Procedurally Generated Aryanism

In Which Way Western Man? the author, William Simpson, councils us to “resist not evil.” In this, he encourages the potential higher man to spend his time with constructive work without being bogged down in the rebuking of critics. Very rarely do I feel the need to do this, but given the insinuations by this critic regarding my honesty and character I am compelled. My critic was the admin of a seemingly defunct forum, and a response of this length to a tweet thread deserves a response for his effort as well.

Before responding it will be of utility to the reader to see my brief tweet thread (with errors included) that prompted the forum post. Then, I’ll try to address the charges laid against my person before responding in a “forum style” because this response was initially posted on a forum. My responses will be in plain text while the critic’s will be in bold. Not every response is a rebuttal, some are jumping off points to clarify my own thinking.  Also, if I have misquoted the critic or omitted any of his writings, please let me know. I’m working off a copy-paste from a comrade and the source forum is gone.

Initial Thread:

+ What very few people understand is that The Turner Diaries is the only pro-H-TLER critique of H-TLER known to man. Despite relying upon it, the National Alliance was practically opposed to charismatic authority. Pierce’s dream was an institution that would outlive himself.

+  Defending H-TLER as the greatest Aryan man to live, in spite of his military defeat, can be quite challenging. One must separate his ends and means – critiquing only the latter (gently). The most impactful novels must err on the oblique side to effectively communicate.

+ H-TLER championed the power of personality, of moving masses with emotional fervor, of top men competing for leadership. But all of these things still ended in German defeat (albeit sparing half of Europe from communism).

+ What does The Organization in TD lack compared to the NSDAP? It is faceless -entirely devoid of personality. It holds the masses in contempt and practices democratic centralism. All committee decisions are final. The Organization is practically Bolshevik.

+ It can order its own adherents to their death. Even the protagonist performs a nuclear suicide mission as atonement for not committing suicide to avoid capture. The Organization actively punishes its lukewarm adherents instead of passing them over for perks.

+ Membership at a certain stage of the struggle is reserved for killers. Aspirants must earn their place in the New Society by shedding blood. Unlike other apocalyptic fantasies, the protagonists initiate the millennium instead of seeking to endure it.

+ All of this is achieved via Weberian rational-legal authority. Pierce embraced the strength and purity of the machine – complete universality of purpose – over the increasingly unreliable “heroism” of individuals.

+ As an addendum, The Organization has no uniform, symbol, or aesthetic. It is completely aniconic and derives strength from this. It is not for show, it does not know pain, or fear. It is efficient (not economically wasteful like Germany). + https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=zA_xUcOvHXc

The admin repeatedly made the claim that I argued in “bad faith” throughout his response. Let us define and confront the allegation before continuing. After all, if one party argues dishonestly is there a point in continuing? A simple search turned up a couple similar definitions:

1. “…an argument that disguises the core point of a debate rather than addressing issues, beliefs, and values head-on.”
2. “…a sustained form of deception which consists of entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings while acting as if influenced by another.”

My novel reading of The Turner Diaries is exactly that – my novel reading! I do in fact believe that it is a friendlier (if wary) critique of Hitlerian organizational principles. Most Aryanist fiction after 1945. I do believe Dr. Pierce intended the fictional Organization as something aspirational despite period assurances otherwise (most likely to avoid legal sanction from the System).  Although only implied, I do in fact believe in tempering an inherently fragile personality/charismatic power with a more bureaucratic and/or process-driven one – and this was a crucial message in The Turner Diaries.

Führerprinzip vs. The Organization

In a recent Twitter thread, a guy named SwabianSalute made an interesting argument about critiquing Hitler and after my friend Vidar alerted me to it: I thought I would respond from the point-of-view of a dedicated National Socialist.

He writes how the late, great William Pierce’s novel ‘The Turner Diaries’ can be read as a critique of Adolf Hitler and to be honest that is a new and interesting perspective but his description of it as the ‘only known pro-Hitler critique of Hitler known to man’ is simply wrong, however.
A good example of this is the fact that he cites the World Church of the Creator (aka Creativity), but he doesn’t mention that Ben Klassen actually criticised Hitler especially in around race – Klassen being of Ukrainian Mennonite ancestry with both his parent’s families having originally come from Germany – where he argued that Slavs were not an enemy of (and were actually part of) the white race and criticized Hitler’s racial policies in Eastern Europe towards the Slavs with some justification. An earlier criticism of the same type was also made by the pro-Hitler British author James Larratt Battersby in his 1952 ‘The Holy Book of Adolf Hitler’ where he contended that Slavs were actually part of the Aryan race.

