Print this post Print this post

Stop Saving Them From Themselves

goldendawn2,148 words

French translation here

No European political movement attracts so much attention in the United States as Golden Dawn in Greece. Despite its lack of real political power, Golden Dawn is so compelling because it is exactly what everyone expects.

The party has a single leader who controls everything and is a former soldier. Its power base is in the streets, with support supposedly in the police and among struggling Greeks suffering from immigrant crime. The party image is of strong men guarding their communities (if you support them) or thuggish ruffians engaging in vigilantism (if you’re against them) – either the Freikorps or the SA come again. They emerged from obscurity following an economic collapse. Finally, they are organized along “Old Right” lines — patriots waiting to redeem their country.

Of course, the System simply waited for a pretext to destroy the Party. It came with the supposed murder of an “antifascist” rapper, an innocent little flower who went by the name “Killah P.” Mr. . . . uh, P. . . . enjoyed describing in graphic detail the various tortures and forms of bodily injury he would inflict on those who don’t support the genocide of the Greek people. However, once he received what he sought to give to others, the passive aggressive Leftists wailed about the “families” hurt by Golden Dawn violence and how normal people are supposedly being attacked in the streets.

In France, there was already a media created controversy when a doe-eyed young antifascist was supposedly murdered by racist thugs. Later of course, it emerged that, as it so often happens, the antifascists had stalked the nationalists, provoked the conflict, and lost. Being a Leftist not only means never having to say you’re sorry, it means that we have to build an entire system to make sure you aren’t allowed to lose.

Thus, the entire Greek political system has united to destroy the party, including stripping away the funding they are entitled to, arresting Parliament members in the dead of night, and using the kind of eliminationist rhetoric that could be seen as an exaggeration of fascism if it was directed at anyone other than the hard Right. Without a shred of self-awareness, the media portrayed the masked men holding assault rifles as defenders of democracy and the older men in suits as dangerous fascists.

This kind of narrative works. No one should have any illusions about the response of the Greek people to Golden Dawn. Though some American conservatives whispered misgivings about the wisdom of the Greek government essentially banning a political party, they can have every confidence that “democracy” will remain safe. An estimated 80% of the Greek people support the crackdown on the Golden Dawn. They also see Golden Dawn through the eyes of the past, and they have been taught their entire lives that the purpose of democracy – perhaps its only purpose – is to prevent the rise of a nationalist movement.

What is most remarkable about this is the privileged place the Greek Left has in the halls of government power. Though the media (including ostensibly Right-wing outlets like the Drudge Report) whips itself into a frenzy about the Golden Dawn’s position as the “third largest” party in the country, little attention is paid to the second largest party, SYRIZA, or the Coalition of the Radical Left. This is a collection of various extreme groups, including avowed Trotskyites, Communists, and other self-styled revolutionaries. Leftist and anarchist student organizations, including the groups that hold violent protests within the country on a more or less continuous basis, are also allowed to operate with impunity because of a law that forbids the police from operating on a college campus.

What is critical here is that this is not democracy violating its principles, or evidence of hypocrisy on the part of the governing class. This is precisely how the system is supposed to operate. Democracy is a regime deliberately intended to weaken and dispossess national populations in order to remove all obstacles to a consumerist society ruled by international finance and the managerial state. In the words of Harold Covington, democracy is a system designed to prevent change.

This leads to the essential trap of Traditionalists who seek that kind of change. In France, the National Front is now the most popular party in the country. However, to achieve this position, it has had to back away from its ethnonational message to the point where it can be charged it is no longer a real “nationalist” party. Furthermore, the media has a vested interest in overstating the FN’s support. As Roman Bernard writes, “Ironically, Right-wingers seem to be the last democrats. Only on the Right can one still find this naive belief that the President, or Prime Minister, has a kind of control panel in his office where from everything bad in the country can be solved with a simple tap of the finger. “

In Greece, the Golden Dawn has used a harder image, with support among the security services and the ordinary soldiers, police, and young men who have to watch their country being destroyed on the street level. The Golden Dawn’s appeal is reminiscent of nothing so much as George Lincoln Rockwell, who believed that the ordinary policemen, soldiers, working men, and patriots, would eventually embrace a combative creed to fight for their country and civilization. In this, he was disappointed, and despite encouraging signs, the white working class in the United States was either bought off, fled, or was outright subsumed into the Third World.

