← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Damian1977
Thread ID: 14451 | Posts: 11 | Started: 2004-07-06
2004-07-06 00:47 | User Profile
[url]http://www.nationalist.org/docs/ideology/neo.html[/url]
Washington-Hitler showdown
Practical and patriotic versus predictable and pretentious
Wendell Gardner: There was a demonstration at the Capitol in Washington today in which a Nazi flag was displayed. What are your thoughts about this?
Richard Barrett: Display of foreign flags, in such a setting, is a profanity. The Capitol belongs to the American People, not to any foreign power or alien ideology, past or present.
Gardner: What about the message? I understand that they were protesting Israel. You, also, oppose Israel.
Barrett: I suppose for "shock value" some people could run across the Capitol lawn in the nude, but the hour calls for patriotic value, more than anything. I suspect that the news media will use the event to characterize genuine patriotic forces as some kind of fringe element, to try to marginalize what is really a massive groundswell against Israel.
Gardner: You've made an interesting point. People who want to oppose Israel seem to be having a hard time getting their message out. Wouldn't something like this at least sort of break through the news-media blackout?
Barrett: There was such a thing a couple of years ago. Andrew Greenbaum, who dressed up as Hitler, summoned a Washington gathering and received massive news coverage. But, he was exposed as being a Jew and the escapade fizzled. He actually called it off at the last minute.
Gardner: Do you suspect Israeli complicity in this event?
Barrett: I know that the organizer, Billy Roper, made a public statement calling Nationalists "mentally ill." Washington Legal Times correspondent Jim Oliphant had written that Roper was being financed by Ahmed Huber, a half-Jewish, half-Arab millionaire living in Switzerland. Beyond that, I do not know.
Gardner: These demonstrators were able to assemble under the law you wrote in 1992.
Barrett: That law was not intended for such a purpose.
Gardner: What about the thought that waving the Nazi flag is a clear signal of opposition to communists, anarchists and others opposed by Hitler's regime and, therefore, is a fitting way of protesting these elements today?
Full moral support
Barrett: Those elements need to be opposed, of course, but not just opposed but beaten. To defeat them requires the full moral support of the American people. So, if you add to the equation the large number of World War II veterans, those who simply reject anything foreign and those who see no point in resurrecting the past, you tie the valid cause of defeating the enemies of the people into some lost cause. That is unacceptable, if we are serious about winning the fight.
Gardner: Did you oppose the Capitol gathering?
Barrett: I took a wait-and-see approach. Bryan Reo, however, called for a boycott of the event.
Gardner: Couldn't it be said that any sort of demonstration against communism is helpful in some way, considering that we see so few going on these days?
Barrett: If there were no alternative, I might tend to agree. However, Nationalists put on important and patriotic gatherings, such as the one coming up in York, Pennsylvania, on January 20th, 2003, which not only oppose communism but affirm Americanism. So, there are alternatives.
Gardner: But what if someone genuinely believes that pre-World War II doctrines from Germany are instructive in some way to us today?
Barrett: It's hard to even have a discussion about the loser in a war, because of the emotion and, even, irrationality necessarily involved. That's why I skirt the issue. Alabama Governor George Wallace, however, did say that we fought on the wrong side. And there have been authors, such as Pat Buchanan and David Irving, who have postulated what it might have been like if the other side had won. That is a far cry, however, from brandishing the flag of defeated enemies on the Capitol grounds.
Gardner: But what about just a few sound-bytes on the evening news of this event, just to get people to discuss what is almost a taboo issue, namely cutting off Israel?
Barrett: Organizer Roper, by his own admission, is an atheist and communism is an atheist ideology, founded by Karl Marx. The German invasion of Russia on June 22, 1941 was cast as a Christian Crusade against godless communism. An atheist supposedly preaching against communism would have a credibility problem.
Gardner: It appears that there were a few hundred or so people in the demonstration. One large Nazi flag and several smaller such flags.
Barrett: Numbers are not necessarily important, though they sometimes can be. The great March on Washington Nationalists conducted in 1970 turned out some 200,000. The mighty March Through Georgia drew several thousand. But, I recall that when Bill Chancellor picketed a large homosexual rally, he actually received all the news coverage, he was that dynamic and strong.
