamaa village without being tortured by the white supremacy of the Trump administration. No one has to worry about White cops shooting the black kids anymore. Black Lives Matter was disbanded because black people were granted their independence. In her youth, Sarah Silverman was known for her vulgar performances. After the White ethnostate was achieved in 2048, this raunchy old Jewish lady is still alive and cracking jokes, albeit in a Tel Aviv nursing home.

The White Nationalist vision of paradise is simply not having to deal with these people and their bullshit anymore. If marriage isn’t sacred, why should the nation-state be sacred? Why is the liberal world order sacred? Why is multiracial democracy sacred? Why can’t the “pursuit of happiness” be a divorce?

Don’t you believe this because Whites are superior? Surprisingly, the answer is not really – it’s just that, I want to live in a secure and stable country, not this clusterfuck we have today. I want my children and grandchildren to look like me. I want them to be proud of their ancestors. I want them to grow up in a normal White country and to have a bright future. I don’t want to see my community transformed into the Star Wars bar scene. To be perfectly honest, White people today have fallen into a pretty sorry state.

My response, which is somewhat theoretical and abstract, is as follows.

Politics is a plenum, where space is occupied at every point, and the opposite of a vacuum; in that space, we find multiple participants contesting against one another for political power. None of the actors can be completely destroyed, nor can they fade away; they won't renounce - ever - their claims to political power. Your only recourse, as a contestant in that arena, is to fight them and take that power from them. The likes of Ta-Nehisi Coates, Sarah Silverman and Jamelle Bouie are participants in the game, have possession of political power, and just like a football team in possession of a ball, won't give it up willingly. Therefore you need to fight.

In politics, the struggle of ideas - ideologies - can be compared to a Darwinian struggle for existence. Ideologies proliferate across the surface of the earth, and compete for scarce resources; those which have developed adaptations which make them uniquely fitted to survival will live, and flourish, and reproduce; those that don't, will go under. The Hitler doctrine is that 'Life is struggle', meaning that the good things in life - good political things - must be fought for. They are not delivered to you on a plate. Hitler shares this view with the Marxist-Leninists, and fascism - and German National Socialism - has more in common with Marxist-Leninism than any other ideology. Both fascism and communism are doctrines for fighters. This is one of the reasons why fascism has survived - since its defeat in 1945 - all attempts to destroy it and thoroughly extirpate it. We all know, after the war, what the Allies did the Germans in order to remove the 'scourge of fascism', but France and Italy must be looked at in this connection as well. After 'liberation', perhaps 90,000 French perished at the hands of the communists and the French Resistance; in Italy, the number of people killed by the communists and the partisans reached the tens of thousands. Fascism survived such ravages, and it has survived some truly horrible leaders in the post-war era: think of personalities such as Harold Covington, Frank Collins, Bill White, Erich Glebe, all of whom have given 'National Socialism' - Neo-Nazism - a bad name. Many of today's self-declared 'National Socialists' are skinheads, yokels, degenerates, weirdos, snitches... In this group of bad 'Nazis', we find people who are poor ambassadors for the Neo-Nazi ideology and for the white race as a whole. (Hunter Wallace disparages these people as 'vanguardists'). Yet the Neo-Nazi idea soldiers on - and on. It has been around seventy years, and will be around long after assorted fads such as the Alt-Right have gone.

Hunter Wallace's vision of 'white children running through cornfields' seems - to most of us in the movement - healthy and decent; but to many of our opponents - and there are more of them than there are of us - it sounds downright evil, malevolent and disgusting, even. This is how warped and upside down Western politics has become. Being an 'advocate for whites', wanting to help 'white people' - such words and phrases are toxic in contemporary political discourse. In the movement, we don't understand this, because we are so up close to these ideas. We read forbidden and subversive material online every day, and have become so accustomed to it that we stand in danger of walling ourselves up and living in a bubble. The 'Normies' don't think in terms of race, and when they hear racially-charged words and phrases, they duck and run for cover. They believe, correctly, that such talk will get them into trouble with the authorities.

Trump's victory will bring about immigration restrictionism, in America and elsewhere in the West. But the Left - who are still in charge - will put up a tremendous fight against it. One of the weapons they will use - unfailingly - is the Holocaust. In October of this year, British Prime Minister Theresa May put forward some fairly moderate proposals to restrict immigration from the EU. This led to the usual hysterical reaction from the Left and comparisons to the Nazis:

Immigration was the key issue in the June 23 vote for Britain to leave the bloc, a result that sent shockwaves through Europe and the global economy, and sparked political turmoil at home.