In contrast to say Savitri Devi who objected to the entire notion of the ‘white race’ and preferred (correctly) the Aryan race when writing to George Lincoln Rockwell. Indeed, Savitri Devi openly implies criticism of Hitler in ‘And Times Rolls On’ and it was not uncommon even during the Third Reich for European National Socialists to openly criticise elements of German National Socialism with one such critic being William Joyce (‘Lord Haw Haw’) as Mary Kenny points out in her excellent and broadly sympathetic biography of him ‘Germany Calling’.

So, no Dr. Pierce wasn’t alone in his pro-Hitler criticisms of Hitler and National Socialism but rather was writing – if we read ‘The Turner Diaries’ as such – in a long tradition of friendly criticism which is so essential to the Socratic dialogue that lies at the heart of National Socialism.

Yes, that was an obvious typo – Dr. Pierce wasn’t the only friendly critic of Hitler. In my initial thread, I did not cite Klassen so I find it odd that my tweets mentioning him are included. Given that all my tweets are fair game now, it would be frankly unsporting not to mention my previous ones detailing how Klassen differed from Hitler regarding his conception of “White Volk” contra the correct Aryan position (as found in The Klassen Letters).  The search bar above my account will reveal these and other differences between Creativity and National Socialism – further demonstrating that this is a simple typographical error. Note this will not be the first time my admin critic simply refused to utilize a search function.

However, he failed in this and as Robert Griffin points out in ‘The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds’ Pierce was acutely aware by the end of his life of where he had failed, and it is sad indeed that the National Alliance fell apart after his death. This especially so because it was so unnecessary – and full disclosure I call Pierce’s lieutenants Billy Roper, Bob DeMaris and Fred Streed friends or acquaintances while I am no friend of Kevin Alfred Strom – as Pierce simply picked badly in naming the all-important successor: Erich Gliebe.

A University of Minnesota sociology lecture notes that: “Weber emphasized that charismatic authority in its pure form (i.e., when authority resides in someone solely because of the person’s charisma and not because the person also has traditional or rational-legal authority) is less stable than traditional authority or rational-legal authority.” In other words, stability in time of crisis is evidently not a strong suit of this style.

In this he made a similar mistake to the Roman Emperor and stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius did when he appointed his son Commodus as his heir and the Roman Empire lurched from a period of success and prosperity into a period of retreat, failure and poverty. This mistake was to allow his emotions to get the better of him and not to properly vet and groom his successor. The difference between Pierce and Marcus Aurelius is only a matter of degree of the size of the organization they headed as they both achieved much and lived extraordinarily successful as well as stoic lives. Hence the Roman Empire had far more resources and ability to recover the disastrous situation than the National Alliance did.

Regarding traditional authority in the Weberian sense: Hitler himself remarked in Mein Kampf that “If the value of this institution lay in the momentary person of the monarch, it would be the worst institution that can be imagined…” and later “ Consequently, the value and importance of the monarchic idea cannot reside the person of the monarch himself except if Heaven decides to lay the crown on the brow of a heroic genius like Frederick the Great or a wise character like William I. This happens once in centuries and hardly more often.” Hitler’s observations on the nature of traditional authority, and the blessing of a rare good monarch, serve to further highlight the need for a better process of successor selection – the riskiest aspect of charismatic authority. Hitler is (not was!) such an enormous figure that we forget how human everyone else is in comparison – and our systems must reflect that.

SwabianSalute’s point that the National Alliance was ‘opposed to charismatic authority’ is simply cobblers as the organization was run hierarchy like any other but also as an effective organization it was not burdened with James Burnham called the ‘Managerial Revolution’ (aka bureaucratic middle management effectively neutering or disrupting an organization and/or state) because it operated on a flat management structure and thus there was always a direct conduit between Dr. Pierce and the National Alliance’s membership with few people in between or acting as potential gatekeepers.

I said the National Alliance did in fact rely on charismatic authority, despite Pierce seeking to transcend it with a (cultic) revolutionary bureaucracy as illustrated in The Turner Diaries. This is a bad faith misquotation if I’ve ever seen one.

“The characteristics of bureaucracy include a fixed salary, posts based on technical skill rather than personal connections, a well-defined hierarchy, and continuous rules which bind the behavior of administrators and citizens or clients alike.” If the National Alliance did not err toward this method of organization, I’ll see myself out.

The National Alliance was largely based around Dr. Pierce’s charisma and leadership style – his ‘American Dissident Voices’ broadcasts, are very much reminiscent of FDR’s similarly successful ‘Fireside Chats’ on the radio in the 1930s – and contending that this was anything other than how it was meant to be is simply a lie given that Pierce mentioned to Robert Griffin how he had learned much from Alan Bullock’s ‘Hitler: A Study in Tyranny’ and part that was certainly Hitler’s leadership style.