Unfair stigmatizing
Gardner: Are you concerned that some might call you negative by having this interview, today? They might say that some otherwise well-meaning people were unduly stigmatized by you.
Barrett: At the March Through Georgia in 1987, two men carrying a Nazi flag showed up to support our demand to abolish the Civil Rights Bill. I explained that if they carried that flag, they would unfairly stigmatize all the other people there. They seemed unconcerned. I then asked it they knew that Hitler was a dictator. They said they knew that. And, that if they appeared at one of his rallies they would he required to do it his way. They, also, agreed. I then announced that they could consider me the "dictator" of our rally and that they would have to comply. They put their flag away and marched under Crosstar banners and American flags.
Gardner: So, it is sort of an issue of majority-rule with you?
Barrett: You might say that. But, moreso, it is a matter of our not allowing the patriotic cause to be cast as just the whim of a group or cult, but rather as an uprising of the American people.
Gardner: But George Washington began as a small group and grew until he was able to take power.
Barrett: Two important distinctions. Washington was a living individual. His cause was not based on someone dead. Also, Washington's cause was native to his own soil, not based in some foreign land. By the same token, I doubt that Hitler would have advanced in his own territory if he had adopted Washington as his mascot.
Gardner: Do you plan to launch offensives against those who use the neo-Nazi approach?
Barrett: Our offensives should be entirely geared toward advancing the pro-majority cause. I'd prefer not to even get enmeshed in a debate on the subject. When Richard Nixon said that he was not a crook, people began to say, "He must be a crook, otherwise why is he going around denying it?" That's human nature, I suppose, which is why we'll try to keep buzz words out of the conversation, as much as possible.
Gardner: But, do you see anything positive coming out of neo-Naziism? What about someone hoisting up a Nazi flag to signify that certain elements are not welcome in his neighborhood, for instance?
Barrett: A Congressional candidate in Mississippi, Robert Weems, was projected to pull about sixteen-percent of the vote. He was photographed with a Nazi flag and wound up with about one-tenth-of-one-percent of the vote. Larry Leininger has been seeking office in Minnesota using neo-Nazi accouterments. He, likewise, received a close-to-zero tally. David Duke spent his entire life trying to repudiate that he had once dressed up as Hitler.
Never on the defensive
Gardner: But various communist outfits, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center come to mind, routinely refer to all their opponents, including yourself, as neo-Nazis. How do you deal with that?
Barrett: We just ignore them. Our words, images and platform speak for themselves. Our Handbook even instructs not to let opponents place us on the defensive by goading us into saying all the time what we are not, but, rather, for us to take the offensive by telling who we are and what we want. We boycotted the Clarion-Ledger and Beaumont-Enterprise newspapers because they tried to place that label on us, until they quit. And, they finally did quit.
Gardner: So where do the Capitol demonstrators go from here?
Barrett: Are they prepared to haul down the flag atop the Rotunda and place their flag there, instead? Are they poised to rename the Washington Monument? The Bible says that without vision the people perish. There has to be a vision of a viable, marching and successful force, coming to power in this country. It must be rooted in blood, heritage and patriotism and in the living, breathing souls of those who give their all for our people, nation and way of life. I cannot envision anything less being accepted by the American people.
Gardner: What about currents in Europe, where a revival of anti-foreigner sentiment is fueled by neo-Nazi undercurrents? When you were in Europe, you spoke about a Europe for Europeans.
Barrett: Europe, of course, has its traditions but we have ours, which are very different, in many ways. Hungarians, for instance, speak with great emotion about their fathers and grandfathers who braved the horrible Russian Winter to die fighting the communists at the gates of Stalingrad. Mississippians speak with like emotion of their University Greys who died having reached the farthest and most-Northern point at the Battle of Gettysburg. They have, even, adopted the Confederate flag to show solidarity with those who fought the Abolitionists. Nostalgia is powerful and important, provided it does not focus entirely on the past.
Gardner: But you supported the Confederate flag. In fact, your appearance in the Mississippi Supreme Court was pivotal in getting the issue on the ballot.