The System survives because it is subtle. Generally speaking, dissidents are allowed to voice their opposition to what is going on, form parties to try to vote against it, or run for office themselves to try to secure political power. However, there is a whole infrastructure of costs and incentives designed to make sure certain constituencies and movements are kept away from real influence. If you run for office and talk about immigration, you will be overwhelmed from the top by large corporate donations to your opponent, and from the bottom by violent demonstrators and hostile media coverage. Political parties may be banned, not to eliminate certain ideas (heavens no!), but to prevent violence and disorder.

The metapolitical struggle and the investigative reporting and scholarship that explains and gives context to our people’s plight is necessary, but we have to know that it is only directed to a small subset of the population. All too often, when we explain the reality of white genocide and the means used to facilitate our dispossession, we come off like the crazy peasant in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, screaming “A-ha! Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I’m being repressed!” It doesn’t matter if we are right or wrong – people either won’t understand, or won’t care. More importantly, even those who understand that something is deeply wrong in their society are taken away from the struggle by problems with family, money, or pleasurable distractions.

The purpose of “antifascists,” official obstacles, hostile media coverage, and all the rest is not to drive away the hard core. The leader of the Golden Dawn can still boast they will never give up the struggle, and no doubt he is sincere. His followers will remain loyal. However, it will shake the support of the casually involved, the people who want to protect careers, and the activists who don’t want their significant others to leave them because they are choosing the political struggle instead of drinking, pop music, or watching criminals kick around a ball.

The message to Traditionalists from the System and its militant wing is not that they are wrong, but that it is not worth the social and financial cost of trying to fight for something other than a paycheck. Brave New World is far more dangerous than Nineteen Eighty-Four.

The result is that the temptation is always there for activists to choose the lesser option for the struggle, with tragic consequences. In 1993, General Constand Viljoeon sabotaged the efforts of his own organization, the Afrikaner Volksfront, to secure an independent Boer Republic through a secession plan. Instead, he threw his influence behind the plan of participating in elections (in a country with an overwhelming black population) in return for a vague promise from Nelson Mandela to consider an Afrikaner homeland. Obviously, this never happened, and Viljoeon’s reward was a pat on the head from Nelson Mandela after his people were sold into oblivion. He didn’t exactly “betray” his cause, but he choose the safe path, a path doomed to failure.

It’s easy to critique this choice as suicidal, but most people choose it every day. The path of total commitment offers terrible costs and little chance of success. It is far easier to make a partial acceptance of the system, be it playing by accepting the rules of the “democratic” regimes, leading double lives, becoming “moderate” conservatives, or venting on social networking sites. The fact is, this writer is honest enough to admit he has not chosen the path of total dedication, nor have many others. To do so is to guarantee personal destruction and political failure. Unless, of course, a large number of us choose it at once – or, more likely, are forced into it.

What is happening in Greece is accelerating that process. The democratic regime offers an endless array of goodies and distractions to satisfy people, but it is failing to solve both the economic problems of the West and the personal desires of individuals. Satisfying family lives and careers for those who want to remain apart from the political fray are becoming impossible. Moderate dissent is meeting with ever more fanatical – and hysterical – repression. Even the deracinated Christianity that serves as a spiritual safety valve is under attack. The soft totalitarianism of multiculturalism is transitioning into a Soviet-style clumsy authoritarianism.

This is not to say victory is inevitable, in Greece or anywhere else. The great nightmare of nationalists should not be race war or even white genocide. It’s the End of History triumphant, the Last Men reigning supreme over a purposeless world. Let there be no confusion – most people, if offered a choice, will take the easy life, the purposeless path, the slow suicide of fast food, easy entertainment, hard drink, and soft bodies. It doesn’t matter – whites are our army, and we will not allow them to be exterminated, even if many of them want to be. They will participate – or they will be drafted.

