by Eric Thomson

Many self-styled racists promote certain authors, not for their value to Aryans, but because certain enemies of Our Race, mainly Christians, do not like them. Analyzed from a racial standpoint: IS IT GOOD FOR WHITES? there is much that is objectionable in their works. I address this article to four writers who follow two schools of thought: the individual above all, and the school of historical inevitability.

In regard to the 'individualist' proponents, it is obvious that we all exist as individuals, but no individual exists apart from a society. Anthropologists have roamed the entire planet in search of the Rousseauvian-Lockean-Marxian-Jeffersonian 'noble savage', who supposedly coexists with his like in a utopian anarchy, without social institutions such as families, tribes, etc., and without any form of social pecking order. The search has gone on for centuries without any reported discoveries of such an asocial society of discrete humanoids who exist as 'islands unto themselves'. Of course, what the anthropologist is looking for is an oxymoron, like "cold fusion", so it is no wonder that he will never find his utopia of 'harmonious anarchy'. Experience teaches us, if logic does not, that in any struggle of all against all, the first individuals who team up will have a great advantage over those who do not. If we assume that all combatants are equal, then the outcome becomes even more certain in favor of the team. Anyone who has played in team sports knows that the side with the best teamwork, rather than the best individual players, usually wins. That was what kept the Roman legions' battle scores so high on most occasions, rather than their prowess as individual warriors. Individual warriors are best matched against individual warriors, but that is not how wars are fought, least of all, race wars, which we find ourselves in the midst of.

Two proponents of the 'rugged individualist' school of predatory irresponsibility are one of my favorite philosophers, Friedrich Nietzsche, and the great Aryan adventurer and author, Jack London, who is thought to be the author of "Might is Right", using the penname of Ragnar Redbeard. Nietzsche long championed the 'superman, who rises above the herd', not as a leader, but as a being apart from the people who gave him birth. This idea tends to separate the people from their leaders, who feel themselves 'too good for the sheeple'. We have seen what happens with armies whose officers think themselves so superior to the other ranks. The Italian Army of World War II comes to mind in this regard. Jack London was long an Aryan socialist. He is said to have addressed a socialist gathering with the words, "I am first and foremost a White man!" He was interrupted by enthusiastic applause. In 1910, however, he renounced Aryan socialism and joined the lemmings who wished to 'save the British, from those awful Huns'. Shortly thereafter, London died, possibly by his own hand. London's train of thought may have led him from Aryan socialism into the form of warrior-individualism cum banditry which the author of "Might is Right" eulogizes. This is the very sort of robber baron society which Thorstein Veblen condemned in his "The Theory of the Leisure Class", for Veblen obviously sides with the producers, rather than the predators.

Neither Redbeard (London), nor Neitzsche address the importance of race and the need for Aryan continuity, rather than Aryan dissolution and death. I offer the logical result of this philosophy for your consideration: Imagine Ludvig van Beethoven stuck in an African village. What good would his genius be to him or to the Blacks? A more practical example is that of James Watt, who invented an early and successful steam engine. He nearly failed, because the state of metallurgy and machining were so primitive. Nevertheless, with all the leaks and low pressure, there was just enough to push that piston; otherwise Watt's invention would have become another artistic curio, like the inventions of Leonardo da Vinci which were too far ahead of contemporary technology to become reality, in his own time. Earnest Sevier Cox summed it up thusly in his "White America". "In order to maintain a White civilization, it is necessary to maintain a White working class; in order to maintain a White working class, it is necessary to pay the White worker sufficient to maintain himself and his family." America is the example of the Redbeard-Nietzsche school's model of economics: when the White worker became "too expensive", he was replaced by non-Whites. Who were the malefactors in this progressive darkening of America? Other Whites who saw themselves 'above' their fellow Whites; Whites who were rich, with no concept of community (racial) interests. It is no surprise that the author of "Might is Right" praises this 'social order' in terms of opportunity for predators. Our present society of non-Whites preying upon Whites must be changed for our own good. Whites must stop selling out their race for personal gain; but neither Nietzsche nor Redbeard state their disapproval of race-traitors. Is their philosophy good for Our Race? No. Neither would it be good for any race.

Predestination, karma, fate, etc. have been debated from ancient times to the present. More recently, the idea of immutable fate has been 'modernized' by labelling the concept, 'historical inevitability'. Marxism adopted this concept as a propaganda device, just as did the jew, Vladimir Illyich Ulanov, alias Nikolai Lenin, who called his minority party "Bolshevik", meaning "Majority". Western journalists swallowed this myth to the extent that they were blind to the crumbling Soviet edifice. Perhaps the most shocked were the West German reporters who awoke one morning to find that they had not been annexed by East Germany, but that the contrary had occurred! The philosophical debate can go on, however, as long as there are idlers who care to prattle, but there is no proof that anything is 'historically inevitable', especially when we experience so many instances to the contrary.

Oswald Spengler and Francis Parker Yockey are two proponents of this school of inevitability. Hitler discouraged his followers from reading Spengler's "Untergang des Abendländes" ("The Decline of the West") because of the author's assumption that this decline was inevitable. Yockey obviously echoed Spengler when he described his Imperium phase of Aryan development as 'organic' and inevitable, despite the machinations of the "culture-distorters", that is, the jews. Spengler uses an analogy, that civilization is like A PLANT. He then proceeds to describe the symptoms of civilization's decay, as one would the maturation and death of a single flower, shrub or blade of grass. In fact, this is a poor analogy. Civilization is more akin to a field of plants, rather than a single specimen. This linkage of an analogy which must result in death, for all single plants die, with an accurate description of the symptoms of social decay make Spengler very demoralizing to many readers. On the contrary, Yockey's thesis that Aryan Imperium is likewise inevitable leads the reader to complacency. As I experienced in White Rhodesia, before the fall into Black misrule, demoralization and complacency have the same result: inaction, which is the guarantor of defeat. Rhodesian Whites were of these two schools of 'inevitability': a good half believed that Black misrule was inevitable because of Black numbers; the other half believed that Ian Smith would never allow such a thing to happen. Neither bunch of Whites did anything to prevent the advent of Black misrule, so it happened.

As a youngster, I gained a few insights from reading Feodor Mikhailovich Dostoevski (in English!). If I recall correctly, one of his short stories was entitled "The Pink Lampshade" and it depicted a Russian version of a typical American bourgeois materialist status-seeker. Apparently, a pink lampshade was one of the desired status symbols of a Russian social-climber. The protagonist is a pompous, shallow materialist, but when he comes down with appendicitis, a deadly disease at the time of writing, for medicine had not progressed to the point where an operation was possible, the bourgeois mellows out and becomes more appreciative of more valuable things in life. Then he croaks. Spengler might have used appendicitis for his social analogy, for that disease resulted in decay and inevitable death for an individual, however, by the time Spengler wrote his book, surgery was able to prevent 'the inevitable', just as National Socialism could remedy the collapse of civilization by removing and/or curing the causes thereof. Spengler describes symptoms, rather than causes for the decline of White Civilization. Writers like Adolf Hitler, Pendall and Cox address the causes. When we have cured the body politic of jews, downbreeding and non-White 'cheap labor', we will not see the development of further symptoms of social decay, just as a timely operation cures appendicitis.

Complacent Whites may lull themselves into further inactivity by believing Yockey's thesis of imperial inevitability, but we see how diligently the jews work to prevent that from happening. So far they have succeeded, and it looks as if they will continue to succeed. To assure the triumph of our racial enemies, it is only necessary that we do nothing, and this is certainly not good for Whites.