Barrett: I did so in order to unite Mississippians against black-power and succeeded. But, I also recall that when I was running for office, a man came up to me and said that he would vote for me if I got up and told the crowd that I supported Hitler. He seemed sincere, actually, but instead of coming in second, as I did, out of four, if I had complied, I would not have even placed at all.
Gardner: So you are suggesting that neo-Naziism is a kind of kiss-of-death to someone wanting to succeed in public life?
Principle, conscience and courage
Barrett: If by success you mean simply getting into office, I would reject that, because we need people of principle, conscience and courage to take power. Helen Chenoweth ran and was elected from Idaho on a plank of supporting "White, Anglo-Saxon Americans." She was controversial, but the people loved her for it. That is quite different from giving the finger to all our World War II veterans.
Gardner: We lost the Vietnam War, as well as the Bay of Pigs, but that didn't make communism right.
Barrett: Good point. The losers need not necessarily always be wrong. There is nothing wrong with studying and learning even from our opponents, on occasion. But, remember, King George III sent Hessian troops against Americans and anti-foreigner sentiment is deeply ingrained in our consciousness. So, tapping our own, unique, New-World roots and drawing from our own well shall serve us best, in the long run. John Jay, our first Supreme Court Chief Justice, laid out a bold and beautiful plan for a homogeneous, free and ascendant country. His words can well pilot us, even today.
Gardner: Bill White, the former correspondent for Pravda, the communist newspaper, has been playing up the demonstration in Washington. Do you see any significance in that?
Barrett: Some, Matthew Hale comes to mind, have attracted news coverage by waving Nazi flags but being represented by Jewish lawyers, such as Alan Dershowitz and Glen Greenwald. When communists begin to push a line, in a way that they control or shape the image, it is not a healthy development. Those who oppose us wish to make Nationalism as repellant to the masses as possible. If Hollywood or Tel Aviv can create a sense that we are anti-social or abhorrent, they will have definitely set us back, but I do not plan to allow them to do that.
Gardner: There have been classical revivals. Neo-colonial architecture was an attempt to bring back a distinct and grand age. Neo-classicism has been a move to restore the glories of ancient Rome and Greece. Why not neo-Naziism?
Barrett: The word "neo," of course, means an imitation of an original. Bismark, for instance, invented Social Security. Americans have adopted and, even, improved upon it. But, we do not call ourselves "neo-Bismarkians" for having done so. Bismark stands on his own, in history, and so must we. It is no different in politics or social-reform. We are, and must be, Americans, first and foremost.
Gardner: So, what would you say to those who were carrying the Nazi flag there at the Capitol?
Barrett: Take stock of where you are going and how you propose to get there. What do you do for an encore? Think of ways to open doors, roll out carpets, bring smiles, engender cheers and shout victory -- in the tongue first spoken on the face of the moon. . Be to social-reform what Benjamin Franklin was to electricity. Draw power unto yourself and harness it for the good of your nation, the purity of your blood, the justice in your soul and the progress of your people.
Gardner: You have already been attacked by those who criticize your views. Do you think that your words today will increase that hostility?
Barrett: Possibly, but what I say may, also, serve as a magnet for those who desire an America for Americans without the excess baggage of foreign flags and alien dogmas. Our ranks need unity, not division. And we need to sound a trumpet, not a wavering note.
Gardner: Do you write off those involved in the demonstration?
Barrett: Anyone who is sincere, shows courage and has vision should have an opportunity to be part of the New America. The cause of Nationalism is somewhat like the salesman who says, "If you find a better deal, take it." We display ourselves and principles in the most compelling way possible. But we have to earn the trust of those who have potential. Many die-hard Elvis fans went on to become Beatles fans. Many Tories became patriots. Many rightists will become Nationalists.
Background
When the term "Nationalist" was first used by Gerald L. K. Smith in the Thirties, it meant "Christian Nationalism," a kind of "God and Country" cause which appealed to "America Firsters," led by the likes of Charles Lindbergh and Douglas MacArthur. As times became more desperate, America began to lose wars and ruinous social conditions began to proliferate, "Nationalist" was revived in the Eighties as an almost revolutionary force. It was largely secular, but based wholly on nativist sentiment.
