The problem of the Establishment mentality – Part 3
In this third and penultimate part of my essay on the Rotherham Syndrome I am going to expand on the disconnection between philosophy (and philosophically-derived politics) and thinking that comes out of ethnic or racial conflict. In particular, I will focus on the dynamics of absolutism and its ascription of human value.
A petty history
A few years ago I came across the story, I think in a television history, of the last civilian to be hanged in the Third Reich. I don’t remember his name. I cannot find a link to the story on-line, so I hope I have it right. But my memory is that this unfortunate man was a resident of a small south-western German town which lay in the path of the advancing US Army. I suppose it must have been early- to mid-April 1945.
The war was already lost, of course. That knowledge had been building among the people since the defeat at Stalingrad and Goebbel’s Sportspalast Speech of 18 February 1943 (which changed the tone of the propaganda from a war of conquest to one of national survival). The general thrall to a military dictator and the whole mesmerising, deceitful dream of German greatness and glory was dissolving in the acid of the military reality. By April 1945, with the Allies fighting on German soil, the general will of German civilians would have been for the killing and destruction to be brought to an end, and for Germany to find its way into whatever future was available to it. But the Allies were only interested in complete and unconditional surrender. Every last German town would fall, this little one included. This was not going to be where the Allies would first be held and then pushed back.
Of course, duty to the Führer and the Fatherland would be done. The order from Berlin was to fight to the last man. Conducting successful operations as ordered is what every army exists to do, even when the army consists of young boys and old men, as it may easily have done here. There would be a defence, and it would be an honourable and determined one – the exact quantity of honour and determination in turn determining the extent of general ruin and civilian casualties.
This one fellow, however, took it upon himself to speak out in public against the prospect of general ruin and civilian or, indeed, military casualties. Now, this was no coward’s resort. At the high-point of a national anxiety scarcely imaginable for us today, he took it upon himself to plead the cause of personal and national survival. His character, his intellect, his prior attitude towards NS orthodoxy we can never know. His precise words, likewise, are lost. But their meaning had to be: better that realism prevail and German lives be given their true value and not lost to militarism and falsehoods. The preservation of that life would be something to give to Germany’s future. What was there for Germany in death?
But there were ideologues in the town’s civilian authorities, and they still believed fervently in their Führer’s vision and words, and probably even in the ultimate triumph of the National Socialist cause. The Führer himself, back in February 1942, had said, “We have to put a stop to the idea that it is a part of everybody’s civil rights to say whatever he pleases.” Roland Freisler had categorised offences such as the spreading of alarm, despondency and defeatism as “Volk Treason”. Thousands of men and women were dragged before his extra-constitutional People’s Courts in what were effectively show trials, with the verdict pre-determined in many instances. Ninety per cent of the convicted received the death sentence.
Judicial death was a commonplace in Germany. Freisler favoured the guillotine, which alone accounted for 16,500 executions over the last hundred months of NS rule – the same number who died by that means in revolutionary France. As there, hangings, shootings, and the axe were also used by the German courts. But the majority of deaths in the justice system occurred among those simply detained in the camps system. For example, the persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses, generated by their refusal to perform military service, brought 250 executions but almost five times that many simply never emerged from the camps in 1945.
Inevitably, the petty Freislers in the town interpreted the unfortunate man’s pleadings in “Volk-Treasonous” terms. With indecent haste they arrested and summarily tried him. Then they led him out into the morning light and hung him as an example to others – completely pointlessly as it turned out, because two or three days later the Americans rolled over the local Wehrmacht resistance and took control of the town. As the front-line troops moved on, the occupying force moved in, and quickly learned the facts. How it ended for those who took this man’s life I don’t recall hearing. Until the numbers became unmanageable (which they very quickly did), anyone in any kind of authority in newly occupied towns was placed under military arrest and investigated by Allied officers. If such people were found to be party members and willing agents of the NS system, they were subject to detention and denazification. Some 90,000 were imprisoned. But a great number more were handed derisory fines or just reclassified because without them at their stations the civil writ could not run. The ideologues probably survived, as Germany did, without their ideology.
