The New York Times published an anti-Trump, anti-nationalist op-ed piece ('White Collar Supremacy', 25/11/2016) and Southern nationalist Hunter Wallace wrote a rebuttal to it. I think Wallace's reply will become a landmark essay; at the least, he intended it to be.
Here is an extract:
I’ve been involved in this scene for 15 years now and know it inside and out. I think I know what makes these people tick. The ideal of the White ethnostate – a vague, romantic vision of White kids running through cornfields in some place like Iowa – isn’t motivated by hostility to other races.
The White ethnostate is attractive because racially and culturally anxious Whites associate it with security and stability. In the White ethnostate that White Nationalists envision, there are no non-Whites. No one is lording it over oppressed black people. There is nothing like slavery or Jim Crow. There are no gas chambers or cattle cars. It is more a vision of Mayberry than the Third Reich. Mayberry, that’s dark.
Imagine a world of cishet White males going about their lives with nary a thought about social justice. In the White Nationalist utopia, you can turn on your television and Jamelle Bouie isn’t there because multiracial democracy and all the perpetual strife and racial antagonism it generates has ceased to exist. To be sure, Ta-Nehisi Coates hasn’t been reenslaved on a Southern plantation. He isn’t stepping into the sidewalk and tipping his hat and saying “howdy, bossman” either.
Maybe Ta-Nehisi Coates has reached a zen-like state of self-fulfillment after becoming a senator in a dashiki in Liberia? In this world, Jamelle Bouie can finally sleep at night in a Tanzanian ujamaa village without being tortured by the white supremacy of the Trump administration. No one has to worry about White cops shooting the black kids anymore. Black Lives Matter was disbanded because black people were granted their independence. In her youth, Sarah Silverman was known for her vulgar performances. After the White ethnostate was achieved in 2048, this raunchy old Jewish lady is still alive and cracking jokes, albeit in a Tel Aviv nursing home.
The White Nationalist vision of paradise is simply not having to deal with these people and their bullshit anymore. If marriage isn’t sacred, why should the nation-state be sacred? Why is the liberal world order sacred? Why is multiracial democracy sacred? Why can’t the “pursuit of happiness” be a divorce?
Don’t you believe this because Whites are superior? Surprisingly, the answer is not really – it’s just that, I want to live in a secure and stable country, not this clusterfuck we have today. I want my children and grandchildren to look like me. I want them to be proud of their ancestors. I want them to grow up in a normal White country and to have a bright future. I don’t want to see my community transformed into the Star Wars bar scene. To be perfectly honest, White people today have fallen into a pretty sorry state.
My response, which is somewhat theoretical and abstract, is as follows.
Politics is a plenum, where space is occupied at every point, and the opposite of a vacuum; in that space, we find multiple participants contesting against one another for political power. None of the actors can be completely destroyed, nor can they fade away; they won't renounce - ever - their claims to political power. Your only recourse, as a contestant in that arena, is to fight them and take that power from them. The likes of Ta-Nehisi Coates, Sarah Silverman and Jamelle Bouie are participants in the game, have possession of political power, and just like a football team in possession of a ball, won't give it up willingly. Therefore you need to fight.
In politics, the struggle of ideas - ideologies - can be compared to a Darwinian struggle for existence. Ideologies proliferate across the surface of the earth, and compete for scarce resources; those which have developed adaptations which make them uniquely fitted to survival will live, and flourish, and reproduce; those that don't, will go under. The Hitler doctrine is that 'Life is struggle', meaning that the good things in life - good political things - must be fought for. They are not delivered to you on a plate. Hitler shares this view with the Marxist-Leninists, and fascism - and German National Socialism - has more in common with Marxist-Leninism than any other ideology. Both fascism and communism are doctrines for fighters. This is one of the reasons why fascism has survived - since its defeat in 1945 - all attempts to destroy it and thoroughly extirpate it. We all know, after the war, what the Allies did the Germans in order to remove the 'scourge of fascism', but France and Italy must be looked at in this connection as well. After 'liberation', perhaps 90,000 French perished at the hands of the communists and the French Resistance; in Italy, the number of people killed by the communists and the partisans reached the tens of thousands. Fascism survived such ravages, and it has survived some truly horrible leaders in the post-war era: think of personalities such as Harold Covington, Frank Collins, Bill White, Erich Glebe, all of whom have given 'National Socialism' - Neo-Nazism - a bad name. Many of today's self-declared 'National Socialists' are skinheads, yokels, degenerates, weirdos, snitches... In this group of bad 'Nazis', we find people who are poor ambassadors for the Neo-Nazi ideology and for the white race as a whole. (Hunter Wallace disparages these people as 'vanguardists'). Yet the Neo-Nazi idea soldiers on - and on. It has been around seventy years, and will be around long after assorted fads such as the Alt-Right have gone.
Hunter Wallace's vision of 'white children running through cornfields' seems - to most of us in the movement - healthy and decent; but to many of our opponents - and there are more of them than there are of us - it sounds downright evil, malevolent and disgusting, even. This is how warped and upside down Western politics has become. Being an 'advocate for whites', wanting to help 'white people' - such words and phrases are toxic in contemporary political discourse. In the movement, we don't understand this, because we are so up close to these ideas. We read forbidden and subversive material online every day, and have become so accustomed to it that we stand in danger of walling ourselves up and living in a bubble. The 'Normies' don't think in terms of race, and when they hear racially-charged words and phrases, they duck and run for cover. They believe, correctly, that such talk will get them into trouble with the authorities.
