← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Buster
Thread ID: 3229 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2002-10-26
2002-10-26 15:35 | User Profile
Iââ¬â¢d like to attempt to cleanly divide white nationalism between 1) Nazi (or crypto-Nazi) and 2) non-Nazi.
Tell me where you think the following stand: William Pierce, Alex Linder, Kevin Strom, David Duke, David Irving, Barnes Review, Revilo Oliver, IHR, Jared Taylor, AmRen.
Add any thoughts you think relevant.
2002-10-26 16:02 | User Profile
William Pierce = National Socialist (has self-identified by that term).
Alex Linder = Non-NS (He'll say he's ready and willing to use what's usable from NS, but he still has a strong "personal liberty" streak and thinks eugenics is misguided.)
Kevin Strom = Non-NS (An NA member, which would make one assume NS, but then not everyone in the NA is NS, and Strom has often made his arguments from appeals to the American tradition).
David Duke = Non-NS
David Irving = Non-NS
Barnes Review = Non-NS
Revilo Oliver = National Socialist. His writings seem to place him there.
IHR = Non-NS
Jared Taylor = Non-NS
AmRen = Non-NS
2002-10-26 16:34 | User Profile
Originally posted by Buster@Oct 26 2002, 09:35 **Iââ¬â¢d like to attempt to cleanly divide white nationalism between 1) Nazi (or crypto-Nazi) and 2) non-Nazi.
Tell me where you think the following stand: William Pierce, Alex Linder, Kevin Strom, David Duke, David Irving, Barnes Review, Revilo Oliver, IHR, Jared Taylor, AmRen.
Add any thoughts you think relevant.**
One cannot cleanly divide "Nazi" from "non," because the former is properly thought of as merely pro-Nazi - rather than National Socialist in some authentic sense derived from a Weimar/Versailles class-war context.
Thus contemporary "Nazis" are elementary racists sympathetic to that (racial) aspect of the German experience, but otherwise unconcerned with other elements of that episode, in particular the confrontation with the Soviet Union as a geo-political issue transcending racial concerns.
Having long been familiar with the written contributions of Pierce, Irving, Oliver, Taylor, Carto, and Duke - and being personally acquainted with Irving, Taylor, Oliver, Carto, and Weber/IHR (to which I could add second-hand acquaintance through trusted comrades with Duke) - I would characterize all but Weber as "pro-Nazi" in the sense discussed immediately above. Having had little experience of Strom's writing and no personal connection, I would refer and defer to his evident reverence for Oliver as evidence of his own presumably identical sympathies.
2002-10-27 16:18 | User Profile
Categorizing people is often tricky. I think all the names I mentioned are racialists of one stripe or another. When I think of Nazis I suppose I think of those with an admiration for the person of Hitler (see Barnes Review or the new issue of National Vanguard), perhaps with some form of neo-pagan religion, an interest in eugenics as you mentioned, a Nietzschean enthusiasm (indicated by Alex Linder), a belief in assertive militarism or triumphalism of the white race, etc. I distinguish these from white nationalists generally, who usually simply recognize the virtue of whites as a dominant force.
By these criteria, the only people I would definitely leave off the Nazi list would be Taylor and IHR. And Dukeââ¬â¢s Hitlerism was apparently of the juvenile sort.
2002-10-27 18:36 | User Profile
These fine point classifications are largely irrelevant. In the current Zeitgeist you either completely subscribe to the politcally correct view of Nazi Germany or you are dismissed as a Nazi sympathizer at best.
2002-10-27 19:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by Fliegende Hollander@Oct 27 2002, 12:36 These fine point classifications are largely irrelevant. In the current Zeitgeist you either completely subscribe to the politcally correct view of Nazi Germany or you are dismissed as a Nazi sympathizer at best.
The Dutchman makes a good point.
Even Jew York's premier kosher-con of the airwaves, Rush, is regarded as "Hitler" by the Judeo-liberal rank-and-file - despite his implicit faith in, and repeated affirmation of, the Hollywood History of WWII.
2002-10-28 19:47 | User Profile
No doubt, the Establishment sees all racialists as cut from the same cloth. I was more interested in the distinctions we make among ourselves. Personally, it's much easier for me to tell who is not NS than who is.
I regard NS as an essentially German phenomenon, brought on largely by the stupidity of WWI and its aftermath. As an American, it interests me historically, but principally for its ethnic policies, which I see in the context of preceding centuries of pan-European Jewish segregation and expulsion. I am wary of todayââ¬â¢s racialists who respond to ââ¬ÅHollywood Historyââ¬Â (nice phrase) by an excessive counter-reaction of NS adulation or idolizing. This is all the more true when the adulation is couched within otherwise valid and important racial analyses (as with Pierce or Oliver).
2002-10-28 20:16 | User Profile
Originally posted by Buster@Oct 28 2002, 14:47 I am wary of todayââ¬â¢s racialists who respond to ââ¬ÅHollywood Historyââ¬Â (nice phrase) by an excessive counter-reaction of NS adulation or idolizing.
Good point. This morning I finished reading Schmaltz's bio of George Lincoln Rockwell, Hate. Rockwell used the NS imagery to stir up the populace and provide himself with as much of an audience as any of us on the right could want. However, he learned that what gained him attention also worked against him in preventing most everyone from taking him seriously. At his death, his organization numbered no more than 200 members. In the months before his assassination, he was trying to back away from the Nazi image.
The most important and divisive distinction I see within those who see themselves as WN is on (you guessed it) the Jewish question. Those who see Jews as the central issue facing white survival and those who think (while being important) Jews are not central to the troubles facing whites today. Those like Linder, VNN.com, Duke and Pierce one the one side and Taylor, SamFrancis, the CofCC and VDARE on the other. Folks who follow the VNN line have said straight out that Taylor, et al, are NOT white nationalists and (on more than one occasion) have hinted that they are being paid off by Jews. Those on the AmRen, VDARE side see the others as Hitler-philic, damaging WN with a sort of angry vulgarity (a la VNN) which they feel panders (albeit unintentionally) to the public's stereotypes of the Right and prevents progress. This classification is not absolute as there is much back and forth between the two camps (ie. Taylor's associations with Weber who never fails to attend an AmRen Conference).
2002-10-30 11:10 | User Profile
I've always considered this kind of topic a diversion. What happened in Germany during the 30s could only have happened in that place, at that time. The individual planks and/or peripheral details of Naziism which could be applied to our own era can also apply to a hundred other eras.
It's like asking someone if they're 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Experience has taught me that 99% of us are a combination of both, depending on the time/place/circumstances. When Jews sound alarm bells about a resurgence of NS, what they are doing is linking, by inference, patria, racial solidarity & Western tradition to Hitler's Nazi party (still the bogeyman of choice among tikkun-olan'es; imagine what Dr Pavlov could've accomplished with a bell and a swastika!)
The trick is to look beyond Pierce, Duke, Linder et al. Look to American & European writers and thinkers predating Nazi Germany....what they wrote, what they believed & what they championed. Dollars to doughnuts you'll find a little "Nazi" in all of them. Should we start torching our libraries, to make sure no future generations risk being tainted by Twain or Mencken or Ludovici or a hundred others? (Don't laugh - that day is closer than you think...)
2002-10-30 14:44 | User Profile
il:
If you read my last post, I think we are in substantial accord. Let me recommend to you and others here once again the site holywar.org. History is largely on our side.
thanks.