|
Interview: Bill White
In the waning days of the 1990s, it seemed as if American politics fell apart. The wholesale domination of youth and academia by leftism split Americans into two polarized, overzealous camps who couldn't even speak the same language any longer. As a result, a new breed of political thinker has emerged, including the Traditionalist/Third Front in which one of the leading voices has been the charismatic Bill White.
His site www.overthrow.com has been a beacon for those who find society unworkably dense and short on values, even the ones it seems to preach while casually tossing bombs around. Our interview team caught up with Mr. White for what has been one of the most interesting interviews we've ever done, partially because the subject was so vastly tolerant of our questions.
In politics, do you think an objective goal can be discerned for a particular civilization?
Well, the question is can an objective goal be defined
for any living organism?
Civilizations are like people -- they live and they
die. Their behavior during their lifetimes and the
forms and choices they make are the manifestation of
their inner character. During their lives, there are
times when they are healthy, and times when they are
not. The goal of the leader is to keep the
civilization healthy.
That is the reason that different types of people --
different manifestations of culture-souls -- need a
certain degree of political autonomy in order to
co-exist peacefully. Domination of one group of
people by another can only lead to ethnic conflict.
What do you see as the difference between "relativity" and "relativism" as concepts?
Relativity was the idea Einstein stole from an Italian
physicist. Cultural relativism is the idea that Franz
Boas came up with to argue against the uniqueness of
Western society. The difference between them is that
they show that some types of people are better
thieves than they are thinkers.
Have you been influenced by/what are your opinions
on Hunter S. Thompson's idea of "gonzo journalism" in
which ultra-subjective behavior is able to reveal
aspects of objective reality?
I had never heard of hunter s thompson until you
mentioned the name. If what he means by that is that
by shocking people you can sometimes throw them off
and get them to say things they wouldn't normally say,
that's probably true.
Do you think american/globalist-american-influenced society is degenerating?
Yes -- of course. Every Traditional society (in the
Evolan sense) has been denegerating since their
inception. It is only because we are getting closer
to the end of the cycle that we are starting to see a
widespread recognition of it.
What is your opinion of Christianity?
I think there are two distinct trends in Christianity
-- one that is Western and European (and Traditional),
and one that is Semitic and Anti-Traditional.
Savitri Devi, in discussing the Third Reich's attitude
towards Charlemage, said that on the one hand they
respected him as a German leader who has made all the
beauty and richness of Germany and its culture
possible, while on the other hand they recognized that
he had brutally wiped out Odinism in Germany and
replaced it with the foreign Christian faith. Thus
within one figure there was an essential dualism -- a
positive, creative German force, and a negative,
destructive Christian force.
I see Christianity the same way. On the hand it
formed a foundation for some of the most beautiful
developments of Western culture, but on the other hand
it contained within it an equally ugly and dangerous
Semitic poison.
Do you see any fundamental differences between
Christianity and Judaism in context of the world's
other belief systems?
Yes. Judaism does not partake at all of Western
values, and is in a much more advanced state of
decadence than Christianity.
The following link suggests all Jews have a common
origin. This seems to run contrary to public opinion
about "race" and "anti-Semitism," but it's here in
hard scientific form from a Rabbi himself. Do you
think there's a double standard occurring here?
http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Jewish_Genes.asp
Jews certainly are a distinct ethnic grouping, with
their distinctive genetic range and pattern of
variation. More important, however, then genetic
distinction is the unique spiritual and cultural
attitudes of the Jewish people.
As Dante illustrates in his Inferno and Purgatory,
tolerance, under Christianity, is actually the sin of
Sloth, because it implies that one is being tolerant
of evil. Modern Christianity, however, is such a weak
and broken faith that I don't think one can reasonably
discuss whether or not it is "intolerant" -- quite the
opposite, it is so tolerant that it allows every other
faith to walk right over it. Even the Pope was
recently forced by Jewish political pressure to
concede that Jews don't need to come to Christ to
achieve salvation -- thus in one blow destroying the
entire basis of Catholicism.
Most people in america don't seem to know that
Christianity, Judaism and Islam have a common origin
in the middle east, not Europe. Why is it that these
origins are so obscure?
If most people don't know that, it is only because
most people are so poorly educated they really don't
know anything. I was just IM'ing to a young friend of
mine who is n high school. Their first assignment was
a "fill in the blank" where the first question was
something to the effect of:
"The world must never forget the 6 million Jews killed
in the Nazi __________ of the early 1940s."