The only lie present is a deliberate misquotation by omission on the admin’s part. FDR created the mighty bureaucracy still ruling America today, which exercises power over nearly every aspect of our lives. That one personable aspiring bureaucrat utilized a technique from another is unsurprising. A fellow Twitter user (partly in jest) referred to Dr. Pierce as the American Homer. If his novels represent the Iliad and Odyssey, his fireside chats must hew closer to Homer’s own topical discussions around the hearth.

This would have been reinforced by Dr. Pierce’s time as George Lincoln Rockwell’s principal lieutenant in the National Socialist Movement which was – like the later National Alliance and the original NSDAP – based heavily around the charisma of the leading personality be it George Lincoln Rockwell, Dr. Pierce or Adolf Hitler.

Rockwell was certainly a charismatic figure, but his untimely murder (most likely with government interference) only further demonstrates the drawbacks of Charismatic Authority in a post-Hitler world. The fallout from his death is still felt, and his failure to sufficiently institutionalize turned an incipient Aryan political force into a morass of squabbling cults. That the National Alliance eventually emerged from this is nothing short of a miracle…and banking on miracles is not a winner’s game. Without digressing too far, I would be remiss not to mention Jim Saleam’s intriguing pro-Rockwell thesis (if it hasn’t been scrubbed from the internet).

SwabianSalute then moves on to rightly assert that Hitler (and Dr. Pierce and Rockwell for that matter) ‘championed the power of personality, of moving masses with emotional fervour, of top men competing for leadership’ but then promptly makes a false equivalence of claiming these are somehow nullified by the failure of the Third Reich to win the Second World War. This is of course a classic case of arguing in bad faith because the organization of the NSDAP during the Kampfzeit (which is what he is comparing to ‘The Organization’ in the Turner Diaries) has absolutely nothing to do with the failure of the Third Reich’s war effort some twelve years after the NSDAP came to power and the NSDAP party structure had all but faded into the background as a political force compared to Speer’s economic system, Himmler’s SS and Goebbels’ propaganda network.

The competing patronage networks based around squabbling personalities (and ensuing redundant projects) were a massive drain on the key resources, time, energy, etc. necessary to effectively prosecute a war. Deliberately putting subordinates against each other as some “Darwinist” exercise isn’t a way to build anything besides resentment.

This suggests that SwabianSalute is probably criticizing Hitler in bad faith albeit with elements of honesty. However, I don’t think this is intentional per se but rather caused by SwabianSalute’s lack of knowledge of the subject matter and apparent penchant for literary flights of fancy.

No, I merely view Dr. Pierce’s twin novels as strategic guides differing from Hitler’s blueprint and practices. The good doctor put a lot more into them than he could safely say in an explicit fashion due to the System’s law.

A good example of which occurs next where he claims that ‘The Organization’ ‘is faceless – entirely devoid of personality. It holds the masses in contempt and practices democratic centralism. All committee decisions are final. The Organization is practically Bolshevik.’

The problem with that is firstly that SwabianSalute hasn’t read all that much about the Bolshevik’s and thinks they were strictly centralised, obeyed the party committees and were ‘devoid of personality’. This is the kind of absurd caricature which has often afflicted anti-Communist writing in general – particularly before, during and for a decade or two after the Stalin era – and was helped by the various memoirs of former leading communists such as Jan Valtin’s (nee Richard Krebs) ‘Out of the Night’ and Louis Budenz’s ‘This is My Story’ and ‘Men Without Faces’.

Fair point! Not much else to say here, except that Dr. Pierce in my opinion admired the Bolshevik’s capacity for violence that he perceived the NSDAP, and later the Greater Germanic Reich, to lack. This was a necessary product of his shoah revisionism. If the Germans lacked the capacity for a necessary democidal violence, there had to be a workable blueprint for it elsewhere. His material on the Katyn massacre must have informed what he wanted to do to anti-Aryans, just as Hitler wished to hold Hebrew corrupters under the same poison gas he endured.

The reality – as we now know from the opening of the Russian archives following the collapse of the Soviet Union – is that the Bolsheviks often disobeyed the various central committees and that the reconsideration of ideological questions and dissent was quite common (for example Lenin’s ‘War Communism’ and subsequent ‘New Economic Policy’ caused massive dissent and rebellions within the Bolshevik party as well as within the Russian left in general). All this is covered in short form by Francis King’s recent monograph ‘The Narodniks in the Russian Revolution’ but is also shown in detail by other more popular works such as Simon Sebag Montefiore’s ‘Young Stalin’ and Helen Rappaport’s biography of Lenin during his years in exile ‘Conspirator’.

