National Socialism and National Anarchism

[Aethrei]

Address to the Forum Moderators.

Moody and Aloysha,


I find the ongoing debate most interesting; it is my feeling aftre reading both sides that each of you could still present a unified philosophical/political view without much compromise.

For starters, may I suggest:

1. Moody take a look at the following -
http://www.grecoreport.com/gramsci_a...he_madness.htm
http://www.grecoreport.com/gramsci's_grand_plan.htm

I believe Aloysha is suggesting the following -
" Such an understanding helps dispel the despair that besets good people when they succumb to the illusion that our cultural decline is somehow pre-ordained, and that nothing can be done to arrest it. Understanding the covert machinations of our enemies is also necessary in order to anticipate their moves and organize effective resistance -- and it is only through organized, principled defense of our heritage of liberty that the culture war can ultimately be won."


2. Aloysha take a look at the following -

"From the maternal care the way leads to the paternal, and there we meet with the highest of all the time-symbols that have come into existence within a Culture, the State. The meaning of the child to the mother is the future, the continuation, namely, of her own life, and mother-love is as it were, a welding of two discontinuous individual existences; likewise the meaning of the state to the man is comradeship in arms for the protection of hearth and home, wife and child, and for the insurance of the whole people of its future and its efficacy.
The state is the inward form of a nation, its "form" in the athletic sense, and history, is the high meaning, is the State conceived as kinesis and not as kinema. The Woman as Mother is, and the Man as Warrior and Politician makes, History." [Spengler, Decline - p.137]

I believe Moody is offering this interwoven and essential relationship between Nation/Mother and State/Man.


Moody and Aloysha,

Why not use Gramscian techniques on our racial enemies, control them, convince them, instead of applying Marxist ideas to our Aryan-European values? We are creators, not reactionaries who borrow and subvert other doctrines. I agree with Moody here, and Aloysha doesn't really lose.

Why not define a new meaning for Capitalism on the basis of Fair Trade than free trade? In that case, Capitalism is still Racialist and 'International' - whereby one could deal with fellow Aryan-like communities (the Japanese, Arabs, etc.) I agree with Aloysha here, and Moody has not lost anything here either.

On a personal note,

Moody - your flair for bringing thought alive in so few words is incredible.

Aloysha - your energy and sheer persistance is simply amazing.


Hail the best of both ideas!, Our Europe beckons.

[Moody]

Aethrei; "Moody take a look at the following - Gramsci".

Moody; You'll have to forgive me; I cannot get into this Gramsci stuff [the picture of him looking very Semitic doesn't help].
My taste, nay my stomach, rejects it - perhaps you could put it into more 'digestible' portions for me?

Aethrei; "I believe Moody is offering this interwoven and essential relationship between Nation/Mother and State/Man".

Moody; You put that very well, and I thank you - indeed, it is a brilliant analogy, far more apt than anything I have presented.

Aethrei; "Moody - your flair for bringing thought alive in so few words is incredible".

Moody; I fear that I do not deserve such praise, as I feel that I am unable to even grasp what you are offering to us here - put it down to my stupidity.
Your ideas are flying above my head at the moment; could you elaborate further?

[Jack]

2. Aloysha take a look at the following -

"From the maternal care the way leads to the paternal, and there we meet with the highest of all the time-symbols that have come into existence within a Culture, the State. The meaning of the child to the mother is the future, the continuation, namely, of her own life, and mother-love is as it were, a welding of two discontinuous individual existences; likewise the meaning of the state to the man is comradeship in arms for the protection of hearth and home, wife and child, and for the insurance of the whole people of its future and its efficacy.
The state is the inward form of a nation, its "form" in the athletic sense, and history, is the high meaning, is the State conceived as kinesis and not as kinema. The Woman as Mother is, and the Man as Warrior and Politician makes, History." [Spengler, Decline - p.137]

I believe Moody is offering this interwoven and essential relationship between Nation/Mother and State/Man.

I know what Spengler is saying. Spengler is essentially saying the that the role the father plays traditionally in relation to his family, the State plays in regard to its people. Here is where our disagreement arises. My stance is well known. The individual has the right to himself and his property and the implied right of self defense by whatever means he views nessecary. I'm all for a voluntary mutual defense organisation with its own hierarchy and contract basis - but I will not give moral legitimacy to anyone who thinks they have the right to loot me in the name of my own good, or the common good, or anyone's good at all. Which means that I oppose the State.

