The Promise of a New Land:
The Belief in Territory
Diverse populations, that is, in a racial sense, no matter the cosmopolis of its language, has never realized a higher culture in the real sense, at least not for long. The many attempts, including the great “experiment” of the United States, have failed. The antagonisms are many. The brutalization of the many inhabitants by each opposing “group” is natural, albeit dysfunctional, and cannot support the integrity of any given organized culture. The platitudes given the populace by its erstwhile leaders are political posturing, plain and simple. They elect to sympathize with “special interest groups” in order to gain an advantage in a “numerical” democracy; this does not promote the real interests of the “host-race” on which mores, spirit, and destiny-will the Nation/Culture was founded. This exacerbates this entire dysfunctional process. Anyone who questions this process is considered a radical by the existing order.
In ROTW, the entire concept of a rising, fledgling, and independent people, presupposes a natural and independent Political State. Without a state, there can be no real affirmation of either independence, nor freedom. As such, the dream of many of those Western men and women must, at all costs, come to grips with the reality of both a natural and geographical and State. To this end, to be sure, have been many and varied attempts to distill, and explain to the various adherents and visionaries which encompass the racial/nationalist struggle for a homeland dedicated, and created for members of the West – just as had their forefathers and mothers realized, of yesteryear.
The Rise of a New West is predicated on it.
I have often said that “…the search for Land is over…”, and so it is.
As this discussion has been in the forefront of many personal, as well as public discussions and debates, and seeing the smallest of movements, once again, in the reemergence of this basic, and pivotal role of White Nationalist policy, as it relates to the future growth of a national direction.
Moreover, I feel it is opportune to bring this discussion to the fore again, although in a more oblique, and revised version.
Rather than quote all the ‘usual suspects’, erudite and world-worn though they are, and most certainly deserve our attention, such as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Jefferson, Adams, Jay, and even Franklin, I will try and encapsulate (even offer a few quotes…a mean feat, but remembering also, to assuage those who thrive off this obligatory bulwark of fact and faith) the construct, although not the methodology, of my antecedents, our forefathers, those who made us, who gave us this elusive and mercurial process of ‘thinking for ourselves’, and thereby creating, that environ most suitable for us and our children.
It is well and good that we, White Nationalists, proceed and direct our ideas and common-sense applications of form, as it were, to our fellows, those rudimentary and common-folk who, in actuality, are our neighbors, our wives and sisters, our work-place brethren and, most importantly, to ourselves. To inculcate ideas and forms of methodology are fine, in the main, and what other recourse can we count on? The innumerable words and phrases are, of course, a necessity, until that time that necessity, itself, requires more of us.
In my mind, the penultimate Idea, or as the converse may be attributed, is that Land, or in the abstract, ownership of land, is the absolute cornerstone of White Nationalist philosophy. Moreover, the realization that soil, unlike blood, is continuous, even when changed, superficially, by erosion or man-made enterprises; blood, on the other hand, may be changed, diluted and made more malleable by indifference and lack of responsible attention.
Therefore, it is Land, in its permanent and decidedly unique inference of human habitation, that our discussion relates to a more mundane, yet not so distant interaction with ourselves and our posterity. Land, in a Western ideation, is sacrosanct, a veritable ‘holy grail’ to those independent and sovereign souls who, among the larger body of the earths populace, see the harnessing of a ‘natural’ thing, to be a duty, a responsibility of a dutiful husband man, who would till the land, thereby bringing forth the substance of life, guaranteeing him and his family, the necessities of life and, by extension, those that come after.
Yes, and what comes after?
Those who have made the study of Natural Law a life-long pursuit have, almost to the man, decidedly come to the conclusion that it is longevity, by its very nature, is that which precludes the loss of sustained serfdom. Slavery is, by all accounts, a state of un-natural affairs, although is understood by such as Ragnar Redbeard and Darwin, as a state of nature, however unsavory it might be. Nevertheless, it is to longevity that we address ourselves, namely: Perpetuity.
To ‘hold land’ at the behest of a State, or any authority is, without reservation, opposed by White Nationalists. The revitalization of a racial state is predicated upon this simple realization.
