The latter quite frankly makes me feel bad as while it is their choice; I don’t think it is right.

Further I hadn’t realised how much crossover there would be between the two there would be as - for example - I had created the two Substacks before I started my work translating the original documentary evidence for ‘Generalplan Ost’ and putting it in context nor had I any idea how much doing so would provide further evidence for the Revisionist Population Transfer counter-thesis concerning the ‘Holocaust’.

So thus what I have decided to do is fold ‘National Socialism Made Simple’ into ‘Semitic Controversies’ (the smaller Substack into the bigger Substack) with the posts on ‘National Socialism Made Simple’ being re-published on ‘Semitic Controversies’ daily along with new articles and essays in addition to the normal ‘Semitic Controversies’ schedule.

I’ve scheduled them so they appear an hour after the daily ‘jewish invention’/‘jewish origins of’ (7 a.m. EST) so they will appear at 8 a.m. EST.

Further in gratitude to the double paying subscribers I’ve extended their ‘Semitic Controversies’ paying subscriber accounts to ‘Lifetime’ so they don’t need to pay any more as I think that is only fair. All ‘National Socialism Made Simple’ subscribers (free and paid) have been consolidated into the ‘Semitic Controversies’ subscriber list so apologies in advance if any of you get double notifications.

Kindest Regards,

Karl,

As I read through Jean-Jacques Rousseau's ‘On The Origins of Inequality’; I came to realize just how much of the fundamental tenets of ‘equality’ today derive from this small booklet written by the French Philosopher in 1754. It is therefore with this in mind that I find it of pressing importance to address specific claims made by Rousseau and thereby individuals in modern society today.

Rousseau attempts an explanation of man in his natural state (1) and the state which he describes man in is a condition that is void of all government, of all civility and stripped of all signs of modernity. A cave man in other words. It is the contention of Rousseau therefore that institutions are the primary cause of inequality since it requires mankind to adapt in a way that is not natural to his predispositions. (2)

This perspective on man and the origin of inequality remains - as can be seen by reading popular books and observing mainstream political and intellectual discourse - to this day a popular one.

I've heard it claimed countless times that if two individuals of two entirely different races are born in the wild and left to fend for themselves void of education, civilization and other ‘luxuries’ that there would be absolutely no distinguishable difference between these individuals at all. That they would in fact be completely equal.

The claim is however a flawed one and one which we might be able to forgive Rousseau but not modern men and women for accepting it as a fact. What modern man conveniently forgets (and what Rousseau may not have known) is that man's natural state is never a constant. We are organic creatures and like any other organism we adapt and evolve with one single purpose in mind: survival of ourselves or our offspring.

Thus to believe that our ‘natural condition’ is that of the caveman is an inaccurate assumption. Institutionalizing and organizing ourselves into a community exponentially increased our ability to survive whatever came our way. Of course even this is an imperfect method and it can in some cases even threaten the survival of the organism - that man has laboured throughout thousands of years to find out the best way to achieve through government and institutions - that is to say to extract the absolute maximum from the community and thereby to ensure maximum survivability of the organisms that are part of that community.

More astonishing is the fact that Rousseau makes note of the fact that the blacks in the Caribbean had no future sense at all. (3) He states that blacks would sell their cotton in the morning then come back later crying for it back the afternoon not having realized that he may have needed it later on. This Rousseau believes is man's natural predisposition based on the notion that the black man is closer to man's natural state than the European.

The issue with this however is that there is little consideration placed on the fact that different races have different Temporealisation and Temporecognition; that is to say that each one race perceives things differently and in different time spans. If our natural predisposition is - as Rousseau contends - to have no sense of future needs and wants then European man would never have foreseen the need for cultivating crops nor for storing large quantities of food nor for preparing safe and warm housing for the winter.

It could be argued that the increase in population demanded that Europeans undertake this sort of preparation and that it was only as a result of this that man foresaw the need to store. However this contention is flawed as well. It was through agriculture that the European population expanded rapidly and if not for a future sense then we'd have had no way of foreseeing the future starvation that would result from a lack of proper preparation and foresight. It is not ‘civility’, the arts or ‘education’ that created this future insight but the manner in which European man's mind functions due to its biology.

In support of the contention that any perceived natural differences are merely institutional Rousseau cites an example as evidence. (4) It is his contention that if man is to forsake all inclinations and behave in a sheepish manner (to do precisely alike with no variation a-la Thomas More’s ‘Utopia’) man would immediately be far more equal than he is in current society. But this in itself suggest a contradiction of his previous assertions because it would indicate that man would have to actively force himself to forsake such things as communication, behavioral differences, likes and dislikes and behave in precisely the same way as everybody else. Thus making this an unnatural condition and not a natural state. That which is natural comes without force and is a logical sequence of adaptations that lead inextricably toward a single harmonious goal.

As can be seen from this brief review; there are a lot of Rousseau's beliefs that are still pretty common in modern society.

It is commonly believed by people that institutions are the cause of the inequality between Europeans and blacks as well that it is socio-environmental factors that create this rift between the success of one and the failures of the other. The claim remains to this day that when placed in exactly the same environment both will have equal success and thrive equally.

And as I've shown this is extremely flawed logic.

It is man that creates his environment not the environment that creates man and it is precisely because of the biological differences between them that this rift exists.

Whether you improve one area or not; the end result will remain the same. One due to a lack of future sense on the part of blacks who would see no need for improvement and only concern themselves with issues that relate to the present, while Europeans will always seek to advance and always find a need to know and understand more.

I am certain that there are those who would argue that it would be the case because the blacks lack the proper education that the other one has, however, consider why this is the case?

It is not as though they have been denied this opportunity!

‘Yes, but they have a culture that attacks education’ might be the response.

Indeed! So why's that? Perhaps because they see no need for this?

Different races, different values.

Not even compelled education at Harvard would create a sufficiently potent ‘socio-environment’ that would cause blacks to become equal to Europeans..

Subscribe now

References

(1) ‘Discourse on The Origin of Inequality’, pp. 4-6 (Dover: 2004)

(2) Ibid., pp. 24-25

(3) Ibid., pp. 7-12

(4) Ibid., pp. 24-25

As an individual that is primarily concerned with the issue of race and the apparent differences in governing between the European and Negro races (irrespective of its alleged democratic universality), I have always striven to understand what precisely it is that caused these differences and in some cases clear inability to retain that which had been provided for by another race of people. I have always considered it a practical concern to attempt and understand what precisely the alteration may have been to make this such a fundamental gap; a gap which to this day cannot be bridged either by education or by environmental change.

There are many issues raised on this matter in an attempt to reach an understanding of these quite apparent differences in ability. I.Q. and brain size being one such example. Environment and its influence another: i.e., the need for continued advancement to combat the colder climates gave the European the upper hand over the African who enjoyed a tropical climate. The problem with these explanations is that they all have a sort of dual purpose or function to them as it is always the concern of those of the liberal persuasion to use precisely these arguments in defence of their positions on society.

The Negro for instance - the liberal would have you believe - has a lower I.Q. because education had been denied him, i.e., that it is directly proportional to knowledge. Or the socio-environment wherein he lives is one that is not cohesive enough to support continued education. That the Negro is in essence completely equal to the European and the only thing that prevented a civilization on par with that of Europe was that socio-environmental factor so frequently abused. Neither explanation therefore provides any definitive solution when it comes to understanding these differences in development.

But what if there was a third option to consider?

An option that might account for the above as well? What option you may ask yourselves at this point?

Well, quite simply put: it is Temporealisation and Tempocognition.

I have mentioned these two points in my forthcoming review of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's ‘The Origin of Inequality’, but didn't endeavour to explain them in full, the reason for this is because it is an idea that is too expansive for a review on a booklet of such a small size. And it is also one that deserves attention of its own.

I stumbled onto ‘Temporealisation and Tempocognition’ after having read the 1964 ‘Now Men and Tomorrow Men’ by the South African doctor and writer G. M. Mes. I had an epiphany of some sorts after reading Mes’ book and all the pieces came together and explained in unison what it is that is the central cause of this substantial difference. It is of course required that I explain these two concepts of ‘Temporealisation and Temporecognition’, but I wont be so impudent as to steal the limelight on an idea that is not my own so I will quote you the words of Dr. Mes and provide a brief explanation as to what they entail:

‘I take Temporealisation to mean the quality of the awareness of location in time - or- the inclusion of time in the conception that a living thing has of its world.’ (1)

In other words: Temporealisation relates to the depth an organism is aware of itself and its location in time, either past, present or future. Having all three of these is of course the more desirable and more complex of the organisms that exists. Different creatures have a different sense of time, this sense of time is not equally developed among all organisms, which everyone would naturally agree with if you are to suggest that the way you perceive the present and utilize it for the purpose of the future is not equal to that of a lion or a deer. The more we go back in the chain of evolution the more we realise that lesser creatures - in so far as they are compared to us - have a sense only of the present (in other words immediate survival) and in rare circumstances have a small sense of the past (able to retain a certain amount of information acquired for survival), and naturally the higher we go within the order of nature the more developed this awareness becomes. Until we finally reach man and where we simply refuse to even discuss the notion of biological inequality in any respect - or if we do, its in the most ridiculous fashion humanly possible - this of course to make it appear a trivial and insignificant part of life.

But before we continue we must also define and explain the concept of Tempocognition:

‘Tempocognition is an ability allied to intelligence and, as such, largely genetically determined.’ (2)

Meaning in other words that Tempocognition is a form of cognitive ability and as such is a factor related to intelligence. That is to say that: it is the analysis and application of knowledge for the future combined with the ability to make or build those future images into reality.

Now that we have explained these two concepts, we must examine how these two elements affected the evolution of man.

Let us begin by the very point at which we recognize the rise of man.

The turning point for man had for a long time been considered as the day he decided to keep his weapon and put it to future use rather than to throw it away. (3) This is in fact an indication of a developed future sense - albeit not an advanced one - but at that point man foresaw that he would have need of this weapon again. His future sense continued to develop through his experiences in the present and with the constant use of his weapon he foresaw future ways in which he could obtain superiority over his foe using as little energy as possible and with more effectiveness than his current weapons permit.

Thus he fashioned for himself different types of weapon fulfilling different functions such as to defend himself as well as to hunt with. These armaments were by no means perfect, and by using the same realisation and cognitive abilities he fashioned them from stones and from bones, firstly to give them better piercing ability and secondly to make them last longer. These new weapons required less frequent sharpening and were more usable.

The process was repeated numerous times over millions of years continuously advancing the design of the bow and arrow, the spear and eventually the sword.

And it was precisely this process of Temporealisation and Tempocognition that played such a crucial role in the development of civilization.

The Neolithic period ushered in a primitive concept of farming; I say primitive because irrigation, manuring and rotation of crops was not something early Neolithic man did. In fact the planting of crops was not even done on what one would consider a farm it was quite similar to the ‘agriculture’ conducted by the blacks which continued to be random in nature. This however does not take away from the significance of the period when man used his Tempocognitive ability and realised that seed turns into a plant nor the Temporealisation in the understanding that this could be used to ensure a steady supply of food in the future.

And as with all things - the more man observed nature the more his understanding of it grew - and the more he absorbed the more methods he contrived for himself using his creative mind to extract the maximum from nature and even at times do so against nature in order to maximize his survival. Solving the riddle that rain was not the only source that nourished plants man created irrigation, figuring out that manure made the soil fertile he made use of it to serve his goal, he set aside land for this very purpose: an area of land to be nurtured specifically to function as a source of permanent food which became the first farm.

We could go through numerous examples that would indicate that at one point in the past man realised that he needed something or that a certain thing fulfills a certain role within nature or for that matter that there is a problem that needs to be solved and he used his cognitive ability to solve it. But my cited case is a prime example which demonstrates how this very small detail is so frequently overlooked. It may already be obvious where this article is heading - and what it is that I'm about to suggest - but for those who don't quite yet know I will complete the puzzle.

