|
|
|
“Right-Wing Extremists like The Order” The nobly inclined, missteps, the ill-advised and the misnamed. MR’s commentariat survey European/White Nationalist exponents. _________________________________________________________________
It’d “be good (to have) a post critiquing far right nationalist movements and leaders:” Enoch Powell “or any other high profile organisations or individuals you can think of.” I would be quick to add William Pierce among others. Rather than relying on extant articles surveying these peoples and platforms, we may look at these matters afresh with the interest of MR commentariat. Taking as a point of departure the terminology that JamesUK’s adopted upon broaching the topic, what jumped-out as salient and perhaps in need of re-naming or re-framing was The Order designated as “Right-Wing Extremist.” ...“right wing extremists like The Order”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezdany_raid There are also parallels with “The Sons of The Revolution” who fought for independence from Britain; we might go on to discuss them among other guerrilla campaigns which fought for independence. That is, naturally, revolution and the taking or re-taking of a nation can entail “extreme” activities according to the status-quo and powers that be. But to begin discussion, a comparison of Bob Mathews and Józef Piłsudski is relevant to normalization as the parallels are clear, yet Piłsudski is not stigmatized, he is widely accepted a nationalist hero.
Sparking this comparison was JamesUK’s suggestion of a survey of WN leaders that did not yet include William Pierce. I suggested that he should be discussed and JamesUK responded that: That phrasing seems very much derived of Jewish controlled media. Thus, we might do well to begin the critique by deconstructing the designation of “right-wing extremist,” as a necessary deconstruction to make-way for the normalizing and institutionalizing of our nationalist efforts: A comparison of Bob Mathews and The Order and Józef Piłsudski and “The Bojówki group is useful in that regard as parallels are clear, yet Piłsudski is not stigmatized, he is widely accepted a nationalist hero. Oh behalf of fostering the organization and coordination of our people into effective forces, I have ventured to re-define “White Leftism” as the union of Native European peoples and to separate it from the albatross of universalist Marxist associations – note that Piłsudski was an arch enemy and hero in war against the Marxist Soviets. We may take occasion to distance ourselves from pejorative Marxist associations of “The’ left”such as the prohibition of private property, while availing ourselves of its socially responsible and organizational capacities. Even so, I would agree that yes, The Order still had some right-wing ideas circulating amongst. However, it, “right-wing”, is a designation and a means that they were moving away from – David Lane was explicit about that, describing “The Right” as full of speculative crazies. Nevertheless, as nationalists, we ought not lose sight of the fact that revolution has been a normal means by which our nations achieved sovereignty. Coming back to JamesUK’s suggestion of a survey of WN leaders, which did not yet include William Pierce, when I suggested that he should be critiqued, JamesUK added that Pierce: “wrote inflammatory books most noticeable The Turner Diaries.” When we interviewed Metzger, I had hoped to have him say some things about Pierce. Metzger does not like The Turner Diaries, citing nukes in particular as a bad solution. Pierce supposedly called Metzger “a bolshevik” because of his leftism. My concern with Pierce is for his rightism indeed, but looks a bit more on his insufficient historical understanding regarding some epochs, probable scientism and corresponding with that fact is that people who couple Hitler and WN almost invariably seem to come through his school of thought. JamesUK writes: “There are more points but this is how I would clarify the WN movement especially in the US that I could go into detail on each point. This list of complaints isn’t exactly how I’d characterize the right wing, but more as how liberals would view WN - with some truth and some criticisms better than others. Maybe some, but even if we wanted Jews to identify with us, most of it would be disingenuous. They see themselves as a separate people. While we state our agenda as separatists, not Nazis who seek to eliminate them from the earth, we have the moral high ground; and if by chance, we are off-the-mark or exaggerate their causative agency in certain problems, we have not enacted something that cannot be corrected. That said, it is clear enough that we need to return to them as often as any problem for us, though turning to other problems in turn and as they arise, we should. Agreed that focus on them alone as antagonistic is a mistake - some have gone so far as to take the position that we ought to drop everything else until we depose them. The argument is valid - they have a line of limitless credit for themselves and can readily buy-off people as they have with The US Congress and Senate, as they have in co-opting Ukrainian nationalism. But we should not chase the red cape of Judaism in what may not be a goal achievable on-time (viz. removing them from all power positions) but we should rather center our focus on our functional autonomy from them; and turn to our various problems accordingly. 