Even the fictional Organization had dissent and insubordination. Hence the Pittsburgh scenario described in the novel. The point is to remove these dissenters quickly and efficiently in a way the NSDAP and other radical “White” movements failed to.

From the Turner Diaries: “The surviving staff members of the Organization’s Pittsburgh Field Command, whose hesitation in dealing with the Jews had brought on the catastrophe, were rounded up and shot by a special disciplinary squad acting on orders from Revolutionary Command.”

Nor were the Bolsheviks ‘faceless’ in any way, shape or form but rather were a group led just as the NSDAP were: they ‘championed the power of personality, of moving masses with emotional fervor, of top men competing for leadership’.

Their intellectual father certainly sought to free his ideology from it, despite how it was later actualized:

“…such was my aversion to the personality cult that at the time of the International, when plagued by numerous moves — originating from various countries — to accord me public honour, I never allowed one of these to enter the domain of publicity, nor did I ever reply to them, save with an occasional snub. When Engels and I first joined the secret communist society, we did so only on condition that anything conducive to a superstitious belief in authority be eliminated from the Rules.” – Karl Marx

Anyone who has studied the Bolsheviks, or the broader history of the twin Russian revolutions of 1917 would know that the Bolsheviks and their rivals all relied on ‘the power of personality’ (hence the cult of Lenin, the cult of Stalin and the dissident cult of Trotsky), of moving masses with emotional fervour’ (Trotsky’s speeches in particular were legendary and he has not unjustly been credited by biographers – such as Isaac Deutscher and Ronald Segal – as being the principle architect/saviour of the Bolshevik Revolution) and ‘of top men competing for leadership’ (Lenin’s war against the Menshevik faction of the Russian Social-Democratic Party comes to mind as does the Trotsky versus Stalin conflict after Lenin’s death as well as the later purges of Kamenev and Zinoviev by Stalin).

Aside from SwabianSalute’s implied praise of the Bolsheviks underpinned by his belief in their own apocalyptic revolution mythology – which amusingly contradicts his own condemnation of ‘apocalyptic fantasies’

I never condemned apocalyptic fantasies, and find the one outlined in the Turner Diaries quite inspiring compared to those offered by every other Aryan dissident thinker. Nor does accepting a common (now somewhat mistaken) criticism of Bolshevism imply acceptance their own self-congratulatory mythology.

We should note that his support for ‘The Organization’s’ ‘faceless’ approach is reminiscent of the kind of ludicrous thinking behind St. Thomas More’s book ‘Utopia’ where everyone is faceless, nameless and characterless leading not to paradise but to purgatory within the state concerned much as there has never been a ‘faceless’ organization. Heck even the anarchists of the nineteenth century – famous for both their ‘leaderless resistance’ approach as well as belief in the ‘propaganda of the deed’ over the ‘propaganda of the word’ – didn’t achieve such a state.

Its face is victory. I’m unaware of the satirical work Utopia influencing The Turner Diaries but am certainly open to evidence.  I guess tying me to some “debunked” work will have to do. “Leaderless resistance” as a strategy (not a proving ground in the case of Hunter) wasn’t something promoted by Dr. Pierce (or myself in interpreting his work). Just because my critic dislikes an alternative leadership style doesn’t make it devoid of that quality. Hunter most notably was inspired by the direction action of Joseph Paul Franklin. If “propaganda of the deed” inspires “propaganda of the word” is that ineffective?

I will also note that SwabianSalute’s idea of ‘Democratic Centralism’ is typically vague and woolly precisely because no one can define precisely what it is – I certainly can’t – but in practice it generally means some kind of rule…

“Democratic centralism is a practice in which political decisions reached by voting processes are binding upon all members of the political party. Although mainly associated with Leninism, wherein the party’s political vanguard composed of professional revolutionaries practiced democratic centralism to elect leaders and officers as well as to determine policy through free discussion, then decisively realized through united action” Yet another failure-to-search in bad faith, this time behind performative befuddlement. Regardless of the extent to which Bolsheviks practiced this, is it not a better practice than banking on the next Big Man? Should our “monarch” have no council? Is moderating the worst effects of movement squabbling, or even trying, not worth the attempt? Perhaps the “democracy” of our enemies is a stronger force than we’re willing to admit? I only have questions here because so few are curious enough to ask them.

