The Hug Box of the “Talmudic Jew-Rats” Versus the Barbed Wire Bush of the RPN, by Benjamin Noyles, RPN British Liaison
Those, like myself, who have watched the events of the past week with light amusement have all been asking exactly what it has all been about. As RPN (US) Co-Chair, Max Macro, has pointed out it has been marked by hysterics, but also in my opinion what appears to be a staggering lack of understanding and mental laziness. In as simple a way as I possibly can, I wish to extend my own theory to the detractors of the RPN initiative who accuse it of fermenting “nationalist disunity”, and to the majority of people who can see this as transparent hypocrisy.
Starting with what to my understanding is the origin of a recent dispute, the appearance of RPN (Canada) President, Sebastian Ernst Ronin, on The White Voice (79:00). Sebastian: “Matt Heimbach is within the White Nationalist community, or Ethno Nationalist community, is a staunch Christian… He will always frame his perception of the world as a Christian” – this forming part of his wider argument that there needs to be an intellectual street fight where differences of opinion are hashed out in blunt terms. In a follow up Traditionalist Youth Hour – 2013-06-24 hosted by Matt Parrot and Matt Heimbach, this was also identified as the source of contention, and so will begin with that.
Both parties have completed a consensus on the “debate” – I don’t think Heimbach would actually disagree with Seb’s point that he is a Christian first, and that it is ideological. I believe these are some examples that go some way to proving this with previous statements such as “I hate Hitler” “if a Jew converted to Christianity, I would accept him as a brother in Christ.”29:00 “I have more against a White Pagan than I would a Black Christian“32:00. Rather than these being just differences of opinion, I will give Matt the benefit of the doubt that this is part of a thought out and consistent belief – it is polite society to go on that assumption, otherwise how would anybody expect to be treated seriously?
If these comments have been repudiated by supporters as naive folly, then for exactly that reason we should not be carving words of what are called “leaders of the New Right” in gold. I think this is where some people don’t seem to understand the discussion, which hinges on the supposed infallibility of the Hug Box. In my opinion, any change in opinion by such persons is incremental and should they stumble on truth it will be used in such a way as to not be correctly seized upon. It is just wood, hay, and stubble.
Matt Heimbach is a nice Christian kid, and I mean that obviously. I don’t think he drinks, but I would take him to Burger King (and it would be on me). He also has balls, he is trying to make a point, and he looks like an intelligent man – however, those things acknowledged, it still doesn’t help in the slightest. I have a legitimate concern that this thinking is deeply, deeply flawed. It is 100%, subverted race treason, and it is the sort of thing that some point down the line will blow up in everyone’s faces. At that juncture there is nothing personal about that, but it is a fundamental concern.
This is where all the white knights come in. Even though on the face of it this should be an honest and frank exchange, the following is the “unwritten rule” of the “new” White Nationalist movement: Any criticism of a “figure” who identifies as a white racialist in such a time as this where “we” are in numerical weakness – is in itself divisive and counterproductive.
The basis of this position is the argument that we must preserve harmony at any cost, so they do everything possible to reduce friction, despite friction being the concomitant of motion. You would think that a living and expanding movement has a certain quota of difficulties as the result of its life and activity. There is only one human society that has no disagreements; it is called a graveyard. Under this system, inside the “Hug Box”, everybody is a winner, but the penalty is sterility and lack of achievement. The question is who really benefits from this? When you have a situation where instead of embracing criticism you have people reacting emotionally, what is it exactly that they have to hide?
Calling somebody out is not a curse – if it is false the individual only has to dispel that claim. If this criticism cannot be dispelled, then it was justified in the first place. Defection of the kind we have seen is clearly done with the deliberate intention of drawing “personal attacks” – because it has to be asked, “Why are you beyond criticism?” This can produce unkind assertions to the contrary.
I believe that Parrott correctly summarised Ronin’s position as follows: “He doesn’t want a group hug, he wants to defeat the various factions of the Ethnic (sic) Nationalist community, and come out victorious.” Knowing Seb, this may very likely be his exact intent and strategy. If this is so, it would seem to be a reasonable tactical progression towards the very objective that Parrott himself identifies.
The truth of the Hug Box is that it is an ugly, poisonous, rubber spiked commode. Why did an “attack” on the views of an individual incite a community response? On the face of it this is strange as the only thing the New Right culture does is debase and criticise – it is in its stated mission. I remember Jonathan Bowden defined as the “critical analysis to revive inegalitarian cultural forms that have been dispriveledged” for what purpose? In New Imperium Issue 1(2005) a grandfather document of the current “scene” – Troy Southgate the (new) New Right founder, goes on to elaborate the aimless, nuanced goal that “All Metapolitical or Philosophical ideas must ultimately lead to forms of positive action that have an effect on a broad and diverse assortment of cultural and identitarian issues”– the insipid and parasitic nature of this being that this elite message would be best spread through “university academics”’ with whom he now shares a symbiotic relationship. Everything since has been imitation to the point where the sole stated end of the movement is a talk shop, the dominant ideology of which is that if we talk enough we are going to save the White Euro race according to the same logic as a stock market boom or a winning streak at cards.
You are not a player unless you have a perceived end to knuckle down and actually play the game.
The modern, trendy culture is to shun everything and live in ambiguity outside history, fact and the acknowledgement that any ultimate conclusions must form a single interpretation.
It is a racket not to build, but to bleed and destroy nationalism; this miasma with no coherent outlook, advocating endless intellectual subdivision and forays into counter-cultural adventure – all based on individualised based preference. Its very survival depends on its ability to react against anything that might form.
Without reservation, it is these people on whom to blame the current “nationalist disunity” and until we crush “movement Jews” we will not know peace.
“First the fight – then pacifism.” – AH
A BRIEF STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
It is true that you cannot form a national, existential worldview based on a material resource like oil.* This applies to any pitch. Likewise, you cannot have a political ideology if it is not facilitated to achieve set goals with some context around which to base a real plan. I have discussed in previous essays why collapse theories are not in and of themselves the sole basis of a workable political model for us.* Think of the items in your home; your Iron, your fridge, your toaster requires an energy flow, without it they are just useless lumps of metal and plastic.
Rather than being a staple on Nationalism, the plan provided by the RPN to ride a 15 year window of opportunity is an enabling factor which if powered by a dynamic outside force becomes something more than it was before, it becomes a statement of principle. This is universal for any initiative, but the RPN is worthy of tacit consideration on two grounds.
1. It is consistent with a scientific outlook. If we are humble and face facts then that means we will have the moral courage to do what is necessary, to question ourselves, and to follow conclusions to their logical end. These are three things we are not very good at.
2. The RPN initiative provides a clean break with existing political models that have become unattached from their roots and become subverted. Among these is the requirement among all revolutionary nationalist movements for national rebirth – a concept of nationalism that possesses clear symbols of that worldview – a rebirth that is not possible under modernised plastic patriotism.
From a propaganda aspect if the initiative succeeds in getting people to accept these two principles then it has earned its daily bread as a legitimate nationalist concept. It is getting people to think consistently and to challenge themselves.
(*Editor’s Note, re “It is true that you cannot form a national, existential worldview based on a material resource like oil.” That is not what the RPN has in mind. It is very possible and necessary to “form a national, existential worldview” on the socio-cultural and political consequences that will unfold in a Post-Peak Oil world of energy devolution. It is a one-shot opportunity for nationalists to finally get it right and tap into conditions that beg for martial and “totalitarian” methods of governance and stewardship.)