THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

FASCISM R NOT US | 2010-05-10

One guy in the 60's read an article on Nazi Parties of the world. One was in Latin America, and it pushed assimilation, including interracial marriage, the official policy of ALL Latin countries for centuries. A guy summed it up nicely, "All they've got in common with the German Nazi Party is a stiff right arm."

Most fascists, like Libertarians, are fanatically anti-white. Like Heinlein, who touted anything with uniforms including the Boy Scouts, they are obsessed with shiny boots and a police state. In short they have a Wordism of their own and race gets in the way.

The actual German NSDAP made race treason a very minor crime. As with all anti-Left Wordist, any racism they showed was incidental.

The same is true of Nationalism. Many a European Nationalist would be offended if you divided Frenchmen or Swedes along color lines. Nationalist Parties are the enemies of our enemies, but they are NOT part of us.

And as one who has practiced politics for decades, let me assure you that the closer they come to becoming part of a ruling coalition the less racist they will be. Those mythical minority votes they are trying to get by denouncing racism are a hypnotic lure that the media know how to dangle.

There is also the matter of government. Fascists and nationalists tend to identify their "nation," not by its race, but as their government.

If there was one thing all the Founding Fathers did NOT want to do in 1787, it was to found a NATION. If

anyone had said they were founding a nation, not a single state would have put the Constitution up for ratification.

If this was true in 1789 it was even more true in 1776. When Lincoln said that the Declaration of Independence "founded a nation" it was the very essence of the Big Lie. NOBODY who signed the Declaration thought of the United States as a NATION. Until he became President, Washington referred to "my country" as Virginia, as did every single other Signer.

The Declaration of Independence, contrary to what Lincoln said, was a Declaration of INDEPENDENCE.

Lincoln declared that a new nation based on equality was founded in 1776. The World War II Generation declares itself "one hundred percent American," which to them means exactly what it does to a fascist, a bunch of guys in uniforms worshipping the Constitution. One hundred percent Americans cannot be divided by race.

National Socialism has the same problem Parkinson pointed out about Democratic Socialism and Social Democrats. You have a name which includes both a means and an end. If socialism is not good for the nation, what will the National Socialist choose? This conflict was one of the reasons for the abolition of the SA and the Night of the Long Knives.

What if, as has proven to be the case, the democracy does not WANT what you choose to call socialism? The Labour Party in Britain now rejects the government ownership of the means of production and distribution with the fanaticism of a respectable conservative rejecting anything anyone chooses to call racism.

What does a Democratic Socialist DO when he can't GET socialism through democracy?

No one asks that except me and the long-dead Parkinson.

People do not THINK about it. They don't think that democracy is a means and socialism is an end.

People assume that anyone who dreams of shining his boots and marching in the streets is racial because the media says so.

The media do not always tell the exact truth.

COMMENTS (6)

#1 backbaygrouch4 | 2010-05-10 07:09

"They don't think that democracy is a means and socialism is an end." Hmmm... You could play with that the other way around too. If pure democracy is your end, could not socialism, the leveling of all individuals economically, be the means of attaining equal access and the suppression of unequal access to political participation? Wordism ends up in meaningless semantic circles.

#2 BGLass | 2010-05-10 09:44

I'm new to thinking of this, but it seems if social Democrats put to the question; some go democrat and others socialist. Lincoln may have wanted a "propositional nation." But in reality, citizens understood it as land-space with Borders, ALSO. Right now, many seem to like the old Idea ok, but not the new Borders. Or, because they saw the nation as Borders, they no longer know 'what they are.'

The global wants nations to cease--in terms of Borders AND race/ethnicity. But mostly, this leaves only "proposition/idea" or "love of the leader" to work with. Socialization for this must erase both Nation-border AND Nation-ethnicity as what citizens can use for self-definition, if the true Global Man is to be produced.

