The Question of Racism and Tolerance

The Controversy:

Since some of my recent writings have aroused some controversy, it is fitting that I attempt to explain the reasoning behind them.

What I propounded in the essay Islam and National-Socialism, and in Part Two of my Autobiographical Notes, vis-a-vis NS and Islam - and to a lesser extent in various writings on Cosmic Ethics - is what I believe we should be striving for, idealistically. That is, a mutual respect and understanding between different peoples, and the different ways of life: the different religions. Thus, is it possible - or indeed desirable - for us, as National-Socialists, to join forces with those, like Muslims, who are also fighting the Zionist World Order? Or should we see such people - who belong to a different race - as our enemies?
 

At present, our great and fundamental problem is our lack of political power. As a people, we Aryans face desperate times. How can we attain freedom for our people, even in one small geographical area, considering the power, the influence, of the Zionist World Order, and considering the basic apathy of a majority of our own folk who presently are indifferent to what is occurring and who even have little or no awareness of their own Aryan culture and Aryan way of life? Of great importance in understanding and resolving such issues are our ethics. On what do we base our ethics? What moral standards are we to use to judge what to do, what not to do?  I do answer and have answered that we should judge everything by our own Aryan ethic of honour.

Should we strive to attain our freedom through certain tactics, one of which is a fanatical intolerance? Is our situation that desperate that we should see those who uphold other ways of life - and those of other races - as our enemies? This is the means that has been mostly followed in the past fifty years or so, albeit that it has been followed and employed on a mostly instinctive level. This is the means of "racism", whether called by that Zionist-invented term or not.
 

Or, should we strive to be idealistic, and follow the ethic of honour to its logical conclusion? This means that we always strive to do what is honourable, which means that we should strive to be both strong, yet tolerant in a warrior way: proud of our people, our culture, but accepting of other ways, other people, if those other people respect us. We simply want to have a land, a place, of our own, where we can live among only our own kind. This way of idealistically upholding honour crucially means that we do not judge someone by their race, their culture, but only on the basis of personal knowledge of them.

This idealism, however, does not mean that we let others dominate us, or allow them to attack us. Neither does it mean an acceptance of the multi-racial society with its pacifist-type of cowardly tolerance. Rather, it means that we honourably stand by our people, and honourably defend them, using whatever force is necessary. It means, in essence, the pride, the strength, of the honourable warrior: being just, fair, and noble, but being prepared to fight in defence of what is honourable and just. It means that if others do not respect us, and seek to dishonour, or humble us, then we react with the fighting spirit of noble warriors.
 

The first tactic, of intolerance, of instinct, seems to imply that we must be prepared to be ruthless - and so, for the sake of our freedom, our race, sometimes suspend acting in an honourable way due to the dire situation that confronts us. Is our situation really that dire? Many would say that it is.

The second tactic - of honour - would seem to imply that we put ourselves at a disadvantage, especially considering the dire racial situation that exists, as witness recent events in Seattle, Cincinnati and so on.

But all such musings about ethics, and tactics, seem removed from the real world of State-power. Can we hope to obtain State-power?

I have come to the conclusion after over thirty years of activity, and musings, that we will not achieve very much in terms of practical, State-type, power until we have, somewhere, a new leader. But which I mean someone akin to The Chief: someone with resolution, eloquence, tactical skill, who is honourable and gallant, and who inspires absolute loyalty. It is such a person of Destiny who can make our ideals, our vision, our dreams, real. For the truth of practical politics is that people follow a real leader more than they follow an ideology, and a true leader actually is, or becomes, the ideology, the Way.

Given such a person, and the right social and political conditions, a real Aryan society can be created. Maybe such a person will arise in Europe; maybe in America. Personally, I believe America may well be the place for such a man of Destiny to emerge. Once we have acquired, through such a man of Destiny, some type of practical power, then we can begin to face the other peoples of the world with pride, strength and confidence. A homeland - a new fatherland - of our own, will give us all we need.

But what are we to do until such a leader arises? How to act, to behave? How to strive to achieve things for our people? If we think seriously about such things, we realize we have to choose to follow either instinct ("racism") or honour.
 

Instinct, or Honour?
 