There exists a popular belief in modern Western culture that all Africa needs is an injection of funds and the creation of educational systems to restore its nature to that of the colonial period. This belief is based on a poor understanding of blacks, their history and the quality of their Temporealisation and Tempocognitive ability.

People need to realise that governments grow out of the people they govern: they are a product of the people and they aren't separate from the people.

Democracy is something that has not lasted in Africa for even as much as a quarter of a century and it has always reverted to a savage system of brutal tyranny concerned only with its leaders wants and needs. The natural form of governing for blacks in history was very much the same; where the wants and desires of their king were the only thing that mattered.

Putting this aside though; let us return to addressing this popular claim about blacks.

As previously mentioned; the blacks had no clear understanding of farming, up to the 1600s they maintained only an understanding of agriculture at around the level of early Neolithic man but their continent of Africa was - fortunately for them - subjected to influence from various advanced civilizations for their period (i.e., Egypt, Islamic and European civilizations).

At no point throughout the thousands of years that had passed did the blacks retain the knowledge of any of these civilizations. Instead they reverted back to that quality of Temporealisation that they are capable of and to that range of their Tempocognitive ability.

Blacks saw no future use for writing, education (that is the passing on of knowledge), of using their cognitive functions to improve their environment or situation nor any use for any of the wonderous things provided by these civilizations during their extended periods of contacts with the blacks.

Just as blacks reverted back to a sub-standard life after Egyptian and Middle Eastern influence had all but ended so they reverted back to this self same sub-standard way of life after Europeans ceased to be an active part in their day to day life.

In former White country of Rhodesia the black man howled at Europeans to give back his land, then after he kicked the Europeans off the agricultural soil and taken it for himself. He failed to make any use of land which throughout European existence on it provided an abundance of food.

In South Africa the land reformation process serves the same function. Virtually all - if not all - of the land previously owned by Europeans and currently in the hands of blacks had turned into barren wasteland and countless resources have been (and continue to be) spent by the government with no return on the investment. (4)

‘Ah, but one must educate them!’ the staunch egalitarian exclaims. And here is where we can address the source of the socio-economic environment or the ‘culture’ that exists inside blacks that frowns upon any and all education.

In order for education to be received by the pupil; the pupil must realise that there is a need for it and as can be seen throughout Africa there simply isn't much emphasis placed on it just as before there was no emphasis placed on its importance.

Even in America they frown upon education and label their fellow blacks as ‘exhibiting White behavior’.

First one must perceive that a problem exists then one must work to find a solution.

As Mes aptly states:

‘Solving the problem was not difficult, seeing it is.’ (5)

Even if we were force education on blacks and make it compulsory upon pain of death it would they fail to achieve anything because they simply have no desire for it. And desire is one of the key requirements necessary in order to develop knowledge it is also a fundamental necessity in realising the value of something. Even if we are to assume that a black achieves good grades and attends school like those who ‘exhibiting White behaviour’.

We must we ask ourselves the question on whether or not the black man is in fact capable of making full use of the knowledge that he is taught.

Does he in fact have the cognitive ability to take that knowledge and create something with it?

Can he apply it to benefit him in the long run (the future) or is it just a matter of mimicry?

When a problem completely unrelated to his education - which will always serve as merely a guide to common problems and solutions in your area of expertise - occurs within the field of his expertise would he in fact place two and two together and solve the problem?

In my experience it has never been the case.

I have observed countless blacks that have worked in/performed a specific occupation for years on end while also observing what is done by the European but never being fully able to innovate solutions to irregular problems. If told what to do they will do it without any problem, but do they actually understand what they are doing? Why it is necessary to do it? What could happen if it is not done?

That they fail to do these tasks without supervision indicates the opposite to be the case. This is why despite having an exceptionally long period side-by-side with Europeans they still aren't able to perform the rudimentary tasks required to maintain a civilization even close to that of Europeans.

The black man is concerned mainly with the present - the ‘Now’ - he has not the quality, scope or the intensity of Temporealisation and Tempocognition required for him to have a long future sense and more-so to make use of it in the present for the his own benefit in the future.

It may at first appear reasonable to suggest that should blacks obtain enough experience they could in fact acquire a more developed sense as European man had through his experiences with weaponry and agriculture, industrialization etc. But this is not the case as had been demonstrated above. They are (and have been) provided with ample opportunities to observe and learn through formal and informal learning as well as gain work experience with other races. So they can adapt and apply the knowledge so acquired to solve problem.

This inability most be rooted in biology.

It is not the vast gap from the 14th century to the present that creates this inability to make use of what they have learned from other races through trial and error. For we see in Asians the clear example that it must be biological. Since Asians took note of Europe's fast progress that had left them far behind - and more importantly - they realised their own need for that same technology (seeing the problem) and why it was necessary.

Certainly one could point to this or that black man that has managed to do something meaningful with his life - depending on one’s subjective view of a ‘meaningful life’ is. But in the end this does not negate the trend, an exception to a rule does not per force disprove or negate the rule.

There may be one or two black men out there that would in fact contradict what I am saying, but the truth is that the capacity for this type of civilizational and inventive creativeness and problem solving is not common among their people. While people often like to believe that we all have the ability to be a Gauss or a Leibniz - perhaps even a Tesla - if we really put our minds to it; it remains merely a fantasy borne from narcissistic hope rather than from knowledge.

We are governed by our biological limits.

We may dream of glory, fame and wealth, but if it is not within our biological capacity to obtain these things then these dreams will always elude us. I am no proponent of equality and I will not even venture to suggest that Europeans all have the same quality, scope and cognitive processes. But I will venture to say that if the same questions are posed to each European in their respective fields; they would in fact be able to understand what they do, why they need to do it, what could/would happen if it is not done and can in fact react to unforeseen circumstances by putting two and two together. Each one has a future sense and each one has a cognitive function that differs is its quality and its scope.

Blacks, however, are simply being with the present and a future sense of at best only a few months compared to years and decades among Asians and Europeans.

Subscribe now

References

(1) G.M. Mes, 1964, ‘Now Men And Tomorrow Men’, 1st Edition, Afrikaanse Pers-Boekhandel: Johannesburg, p. 5

(2) Ibid., p. 6

(3) Ibid, p. 18

(4) For instance, see: Philop Du Toit, 2004, ‘The Great South African Land Scandal’, 1st Edition, Legacy Publications: Johannesburg

(5) Mes, Op. Cit., p. 25

I don’t say giant of our time lightly. Modern National Socialism has many heroes – some spoken of in awe but most unknown everyday heroes who continue fighting in this twilight age – but Mr. Bond in many transcended them all and put into musical form the rage, hatred and disgust what the growing army of underground National Socialist activists feel about the modern West and its jewish overlords and ‘people of colour’ modern untouchables who cannot be blamed or do wrong.

He laughed in the face of machete-wielding blacks, acid-throwing Arabs, dog-molesting Asians, shrieking leftists as well as prancing faggots and not only talked of putting the kill counter for the death camps on live TV, but instead also sang of his despair that Adolf Hitler left us to fight alone as well as his hope for the future with the rising young generation increasingly aware of the lies we are told and their jewish origins.

Despite rather vapid attempts by professional ‘anti-Fascists’ (aka paid corporate stooges) to try and minimize Mr. Bond as a ‘Far Right Weird Al’ (3) and attempts to exploit his arrest to try and split ‘the Neo-Nazi community’. (4) This simply hasn’t worked as his back catalogue is still regularly uploaded to sites as disparate as YouTube and Archive.org.

As it turns out Mr. Bond was arrested not because he had actually done wrong, but because Stephan Balliet – who conducted the Halle Synagogue shooting on 9^th October 2019 – listened to Mr. Bond tracks (5) while failing to do anything very much at all (he injured three people) having been foiled by a locked door of all things and because Mr. Bond has translated Brenton Tarrant’s manifesto ‘The Great Replacement’ into German (which is rather like trying to prosecute William McCants for translating Abu Bakr Naji’s ‘The Management of Savagery’ into English).

This led to the occupation government of Austria charging Mr. Bond rather ludicrously with ‘terrorism’ which promptly got thrown out by a judge who apparently didn’t get the memo that ‘all Nazis are ipso facto domestic terrorists’. (6) This didn’t stop the jewish-controlled media in Austria claiming that Mr. Bond was still ‘a terrorist’ and trying to claim he was ‘being funded’ by ‘American Nazis’. (7)

In the end this vicious smear campaign worked and Mr. Bond was nonsensically given ten years in prison for ‘racist parody songs’ (which isn’t actually a crime as otherwise such rap songs as Jadakiss’ ‘Fuck You’, Future’s ‘Lil One’, Eminem’s ‘Kim’ and 50 Cent’s ‘Patiently Waiting’ would not only be banned in Austria but the singer-songwriters thrown in prison too) and translating Brenton Tarrant’s ‘The Great Replacement’ into German (I am still waiting for William McCants for example to also be charged by the legal system in Austria). (8)

The kangaroo court even claimed that Mr. Bond had a ‘special dangerousness’ which while utterly untrue goes to show how powerful Mr. Bond’s music was and is because the occupied government of Austria claims it can ‘cause neo-Nazi terrorism’. (9)

Mr. Bond wasn’t especially ‘dangerous’ in the sense the jewish stooges in the Austrian court meant it (i.e., ‘neo-Nazi terrorism’), but rather he was (and is) beyond especially ‘dangerous’ in a different sense. That is because his music is in tune with Generation Z (Generation Zyklon) and the Generation that is coming after (Generation A or Generation Auschwitz). What the occupation government of Austria and international jewry are especially afraid of is not Mr. Bond inspiring or conducting ‘neo-Nazi terrorism’, but rather his music inspiring the young members of the Aryan race to revolt against the rotten jewish-controlled system and to take back their racial inheritance and then call those who did this to them to account in the court of popular justice.

That is why Mr. Bond is the new Horst Wessel and his music is the new Horst Wessel Lied to which the new generation marches.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://kurier.at/chronik/oesterreich/rapper-in-kaernten-wegen-nazi-inhalten-verhaftet/401175856

(2) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/02/austrian-rapper-mr-bond-arrested-over-neo-nazi-songs

(3) https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvxbz3/neo-nazi-rapper-known-as-a-far-right-weird-al-arrested

(4) https://ww.siteintelgroup.com/Far-Right-/-Far-Left-Threat/neo-nazi-community-reacts-to-arrest-of-infamous-austrian-neo-nazi-rapper.html

(5) https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000123909571/festnahme-des-nazi-rappers-mr-bond-wir-werden-nehammer-haengen

(6) https://www.kleinezeitung.at/kaernten/5933791/Einpeitscher-des-Terrors_Auf-den-Spuren-des-NaziMusikers-Mr-Bond

(7) https://www.derstandard.at/consent/tcf/story/2000131775782/neonazi-rapper-mr-bond-der-beat-des-rechten-terrors

(8) https://www.krone.at/2670208

(9) Idem.

‘Why do you want to play with toy soldiers Karl’ is a common enough expression not because there is something wrong with it, but rather because when you have a successful career, a family and are on first name terms with your gym’s staff. You aren’t usually associated – at least in the mind of modern society – with something that is thought to supposedly primarily appeal to older children and badly-aged socially-awkward nerds. However as much as society’s characterization of many 40k fans is true – and let’s be honest there are more than a few neckbeards and weirdos in the 40k fan base – there is also a strong element of established, successful and almost always male fans and players like me.