For this to be done, three things must be accomplished. First, we must build cultural, tribal, economic, and spiritual safe spaces to allow for the spread of our ideas. We must exploit every opportunity to allow for casual involvement, to pan for the diamonds among the coal of the masses.

Secondly, we must regard participating in the political process – every political process – as a means to an end. The democrats have shown they do not believe in their own propaganda – why should we? Political parties, elections, and constitutions are simply tools in the hands of our foes. They confer no greater legitimacy – and perhaps a great deal less – than the divine right of kings. We are under occupation in our own homelands, and we must regard ourselves as revolutionary nationalists, willing to bow to no order except our own.

Finally, we must create the institutions and ideas must be place to create the Traditionalist phalanx that will confront our dispossession, which cannot be broken by repression or persecution. Those who choose total dedication, or who are forced into it, need a place to go.

This transformation may be forced on entire organizations, including Golden Dawn. If Golden Dawn is purged from the democratic process and the system admits its bankruptcy, methods outside the existing political system must be used to achieve political ends.

At this time, funding has been stripped from the Party depending on whether the politicians arrested are convicted of crimes. If that happens, what next? It is not for Americans to judge what tactics are best suited for response. What is important is that there can be no illusions about the legitimacy of the Greek state. Nor can there be any illusions about the possibility of voting our way out of this crisis.

The Greek state will not allow patriots to save it. The older “Right-wing” tactic of a conservative bloc to save the System from itself is outdated. Therefore, patriots must withdraw from the state and reconstitute something new by whatever means are most effective. If Golden Dawn, or any other group, is barred from participating within the state, they must become the state, and regard themselves, not the phony elected government, as the legitimate source of sovereignty in Greece.

We must develop this same nationalist consciousness – of a nation for ourselves.

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

20 Comments

  1. Jaego
    Posted October 27, 2013 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    Lucian: Plato is too hackneyed for you? He is the Master of all, the first and the last. The Swiss system? A fine one no doubt, what America was supposed to be, but how many Muslims are there now? Ten percent or so? It’s obviously not working is it? You have to understand that Liberalism by its very nature radically overestimates the average man. Thus Democracy is always a shaky proposition unless overseen by the Watchers and limited to the few who have proven their capacity and loyalty. As I said a new Space Colony of chosen Individuals is a different story. But here on Earth, the old laws of human life and of Nature are not to be casually put aside.

    Read James Stephen’s classic “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” where he takes on the Liberalism of John Stuart Mill and demolishes it. Did you read Kerry Bolton’s article above? How many people have ever followed Deep Throat’s admonition and followed the money in regards to Communism? Humanity by and large – including Men of Brilliance – prefer faery tales to the hard, hard Truth. So the question of eligibility goes well beyond IQ per se and into the realms of character to be formed by training and upbringing and a whole Culture of Realism, Health, and Beauty. Perhaps this bores you? I agree that Plato’s Republic and even more so “The Laws” is too strict and narrow, but his Vision was right in a general sense. He was writing for the Guardians and the Philosopher King. Obviously a complete Culture needs the contributions of other kinds of Men and writers to express their points of view.

    • Lucian Tudor
      Posted October 27, 2013 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

      I referenced the Swiss democracy not because it is my ideal, but because it could serve as a foundation for a new democratic model; Switzerland as it is now, however, needs a number of changes both socially and politically (a revolution of sorts, as I said). Not that Swiss democracy necessarily has to be our reference point; we could just as well look to other examples or visions. Liberalism does overestimate the average man, which is why I am an elitist to an extent (although remember that elitism or aristocracy is not incompatible with democracy, with which it can be reconciled in numerous ways), but this does not mean the average man is or has to be an unintelligent fool without value. Concerning your reference to Bolton: yes, I am very familiar with the issues of the influence and activity of financiers and economic leaders in politics; this matter is also addressed in the works of the philosophers I mentioned. And by the way, believe me, character formation and “breeding” is not a topic that bores me, because it is one of the fundamental bases of maintaining a worldview and way of life among a population; and worldview is a key issue addressed by education as well (since education is not merely a matter of accumulating a collection of facts in one’s mind, as thinkers like Edgar Julius Jung observed long ago).

