Dear Mr. Porter:

I always enjoy your letters, with the good Aryan-thinking within. Over time, words have their meanings changed. One historian pointed out that "liberal" used to mean one who believed in laissez faire capitalism, as opposed to mercantilism. Nowadays, one would be called a "conservative". In the present sense, "liberal" is to me a communist without the courage of his convictions. Another connotation for "liberal" is "libertine". Both words appear to originate from Liber, a god represented by grapes, wine and drunkenness.

There is always a dynamic tension between the individual and his society. As you note, the Oriental societies are quite conformist. The price paid for their unity of behaviour is the loss of creativity and individuality. Crowding enforces a uniform code of behaviour, regardless of the races who experience it. Aryans hate overcrowding, but Asians don't feel right unless they are rubbing against one another. I remember reading Mao Tse Tung's "Military Thoughts", which was semi-historical and semi-tactical, very long and very repetitive. One of the historical passages mentioned The Long March which began in 1927, after Mao's attempt to mobilise the tiny minority of factory workers against Chiang's regime. The Communists fled into the backlands, which would have been like fleeing into Siberia in the case of Lenin, Stalin et al. Chiang's forces gave chase, but not too diligently, for he believed that the Communists were heading into nowhere and political oblivion. The Communists thought so, too. As you probably know, Karl Marx would have spun in his grave to know that his 'disciples' were invoking his name on behalf of peasant revolts in agrarian societies like Russia and China, rather than his idealised industrial workers. One may as well have attempted to use a motorcycle repair handbook as a guide for treating a horse. As I pointed out in various of my essays, Lenin dumped the Marxist credo, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", after a few weeks in power, since it was impractical. Another credo of Marxism was that the workers would become the owners of the means of production. Lenin announced this in one of his pamphlets, and was horrified to discover that the 'new owners' of crucial factories were lolling about, after having cut up the leather transmission belts to make bootsoles! Lenin was an arrogant ignoramus, like Franklin Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson, none of whom had ever done an honest, productive day's work in their lives. That's what always impressed me about the textbook Marxists I knew in university: their assumptions were impractical because they had no basis in human experience. General J.F.C. Fuller noted that Hitler was not given to such flights of fancy, for he knew how many shovels full of earth it took to put some bread and cheese on one's table. Since the "workers" would not behave according to Lenin's expectations, he turned nasty, cursing the 'holy' masses as "these damned wantless people" who required "The Terror" to herd then into the Communist direction. Thus did the KHAZAR rulers of Russia embark on a Grand Social Experiment with disastrous results for their Goy subjects.

After wandering far afield, I return to Mao's Long March, with a column of over 10,000 men and their camp-followers, on the way to Yunnan. The band of merry proletarian pilgrims entered a grassy area which was sparsely populated by some peculiar tribes of shy and sometimes predatory people. These grasslands, with their waterfowl and other game appalled the Chinese who came from the crowded coastal cities. Mao writes that all of then felt oppressed "BECAUSE THERE WERE NO PEOPLE!" Some of Mao's fellow marchers went sad from the empty, open space, of the grasslands. To an Aryan, this sounds absurd: you are going on a hike, accompanied by 9,999+ others, who belong to your commie hiking club, and you feel that "there are no people" to keep you company!

In semi-Asiatic Russia, the Soviet regime paid people to have children. This did not work for the Ostensible Whites, for they did not want more children, but more livingspace, to allow personal privacy. The Asiatic denizens of the USSR, as one could foresee, gleefully pumped out offspring, since they did not mind crowding, any more than termites mind it.

The Aryan, on the other hand, pays a price for his individualism, for his quest for freedom can lead to isolation, which leaves him vulnerable to those races who function as organised groups, rather than as disparate individuals. Aryans are usually too busy fighting each other to notice who is watching them in their fight toward extinction. The ancient Greeks did themselves in, and so did the modern Europeans. Will we ever learn? The price of unity is conformity. The price of individualism is extinction. There is nothing for nothing in the universe.