Moreover, to secure Land, proper, is the basis for action of a free people:
the inhabitants of any country who are descended and derive a title to their estates from those who are subdued and had a government forced upon them against their free consents retain a right to the possession of their ancestors…for the first conqueror never having had a title to the land of that country, the people who are the descendants of, or claim under, those who were forced to submit to the yoke of a government by constraint have always a right to shake it off and free themselves from the usurpation or tyranny which the sword has brought in upon them…’ [§192]. ‘Their persons are free by a native right, and their properties, be they more or less, are their own and at their own disposal, and not at his’ [§194].
This, of course, leads the stouthearted to conclusions, ironic though it might appear to some of us, that:
No damage therefore, that men in the state of nature (as all princes and governments are in reference to one another) suffer from one another, can give a conqueror power to dispossess the posterity of the vanquished, and turn them out of that inheritance, which ought to be the possession of them and their descendants to all generations….¶184 Once again: Their persons are free by a native right, and their properties, be they more or less, are their own and at their own disposal, and not at his. ¶1941
The insistence of tried and true methods, however, seem to have been passed by in the frenetic attempt to ‘convince’ our brethren of the ‘rightness’ of our cause; instead, we should, all of us, attempt to reaffirm the basis, yes the basic realizations of the primacy of our attempt to become a People, once again, by fostering, and inculcating every waking day, the realization that without that personal interdiction of our basic and most intrinsic need for a viable estate, firstly, of personal property, as well as the necessity to maintain this property, in perpetuity, is of the most permanent and incendiary qualities of White Nationalism.
I believe that most of us agree to two things:
1. That a ‘place’, physical and identifiable, be a prerequisite to a future homeland/ethno-state’
2. That a ‘physical’ and identifiable People populate, as the sole representatives of that people, this ‘particular’ place, so indicated.
This may be an inversion, to some, of ‘blood and soil’, but I feel it places the chicken before the egg; this does not, however, decrease the ideation of ‘blood and soul’, but only reinforces it.
White Nationalists know, or should know, that it was Law, both of the legal variety, as seen conditionally by our English forebears, as well as seen by those considering the natural variety, as the above quotes emphasize. Even Njal, in the Icelandic Saga’s, saw this clearly as “Me106 lögum skall land byggja og ólögum ey106a2,”which recognizes both a ‘discipline’ as well as a causual effect upon the relationship between the two elements.
One must, firstly, possess property, before one can lay claim legally to it.
This brings us to today’s effort to reclaim, as well as establish, a real territory, an ethno-state, in which we might begin, again, the long process of revitalizing our status as free and sovereign people; to accumulate wealth as our skills support, and begin the long and perilous route of establishing a viable Industrial America, that productive state in which we can, honestly, compete with ourselves, as well as others, to build a nation consonant with our advances in technology and our innate desires.
Once we have convinced our people of the ‘natural rights’ of possessing, in a generational setting, the environment in which we live, we may better and more forcibly, remain fixed to our ‘place’, thereby inculcating and making real, our duty and obligation to our Nation.
Such is the hope of White Nationalism for all our people.
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
John Jay ~ First Justice of the United States
Funny, how History repeats itself.
The body of works enjoined by John Jay, The Federalist Papers seems, at first glance, to be opposed to the whole discussion of White Nationalism, separation, and secession from something that, to most of us, is sacrosanct, traditional, and a model which has, and will, work for our lifetimes and that of our children. Moreover, throughout, and in spite of their combined efforts, John Jay and his contemporaries, were nationalists, creating something where there had been only allegiance, and superficial interaction with Authority which, by historical experience, was not enough to temper the ideals and spirit of men who had seen a greater vision, a vision which emboldened and made clearer the choices which would mold their lives and the lives of all of us, their children.
The irony, which many observers may assign to inexperience, that men like John Jay and James Madison were federalists, in a modern sense, would have been opposed to a modern day schism, or absolute separation from the present system is, of course, a matter of conjecture on the part of these same said observers. In any event, the characteristics and political implications, as seen by the present day White Nationalist exactly parallel the experiences of the above writers.
The experiences of today, in fact, far surpass the original founders in both form and function. At least on this Continent.
The belief, by many, that the time is long past, in which the grievances of this generation may be addressed by political maneuverings, and cultural modification is over. Moreover, gone are the dreams and hopes of a generation, in line with tradition and white ethno-based historical imperatives with which they were raised.
The irony at first blush is apparent.