    • Lucian Tudor
      Posted October 27, 2013 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

      I should also add that (as I have already pointed out in past comments on this matter when discussing “Fascism”) a vast amount of the European New Right thinkers in France and Germany advocate a right-wing democratic system of some sort; including major intellectuals such as Benoist, Sunic, Faye, Krebs, etc. And do not forget that these thinkers are already aware of anti-democratic arguments and philosophers, and have considered and addressed these issues. So you can see that I am not alone in my position on the issue of democracy among modern nationalists/identitarians, nor is my position lacking in deep thought. Also, I’d like to remind you that, as I have said in the past, that I have not begun as a believer in democracy, but rather as a believer in authoritarianism. If you truly want to understand how I came to my current conclusions, I strongly urge you to read the works of these New Right authors.

  2. Jaego
    Posted October 25, 2013 at 2:10 am | Permalink

    Well wait, if we were ever to attain power, would we cheerfully allow Liberalism to make a comeback? Or would we also do our best to “prevent change”? Every regime of every kind does that. For my part, any Teacher of Professor who started leaning that way would have their career come to an abrupt halt. Individuals have the right to their errors but Error per se has no rights – and certainly not to teach our children or organize politically.

    • Lucian Tudor
      Posted October 26, 2013 at 11:49 am | Permalink

      Well, what if we (meaning myself and a certain amount of other people here with similar views) actually believe that freedom of thought and speech has some value? Of course, we will have a small amount of censorship (after all, even nations with the greatest amount of freedom have some censorship and control, however small), but we should give people the right to have their own beliefs and express them. Obviously we would not cheerfully allow liberalism to gain dominance again, but you cannot defeat liberalism and egalitarianism by totalitarian suppression, nor can you control any population through force alone.

      We will remove all the social and political causes for liberalism to rise (meaning that we will create a system in which there is no logical reason for people to desire the return of liberalism), and we will ensure that the people are educated enough to resist liberal-egalitarian ideology. Liberal intellectuals are in reality not very difficult to defeat on the intellectual and academic level in debates. After all, our own intellectuals have already shown long ago how flawed liberal thought is, the real challenge is the matter of making our voices heard more in the current system. Believe me, if a system supporting our own position cannot intellectually defeat dissident voices among the population, even forceful suppression would not defeat them. Practicing the latter is one of the key errors of any totalitarian regime.

      Finally, even on behalf of those people here who are “Fascists” of some sort and believe in establishing a regime that practices heavy censorship and repression, what the liberal system is currently doing is still something worth complaining about because it is hypocritical: it claims to provide freedom of speech while reducing it as much as possible for dissidents using “soft totalitarian” methods. At least we would not be hypocrites, and honestly I personally would not have as much against the current system for reducing my rights if they were open about it instead of trying to convince me and everyone else that this is really a democracy and that we have all the liberty in the world. There is nothing justifiable about hypocrisy; either you truly give people freedom or you openly and honestly take away their freedom.

      To comment on the main topic of Hood’s article regarding the suppression of the Golden Dawn and the arrest of its leaders, I will simply say that there is no reason to lose hope. We can see that numerous revolutionary movements across history have faced a similar kind of persecution, even those who managed to gain the support of the population and would later topple the same system that suppressed them.

      • Jaego
        Posted October 26, 2013 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

        You want real Democracy to replace our current fake Democracy? I follow Plato: Democracy means rule by those who control the mob – thus it is almost never “real”. Nor would it be good if it was. Real and viable Democracy is like those elements that only exist briefly under extreme conditions. There could be real Democracy on a new Colony in Space where the people’s IQ’s were all over 120 and perhaps not be an unqualified disaster.