2) Victimology I disagree. In fact, I think the right-wing is didactically “macho”, not utilizing the valid feedback that victimization can provide. The right tends rather to value Nietzschean stoicism, the impervious superman. It buys into some of the toxic notions of honor that have taken us into various kinds of “Pickett’s Charge” type scenarios. Rather, Jewish interests would use this kind of incitement (of wimpish complaining and “victimization”) to distract from the nepotism of theirs and others (e.g., Muslims) and the deceptive tactics they have used to gain power. 3) Stereotypes This criticism sounds “Jewy.” On the contrary, we are about reconstructing legitimacy of characteristic patterns and discrimination on their basis, as opposed to the liberal hegemony of being forced to judge every individual on “their own merit.” At first blush, to criticize stereotypes seems to introject a Jewish PC criticism provided to sophomores. Perhaps more explanation and refinement of the criticism is necessary. Certainly there are those who draw vulgar stereotypes, but the legitimacy of stereotyping appears central in what we need to do. 4) Egos/Narcissism There is some of that, sure. And I would agree that it is characteristically right wing. 5) WW2 Definitely. Most normal people concerned for White/European interests should be sick of would-be WN advocates associating our cause with Hitler - how wonderful Hitler was, how perfect NS Germany was! how they were only victims and everyone who opposed them was on the wrong side. It is hindsight, and if hindsight is to be invoked then why not lament the fact that an inter-European war was initiated at all and work to prevent inter-European war from happening again? Before we fully buy-into designations by the powers that be of the status-quo, that we are represented by this or that, or that The Order, for example, were “right-wing extremists”, we ought to compare their efforts to revolutionary movements that are now respected as a part of our tradition and given mainstream acceptance as having been eminently valid. In that regard, we might also compare Bob Mathews and The Order with “The Sons of The Revolution – veritable American terrorists in separatism from Britain, just as they and their Declaration of Independence are now looked upon as sacrosanct by Americans, so too Piłsudski is now esteemed as nationalist hero. And just as The Sons of The Revolution were breaking the law and broaching stigma, great danger and execution if caught, Piłsudski was flamboyantly breaking the law - if he had been captured he would have been executed… as was Bob Mathews. Comments:3
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Sep 2014 02:19 | # The return of JR “If you want to take that post (JR on 9/11) down just do it from the edit function.” 4
Posted by jamesUK on Thu, 11 Sep 2014 02:43 | # I will look over your article properly tomorrow and comment on it and look up information on Józef Piłsudski and the The Bojówki group. I was not implying that you should not include Pearce on the list I was just commenting on how the term Far Right would apply to him as he was associated with The Order a domestic terrorist organisation.
That I replied.
5
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Sep 2014 02:54 | # Posted by jamesUK on September 10, 2014, 09:43 PM | # I will look over your article properly tomorrow and comment on it and look up information on Józef Piłsudski and the The Bojówki group. I was not implying that you should not include Pearce on the list I was just commenting on how the term Far Right would apply to him as he was associated with The Order a domestic terrorist organisation.
As for your suggestion of a review of “far right” nationalist movements and leaders, I think it is a good one (though calling them “far right” is a decidedly Jewish designation and an even farther-off misnomer in some cases). I would be eager to add William Pierce to the list among others.. That I replied. Far Right for a lack of a better term although I would say it does apply to some individuals in the US like William Pearce who was connected to right wing extremists like The Order and wrote inflammatory books most noticeable The Turner Diaries. Understood - It is not really about taking issue with you, but the Jewish “Journalese” (as Neil so aptly calls it), and taking occasion to clarify and revise it. 6
Posted by jamesUK on Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:18 | # @DanielS Looking over the points you responded to that I will respond to later of the 5 main criticisms I have about WN movement you refer to WN as right wing that although it does have right wing ideological leanings I would not characterise WN as being right wing but as a separate entity as most right wing supporters do not support race based ideology as their core political ideology.