Anyone who advocates rule by committee rather than rule by consensus – the latter is both not and truly democratic at the same time incidentally – is quite frankly a fool because any committee is always the slave either of the one person who invariably actually does the work (as reading the autobiography of any long-serving leftist and trade unionist could tell you; for example, see Denis Hill’s entertaining ‘Seeing Red, Being Green’) not the other members who try to take the credit or it is the servant (or slave) of the dominant personality with Robespierre’s leadership of the ‘Committee for Public Safety’ during the French Revolution being an obvious example of the reality rather than theory of rule by committee.

The existence of internal hierarchies doesn’t negate the values (or drawbacks) of collective decision making.

What both Robespierre and Hitler rightly understood is that men and women (or ‘the masses’ if you prefer) ache to follow and be led by strong men who will take the bull by the horns and do what must be done.

No one follows ‘a committee’.

Yes they do, especially when said committee has demonstrated a capacity to reach decisions that bring success. The best leadership inspires emulation. Do soldiers only follow orders if the head of state is a “strong man”? Or do they obey perceived legitimate orders from a hierarchical collective of officers?

No one dies for ‘democratic centralism’.

People follow a Robespierre.

People die for a Hitler.

In fact, people millions of people followed Robespierre and millions died for Hitler.

No group of people has ever died for an idea per se, but they have died for personalities
who have become popular heroes as Thomas Carlyle rightly argued in ‘Heroes and Hero Worship’ and both Ragnar Redbeard and Friedrich Nietzsche suggested in their works on philosophy. Heck if you want to put it that way millions upon millions of people have died for Jesus Christ but not for Christianity.

Millions upon millions of people have died for The Way that Jesus Christ outlined. Christianity is explicitly soteriological – it’s about seeking a way out. “The path is straight and narrow.” Hence why it was originally referred to as The Way. The process is of utmost importance in theology and people have been martyred for it. Like the early Christians, Dr. Pierce’s aspirational novel illustrates adherence to a Path.

In fact, the protagonist has a religious experience from reading The Book: “Today I was, in a sense, born again,” he writes. “I know now that I will never again be able to look at the world or the people around me or my own life in quite the same way I did before.” “We are truly the instruments of God in fulfillment of His Grand Design.”

There is a strong possibility that Dr. Pierce’s “God” here is that of Savitri Devi’s, and elements of his Cosmotheism are scattered throughout her work. So yes, Dr. Pierce did have a very accurate conception of how religions work and the power they can wield.

People die for personalities; they don’t die for ‘the idea’ in spite of multitude of political theorists and would-be philosopher-kings who scribble out page upon page of verbose twaddle assuming someone else will put them on the throne.

People fight and die for what they believe is true and rational. Many choose the wrong because they possess a false consciousness and lack the capability to self-liberate. In the Christian framework as referenced above, martyrdom is rational – it yields the optimal possible (eternal) life outcome. Martyrs lend gravitas to causes.

SwabianSalute then proceeds to go on to lionize ‘The Organization’s’ ethos by writing:
‘Membership at a certain stage of the struggle is reserved for killers. Aspirants must earn their place in the New Society by shedding blood. Unlike other apocalyptic fantasies, the protagonists initiate the millennium instead of seeking to endure it.’

In this we can see that SwabianSalute has forgotten that ‘The Organization’ is literary fiction where-as the NSDAP is historic fact. What he is suggesting sounds all nice but how is it any way practical or feasible?

It seems like my critic has forgotten that The Organization is aspirational and that nearly all Aryan racial fiction has a didactic purpose. Rather, Dr. Pierce’s fiction is an expression of his will and a vision of struggle as he saw it being conducted in the future – or how he thought it could realistically unfold. An intelligent and dedicated man liked Dr. Pierce packed his works full of revolutionary insights gleaned from his studies.

He is assuming that man can behave – as he later says it – with the ‘purity of machine’ and by necessary implication supersede their humanity by absorbing it within the broader universality of ‘The Organization’ without having the force and power of a state and its power to enforce relative ideological conformity.

The Organization is a revolutionary state (or cult) of its own, operating within the geographical bounds of an enemy state. States-within-states exist the world over. Such a formation exists within the realm of the possible because it had and continues to exist. If Jewry is capable of this, surely Aryandom is.

Few people will be ideologically willing or able to ‘perform a nuclear suicide mission as atonement for not committing suicide to avoid capture’ let alone enforce such a dictum nor are the logistics behind running such an organization feasible without having the power of a state behind you (remember he is criticizing the NSDAP in the Kampfzeit period by contrasting them with Dr. Pierce’s fictional group ‘The Organization’ in ‘The Turner Diaries’).