There are also other truisms concerning the 40k fan base: it is very white (1) and very right wing. (2)

This is not widely known outside of the 40k community (and is actively portrayed (3) to be the opposite by the media), (4) but you can see it raises its head in leftist shrieking (5) about the ‘evil fascism’ (6) of the Imperium of Man (7) and the fact that the ‘Gamergate’ ‘anti-SJW’ leftovers – such as ‘Arch’ (formerly ‘ArchWarhammer’) – (8) are at pains to deny that the Imperium of Man is ‘fascist’ in any sense of term.

The fact that ‘Arch’ and people like him deny this is hardly surprising given that they identify as ‘classical liberals’ and/or as ‘libertarians’ and such an identification would call into question the morality of their hobby (or at least imply they are supporting the statist/fascist bad guys of the 40k universe [the closest to the ‘good guys’ of 40k are probably the Tao although GW deny this]) (9) in their own minds as well as those of others.

However I do agree with ‘Arch’s’ reasoning (10) in that the ‘Imperium of Man’ (the main 40k faction which consists of numerous sub-factions such as the Imperial Guard, Space Marines, Sisters of Battle, the Inquisition and so on) is not really ‘fascist’ in any kind of ideological or intellectual terms given that fascism advocates a corporative economic model that breaks economic units/industrial down into self-governing ‘corporations’ that are then responsible to the state.

You could rightly argue that this corporative socio-economic model which defines fascism intellectually and ideologically actually debunks the core of ‘Arch’s’ argument that the ‘Imperium of Man’ is ‘not fascist’ by pointing out that while the many planets and systems that make up the ‘Imperium of Man’ can be made up of any kind of political system you can think of (democracies, dictatorships, monarchies, theocracies etc.) this doesn’t debunk the idea that the ‘Imperium of Man’ is ‘fascist’, but rather confirms it if you assert that these planets and systems are merely run as the self-governing corporations within an authoritarian corporative socio-economic framework that is the basis for fascism’s ideology and vision for society.

That said it is worth noting that there is a substantive problem with labelling the ‘Imperium of Man’ as being ‘fascist’ which neither the leftists shrieking about 40k ‘not being inclusive’ (11) and ‘Arch’ and his confreres being autistic neckbeards about so-called ‘classical liberalism’ haven’t really picked up.

This is the fact that the ‘Imperium of Man’ doesn’t conceive of its citizenry in any but biological terms.

What do I mean by that?

Well, the ‘Imperium of Man’ spends a great deal of energy, resources and time classifying what a biological human is, what acceptable mutant strains are (such as navigators, sanctioned psykers, ogryns and halflings) and what are not acceptable mutant strains (such as beastmen or just general mutants). Being an unacceptable mutant (which is almost all mutants in the 40k universe) means you are subject to extrajudicial extermination by any agent of the Imperium or Imperial citizen who can be bothered to kill you, or you are used as effective slave labour with no right to life or liberty (such as is shown in the Eisenhorn and Kal Jericho novel series).

Even the unacceptable mutants have it good when compared to non-humans (‘Xenos’ in the parlance of the Imperium) however since the rule for non-human civilizations is always complete extermination of non-humans and execution of any human supporters as traitors of their race (aka Xenocide). Since said Xenos are understood to be an afront/obstacle to humanity’s destiny to rule the galaxy which has led to some notable wars involving ‘younger races’ such as the Damocles Gulf Crusade (which was prevented from exterminating the Tao Empire only by the timely advent of an unrelated but marauding Tyranid Hive Fleet) as well as ‘older races’ (such as the Iron Warriors failed campaign of extermination against the Hrud during the Great Crusade).

In essence the ‘Imperium of Man’ conceives of race and racial purity as being the most important thing – besides loyalty to and faith in the God-Emperor – in its governmental priorities and ideological prescriptions.

What this means however is that the ‘Imperium of Man’ cannot actually be ‘fascist’ in any meaningful way beyond the commonplace leftist pejorative description of anyone from Adolf Hitler and Francisco Franco to Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump as being ‘fascist’.

This is because ‘fascism’ as represented by the major self-described ‘fascist’ governments - such as Francisco Franco’s Spain and Benito Mussolini’s Italy – didn’t (and doesn’t) recognize race as part of their ideology in any meaningful sense and instead focused on the individual and the community in terms of creating an authoritarian socio-economic system based on corporatism.

The only ideology that actually mirrors the ‘Imperium of Man’s’ focus on race and racial purity as well as its desire to root out and destroy all potential and actual biological and ideological enemies both outside and inside its borders is National Socialism.

To quote the National Socialist philosopher Savitri Devi:

‘The central idea of National Socialism is that in the natural nobility of blood alone, source of the inherent qualities of the race, lies the secret of greatness. It is no use asking why one race is more gifted than another; why one has creative genius and others not. It is as silly as to wonder why a plane tree is not an oak tree.’ (12)

The difference to fascism is aptly explained by the anti-Nazi Catholic archbishop and philosopher Fulton Sheen as follows:

‘During the war there were three evil philosophies of Communism, Nazism and Fascism. The only difference between the three was the difference between murder, killing and taking life. All three were alike in the destruction of the human personality; the difference was in the way the personality was destroyed. Communism absorbed a man into the class, Nazism into the race, and Fascism into the state.’ (13)

In summary then: fascism focuses on the individual’s relationship to the state and National Socialism focuses on the individual’s relationship to their race.

Add to that the general mirroring of National Socialist institutions within the ‘Imperium of Man’ – for example the Inquisition and its three Chambers Militant operate rather similarly to the various branches of the SS and the transition from the Imperial Senate to the High Lords of Terra mirrors the original governmental ideas of Joseph Goebbels for a racially-based senate (14) transitioning into the reality of Führerprinzip-based government of a few ‘lords’ speaking in Hitler’s name – and the fact that in 40k humans are invariably portrayed as White (and usually northern) Europeans. Where they superficially don’t appear to be such - as in the Imperial Guard of Tallarn and the Salamanders Space Marine Legion-cum-Chapter - it is because of environmental or genetic biological qwerks and not due to racial origin (Tallarn was carpet-bombed into being a desert planet during the Horus Heresy and the Salamanders Space Marine Legion-cum-Chapter have a genetic flaw causing them to have black skin but European facial features).

Add to that further that the sources of inspiration for the 40k universe – such as Frank Herbert’s ‘Dune’ and Robert Heinlein’s ‘Starship Troopers’ – also base significant portions of their fictional universes off of National Socialism and/or the Third Reich and it becomes obvious in the extreme that the ‘Imperium of Man’ is not a ‘fascist’ government but rather is a National Socialist one.

No amount of GW bleating about the ‘Imperium of Man’ despite being ‘driven by hate’ (also a phrase much used to describe National Socialism you’ll notice!) is purely ‘satire’ (15) can hide the fact that when we talk about the ‘Imperium of Man’ we are talking about National Socialism in space.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.themarysue.com/warhammer-40k-fandom-fascism/

(2) https://www.vice.com/en/article/9358ke/the-warhammer-40k-community-is-trying-to-weed-out-its-far-right-faction

(3) https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-59563630

(4) https://www.pcgamer.com/games-workshop-fights-back-against-fascist-hate-symbols-in-the-warhammer-40k-community/

(5) https://www.polygon.com/22791668/games-workshop-warhammer-40k-hate-groups-imperium-imagery-statement

(6) https://wargameexplorer.com/post/iwarhammer-40k-fascist-racist-misogynist/

(7) https://www.themarysue.com/warhammer-40k-fandom-fascism/

(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0nSZ_L6Wto

(9) https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/11/19/the-imperium-is-driven-by-hate-warhammer-is-not/

(10) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0nSZ_L6Wto

(11) https://www.wargamer.com/warhammer-40k/gender-critical-women-space-marines

(12) Savitri Devi, 2005, [1952], ‘Gold in Furnace: Experiences in Post-War Germany’, 1^st Edition, Historical Review Press: Uckfield, p. 6

(13) Fulton Sheen, 1954, ‘Life Is Worth Living’, 2^nd Edition, Ignatius Press: San Francisco, pp. 277-278

(14) Joseph Goebbels, 1992, [1931], ‘The “Nazi-Sozi”: Questions and Answers for National Socialists’, 1st Edition, The Landpost Press: Valley Forge p. 27

(15) https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/11/19/the-imperium-is-driven-by-hate-warhammer-is-not/

Yet it is clear with the failure of the Trump supporters on 6^th January 2021 to persuade legislators on Capitol Hill to vote against and reject Joe Biden’s nomination for the Presidency by means of mass protest and the much reviled ‘invasion’ of Capitol Hill that resulted in the deaths of four Trump supporters – most famously the unarmed martyr Ashli Babbitt – as well as a policeman (from what appears to have been a heart attack). As well as Trump’s subsequent betrayal of his own supporters and his own betrayal in turn by most of his so-called ‘allies’ and ‘fellow conservatives’ in the Republican party such as Vice President Mike Pence and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

That parliamentary and electoral politics are no longer a viable vector for change in the United States. Add into the mix the subsequent wave of repression against Trump and his supporters with Twitter (now X) and Facebook permanently banning him, key supporters such as General Mike Flynn, cartoonists like Ben Garrison and long-time Republican talking heads like Rush Limbaugh. And it becomes readily apparent that the System/Deep State was conducting a deep purge of any perceived source of opposition so that never again can the people of the United States rise up behind a non-System/Deep State approved leader.

It should be no surprise that leading neo-Conservatives such as Lindsey Graham not only welcomed this but actively championing extending the purge further so that they could – in essence – retake the leadership of the Republican party from what remained of Trump’s supporters and get back into the business of sacrificing American lives in the interests of Israeli foreign policy and selling off American industry to China for their own personal profit.

Since to them - as the early neo-Conservative and former Marxist Donald Johnson remarked – ‘Mass approval is the basis of dictatorship: and not, in itself, of democracy.’ (1)

In other words: what Donald Johnson and Lindsey Graham believe is that both you and me have no right to approve or disapprove of their actions as our self-appointed ‘democratic’ leaders and that any government that reflects the will of the people is not in fact a democracy but a dictatorship.

Such ridiculous reasoning is at the heart of the System/Deep State’s belief that you and me cannot be trusted to make an informed decision and need to be told what to do by professional managers such as Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi. It is also why the FBI was so quick to clamp down on the largely peaceful Trump supporters who ‘invaded’ Capitol Hill on 6^th January 2021, but yet were utterly incapable of doing anything when Antifa were beating up Trump supporters and BLM were torching shops and businesses as well as randomly assaulting White people in the streets.

It wasn’t a lack of capacity to sort out the problem – the FBI have after all had years to collect information on and deal with Antifa and BLM – but rather one of will. Antifa and BLM are the System/Deep State’s pets and proxies where-as Trump supporters were reviled as ‘fascists’ and were to be exposed, purged and ruined economically as well as socially.

It was (and is) a dark time in the United States but there is a cause for hope.

Since both Trump presidencies have completely failed to live up to their rhetoric – there is no wall, illegal immigrants are still flooding over the border, tech companies are still acting like news and information broking cartels, tranny bathroom rights are still on the books, blacks are still burning down as well as looting everything in sight and the United States has been drown into spending hundreds of billions of dollars attacking Iran by jewish influence and the power of the Israel Lobby –his constantly increasing number of former supporters will increasingly awaken from their slumber and see that the enemy isn’t going to allow them to play the game by the rules. So therefore, the rule book has to be thrown out and they go from being radical to being revolutionary.

What do I mean by that?

Well what I don’t mean is going around storming the Winter Palace so-to-speak – as the Bolsheviks did in 1917 – as while that would be symbolic and gratifying in the short term. It simply wouldn’t achieve anything but a pyrrhic victory as the strength of the System/Deep State is not rooted in symbolic buildings like Capitol Hill, the White House or even the Pentagon.