I have pointed out that race-mixing is dysgenic. So did the ancient Aryans of India who warned that race-mixing was the root of all evil, but enough people did it anyway, as the mud-coloured population of the Indian subcontinent proves. I am sure you know people who do things which they admit "are not right". In the main, it is opportunity, not morality or reason, which governs human behavior. We can adhere to an ideology 99% of the time, but that 1% is what defeats us.

To be effective in social terms, an ideology needs positive and negative incentives which are intelligible to the lowest common denominator of society. That is why some religions have 'heavens' and 'hells': Do what is right & rewards are great; do what is wrong and the punishment is also great. As we know, the masses can believe in the above, and still continue to behave regressively, because "it feels good", for the moment.

Commander George Lincoln Rockwell, the American Nazi leader, wrote an excellent article on propaganda, "Propaganda, from Ivory Tower to Privy Wall". The idea of any movement is to enlist as many people as possible. No movement comprised of "eggheads" ever came to power, until the masses of the less-schooled and the unschooled had been drawn in as supporters. This means that an ideological message must be expressed so as to appeal to the greatest number of potential supporters. The Catholic Church is a good example of appealing to adherents on all levels, from the 'transcendentalists' to the primitive idol-worshippers. The Pope commands, and all these disparate types follow. Another such organisation would be an army, in which a strategy must be 'sold' to field marshalls, as well as privates, in such a way that it succeeds.

Gods also serve toward the enlargement of an ideology's following. Few indeed can follow the path of virtue as a disembodied principle. The majority follow a singer, rather than a song. This is why the French revolutionaries deified such virtues as Truth, Justice, Freedom, and perhaps Virtue, so as to give the masses a 'person' with whom they could identify more than principle with no visible, personal manifestation. Dynasophy could be personified in the form of a goddess, resembling Wonder Woman. Talk about 'sex-appeal'! Remember, if one wants to limit one's level of appeal to the "intellectuals", one will achieve no results. Results only come about when the ideology is popularised.

Aryan gods and goddesses were often depicted as fallible; thereby teaching mortals some important lessons, for the gods were not always wise, as we are told by mythology and legends. The Aryan view of Fate is remarkable, as we see in the Greek tragedies, wherein the plot is given away at the outset. The purpose for this is to enable the audience to concern itself with the nobility or ignobility of the subjects' confrontation with the inevitable. There is an old German saying that "Fate provides victory or defeat, but you must provide the courage." The Aryan credo is also expressed by the observation that "it matters not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game." I used to think that the saying, "Virtue is its own reward", was the epitome of Victorian prissiness, just as I used to think that Shakespeare was for sissies. The reason for that is that sissies were the only ones I knew who promoted either virtue or Shakespeare. With experience, I realized that Shakespeare and the Greek tragedies are relevant to heros who can truly comprehend these messages. If the real MacBeth were to appear, the Shakespeare-spouting sissies would run, screaming, from the room. There is no question about living and dying. It is how one lives and dies that is important to an Aryan.

One good way of popularising Dynasophy would be to personify the ideology in the form of one who exemplifies every aspect of the ideology, similar to the "Wonder Woman" who eschews weakness and who pursues excellence on behalf of herself and others. The best propaganda is that which entertains as it informs, and is so attractive that people will pay to indoctrinate themselves, as they now do with jew propaganda. "It's no good if it doesn't sell."

Along this line of personifying and popularising an ideology, in this case, National Socialism, Rockwell was very effective. He had two comic strip characters whose adventures were printed on an 8" by 3" comic strip format. "Aryan Man" addressed general issues of NS versus Judaism in a humourous, science fiction context. "Eric Thompson" was NS personified, in the context of day-to-day problems which Aryans face in school, at home and at work. Rockwell's successor, Matt Koehl, sits upon all these wonderful propaganda items. He will not re-print them, nor distribute them, nor allow anyone else to do so, even though the items are as timely today as they were 30 years ago. Funny how information attracts Zündel & Koehl types who simply hoard it and do nothing with it. The Zionist enemy could hope for no better allies!


Eric Thomson