I, of course, suggested she write in "fairy tales".
Then, her next day of class, she was assigned to
"cook a Jewish meal" for her home ec class -- to be
followed by a "Hindu meal" and an "African meal."
Then she attended an assembly where she was told to
sell gelt (those little chocolate candies wrapped in
gold) for a school fundraiser. Her third day of
school her class was taking a test on how Malcolm X
described conking his hair in his autobiography -- she
fell asleep in the middle and failed it.
Given that that is what the schools -- and she lives in
an all-white portion of the mountains of rural
Southern Virginia -- are teaching -- it's not surprising
that the origins of religion are obscure to most
people.
However, I think an argument can be made that some
manifestations of Christianity -- the pre-Vatican II
Catholic Church and old Lutheranism, for instance, are
more European than Semitic in origin. However, in the
past hundred years most of the churches have collapsed
morally and adopted a Semitic outlook inline with the
Noahide laws of the Jews -- the laws the Jews believe
they are commanded to impose upon gentiles to forever
hold the non-Jewish peoples of the world in bondage.
Many scientists have recently begun speaking up
about a prevalent fear in that community that
superstitious and/or supernatural beliefs will mislead
humanity as a whole toward poor use of its technology.
Do you think this is possible?
I disagree with the fundamental assumption that
underlies that statement. I think, along the lines of
Spengler, that the development of technics is itself a
symptom that humanity has been misled, and that a
culture is reaching a point of decadence, as it is the
so-called "superstitious beliefs" that really give a
culture its life and character. Rather than asking is
superstition is misleading technology, I think we
should ask if our embrace of technology has wrongly
led us away from "superstition."
I know they've been saying those things for more than
50 years, and it hasn't come true yet. I remember
picking up a magazine -- Newsweek or Time or something
-- when I was about 8 or 9 and it had maps of
everything that would be under water by the year 1999.
I remember thinking how strange it would be to live
underwater, since that's where most of Maryland ended
up. Now it's 2002, and I'm not underwater or living
in one of those cool underwater domed cities they drew
pictures of. Therefore, I have grown to conclude that
people saying the world is going to end because of
environmental disaster are full of it.
Democracy has been touted as a fundamental value
of America since WWII, when we had to invent some
reason to be better than the Germans and Soviets. What
is your opinion of democracy?
First, I would challenge whether "democracy" was
really better than "national socialism." I think each
group of people must find a unique manifestation of
their own cultural soul, and I think that the
Anglo-American cultural tradition which underlies the
US Constitution, and the German cultural traditions
which underlay national socialism, were very
different. I also don't think the assertion of
"democracy" -- an assertion, which, from 1941-1945
included the Soviet Union, was ever meant to be taken
seriously. It was never anything more than just
another propaganda line.
As to "democracy" being a "fundamental value of
America", I would again have to disagree. America was
founded on a series of Traditional principles which
integrated the worldview of aristocratic individualism
with, unfortunately, some of the mistaken notions of
the time about "liberalism" and the like. America was
much more intended to be an Ancient Rome than it was
to be an experiment along the lines of Ancient Athens
or Revolutionary France.
"Democracy", as it is understood today, is a
manifestation of a destructive cultural spirit which
stands in opposition to true Americanism. I don't think
it, in our current understanding of it, should have
any real place in serious political discourse.
In an idealized system, what is the difference between "democracy" and "the mob rules"?
It would depend on who's doing the idealization.
However, there has never really been anything such as
"mob rule". "Mob rule" means the rule of demagogues --
something we see developing in our modern, media-driven society.
If you are asking whether or not "democracy" has been
a cloak for the takeover of our society by media
demagogues, however, then the answer is yes.
In your opinion, did the American "founding fathers" intend to extend democratic rights to all
citizens?
No. Though the different founding fathers each had
their own views on this issue, the document they
produced clearly stratified society -- first into free
landowners and free non-landowners, and then into free
and slave.
The trouble is that the founding fathers essentially
represented the merchant class, and thus while they
institutionalized two of the four traditional castes
in society, they made no provision for the religious
or warrior caste, and thus manifested only a phase of
decay rather than a complete return to Tradition.