The strength of the System/Deep State is that it has tacit and active compliance from the people it governs and in so doing they feed the System/Deep State. This feeding the System is in both supplying their sons and daughters to serve in its ranks as well as by paying their taxes which then allows the System/Deep State to pay them and thus they have the excuse that ‘they are just doing their jobs’ (aka the Eichmann defence).

These are what Johnson called the ‘cogs’ of the System/Deep State because they are what keeps it running and relatively effective. (2)

Now it is true that as mandatory ‘diversification’ of federal and state departments and services in the United States is enforced it will result in a corresponding reduction of effectiveness such as seen in South Africa and the United Kingdom where police forces have more or less given up on arresting people for petty and even some serious crimes such as assault, burglary, theft and even manslaughter. Nor are they alone as in France and Sweden the police have effectively ceded areas of control in major cities to migrants from the Islamic world and refuse to police them.

Yet we cannot count on mandatory ‘diversification’ to bring the System/Deep State down and enable us to enact meaningful, revolutionary change. Instead we have to stop feeding the System/Deep State as Louis Beam rightly observed when he identified the servants of and monetary contributions to the System/Deep State – aka ZOG (‘Zionist Occupied Government’) – as being the crux of the continued existence of the situation in his day as well as in ours.

The solution to this is not – as James Mason argued in ‘Siege’ – to ‘drop out’ and then by some sympathetic magic the System/Deep State will just ‘collapse’ as this simply forgets the need for collective as well as individual action. After all, if you just ‘drop out’ they’ll just give your job to Pablo - lately of Tijuana – or Shaquisha from the Projects and while they won’t do your job as effectively. They will still do it and will also continue to pay taxes doing it. Thus, enabling the System/Deep State to continue to function.

After all, why did Hilary Clinton go from Flower Power to Power Dressing?

She realized that ‘dropping out’ – as the jewish-led US Hippy Movement (look up Ira Einhorn if you don’t believe me) advocated – was a failed strategy and merely resulted in a loss of power and socio-economic isolation for the advocates of ‘Flower Power’.

What did she do?

She went into the boardrooms and the corridors of power as part of the much touted ‘Long March through the Institutions’ famously advocated by the jewish socialist Saul Alinsky who adapted his ideas from those of the Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci.

The Hillary Clinton strategy is not really open to us because we do not have time to wait – with an aging White population with a lower than replacement birth rate as well as significant amounts of interracial unions – but we can adapt her basic idea with the fundamental truths espoused by both Beam and Mason.

To do this we have to look back to the early 20^th century and the hero that defined it: Adolf Hitler.

Now say what you like about Hitler, but he was in many ways the ideal American ‘new man’ as he was a brave soldier, a self-made man (after all he went from being a homeless drop-out on the streets of Vienna in 1913 to being the leader of a global superpower in 1933) and – contrary to received wisdom – a rather shy and kind man as even his most violent detractors will admit. (3)

What can we learn from Hitler?

After the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch in November 1923 – to which the 6^th January ‘invasion’ of Capitol Hill by Trump supporters has been compared – (4) Hitler was imprisoned and the NSDAP declared illegal.

So, what did Hitler have his supporters do?

Change their name of their individual clubs and associations into being some other communal activity – usually Sports Clubs – and continue on with the work but without being superficially political. And yes, like the modern RICO and anti-terrorism laws deployed by the United States; some of these clubs and associations were picked off by the System/Deep State. Yet enough survived by superficially transforming themselves to allow them to wait out the wave of repression from the System/Deep State.

We have to remember that the System/Deep State is not invincible. It has many different priorities and calls on its very limited resources so as soon as you go ‘away’ as a problem then it tends to take its boot off your neck and then you can move. This is what nationalists were undergoing from 2021 to 2024 as they were having to retreat and reform as their clubs and associations were raided and shut down one by one.

What was (and is) needed is to maintain community and communication until such time as the System/Deep State takes its boot off our neck and moves off in the assumption that we are dead or so badly wounded we may as well be. Then we have to look to fight the System/Deep State by tackling its principle pillars: recruits and financing.

This is where Hitler’s synthesis works so well because the NSDAP – once it became a legal party again – it had spent years quietly building community networks and becoming one with the people in every facet of life – from the farms to the factories to the front-line forces – and propagandizing people communally by the concerted actions and conduct of individuals.

It wasn’t a revolution in the sense of ‘storming the barricades’ but it was a social and communal revolution that was based on an individual helping themselves and – as modern self-help gurus Carol Dweck and Jim Rohn might put giving themselves the right ‘mindset’ and ‘character’ – then giving back to the community and through so doing evangelizing and mentoring that community by their character.

This is where the twin pillars of the System/Deep State identified by Beam can be materially impacted: communities. If military families no longer encourage their sons to serve in the System/Deep States forces at all or as a career (i.e., stay in for the minimum amount of time to get all the training you need, get your GI bill and VA rights) and also actively attempt to pay as little tax as legally possible (i.e., ‘Drop Out’ as Mason and Clinton originally saw it but without allowing them to simply replace you).

Then that is going to materially impact the System/Deep State in a way that will reinforce the ongoing and increasing competency problems caused by the forced ‘diversification’ of departments and services. This then will in time create a vacuum as the System/Deep State is forced to spread its declining resources over the same area as before or to abandon areas – as the police have done in France and Sweden – to be tacitly ruled by the community with different laws: in their case Sharia and in our case traditional law and order.

We would then be able to return to traditional Aryan communities that were governed by those the people respect in the name of the people for the good of people rather than by distant unaccountable federal and state governments that are composed of those the people don’t know let alone respect who operate in their own financial and ideological interest and rule based on the barely camouflaged philosophy of the divine rights of kings.

Is this de facto creation of tacit ‘National Liberated Zones’ or Nationalist Autonomous Communities enough?

Clinton’s success as well as that of the broader jewish-led ‘march through the institutions’ suggests not. We need people not to ‘infiltrate the Republican party’ – as the Alt-Right famously argued in 2015-2016 – but rather to focus on remedying specific problems that we have on the right.

The first is that of money. All too often have we seen successful nationalists get bought out by jewish donors – usually connected to the state of Israel – or by donors with more moderate beliefs who sing the swansong of ‘moderation means political momentum and eventual success’ such as Marine Le Pen and her party LFN as well as Jörg Haider and his party the FPÖ.

We need people to make money their business not just because we need ideologically reliable sources of funding but also because in a future nationalist state. We will need people who know how to make money work for us so that we do not have to rely upon or utilise people who were part of the System/Deep State who were so key in the betrayal/corruption of Trump and the populist nationalism that he has become leitmotiv of.

The second is that of expertise. We need people who are experts in their practical and intellectual fields – from construction to law from engineering to history – who can assist communities in de facto liberating themselves from the System/Deep State without forcing them to rely on those connected with or beholden to the System/Deep State.

In summary: we need to both accelerate the decay of the System/Deep State while also accelerating the development of the replacement for the System/Deep State from the ground up. Difficult and fraught with personal danger to be sure, but we have to ask ourselves the question: if not now when?

To paraphrase Goebbels: ‘What the Republicans wanted is irrelevant. What they have achieved is what’s important.’ (5)

They have achieved worse than nothing.

Now is the time when the most radical are only just radical enough.

It is time for revolution.

Subscribe now

References

(1) Donald Johnson, 1948, ‘The Ends of Socialism: The Reflections of a Radical’, 2nd Edition, Christopher Johnson: London, p. 133

(2) Ibid, pp. 103-104

(3) See for example: James McGovern, 1968, ‘Martin Bormann’, 1st Edition, Grosset & Dunlap: New York, pp. 22; 26

(4) For example: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/opinion/us-capitol-violence-is-the-attack-similar-to-germanys-beer-hall-putsch-in-1923-6314661.html ; https://www.jpost.com/us-elections/chaos-in-washington-conjures-up-coups-and-dark-past-654517 ; https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/08/opinions/capitol-attack-beer-hall-putsch-authoritarianism-weaver/index.html

(5) Joseph Goebbels, 1992, [1931], ‘The “Nazi-Sozi”: Questions and Answers for National Socialists’, 1st Edition, The Landpost Press: Valley Forge, p. 8

• Five counts of encouraging terrorism

• Four of disseminating terrorist publications

• Two of terrorist fundraising

• One of possessing material useful to a terrorist

• One of possessing racially inflammatory material

• One of stirring up racial hatred

• One of stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation

Now of these ‘encouraging terrorism’, ‘disseminating terrorist publications’ and ‘terrorist fundraising’ are easily the most serious and in the first case I am guessing true and in the second likely dubious. Since what on earth is a ‘terrorist publication’ and why isn’t – for example – practically anything that mentions or explicitly advocates for genocide – such as Qur’an or even the Bible – treated the same way?

Thirdly charging him with ‘terrorist fundraising’ also seems to be a catch-all dubious charge to lengthen the charge sheet so ‘they’ll get him on something’ – a fairly standard if little known police practice – but in practice means he received and/or donated money for some act or publication which has ex post facto been declared ‘terrorist’. (2)

‘Possessing material useful to a terrorist’ is another catch all as it has recently been successfully used to mean just owning – with no evidence of intended use – a perfectly legal knife-fighting manual (3) while the charge of ‘possessing racially inflammatory material’ is pure thoughtcrime and the two ‘stirring up hatred’ charges are just catch-alls for anyone saying anything the system doesn’t like.

That all being said I don’t think Dymock has actually been railroaded here per se – although there will be plenty of people who will claim he was ‘set up’ just because he was prosecuted by the system on in some instances dubious catch-all charges – but rather Dymock is just a symptom of the greater issue of Edgelords and their histrionics.

We can see this when we both to look at the details of Dymock’s doxing by the BBC of all people – (4) no this wasn’t the intelligence services or the police but rather Britain’s state broadcast services who as leftist activists in the main are not known for their technological skills nor internet knowledge – which is that he was exposed because:

· He talked about shopping at Morrisons (which he lived next to and is a good geo-location marker).

· He boasted about how his parents ‘paid for everything’ as well as the kind of place they were from (which gave details as to where he would likely be from).

· He specified when he tried to travel to the United States to meet members of Atomwaffen (giving a field of potential candidates to narrow and giving the police ‘reasonable cause’ to suspect he was/is a literal terrorist given Atomwaffen were keen on LARPing about blowing up electricity grids and power stations).

· He specifically mentioned which part of the UK he was from (the West Country).

· Then he posted several photos of his rainbow patterned bedsheets (complete with himself and a ‘neo-Nazi book’).

So basically, Dymock was not only categorically an idiot – posting about terrorism, associating with those easily seen as ‘foreign terrorists’ but also practically giving his location and likely identity away – but also a typical Edgelord.

What do I mean by ‘Edgelord’?

The term describes a very particular type of mentality – usually fostered by the seeming security of the internet but it has plenty of real-life precursors from both the left as well as the right – where individuals and groups engage in publicly positioning themselves more and more extreme ideologically without any actual motivation beyond ‘looking harder line’ than others in their immediate group with this often bleeding over into openly advocating such things as terrorism but importantly without any real intention of doing any such thing.

In other words: despite their extreme rhetoric the Edgelord is merely talking a big game, and their actions will never match the scale of their rhetoric nor probably even be attempted in the first place. This ‘rush to the extreme’ purely for the sake of posturing and internet brownie points also leads to even more transgressive mindsets being allowed a voice in the group’s conversation and is the ideal vehicle for old school entryism.

The radical right has historically had a problem with entryism from the ‘Socialism over Nationalism’ crowd (aka Strasserism) – the engineered split between the National Front and the British Nationalist Party in 1983 was a classic example of just this – as well as with other socially and religiously transgressive ideas such as so-called ‘Satanism’. The radical left has much the same problem historically and currently but with Trotskyites and Paedophiles as well as increasingly Muslims.

