Reactionary Radicalism

Section 1. We hereby adopt the terms Nazi, sexist, racist, misogynist, and white supremacist.

Section 2.

A. Insofar as these terms are used to represent outstanding, advantageous nationalist views (e.g., the construction of a border wall, the enforcement of law and order on racial minorities, the upholding of traditional gender norms including the removal of the right of women to vote and hold jobs), we are certainly advocates and embodiments of those terms.

B. It is absolutely true that in the supreme and moral senses, obviously we are not Nazis or racists. But because these terms are used politically to denote someone with stupendous nationalist views, we adopt them of ourselves.

C. We do not fear being called them; these terms have no negative power. Moreover, there are only too many benefits that come with racism, sexism, and Nazism in the modern political landscape. We do not support Nazi genocide, but we do support that Hitler was very correct for audaciously defending whites.

D. "Nazi" is commonly used to denote someone who has positive views of white people. If there is a white who is in favor of his own identity, who is steadfastly Christian, who wants to enforce the law in concert with our Constitution and the nation, he is called a Nazi. Inasmuch as being a modern political Nazi means someone who is steadfastly in support of whites and white identity, then we are absolutely and amazingly Nazis. Inasmuch as a white supremacist is someone who is in favor of whites and white identity being held above other identities and heritages, especially as the basis for American civilization, then we are absolutely white supremacists. The derogatory meaning of those terms has been entirely stripped. If one witnesses a white supremacist these days, it invariably means he has righteous, admirable views about whites.

E. Since that is what those terms mean in modern political practice, and since the things that those terms represent are positive, we are forwardly in favor of using them to describe ourselves. They should not be something we accept or defend, but take advantage of; since they have become very useful means to describe our positions.

F. The derogatory meanings of those terms are legitimately condemned. We want no violence against minorities, against immigrants, or any other group. We desire peace. We desire our own civilization, identity, and nation to be defended, admired, bolstered; and to exercise strength and authority toward that end. All who stand against us will be peacefully and lawfully destroyed without mercy or regret.

G. Politically, the association are Nazis, sexists, misogynists, racists, xenophobes, fascists, and white supremacists.

H. Hail Hitler, gas the Jews, Christ is King, Hail Washington, go on a Christian Crusade, and annihilate racial minorities including blacks. Deport immigrants, save America.

Section 3.

A. We also look at the semantic meaning of these terms and the justification for co-opting them for our purposes. Consider the word "sexist." This word involves "sex" and "-ist." This word has come to mean on the progressive left side someone who holds bigoted, prejudiced, and cruel and unjust views toward women, backed up by no reason or foresight. But the two terms "sex" and "-ist" on their own, just mean relating to gender. There is therefore etymological, semantic, and philological justification for co-opting the term for our purpose, since its inherent meaning cannot be claimed by the leftists.

B. Similar for the word racist.

C. The words Nazi and misogynist, however, undergo different treatment. We consider the word misogynist first. This involves "miso" and "-gynist" which stem from the Greek terms (misos and gune) for hatred and woman, respectively. We do not hate women. Our views on traditional gender norms are motivated out of a love for them. When the polls are viewed on self-reported happiness, women who live in traditional arrangements profess unprecedented rates of happiness. The majority of women self-report having at least one mental illness; this can be traced in rising connection to the destruction of traditional gender roles. The more women behave traditionally and such laws are strictly enforced, the happier they and others self-describe. Therefore, the term misogyny, though from a strategic general perspective carries the arguments laid earlier, carries problems when examined from this etymological basis. Still, we can justify it by the fact that the progressive leftists' application of the term "hatred" has been so debased and meaningless that, in view of the entire resolution for co-opting the term, there is heavy cause for its execution. From moves like "hate speech" laws, to arguing that anyone who expresses the slightest political disagreement with them even within their own ranks is hateful, to the parading of support after political assassinations, the left has used the term hate to mean something totally different. For hate speech, we remind the world that views in support of what we value were coined hateful. Therefore, there is indeed basis in modern parlance for the usage of the word misogyny as a positive term.

D. As for Nazi, this term comes from the National Socialist Workers Party in Germany, which is taken from the German label for it. The word Nazi has been beaten to death so hard that it means nothing negative; and our opponents often criticize the good parts about Nazis, like any form of nationalism or force of mind. The word Nazi is not connected to anything else in English besides this German origin, so there is no risk in co-opting the term to damage logical rules of the English language. We deem it justified.

E. So we are racists. This is a good thing. We positively and forwardly use this word to describe ourselves. Such is our political stance.

Section 4.

A. It is positively beneficial to not only use the term, but also to parade around in Nazi insignia and with such style; to the degree that it is effective in bolstering nationalism; we deplore the violent and degenerate aims. But why this is valuable and what we mean by this has to be considered in the context of modern politics, the landscape thereof.

B. Modern politics is in an inane and chaotic, degenerated state. The rules that normally work in politics in a more peaceful and harmonious environment, which would have worked at one point in our country, no longer work. We shall use Trump as the example. Trump has been described, with no shred of restraint, as a narcissist, a maniac, and a rude, thoughtless person. And this is precisely why he won the election. Trump is actually very thoughtful and calculated about what he does. He comes across as a rash and brazen person to the uninitiated; but upon careful reflection about his movements, it is clear everything he says and does is deliberate and careful. He wrote a book about it. Our point is this. The rules of calmness, respect, cordiality, and honesty only work in an environment where the other actors are also committed to those values in good faith.