May's government this week proposed measures including urging employers to publish a record of how many non-British citizens they take on, and toughening rules on non-EU foreign hires, as well as tightening visa regulations for foreign students.

These have provoked some furious reactions, from critics who accused May of a lurch to the right.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan said the list plan sent a "deeply worrying message to the millions of people from around the world living and contributing in our country".

Tamara Rojo, artistic director of the English National Ballet, said the proposals evoked memories of the Holocaust.

"After 20 years contributing to this great country... how long before I am made to sew a star on my clothes?" she said.

National Socialist Germany never practised such measures, of course, but the point is moot. The Holocaust will be brandished at every opportunity in the coming years and will be used to club us - the white Western people - into submission. These analogies will be inappropriate, but the Left isn't given to rationality and sanity.

Only a head-on approach will work. The Holocaust story must be blown to smithereens - shown up to be part of the Jewish religion (and hence a lie); likewise, any atrocity lie told against the Nazis (by the Poles, Czechs and Russians) must be exposed. The latter duty must be performed even if Polish, Czech and Russian nationalists are offended; we can't claim to represent the interests of all white nations. If we are to choose between Neo-Nazism and Eastern European nationalism, we must take the former over the latter, because it, being German in origin, belongs to the Culture (in Spengler's sense of the word) of the white, Western European peoples.

The anti-Nazi propaganda of the 1930s and 1940s gives us a more accurate picture of the doctrine than today's, because it mostly lacked references to the Holocaust tale, which came to prominence in anti-fascist and anti-Nazi propaganda by the 1970s. The American anti-Nazi saw German National Socialist and Italian Fascist Man as brutal and cruel, but possessing of a certain swagger, vigour, vitality and virility. The flamboyance and theatricality of his rituals put his countries on a par above the Western democracies, and fascism worked - there was less unemployment in Germany under Hitler than there was in America under Roosevelt. But whatever good that existed in Italy or Germany was marred by the fascist's brutality and insatiable lust for dominion (Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia led to sanctions from America).

An element of truth existed in that American, British and French anti-fascist propaganda. I object to the Holocaust Revisionists - while at the same time recognising that they have done great work - on the grounds that one, they lack a political theory and two, in their desire to do away with all the (largely baseless) propaganda against the Germans, they end up making the German people into victims and turning the 'hard' Nazis 'soft'. To me, those 'hard' elements of Nazi theory and practice will prove to be useful in years to come; and the Left is terrified at the prospect of the return of the 'hard' Germans - this is the one thing that keeps them awake at night.

The paradox is that Hunter Wallace's vision of 'white children running through cornfields' can't be attained except through 'hard', fascist methods. In other words, in order to get back to healthy, clean, safe and sane, white all-Americanism, you need to go full Nazi. That's the message of the poster for the TV series Man in the High Castle (2015-) above. For many 'movement conservatives' - such as Mr 'I grew up in a house next door to a cornfield' himself, Vice President-elect Mike Pence - that's too much to bear. Americans would end up losing their 'liberties', their 'freedoms'. At the least, the present order must be overturned.

The Left understands the paradox: Americanism - the old, decent, safe and sane Americanism, what Ayn Rand (who was accused of fascist sympathies throughout her career) would call 'rational' - can only return through fascism, or something like it. That's why the Left equates Trumpism and 'Making America Great Again' with the most coarse and brutal doctrines - KKKism, white supremacism, Neo-Nazism... Below is a screenshot from the lunatic American Maoist political cult / group, Bob Avakian's Revolutionary Communist Party:

And here is a rather amusing caricature of Trump looking like Gerhard 'Gary' Lauck, the eccentric old American Neo-Nazi of the NSDAP/AO:

My message to the movement is: don't fight these comparisons, embrace them - become what your enemy fears. We need to go on the attack.

But, you say, the Normies won't like it. More so than the Left - which never, never worries what the Normies will think of it - we are constantly looking over shoulders in fear of what the nice, normal everyday people will think. My answer to that is that we can't ever know, for certain, what the Normies do think; we only know how they vote at election time - and we don't know the reasons why they voted as they did... What specifically made the American electorate prefer Trump to Clinton? We can't say. The electorate resembles a mute and inarticulate beast: it makes decisions, but again, we don't know - and cannot know - the reasons behind those decisions.

In our political discourse, we must invoke the past, the history, of our people and our civilisation; but that's too much for some of the 'moderates' in our movement, who believe that we must speak continually of the present and must never refer back to the past. But again, the Left never stints when it comes to teaching history and theory; it indoctrinates the youth with rather intense (by today's academic standards) studies of Marx, a German theoretician from the 19th century, and the history of the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Communist Revolutions, two events which took place - in countries far away to most Westerners - nearly a hundred years ago and seventy years ago respectively. The Left doesn't underestimate the intelligence of the working-classes and their capacity to learn, and neither should we.