Moody and Aloysha,

Why not use Gramscian techniques on our racial enemies, control them, convince them, instead of applying Marxist ideas to our Aryan-European values? We are creators, not reactionaries who borrow and subvert other doctrines. I agree with Moody here, and Aloysha doesn't really lose.

I advocated this a while ago. I'm still for it - albeit through Capitalism.

Why not define a new meaning for Capitalism on the basis of Fair Trade than free trade?

Because 'fair trade Capitalism' is an oxymoron. Fair trade implies restrictions in favour of the economically inferior - something we would not be, were it not for the State. I'm in firm belief that if laissez-faire Anarcho-Capitalism was adopted the white race would end up in control of most of the world's important resources (excluding, perhaps, Chinese Manchuria, but I think we'd end up dealing with them on an equal-respect basis) and the lebensraum at our disposal would be immense.

In that case, Capitalism is still Racialist and 'International' - whereby one could deal with fellow Aryan-like communities (the Japanese, Arabs, etc.) I agree with Aloysha here, and Moody has not lost anything here either.

I have no objections to dealing with Arabs and Japanese, I think it would be profitable for us and them, so long as the Japanese stayed within Asia (I don't think they have a great urgency to swarm America or the rest of the West with their people - I think, if/when China collapses, they'll be looking West (into China) for their lebensraum. I don't think the Arabs would have any objections dealing with the white world, oil for food (or something of that nature), though technology may (or has - http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=4925) make our dependency on oil obsolete.

Moody; You'll have to forgive me; I cannot get into this Gramsci stuff [the picture of him looking very Semitic doesn't help].
My taste, nay my stomach, rejects it - perhaps you could put it into more 'digestible' portions for me?

If Julius was still here, perhaps he could write something up on passive/active revolution and war of position/war of manuever in Gramsci's thought. It'd be useful.

I fear that I do not deserve such praise, as I feel that I am unable to even grasp what you are offering to us here - put it down to my stupidity.
Your ideas are flying above my head at the moment; could you elaborate further?

He wants us to mix our ideas together - your Statism, my Capitalism. It's not happening.

[Aethrei]

> He wants us to mix our ideas together - your Statism, my Capitalism. It's not happening.

I am a she, and yes, I can see that. My mistake; I did not take a look at all the discussions on the Politics Forum.

I got the impression that National Anarchism too basically sees the State as an 'inward form' when it claims its Nationalism is based on the Folk and the People, and the etymology of Nation - Natio, etc. speaks for this Spenglerian view. I suppose you see the State as merely an outward structure and community protection as some sort of mechanism, but this bifurcation is artificial. I see the State as something already inherent, present, woven together in the concept of Nation.

> Fair trade implies restrictions in favour of the economically inferior - something we would not be, were it not for the State.

Depends, if you see the Federal Reserve itself as belonging with the enemy camp, or merely a tool that has been hijacked by the enemy. If the latter is true, it is not really the State that is evil.

[Aethrei]

> You'll have to forgive me; I cannot get into this Gramsci stuff [the picture of him looking very Semitic doesn't help].
My taste, nay my stomach, rejects it

Ok; I can respect that. (Like Nietzsche warns its healthy to keep away from some books, right?)

> Your ideas are flying above my head at the moment; could you elaborate further?

I wrote in haste without taking a look at the other discussions in the Politics forum, and I realize the two (N-S and N-A) might not be compatible if the idea of a State is not already inherent in the N-A view. Initially, with the Gramsci link, I suppose I was speaking of Nietzsche's HH 224, where he affirms Machiavelli as saying - ""the form of governments is of very slight importance... The great goal of politics should be permanence, which outweighs anything else, being much more valuable than freedom.""
So, I really did not see, why Aloysha could not carry out a cultural revolution and you a political revolution side by side, without introducing a schism of what should take precedence, if all of us are to present a united Constitution.

Naturally, if my understanding of N-A is incorrect, I retract everything said, except the personal note.

It is just disappointing that we could be this fragmented. Please feel free to delete any threads.

[Moody]

Aethrei; "Naturally, if my understanding of N-A is incorrect, I retract everything said, except the personal note. It is just disappointing that we could be this fragmented. Please feel free to delete any threads".