Well, this salutary tale of war psychosis holds meaning for nationalists. Both the contestations of the ideologues and of their victim were patriotic and particular. Both were informed by an existential desperation. But there similarity ends. The ideologues were moved by fealty and service to a proposition: NS and its values and symbolism. Accordingly, they were dogmatic, idealistic, obsessive, conformist (in part, perhaps, through fear of censure from above), sectarian and absolutist enough to interpret opposition as an existential threat. If I am not interpolating too much into this drama, their victim, meanwhile, was moved by a direct concern for the suffering and survival of the folk ... for the acting, feeling, living people. Perhaps we can speculate that he was compassionate, humanistic, forward-thinking, pragmatic, realistic in every way but politically. He certainly should have been all those things.
But at this point in my investigation of (let us not forget) the Rotherham Syndrome, I will set aside the unfortunate victim and focus on the propositionalism and absolutism of the ideologues, because these are abstracted directly from the Establishment ideology and mind of the time; and that has something to tell us about the Establishment ideology and mind in Britain (and elsewhere) today.
Power, the proposition, absolutism
To propose in respect to a people’s life and being … to build upon a confected image ... to concern oneself with Man as other than he is (and can only truly be) ... to conceive him as mere ideological desiderata, if the proposal is for one’s brother, and as fit only for slavery if it is not … to do this is to drive everything to the extremes, and to leave no space in the centre for the being itself. It completely distorts the relationship of ruler to the ruled, rendering it conflicted and oppressive – one of a ministry over the people rather than to them. The rulers becomes detached, the people objectified. Re-introduce the rulers to the human truth, whatever that may be, and the new orthodoxy … the ground on which they stand … that part of the basis of their power which is non-political ... is cut away. Confronted with such a challenge, absolutists will respond instantly and reflexively with oppression, more than likely violently so. After all, did the challenger not place himself outside the fraternal category of the original proposition, when there can be no other? And did he not make himself into an enemy of das Vaterland and all that is great and noble in it? Did he not reduce himself to a being of no human account, and therefore quite fitted to the ultimate sanction?
In the end, absolutism always concerns itself with the dehumanisation and expunging of its opponents. It knows no other way.
In the case of the NS hierarchy, and all the minions that laboured after it in the lower reaches of the state machine, the proposition was that the German people must approximate this model of the heroic man, supreme among men, not because Germans were heroes or supreme per se - they were not, they were just Germans, which is quite sufficient - but because a future of expansion by conquest and of idolating German mastery was the NS value nonpareil. It was a Jewish ambition.
The imposition of a false philosophical model on the life of a people need not, of itself, have an obliterative action. By their sheer permanence, our evolutionarily-derived characteristics (most fundamental among them the instinctive bias for fitness traits) can subjugate even radical progressive ideas. Conservative forces in the culture can mitigate their worst effects. Thus, notwithstanding the radical and reductive nature of its model of faith in salvation by God’s grace, or the violence and suppression which has marked long periods in its history, the fifteen centuries or more of Christianity had a muted effect on the functioning of the European racial type. It was only when the historical force known as modernism was embraced by Rome in the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), and self-indulgent decadence replaced morality, that Catholicism began to act from a universalism which is anti-white by default.
Likewise, only in the past two decades has Anglicanism completely thrown itself overboard in the pull of the modernist tide, finding in biblical authority a universalism that is actually a singular focus on the non-white Other, and unfailingly selecting against white Americans’ natural, shared interest in their own good. Actually, it is worse than that. There is simply no such principle in Anglican faith practise as “the good” or “bad” for whites as a people. Good is only conceivable in terms of deeds done for all the “helpless”, “suffering” peoples dispossessing and replacing them:
In Britain, the Anglican congregation traipses along several steps behind its leaders, parts of it in genteel revolt. The leaders are really just The Guardian at prayer. Multiracialising Britain equals Christian love, even in the face of the most graphic evidence of what this “love” means to many, many thousands of the colonisers. It is that simple.