We are a country which houses Fifty States, each unique, both by its own landscape and by its political evolution; joined in a ‘federation’, this uniqueness is subsumed, as Mr. Jay and others hoped, for in the bonding, in the unity, was the only hope for a fledgling nation. Ironic then, indeed, is the conversation of dissolution when looked at through the eyes of others.
Yet, not so different.
White Nationalists are looking for another unification, a unification based on the same elements of race-culture and similarity, just as Mr. Jay saw when he penned the lines above; the interconnected relationship is racial, no matter the slings and arrows of the Modern and his various allies; the interconnected land mass, the network of water-ways, and the natural pathways to collective responsibility – in short, the need for a re-unification of those body of persons related, by blood, to those very authors of the federalist papers.
More and more material is being penned each and every year regarding the premise of a new Republic:
I’ve since learned that those calling themselves “white nationalists” are not necessarily nationalists in the sense of wanting to secede from the United States in order to form an independent ethnostate. Most, I think it’s fair to say, are racially conscious conservatives who want to work through the existing institutions to regain control of the country their ancestors made — in order, ultimately, to dismantle the present anti-white system of preferences and restore something of the white man’s former hegemony.
By contrast, white nationalists in the strict sense (i.e., those favoring secession) have no interest in restoring the old ways, let alone regaining control of the central state, whose authority is already slipping and whose rule is increasingly dysfunctional. Indeed, the American state system, as its more astute supporters acknowledge, is now beyond reform.
Instead, white nationalists aspire to create a counter-elite to lead disaffected white youth in a movement to found a whites-only nation-state somewhere in North America, once the poorly managed enterprise known as the United States collapses in a centrifugal dispersion of its decaying and perverted powers.
Without an organizational presence in the real world and with a “public” largely of computer hobbyists, white nationalists at present have no hope of actually mobilizing the white populace in opposition to the existing anti-white regime. Rather, their immediate goal is to prepare the way for the development of a revolutionary nationalist vanguard to lead the struggle for white liberation. They aspire thus not to recapture the rotting corpse of the US government, but to free themselves from it — in order to be themselves, in their own land, in their own way.
White nationalists, as such, politically define themselves in wanting to create a sovereign state in North America. They endeavor, therefore, not to “put things back the way they were,” as conservatives wish, but to rid themselves of them completely.
A National Revolution, they hold, will alone restore “the white man to his rightful place in the world.”
Inspired by the birthright handed down by the blood and sacrifice of ancestors, their project, relatedly, is not about restoring the Third Reich, the Confederacy, or Jim Crow, as leftists imagine, but about creating a future white homeland in which their kind will be able “to pursue their destiny without interference from other races.”3
The embryonic White Nationalist movement has, to date, evolved quite well into that nascent and implacable child, with the drive and intelligence of an Alexander, Aristotle, and the barbarism of Leonidas. These disparate elements have taken a relatively short life-cycle to adhere, in the main, to the calling of Race, ideology, and the transvaluation of what has gone before; through the dim pubescent phases of instruction and experience, to the ‘new youth’ of today, what has evolved is, well, as is to be expected: No more, No less.
Through the din of personal attacks, vitriolic gossip mongering, and those few lucid and bright souls who, personally and collectively, maintain a purpose and vision for the future, it is as it should be. Or is it?
One thing that has always occurred, is the ‘peer review’ system, that systematic approach to those happenings and occurrences which ofttimes lend fuel to the fire of discourse and evolution but, also, lends to the obfuscation of those issues most dear to the continuum of this, our White Nationalist imperative. Those Pragmatists and Optimists, each offering their innermost desires and vision of that future which would bring the greatest happiness, independence, and sovereignty to their fellow man. All movements and theoretical experiments lead to this interplay between personalities and ego, between individualism and the collective spirit. Each are necessary, and each has a place in the Once and Future West.
As is expected, many voices have given us their input: the status quo of governmental employees, semitic jealousy, the hangers-on of traditional Christianity and its various offshoots, the revolutionaries, the rebellious, the common working class, and the ineluctable division of our intelligentsia. The written word abounds, both for and against our cause, our hope. Words, without a story, however, are like so many rivers, running together independently, never fully realizing the Source. That source, to be more precise, are those individual stories of individuals who, collectively, become the anchor-point, the harbinger of those thoughts and developmental tactics, which have brought us here, to our present presence.