Dymock’s break with his former group ‘System Resistance Network’ was explicitly over his championing of so-called ‘Satanism’ – (5) created by Anton LaVey who was jewish I might add - as well as I assume his advocacy of decreasing the age of sexual consent in the UK to twelve – (6) I mean who in their right mind wants to have sex with a twelve year old? – and such vile things as Dymock’s posting photos of a girl in his bedroom – (7) remember those rather unique rainbow bedsheets? Well, they made another appearance – with swastikas carved into her butt. (8)

This is classic Edgelord behaviour as what person in their right mind would do such horrific shit and not only that but post photos of his abuse and treat it as a trophy in the same way a serial killer might.

What is the best bit in this disgusting display of degeneracy?

It turns out that Dymock was supposedly ‘bi-sexual’ all along – it makes sense of why someone who claims to be militantly straight would have rainbow bedsheets in the first place – but that he also prefers to have sexual intercourse with men (apparently, he is experienced in sodomy as well as sadism) and ‘is opposed to homophobia’. (9)

This is the problem with Edgelords – another being Benjamin Hannam formerly of ‘National Action’ who it turns out actually had a non-White Muslim girlfriend – (10) in that they spew extreme rhetoric but when it comes to their actual lives, they are simply not congruent with their beliefs or seeking to cover up some obvious blemish they aren’t proud of – such as Dymock’s sodomy and Hamman’s love of hijab-wearing pussy – with their extremism.

When someone is extreme for no reason and advocates such abhorrent stuff as paedophilia, rape as a weapon of political terror or having sexual intercourses with jewesses – yes, I’ve heard that one before – let alone literal terrorism then quite frankly they need to ejected post haste from any Nationalist or National Socialist community as well as preferably tarred and feathered before they get a jackboot up the ass.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-57439480

(2) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/11/neo-nazi-student-andrew-dymock-guilty-terror-hate-offences

(3) https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-56604470

(4) https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57406673

(5) Idem.

(6) Idem.

(7) Idem.

(8) https://news.sky.com/story/neo-nazi-student-who-carved-swastika-into-girlfriends-buttocks-guilty-of-terror-offences-12330390

(9) https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57406673

(10) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ben-hannam-nazi-muslim-right-wing-b1825757.html

This idea of complete secession is often viewed as key to the modern idea of autonomous zones and it has come up many times in the past in the attempts to create such zones as was seen in the Paris Commune of 1871 as well as in the revolt of the Silesian Weavers in 1844 and the more general rising of German and Austrian workers in 1848 on which Karl Marx famously wrote ‘Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany’.

Yet this idea of complete secession has routinely failed and is actually the riskier view of secession from a state and the creation of autonomous zones. More practical is the view that to create autonomous zones requires far less of the political and ideological grandstanding that we saw in the CHAZ as well as in many other such commune-based projects. Rather what is required is the creation of de facto autonomous zones that are ostensibly de jure within the state itself. Thus, they do not overtly challenge the sovereignty of the state and force the state to act against them in defense of that sovereignty.

This then decreases the likelihood of using its police and military forces to try and enforce its will in these de facto autonomous zones and if it attempts to do so it requires a far greater deployment of state assets in order to achieve the same results as were previously used.

This will sound impractical to some but only because our race has forgotten its evolutionary right to assert its dominance and will over its own destiny as well as the lesser races that inhabit this planet.

Consider for a moment the ‘No Go’ zones that are now a fact of life in many European cities with the most famous being in the French capital of Paris. Are these not in fact de facto autonomous zones but yet maintain a de jure status within the state itself?

The cost of exerting the will of the state by using state assets is simply too great so the state has quietly withdrawn its forces in the face of determined and violent resistance by the population that is largely composed of sub-humans. This is not to say the French or any other European government could not re-take these de facto autonomous zones, but rather that the governments simply don’t have the political will to do so. Since the jews and their liberal-left Shabbos goyim have no desire to have an urban battle break out that will undoubtedly result in many sub-human corpses littering the streets and result in a fresh political scandal because… well… brown lives matter.

Conversely if Aryans attempted to do the same as the sub-humans in the suburban slums of Paris, then there would be little indecision on the matter, and the tanks of the French army would roll in within hours with orders to ‘shoot to kill’ because… well… White lives don’t matter.

This means that we cannot enforce our political will in creating de facto autonomous zones by force as the sub-humans have done, because the state hates us because of our race and its liberal supporters will cheer and thirst for more blood as the state’s mercenaries bayonet our babies.

Instead, we are forced to evolve our struggle against our jew-dominated state by creating de facto autonomous zones within the ostensible bounds of the law to prevent the state physically assaulting our home as active ‘enemies of the state’. This forces the state to do either violate its own laws – and therefore break its own social contract with its citizens and create a legal precedent that the state itself does not want – or to tacitly recognize the de facto autonomous zone that is operating de jure within its own borders.

This isn’t a pipedream either given that just this has been achieved in several ‘National Liberated Zones’ within Germany – which has far more oppressive and heavily enforced anti-nationalist laws than anywhere else in the world – with the most obvious success being seen in the village of Jamel in northern Germany. Where nearly all the village is owned by (and let to) nationalist families and there is very little the occupation government of Germany can do about it without detonating a nuclear device under its own legal system.

I mean what are they going to do? Rule that nationalists cannot own property?

Sure, it is possible but very unlikely because that would in effect trigger armed resistance and destroy whatever remains of the government’s claim to be a ‘democracy’.

Attempts to do this by nationalists elsewhere – such as in the township of Leith in North Dakota – have failed due to both the size of the settlement (i.e. the greater the size it the harder it is to do [such as vague proclamations to settle the Pacific Northwest in the US]) and in the case of Leith the fact that the zone’s main exponent Craig Cobb was openly proclaiming his intention to create such a zone and was actively prevented from doing thus by the interference of the state. The failure in Leith was simply a case of an insufficient source of willing participants with some kind of discipline and actively seeking publicity for the endeavour.

In practice it is easy for a group of nationalists who know and trust each other independently of any official organizations to create de facto autonomous zones by gradually buying up property in villages and small towns, which can then be let out to other nationalist families who the group knows and can vouch for and so on.

It simply requires discipline and the willingness to put your money where your mouth is.

The advantage of creating such de facto autonomous zones is obvious enough in that it provides nationalist-dominated or completely nationalist-run local governments and infrastructure with few people able to complain to the state about the ‘evil Nazis’ who are ‘taking over their town’ because it has become an accomplished fact much as in Jamel as well as in places like Orania in South Africa.

These zones also provide much needed socio-economic infrastructure for the nationalist movement as well as local bases of support that can in time be used to grow and expand nationalist influence to surrounding areas by leading by example in creating the kind of communities that will come to dominate the Fourth Reich.

This also enables the creation and tacit enforcement of nationalist law – which as long as it doesn’t overtly violate the state’s law is not likely to be challenged by the state itself (i.e. don’t start creating possess to go hunt down the local jigaboo population and the like) – and because the property belongs to many different nationalists rather than one umbrella group it cannot easily be confiscated in a contrived law suit as happened to Aryan Nations when its security guards opened fire on a lost family of blacks driving towards their compound.

Nor is this pie in the sky given that this precisely how the Mormons created and have kept hold of power in Utah while having their church operate as a form of shadow government. Another good example is the effective takeover of the town of St. Mary’s in Kansas by the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) in recent years.

It is true that nationalists have greater obstacles and enemies ranged against them than any other group but it can and should be done, because with de facto autonomous that operate de jure within the state then we can at last largely free ourselves from state interference and begin to build the Fourth Reich one community at a time.

Subscribe now

Being in such a situation allows you as a Nationalist to force the system to pay huge amounts of money for prosecuting attorneys, additional evidence gathering and judge and court staff among other thing as well as potentially public defenders and legal aid.

Even if you are guilty of what is alleged and you have let down nationalism by your actions – such as drug taking and/or dealing, taking another Aryan’s property, raping an Aryan woman and the like – then you can partially redeem yourself to your racial peers by pleading ‘Not Guilty’ and fighting the system in the courts to the bitter end. Take all the opportunities you get to force the system to spend time, money and its resources in trying to convince a judge and/or a jury to decide that you are guilty.

The point of doing this is very simple.

If the enemies of our people have to spend this time, money and resources trying to prosecute you. They are not being used to prosecute other nationalists let alone the assorted masses of sub-humanity that are massively overrepresented as defendants in the court systems of both Europe and the United States.

This in turn means that the resource burden being placed on the system is higher and this in turn forces the system to make conscious decisions on where to allocate its scarce resources. It either has to spend $100,000 prosecuting you because of your alleged or real actions and swallow the fact that this means it cannot prosecute five black or Mexican drug-dealers at say $20,000 a pop or it has allocate $100,000 from another element of the annual budget in order to fill the gap, which puts additional strain on the annual budget forcing the system to attempt to ‘creatively’ balance the books by borrowing money on which it then has to pay significant interest, introducing extra taxation or reduce its spending in other areas.

If every nationalist who got in trouble with the judicial system – justly or unjustly – saw this as a chance to give the system a black eye – like synagogue shooters Robert Bowers and John Earnest have done by pleading ‘Not Guilty’ to their credit – then even if only 50 nationalists a year were prosecuted and it took $100,000 to prosecute each of them. Then that is $5 million that the system has had to expend just to prosecute 50 people and if black and Mexican criminals only cost say $10,000 to prosecute. This therefore means that it costs the system 10 times as much to prosecute nationalists than it does black and Mexican criminals, which not only has the benefit of further tying up the system’s resources and manpower but also potentially makes the system more weary of prosecuting other nationalists in the future allowing them to operate more freely within society.

It won’t bring about the collapse of the system that we hate per se, but it will make it more and more difficult for the system to enact its will because of this active non-violent legal malfeasance of nationalists using the system’s own veneer of ‘liberal democracy’ against it – much as Goebbels did during the Kampfzeit in Berlin and sub-human criminals have done since the so-called ‘Civil Rights’ movement of the mid-20th century - and challenging it to either rip of its mask and give another example of its tyrannical nature or spend large amounts of its scarce resources prosecuting its enemies and dealing with their frequent appeals (which you should also launch for the same reason).

The fight against the system doesn’t stop when you get charged with crimes – justly or unjustly – but rather the fight changes in nature from a non-violent insurgency to lawfare.

Use their own institutions and laws against them and remember that you are morally obliged not to kow-tow to an unjust government like the present system.

Subscribe now

Pell was a ‘hard-liner’ within the Roman Catholic Church and it turns out that right up until his death; he was actively attacking the (recently deceased) ultra-liberal Pontificate of Pope Francis in a ‘secret blog’ especially concerning the latter’s support for sodomites and their so-called ‘rights’ as well as being profoundly sceptical of the ‘climate science’ behind the green agenda and instead regarded it as a religious belief masquerading as science in the same vein as Marxism was (and is).

The late Cardinal was openly traduced by the Australian state and the jew-dominated globalist media of Australia – which predictably never faced any consequences for repeatedly breaking laws as well as court rulings and likely prejudicing the jury during Pell’s trial for having allegedly molested boys – and spent 404 days in solitary confinement in prison before his sentence was unanimously quashed by the Australian High Court. He has even been openly refused a state funeral – which would normally be offered – because it ‘might offend’ the ‘victims of child abuse’ (which he didn’t commit).

Why was Pell traduced so brutally?

Well because he actually he believed in all the things you are supposed to believe in as a Roman Catholic and wasn’t afraid or shy about telling other people that they were – in his opinion – being fuckwits. Even Pell’s enemies credit him with being both intelligent and utterly sincere in his beliefs, but they primarily find fault in the fact that Pell (correctly) realised that the most effective form of defence is ruthless offense.

