ELEVATING THE DIVISION AMONG US

 

by Michael Harwell

Diversity of opinion will only benefit a revolutionary movement when it leads to deeper understanding and the enhanced modification of strategy. We must therefore avoid engaging in friendly fire that fails to elevate division to a higher level. The hostile behavior demonstrated in the comments section of Colin Liddell’s recent article was factious and unworthy of our cause. If disagreement exists among us, then let us sort out these disputes like thinking men who ultimately agree upon far more than we disagree.

I have thus decided to heed my own advice and enter the discussion. The position I take is in support of Liddell and Roman Bernard who believe our message should be strategically delivered in accordance with the harsh realities we face on the ground. Multiculturalism is the dominant ideology of our times and we must present our message in ways that can penetrate this veil of oppression.

For those of you who have not chosen a side, it may be that answering a single question will inform you where to stand. Consider the friends and acquaintances you know who have the potential to become committed members of the alternative right. Would you direct them to the Counter-Currents  website to expand their knowledge? My own answer is no because I believe many of these individuals would immediately reject the Hitlerism they see there rather than probing deeper to discover the thoughtful and meaningful ideas that exist on this website.

Critics of the position I am taking have responded with the argument that strategically presenting our message is an impotent effort to convert the rank and file of the politically correct. I agree that many of the sheep are too far gone to be saved from their conceit and ignorance. Nevertheless, our message must appeal to those who sit uncomfortably in the pews of the egalitarian congregation. This includes many republicans, neocons, libertarians, and blue dog democrats. This even includes some members of the authentic intellectual Left capable of seeing multiculturalism for what it is—the newest ideological justification for the expansion of the managerial government. None of these potential recruits will be receptive to a message that is tainted by Hitlerism.

Counter-Currents’ author Matthew Parrott has cogently defended the commemoration of Hitler with his article “Never Leave a Fallen Comrade.” While I find much to admire in Parrott’s spirited writing, he is guilty of presenting a false choice to his readers: Either we openly embrace Hitler as one of us or we support “individualism, mercantile morality, moral relativism, and universal egalitarianism.” There is apparently no middle path to be taken. Consequently, building a movement in favor of heritage, faith, and tradition requires portraying multiple pictures of Hitler on our websites and celebrating his birthday.

This is nonsensical. If there is anything to be learned from Hitler’s thinking, then it is quite possible to convey these ideas without having to endorse them with the Hitler stamp of approval. The Nazis understood better than anyone that how you present your message to the people is no less important than the content of the message. Identifying who said something first is of little consequence if what is declared remains true and still applies today. Ideas can undoubtedly be reinforced when they are backed by the words of Great Men, but testimonial of this variety is only effective when the promoted icon is viewed favorably by the masses.

Parrott is absolutely correct that the Right is to be criticized for its habitual behavior of abandoning fallen comrades. Derbyshire’s experience at the National Review illustrates this point well. But is there any strategic benefit in claiming as our own Adolf Hitler, Nathan Forrest, and William Pierce? Will such an approach help us “advance our cause?”

Supporting intellectual exiles like Derbyshire does advance our cause because his message and status as a political thinker remains palatable to potential recruits. Indeed, many potential recruits are likely to feel sympathy for a man so obviously persecuted by the Left and Right for daring to express opinions and facts that contradict the narrative of the politically correct orthodoxy. Conversely, potential recruits are unlikely to accept anything that is overtly linked to Hitler and company. The reality is that some fallen comrades should be supported and others should not. Knowing where to draw this line may not always be easy and perhaps this is why Parrott believes we should never attempt to do so. But sometimes drawing this line is incredibly easy. Hitler clearly exists outside the domain of praiseworthy men because celebrating his legacy is a path to political isolation and the diminishment of our movement.

Critics are likely to list off other controversial names to assert the existence of a slippery slope. Such a slope does exist and we must be wary of conforming ourselves like the ideologically oppressive forces we intend to dethrone. The solution might therefore be to simply never rely on Great Men. Instead, we must rely on Great Ideas. If there is anything worth reproducing from Hitler’s philosophy or political strategy, then we should appropriate these ideas without expending what little political capital we have defending his reputation.

It may be that Dr. Greg Johnson and Parrott believe sentiment should trump strategy. They feel an intellectual debt to men like Hitler, Forrest, and Pierce—and they believe this debt should be tendered by claiming these men as our own and commemorating them on websites. There is certainly something to be admired about the willingness of Johnson and Parrot to defy the guardians of multiculturalism and praise the men they believe should be honored. But if these men really are more influential and inspirational than any living American, then would they not also be self-sacrificing men far more concerned with advancing our cause than salvaging their legacy? In other words, Hitler and company would encourage us to appropriate their ideas and spread them in the most effective way possible which in today’s hostile political climate means never associating these ideas with their names.

At the strategic level, there can be only two reasons why Johnson and Parrott think claiming Hitler as one of their own does more good than harm. First, they believe the situation of Western Civilization is becoming so dire that Whites will soon experience a prodigious awakening and suddenly find Hitler palatable. If this is the reason why Johnson and Parrott endorse Hitler on their website, then I believe they are sadly mistaken. For how much worse do things have to become than they already are? Our condition has steadily declined without respite for over half a century and this deterioration has not resulted in any such great awakening.

One important reason Whites continue to slumber is because the human spirit has a remarkable ability to endure hardship and suffering when this pain is introduced mildly and increased incrementally. In other words, there has been no sudden shock to the lives of Whites, only a slow and continuous expansion of discomfort that is unlikely to open their eyes before we reach the point of no return. It is our duty then as a revolutionary movement to awaken Whites before that day arrives and prepare them for what must be done. Such a task cannot be accomplished with a message that is rejected before it is even heard.

The second possibility is that Johnson and Parrott endorse Hitler on their website because they are targeting members of the radical right community rather than the White masses. That is to say, the North American New Right has accepted its status as a permanently isolated fringe movement and is striving to build an elite vanguard that will wage a revolutionary struggle without the support of the people. Parrott declares in his article that anyone unwilling to accept Hitler will be unable to “abide any of the other radical transformations they would need to undergo in order to be a credible threat to Modernity, Global Jewry, and the multicultural dissolution of our heritage and traditions.” The acceptance of Hitler thus seems to be a litmus test that potential recruits must pass before they will be capable of taking effective action against these threats. In short, Hitlerism is a way to filter out recruits who lack serious revolutionary conviction.

If this is indeed the reason why Johnson and Parrott endorse Hitler on their website, then perhaps I have underestimated the appreciation these men have for revolutionary strategy because such an approach is not without merit. I personally do not support this strategy because I believe it unreasonably limits the size and talent of the vanguard and would never be capable of generating enough support among Whites to achieve critical mass. Nevertheless, I am willing to let Johnson and Parrott attempt to convince me otherwise. Indeed, that is exactly the kind of elevated form of disagreement we should be hammering out instead of occupying our time with pettiness and factious bickering.