← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Mithras
Thread ID: 10736 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2003-10-25
2003-10-25 19:12 | User Profile
[B]On the Question of Unity[/B] By Mithras
Given the specifics of structure and circumstance, unity in motion can degrade into chaos. That is the blatant truth which underlies the fate of the White Nationalist Movement.
In the first place, unity in White Nationalism should only imply a general agreement in achieving the folkish state. When taken beyond this however there is ample room for disagreement. To be certain, White Nationalism is but a general term. It involves many different groups which are movements for their own separate causes and differ greatly in their ideas.
Specifically in America, White Nationalism is limited to a cultural movement, for it has no realistic political party to represent it. But for the sake of argument, we will assume that the many groups considered to be White Nationalist represent the political idea. Once this is considered, it must not be hoped that all of these groups are working towards the very same goal and therefore should present themselves to the public as being one. For this would undoubtedly lead to political failure. Thus our second point is a naturally diverse set of opinions. A recruit who is repulsed by National Socialism might think to join the ranks of Traditional Conservatism. A Radical Traditionalist might be offended by certain Christian groups yet wishes to be a part of a larger nationalist society. And this is the reality, as so often happens, if one thinks these thoroughly different groups as being one in the same then that person may not think to join in the ranks of organized White activism.
Our third point of which I am reluctant to discuss were it not for the necessity of healthy coexistence, is the occasion of tendency to use unity as a means of stamping out healthy criticism or debate of points which is immediately and erroneously referred to as infighting. Restricting all expressions of this kind, be they moderate or vitriolic, is a recipe for psychological and physical disaster, and should not be promoted or encouraged. The movement was never about one man or idea, and as we have demonstrated in our second point, differences between groups and between individuals existed from the very beginning and will continue to exist so long as there is a broad coalition of members. Radical censorship is therefore both unhealthy and unnatural, but also acts as a repellant to new recruits who perceive such behavior as blind faith.
The struggle of ideas reflect the eternal struggle of life. These clashes and competitive natures should be praised, not discouraged. If so only to award the victor, to nurture an atmosphere of action, where exchange of ideas are given freely and not repulsed by fear of castigation, thus shall it be that significant gain is always achieved. We must explore all that which lies before us and learn to respect our brothers and sisters through natural means, a stage which has no chance of happening through forceful coercion.
2003-10-26 00:39 | User Profile
first of all I never cared for the term White Nationalist as it seems to cover the Hollywood Nazi cliques, the genuinely hateful and those that have nothing more then a problem with multi-racialism but no real ideology as well as those that are genuinely folkish. As a result, I reject the label and I will further point out that a great many that use that label have nothing to offer anything I would ever be involved with.
As to unity amoung genuine proponents of Eurocentric folkish ideals I am pretty open. If you read my articles "neither left nor right" and "NS and the nature of compromise" you'll see how those that I support (i have adopted the ideology of others rather then create my own) view the folkish weltanschauung. Of course while an Organic world view is very much a comprehensive one I feel that we can learn from Moasca and Pareto that one can be folkish yet have economic principles different then the ones I and my comrades promote. As to a "folkish ideological baseline" I will remain resolute. Naturally, those of use that are folkish in our disposition can and must work with those that are not but such descisions are rather complicated so i'd rather talk in terms of specifics rather then in broad brush.
If the chap that started this thread has some specific points he wisheds to raise please say so. I'll see what I can add to this most vital of matters.
2003-10-26 01:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Mithras][B]On the Question of Unity[/B] By Mithras
Given the specifics of structure and circumstance, unity in motion can degrade into chaos. That is the blatant truth which underlies the fate of the White Nationalist Movement.
In the first place, unity in White Nationalism should only imply a general agreement in achieving the folkish state. When taken beyond this however there is ample room for disagreement. To be certain, White Nationalism is but a general term. It involves many different groups which are movements for their own separate causes and differ greatly in their ideas.
Specifically in America, White Nationalism is limited to a cultural movement, for it has no realistic political party to represent it. But for the sake of argument, we will assume that the many groups considered to be White Nationalist represent the political idea. Once this is considered, it must not be hoped that all of these groups are working towards the very same goal and therefore should present themselves to the public as being one. For this would undoubtedly lead to political failure. Thus our second point is a naturally diverse set of opinions. A recruit who is repulsed by National Socialism might think to join the ranks of Traditional Conservatism. A Radical Traditionalist might be offended by certain Christian groups yet wishes to be a part of a larger nationalist society. And this is the reality, as so often happens, if one thinks these thoroughly different groups as being one in the same then that person may not think to join in the ranks of organized White activism.