By the turn of the century, "Nationalist" began to be used by various rightists. Two chief differences were between those who called for violence versus those who rejected violence. As well as those who admired Hitler versus those who favored Washington. There were other differences, such as whether Nationalists should be clean cut or not, sport tattoos or not or wear certain garb or not. Some sought to separate themselves from the country, while others called for taking power in the entire nation. Some launched heated attacks against rivals, while others kept largely mum about would-be opponents.
Richard Barrett, who is credited by many with reviving and defining the term "Nationalist" in the modern age, is no spectator to the on-going debate over whether Nationalism should include European inklings or go it alone. Whether lost wars and lost causes have any place in present-day social-activism and, if so, to what extent. Wendell Gardner, conductor of this August 24, 2002 interview, is one of the founders of The Nationalist Movement and, himself, a World War II veteran. But he is every bit the progressive and reformer, bound up in what he calls the "practical and patriotic," rather than the "predictable and pretentious."
2004-07-06 01:13 | User Profile
Richard Barrett: Display of foreign flags, in such a setting, is a profanity. The Capitol belongs to the American People, not to any foreign power or alien ideology, past or present.
All "ideologies" worthy of the name, from liberal democracy to national socialism, expressed in the United States, originally came from Europe. America is an outpost of European civilization, after all. Sadly, Europe is becoming an ever more foreign place to Americans, since fewer people within our borders actually descend from there due to the large influx of Third World immigration.
Barrett: Those elements need to be opposed, of course, but not just opposed but beaten. To defeat them requires the full moral support of the American people. So, if you add to the equation the large number of World War II veterans, those who simply reject anything foreign and those who see no point in resurrecting the past, you tie the valid cause of defeating the enemies of the people into some lost cause. That is unacceptable, if we are serious about winning the fight.
Funny thing is that there tends to be a double standard at work on this issue. Leftists could wave Viet Cong flags, after all, and be called "humanitarians." Try strolling across most college campuses today in America and I guarantee that you will eventually see a student wearing a t-shirt with a Soviet hammer-and-sickle on it. He can sit in class as he wears this "foreign, far-left" insignia, and no one really notices or mentions it. People probably think he's a "humanitarian" as well. Now, as an experiment, try wearing something "right-wing" in that same environment...and God-forbid if it's even a tiny swastika pin on your lapel, because it would quickly cause a massive uproar. Clearly, the power structure has seen to it that certain "foreign values" are to be approved, and others are not. It's very revealing to see what the System will tolerate.
2004-07-06 01:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Damian1977]Barrett: Organizer Roper, by his own admission, is an atheist and communism is an atheist ideology, founded by Karl Marx. The German invasion of Russia on June 22, 1941 was cast as a Christian Crusade against godless communism. An atheist supposedly preaching against communism would have a credibility problem.[/QUOTE]
Amen.
Lots of good points by Barrett in this piece, Damian, though I can't say I'm real familiar with his particular background. Thanks for posting.
2004-07-06 01:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Amen.
Lots of good points by Barrett in this piece, Damian, though I can't say I'm real familiar with his particular background. Thanks for posting.[/QUOTE]
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Barrett is from my home state of Mississippi.
He heads the Nationalist Movement.
He has won legal battles against ZOG in the legal chambers of their cult.
He is lied on by many anti-Christ folks in the WN movement, but let his word speak for himself.
Do you agree?
2004-07-06 01:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]All "ideologies" worthy of the name, from liberal democracy to national socialism, expressed in the United States, originally came from Europe. America is an outpost of European civilization, after all. Sadly, Europe is becoming an ever more foreign place to Americans, since fewer people within our borders actually descend from there due to the large influx of Third World immigration.
Funny thing is that there tends to be a double standard at work on this issue. Leftists could wave Viet Cong flags, after all, and be called "humanitarians." Try strolling across most college campuses today in America and I guarantee that you will eventually see a student wearing a t-shirt with a Soviet hammer-and-sickle on it. He can sit in class as he wears this "foreign, far-left" insignia, and no one really notices or mentions it. People probably think he's a "humanitarian" as well. Now, as an experiment, try wearing something "right-wing" in that same environment...and God-forbid if it's even a tiny swastika pin on your lapel, because it would quickly cause a massive uproar. Clearly, the power structure has seen to it that certain "foreign values" are to be approved, and others are not. It's very revealing to see what the System will tolerate.[/QUOTE]
Do you want to copy the Marxists?