White Nationalists, even today, fall into that chasm of misleading and obtuse reckoning by dividing, or letting others divide us as, ‘supremacists’, ‘Jim Crowists’, and traditional ‘nativists’ who, fearing for our lives and power, continue, in ways oblique, so as to misdirect our detractors and, hence, deprive our opponents of their own justice, waiting to be meted out, to those who dare remind themselves, and the world, of their sense of purpose and hard-won hegemony. As in days past, this contest of world-views remains fixed, and only real and ineluctable Power, will ever change this. This, as well, is old news.
Modern, young, and inexperienced zealots of White Nationalism have, to date, been prudently or, in more marked designations, been purposely kept from a larger nationalist view by members who, early on, were more revolutionary in scope and action. Men like Robert Miles, or Tom Metzger who, each in their own right, held views of the common man, not as dupes or potential ‘membership’, but saw their People first, and foremost, as being a part of an organic strata, that necessary ‘work force’ of the greater mass led, not strictly by devices of the word, but by action in the political realm and in the streets. Most intellectuals of the day, even as now, showed little or no commonsense in regards to the efforts and successes, by such individuals as these. In our present efforts, the same hydra lifts her tired and scaly heads.
The naive and redundant proclamations of ‘categories’ of White Nationalist, runs through every imaginable arm-chair warrior/patriot within the White Nationalist movement; designations which, for the most part exist, and conditionally were created, by white men during extremis within the confines and, the necessity of, the times in which they found themselves, but which are now being used against us in a comprehensive and heavily subsidized attack on all White people. Titles such as, Klan, Neo-Nazi, Creator, Christian Identity, Christian patriot, Neo-Confederate, Council of Conservative Citizens, skinhead, revisionist, militia/paramilitary, underground terrorist, paleocon, race realist, and populist are, nevertheless, used interchangeably, to the detriment of our movement, by our detractors, as well as ourselves, continuing the disconnect of our disparate elements. This could well have been side-stepped by the intellectuals and publishers who, rather than see a changing and brighter future, closed the door to their mushroom abode, and continued to declare that the sky was falling. Even the word White Nationalist, was not utilized until relatively recently, and only grudgingly.
The longing for preemptive discourse is a reality now, as it was thirty years ago; Louis Beam, for instance, received little or no positive support for his ‘revolutionary rhetoric’ back in the early 80’s, even so, his positions on tactics and strategy were well-grounded, and have proved successful, albeit limited because of the imperiled virtues of the mainstream conservative, unlike the Left, who heartily has embraced Bill Ayers, the father of the SDS, and the various sycophants of Che Guevara, Marx, and Lenin who, today, because of their unapologetic balancing between ‘activism’ and ‘political’ altruism, have gained the preeminent position within the political and military machine of our nation. All this, because writers, institutions, and those who represent them, did not fail to support financially, and to collectively support in times, both good and bad – one should not forget the example of the Chicago 7 – nor the Lawyers who defended them, unlike the cowardly response to the men of Robert J. Mathews’ die Bruder Schweigen by those arrogant and conservative nay-sayers of the Right; both groups political and direct action oriented. One group, however, continued to grow in stature, and the other, relegated to obscurity, not by the government, they did their job, but by the erstwhile individuals who, while not being of this caliber, failed to carry these efforts to the folk-at-large, thereby making the same examples which, inevitably, leads to that mythos so necessary to the survival of a revolutionary movement, cease to exist before its time.
Those who subscribe to the mainstream, those milk-toast patriots, will forever be with us. It is the duty of our intelligentsia and its accompanying Press, to remember the past, and its mistakes, with a new strategy for the future, namely, to ferret out those spokesmen and writers who, while on the fringe, nevertheless make for honest copy. Until this happens, no ivory tower, or its illusion, will save them from the disconnect of their People, because of the lack of knowledge and information. Alas, where are the brave newspapermen of yesteryear, closer to the folk, and unhindered, except by their own moral code of sympathy and understanding for the downtrodden amongst them?