The other reason is that Pell had been brought in in 2014 to sort out the epidemic of corruption and fraud within the Vatican finances by the late Pope Benedict XVI and was beginning to speak out at the sordid and vile filth that he discovered in the homosexual haven that is Vatican City. Corruption follows degeneracy like flies to shit and Pell’s rather open disgust at what he discovered provoked a response with the Vatican wiring AUD $2 million to Australia on the eve of Pell’s trial that was never received by the Australian Bishop Conference who the Vatican claims were the recipients.

To quote Rod Dreher in ‘The American Conservative’:

‘They had always known that there was a lot of homosexual corruption in the Curia, and that there was a lot of financial corruption too but had not realized until they started working on this investigation how deeply entwined the two things were. This person also shared my belief that Pell was framed by enemies in Rome who wanted him off the investigation. When I went to Australia back in 2019, I was surprised to learn from Australians that the Calabrian mafia had long infiltrated institutions in the Australian state of Victoria, where Pell was charged. I was not surprised, then, to learn that the head of the Vatican Bank at the time of Pell's investigation was a Calabrian. Obviously that is nothing but circumstantial evidence, and might have been pure coincidence. Still, it's interesting -- especially light of allegations that the Vatican Secretary of State's office transferred $2 million Australian to Oz around the time of Pell's trial.’

In summary Pell was being set up the Vatican for daring to expose their filthy nest of sodomites for what it was and for daring to write things like the following from his latest (and last) column in ‘The Spectator’ despite a continuing legal campaign against him:

‘The attack on traditional morals and the insertion into the dialogue of neo-Marxist jargon about exclusion, alienation, identity, marginalisation, the voiceless, LGBTQ as well as the displacement of Christian notions of forgiveness, sin, sacrifice, healing, redemption. Why the silence on the afterlife of reward or punishment, on the four last things; death and judgement, heaven and hell?’

Pell’s unbowed resistance to his enemies to the end of his life should be an inspiration to National Socialists suffering around the world, but particularly in Australia and New Zealand. This isn’t because we agree with Pell’s traditionalist Roman Catholic stance or his beliefs – although we certainly agree on more than a few things but largely disagree on solutions – but rather because Pell showed the essential quality of being a ‘Man Against Time’ that Savitri Devi talked about in that he stood against the world and refused to kowtow to ‘mainstream beliefs’ and practised what he preached rather than ‘be pragmatic’ and compromise for an easier life.

As National Socialists we too – and even more so – stand against the world and all its ‘received wisdom’ to our own material and social disadvantage. We too stand in the breach as part of the dwindling 300 Spartans standing against the hordes of the corrupt, the degenerate and the racially inferior and risk being totally overwhelmed not because we want to but because we believe in the future of our people: the Aryan race.

We can do no other.

Subscribe now

The irony of the advice is that it assumes that something special happens at university. Ingrained is the belief that the more education you have then the better you will do in the life. The reality however is that the universities are no longer anything worthy of the name. They are diploma factories that are run like any other business and exist by having a ‘reputation for academic excellence’ and an alumni funding and recruitment network.

As the Marxist philosopher Slavoj Zizek has observed; universities today exist to provide ‘experts’ to governments and the private sector.

Have you got a problem?

Hire a Subject Matter Expert and it will be resolved.

If it isn’t… well… hire another Subject Matter Expert.

Rinse and repeat until the problem is believed to be resolved then fire them.

However, how many ‘experts’ are needed?

Not that many and those that are usually become ‘experts’ by fluke of being in the right place at the right time.

Ninety percent of university graduates are not ‘experts’ in anything but rather come out with little more than an embossed piece of high-quality paper that tells the world that they have a bachelor’s degree in say Sociology, Women’s Studies or some such glorified nonsense.

The reality of course is that the near absolute majority individuals have achieved practically nothing in terms of their chosen field of intellectual endeavour, will never revisit the subject of their major in any detail and likely will end up as part of the endless raw material that is required to staff the offices and count the beans of corporate America.

Now there is nothing wrong with being an office-worker per se, because there will always be a need for good managers and people with very specific office-based skill sets such as accountancy, project management and so forth. However, most office-workers are not necessarily specialists, but rather glorified data entry plebs, nebulous and often malicious ‘IT Support Specialists’, ‘administrative assistants’ (aka paper pushers), ‘Personal Assistants’ (aka the secretarial pool and wannabe trophy wives) and middle managers who cannot even organise their time sufficiently to ensure they haven’t committed to being in two meetings at the same time.

The problem with these types of jobs is not only that they invariably breed the same sense of anomie and alienation that classic ‘Scientific Management’ did when it was implemented in factories in the early twentieth century. Everyone who doesn’t know what they wanted to be and has gotten promoted to a middle management position somehow is a position where they aren’t happy or fulfilled.

These same ‘management professionals’ create extra work and the often-lamented layers of management within organisations, but whose ability to add value is not only limited but also often acts as a barrier to the truth getting further up the proverbial food chain. This is because it is often perceived – with some degree of truth – that ‘bad news’ (aka the truth) is ‘career ending’ so said ‘management professionals’ end up lying and covering up the bad news (or pretending it is ‘an opportunity’) to their bosses.

Organisations work better when there are more workers and less managers, but these managers also are often deeply dissatisfied with their careers because they create nothing, and the work has no link to the material world that they can see and feel. Even worse there is no defined start and end point to their job, but rather it is just an endless hamster wheel of pressure to produce the best possible figure because next quarter is the most important quarter ever and so on.

To combat these ‘management professionals’ try to engage in fulfilling activities outside of their work that do have a defined start and end point as well as some material value. Prima facie evidence for this is the trend for semi-competitive cycling, because it has a material reward in the form of fitness as well as ensuring that the beer bellies almost endemic among office workers are kept to an absolute minimum. In addition to offering both a start and end point as well as being a source of social interaction and prestige.

All while being forced to pay back a hundred thousand dollars in loans to get the overpriced university degree that allegedly ‘got them their job’.

The problem is then manifestly the detachment of the modern bourgeois urbanite (aka the modern ‘management professional’) from their environment and more specifically from their daily labour.

If you create or make something. It is not only a tangible thing that you can be proud of and say, ‘I did that’, but it has a defined start and end point. You don’t feel like you are a hamster wheel, and you know that you did it yourself.

Creating or making something can be as simple as cooking a meal you made yourself rather than just reheated from a packet. This is why we are seeing a return to home cooked meals around the Western world as well as a concomitant increase in food manufacturers trying to remarket processed food as being ‘healthy’ by slapping the words ‘Hand-reared’, ‘Organic’, ‘Grass-Fed’ etc on their products rather than telling you the truth.

It feels great to cook a meal from scratch and it also tastes a hell of a lot better.

Apply that logic to your work and it will be readily apparent that when you do manual and/or skilled physical labour of any kind then you have a very real pride and sense of achievement in what you do.

This – along with the healthy mentality it engenders – was identified a century ago by the theorists of Distributism such as Hilaire Belloc, Gilbert Keith Chesterton and Arthur Penty. It forms the basis for a healthy and satisfied populace and as such creates the platform upon which a better, healthier nation state can be built.

In essence for the future nationalist state, we must have a return to the traditional values of honouring those who physically labour as well as ensuring that our children value and continue to work in these professions. For without that base for the nation and the resultant increase in unfounded white-collar snobbery then there can be no future for our people.

Subscribe now

The essence of Wainwright’s argument made throughout the semi-autobiographical book is that United States illegal drugs policy – created and managed by what he terms ‘Drugs Warriors’ – is a failure, because it has spent a huge amount of money without achieving a lot as it has focused on the supply side of the trade in illegal drugs. He argues by contrast that adopting a demand side approach – by which he means legalizing and regulating currently illegal drugs like cocaine and marijuana – would be much more effective, because it would undercut the cartels.

When discussing these organisations he demonstrates throughout ‘Narconomics’ that applying an economic lens to the operations of Latin American drug cartels is an effective and powerful way to understand them. This is all well and good, but where Wainwright goes wrong in his unstated reliance on the idea of the ‘Rational Economic Man’ – i.e. human beings will always behave in their best economic interests – and the idea that legalizing cocaine and marijuana would someone curb the problems that US supply side drugs policy was created to stamp out.

In essence Wainwright believes that if you stamp out the demand for illegal drugs by legalizing them. It therefore lowers the price of drugs and therefore makes it unprofitable for Latin American drugs cartels to traffic them and also decreases crime by concomitantly reducing the strong financial motive for – as well as the ability of - these organisations to engage in violent and paramilitary struggles.

The problem with this – which Wainwright doesn’t acknowledge – is that it doesn’t address the issue of addiction to cocaine and marijuana that are a social blight upon both North and Latin American societies. All Wainwright’s solution does is potentially – and I stress potentially – make it unprofitable for the Latin American drug cartels to operate but fails to note that unless all currently illegal drugs are legalizing then these organisations will still exist, engage in violence and traffic illegal drugs to the United States and elsewhere.

What is the solution then?

Pump more money into taking the fight to the cartels in Latin America itself?

I don’t think so.

In my view Wainwright is right to stress that a demand side rather than a supply side approach to dealing with the effects – socio-economic and otherwise – of the trade in illegal narcotics in North America. What Wainwright gets wrong is that he believes that the only solution to widespread abuse of illegal substances like cocaine and marijuana can only be solved by legalizing, regulation and de-stigmatization. Not only would this not result in any tangible change in the negative effects of the abuse of illegal drugs, but it would – as we have seen in American states such as Alaska, California, Colorado and Nevada as well as internationally like in the Netherlands – significantly exacerbate the issues while not bringing in enough money to cover the costs of legalisation.

A viable solution then has to take into account the negative effects of the use of currently illegal substances like cocaine and marijuana, but also combat the Latin American drug trade.

That solution was demonstrated remarkably by former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte when he made dealing and possessing illegal substances a crime punishable by death in the Philippines and had the police operate extra-judicially in implementing it. In other words rather than farting around with mealy mouth platitudes and increasing the problems of substance abuse among the people of the Philippines. Duterte took immediate action to physically eliminate the supply side of the equation by smashing the operational infrastructure of the drug-dealing and supplying networks in his country, while also eliminating the core social problem of the addicts themselves.

To put it in Wainwright’s preferred economic terminology; Duterte raised the costs of doing business in the Philippines for drugs cartels so high that they simply exited the market. If you put such a policy into effect in the United States and Canada in modified form to conform to European norms and forms. Then you would use the DEA’s paramilitary infrastructure to physically eliminate drug dealers and their networks, while utilizing the FBI’s expertise in interrogation and information to identify targets both inside and outside of the United States by rounding up and interrogating the addicts before enforcing a one-time forced rehab to get them clean.

In essence by taking out the whole of demand side as well as some of the supply side of the operations of the Latin American drug cartels within North America. You largely eliminate the problem of the use of illegal substances in North America and reduce what there is down to very small ‘recreational’ operations, which require far less resources to combat.

The problem that Wainwright has is that he refuses to recognize the fact that state-sponsored violence of this kind against a deadly socio-economic and health menace like the trade in illegal drugs – when targeted correctly and with the focus on the needs of the majority not the ‘human rights’ of the minority – would be – and has proven to be – the single most effective way to deal with what are in his view black-market corporations.

Subscribe now

References

(1) Howard Campbell, 2012, ‘Narco-Propaganda in the Mexican “Drug War”: An Anthropological Perspective’, Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 41, No. 2, p. 60

This isn’t in my view because most people don’t have any internal dialogue as some have claimed – I’d actually suggest they do – but rather because the majority of humans do not have a critical inner dialogue that allows them to predict future trends based on the data they absorb and internalize every day and then weigh their future evolutionary and material interests against these predictions.