Moody Lawless; I personally will not stand for such a thing!
I believe that Aloysha has moved over to anarcho-capitalism; so much so, that I find any remarks that he makes about race and nation to be utterly unconvincing.
He has been championing the likes of Mises, Rothbard - even Alan Greenspan! - for the past couple of weeks or so. Essentially he is presenting a form of Jewish Capitalism as far as I am concerned.
Therefore he is an 'enemy' in political terms.
This is why I had to step back when you suggested a conciliation between Aloysha and I ...
However, I value your insight and your spirit - you are a catalyst; not only that, I believe that you have a wealth of philosophical/political wisdom to offer us.
And I would be very interested if you COULD find a way of reconciling Aloysha's worship of the Golden Dollar with my own Hard-Nietzscheanism/N-S position![snowball in hell].

But please, never censor your thoughts - put them on here no matter what; I for one want to hear them.

[Jack]

I am a she, and yes, I can see that. My mistake; I did not take a look at all the discussions on the Politics Forum.

My apologies. You don't need to apologise for not viewing all the discussions (the recent ones, anyway) in the Politics forum, that's ok.

I got the impression that National Anarchism too basically sees the State as an 'inward form' when it claims its Nationalism is based on the Folk and the People, and the etymology of Nation - Natio, etc. speaks for this Spenglerian view. I suppose you see the State as merely an outward structure and community protection as some sort of mechanism,

I understand the Spenglerian view. To an extent, I agree with it. Local communities by all means could elect their own leaders and form militias for defense and agree to their own laws. I do see the State as an outward structure and protection organisation.

but this bifurcation is artificial. I see the State as something already inherent, present, woven together in the concept of Nation.

That is your view, you are entitled to it. I simply disagree.

Depends, if you see the Federal Reserve itself as belonging with the enemy camp, or merely a tool that has been hijacked by the enemy. If the latter is true, it is not really the State that is evil.

The Federal Reserve, from my perspective, is part of the enemy. I would still view it as part of the enemy no matter whose hands it was in - consider it Sauron's Ring from Tolkien's trilogy. It needs to be destroyed.

-----------

Aethrei, your understanding of National Anarchism was not incorrect at all. National Anarchism promotes free association and local communities each with their own forms of Government - National Socialism could well operate within a National Anarchist meta-system - with trade between communities. Under Anarcho-Capitalism, individuals are free to associate, buy, sell, and deal with those who they want to. This isn't that much different from National Anarchism, except Anarcho-Capitalism is hostile to an all-encompassing State - local communities are still free to write up their own laws on contract basis and form their own militias to enforce them, and they can form voluntary welfare systems if they want to. So there isn't much difference at all. Anarchism (every type, Anarcho-Capitalism, National Anarchism, Eco-Anarchism, even Anarcho-Syndicalism) is voluntarist, and Moody Lawless is not a voluntarist. If he was, I don't think there would be anywhere near as much friction between us as there is.

I won't delete any of your threads. You've promoted some interesting ideas, and like Moody, I'd like to hear more from you. Do keep posting.

In response to Moody:

I believe that Aloysha has moved over to anarcho-capitalism; so much so, that I find any remarks that he makes about race and nation to be utterly unconvincing.

I have indeed 'moved over' to Anarcho-Capitalism. I am not trying to convince you about race or nation - you've got that much inside you already.

He has been championing the likes of Mises, Rothbard - even Alan Greenspan! - for the past couple of weeks or so. Essentially he is presenting a form of Jewish Capitalism as far as I am concerned.

Mises and Rothbard, yes, I have promoted their ideas on economics. I have used an article by Alan Greenspan in favour of the gold standard. Capitalism is not essentially Jewish, nor do we live under Capitalism, and the Jews are in the lead right now because they've hijacked the State and used it to their advantage.

Therefore he is an 'enemy' in political terms.

Because I refuse to subordinate or be subordinated?

[Moody]

I say that you are an enemy in the sense that Carl Scmitt talks of - a public enemy, rather than a private enemy [foe].

It is in the nature of 'the political' that the friend/enemy distinction be made; those who aim at the depoliticisation of life [liberals, nihilists, anarchists etc.,] want to end this antithesis of friend/enemy.