        Did the New England colonies meet this criterion? No, and thus they set limits on who could vote. One of my old Professors lived in a New England town that still had the old Meeting House direct participation system. Only a few hundred people voted he said – out of a population of 13,000. So even when people aren’t excluded they will exclude themselves. As they should if they don’t know the issues. One of Aristotle’s criterion for voting was having the leisure to study them. From another point of view, how wonderful Not to vote, trusting that your brothers with more leisure have been studying and will come to a good decision.

        Your point about Freedom of Speech is of course valid. I wouldn’t want to live without it either. But we can’t allow vulnerable minds – and most will always be so no matter how much education they get – to be poisoned by hired guns. Some censorship must exist but how much and how to implement it is the question. Some things are not up for debate and those that wish to are the enemy whether they know it or not. The Schools and Universities must be kept on the straight and narrow. The publishing industry would be allowed must more latitude of course allowing for the development of new ideas.

      • White Republican
        Posted October 27, 2013 at 8:22 am | Permalink

        A question for Lucian Tudor: what do you think should be done with the mass media? To advocate organic democracy without also advocating radical changes in the mass media is meaningless. Today, democracy means little more than a system in which the people vote as instructed by the mass media.

      • Lucian Tudor
        Posted October 27, 2013 at 11:27 am | Permalink

        I already read Plato long ago, as well as other philosophers (more modern ones) who opposed democracy who even had better arguments against it than he did. I did not specify what kind of democracy I want other than the fact that it will be more genuine than the one we currently have. What you should keep in mind is that this matter is far more complicated than direct democracy vs. republic; there are a variety of mixed and modified forms of democracy that could exist (crosses between direct democracy and representative as well as with aristocracy). There are also complications for both those advocating and those opposing democracy. For example, you mention the issue of political apathy (some people refusing to vote), but you forget that in a system where more true political participation is available, more voting occurs as well (studies have been already been done on this fact). People oftentimes do not vote if they do not feel that their vote has relevance or impact, but this does not mean they don’t care because it is because people desired a voice in their government that they were motivated to engage in democratic revolutions against authoritarian or totalitarian states.

        Plato lived in Ancient Greece, and a lot has changed since then; new philosophers, new ideas, new forms of government. Perhaps you should read what philosophers who support the Swiss type of democracy think? Perhaps also for your education a little more on the matter from Alexis de Tocqueville, Carl Schmitt, Paul Gottfried, and Alain de Benoist? I could probably mention authors that are not even available in English, but that would be taking things too far. My point is that I am already aware of the criticisms made of democracy and the complications involving it as a political system and concept, but also of responses to these matters; and you and others here need to be aware of these responses too.

      • Lucian Tudor
        Posted October 27, 2013 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

        White Republican, I assumed that readers would recognize my implication that the mass media would undergo a significant change since the entire system should be changed (politically, socially, economically, ideologically, etc.; this is why we are considered revolutionary); any revolution that transforms politics and the dominant worldview necessarily also transforms the nature of the mass media. Of course, “mass media” is a very broad topic and a lot can be said about it, since as a generic subject it contains within it a myriad of issues. Although I have made certain implications what I generally desire for the nature and functioning of the media in my discussion on freedom, I am not sure what in particular you want to know about my views on the matter.

      • White Republican
        Posted October 27, 2013 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

        Of course, “any revolution that transforms politics and the dominant worldview necessarily also transforms the nature of the mass media,” but it’s more than doubtful that such a revolution would be democratic, or that those conducting such a revolution would be in favor of democracy. Destroying the liberal state might still well require using hard power as well as soft power in a “fascist” manner.

  3. Alaskan
    Posted October 25, 2013 at 12:34 am | Permalink

    Great piece, Gregory.

    I’m a bit confused, however, about what “total commitment” entails. Also, how does one create a “safe space”, social or economic when we have no real friends (especially in high places), ANY funding, skilled legal teams, or people in the academe and our enemies have not just these, but the armed wing of the plutocratic elite to kill for them as well-for instance when we have the audacity to actually attempt to create said space?

    Thoughts??

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted October 26, 2013 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

      Alaskan in blockquote:

      Great piece, Gregory.

      I’m a bit confused, however, about what “total commitment” entails.

      “Total commitment” means you are dedicating your life to the fulfillment of a Purpose greater than yourself. It means you do not hope for the magic transformational movement when the torchlight parades are running nightly in cities across the country. It means doing what you can regularly, steadily – steadfastness of purpose – doing what you can starting where you are, today.

      It means that anything that gets in the way of this is minimized, to the extent you can do so. “Be good or be gone” is the way to start with yourself, removing your bad habits, and replacing them with better choices. See your life as the living foundation of the new nation.

      Ask one question: what do I want my life to be in fifty years? What do I see outside my bedroom window in the morning? Why? What can be done to make it better? Why, and how?

      Also, how does one create a “safe space”, social or economic when we have no real friends (especially in high places), ANY funding, skilled legal teams, or people in the academe and our enemies have not just these, but the armed wing of the plutocratic elite to kill for them as well-for instance when we have the audacity to actually attempt to create said space?

      They can not control your Mind; that is the safest stronghold of all. Next, link your life to a metapolitical purpose. Covington had it right: if he had it to do over he would start with e Church. Use the models of development that work for the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They simply work. You can do amazing social development with a church, as the Roman Catholic Church has proven. All legal, all open to the public, and all very, very transparent.

      Given the proper implicit social network, the explicit social network – political organization – will appear.

      Thoughts??

      Greg Johnson’s analysis of how White nationalism has historically attracted incompetent nihilists points out our biggest political weakness. Revising and extending his hypothesis, we see that historical WN “Leaders” defined their goals in terms of what they were AGAINST, and rarely in terms of what they were FOR, particularly never offering an overarching position of what the Goal was. They failed, for just that reason.

      I suspect, all too often, This Was Not By Accident.

      The first step, today, is to send money to counter-currents, each and every month. Period. Nothing says “Thank You” like money.

      The final step – for this lifetime – is seeing Mankind’s first manned starship taking off from the StarCenter in Kalispell, viewing this from the William Luther Pierce Memorial Chapel at the Northwest Republic’s Military Academy in Sandpoint.

      Read “Freedom’s Sons” yet?

      More thoughts to follow, if you are interested in continuing this conversation.

    • White Republican
      Posted October 27, 2013 at 8:14 am | Permalink

      In the context of a political culture, commitment requires formation and integration into a political culture.

      I think that much more attention and effort needs to be invested in forming cadres and a political culture of a truly radical character — radical in that it goes to the root of things, gives itself a political project characterized by “radical negations and sovereign affirmations,” and equips itself to fight the system rather than accommodate it or retreat from it. A political culture is not to be confused with a political ideology. It refers to a culture with particular goals, values, ideas, behaviors, techniques, and norms relating to politics.

      To borrow Dominique Venner’s distinction between “nationals” and “nationalists,” we need to somehow bridge the gap between nationals and nationalists, and to turn nationals into nationalists — at least those nationals who can become nationalists. (“Nationals” could be defined as people who are patriotically minded, but whose political culture is grossly defective.)

      Venner’s work Pour une critique positive was labelled as “written by a militant, for the militants.” Venner could write such a work in the aftermath of the struggle for French Algeria as there actually was a body of militants around to whom he could address his message. Today, militants need to be created, and this will require the long, patient, and diligent work of creating a political culture.

      A political culture requires many things in order to be successful. I think a political culture needs to accommodate various levels of commitment, to work to raise the level of commitment, and to develop cadres of real value. With regard to raising the level of commitment, more should be expected from White nationalists according to the time they have been involved with White nationalism, but this really requires proper structures for the formation of White nationalists, not just internet forums. I think that too much time spent on internet forums has spoiled many White nationalists, who have not been required to accept any discipline, to study any body of thought or discourse, or to make any real contribution to White nationalism. White nationalism won’t amount to much if it doesn’t leave its present state of “privatization.”

      Thomas Carlyle characterized the nightwatchman state of nineteenth-century liberalism as anarchy plus a constable; the subculture of contemporary White nationalism could be characterized as anarchy plus a moderator.

      It may be useful here to distinguish between the teleology and the teleonomy of political cultures. In this context, teleology relates to the future that a political culture plans for itself, whereas teleonomy relates to the future that a political culture is actually creating for itself. What a political culture plans to do and what it is actually doing, what it says it believes and what it actually believes, are often very different things. It is not enough for a movement to define its goals more in terms of what it is for rather than what it is against; even more important is the seriousness with which the members of a political culture understands their mission and the fidelity with which they pursue their goals. If I remember correctly, Oswald Mosley said that modern Caesarism has to be collective (for that matter, Antonio Gramsci seems to have made a similar point with his conception of the communist party as “the modern Prince”).

      Political cultures can be brittle to begin with or become hollow over time. One can cite the MSI in Italy, the BNP in Britain, and Vlaams Belang in Belgium. I doubt that the liberalization of these parties can be attributed entirely to “leaders” such as Gianfranco Fini, Nick Griffin, and Filip DeWinter. One has to ask what enables such leaders to come to power and to do what they have done with relatively little resistance. Perhaps weaknesses in the political culture of these parties made them vulnerable to deflection, demoralization, deformation, and degeneration.

      One can also note the way that conservative, socialist, and even communist parties have slowly mutated into liberal parties. Most of the members of such parties don’t truly believe in or support the founding principles or project of their parties, but usually won’t admit it, and those who do are regarded as cranks and extremists to be marginalized or expelled. For example, the Labour Party in Britain lost interest in nationalizing British industries long before it revised Clause IV of its constitution. It’s often the case that the formal and symbolic removal of such things generates more passion than their informal and substantive removal.

  4. Peter
    Posted October 24, 2013 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    “Without a shred of self-awareness, the media portrayed the masked men holding assault rifles as defenders of democracy and the older men in suits as dangerous fascists.”

    What is interesting is when you see the photo and being aware the point of view of the government (and the point of view of all or most western governments) you might look at it that way (the extremist being arrested by a democracy). Maybe that’s because we’ve all been brought up on Hollywood anti-NAZI movies and the same point of view in the press. No Hollywood movies were ever made of Bolshevik Jews arresting and murdering Russians and Ukrainians, although they dominated the Soviet secret services and made up 80 to 85 percent of the first Soviet gov’t according to a recent speech by Vladimir Putin (reported on the online version of Pravda). It’s remarkable how these things are covered up. But this is how minds are molded. This is why Jews are viewed as innocent doves and Germans as mass murderers.

    Similarly, I have watched translated interviews with the Greek leader. He said nothing racist, insulting or outrageous, unless you believe Germans gassed six million Jews and you believe that anyone that doesn’t believe this propaganda should be hauled away to jail. He stated he doesn’t believe in the holocaust claims.

    • Razvan
      Posted October 25, 2013 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

      http://english.pravda.ru/russia/kremlin/17-06-2013/124852-putin_jews-0/

      Very interesting indeed.
      Putin was giving the Schneerson library to the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow.

      Practically he’s trying to end the scandal regarding the Schneerson library nationalization in the twenties. So he made this bold statement. He was practically saying that, well your people confiscated it, now we are returning it back to you and everything should be OK. As always, jews started immediately to cry antisemitism, even if they got what they wanted. Even it is common knowledge that the soviet leadership was jewish to the core (Putin’s father was a cook for Lenin and Nadezhda Krupskaya.).

      The library of Chabad-Lubavitch sect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad for details.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneerson every link there worth reading.

      I don’t have an English link for that, but in some circles in Romania, it was commented that the jews are negotiating with Putin to get the 1918 treasury of Romanian National Bank as reparations for the what they call “Romanian Holocaust”.