The root of this religious betrayal is the conviction that “all human beings are of absolute equal and infinite value” in England as in heaven. This is moral absolutism, ie, it is supposed true at all times for all people in all circumstances, and there can be no other truth. Context, logic, and nuance are driven out. False parallels arise, child-like thinking takes over. Before you know it you get Archbishop of Canterbury The Most Reverend Justin Welby declaring:
So because he had immigrant forebears … ah, no that would be self-referential and, anyway, a non-sequitur. So, erm … yes, because hardly any British people can trace their ancient tribal origins, there is no difference in kind, moral cause, or in right between ethnic Britons on their own soil and anybody else who happens to wash up one fine morning at Heathrow Airport.
Well, that’s not quite true, because there is one significant difference. Welby’s Christian flock must effortlessly conclude that during an aggressive colonisation of white lands by non-whites, it is always the white victim who, should he dissent, is to be condemned:
I suppose we should be grateful for progress. During the witch-burning hysteria, which peaked from the mid-16th to the mid-17th centuries, the same strict, absolutist thinking produced Malleus Maleficarum and the bull of Pope Innocent VIII to “hammer” the thousands of women who were riding through the air on broomsticks every night to copulate with the devil and bring down God’s church. In every age, the projection of evil onto an Other is the moral facilitator of evil itself.
The added dimension of ethnic conflict
So we come to the political realm. As with Christianity, for three centuries, classical liberalism’s Lockeatine misapprehensions had little really negative effect on the capacity of European peoples - certainly those living in Europe - to stand upon their own existential ground, to self-identify and self-prefer, and to protect and preserve themselves. Even the upheaval and violence of 1789, in which 40,000 died, did not disturb Nature’s equilibrium (the demise of the Bourbons actually led to romantic nationalism in an age when no formulation for a politics of ethnic interests existed). In truth, revolutionary liberalism could not greatly damage the French people because the fissure it generated was intra-ethnic and not inter-ethnic. The same was broadly true of the communism of post-revolutionary Russia, which Stalin deftly attired with nationalist sentiments as the Battle of Stalingrad (23rd August 1942 – 2nd February 1943) sapped the life out of the Red Army.
To repeat, it is no easy thing for conventional philosophy and philosophically-derived politics to overthrow the will to life. It does not readily cause human meaning and human value to be withdrawn from the subject people and to be invested only in the racial or ethnic Other. On the contrary, that meaning and value has its point of genesis in the evolutionary process ... in the natural selection of traits for fitness. It is an amour propre made collective, and comes to my mind, at least, every time I hear the words “positive discrimination”. Thanks to the work of Frank Salter, thinking nationalists in the English-speaking world tend to characterise it today in terms of genetic interests: the investment one has in those groups in which the greatest number of one’s genes are present, beginning with family and decreasing outward through tribe, ethnic group, sub-race, race, species, and, eventually, all organic life.
But thinking born of ethnic conflict does not deal in this humane and properly universalistic coinage. It is singular in its moral focus, adrenal in its action and urgency. It is more virile than mere liberal nostra. It outlasts and out-punches them. It must, for its cause is also the cause of Life – for that is Nature’s constant - but life for itself at any cost to the life of the Other. It is unwavering, absolute in its commitment to that and, in extremis, knows no conscience in its decision.
That is the character which the official mind, the Establishment mind in the West, has taken on and, of course, it has taken it on as an extended phenotype of the racial Other, especially the Jewish Other. To understand how this might have been possible, we need to consider the crisis of the European elites in the aftermath of war and in the decades which followed; how moral and intellectual failure allowed the Jewish proposition free rein; how economism succeeded to the estate of the only effective measure of Man; and how the absolutism of the New Left, the cultural left - the revolutionary left of our time – worked itself out in the official mind.
That will be the subject of the fourth and final part of this essay.
Post a comment: