Those who despise ZC need to understand that it cannot be opposed via the ideas of the status quo. ZC was designed specifically to counter PC, therefore it is futile to oppose it using PC thinking. It’s like trying to beat scissors with paper.

As I read the following two articles from Re-Public, I had an image in my mind of the authors folding their paper this way and that way, colouring it, dipping it in water, waving it around, etc., as if that would somehow immunize it to the approaching scissors:

http://www.re-public.gr/en/?p=4973

http://www.re-public.gr/en/?p=5314

The way to beat the scissors is simple: drop the paper, pick up a rock, and smash the scissor blades into twisted metal using the rock. This is something Hitler understood very well:

“At a time in which the one side, armed with all the fighting power that springs from a systematic conception of life - even though it be criminal in a thousand ways - makes an attack against the established order the other side will be able to resist when it draws its strength from a new faith, which in our case is a political faith. This faith must supersede the weak and cowardly command to defend. In its stead we must raise the battle-cry of a courageous and ruthless attack.” - Adolf Hitler

This is a topic previously covered on this page:

http://aryanism.net/politics/multiethnic-society/is-race-the-new-class/

Hitler in his day realized that the false opposition to capitalism presented by communism could only be fundamentally defeated by true opposition to capitalism as presented by National Socialism. In our day, we must similarly realize that the false opposition to egalitarianism presented by racism can only be defeated by true opposition to egalitarianism as presented by Aryanism.

Bale says:

Three possible strategies: ‘hold’; ‘defuse’, and ‘adopt’

1) the social democratic party holds its present, presumably permissive position on immigration and integration, facing down the challenger by reinforcing the party’s policy position, often in combination with an effort to communicate this position more clearly and to mobilise the party’s core electorate.

2) the social democratic party tries to defuse a new political issue, to decrease its importance to electoral competition by avoiding it, choosing to focus on something else in the hope that other parties in the system will (eventually) do the same.

3) the social democratic party adopts the position of the its competitors on the (mainstream and to some extent the extreme) right by arguing that migration must be limited and multiculturalism tempered by an increased emphasis on what some call ‘integration’ but others label ‘assimilation’; that done, politics can get back to ‘normal’.

Whereas we would suggest ‘dig’:

4) Go one level deeper than the far-right. It’s not a ”migration problem”; it’s a population problem. It’s not an “integration problem”; it’s a problem of Jews sowing discord in society and Gentiles jumping on the bandwagon. Above all - and this is where it gets difficult for people like Bale - the problem is democracy itself. Democracy inherently divides people, creates interest groups based on such division, and hence encourages tribalism. Only a true leader - autocratic and hence not subject to lobbying of any kind - can reunite people into a folk whose constituents think not about what benefits their own group, but how they can contribute to the leader’s vision.

It is astounding that Casals can accurately describe the problem of the far-right associating itself with democracy and yet fail to consider that the solution rests in rejecting democracy:

the new populist right rejects totalitarianism and exalts plebiscitary democracy. In this sense, its parties seem to champion a “nationalist ochlocracy”. Its leaders denounce the fact that parliaments and traditional political parties undermine and hijack the popular will. At the same time, they encourage a permanent electoral mobilization and referendums as the most direct expressions of national sovereignty.

This has created a paradox: if in the 19th and 20th centuries the establishment of universal suffrage was connected to the extension of liberties and the idea of social progress, today this can carry a reactionary character by legitimizing policies of exclusion.

There is nothing paradoxical about it at all. Universal suffrage is invitation to government by the mediocre, who are ruled half by fear and half by hubris. So it was not social progress, but social degeneracy. The word “plebiscitary” is derived from the roots “pleb” (meaning “commoner”) and “scire” (meaning “to know”). If you needed neurosurgery, I doubt you would call a plebiscitary referendum on which part of the brain to cut, because it is obvious that most people know nothing about neurosurgery. And politics is more complicated than neurosurgery! So the very fact that the far-right exalts plebiscitary democracy is evidence enough of its own mediocrity that it must appeal to the base emotions of fear and hubris, rather than the higher emotions of honour and empathy, to gain support.

On one point and one point only we agree with the far-right: the current elites must be removed. But let us not forget how the current elites achieved their power today: by toppling absolute monarchies all around the world over the centuries. The problem is thus not minority rule per se; the problem is that a corrupt minority - a plutocratic minority - is in power. The solution is not majority rule; the solution is to put a better minority in power. And this better minority will prove that it is better by presenting a sincere plan to unite people into a folk, not divide them into tribes.

Bale concludes his article pessimistically:

Most therefore end up pursuing a much messier course which mixes elements of all three ideal-typical strategies, none of which on its own offers a magic bullet.

That is because there is no magic bullet.

Of course there is a magic bullet. It is UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY. All we currently lack are guns of compatible calibre. Which is why we are urgently seeking gunsmiths (ie. platformers) in every country - see the post below this one for details. The sooner we get guns (ie. platforms) made for our magic bullets, and then train up our marksmen (ie. propagandists) to use the guns, the sooner we can start shooting.

One Response to “We are the magic bullet”
  1. Anthony says:

    The problem I have with PC is its utter hypocrisy and insincerity. How can they claim, for example, that racism is wrong and yet believe that democracy and Western institutions should be exported all over the world, and that the West has created an ideology that is completely superior to every other in the world?

    And that word - ‘multiculturalism’. It disgust me. What they mean by ‘culture’ is only its most superficial aspects - things like clothing and etiquette. It cheapens everyone’s culture and reduces it to material things. They pretend that all cultures (i.e. all ideas, beliefs, attitudes) are compatible with each other, but they are not. They just say this because they want it to be true. Some are completely irreconcilable.

    I make no exaggeration when I claim that the Labour Party (a Social Democratic party) is the WORST in Britain. At least the right-wing extremists who support traditional Western civilization admit that they dislike other cultures (though I dislike Western civilization, so they are still the enemy.) The Labour Party puts forward these ridiculous ideas and win votes by appealing to the vanity and survivalism of the worst people in society.

  2.  
Leave a Reply