      (As crazy it seems it has a precedent in Hungary. The Romanian Orthodox Church properties in Budapest since 1869, the heritage of the rich Romanian family Gojdu, confiscated by the communists in 1952, and then returned not to Romania nor the Romanian Church, but to some jewish companies (!) and Hungary. The numbers are fabulous and this is a known fact.)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanoil_Gojdu
      The so called lease is not a lease and the company is not Hungarian-Cypriot but Israeli!

      (In 1917 the Romanian treasure was sent for safe keeping to Moscow – as advised by a jewish banker in Bucharest called Mauriciu Blank. It was confiscated by the communists and never returned to Romania – with the exceptions of very few pieces. Any discussion regarding the treasure was shut down by the soviet leaders and also by Eltsin, Medvedev, and Putin. It is also commented that two Romanian communists leaders, Dej and Ceausescu, were killed exactly for asking back the Romanian treasure).

      Words are never what they seem. Only the facts. As the author says we will know soon what it really means.

  5. Justin Huber
    Posted October 24, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    I think it is safe to say that all of the so-called “democracies” of today really aren’t when it comes right down to it. All of this talk of freedom and free societies is really just hogwash. Especially freedom of speech. That’s just how it is. Therefore, we shouldn’t criticize our enemies on these grounds in an effort to score cheap political points. Greg has mentioned David Duke in this vein. In some ways, I think it can also apply to David Irving. He’s always talking about free speech or the “traditional enemies” of free speech etc. We just have to realize that in the real world of politics these things just don’t exist. Or that they only exist up to a certain point. Once that point is reached, freedom loving countries such as the United States, Israel etc. always show their true colors.

  6. White Republican
    Posted October 24, 2013 at 6:28 am | Permalink

    If a collection of Gregory Hood’s articles were to be published in the form of a book, perhaps an appropriate title would be “Articles of War,” given their focus on the axioms of political struggle today. But I’m not sure if this allusion to military regulations would be effective and appropriate. Just a thought.

    • Posted October 25, 2013 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

      A good thought.

      I have this inspirational series by GH bookmarked and if this writer who is “honest enough to admit he has not chosen the path of total dedication,” doesn’t have a change of heart (I have, writing now 3k miles from home, to start that ethnostate – having responsibly given up everything most Amurricans dream of), I at least hope he will let us compile his words together to help with the momentum.

      You really have to get to a point that aspirations are more important than fears.

  7. Jaego
    Posted October 23, 2013 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

    And one of the tactics of the Managerial State is to make people believe – or pretend to believe – in absurdities like Negro equality. As Dalyrmple said, the more absurd the better since such “oaths’ strip one of dignity thus creating the very equality they propose. Curiously like the definition of a sacrament which “effects what it symbolizes” Counter Initiation indeed.

    http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/67950.Theodore_Dalrymple

    • newmantra
      Posted October 24, 2013 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

      Images of Diversity immersion are an attack on White dignity.

      Advertising, TV, entertainment, academia, military, government, religion are all fully transformed and diverse, and push the imagery into everyone’s brain.

      When White students are constantly seeing images of “good Whites” with black friends, good in that they receive attention and official recognition, then bad Whites are the ones with only White friends.

      Obviously, Whites who mix with blacks are undignified and self-loathing, which makes them dangerous to the rest of the White community.

      Dignified Whites are now called “racist,” and they can be violently attacked by those who are encouraged and rewarded by the system.

      Our best feature, the self-respecting segregation urge, is now defined by society as a virulent disease that must be eradicated.

      White privilege should become a sacralized oath.

One Trackback

  • By Ne plus les sauver d’eux-mêmes (par Gregory Hood) on October 26, 2013 at 3:10 am

    […] publions la traduction d’un texte écrit par Gregory Hood pour les éditions Counter Currents et et que nous diffusons avec leur aimable autorisation. Cet article évoque le cas de l’Aube […]

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Tyr, Vol. 4

    Reuben

    The Node

    Axe

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    The Fourth Political Theory

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Metaphysics of War

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Shock of History

    The Prison Notes

    Sex and Deviance

    Standardbearers

    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    Archeofuturism

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Tyr

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above