I target you because you slip and slide; you twist and turn; wear one colour then another - a charlatan?
But you won't stay still long enough to find out, moving from Statist to Anarchist with blinding speed.
You are not rooted - you glide through the air, or you skim the waters ...

Not I; I am rooted; I grow out of my own convictions - I AM those convictions.
I am of the Earth, I am of the Blood.
I do not move towards the unfamiliar and the deceptive ...
I let them come to me: I then stand back and gaze suspiciously - I try to sniff out a rat.
Won't get fooled again.

My Ideals are simple.
The acausal Dionysian Necessity;
The Eternal recurrence of the Same;
The Will to Power;
The Aryan Race;
Blood and Soil;
The Folkish Nation-State;
The Leadership Principle.

I am wary of enemies to those positions ...
Anarchists,
Nihilists,
Communists,
Capitalists,
Jews,
Liberals,
Libertarians ...
These and more are the enemy.

And a worse enemy is he who tryeth to hook 'nationalist' to his name in order to dissemble.

This is a declaration of public enmity!

[Jack]

I say that you are an enemy in the sense that Carl Scmitt talks of - a public enemy, rather than a private enemy [foe].

Politics deals with people. It is always personal. Say it - you want to destroy me.

It is in the nature of 'the political' that the friend/enemy distinction be made; those who aim at the depoliticisation of life [liberals, nihilists, anarchists etc.,] want to end this antithesis of friend/enemy.

I am not a fan of neverending war. You have no end in sight - no aim, nothing you want to achieve, just endless warfare and chaos between organisations of people. I want the light at the end of the tunnel, not the tunnel itself.

I target you because you slip and slide; you twist and turn; wear one colour then another - a charlatan?
But you won't stay still long enough to find out, moving from Statist to Anarchist with blinding speed.
You are not rooted - you glide through the air, or you skim the waters ...

Nice poetics. Wrong, though. Not exactly blinding speed, either. My shift from Statism towards Anarchism began with a conversation with a friend around the time both you and I were arguing about the State and the Nation. It snowballed from there.

Not I; I am rooted; I grow out of my own convictions - I AM those convictions.
I am of the Earth, I am of the Blood.

Absolutely FANTASTIC :anieyes

I do not move towards the unfamiliar and the deceptive ...

I am after knowledge. There is something that I pursue. I put knowledge in service of my aims. I do what I can to make the unfamiliar familiar, and remove deception. My aims have not changed but my means to do so have.

I let them come to me: I then stand back and gaze suspiciously - I try to sniff out a rat.
Won't get fooled again.

You were fooled in the first place?

My Ideals are simple.
The acausal Dionysian Necessity;
The Eternal recurrence of the Same;
The Will to Power;
The Aryan Race;
Blood and Soil;
The Folkish Nation-State;
The Leadership Principle.

Indeed... Why is the white race important again? Give me solid, rational answers, without resorting to myth or poetry or anything sentimental.

I am wary of enemies to those positions ...
Anarchists,
Nihilists,
Communists,
Capitalists,
Jews,
Liberals,
Libertarians ...
These and more are the enemy.

You are well and truly paranoid Moody. I can trust my mind. That is more, I suspect, than you can safely say for yourself.

And a worse enemy is he who tryeth to hook 'nationalist' to his name in order to dissemble.

I can speaketh in Olde English therefore I am smart. Disassemble WHAT exactly? I despise your Statist 'Racial Nationalism' - there you have it, typed up, on record, quote it all you want, I don't particularly care. I am all for Racialism but Statism is something I am most certainly not for. Ok? Can you accept that without calling me Jew or any other smear word? Or not?

This is a declaration of public enmity!

The public is merely the extended private. There is no difference, no border. Say it - you want me destroyed.

[Siegfried]

I am not a fan of neverending war. You have no end in sight - no aim, nothing you want to achieve, just endless warfare and chaos between organisations of people. I want the light at the end of the tunnel, not the tunnel itself.

But you do support neverending economic struggle, without an end in sight? Endless struggle between commercial corporations? Because that's what Capitalism basically comes down to. Capitalism is in itself just as pointless/worthwile as war is in itself. A Nietzschean would probably claim that the individual affirms his Will to Power through war and economic struggle, and would therefore deem both worthwile even if there's no higher purpose behind them.

And what exactly is the 'the light at the end of the tunnel' in this context?