Deadbeats in the Movement: the Extreme Left, the Extreme Right and the Scum

Again and again one has to ask: why is that extremist political movements, of both the extreme Left and Right, attract so deadbeats, losers, mentally-subnormal people, wasters, lumpenproles, scum?

I have to qualify my statement here, and specify which type of person I'm talking about. The type is: someone who is intensely alienated from their community and the society around them; who doesn't have the strength to hold down a job; is constantly in debt or in financial trouble, is pursued by creditors, or chased by debt-collectors, who can't, or won't pay utilities bills, phone bills, Internet bills, etc.; who has a history of brushes with the law; who can't be trusted with money or any sort of responsibility; who generally isn't someone you'd want, over in your house, for dinner, or to live with, or work with; who often suffers from what modern-day psychologists call a 'personality disorder'; who won't keep their house, their front yard, or anything, clean and tidy; who, in general, is a species apart, from all the apparently nice, normal decent people who appear to make up around 90% or so of the white population out there, who we live with, socialise with and work with.

I have run into, quite often, people of this type, on both sides of politics. On the Far Right, frequently, this type isn't interested, a jot, in the (white) community and society around them, or the fate and well-being of the Western culture and civilisation as a whole; in fact, they are so alienated from it - so far outside its traditional laws, customs and morals - they would be freaks and outcasts even in an ethnically-homogenous white society (like that of the 1950s and 1960s). They are racialist, but not out of love, or a sense of involvement with, or a feeling of concern with, the white race and the white peoples of the West. No, they are racialist, merely out of a desire to place themselves above, to hierarchisise themselves, the Chinese, Indian and Arab immigrant populations. They may be low in the totem pole, so to speak, among white people, but, they assure themselves, they are superior - in some way - to the Chinese, the Indians, the Muslims. We nationalists know what type of groups, within the nationalist spectrum, individuals of this type gravitate to (I won't name any of them here, lest I offend the sensibilities of "comrades" in the movement).

On the Left, the situation is, more often than not, just as bad. We have anarchists who live in squats, on a level little better than the animals whose rights they claim to champion; sexual deviates, who use their deviancy as the basis of a (wholly new, and really un-Marxist) form of anti-capitalist and neo-Marxist politics; ferals and dirty, grubby hippie types, often young, who waste time and money (not their own, but money from the welfare state) on pointless "anti-fascist" "activism", instead of marrying, starting a family, working, providing for one's children, paying off a mortgage and mowing the front lawn, like most decent white people do.

The good-for-nothings on the Left claim to represent the working classes, and some of the good-for-nothings on the Right claim to be "National Socialists" in the German tradition. But (bear in mind that the NSDAP was the National Socialist German Workers Party) neither of them work. It takes discipline to hold down a job, which can sometimes be a drudgery; which can require getting up, very early in the morning, and commuting long distances; and working with unpleasant (and, nowadays, often Chinese, Muslim, African and Indian) colleagues and a customer base. And that is a discipline that our good-for-nothings just don't have.

It is these people who are the true race traitors. While the immigrant Indian or Chinese comes to our country, marries, breeds (and non-white immigrants to Australia are prolific breeders), gets a job, takes a mortgage, and brings more and more of his relatives, from his country, and takes full advantage of the existing opportunities here, the deadbeat Leftist or nationalist does nothing: he lives as a fringe person in his own society. By living what is (by the standards of any society) a worthless and immoral existence, he is leaving the country wide open for exploitation, by non-whites, who will take up all the obligations of a normal working, family person and thereby end up supplanting him in his own country. The Leftist or nationalist who is a deadbeat is, in effect, practising individualism - and by individualism, I mean a lack of any responsibility to one's white community as a whole.

Why? Both the extreme Left and Right are fringe movements (for the time being) and, as a result, tend to attract fringe people: that's the conventional answer. I wonder, now, though, whether this explanation really goes to the root of the problem: I'm becoming more and more convinced that the answer lies in ideology.

In Marxism and anarchism, for example, we have an anti-work ideology. Marx famously refused to work, and support his wife and children, because he was determined not be a labouring machine, exploited by capitalism for profit. (We can see, of course, how Das Kapital justifies precisely this sort of attitude). As a result, his wife and children starved, and lived in squalor - simply because the father, the traditional breadwinner and patriarch, refused to perform his duties. Anarchism is the same, of course, but at least they are a little more honest about 'not liking work' than the Marxists.