The left has sent over many to lead the right and seduce it and destroy it.
I will not fall for thier tactics.
2004-07-06 01:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Damian1977]Mr. Barrett is from my home state of Mississippi.
My great-grandmother was from Mississippi, though when she married they moved to Winnsboro, Louisiana. That's the only blood connection I have to that great state that I'm aware of. Other than that it's all Alabama and Louisiana.
He is lied on by many anti-Christ folks in the WN movement
I'm certainly sympathetic there. :)
Do you agree?[/QUOTE]
With his comments transcribed above? Yes, very much so.
2004-07-06 01:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Damian1977]Do you want to copy the Marxists?
The enemy you're fighting has morphed a little. The mask known as Marxism was discarded in favor of "universal liberal democracy" and "end of history" type foolishness backed by Fukuyama, Kristol, and the like. As I see it, the current Empire of the United States is worse than the dead Soviet Empire, precisely because its methods of power are (usually) softer and more glittery and alluring. Try searching this board, and Google, for the search term "neoconservative" and be sure to cross-reference it with the search term "Trotsky."
I'm sure there are some political organizing tactics and such that the Marxists are good at that we could learn from, tactics that are basically "neutral tools" and not tied by necessity into their particular ideology. I've never looked into it that deeply.
Capitalism and communism are two sides of the same debased and bankrupt coin. The United States and the Soviet Union were/are two sides of an anti-life, "revolutionary" coin as well, as Julius Evola once pointed out in Revolt Against the Modern World. One positive thing about Walter Yannis on this board is that he's led the way toward exploring other options, such as Distributism. Only good can come from such explorations.
2004-07-06 01:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]My great-grandmother was from Mississippi, though when she married they moved to Winnsboro, Louisiana. That's the only blood connection I have to that great state that I'm aware of. Other than that it's all Alabama and Louisiana.
I'm certainly sympathetic there. :)
With his comments transcribed above? Yes, very much so.[/QUOTE]
Well, what do you know!
I live in Winnsboro some during the out of school break.
I have a friend up there I go fishing with.
Franklin Parish is nice.
2004-07-06 01:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]The enemy you're fighting has morphed a little. The mask known as Marxism was discarded in favor of "universal liberal democracy" and "end of history" type foolishness backed by Fukuyama, Kristol, and the like. As I see it, the current Empire of the United States is worse than the dead Soviet Empire, precisely because it's methods of power are (usually) softer and more glittery and alluring. Try searching this board, and Google, for the search term "neoconservative" and be sure to cross-reference it with the search term "Trotsky."
I'm sure there are some political organizing tactics and such that the Marxists are good at that we could learn from, tactics that are basically "neutral tools" and not tied by necessity into their particular ideology. I've never looked into it that deeply.
Capitalism and communism are two sides of the same debased and bankrupt coin. The United States and the Soviet Union were/are two sides of an anti-life, "revolutionary" coin as well, as Julius Evola once pointed out in Revolt Against the Modern World. One positive thing about Walter Yannis on this board is that he's led the way toward exploring other options, such as Distributism. Only good can come from such explorations.[/QUOTE]
I stick with tried and true info from Richard Barrett.
2004-07-06 11:19 | User Profile
Well, if Julius Evola said it! How many more dumb cliches have you got in there?
This brings up my favorite Russian joke, though: 'Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it is the reverse.'
Those Russians!
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar] Capitalism and communism are two sides of the same debased and bankrupt coin. The United States and the Soviet Union were/are two sides of an anti-life, "revolutionary" coin as well, as Julius Evola once pointed out in Revolt Against the Modern World. One positive thing about Walter Yannis on this board is that he's led the way toward exploring other options, such as Distributism. Only good can come from such explorations.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-07 05:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]Well, if Julius Evola said it! How many more dumb cliches have you got in there?
This brings up my favorite Russian joke, though: 'Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it is the reverse.'
Those Russians![/QUOTE]
Communism is actually Talmudic Judaism.