Where were the tellers of tales, of newsworthy reporting when discussion of the terms Territorial Imperative, or Leaderless Resistance were gaining momentum? Where was the spoken and written works regarding the acronym ZOG – Zionist Occupational Government – which played such a major part in the radicalization and extension of the white reaction to the dismemberment of their way of life? It must be noted, again, that these terms, not just in a rhetorical sense, were a full-bodied casus belli, of earlier belligerents reacting to a declaration of War individually, and collectively, by a transparent and ever-reaching agenda by interests not of our making. This history, so rich in the telling, has hardly gone noticed by serious publishers and writers; William Regnery will publish Pat Buchanan, but not Louis Beam or David Lane; Noontide Press will address historical and revisionists issues, but has always failed to address the present day activists, theoretician, and seers produced by this, shall we admit it, War, in which we all, most assuredly, are embroiled in.
Some material abounds in which the old and the new of White Nationalism could benefit by, which are works by relatively unknown persons, at least within those inbred circles of white nationalists, such as Committee of The States (Cheri Seymour), Silent Brotherhood (Flynn/Gerhardt), Ruby Ridge, and The White Separatist Movement in the United States (Dobratz/Shanks-Meile).
Not much material, to be sure, and not even written by our own, but for one exception; nevertheless, valuable in its reach and informative tone. Information, at the time of these events, was easily obtained, either from direct sources, or second hand, with verification being more readily available, it was not taken advantage of, either for honest comparative analysis, or for the certain largess to be received from this effort. What could have been the reason? Were writers in scarce supply for the efforts of the Chicago 7? Hardly. There is the rub: one group showed courage, yes courage, in the face of overwhelming odds and social criticism, yet it was done, and done again, to the betterment of their cause.
The repetitive whining of all and sundry, about what to do, is nothing less than shameful. As any normal, or bright person could see and anticipate those things heart-felt, or publicly prudent in terms of extending our White Nationalist views, we failed, as a movement, to take advantage of our own sacrifice and vision. Yet, the same continues today. Mirrors, are made for reflection, and a useful tool they are. It is not the reflection of Psyche which we seek but, rather, the reflection of our own persona, our own truthfulness, in what and how we face the future. All it takes is knowledge and dedication, with the courage to take a risk, to stand for something, not just to belong to a club or social back-slapping orgy, that is for lesser persons – not White Nationalists.
To address ‘revolutionary soldiers’ in the field, as ‘gangs’, is the epitome of a mainstream conservative, at least an individual who, at the outset, is still fundamentally flawed in his or her outlook, within the confines of our political and intellectual activities which, as well, oftentimes brings what it does: revolution. We decide our nomenclature, not our opponents.
Revolution in thought is, perforce, a wellspring of our ideology, as the past several generations have left us, any of us, with few alternatives. Better we embrace the destiny set before us, rather than re-hashing the old and timid appraisals of the past, with the same expectations and finality expressed therein.
Who is to remind us, and inform us, as to these events, thoughts and political direction? Surely we, as intelligent and independent writers and speakers, should not give more than passing attention to those who have already published works that, at more than a casual glance ignore, or misrepresent the hard-won attempts and victories of our kind. Where, for instance, is the exhaustive Biography of Ernst Zundel, Richard Girnt Butler or Thomas Metzger, early pioneers of both thought and action? Fame of A Dead Man’s Deeds should have been financed by our own, written by one of our own, not to discount the ‘awakening’ of Robert S. Griffin, author of this inspiring work.
It has been mentioned by few, very few persons, that of men like Wilmot Robertson, who published his own works, out of pocket, with nary a advertisement by mainstream or small town newspapers, even though we had members of Staff, editors, and reporters who saw the genius and truth of his Dispossessed Majority, and the seminal importance of his The Ethnostate. Slackers, all, who failed in their support of an idea which, at the outset, was easily digestible by mainstream America, not to mention the potential largess by these efforts for all involved.
The internet, as a viable medium has, to date, filled our expectations of the future with regard to discussion and debate. Yet, to date, the general public is still enchanted with ‘published’ authors, and assume that the internet is still relegated to the ‘kooks’ and opinions of the mob, never having had the chance to participate in the volks geist of a majority ethos, of which some of us were fortunate enough to have experienced. This is for the near future however, and it behooves us, all of us, to inculcate that singular presence of mind, which will only come about if we, ourselves alone, work diligently and collectively, to promote those ideals which, in their own right, play their parts in creating and establishing that Once and Future West!