C. When a person encounters people who do not commit to them, who are lunatics and liars, like most modern politicians and media officials are, the correct thing to do changes. In an environment like that, in order to be successful—or, even, to survive—a man does need to be strategically narcissistic, aggressive, mean, rude, and antagonistic. This is not a brazen or reckless showing. It is a deliberate strategy to survive and get one's point heard. Consider this. In the modern political environment, any form of thought or outward consideration is taken as a weakness and ridiculed. If a politician or media personality is asked a question, and he replies, "Well, that is actually a good question. I have not heard that before. Let me pause and consider it a moment", nobody on the political left (which dominates media institutions) and not many neo-conservatives, are going to be impressed. Traditionally, when someone does that, people say, "Amazing! He is so thoughtful and careful. He actually thinks about what he says before he speaks."

E. But few are going to say that now in such settings. Any sign of reflection, pause, or concern is viewed as an act of weakness, unpreparedness, or active deception. In a wicked environment like that, one does require a personality like Trump to carefully come in and be rude and narcissistic, deliberately and skillfully, as an antidote to fight that sourness. One needs to never admit that he is wrong or that he does not currently know something. Instead, mock the person for asking one the question. And what we are saying is that: Trump does this purposefully. It is very clear if one understands his personality and background, that far from being reckless and senseless, he is actually very careful in knowing how to strategically use the veil of narcissism and recklessness to break through the modern vices of the political landscape. He did not become such a successful businessman or the president of the United States by accident. He is very intelligent and purposeful. Now this is not us endorsing Trump; this is purely for analysis purposes for why it it useful to be intentionally antagonistic in a wicked political environment, in order to do the right, virtuous, and ultimately morally correct thing. To quote the Inferno, "It is a kindness to do them rudeness."

F. How does this apply to us? The modern political landscape that we face is continuously inane and immoral on the side of the progressive left; and increasingly on the neo-conservative right. The former regularly goes out and assassinates political enemies. They post instructions for making pipe bombs on social media. They attack people's families. When encountering a wicked and extremist environment like this, the correct thing to do from the opposing side is be prepared to be carefully and purposefully extreme: to the extent it is necessary to survive and have one's message be effectively received. And this is not advocating for reciprocal exchanges and certainly not copycat violence. But it is saying that, in an environment where people are going to go after one's family and give one's children death threats because they dislike his religion, a person needs to be prepared to say minimally disrespectful and antagonistic words about the other's personality, to not have the peaceful and good parts of his message overwhelmed by the attack, and to lawfully counter the degeneracy. This is what Trump does so skillfully, and that is not an endorsement for or against his politics; we are just focusing on this aspect.

G. Our members should be willing and able to aggressively yet peacefully and lawfully advocate for themselves; and when facing degenerate opposition, be minimally aggressive in response. This is the only way a virtuous person can succeed in such a case. We shall resolve the dilemma, but not without understanding this must be our first move.

H. Naziism fulfills this idea well. In an environment where we face radical feminists, leftists, and third-worlders, being a Nazi is a gainful response. It throws them off foot, gathers aggressive momentum in the opposite direction, and combats the hateful rhetoric from their end with an extreme opposition to any form of hate. This is to say that: modern Nazis are ironically the ones peacefully protesting and advocating for voting to reform. Anti-Nazis (like Antifa, the Anti-fascists), are the ones engaging in violence against their political enemies. We need to be aggressively peaceful, like a Neo-Nazi, to combat the left's violent aggression. Being purposefully and minimally aggressive, peacefully and lawfully targeting those involved, not their kin or associates, in such fashion as Naziism and racism, is such an effective strategy to this extent.

Section 5.

A. And that is precisely why we say, Hail Hitler. Hail Washington. Christ is King. We are Nazis. God bless America and may the Lord curse our political enemies.

B. Needless to say, however, this does have to be done very carefully and strategically, with great prudence and restraint, as our rules say, in order to be done well. If not done well, it has the tendency to degenerate into copycat and senseless attacks that make everything and everyone bad. Be wise, exercise restraint, mercy, and forgiveness. This is why we have used the phrase aggressively peaceful. That us us. Be cunning. Be kind. Always err on the side of calmness and restraint. It is, after all, what makes us the superior men, and what gives our position all the supreme legitimacy.

C. The idea of aggression, including peaceful aggression (which is the only type we will deal with or advocate here), comes solely and remarkably from a place of love. It is never done out of spite or revenge. It comes from a desire to hold and guide that person in peace and justice, toward the image they were created in by our Maker; and, in a decrepit landscape, to use minimal peacefully aggressive techniques to disrupt their errant momentum and shock them into restitution. It always must be done purposefully, charitably, and in a fatherly way. A father who loves his children guides them with inspiration and hope; this is the most effective way. But when his children disobey terribly and after numerous attempts at fixing, he may chastise them or give them a harsh lecture. This is us. And our lectures, our Nazi parades, are about shocking the offenders in politics into recognizing the malevolence of their conduct, because we desire for them to be good. This end must be kept always in mind, or else we lose our moral high ground, and our message is meaningless.

D. The minute they do drop such ends, it is also our duty to welcome them back to magnanimity and fraternity, without pause. Always do such things minimally as well. Even here, the goal is never to be rude for the sake of pain. It is about shocking them into a realization. They should be ideally stunned by even minimal acts of discord because we ordinarily extend such unmitigated love and kindness from our end, that it makes them question themselves and their behavior.