Why The Right Is Extinct; and Why Revisionism Is Needed (Part 1)

Part X

Nolte's description of Bolshevik terror as Asiatic is not mere hyperbole, or Eurocentric parochialism, rather it is a historically honest accounting for the discrepancy of the 'way of war' within the Western civilization as compared to without. The exercise of unrestrained malice between two combatants within the Western culture was always, with one notable exception prior to 1941, was understood to be outside the proper domain of war and peace. Warfare between White/Western countries was understood to be power activity and nothing more. During and after the cessation of hostilities it was understood that combatants would not avail one another to unbridled brutality, not would the victor opt to massacre, humiliate or destroy his vanquished enemies. In these processes it is clear that the essence of racial Patriotism remained intact, even in the most vigorously tense circumstances of warfare. The English government, notably, when at war with Napoleon, notified him of a plot against his life. King Richard, though in combat with the Oriental Saracens, nonetheless afforded Saladin his friendship out of esteem for the warrior virtue exemplified by the Moslem warlord and his men. When the gentleman aristocrat Robert E. Lee surrendered the Grant, known as a brutish and ruthless warrior on the battlefield, he noted that his enemy was a magnanimous and noble victor with no personal taste for vengance to be delivered upon the cessation of hostilities.

However, in circumstances of total enmity between countries of the Western culture and those outside of it, there has never existed a generalized and robust tradition of limited war and amity between combatants. For example, as Yockey noted, in Gothic times, the Roman Church forbade the use of the crossbow against White, Christian peoples but sanctioned its use freely against the barbarian outsider. The White men who, in waging racial war against Techumseh's Red Sticks, did not hesitate to summarily execute the enemy Braves. Nor did the Spanish courts martial who sat in judgment of Incan warriors and sentenced them to death believe that they should afford to the savages the same privileges that White men would extend to one another at war or in its aftermath, pursuant to the 'honor community' of the Western culture.

Part XI

As has been already noted, the presence of a sharply alien influence was clearly discernible in America's posture of 'total war' and attendant demand for 'unconditional surrender' vis a vis Europe throughout the period of hostilities, and culminating in the aftermath of the defeat of Germany (and the European idea) by the alliance of America, Britain, and the Soviet Union. It was after 1945 that a truly punitive regime was implemented against a by then defenseless Europe; animated by Jewry's hostility to a culture that had become its mortal enemy as the social tensions between friend and foe that had always been present in the White/Western world became enshrined and intensified as the age of democracy and socialism became fully revealed. This punitive regime was tailored not only to force the Europeans to suffer physically, though deprivation, humiliation, and the execution of its best remaining men, but also to restructure political horizons in accordance with a newfangled vision of political ethics that would forever supplant the racially exclusivist, authentic Patriotism that had, for a thousand years, been the defining political component of White/Western social and political life. This was achieved first and foremost by casting the War in abstractly moral terms, tailored to substantiate a conspiratorial narrative of the War as the culmination of a series of ''criminal'' acts against a non-Western enemy cultural form (Jewry) that was embedded within Europe was a progenitor of a total political revolt against the European form of life in the form of Bolshevism.

As the trials of the European leadership commenced, it became clear that not only was a complete breach with the conventions of the 'community of honor' that had characterized intra-cultural warring between White peoples being demanded by the victors but also that the Providential view of war and peace as a permanent component of political life (as identified by De Maistre) was being dismissed according to the purported calculus of rationalist morality. Soldiers who had served the European cause with distinction were arraigned for ''crimes'' because they had obeyed their superiors and defended the White/Western culture from internal subversion by alien enemies and the threat of conquest by Orientals from without. European racial patriotism, actual patriotism - distinguished from the arbitrary allegiance of a territorial mass of humans) was attributed to mass psychosis and mental disease. The proceedings themselves were not ordered according to any White/Western juristic mores, practices, or traditions - rather, the trier of fact and the trier of law were both exclusively military men of the victorious nations; including Soviet generals who had unceremoniously massacred Poles at Katyn and subsequently perjured themselves by assigning responsibility to the German defendants.

Hi Thomas have you ever written a "Part 2" to this? Well written with plenty of intellectual content therein.