From The Turner Diaries:

“Turner had been separated from the Order because while a captive he had broken his Oath. He had revealed information about the Order after being tortured at the direction of a member of Israeli Military Intelligence instead of taking the cyanide that he had been given to use in such a circumstance. Turner escaped his captors and was put on trial and convicted by an Order tribunal.” Punishment for Oath-breaking is an Aryan tradition, as is redemptive violence.  A lone figure performing a one-way mission as atonement is certainly more realistic than say, an entire kamikaze program like that of a desperate Japan or the failed German Leonidas Squadron.

The best modern examples of the difficulty of SwabianSalute’s idealized model would be the drug cartels of Central and South America which operate close to ‘The Organization’s’ model but yet work as a series of self-governing corporate entities controlled by the use of violence and money. Yet even these are unable to create the ‘purity of machine’ or absorb the personality totally into an organization and nor they controlled by committee but rather by charismatic leaders that lead from the front and who then become heroes to their people in the same way that Hitler became a hero to the German people before 1933 and stayed that way till ‘de-Nazification’ began in earnest in 1945.

South American drug cartels are a fabulous model, excellent observation. Driven by the process of, you guessed it, drug manufacture and distribution, they are becoming states within states. How many mules, coyotes, and hitmen need “leadership from the front” again? Actually, a self-governing racist corporate entity sounds like a dream come true. There is something to this “race cartel” and I like it!

Now to come back to my point about the power of a state being required for this level of ideological saturation of an individual to make suicide attacks particularly feasible and thus enable to personality of the individual to be subsumed in the ‘purity of the machine’. The only time we see suicide attacks historically is when states or small relatively cut off groups so saturate their individual followers with ideology that they are prepared to undertake these kinds of missions which is a rarity rather than an exception and attempts to create these kinds of groups – such as the German Werewolves in 1945 and Ukrainian OUN from 1942 to 1956 – has often failed and the personnel who did risk their lives in such work often failed due to lack of popular and/or state support not for any want of enthusiasm.

Pierce’s aspirational Organization only needed one.

SwabianSalute then proceeds to engage in a further flight of fancy when he declares that: ‘All this is achieved via Weberian rational-legal authority.’

This of course is simply words and is a silly way of just saying ‘all this is achieved by a bureaucracy passing laws and people have to obey them’ which of course is just absurd. I mean ‘The Organization’ is an insurgent group but then this same organization is envisaged by SwabianSalute as passing laws as a ‘democratic centralist’ bureaucratic entity that individuals slavishly subsume themselves within and behave like… well… ants rather than people.

The Organization envisioned by Pierce is an incipient state contesting the ZOG state, led by a Revolutionary Command, with no mention of a Fuhrer figure, inspired by a racial-religious holy book. The admin’s later comparison to various Islamic groups was quite accurate whether or not he intended it to be. Can insurgencies not meaningfully enforce internal discipline up to and including capital punishment? Earth’s history is replete with examples of states-within-states using subterfuge, collective decision-making, etc. to enforce their will. What about an Organization with a spiritual dimension that bridges the gap between Traditional and Rational-Legal authority?

Aryans are not ants.
Or as Edward Wilson wrote in his epoch-making ‘Sociobiology’: ‘Wonderful idea, wrong species.’

I haven’t heard the old EO Wilson line against Marxism in a few years. Libertarians used to trot this one out when anyone suggested human collective action or forms of social organization beyond the primitive. Wilson’s reasoning for this is that humans (Aryans in our case) have reproductive independence – there is no queen Aryan bottleneck to breeding. Except, Aryans only have this in the strict biological sense. All aspects of the System render this nominal independence a “mere biological fact” bottlenecked by political factors. Acting “the ant” for a period, with subsequent risks, is ironically the path to Aryan reproductive independence in political fact once more.

It is that simple.

If we must look to Max Weber’s ‘Politics as a Vocation’ here then we should note that the traditional form of Aryan authority – and the one that Hitler and just about every other insurgency and state has practised with both complete and limited success – is so-called ‘Charismatic Authority’ which is precisely what it says on the tin. It works on the fact that in human – as well as most animal – groups there is a requirement for dominance – what we like to call charisma – and this is what makes men charge towards a machine gun nest not ‘Weberian rational-legal authority’.

No, the traditional form of Aryan authority would be – wait for it – Traditional Authority, per the University of Minnesota Lecture:

“As the name implies, traditional authority is power that is rooted in traditional, or long-standing, beliefs and practices of a society. It exists and is assigned to particular individuals because of that society’s customs and traditions. Individuals enjoy traditional authority for at least one of two reasons. The first is inheritance, as certain individuals are granted traditional authority because they are the children or other relatives of people who already exercise traditional authority. The second reason individuals enjoy traditional authority is more religious: their societies believe they are anointed by God or the gods, depending on the society’s religious beliefs, to lead their society.” And here is where I will make an amendment to stated theory based upon research: Pierce’s cultic Organization in the novel demonstrates the spiritual aspect of Traditional Authority in the Weberian sense alongside Rational-Legal authority of his aspirational Revolutionary Command.