Pierce was the person I was thinking of in the back of my mind when I made the list but I just forgot to add him to it. William Pierce especially but also Metzger, Rockwell and Don Black are prime example of 3 or more of the 5 points that I listed. 7
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:44 | # “most right wing supporters do not support race based ideology as their core political ideology.” That is an astute abstraction of what “right wing” implies and a part of the problem - they are generally abstract from the people by implication. “Pierce was the person I was thinking of in the back of my mind when I made the list but I just forgot to add him to it.” “William Pierce especially but also Metzger, Rockwell and Don Black are prime example of 3 or more of the 5 points that I listed.” Definitely worth discussion. All interesting and influential people as they have contributed largely to making up the streams of European(American)/White advocacy’s direction…by examining them we may find essential characterizations and keys to direct our advocacy (European peoples and their discreet kinds) in a better, more effective way. Let’s keep the English in there…I will need particular help with discussing them 8
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Sep 2014 18:52 | # Ok, let me start the ball rolling:
William Pierce Don Black Tom Metzger George Lincoln Rockwell: He was a forerunner to Pierce, who Pierce actually joined-up with. A graduate of Brown University (Ivy league) and US Naval pilot commander; an American patriot, thus it is a startling choice to turn around and champion Hitler and Nazism after being “awakened” by Mein Kampf. But Rockwell did this in a way that is almost unoffensive even to someone like me. I suspect because his background was in advertising, marketing, graphics - the arts - that it came across as it was: to make a statement but not to be taken literally as the territory of meaning (which cannot be said quite as much for Pierce, a scientist). In a time before the Internet, Rockwell used Nazism as a way to rise above the din and be heard. Then, when he had an audience, he would don a business suit and wield a thoughtful pipe in clear, unthreatening repose. Apparently he was planning to put aside the Nazi regalia and moniker at the time of his murder. It is a shame that he did no live to take that new direction. My impression of him is that he had a better heart than Pierce. He was a bit rigid but not very. He was funny too - I love the story, “you want integration, ok we’ll give you integration” ..... he and several clad Nazis make themselves comfortable in a synagogue. LOL. Rockwell had something that some of the present WN leaders do not have. While being fully aware of the J.Q. he did not take his eye off and dismiss the detriment of blacks and race mixing. So many WN exponents nowadays seem to believe they are above those concerns. They are not. That brings me directly to William Pierce. William Pierce Pierce was rigid where Rockwell seemed to have had a more fluid and amiable intelligence. I distinctly remember Pierce saying that he does “not blame a White woman for taking up with a buck” (tactlessly flattering name for a Negro male) when she sees all these sissified White men by comparison. Well, I blame her and a lot of other things. But that’s objectivism for you, and that’s a bi-product of scientism. Nevertheless, Pierce was not above addressing popular culture and did render incisive criticisms, including from whence race mixing was pushed. He did criticize popular culture, the Clinton administration, so many things that many in the struggle are just too cool to criticize (has to be all W. Bush, not Clinton, right? - god how I hated Clinton, and thank you Pierce for skewering that rat). Pierce was a very intelligent man, of course - a physicist. His analysis of the problems that beset the White race were more clear, deep and comprehensive than most can manage. For the clarity and confidence that he provided amidst modernity’s chaos, it makes sense that his view would be adopted by many as facilitating ready sense making. But there are problems with his being quite so influential. Firstly, what you would expect from a scientist - scientism: this is one of the White race’s vulnerabilities. It is dangerous and instinctively turns people off who have any sort of sensitivity and social sensibility, let alone philosophical sophistication. Pierce’s understanding of history was insufficient as well. I had a Belarusian colleague listen to some of Pierce with me and he did not even want to finish listening to the pod cast because he felt Pierce’s understanding of some fundamentals were so inaccurate. His scientism and insufficient historical orientation, coupled with the appeal of the American demographics as I have noted, probably contributed to an overly favorable opinion of Hitler and Nazism on the part of Pierce. It is very unfortunate, because he was in many ways incisive, and he was influential - I have yet to come across a case of a prominent American exponent of WN who has a favorable view of Hitler who did not come through the William Pierce school of thought. I am satisfied that is a large and unnecessary mistake which he had a significant part in setting in motion; therefore, a more elaborate critique of Pierce is in order. The proprietor of “Stormfront”, the most popular WN site on the Internet. Don joined up with William Pierce early on, when still in his teens, I believe. Then he went his own way.. ..he was a Klan leader for a long time until he saw the ineffectiveness of that, though he actually gleaned much practical knowledge as you would through the school of hard knocks. Knock southerners all you want, they have the experience of racial reality and the shared wisdom of how to deal with it. I am impressed by his side kick “Truck Roy”, though most of the rest of his associates still seem to be too sympathetic to Hitler; Don strikes me as a reasonable man - as one who sympathizes with all White people and it is probably because he has that motivation that he is reasonable. Don is also not a Christian. That helps a great deal. I never go to Stormfront, have not been there for years. It is too much, too large a cacophony of opinions. Still, he has a radio show with a loud influential voice; he, Truck Roy, Don Advo and Paul Fromm So, indeed, he is worth analysis. Tom Metzger If you are looking for the culprit who has me so recalcitrantly defending the concept of “White Leftism” it is Metzger. Before hearing his careful discussions, I was as grossed-out as anybody by any word and concept of “leftism.” You might say that I came through his school of thought, his boot camp, for a while. I don’t regret it. I like him. He is a very agile thinker, with a lot of useful experiential knowledge. He is worth listening-to for sure. Because there is far more good (90 percent?) than negative about him, I will begin with my disagreements, as they are finite: He harps against “equality” saying there is no such thing and even making it a signature statement. I believe this is an important mistake as I have said many times. And it is a residual bit of right wingishness. Qualitative non-sameness and incommensurability are the differences that makes a difference - these are the distinctions that can allow people to amicably move into symbiotic niches as opposed to engaging in the vanity of false comparisons and the bitter competitions that ensue when invoking a uniform, quantifiable paradigm of equality inequality. His resistance to out of Africa. I find that frustrating because it is unnecessary to deny in order to defend our difference. In all likelihood it is true and necessary to acknowledge in order to defend ourselves against whatever capacities our predecessors may wield to our detriment. I don’t think much of might makes right. Some truth to it of course, a measuring rod, but no sense in being reverent about it, as TT can be. Oh, and with that, “Nature’s Eternal Religion” (Ben Klassen) - I seriously doubt that is sufficient, though TT apparently thinks that it is.
