[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
The first of the five paragraphs in my very short essay says it all.
I have read works by Rockwell on the Internet and found him in many respects an intelligent observer. However, Rockwell made some fundamental mistakes that made his mission a failure.
1)In his time the Internet did not yet exist, so for publicity one was entirely dependent on the enemy i.e. the Jews. Rockwell thought that by drawing attention to himself – by any means – he would get the opportunity to explain himself to the public. But – unsurprisingly – his provocative antics only brought him negative publicity and he never got the opportunity to explain his ideas, that were of course misrepresented in the Jewish press.
2) Rockwell chose to “courageously” name and fight the Jews in contrast to the “cowardly” conservatives of his days. But in this way he not only antagonized all Jews but also the majority of the white public, already thoroughly indoctrinated by the Jews in the idea that “anti-Semitism” is the greatest sin.
3) Displaying Nazi symbols, so shortly after the Second World War, in which – according to the prevalent mythology – the “greatest generation” had fought a “good war” against the “evil Hitler” was not exactly a wise PR policy.
All in all, the well meaning Rockwell was a failure. Even if he were not murdered and had lived longer, he would have failed with such a strategy.
Franklin, that is almost a good summary but I think your assessment of Rockwell is too negative. He did motivate William Pierce at least. Dr. Pierce was not politically active at all before he saw news-footage of Rockwell trying to address an unruly crowd. I am sure that he made other people think as well.
Rockwell accomplished this by exercising his right of Freedom of Speech to a degree that nobody had before.
What people fail to consider when they say that somebody made a mistake by challenging some taboo like the swastika is that the way to destroy these taboos is by challenging them. Arthur Schopenhauer is supposed to have said: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” You can infer from this that even somebody displaying a swastika might be accomplishing some good by desensitizing people to it — but usually the people who do this are the sort that tend to reinforce the discredit of the symbol.
Actually the swastika itself was probably not as taboo in Rockwell’s day as it is now. ( Example: The Wild Angels starring Peter Fonda, 1966.) Holocaust propaganda didn’t really begin to dominate perception of Adolf Hitler and the Second World War until after 1978. Even during the Reagan years the most common use of the word holocaust was probably still nuclear holocaust
I consider using the swastika a mistake however, for this reason. I have long held the view that there is some quota of shock that you can inflict on an audience before they will decide that you are intolerable. You can either use up that shock-quota with symbols, or with ideas. I prefer to invest all my shock-quota in ideas.
Dr. Pierce rigorously avoided such imagery. He would write highly complimentary things about Adolf Hitler and other prominent National-Socialists, but I found in the case of a photograph of Heinrich Himmler that appeared in National Vanguard magazine, that Dr. Pierce had deliberately cropped and altered the photo in such a way as systematically to exclude swastikas. Where there was a bit of a swastika at the edge of the frame, he smudged it out, obviously to avoid any hint of sensationalism.
What I found particularly important was Rockwell’s explanation of his policy of strict legality. His courage in exercising Freedom of Speech was largely conditioned by the belief that staying legal would ultimately protect him. He explains why he believed it: it’s because the vast majority of people working for the system are not conscious conspirators. This is very important, because there is nothing more demoralizing to White advocacy than the assumption that ZOG is gonna getcha no matter what you do. That kind of belief is the worst kind of demoralization-propaganda. It’s crippling, and anybody that really understands Rockwell will realize that it is wrong.
I should also say that anybody using a swastika comes across as some kind of historical re-enactor at best, and that’s death to being taken seriously.
Dr. Pierce pointed out to Rockwell that the uniforms of the SA were normal in 1920s Germany, insofar as every political party had its uniformed wing. It’s not normal in our society.
The idea should be to present national-socialism in a way that will allow people to see it as normal.
Good show Hadding, enjoyed it. Rockwell brought me to my full awakening. You made some salient comments which I agreed with. The Commander was a very brave man and should be continually honored for just that. Taken down by a cowardly rat.
A very revealing account of GLR’s brush with psychiatric confinement in hour two. Investigative journalist Frederick Seelig encountered much worse at that very same time, as recounted in his biographical work “Destroy the Accuser” .
With forward by Westbrook Pegler, and extensive commentary by Revilo P. Oliver, this book is a must read for those seeking truth about the threat of kikejew psychiatric legalese, and its long history. Of additional interest, while Seelig was confined at Springfield, famed anti-communist General Edwin Walker was jailed there, just a few cells away; however, his powerful friends got him released in short order. Per the book, there was no such immediate good fortune for Fred Seelig.
P.S. I have read that Patler was released after five years. In his later years Eustace Mullins feared that Patler had moved to Staunton in order to assassinate him.
First I must say that I think this was an awesome show. Rockwell had boldness where most people would allow themselves to be consumed by fear. His courage is inspiring. I have no doubt that his courage inspires courage in others. If you’re city folk than finding inspiration in other people is almost all you have. The inspiration for instance that I felt throughout this narration of some great George Lincoln Rockwell material was needed on my part. So I thank you Hadding for doing such a great job. Actually Hadding, I have thoroughly enjoyed everything I’ve heard from you. I think you do a good job when you’re on Carolyn’s show as well. The inspiration in this show is a testament to how good Rockwell was and how good Hadding is.