Our third point of which I am reluctant to discuss were it not for the necessity of healthy coexistence, is the occasion of tendency to use unity as a means of stamping out healthy criticism or debate of points which is immediately and erroneously referred to as infighting. Restricting all expressions of this kind, be they moderate or vitriolic, is a recipe for psychological and physical disaster, and should not be promoted or encouraged. The movement was never about one man or idea, and as we have demonstrated in our second point, differences between groups and between individuals existed from the very beginning and will continue to exist so long as there is a broad coalition of members. Radical censorship is therefore both unhealthy and unnatural, but also acts as a repellant to new recruits who perceive such behavior as blind faith.
The struggle of ideas reflect the eternal struggle of life. These clashes and competitive natures should be praised, not discouraged. If so only to award the victor, to nurture an atmosphere of action, where exchange of ideas are given freely and not repulsed by fear of castigation, thus shall it be that significant gain is always achieved. We must explore all that which lies before us and learn to respect our brothers and sisters through natural means, a stage which has no chance of happening through forceful coercion.[/QUOTE] Absolute rubbish. What you're recommending is a blueprint for remaining divided, marginalized, and powerless.
History shows us that great changes in political structures usually come from great leaders. The leader unites the various groups, creates a hierarchal political structure that supports group cohesion and suppresses dissent, and concentrates power at the top. This is the way to defeat your enemies, not by tolerating, or worse, promoting as you have here, a cacophony of overlapping, leaderless, and competing voices all vying for their piece of the pie.
Your idea is so bad I can't believe you're putting it forward with sincere intentions.
2003-10-26 03:23 | User Profile
The whole thing becomes a joke, when right out of the box, an argument arises about terminolgy. There is no hope.
2003-10-26 04:42 | User Profile
I'm proud to call myself a White Nationalist. Everyone knows what it means, closely enough. It means a Swede who just got off the plane is my brother, a Black who's has roots in the USA going back hundreds of years is the enemy. And why? Because the Swede and I are both, under Jew-law, almost rightless. And the Black is highly privelaged, at least for now.
2003-10-26 16:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=triskelion]If the chap that started this thread has some specific points he wisheds to raise please say so. [/QUOTE]
I do wish to make clear that this writing was aimed at no one in particular, which so far as I can see doesn't seem to be a problem.
I also agree with you about the term White Nationalism. I prefer Folkish Nationalist or Imperial Nationalist, the latter being in favor of a royal government.
[QUOTE][I]Posted by Acorn[/I] I'm proud to call myself a White Nationalist. Everyone knows what it means, closely enough.[/QUOTE]
Well, there are huge differences between groups and individuals as to what it means. The only thing that we can be certain of is the "nationalism of White nations." Other than this, there is no concrete definition.
2003-10-26 19:26 | User Profile
I should direct one's attention to a quote from Goebbels:
[QUOTE]Our movement is often accused of losing its character as a movement. We are accused of taking the vast, broad and ever-moving system of thought of the völkisch movement and forcing it into a Procrustean bed. We supposedly had to chop of the legs of the movement that stuck out, eliminating important parts of the völkisch idea. National Socialism is only a surrogate for the real movement, some say. In fact, the völkisch movement ran aground on this matter. Each declares his own particular interest central to the völkisch movement, and accuses anyone who does not share his views as being a traitor to the cause. That is the way the völkisch movement was before the war. If someone had been able to take this great ideaââ¬âand the völkisch idea was greater than the Marxist ideaââ¬âand develop out of it a tightly disciplined political organization, then the völkisch idea, not the Marxist idea, would have won on 9 November [1918]. Marxism won because it had a better understanding of political conditions, because it had forged the sword it would later use to conquer the state. If a völkisch organizer had understood how to form a great movementââ¬âit is a question of life or death for our nationââ¬âthe völkisch idea, not Marxism, would have won, It was a worldview, but it did not understand how to form a party and how to forge the sharp sword that would have enabled it to conquer the state.[/QUOTE]
It should be read in full:
[url]http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb54.htm[/url]