"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

09 March 2010

Attack of the Conservatives

National-Socialism in Germany had to overcome not only Marxism, but conservative tendencies as well. The non-marxist German resistance to Hitler consisted of Christian fanatics and aristocrats. These were people who either wanted things to go back to the way they used to be, which was obviously a vain wish, or in the case of the Christians they couldn't tolerate the necessities of coping and surviving in a world of conflict: they take what they think is the moral high ground on the premise that everybody should be as harmless (and useless) as they.

This is worth discussing partly because we face similar phenomena today. In the 1960s George Lincoln Rockwell found himself constantly attacked by so-called conservatives, even though he had been a conservative himself and penned a couple of articles for American Mercury a few years earlier.

Dr. William Pierce also took a dim view of conservatives. In The Turner Diaries, there is a character who is a conservative, Powell, who somehow got into the Organization and had to be killed because he started to oppose the necessary actions that the Organization was taking.

On the other hand, Dr. Pierce didn't go out of his way to pick fights with conservatives. Neither did Hitler; he tried to get along with the traditional institutions. I see no use in picking fights with conservatives as some people are prone to do: they are not the people that we want to fight; they are people that we should be able to win over, if reason has any persuasive power.

I think it's reasonable to view Pat Buchanan's supporters, for example, as a pool of people who only have one foot in the mainstream, and the frequency with which Buchanan uses expressions like "blood and soil" implies a thinly suppressed radicalism. At the same time, however, since Buchanan makes no radical public stand, many of his hangers-on are weak-kneed individuals (and you can find out what I mean by making some posts at Buchanan.org) that might desert him if he ever made clear what blood and soil implies.

Buchanan himself, likewise, does not attack us, so far as I know. Whenever some race-radical was a guest on Crossfire, if Buchanan was one of the two hosts, he always seemed to try to be fair.

Recently however there seems to have been a convergence of namby-pambies attacking us, the people of radical outlook. These seem to be conservatives of an older stripe who hold the very traditional view that race matters -- a completely mainstream view 80 years ago -- but haven't progressed beyond that.

It doesn't seem to occur to these people that there must have been a weakness in their conservative worldview or it wouldn't have been defeated -- and it has been defeated utterly. To think that there is any possibility for unmodified old-style conservatism to defeat the forces of decay that sidelined them long ago is as ludicrous as Ehud Olmert's imagining that he could succeed in Lebanon in 2006 using exactly the same tactics with which Ariel Sharon had failed a few years earlier.

What are the problems with the conservative worldview? Fundamentally it is not a rational way of looking at the world: it's an attachment to current or past circumstances and institutions. These people seem to base their self-esteem on being in accord with those institutions. Many of them are limited in their outlook by Christianity or the Constitution or both. It may be possible to reconcile racism with Christianity and the Constitution, but it is not possible to win the struggle for racial survival based on them.

How would it be possible to solve the racial problem that exists in the United States today while respecting everybody's Constitutional rights? Or while practicing to be meek as a lamb so that one might someday be patted on the head by a celestial Jesus? These are crippling fixations.

Many of them won't even admit any explicit interest in race, but instead want to talk about cultural traditions. Others seem to think that the free-market ideology offers a kind of back-door solution to the racial problem, at least as far as Blacks are concerned. In both instances, racial concern lies in the background of an ideological charade, and it's a charade that really won't accomplish anything for that cause.

Anybody that intends to aid the survival of his race first needs to get rid of any traditional elements of his worldview that make this an unacceptable endeavor. Then he needs to think honestly and unashamedly about how this could be accomplished, and act accordingly. Conservatives seem to fall down in the departments of both thought and action, because they want to stay respectable. I would submit that a man confident in his own worth and his own mind doesn't worry greatly about such a concern, which amounts to worrying about what other people might think.

Okay, so these people are limited. They are still, as Rockwell said, "in the conservative playpen," not venturing outside the bounds of respectability defined by traditional institutions, with considerable influence there as in almost all aspects of American political life from Jewish-controlled mass-media.

I have no quarrel with these limited people -- the world is full of people limited in various ways -- except that some of them want to evangelize their limitations. Just yesterday I was directed by Vic Fury to a blog entry by "Guy White" who, believe it or not, advocates attacking historical revisionism and historical revisionists, whom he calls psychos, without even having a genuine picture of what the revisionist position on the Holocaust is. It is impossible to correct this person. I posted an informative response to his blog, which you may read below, but it did not pass moderation.

Guy White considers himself to be in the same movement, "White Nationalism," as somebody like me. But according to him I would be an embarrassment to that movement because I can ask questions and make observations that frighten him. According to Guy White, I should be attacked and silenced because I am more radical than he. Guy White, by the way, is not the only exponent of this viewpoint; you can find it, as I mentioned, among some of the people on Buchanan.org.

I find this a very a destructive new wrinkle because it tends to lead us to devote some energy to struggling against each other instead of directing that energy toward the correct purpose. I wonder who the godfather of this attitude is. It definitely isn't Pat Buchanan.

The Jews, and the Left in general, understand a principle that these particular conservatives never figured out. I saw it once in a book about the 60s New Left group, Students for a Democratic Society. In that book, SDS figure Tom Hayden was quoted as saying this, or words to this effect: Extremism produces gradualism. In other words, the most extreme factions make the less extreme factions look moderate by comparison. The extreme factions serve the purpose of shifting the range of public discourse in their direction.