Even so, the important point (especially for those who would criticize him for being an “American”) is that his motives are good. He is reasonable. He is a good man. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 Sep 2014 22:24 | # Daniel, you seem singularly focused on the unity of the folk in nationalist thinking. What role, if any, does the very European trait of individualism have? 10
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 12 Sep 2014 03:11 | # Individualism is of two kinds but has various roles as drawn or altercast.
The role that should be made of those inherited differences is somewhat more flexible and must be negotiated, whether it is: Scientist, Artist, Philosopher, Rhetorician, Lawyer, Engineer etc, in terms of vocation, which has more specific episodic requirements that correspond with earning a living (rather than free riding). It also has more concrete relational requirements…Co-worker/Striker…Union man/ Independent or Scab Then there are cosmological roles of the individual which relate to the broader cultural pattern and history: Such as - Hero/ or Rogue in protest of an irresponsible society Friend/Adversary Martyr Leader organizer / clever functionary These roles would be beholden to the corporeal self and narrative self in negotiation as well.
Anthropologists do not necessarily commend a society where individualism is scarcely known (“arm hurts not ‘my’ arm hurts’), but point to them to illustrate that the appreciation of individualism is not necessary for some societies to function; with that is the implication that there is that arbitrary line, however thin, between individual and social which needs to be negotiated and in some cases, perhaps needs to be re-calibrated more in favor of the social - so is apparently the case with Europeans if we are to survive as a kind, even in our individualism (which grows out of our social, of course). Particularly as Christianity is an affectation to Europe, insufficient as a moral order for us, it is apparent that European peoples are in need of cosmological, viz., social organization, and that the anthropological suggestion that individualism can be over-drawn, over emphasized, might be heeded – not to do away with the significance of individualism, but to establish the importance of the social for the sake of responsibility to our broader systemic and historical patterns (and borders) 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 Sep 2014 04:39 | # OK, that is an answer to my question. I like the way that Norman Lowell speaks of the personal individuality and lack of conformity of nationalists (this being an “is”, of course, and not the “should” of individualism). He is a most particular individual, of course. But there is a strong sense in which realised or self-expressed human qualities tend to a natural and inevitable differentiation that gives something to the group, some colour and form and specificity. The group takes its own present character from that. This is not simply a cultural issue. Rather, it is a natural one. Such natural individuality accretes as the character of the group. Thereby, the latter exists (more) as its simple and true self, which is the optimum condition for clarity of decision in its own interests. By contrast, it has no existential requirement for an established standard ... a cultural regimentation, even one that exhibits the excessive self-interest of, and competition between, individuals ... because that always takes it away into inauthenticity and confusion. In nationalism, then, we should understand individualism as the process of revealing or uncovering this individuality. It is a cohering force. “Shoulds” which develop a personal life unmindful of group interests, or hostile towards them, will always be disintegrative and negative. Obviously, a politics of the unfettered will can never cohere. It must inevitably generate confusion and conflict, even to the extent that its social dispensation operates as a giant system for an exploitative, cannibalistic self-interest. 12
Posted by wvs on Sat, 13 Sep 2014 16:55 | # Thorn (“WVS”) Troll alert Quoting O’Reilly (can we be surprised?) This post is usefully looked upon as trolling disinformation For whom the shoe fits. (Y’all know who you are .... or should know!)
Thorn (“WVS”) Troll alert Quoting O’Reilly (can we be surprised?) This post is usefully looked upon as trolling disinformation 13
Posted by Dude - FAO British and Euro Based Readers.. on Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:11 | # ...who might be interested in the annual Traditional Britain Group conference. A meeting point for a wide range of strands in European right-oriented and nationalist thinking. What: Traditional Britain Group annual conference More Information: http://www.traditionalbritain.org/content/traditional-britain-conference-basis-culture 14
Posted by norman lowell on Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:56 | # https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75dPNyc-fLA
15
Posted by Dude on Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:52 | # Was good to hear your talk Norman and later share a drink with you! Viva Malta! 16
Posted by Oregon rebellion on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 21:44 | # The Political Cesspool has some first hand information on the armed take-over of the Oregon wild-life preserve. Farmers protesting the obligation to sell their farms.. Post a comment:
Next entry: Animal faith
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by fnn on Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:53 | #
Why is General Grivas so forgotten?