For some time, I myself accepted that intolerance was necessary in our struggle. But the more I seriously considered this, the more I was convinced that such a way, such tactics, are a denial of our own Aryan ethics. So it is that I argue, and have argued, that we should strive to be honourable: that in essence National-Socialism  is a combination of duty to our folk, and striving to uphold personal honour. In particular, National-Socialism extends the concept of personal honour to cover our own folk: an act of dishonour committed by others against a member of my own folk, is an affront to my own personal honour. If one or more of my people are dishonoured, and I do nothing, then I myself am dishonoured. This is true loyalty to the folk, true Aryan solidarity.

Thus, I assert that what is good is what is beneficial to our folk, but also honourable, and that if something - some deed or action - benefits or may benefit our folk but is also dishonourable, then that deed or action is something which a National-Socialist should not do. In practical terms, this implies a distancing from what Zionists term "racism" and a concentration on creating our own communities, our own homelands and nations, where we live among our own kind according to the ways of our own culture.

The honourable and National-Socialist solution to the dire racial problems of our times - as evident in recent events such as those in Cincinnati - is racial separation. Until we have a homeland, a nation of our own, we must have our own neighbourhoods, which we must defend and where our people can feel safe from attack by others. We must develope a real feeling of solidarity with our people: their dishonour, is my dishonour.
 

My own conclusion is that we should and must uphold our own Aryan values, our own Aryan ideals, and not allow ourselves to be tricked into using terms and ideas which our Zionist enemies have created. For these terms and ideas distort our vision, our view of the world, just as the Zionists intended them to. This is, in effect, a form of mental control.

Thus if we use such terms and ideas - and worse, if we describe ourselves in such terms and ideas - then we are not being true to our own Aryan values, our own Aryan ideals, our own culture, our own unique Weltanschauung, or way of life.

One of the terms, one of the ideas, we must avoid is "racism". Instead of using this term, and instead of trying to affirm or deny that we are or are not "racist", we should think of ourselves, and describe ourselves, only in terms of our own values of honour, of loyalty, of duty to the folk. The Zionist-created terms of "racist" and "racism" then become irrelevant, and we will have destroyed the mental control which such terms and ideas cause.

Thus, we must use our own values of honour, of loyalty, of duty to the folk as the criteria, the standard, to judge what is right, what is wrong, and what is necessary. Furthermore, we must use these values to determine our own behaviour toward others. This is the National-Socialist way: the way of honour, of loyalty, of duty to our folk.

I firmly believe that we can return our people to their own way of life by setting them a personal example, and to do this we must be prepared to live by, and if necessary die for, our ideals of honour, loyalty and duty.
 
 

Islam and National-Socialism:
 

Should we seek to find allies and friends among those of other races who are fighting the common Zionist enemy? Or should we regard such people as "racially inferior"? Indeed, how should we react to and interact with people of other races, other cultures?

Our own Aryan ethics must guide us, and our ethics alone. Honour demands that we strive to treat others with courtesy and respect, regardless of their race, their culture, their religion. Honour demands that we strive to treat others fairly. That is, honour demands that we act with nobility of spirit. Of course, honour also demands that if someone tries to bully us, or attacks us, that we stand our ground, that we fight back.

But the principle must be one of our honour giving us the strength, the noble pride, we need: of having a pride in our own people, our own culture, and a respect for others. Hence my writings about Islam, and hence my peregrinations in the Islamic world.

Finally, is it possible for a National-Socialist to be a Muslim? I would answer yes, and no, for it depends on how National-Socialism itself is defined.
The answer is yes, because many in the past (and in the present) have indeed combined the two, just as many Christians have been
National-Socialists. And the answer is no, because I believe that National-Socialism is much more than a political philosophy: in essence, I view it
as a complete, and fundamentally pagan, way of life, as I have explained in several of my writings. But I may be wrong, and many disagree with how I have defined National-Socialism.

The basis of Islam is acceptance of there being only one God, Allah, and acceptance of Muhammed as the Prophet and Messenger of Allah. The obligations imposed on a Muslim (prayer, fasting and so on) are not fundamentally in conflict with the folkish essence of National-Socialism. The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (a very active organization these days in that and other countries), Hassan Al-Bana, saught to combine a concept of national identity with Islam, as have many others. There was also an Islamic Greenshirt organization in Egypt before the Second World War which revered both The Chief and Mussolini. And, of course, there were over 60,000 Muslims who joined the SS.

David Myatt
JD2452013.275

[ This article is based upon a letter recently sent to an imprisoned Comrade.]