In this life the pneumatics, as possessors of gnosis called themselves, are set apart from the great mass of mankind. The immediate illumination not only makes the individual sovereign in the sphere of knowledge (hence the limitless variety of gnostic doctrines) but also determiens the sphere of action. Generally speaking, the pneumatic morality is determined by hostility toward the world an contempt for all mundane ties. From this principle, however, two contrary conclusions could be drawn, and both found their extreme representatives: the ascetic and the libertine. The former deduces from the possession of gnosis the obligatoin to avoid further contamination by the world and therefore to reduce contact with it to a minimum; the latter derives from the same possession the privilege of absolute freedom.
-- The Gnostic Religion, by Hans Jonas, p. 46 (1958)
Do you believe in "good" and "evil"? If so, what
type of abstraction or literal entities do these
concepts represent for you?
Good is what makes society healthy and its people
happy. Evil is what hurts society and creates
unhappiness among men.
When you set up the overthrow.com site, what was
the impulse that drove you to put it online, and what
did you then hope to accomplish? Have your goals
at all changed?
Originally, it was a destructive impulse, and much of
the residue of that destructive impulse is manifest in
some parts of the site. I was very caught up in the
media- and public-school-generated Semitic mentalities
of destruction when I was younger, and thus set up the
site to advocate nihilistic, all-destructive
revolution.
As I've grown up, and I have removed myself from the
world of destructive Semitism, and adopted a
healthier, Traditional world view, the editorial view
of the site and the focus of what it does has changed
immensely.
In Islam there is the concept of the greater and
lesser Holy Wars -- the lesser Holy War is fought
against the infidel, but the greater Holy War is
fought within one's self in order to purge one's self
of the lesser and base elements. Through an embrace
of a Traditionalist worldview I think I have come a
long way in that greater, inner fight against the
psychological destruction that the socialization
process of our decadent society manifests.
What do you think is the longterm change in American political attitudes since 9/11?
I think America is experiencing exactly what we've
seen worldwide -- a recognition that Israel and
international Jewry were responsible for 9-11, and a
growing recognition that our adoption of their Semitic
cultural norms has had disastrous consequences for all
of the cultures and peoples of the world.
To what levels do you think that secularized
Christian and/or Jewish thought has penetrated the
United States?
There really is no such thing as "secularized
Christian thought" -- I don't think the term "Christian"
outside of the context of religion. "Secularized
Jewish thought" -- from Zionism to Bolshevism, with
Marx, Freud, Boas and Marcuse thrown in for good
measure, certainly has meaning though, and I think
that it not only has penetrated the United States, but
through Jewish domination of the American media has
come to represent the dominant cultural norm of the
United States.
As we are warned in Revelations: "Beware those who say
they are Jews and are not Jews [secularized Judaism,
in other words], for they are the synagogue of Satan."
In the following report, the National Alliance, a
political group out of West Virginia, identifies the
leaders of our media industry as primarily being from
the Jewish and Christian persuasions. How do you feel
this has influenced the content of american media, as
contrasted with a general liberalization of values in
America itself?
I think the current form of "American" culture is
almost totally a product of Jewish media domination.
While one could look at the influence of Deism and
transcendentalism on the development of liberalism in
the American media, since the advent of television,
the snatching of the editorial boards of all major
American newspapers that occurred in the period
1930-1960, and the modern media centralization that is
occurring today, it is the Jewish factor in media with
has been dominant in giving American culture its
current destructive form.
Do you think that America was founded on liberal
principles, or more conservative ones? Is it possible
that the context of these beliefs has shifted over
time?
I think "liberal" and "conservative", in their modern
definitions, are meaningless terms, particularly in
the context of America's founding.
Some would argue that liberalism is the secular
form of Judeo-Christian dogma, as passed through the
"humanist" years of the European renaissance. Can you
tell us your opinion on this topic?
No. I don't believe that. Modern "liberalism" has
very little to do with any of the previous forms of
"liberalism" that developed during the enlightenment.
"Liberalism" in the modern context is an ideology of
pure destruction, that inherits more from the hatred
of Bolshevism and the goal of destroying non-Jews that
exists in Zionism than from any European or Western
deviation.
Do you think America and Israel, in the face of
massive reluctance in Europe and throughout the USA,
will go ahead and attack Saddam Hussein?
Yes. The destructive urge is also a self-destructive
urge. Those who manifest it care as little about
destroying themselves as they do about destroying
others.
What do you see as the link between philosophical
judgment and political reality? Is it possible for an
age to have a dominant philosophy that colors judgment
during that time period of all political issues?