Trump's victory will bring about immigration restrictionism, in America and elsewhere in the West. But the Left - who are still in charge - will put up a tremendous fight against it. One of the weapons they will use - unfailingly - is the Holocaust. In October of this year, British Prime Minister Theresa May put forward some fairly moderate proposals to restrict immigration from the EU. This led to the usual hysterical reaction from the Left and comparisons to the Nazis:
Immigration was the key issue in the June 23 vote for Britain to leave the bloc, a result that sent shockwaves through Europe and the global economy, and sparked political turmoil at home.
May's government this week proposed measures including urging employers to publish a record of how many non-British citizens they take on, and toughening rules on non-EU foreign hires, as well as tightening visa regulations for foreign students.
These have provoked some furious reactions, from critics who accused May of a lurch to the right.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan said the list plan sent a "deeply worrying message to the millions of people from around the world living and contributing in our country".
Tamara Rojo, artistic director of the English National Ballet, said the proposals evoked memories of the Holocaust.
"After 20 years contributing to this great country... how long before I am made to sew a star on my clothes?" she said.
National Socialist Germany never practised such measures, of course, but the point is moot. The Holocaust will be brandished at every opportunity in the coming years and will be used to club us - the white Western people - into submission. These analogies will be inappropriate, but the Left isn't given to rationality and sanity.
Only a head-on approach will work. The Holocaust story must be blown to smithereens - shown up to be part of the Jewish religion (and hence a lie); likewise, any atrocity lie told against the Nazis (by the Poles, Czechs and Russians) must be exposed. The latter duty must be performed even if Polish, Czech and Russian nationalists are offended; we can't claim to represent the interests of all white nations. If we are to choose between Neo-Nazism and Eastern European nationalism, we must take the former over the latter, because it, being German in origin, belongs to the Culture (in Spengler's sense of the word) of the white, Western European peoples.
The anti-Nazi propaganda of the 1930s and 1940s gives us a more accurate picture of the doctrine than today's, because it mostly lacked references to the Holocaust tale, which came to prominence in anti-fascist and anti-Nazi propaganda by the 1970s. The American anti-Nazi saw German National Socialist and Italian Fascist Man as brutal and cruel, but possessing of a certain swagger, vigour, vitality and virility. The flamboyance and theatricality of his rituals put his countries on a par above the Western democracies, and fascism worked - there was less unemployment in Germany under Hitler than there was in America under Roosevelt. But whatever good that existed in Italy or Germany was marred by the fascist's brutality and insatiable lust for dominion (Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia led to sanctions from America).
An element of truth existed in that American, British and French anti-fascist propaganda. I object to the Holocaust Revisionists - while at the same time recognising that they have done great work - on the grounds that one, they lack a political theory and two, in their desire to do away with all the (largely baseless) propaganda against the Germans, they end up making the German people into victims and turning the 'hard' Nazis 'soft'. To me, those 'hard' elements of Nazi theory and practice will prove to be useful in years to come; and the Left is terrified at the prospect of the return of the 'hard' Germans - this is the one thing that keeps them awake at night.
The paradox is that Hunter Wallace's vision of 'white children running through cornfields' can't be attained except through 'hard', fascist methods. In other words, in order to get back to healthy, clean, safe and sane, white all-Americanism, you need to go full Nazi. That's the message of the poster for the TV series Man in the High Castle (2015-) above. For many 'movement conservatives' - such as Mr 'I grew up in a house next door to a cornfield' himself, Vice President-elect Mike Pence - that's too much to bear. Americans would end up losing their 'liberties', their 'freedoms'. At the least, the present order must be overturned.
The Left understands the paradox: Americanism - the old, decent, safe and sane Americanism, what Ayn Rand (who was accused of fascist sympathies throughout her career) would call 'rational' - can only return through fascism, or something like it. That's why the Left equates Trumpism and 'Making America Great Again' with the most coarse and brutal doctrines - KKKism, white supremacism, Neo-Nazism... Below is a screenshot from the lunatic American Maoist political cult / group, Bob Avakian's Revolutionary Communist Party:
And here is a rather amusing caricature of Trump looking like Gerhard 'Gary' Lauck, the eccentric old American Neo-Nazi of the NSDAP/AO:
My message to the movement is: don't fight these comparisons, embrace them - become what your enemy fears. We need to go on the attack.
But, you say, the Normies won't like it. More so than the Left - which never, never worries what the Normies will think of it - we are constantly looking over shoulders in fear of what the nice, normal everyday people will think. My answer to that is that we can't ever know, for certain, what the Normies do think; we only know how they vote at election time - and we don't know the reasons why they voted as they did... What specifically made the American electorate prefer Trump to Clinton? We can't say. The electorate resembles a mute and inarticulate beast: it makes decisions, but again, we don't know - and cannot know - the reasons behind those decisions.
In our political discourse, we must invoke the past, the history, of our people and our civilisation; but that's too much for some of the 'moderates' in our movement, who believe that we must speak continually of the present and must never refer back to the past. But again, the Left never stints when it comes to teaching history and theory; it indoctrinates the youth with rather intense (by today's academic standards) studies of Marx, a German theoretician from the 19th century, and the history of the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Communist Revolutions, two events which took place - in countries far away to most Westerners - nearly a hundred years ago and seventy years ago respectively. The Left doesn't underestimate the intelligence of the working-classes and their capacity to learn, and neither should we.