Rockwell Redux

Ideological incoherence led to tragedy.

I’ve written about the Rockwell-Patler scenario before, but let us consider it again.

In one of his books, Rockwell wrote, on the one hand, that his “movement” was pan-European/pan-Aryan/pan-White, but, on the other hand, that the Nordic is the racial ideal we should all strive for.  Hopefully, the inconsistency there is plain for all to see.  While the Nordic may be the appropriate ideal, the appropriate archetype, for Northern Europeans, at least for Northwest Europeans, it is not so for any other European types. Rockwell’s incoherence here essentially created a two-tier (at least) caste system in his “movement,” with Nordics as the superstars, and other Whites as the scrubs, the second-stringers, and the bench warmers.  

Rockwell’s attempt to merge pan-Europeanism with Nordicism, trying to push a square peg into a round hole (or a round peg into a square hole, whichever image you refer), was a failure, and he paid the price with that with the Greek Patler, who assassinated Rockwell.  For years, Patler (an unstable individual who should never have been accepted for that reason – but Rockwell seemed to prefer such types) served Rockwell (albeit with an interregnum when he tried to form another group). But then Pierce joined Rockwell's group, leveraging Rockwell’s incoherence on this matter to promote an exclusive pan-Germanic Nordicism, squeezing out Patler, and trying to take over roles in the group that had been Patler’s. Rockwell dealt with that as incompetently as he did his group’s ideology, with the tragic outcome that we know.

Ironically enough, Pierce used the same strategy, but in his case it was more cynical. While Rockwell I think genuinely believed that he could square the circle and be a pan-European Nordicist, Pierce in my opinion was always primarily a Nordicist who merely transparently pretended to be pan-European. That’s one reason I believe that Pierce never had his own Patler; I think that deep down even swarthoid NA members knew from the beginning that they were second (or third) class. They never become so disillusioned that they felt betrayed. Pierce also had higher standards than Rockwell as per membership (that is not saying much) and I suppose that hiding out on the WV mountaintop helped to safeguard Pierce from the more extreme nutcases  One wonders if fear of Rockwell’s fate was one motivation for Pierce to move to the mountain woods of WV.

Now, when I met Pierce I was not searched for weapons or anything like that – although I would not have minded if I was and in fact would have taken the whole operation more seriously if they had more security and had treated Pierce as someone so important and “dangerous” to the System that he required such protection. Of course, any guest that harmed The Great Man would likely never have left the compound alive. On the other hand, from my judgment, a professional assassin or soldier, or group of such professionals, could have easily killed Pierce and gotten away with it; it is obvious that no one considered him a sufficient threat to actualize such a plot.

But I digress. The main point is this: Any leader who tells you that you need to be a second-class (or worse) low caste member is not anyone worth following, they are not anyone worth being your leader. Conversely, anyone willing to be such a low caste member is not worth having in your group to begin with; they are not worth being your follower.  

It is true that the Right is inherently hierarchical and non-egalitarian. But with respect to inherent racial characteristics, that non-egalitarian nature should be between groups, not within your own group. The only hierarchy within a group should be based on individual merit and ability.  If you believe someone is “racially inferior” based on their inherent ancestry, then they should not be in your group to begin with. Once they are in your group, you should accept them as a racial equal, but hierarchy exists based on the characteristics, abilities, and actions of the individual. Group-level hierarchy needs to be between, not within, groups; within groups, individual-level hierarchies are those that can and should naturally exist.