If the most extreme elements are eliminated, then the less extreme elements are suddenly placed on the very fringe, and are thus much less likely to be taken seriously. If Alex Linder is silenced, Jared Taylor becomes an extremist.

You have to wonder what motivates somebody to want to accomplish that. If Hunter Wallace can't stomach Alex Linder's views, and if Guy White has no grasp of revisionism, all they have to do is remain silent on the matter, or say, I'm not with them. To engage in gratuitous infighting while urging the destruction of the ideological vanguard of the movement could hardly be more counterproductive.





This comment did not get past moderation on Guy White's blog. I leave it up to you to figure out why.

Mr. Guy White:

It would be nice if you at least knew something about “Holocaust Denial” (the term used by the enemies of historical revisionism as pertains to the Jews’ Holocaust Myth) before attacking it. You are attacking a strawman of your own creation.

You say: “The belief is based on wildly unreasonable statements like “all Jews are liars” and “all Jews are conspiring against us”. Without these two beliefs, Holocaust denial is impossible.”

You could not be more wrong. I have never heard any revisionist argument based on the premise that all Jews are either liars or conspirators. There are some lying conspirators among the Jews, but most of them are simply believing what they have been told, which our people unfortunately also do.

We saw something very similar in the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, with a handful of politically motivated liars convincing most of the country that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass-destruction, and a number of other inflammatory lies (genocide of the Kurds, assassination attempt on Bush Senior, intention to invade Saudi Arabia in 1991) that I was able to disprove with the resources of a public library and the internet. You will find however that even today people who had the greatest emotional investment in the anti-Saddam hysteria will still claim that Saddam Hussein had WMDs even though Bush himself has said that there weren’t any, because sources like Newsmax have given these true believers the excuses that they needed to go on believing. The Holocaust story is very much like that.

“The question is why is it that hundreds of thousands of Jews are telling us the same story….”

There are very few Jews, indeed very few people of any ethnicity, that claim to know anything about gassings. I have yet to hear of such a witness whose story didn’t include impossible or ridiculous details, like crematorium-smoke that changed color according to the nationality of the Jew being cremated. As a matter of fact, any Jew that claims to have seen smoke coming out of a crematorium stack on a regular basis – which a number of them do claim, probably because they heard it from Elie Wiesel – is a liar: crematoria do not emit smoke. This is not a matter of calling hundreds of thousands of Jews liars: it is a matter of recognizing the power that liars can have in an atmosphere of group-think.

“As with all events, different people have slightly different description of events, but the Holocaust narrative is substantially similar, to use a legal term.”

The story has changed greatly since 1945. In 1945 Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, and Buchenwald were claimed to be sites of gassing, and witnesses at Nuremberg testified to that effect. In 1945 it was alleged that Jews had been made into soap and human-skin lampshades. Some people still repeat these stories because no great publicity was ever given to the fact that historians had discarded them.

“We are told that Jews are all conspiring to build fake gas chambers, to tell fake stories, to get fake tattoos with fake Auschwitz numbers.”

It isn’t a matter of building fake gas-chambers. It’s a matter of calling something a gas-chamber that is not.

There was however a hole jack-hammered into the roof of Krema I after the war by the Communist government of Poland to make the structure consistent with stories that Zyklon-B pellets were dropped in through such a hole. No similar holes exist in the roofs of the collapsed Kremas; hence Professor Faurisson’s dictum, “No holes, no Holocaust.”

“Imagine if you met a Zulu who was constantly railing about the Xhosa all being liars, who all conspire to make up lies, who are engaged in a secret genocide of Zulus, and when you asked him for proof, the Zulu would tell you that it’s impossible to find this information because Xhosa have such a stronghold on power and such amazing (universal) discipline that there isn’t the slightest leak.”

The Holocaust itself is a conspiracy theory of that kind. The theory is that the Germans rounded up millions of Jews, transported them hundreds of miles, and finally used the unprecedented and to this day unrepeated technique of mass-gassing to dispatch them (even though shooting them near their habitations would have been much simpler and much less expensive) without leaving any kind of document trail, except some documents that are interpreted by the believers in this conspiracy theory as using “code words.”

Most of the 4 million or so alleged to have been gassed are supposed to have been killed with diesel exhaust, which, although it can be sooty and unpleasant, is not really toxic, unlike gasoline exhaust. The more frequently discussed murder-agent, Zyklon-B, is a fumigant that takes several hours to out-gas, and is hence utterly unsuitable for the legendary gassing of a new group every 20 minutes (Walter Lueftl’s observation).

“I will criticize the Jews for real acts as much as the next guy, but it has to be real acts such as support for immigration, not lunacy that you just invented and for which you have no proof. (“All European Jews went to Russia” … even though no Russian is aware of this and no records – government documents, photographs, etc – showing mass movement of millions exist.)”

Who says that all Jews went to Russia? The thesis of Walter Sanning’s The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry is that Jews in Soviet-occupied eastern Poland were largely evacuated eastward before the German attack in 1941, because the Soviets had been planning their own attack and they knew that the area was going to be a war-zone. Menachem Begin was one of those Jews evacuated.

“You are an embarrassment. I don’t want to be in the same movement with you for the same reason I would not want you or any other psycho to be in my house.”

I am sorry to be ostensibly in the same movement with somebody that doesn’t find out what a position is before he attacks it. I am in the truth movement first and foremost.

Hadding Scott

1 comment:

Hadding said...

In fairness, Hunter Wallace had some good criticisms of Guy White a few months before I took notice of him. http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/06/29/guy-white-moderate/

HW has his ups and downs.