The rancor and fear, of the ordinary man on the street, needs more attention than simply the yea-saying of the seer and poet, he needs the public discourse, as was the usual fare a generation ago, without the burden of ‘permits’, when ‘free association’ actually meant a clear and distinct freedom to associate with ones neighbors, in american-style public discourse; why not demand this, for instance, in print, instead of the continuing masturbatory debates about the ‘colour of crime’? Demand these issues, as a matter of course, for our readers and fellow citizens. How about ‘free access to our own Land’? Ownership of private property, of useful and necessary commodities like Cattle, Agriculture, Poultry and the like, with the right to sell, independent of government oversight, with nominal State interdiction regarding health procedures, being necessary to a free people. These are issues which, with only a glance, will mark us free or slave, in the coming years. Very few, indeed, will fight for truths which, although pertinent in ways the common man may not see, but who will, nevertheless, fight for rights if, and he must be exposed to this, that mark him as master of his own ‘ship of state’, not beholden to this pernicious world order, this plantation mentality, which even the share-croppers of old, maintained more freedom and nobility than our modern counterparts.
This was the tenor of the early White Nationalist, discounted by settled and traditional individuals, and for their lack of vision and courage, the tragic dispossessed remain engulfed by treason and empire, unworthy of their name. To the Bards of White Nationalism, you have an obligation and duty to promote, without fear or favor, those issues dearest to the long-term happiness of our people, no matter the discord, which may, for a time, ensue.
The common man believes in himself, but has little telling voice; let those who are able to speak, speak in words clear, resonating with bold truth, political foresight, and the ways and means to facilitate these visions. We have little time to waste.
Within this framework, as opposed to the modern reality of a ‘multi-cultural’ America, that traditional Homeland of original settlers and pioneers, those of European stock who, through blight, hunger, inevitable ethnic warfare, as well as the simple duality of human nature, carved out with their bare hands, a common presence, a common ideal, and a common people out of many, and diverse Peoples, related, but characteristically independent, sovereign, arrogant, and pious in their singular and specific view of each and every opposing world-view, a legacy dominated by religion, warfare, and fear.
It was never a peaceful process, the process of carving out a Nation. Struggle never is.
Today’s progeny, those children of today, increasingly, know less of these antecedents and more of a new parentage, an adoption really, of individuals who, unlike them, neither see, feel, look, respond, or spiritually comprehend what is natural, right, beautiful, and intelligent for the survival and extension of what, for now, is held by fewer and fewer individuals who see the vision of today’s world through the eyes of their ancestors.
However, these children are here, they remain, living and dying, keeping both a memory and a dream alive, no matter the intrinsic evolution, and changing of the guard of yesteryear; like their ancestors, need and desire are of sterner stuff than can be quantified in cursory assessments or political careers based, not on that mystical quality of the ‘dreamer’, or the esoteric logic of ‘freedom’, but on status quo, on the absolute value of control. No longer are we one, great, connected People, designed by Providence to acquire, work, harness, and nurture the natural elements for the betterment and continuation of a particular, unique, and fragile people, a people which, at first blush, belongs to each of us.
What, then, as the dream fades, and the inherent discomfort continues unabated, do we, you and I, do?
Moreover, if resolution is possible, either in our lifetime or that of our children, what shape, contour, or specific design do we aspire? This has been the question for at least the last two generations, lost in a fog of controversy and historical persuasion, changing from one generation to the next since the “War Between The States’, and the continuous maneuverings of political parricide. Is Life really so dear, that we purchase this gift with the chains of Slavery and abrogation?
Below, an article presented in the tradition of debate, and education between peers and folk which, by extension, simply accommodates the essence of the specie: The pursuit to discover what is ours to achieve. It is hoped that the pursuits in which the entire nation is being drawn, ineluctably, into the future will develop, as all new passions, into that birth which will, also, define the person in his majority.
This is an old discussion, but with new blood and bone assessing the value and inadequacies might, just might, receive a new and bolder import in the coming days.
ALL of Western man’s ethos has been based, in large degree, on the supposition that the ‘leader’, the doer, is behind all that is good; Pericles, Caesar, Frederick Barbarossa, Gustavus Adolphus, Napoleon Bonaparte, Hermann Arminius, Vercingitorix; or, if you like, Aristotle, Goethe, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Daedalus (two of my favorites), Erastothenes, the List on both accounts, is too long to repeat.