But socialization that broad must create a very "empty" human subject, in order to be THAT 'inclusive.' How much 'reality,' people have to shut out causes increasing cognitive dissonance and explosive acting out that the citizens, themselves, can't even understand. And there is only so much you can patch up with psychiatry. Also, it's more unpredictable to call which way citizens will go at any given time-- whether to Race or Borders, (or rouge Minority Leaders) which undermines control.

With increasingly Big propositions v Reality (which always keeps Happening), love of the leader can't really work if the population is too diverse, or if the Idea gets too broad to the point of meaningless. That leaves only a few options: retrench and fix, rush forward acting "as if," or some clamp down.

#3 Simmons | 2010-05-10 11:04

Heinlein's best work was about a cult of thinkers.

But like all wordists and he was very much one, they all show immense hypocracy. His showed thru because in that book the horny old goat showed his racial preference in women. In the book all the women of the cult stop aging about the peak of their sexual/attractive prime (mid 30s) and all the women become more or less identical in appearances which was very much WHITE.

But that is the achilles heals of all the wordists, white women. Hugo Chavez idiot supremo of the brown masses latest wife is blonde, never mind all the other hypocrites.

#4 Dave | 2010-05-10 11:51

Backbaygrouch,

"Semantic circularity" really doesn't get at the issue.

For example, the Mormon Church made a enormous error admitting nonwhites to the congregation. That error shifted the focus of the Mormon Church to a misplaced sincerity, away from the blood bonds of the congregation to sincerity focused on theological texts.

This is a focus on ideation rooted in words and delusion in contrast to a focus on blood descent rooted in reality and facts.

Similarly, how did Nazism run off the rails? Every single one of those top Nazis were survivors of horrific WWI battles. WWI combat was utterly mindless. There was no accounting why some survived while multitudes died. The way old time Calvinism kicked in with the top Nazis was emblematic. Hitler, like the others, simply couldn't fathom why he survived if his survival were not accounted for by "God's Will". He truly believed himself to be one of Calvin's "divine elect". He escaped too many bombs, bullets, and disease for it to be rationally accountable to him. These old time ideas of deterministic predestination and divine election were rampant with the top Nazis. That is why they were all so fearless and these convictions were grounded in their unaccountable WWI combat experiences.

Once you have a leadership whose sincerity in grounded in such ideation, a train of delusional error necessarily follows. Their sincerity was misplaced. They forgot who they were in the same way Mormons have forgotten who they are.

Similarly, if there ever was proof that Constitutions don't work, the United States of America is that proof. Americans forgot who they were at the very moment their sincerity shifted to a text.

What in the hell is "Representative Government" if you can't see just what and who is being represented? The universal voting franchise is necessarily a sincerity of words as opposed to a sincerity of facts. It is necessarily a rail of tyranny for its only function is to confuse matters entirely. It only makes sense in the world of ideation and words. For the standpoint of facts it is utter confusion.

We white people have got to get our sincerity straightened out. That involves a remembrance of who we really are. That has nothing to do with any form of ideation or texts or any commitments that are beside the point of white descent and the bonds of blood.

No "social movement" is going to get us there. The only thing that gets us there is to wake up and remember for the only way to own posterity is to directly take possession of it. That is why the focus has to be on child bearing and descent.

There is no way tyranny and the depredations of nonwhites can prevent that.

#5 backbaygrouch4 | 2010-05-10 17:06

Dave,

"Every single one of those top Nazis were survivors of horrific WWI battles." Not at all. Examples. Joseph Goebbels had a deformed leg and was unfit for combat service. It is unclear whether he ever was actually in the army while doing some office work. Hermann Goering was one of the great romantic flying aces. Battles in the sky were not experienced as mindless slaughters but as knights of olde in tournaments. Because of this he had a popular public persona apart from the Nazi connection.

#6 shari | 2010-05-10 21:25

The lynchpin to solving our political and religous problems is racial. We can only live by recovering our racial identity. This is the most important concern of the present time. It's why those of us here, find ourselves consumed by one issue.