Men and women follow good leaders who don’t ask others to do what they will not, and good leaders follow popular heroes. No one has ever died for ‘Weberian rational-legal authority’, but they have died in their millions for their friends, hard-working superiors and more importantly heroes who actually fought on the front line like Adolf Hitler.

They are being asked to kill and win because a workable blueprint was illuminated for them, and because of a shared struggle with comrades. This isn’t a call for automation but a certain level of dehumanization/re-animalization to combat an anti-human enemy. Essential changes to the Aryan may be necessary. As the 20th century demonstrates, Americans are willing to die for the worst people possible. Men and women make choices they perceive as rational. As JM Berger opined about The Turner Diaries, the work has “a focus on rational-choice appeals, at the expense of identity-choice appeals…’ “If a reader can be led to feel a whole-of-society-disaster is imminent, then undertaking extreme action to prevent that outcome becomes a rational choice…” The rational choice for any Aryan is total hostility toward the System.

The claim that SwabianSalute makes is that heroism is ‘increasing unreliable’ but offers no justification or logic behind such a sweeping dismissal, but his claim is also illogical. After all no one has ever said that heroism all by itself wins the day and to blame it for the lack of success of National Socialism post-1945 is plainly ridiculous in the same way that you cannot blame Che Guevara’s heroism for his failure and death in Bolivia in 1967 but rather a multitude of other factors some of which were Che’s fault and others not were the cause of his failure and death.

Heroism is increasingly unreliable since 1945. We’re a biologically and culturally reduced race since losing some of our best stock. We’re working with a lower quality steel that may need to be fashioned into different shapes than in the past to work effectively. The years after 1945 have been especially painful to live through – watching the best Aryan heroes dash their bodies against a vast inhuman System over and over again to the jeers of a degenerating mass barely worthy of being called their Volk.

Without that vital support infrastructure of a real revolutionary command and the support of believers in a Path, heroism amounts to ashes. Even Hitler relied upon his beloved Imperial Army to find many of his own useful heroes. I’m honestly surprised my critic hasn’t encountered the empty calls to heroic sacrifice from bad “movement” sources. He’s lucky to have been spared.

Che’s problem was running into the superior racial and intellectual specimen of Klaus Barbie. Barbie allegedly remarked that: “This poor man wouldn’t have survived at all if he fought in the Second World War. He was a pitiful adventurer, nothing like his popular image. The people have turned him into a myth, a great figure. But what has he actually achieved? Absolutely nothing.”

And just to round off the fact that SwabianSalute is engaging in a bad faith flight of political fancy based on… well… literary criticism. Is that he ends his Twitter thread with a weird nod to Thomas More’s ‘Utopia’ – without understanding the problems associated with it I would wager – by praising the lack of uniforms, symbols or aesthetic attributes of ‘The Organization’ but fails to understand in the real world this lack of what marketing calls ‘branding’ fails to achieve anything and instead renders ‘The Organization’ into an amorphous bland entity with no overt ideology and no branding which then allows the enemies of ‘The Organization’ to both attribute non-Organization attacks to ‘The Organization’ without it being able to reply (like Al-Qaeda and Islamic State have often done) and to portray ‘The Organization’s’ ideology as being something it isn’t.

The Organization has a rather sleek, efficient, and simple message – White Aryan survival and eventual supremacy. Pierce stated as much. People in his visionary novel were drawn to it. Eating makes appetite as the saying goes. Results based politics are often unthinkable to those that feel perpetually disempowered.

In an interview with Tayseer Allouni, Bin Laden stated that: “So the situation isn’t like the West portrays it, that there is an ‘organization’ with a specific name (such as ‘al-Qa’idah’) and so on. That particular name is very old. It was born without any intention from us.” In other words, Al Qaeda was something equally invented by radical Sunnis and the System itself. Furthermore, it is well known that Al Qaeda (to the extent it was a coherent entity and not a Western creation) was uninterested in state building. This Islamic terror had more in common with Louis Beam’s leaderless or decentralized resistance model than anything created by Dr. Pierce.

ISIS was the Islamic terror organization seeking to build the caliphate. Daniel Byman noted that Al-Qaeda could be contained by the security apparatus, but that quasi-states like ISIS pose a different challenge.