Instead most people are distinctly short-sighted and are focused less on the likelihood of further economic turmoil in the next few years or the non-White invasion of Western Europe by legal and illegal migrants from Africa, the Middle East and the Far East, but rather on predicting whether or not they will be able to find a new girlfriend soon and/or how far their next pay check can be made to stretch.

Doubt me?

Think about it for a moment and remember how difficult it is to make conversation with the average person in Western Europe unless you can talk about what happened on television recently or the material problems of life such as lack of money, marriage, rearing children and so forth. Talk to them about their children’s future in an Islamic Caliphate stretching across Europe and they will look at you blankly and steer the conversation back to debating whether their favourite sportsman is worth the obscene money that their club paid for them.

The latter is unimportant in the greater scheme of things, but yet normies are not interested anything other than the short-term and their material/social condition. Non-normies (aka activists) however are far more interested in what is occurring in the greater scheme of things – hence why nationalists often consume many times more news and current affairs content than your average normie working their 9-5 desk job and looking forward to the new season of ‘Making a Murderer’ – than in the short-term and their material/social condition.

It is a fundamentally different way of looking at the world and if you think about it normies are quite literally Non-Playable Characters (NPCs), because they aren’t interested in – let alone involved in anything that would cause – significant political, social and/or economic change. Instead - like NPCs in video games – they simply carry on their merry way oblivious to what is going on around them.

Symptomatic of this atomized attitude to life and the alienation of European man from nature and the soil is the response of normies to terrorist attacks. You’d expect protests and demands for changes, but no most people virtue signal a bit using Snapchat photo filters (like ‘Pray for Paris’), get a commemorative tattoo to show their friends (like Liverpool’s Bee tattoo) and then shrug before continuing on living their comfortable luxurious lives having forgotten that people they may have known died recently.

So just like when you are playing Grand Theft Auto and the citizens of San Andreas shriek and jump out of the way of your speeding sports car only to them pick themselves up off of the floor and continue milling around like nothing has happened. Normies in real life do exactly this when confronted with a tragic or even dangerous situation. It is less about change, but rather ‘how can I leverage this for my personal benefit?’

That is why Normies are NPCs.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/23/17991274/npc-meme-4chan-press-coverage-viral ; https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-45888176 ; http://www.theweek.co.uk/97291/what-are-npcs-and-why-has-twitter-banned-them

They love to complain about others and behave like experts on campaign organisation, messaging and marketing not to mention PR. Yet they never practice what they preach and instead spend a significant portion of their lives telling others what to do.

Who on earth would follow some overweight and profusely sweaty neckbeard sitting behind a computer for sixteen hours a day?

Let alone one who gets his rocks off shrieking about how ‘we’ as a ‘movement’ have failed because someone showed up with a flag from the 1930s at some protest or another, because their favourite e-celebrity is using that as an excuse for why they failed.

Fat little misanthropic shits like this deserve to get the proverbial piñata treatment with baseball bats until they learn that until they take personal reasonability for their race and stop blaming others for their mistakes as well as those of their so-called ‘leaders’. Then the ‘movement’ such as it is will get absolutely nowhere.

Taking personal responsibility is important precisely because in any political movement there will inevitably be negative personal consequences that range from mild to utterly apocalyptic. Taking part in any political movement has – and always will be – a choice and as such it is of paramount importance that its members not shirk their personal responsibility for the inevitable consequences of that activism that will impact their lives as well as those of their families.

Similarly it is important that a blame culture within said political movement does not develop precisely because blaming some group – real or imagined – for your failings – both as an individual and a group – allows for and excuses mediocrity. It means that people – both activists and self-declared ‘leaders’ – can use this group – i.e. an ‘other’ – as a scapegoat and an excuse as to why the decisions they have made and the actions they have undertaken have failed.

For example: why did your protest get such bad media coverage?

Answer: some LARPing Autistic Purity Spiraler turned up wearing the Third Reich’s battle flag.

The problem with is that it places blame on this ‘other’ group and as such it excuses the so-called ‘leaders’ and activists of said ‘movement’ from having to ask much deeper and more awkward questions about their organisation of said protest was at fault, whether the protest should have been held in the first place, would they have got negative coverage anyway, does it actually matter what symbols you use etc.

Instead you just say it is all X’s fault and everything continues as before.

This inevitably leads to the destruction of the original group – since it stagnates and increasingly blames its failure on the ‘other’ leading to members questioning this explanation as it continues to fail resulting in factional conflict and splits – as well as alienation and anomie among the individual members of the movement as well as its fellow travellers.

Arguments about ‘optics’ are invariably made by those who have spent their lives making excuses and blaming others for their personal failings rather than exercising their body and mind as well as taking a positive mental attitude.

After all when someone says that ‘you cannot deport every Mexican in the United States’ then you merely have to ask: ‘Why not?’

It is perfectly possible.

The difference between a Nationalist and an Optics Cuck is simply that the former has internalized the fact that saving our race is their personal responsibility, while the latter wants to blame everyone else rather than take responsibility.

As Robert Heinlein so aptly put it: are you a citizen or are you a civilian?

I am a Citizen.

How about you?

Subscribe now

In other words when one is assigned the tag of ‘moderate’ then it is a positive valuation since ‘moderate’ means that you are willing to work with - and promote ideological positions that are either less harmful to or in sync with those of - the system. Therefore when one is assigned the tag of ‘extremist’ then it is a negative valuation since ‘extremist’ means that they are not willing to work with - and promote ideological positions that are either harmful or out of sync with those of – the system.

Thus we can see that ‘extremist’ is simply a propagandistic synonym for ‘enemy of the system’ while ‘moderate’ translates to ‘friend of the system’.

What in general makes an ‘extremist’ an ‘extremist’ in the eyes of the system is that they are unwilling to bend their ideology – be it religious, political, social and/or economic – to the ideological requirements of the system and are thus enemies of the system, because they stand in opposition to the norms and forms that it wishes to establish. Therefore what makes an ‘extremist’ an ‘extremist’ is uncompromising belief in their ideology that supersedes any loyalty they have to the system and therefore places them outside the system.

They are the opposite to those with ‘slave morality’ that Nietzsche so deplored in that they are prepared to fight for what they believe in and they will not back down from a fight with the system if one is required. This is part of why ‘extremists’ tend to perform the best out of any group and while ‘extremist’ ideologies can lead to ideologically-based missteps – like Islamic State provoking the United States into a fight in Iraq and Syria based on their belief that it would trigger Allah to send them angelic reinforcements – if an ‘extremist’ ideology is based on reason and science (for example National Socialism) rather than metaphysical speculation and established ritual (for example Wahhabi Islam). Then it will not likely make such mistakes, but instead stand tall, strong and true as a revolt against the modern world.

Those who want to ‘compromise’ ideologically are the sort of people who believe – seemingly seriously – that if you are ‘nice’ to homosexuals and jews as a National Socialist then you are going to get somewhere, because they’ll be ‘fooled’ into voting for you because you are ‘not so bad’. The problem is once you start doing this then your ‘LARPing’ turns out to be serious and all of a sudden your nationalist party has become a civic nationalist group promoting gay rights in Saudi Arabia.

In other words: you have become a ‘moderate’ and reinforce the myth of political choice that the system has created as a defence mechanism to keep the average citizen fat, happy and believing they are masters of their own destiny.

The other problem is that by not being ‘extremists’ then you cede the recruiting pool of young radicals – i.e. future activist cadre – to other groups who are willing to occupy that ground.

A good example of this is the French convert to ‘radical Islam’ Michaël Chiolo who was behind the 2019 violent revolt at the Conde-sur-Sarthe high security prison. What you may not have picked up even if you saw the news concerning this event was that prior to converting to Islam and becoming an Islamic activist and proto-leader; Chiolo flirted with the French Nationalist scene (presumably that around Le Front National that has now become part of the system) and found it far too milquetoast for him without the answers he sought. So he looked into radical Islam and found his answers. Nationalism lost a potential activist and leader while Islam gained one and all because Chiolo realized that many so-called ‘nationalists’ do not truly believe in their ideals let alone act on them.

Another example is the case of US Airforce Intelligence Officer Monica Witt who became disenchanted with US foreign policy towards Iran – and rightly so – and started to look for other answers and she found them like Chiolo in Islam. She then began working as a mole for Iranian intelligence and has since fled there and taken up a new life. Yet if nationalism offered her answers she would not have converted to Islam and begun working for Iran if only nationalism was extreme enough.

That is a pathetic state of affairs: isn’t it?

Without extremism nationalism is nothing and without nationalism there is no future for the peoples of Europe.

That is why extremism is necessary and is to be applauded not deplored.

Therefore – to paraphrase Joseph Goebbels - the most extreme nationalist is today only just extreme enough.

Subscribe now

In a sense the view that the goal of National Socialism today is to create the Fourth Reich is correct, because National Socialism does indeed seek to embody its revolutionary social conceptions in the form of a state. Unlike proponents of say ‘critical theory’ and ‘feminism’; National Socialism does not seek to reform specific bits of state policy as if it were a pressure group like the National Rifle Association, but rather seeks to completely rebuild the state.

Naturally it will use elements of the old to create the new, but unlike every other political ideology that has ever existed except maybe anarchism. It openly acknowledges the need to reserve the right to tear down the state in its entirety in order to create the new order. This is because in any given geographic area and time a different solution may be required and that there is no ‘one size fits all’ blueprint that can be parachuted in.

This brings us nicely into the fact that National Socialism has had many different expressions even during the limited existence of the Third Reich. There was the classic Hitlerian National Socialism as expressed in the NSDAP’s Party Programme, but there was also the Catholic National Socialism of Belgium’s Rexist and Croatia’s Ustasa movement. You had Per Engdahl’s Swedish National Socialism and Anton Mussert’s Dutch National Socialism that openly endorsed Protestantism rather than Catholicism.

Even within the Third Reich’s borders and the NSDAP itself; there were major differences with Joseph Goebbels having modernist socialist vision of the Third Reich, Heinrich Himmler and Richard Walther Darre envisioned a neo-pagan rural civilization based upon colonies of neo-Spartan warrior-farmers, while Alfred Rosenberg imagined creating a race-based senate to govern the Third Reich rather than a Fuhrer.

The point is simple in that many critics of National Socialism – both from the right and left – assume that it is a monolithic ideology that expired in 1945 with the surrender of the Third Reich. What they forget is that evolution is at the very heart of National Socialism – remember that the first book of Mein Kampf is not a statement of Hitler’s political ideas but rather a narrative of how he had evolved his ideas and principles and only in the second book does Hitler tell his reader what those ideas and principles actually are – and is baked into the clay of its ideological core so-to-speak.

Thus National Socialism has had – and continues to have – many variants and whatever soil in which you wish to place it will result in either an existing adaptation being favoured or a new variant of National Socialism being created by the struggle between the blood and the soil of the given people and the unique political situation of the time.

National Socialism can and will adapt to any situation anywhere unlike say Fascism or Marxism, because the need to evolve based upon the requirements of the situation it finds itself in is at the core the ideology itself. Whilst Liberalism, Libertarianism, Anarchism, Fascism, Marxism and the host of other political ideologies that are out there have trouble doing this.

This is because evolution is not part of their ideological make-up and is often just grafted on to the ideology as an afterthought. The reason for it is because all of these ideologies see themselves as ‘end of history’ philosophies that can be implemented anywhere, at any time and in any way. This creates an ideological inflexibility that is an important reason why they have historically (and currently) failed so badly when implementation has been attempted, because they demand that nature fit ideology rather than ensure that ideology is derived from nature.