In nationalism, however: where does the justification come from? Well, one has to look at the work of our most revered intellectuals. Take this excerpt from Savitri Devi's The Lightning and the Sun, 'Kalki, the Avenger':

The streets are full of dregs of humanity, at least full of bastards and of sub-men. One only has to look at the faces one sees in the over-crowded buses, or in the cinemas and dancinghalls and cafes in large towns, nay even in small ones, even in the countryside, everywhere, save in those lands in which the dominant race is relatively pure. It is a pitiful sight; a pitiful world; a world up-side-down; a world in which the average cat or dog is, as such, immeasurably healthier, more beautiful — more perfect — than the average man or woman and a fortiori than the average post-1945 State ruler; nearer to the ideal archetype of his species than most present-day human beings and specially than the official (and the hidden) leaders of the present-day “free world” — President Eisenhower (or rather, Mr. Baruch) Churchill, Mendes-France, etc., (let alone their most obedient servants Konrad Adenauer, Theodor Heuss and Co) — ever were to the ideal archetype of man, God’s masterpiece.

If only the, ugly sub-men were capable of lofty thoughts — or simply
of thought — that would be something! But they are not. And their leaders are worse than they, not better. True, they all speak of “free thinking”; speak of it, and write about it. They criticise their former friends (the Communists) for “killing individual thought.” Yet they are themselves the first ones to lack both freedom of judgement and individuality. They all have the same views; and the same ideal. Their views are those of the ruling press. Their ideal is to “get on in life,” i.e., to make money and to “be happy,” which means: to enjoy tasty food, fine clothing, lodgings provided with the latest commodities; and, in addition to that, as often as possible, a little drink, a little light music, a little sport, a little love-making. Maybe, they call themselves Christians — or Hindus, or anything else. But whatever religion they might profess, their faith is skin-deep. Nothing, absolutely nothing more-than-personal — and, a fortiori, more-than-human, — interests them. The one thing they all pray for, when they pray at all, is “peace”; not the unassailable, inner peace of the Best (of which they have not the foggiest experience), but peace in the sense of absence of war; the indefinite prolongation of a “status quo” which allows them to think of to-morrow’s little pleasure without the fear of to-day’s deadly danger; peace, thanks to which they will, undisturbed, — so they hope — be able to go on rotting in the midst of that increasing comfort, which technical progress secures them; peace, thanks to which they expect to remain (or gradually to become) happy — in the manner pigs are happy, when they have plenty to eat and clean straw to lie upon.

Hardly the thoughts of someone who is 'well-adjusted'! Now, of course, the brilliant Devi has an axe to grind, true. But the sort of alienation, evinced in the above quotation, is hardly conducive to discipline - the discipline of paying one's bills; paying one's debts; of getting up on time; of going to work; of caring for people who are dependent on you and more vulnerable than you (e.g., children); of not lying... In short, if you start to think things really are as bad as Devi says, you are not going to put the effort in - into working, keeping alive, being a responsible person in this society of ours.

Without the acknowledgement of customs and rules - and a society is made up of customs and rules - a society, no matter what colour it is, just can't survive. The reason why Anglo-Saxon societies (such as in North America, or (white) South Africa, or Australia and New Zealand) do so well is that, traditionally, they have stuck, more than most, to these rules. Whereas certain other ethnic groups - even within the white race - don't stick to these rules, and in fact, seem to be convinced that lying (for instance) in business, or everyday life, is a way of 'getting ahead'.

In the same way, someone who reads Das Kapital, and believes in it, is going to be less inclined to work in the capitalist system. After all, the central thesis of that book is that anyone who does work is getting 'done over', exploited, and horribly, by the capitalist, for the sake of capitalist profits. Labour, in the capitalist economy, is, in essence, exploitation, pure and simple. This intellectual thesis filters down to the deadbeat, work-shy Leftist.

The deadbeats in the nationalist scene, of course, often (in my experience, at any rate) don't read Savitri Devi (they tend not to read at all). But ideas, at the top end of the spectrum, have a tendency to filter down to the lower end. The ideas of a Devi, a Yockey, an Evola, do tend to descend to the (less intellectual) on the Far Right, and so a lumpenprole will find his justification - morally, ideologically - for his deeds in some of the ideas of these great thinkers.

This raises an interesting question. Many nationalists ask me how we can go about attracting more 'normal people' to nationalism, and how, at the same time, can induce the freaks, weirdos, lumpenproles to go away. One possible answer is that we can change our movement by changing our ideas. We have to look - take a long, deep, hard look - at the intellectuals whose work provides the basis of our movement. What idea, or set of ideas, is it that attracts these freaks and weirdos? Which thinker, which book?