Given the nature of modern telecommunications, any lunatic anywhere can claim allegiance to anything. Any tragedy can be claimed by anyone. No amount of branding can overcome this…only consistent public relations and counter-narratives can. This applied to a lesser extent in the nineteenth century during Reconstruction. It was not uncommon for bad actors to don their own homespun robes and commit all kinds of crimes that could be falsely attribute to the Klan.

This then hinders if not outright prevents further recruitment into ‘The Organization’s’ ranks and then – as with Socialist Revolutionary Maximalists between 1905 and 1907 – it will be utterly decimated by arrests, deaths and organizational interference since it has rendered itself vulnerable to such counterblows because ‘it sounds cool’.

It certainly didn’t hinder recruitment to the aniconic ISIS as described above. My critic is tipping his hand here by revealing just how “cool” Pierce’s aspirational Organization sounds. Furthermore, the American post-1945 racialist movement(s) have been decimated by arrests, deaths, and COINTELPRO in spite of their sometimes-absurd levels of commitment to branding and vexillology.

The reality of the situation is that ‘The Turner Diaries’ of Dr. Pierce have such an odd ending because Dr. Pierce didn’t really know how to end his first novel and ended up writing an apocalyptic end scenario as a way of getting out of his literary jam as is alluded to by Robert Griffin in ‘The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds’.

This is simply wrong, Pierce himself stated that he wrote the ending in such a fashion because:
(and I quote from The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds): “It was the responsible thing for him to do, and it saved the day and it made a hero out of him, and I thought it was a good ending for the book.” Certainly, the ending is a display of good authorship. Dr. Pierce dovetailed Turner’s atonement with a rational strategic decision. Maybe that’s a “jam” to some people?

Given that it is hard enough to find a man qualified to be the hero of the twenty-first century and how hard it was to find the hero of the twentieth century Adolf Hitler. Then how on earth are we going to find multiple heroes to form the committee required for said ‘Democratic Centralism’ to be enacted and then you have the fact that you’ll need to find them all at once.

If Aryan survival is predicated upon waiting for the next Great Man, then we are doomed. Why not work with the best men we have, organize them into a leadership cadre, and start recruiting millions of “good enough” men. Or, we could work on creating conditions to sort them out. By setting the win condition as “hero of the twenty first century” without doing any preparatory work, this amounts to Waiting-For-Godot as politics. Absurd.

We can thus see this is next to impossible and that Adolf Hitler’s view – as embodied by Führerprinzip – that we must not seek the ‘purity of the machine’ to find good leaders and the hero of the twenty-first century but rather look back to the ‘purity of nature’ to find them. Only by the struggle of war, evolution and chaos can such leadership both present and prove themselves to be worthy to lead the Aryan race into its future rebirth and revival.

Pierce’s thinly veiled reference to his own National Alliance, the National League, fulfilled this mechanical sorting process in his novel Hunter.

“Until then the League seemed the best available medium for finding the other 999 men needed for that sort of work to be conclusive in its effects.”

My critic’s emphasis on The Hero “proving” and “presenting” himself to the Aryan masses is reminiscent of Hitler’s own description of the masses as essentially feminine in character. We just need to sit tight and a man will come by and woo us!

Dr. Pierce treated his own masses with greater contempt, and sought to drag them along rather than bring them flowers. Obvious differences in racial character, intelligence, propaganda saturation, etc. divided the German masses then from the American masses now. Still, let’s hear from the good doctor:

“If the freedom of the American people were the only thing at stake, the existence of the Organization would hardly be justified. Americans have lost their right to be free. Slavery is the just and proper state for a people who have grown as soft, self-indulgent, careless, credulous, and befuddled as we have.” I lost count of how many times “lemming” appeared when searching the collected American Dissident Voices. These…animal masses are driven, not wooed, which speaks to the vanguardist orientation of the author. Looking around at my fellow countrymen, I stand with Dr. Pierce’s assessment of the conditions.

If we follow Savitri Devi’s mystical musings, then the Adolf Hitler is one before the ‘final avatar’ of Kalki – who will be the hero of the twenty-first century – and purge the world of the enemies of the Aryan race once and for all but they have to engage in the so-called ‘hero’s journey’ before they present themselves to the Aryan race for acceptance as the new Führer.

Embracing the messages contained within Dr. Pierce’s revolutionary educational novels is anything but fanciful. They contain years of his distilled research and propaganda experience. The point of these novels is to sketch for us the broadest of outlines of how to enable tens of thousands of these journeys. I would desperately love for Adolf Hitler to be the penultimate avatar. Perhaps Dr. Pierce’s machine will run, clearing the way for his return.

The future is not deus ex machina but rather deus sive natural.

The best machines run on blood. The future is sola sanguis.