It is this basis in nature that is so powerful within National Socialism and rather than being a Church with a dozen different heretical sects within it that it tries to extirpate. National Socialism is a tree from which a dozen different branches grow and one can use one or the other dependent upon the situation without recrimination or accusations of heresy.

What makes National Socialism… well… National Socialism is the desire to evolve and adapt to fit the situation and time as well as the fact that it is based upon and informed by nature itself as embodied in both the human and physical landscape as well as the results of the application of the scientific method.

Subscribe now

Now you might wonder why a feminist novel would be of note, but it gets interesting when we note that Mizora’s population is firstly entirely female. That isn’t perhaps so surprising, but what comes next is to a post-modern audience. The women that make up the utopia of Mizora is that they are all tall, blonde women who are explicitly referred to by Lane as being ‘Aryan’. They view the narrator – who is a brunette – as being weird and freakish for not being a tall, blonde Nordic woman.

The Mizorans don’t stop at that either. Lane has these Nordic women advocate the use of eugenics because ‘nature’s laws are inflexible’ and demand that the ‘highest and noblest intellects’ should rule not that ‘certain families’ should get that privilege automatically. Through the use of positive eugenics – as described so well in Richard Lynn’s important 2001 work ‘Eugenics: A Reassessment’ – they have evolved their brains to do things that current human brains cannot do in an anticipation of inorganic modern futurology – exemplified by such jewish nutcases as Ray Kurzweil – but in the more natural form of organic transhumanism.

The population of Lane’s utopia also believe that those who labour – no matter what they do – are an essential part of the whole Mizoran nation and are always to be treated with dignity and respect, while labour is something treasured not denigrated as in post-modernity. As such even the most humble member of Mizora’s population is encourage to educate themselves to the utmost of their ability and to contribute to Mizora’s vast literary output. Thus it should be no surprise that we learn that in Mizoru every action – from deciding economic policy to cleaning the family sink – is done for the good of the nation and not simply for personal profit as in as is so rampant in the world today.

The essence of Mizora – as Lane describes it – is a society of (racial) ‘purity and wholesomeness in all things’, which – as he explicitly states – has purified its literature of degenerate authors and ideas while promoting pure reason rather than letting the lesser elements of society publish pornography for profit.

What Lane is really describing is not a feminist state per se, but rather an all-female proto-National Socialist state.

If you but add men and manhood to Lane’s vision of Mizora you could easily be describing the Third Reich.

Subscribe now

This is magical thinking of course, because a gun is but a tool and it doesn’t cause violent attacks in and of itself. Any more than having access to kitchen knives causes knife attacks or having access to vehicles causes vehicle-based terror attacks.

The fly in the ointment here however is that guns being available ostensibly makes it easier for attacks utilizing guns to occur, but similarly there is no actual link between the availability of guns and mass shootings.

Think about it this way; there were a huge amount of guns and explosives available throughout the nineteenth century in Europe and North America (far more so than at the present time), but yet there were no mass school shootings. Indeed mass shootings of any kind outside of actual warfare were practically non-existent.

To this day Switzerland has one of the highest levels of gun ownership in the world, but yet has no concomitant problem with mass shootings of any kind let alone school shootings.

Gun control advocates simply sidestep this issue by pointing to the ‘availability’ of guns as being the problem and then adduce countries that have more or less completely banned gun ownership in practice – like the United Kingdom following the Dunblane school shooting – as evidence for why it works.

The problem with this logic is that while it is true that making guns less available will necessarily cause a decrease in the number of school shootings (etc) due to a decreasing ability to acquire firearms. It rather forgets that firstly if someone wants to get a gun they still can and will in fact be able to perpetrate high casualty shooting easier, because there is less likelihood that someone in the vicinity will be armed and able to disable them with their own weapon.

It also forgets to factor in adaptation in that if you take away people’s guns then it merely forces people to re-think their choice of weapon not whether or not they shoot up a school.

The United Kingdom is actually a great example of just this since in 2017 gun and knife crime continued to rise steeply. (1) The number of armed police officers is also at an all-time high in London. (2) Yet assault/automatic weapons were banned in 1988 following the Hungerford massacre and all pistols as well as most semi-automatic weapons were banned in 1997 following the Dunblane massacre.

Knives by contrast haven’t been banned and indeed criminals in the UK have found an even easier mass casualty weapon: bowls of acid. (3)

This rather blows a hole in the whole idea that gun control prevents mass casualty attacks or even school shootings, because people adapt. Whether that by using a different weapon or simply getting their gun on the black market rather than Walmart.

What gun control does is take away the power of individuals not in the military or the police to help the situation by defending those targeted by the attacker(s). It causes them to become potential targets for the attacker(s) as well as possible hindrances to those who are able to mount an armed response.

Therefore creating a situation where people are no longer able to respond to such a situation unless they are armed by the government is a rather ludicrous, because it is quite likely that it will take a significant amount of time for even the best emergency team to organise a response and get to the location and even longer to do anything about it.

 That is why people who argue that guns should be able to be bought and sold freely get so vocal about any kind of gun control, because once you ban one type of gun then the same argument can be used for any other type of gun.

Indeed you can use the same arguments for banning acid, kitchen knives, cars and even building materials.

That is why even the idea of gun control is nonsense.

It simply doesn’t make any sense.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/25/knife-and-gun-rises-sharply-in-england-and-wales

(2) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/03/police-federation-sceptical-after-london-increases-armed-police

(3) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/acid-attacks-uk-highest-world-figures-police-revealed-a8098236.html

We see that society – represented by the slum called ‘the stacks’ in Columbus, Ohio - has all but broken down as a result of this online addiction and mass escapism into the net with the focus of most people’s waking hours being either living in the virtual reality of the net or trying to make money to live/buy more products – delivered by poorly disguised Amazon drones no less – so they can have more fun in the virtual world than the physical world.

Despite some obvious banal insertions like an evil pseudo-fascist corporation named Innovative Online Industries (IOI for short) that traps people in debt slavery, demands their labour to ‘pay off their debt’ and promptly works them to death. The film is actually a decent commentary on the nature of society and the alienation and anomie that escapism to virtual reality can bring.

Put simply the addiction to the virtual world leads to alienation of individual of the same society from one another and more specifically – although the film does not suggest as much – the breaking down of loyalty to traditional biological groups (i.e., the races) as well as ideologies by inculcating an extreme form of egocentric hedonism that keeps individual isolated from one another even among families (as referenced many times through the film).

It leads to anomie (i.e., boredom/helpless) by the virtue of said hedonistic isolationism since the only way that one can continue to function in this atomized libertarian dystopia is to continue to try and find satisfaction in the virtual world of the net.

This has obvious applicability to our current situation with Western people becoming increasingly alienated from one another and losing the valuable skills that come with real life interaction with other people and the understanding the causal link between actions and consequences.

We need to change this because with this trend continuing and becoming more pronounced by the day. Our ability to reach and enlighten our folk grows more and more difficult and unless we reverse this trend then it will also fed into the ever collapsing birth rates among White people around the world.

The film offers a vison of our future – albeit an extreme one – that is quite frankly scary and can only be addressed by a return to the values of our ancestors. To live in accord with – rather than in opposition to – nature, to have a healthy relationship with technology (i.e., to use it as a tool to shape the world rather than to escape it), to focus on building up our bodies and minds not developing our online avatar and to live as lively and vibrant folk communities not as atomized and rootless cosmopolitan individuals.

If we don’t do this then our people will perish from the earth to become nothing more than a much derided but secretly mourned memory among the human beings on planet earth.

You have a choice.

You either live in such a way that you will be remembered with love and honour for millennia to come as Achilles and Leonidas did or you will become another forgotten failure who could have amounted to something but was ‘too busy’ and far too comfortable to do anything other than sit in front of his PlayStation playing the latest edition of ‘Call of Duty’.

Make your choice.

Subscribe now

I won’t comment on whether or not the Pusher is real or not here as it is not important for my thesis. What is important is that a lot of bodies have been found in the Canal Street area of Manchester, which is part of the geographic hub for the local sodomite population and has led to hysteria within the Manchester’s degenerate community about the Pusher targeting sodomites. (4)

Given that it is quite possible that the Pusher is simply a fantasy despite the fact that quite of a few of his alleged victims have been active sodomites and that strong likelihood that many of the sodomite ‘victims’ went down to the canal-side tow paths looking to purchase drugs and/or sexual services. Then either got mugged then thrown - or were so drunk that they stumbled - into the canal.  (5)

The impact has been significant since the local sodomite population actively believes that they are being ‘targeted’ by ‘hateful people’ who oppose their so-called ‘human rights’ and have taken steps to avoid the issue accordingly by taking taxis home, only leaving nightclubs in groups and never going down to the canal-side tow paths after dark. (6)

This is what Gustav le Bon pithily termed the ‘madness of crowds’ in so far as a conjecture based upon one statistic has transformed itself into a rumour that has in turned into an urban legend. The urban legend then feeds on and perpetuates itself by the process of autosuggestion.

Then on the basis of this urban legend sodomites have become fearful and modified their behaviour. If the Pusher is indeed real then they would have engaged in one of the most effective anti-sodomite activism in last two decades.

That isn’t to suggest that people should go around pushing sodomites into canals, but rather that in causing sodomites to alter their behaviour and playing on their fears, the Pusher has done something that Omar Mateen spectacularly failed to do at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida when he shot it up. Mateen going full snackbar produced only sympathy for the sodomites and enabled the media to cast the sodomites as blameless victims of a psychopathic Islamist zealot who was immediately claimed as a ‘repressed homosexual’.

Mateen’s actions didn’t work because they created martyrs and didn’t expose the goings-on inside the sodomite community nor play on their own sense of fear. What the idea of the Pusher has done is to present no clearly identifiable victims, exposed some of the degeneracy of the local sodomite community (i.e., drug addiction and sexual intercourse in a public place) to public scrutiny and played on the fears of the sodomites. This has been caused a change in sodomite behaviour in response, which Mateen’s violent actions in Orlando failed to achieve.

This is the power of the belief and autosuggestion. The more people who die from falling into Manchester’s canals. The more ‘victims’ the Pusher has and the more the local sodomite community will fear him and take increasingly drastic action to ‘avoid being a victim’.

The idea of the Pusher is in essence doing with the suggestion that violence could potentially occur what David Copeland failed to do with nail bombs. That is why actual violence against sodomites is not viable or a desirable strategy during our struggle, because it merely creates martyrs and engenders sympathy. The suggestion that something could occur to you is – like any good ghost story – much more powerful, because it has no victims, no identifiable perpetrator and commits no crime. It plays on your mind. It makes you jump at shadows and forces behaviour changes as you – in essence – psych yourself out and act like a neurotic wreck as a direct result.

That is why in the modern age there is no need to take physical action against sodomites during the struggle for power. You merely have to spread rumours and theories that there are murderous psychopaths out there targeting sodomites and the rest is done by wildfire rumour within the sodomite community itself, because they are genuinely terrified about what would happen to them in a world without the police at their beck and call.

To spread such ideas is simple enough.

You merely need to act the ‘concerned citizen’ and publicize any crimes that can be argued to have been actively targeting sodomites such as – for example – the so-called Smiley-faced Killer stalking the United States. Maybe this group of – likely fictional – serial killers are targeting homosexual men and women and perhaps this should be publicized.

After all don’t the ‘gay community’ have a right to know about killers in their midst?

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hCA0IRT8rU (0 Minutes 50 Seconds)

(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5tGzEyW_bs (0 Minutes 40 Seconds) ; https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-45173888

(3) https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-45173888

(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63FCE9bfwiI (3 Minutes 20 Seconds to 5 Minutes 20 Seconds)

(5) See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hCA0IRT8rU and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63FCE9bfwiI

(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63FCE9bfwiI (3 Minutes 20 Seconds to 5 Minutes 20 Seconds)