In each and every case, it is self evident that, with time and a following, that is to say, the head and the body, they lead in their respective fields, and led well; some succeeded or were denied success in the military realms, but even in the chaos of their destruction left, in marked contrast to the jooish mind, positive instruction and example. For instance: we have the Code Napoleon, the legacy of Pericles, and many other well known ‘heroes’.
Compare these efforts, in life or of the pen, with those who would have you, or force you, to restructure your past, and merge into theirs. That of the CHEKA, NKVD. Pol Pot, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky…the list goes on. Hmmm, decisions, decisions…I wonder.
No, hero worship is part of OUR psychology, it is a mechanism which brings both chaos and power; it is tenuous, bold, calculating; it is not always liked, nor understood at the moment, but it is behind all cultural change and restoration. It is not a ghost of the Past, but a warm-blood of today, a legacy which is granted to each generation, in vitro, sometimes needed, sometimes cast aside, but always with us.
One, particular observation, which has made itself manifest to me over the years, was when I first climbed aboard a civil war era Cannon, resting comfortably within its ‘sand box’ setting, open-mouthed, its spoked wheels well taken care of, steel pitted, but shiny blue, carried me well; I resonated with the inherent metal surface, its cold steel warming to my tiny grip. Scooting down the length, I fell to the soft sand below and began walking towards the large Fountain, with its gurgling, undulating stream of water, radiating a harmonic (as I understand it today) sound, relaxing one’s mind and body. Atop the grand pedestal was a marker of Bronze, a Monument – a term which has, ineluctably and with malice aforethought, been taken from us, from each small village (lately, this has been the theft by mestizos, and gutter whites for money), each small town, and certainly from every Major Cosmopolis in our once great Nation – for these are spiritual things, they are sacrosanct to our very selves, our psychology depends upon these subtle, intangible, yet living things, for by their very nature, their distinguishing characteristics, describe to us, their children, the Memory of, as was the case here, an Officer, a leader, sword out, pointing decidedly in that unique and, perhaps, romantic visions of the ‘charge’, and of victory.
I never have forgotten that experience; but after that, I never saw a new one, a new location or artistic resonance. New Parks, sure, but never again did I see another face, another ancient memory, looking back on me; psychology, to be sure, but not the jooish remonstrations of Oedipus, or Freud’s perverse and simple sexual desires that he would, no doubt, foist upon the goyim. Not the beauty and memory of a time, OUR time, in which, even in ‘civil war’, there were lessons to be learned, of Honour and Duty, of dying and living, of extension. Yes, these things and more, have been taken from you, from all of us, but individuals who understand that to destroy ones enemies, one must firstly, deny that host the very marrow of its own body, and the mind cannot exist without the body – that is to say, a picture, a description, of that body which will, forever, look down upon its children with strength, character, and that direction of purpose which, truly, only a Hero may bestow.
Can we, any of us, anywhere, create these monuments? Try it! Perhaps, some small hamlet, some forgotten township, but anywhere else, no chance; it would be racist, forced to comply with the urban cosmopolis of Canaille, of racial hell, denying us, you and I, something to be proud of, to quietly and gracefully come, meditate, and let that sense of yesteryear, produce the strength and direction for the Future. No, this Theft is complete, and there is no restoring it; you, all of us, must never submit until we have, once again, that place, that great attempt, to lay claim to our own Land, our own Nation – only with this, will our children, and grandchildren, ever be able to share such simplistic and powerful emotions as those mentioned above – their psychology already dead upon its birth.
Lift UP your heroes, at whatever level, the real blood and bone of your people, not the spiritualized fantasy of the ‘otherworldly’…place your value, for now, with your People, your family, and your comrades, and protect the weak, work with the strong, and we shall overcome what has become, the legacy of NOT remembering where, truly, a strong psychology is begat – in the hopes and dreams of a People.
National Pan-Aryanist Party – Position Paper, 1989, NPAP Press.
1 John Locke, Second Treatise of Government (1690)
2 “By law is the land built; by lawlessness (unlaw) destroyed”
3 Michael O’Meara – Toward the White Republic, 2009. http://www.toqonline.com/2009/08/toward-the-white-republic/