neo-Nazi homepage

Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com
Sun Aug 27 11:05:25 MDT 1995


For a chilling walk on the wild side, check out the National Alliance's web
site, at <http://www.natvan.com/index.html>. These people are Nazis, no
crypto- or proto- modifier needed.

Some excerpts follow. As attractive as a world without Barry Manilow may
seem, I think they mean it *literally*.

Doug

--

Doug Henwood
[dhenwood at panix.com]
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217
USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice
+1-212-874-3137 fax

==============================================================================

>                              An Aryan Society
>
>We must have new societies throughout the White world which are based on
>Aryan values and are compatible with the Aryan nature. We do not need to
>homogenize thc White world: there will be room for Germanic societies,
>Celtic societies, Slavic societies, Baltic societies, and so on, each with
>its own roots, traditions, and language. What we must have, however, is a
>thorough rooting out of Semitic and other non-Aryan values and customs
>everywhere. We must once again provide the sort of social and spiritual
>environment in which our own nature can express itself in music, in art and
>architecture, in literature, in philosophy and scholarship, in the mass
>media, and in the life-styles of the people.
>
>In specific terms, this means a society in which young men and women gather
>to revel with polkas or waltzes, reels or jigs, or any other White dances,
>but never to undulate or jerk to negroid jazz or rock rhythms. It means pop
>music without Barry Manilow and art galleries without Marc Chagall. It means
>films in which the appearance of any non-White face on the screen is a sure
>sign that what's being shown is either archival newsreel footage or a
>historical drama about the bad, old days. It means neighborhoods, schools,
>work groups, and universities in which there is a feeling of family and
>comradeship, of a shared heritage and a shared destiny. It means a sense of
>rootedness, which in turn engenders a sense of responsibility and energizes
>a moral compass, so that people once again know instinctively what is
>wholesome and natural and what is degenerate and alien. It means spiritual
>feeling coming from the soul and unencumbered by superstition or dogma,
>soaring free and reaching far above today 's priest-ridden, church-bound
>spirituality.

[and]

>                An Economic Policy Based on Racial Principles
>
>There are two fundamental criteria which must be used for judging each and
>every governmental intervention in economic matters. They are, first, the
>long-range welfare and progress of the race; and second, human nature. Which
>is to say that in evaluating any economic policy we must ask ourselves two
>questions: Will this policy ultimately be beneficial or detrimental to the
>quality of our race? And is it in accord with human nature?
>
>We look first at the racial effects of a policy and insist that they must be
>positive-or at least not negative-and then we insist that the policy be
>based on a clear and realistic understanding of human nature, so that it is
>workable.
>
>We can understand better the significance of these two principles if we
>consider briefly two quite different economic systems, Marxism and
>laissez-faire capitalism.
>
>Marxist economics has human happiness rather than racial progress as its
>ostensible aim, and it is based on assumptions that are at odds with reality
>and with human nature. It aims at providing material comfort for everyone,
>more or less equally. It cannot even admit the possibility of racial
>progress, because that implies that some types of men are inherently
>superior to others and that some directions of development are more
>desirable than other directions.
>
>Whether one prefers the Marxist goal of the greatest happiness for the
>greatest number or the National Alliance goal of stronger, wiser, and more
>beautiful men and women is a matter of one's values. It was not on its
>choice of values that Marxism foundered. however, but on its refusal to
>recognize the fact of human inequality and the nature of human motivation.
>When people are not permitted to work for their own profit and advancement,
>they do not work well; and when a society's leaders do not attain their
>positions through their own merit, that society is likely to be ill led.
>
>In contrast to the Marxist system, we recognize the need to permit people to
>compete, to reap the fruits of their labor, and to exercise leadership
>according to their demonstrated ability. They will work harder and more
>efficiently and will order themselves in a hierarchy of ability. The result
>will be a stronger, better led, and more prosperous society. There will of
>course, be those individuals who will not work or whose natural abilities
>are such that they cannot compete effectively. Rather than following the
>Marxist path of robbing the successful in order to reward the unsuccessful,
>we must take measures to ensure that society's lowest elements do not
>multiply and become more numerous in later generations.
>
>The laissez faire capitalist system provides another illustrative contrast.
>Under such a system the society as a whole has no goals: there are only the
>goals of individual men and women. The capitalist system, like ours,
>provides strong incentives for individuals: the strong, aggressive, and
>clever rise and prosper, and the weak, indecisive, and stupid remain at the
>bottom. Leaders tend to be capable-at least, in the capitalist economic
>environment, with its special conditions.
>
>Without a unifying principle, however, a capitalist society easily can fall
>prey to certain inherent weaknesses. One of these weaknesses is the
>instability which leads the rich to become richer and the poor to become
>poorer, not solely because of differences in ability but because the
>possession of capital gives the possessor an enormous advantage in the
>competition for more capital. When personal gain is the only motivation in a
>society, those who already are rich can arrange things to favor themselves:
>they can buy the legislation they want, and they can block threats to their
>power in ways which may be destructive to the welfare of the society as a
>whole. They can hold down the price of labor, limit healthy competition
>within the society, and exploit the environment without regard for the
>long-range consequences.
>
>The overly rigid social stratification resulting from unrestricted
>capitalism can lead to endemic class hostility and even to class warfare. It
>can slow racial progress by making the ability to acquire and hold capital
>the supreme survival trait.
>
>We need an economic system which, in contrast to Marxism, allows individuals
>to succeed in proportion to their capability and energy, but which, in
>contrast to capitalism, does not allow them to enga8e in socially' or
>racially harmful activity, such as stifling competition or importing non
>White labor. We need to structure our economic system so that it cannot fall
>prey to the instability of capitalism. We need to maintain social
>flexibility, so that capable and energetic individuals always have the
>possibility of rising. We need to ensure that capital does not have the
>possibility of changing society's rules to suit itself. The way to achieve
>and maintain an economic system which meets these criteria is to design and
>govern the system subject to the supreme principle: the ultimate aim of all
>economic policy is racial progress.

Doug

--

Doug Henwood
[dhenwood at panix.com]
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217
USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice
+1-212-874-3137 fax




     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list