Again I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding
inherent in the question. There are really two
ideologies in the world -- two urges. One is an urge
to create. The other is an urge to destroy. All
philosophies and rationalizations are just words woven
around those fundamental urges.
At the bottom line, a society is either Traditional --
it has a central creative spirit with a pantheon of
Gods representing archetyes -- or it is barbarian -- and
it is trying to destroy the individual and itself in a
mass of nihilism and nothingness. Different
philosophies, and political systems, are just
different manifestations of that same type -- just as
you and I are different manifestations of the
potentiality of the general human type.
You have stated a distrust of the motives of libertarians. Is this because their focus is so "individualistic" that it does not address collective need?
The Libertarian Party, through the works of Jewish
philosophers like Rand, Rothbard and von Mises, has at
its core a type of individuation which is different
from the stratified individuation of Tradition, and is
instead a type of leveling individuation of the sort
criticized by Evola in his Men Among the Ruins.
However, many of those in the Libertarian Party are
motivated by good ends, and they simply become
attached to dogmas that are not useful to achieving
those ends.
Like all institutions, I think there is a mix of the
good and the bad in the Libertarian Party.
Unfortunately, until recently, I was seeing more of
the bad than good, though that has started to change
in recent years.
You have stated on many occasions that race is
secondary to other methods of social measurement for
you. What are your feelings on race, tribalism, and
the different types of genetic containers or levels
that may or may not exist within humanity?
I think humanity is more than a biological being, so I
prefer to look at how spiritual and cultural-ethnic
differences divide us than how we are divided by
genetics. There is certainly a correlation, but it is
human spiritual existence, and not biological existence,
which is the driving force behind the manifestations
of man.
Arthur Schopenhauer sees Christianity and Judaism
as being "transcendent idealist" philosophies, while
Buddhism is a "materialist idealist" philosophy. What
are your feelings on idealism, meaning the act of
working toward an abstract ideal as the highest
motivational force in an individual's philosophy?
Schopenhauer's dichotomy is wrong, but the assertion
that working towards an abstract ideal is the highest
form of motivation is certainly correct.
Transcendence of material limitations through
dedication to an ideal can be found in both the
creative and destructive urge -- and thus such
transcendental urges can bring out both the lowest and
highest manifestations of humanity.
Do you think human beings have individual souls?
Yes.
What is your opinion of rising teen sex, drug use
and social alienation in the latest generations? It
seems contiguous from the 1960s rise of the
counterculture, but has it spiked during recent
generations?
Such self-destructive behaviors are manifestations of
the destructive urge which has taken over society. We
are approaching the end of the Titanic age and
entering the Kali Yuga -- or death age -- which is to be
terminated by the destruction and rebirth of the
world. Social dysfunction and the breakdown of the
rule of the last caste -- the merchant caste -- are the
manifestations of the end of the Titanic Age.
It is truly a challenging time in which to be living.
With destruction the cultural norm, it is the most
difficult time for men to rise above the destruction
and be virtuous.
The Semites -- what Evola terms the Judaeo-Masonic
conspiracy -- have been the avatars of the destructive
forces, and have wrought destruction through their
control of the means of cultural production. The
cultural changes created in the 1960s were the final
push that tipped bourgeois society over the edge. Now
that the Semites have played out their historical role,
even they are facing destruction by the blinding black
whirlwind of the final age.
The difference between a friend and a flatterer seems to indicate that pleasure is not good, or else that pleasures differ in species. For in dealings with us the friend seems to aim at what is good, but the flatterer at what is pleasant; and the flatterer is reproachd, whereas the friend is praised, on the assumption that in their dealings they have different aims.
Besides, no one would choose to live with a child's level of thought for his whole life, taking as much pleasure as possible in what please children, or to enjoy himself while doing some utterly shameful action, even if he would never suffer pain for it.
Moreover, there are many things that we would be eager for even if they bought no pleasure, e.g. seeing, remembering, knowing, having the virtues. Even if pleasures necessarily follow on them, that does not matter, since we would choose them even if no pleasure resulted from them.
It would seem to be clear, then, that pleasure is not the good, that not every pleasure is choiceworthy, and that some are choiceworthy in themselves, differing in species or in their sources from those that are not. So much, then, for the things that are said about pleasure and pain.
-- Nicomachean Ethics, by Aristotle, s. 12.37 (-2349)
|
