In my quest through German history, I’ve finally read Hitler’s much-exalted “Mein Kampf.” I’ll write more about it later. For now, I’ll only say it’s hard not to like Hitler after reading it, probably why academics fear it. It’s easier still to see why so many pro-whites find the man fascinating and equate being pro-white with National Socialist ideology. But I’ve never been one for ideology or cults, and in the end, that’s what National Socialism was, in essence: a large cult.
Despite a surprising amount of agreement I have with Hitler, especially concerning his interpretation of political history, there’s one thing I think he got terribly wrong and it’s this one thing that, I think, puts me at odds with most contemporary pro-white movements. When discussing the power of propaganda Hitler notes that the spoken word is far more powerful than the written. Writers need to stick to their ink wells, he says, and suggests that all great movements in history have been lead by orators, not writers.
I voiced my disagreement with this on Facebook and numerous friends jumped all over me for it. The sentiment, and I believe it holds across the pro-white spectrum, is that orators are the great power behind movements and that the “people”, that sainted beast everyone’s trying to wrangle, only respond to trite, emotionally forceful, talking points. They’d agree with Hitler that in-depth philosophical speculation is practically useless.
Now what the philosophers would say in their own defense is neither here nor there. What I want to do here is write a brief word or two in defense of the writer:
I’ll readily admit that the “people”, especially when congregated en mass, aren’t capable of digesting the finer points of an argument. This is why those intellectual “debates” held on college campuses – the ones where rivals call each other “Mr.” this and “my esteemed opponent” that, and start their discussions with kind jokes and words of respect – are worse than useless. They’re little more than polite competitions between two orators of opposing views to see which is able to emotionally sway the crowd. But nothing of substance is ever decided and it’s almost impossible to tell who “wins” the competition. The political debates in national venues are even worse; there, the politicians literally say nothing at all and respond to questions with robotic rote, churning out pre-written dialogue. (Donald Trump is excellent at blasting through the rote and embarrasses his opponents accordingly, God bless him).
This sort of power over the masses has been perfected by Hollywood and the media. In Bill Browder’s “Red Notice”, he talks about the arrogance of these media moguls and how they have full confidence they’ll be able to shift a nation’s electorial outcomes using nothing more than television and radio. And they’re usually successful. (He specifically mentions George Soros in this regard). These, mostly jewish, moguls have perfected the art of oratory and the manipulation of the masses.
But what I’d like to argue, and argue from the force of personal experience, is that this sort of manipulation is only ever superficial. I’ll grant the orator his ability to temporarily sway the motivations of a populace, but he almost never touches their hearts. Call this a difference between “motivation” and “inspiration.” A motivated person is immediately driven to act and may pull triggers or polling switches, but he’ll always be a victim of external circumstances. When he ducks a mortar and is splattered by his friend who was next to him in a fox hole, what sort of oratory will he draw on for strength?
And no matter how many times I hear a motivational white nationalist speaker tell me the tide is turning, that we’re all lonely, that we’re all facing the same tremendous fight, when I’m battling it out with the Devil in the middle of the night, I turn to Sir Walter Scott, Dickens, or Oliver Goldsmith.
The blog Cambria Will not Yield, alone, is a testimony to the power of words to inspire. These written words are motivational, yes, but they’re far more inspirational. They’re life changing. A man who reads it, and if his heart truly responds, may lose motivation, he may have times of depression, outrage, and despair, but he’ll never forget them. He’ll never leave the course those words have plotted for him.
The man inspired by an orator very well may change his mind the next day (as even Hitler admits); maybe even the very next hour. He’s powerfully motivated, but not powerfully inspired.
Ok – people might grant the power of the written word to inspire, but it’s political power they’re looking for. And that, dear readers, is why I’m at odds with them and with Hitler about this issue. Our people are not dying for lack of motivation vis-a-vis some political ideology. They’re dying for lack of inspiration. Our people can and have flourished under a variety of political guises, and henceforth, I’ll be happy to advocate for whichever seems immediately beneficial. I’ll change political affiliations with the weather, just like I wear jackets in the winter and short sleeves in the summer.
…it’s the heart-felt inspiration the writer produces that our people need. Not the temporary and short-lived motivation of the orator. It’s not a political position we ought to be striving for now. It’s a heart position. We don’t need political revolution; we need a heart-changing renaissance.