Thank you for this quality program. I’ll be back.
Hadding, this was a very good program, with much food for thought. Just out of curiosity, is Patler/Patsalos still alive?
WWS said:<blockquote.I have read that Patler was released after five years.
You have to be very careful about movement history. There are certain fat charlatans that have made a career of churning out false movement history, often not under their own name, that tries to portray exactly the kind of vast, all-pervasive conspiracy that Rockwell says does not exist. (There is even a piece about the assassination of Rockwell attributed to Robert Frenz that I think is not really by him, because I could not find it on FAEM.)
One of the favorite false claims is that the Commonwealth of Virginia showed favoritism to Patler/Patsalos. Sometimes they claim that he only served three years in prison.
UPI reported in 1975 that Patler/Patsalos was approved for parole after serving eight years. This does not reflect any bias in his favor on the part of the Commonwealth of Virginia: the prosecutor had asked for death but the jury had recommended only a 20-year sentence and the judge was not allowed to give more than that. Parole after one-third of a sentence has been served is standard in Virginia, and Patler/Patsalos had been a model prisoner.
More information: On the Murder of George Lincoln Rockwell
… is Patler/Patsalos still alive?
Not sure. He was born about 1938. I noticed a government agency looking for information about him on my blog a year or so back. I suppose that it would be reported in mass-media if he died.
Did I accidentally tune into The Young Turks?
The Republican party has a “small government ideology”?
Not in my lifetime, and probably not in yours.
Ronnie “government is the problem, not the solution” Reagan expanded the federal government by 30%, and did not do so under protest. He vetoed one budget, apparently because it was too small, as he happily signed the larger revised budget which came back to him.
From 2003 to 2007, Republicans controlled the elected federal government. What happened to the size of government and the scope of its power during those years?
Talking to the average Republican voter, it is clear they do not support small government, and there’s a nice cross correlation in a General Social Survey which says exactly what one experienced would expect: the people who are most adamant about saying they want a smaller government want a bigger government than the people who do not consider themselves so radical about cutting government.
You’re too good to parrot the Punch-and-Judy false dielectric of the Glenn Beck / Naomi Klein distraction industry.
Excellent!!! Loved it. Somebody has put this on YouTube which I posted on my blog.Hope that’s O.K.If not,say the word and I will take it down.Keep up the good work.
Talking to the average Republican voter, it is clear they do not support small government….
Okay you are obviously a libertarian, viewing everything through the libertarian lens.
You should know perfectly well what was meant. The Republicans want less government in terms of social programs and regulation (many because they see it as a sneaky way to be politically racist). That’s what Rockwell discussed. He said that the Republicans alienated many White working-class voters in 1964 because of this position, and it is clear that in 2012 they lost for the same reason.
I have not yet listened to this show, but have a question/request.
Will you do a show about Dr. Pierce, Hadding? I would love to hear you talk about him. After all; you knew him personally (if I’m not mistaken).
There was already a show about Dr. Pierce with me and Will Williams, and I talked about Dr. Pierce some in “A Chat with Hadding Scott”. Carolyn Yeager had wanted me to do another show about Dr. Pierce but I wanted to do Rockwell instead this time.
No, the republicans do not want less government than the Democrat party.
You are absolutely right when you say that Republicans alienate the working class by being plutocrats supporting big-industry. Plutocrats are not today, and it is hard to say they ever have been, in favor of reducing the size or scope of government. However, perhaps you are referring to this definition of “deregulation” given top me, with a straight face, by a typical Chomskyite:
“deregulation is when the government does anything good for big business. Making it illegal to not buy insurance is deregulation.”
It doesn’t matter if reducing the size of government is good or bad, what matters is that there is no major political bloc that actually supports reduction of government, but one of them claims to be. I realize that agreeing with their lies makes a good boogyman for anyone who wants to argue against small states, as only a fool would support the kleptocrat GOP, but I thought you were very concerned with accuracy.
There’s no point in arguing with a libertarian, unless it is to demonstrate to observers how libertarians nitpick everything that doesn’t conform perfectly to the impossible libertarian ideal.
Libertarianism has no answer to our problems. Ask a libertarian if he would support any regulations that would preserve the White race against miscegenation in this country. He will say no. Libertarians ultimately are no friends of the White race.
Hadding, you define “Libertarianism” in a way even more narrow than most right-libertarians, who I also think are insane.
Myself, I oppose international trade, and I support centralized eugenic action. I am also very opposed to radical individualism. Am I a ‘libertarian’? Who knows, let others decide; I call myself a National Mutualist, but that means little outside of my own paradigm.
Hadding. Answer me this. What draw-back of state power have the Republicans done that has been more radically fiscally conservative than the ‘welfare reform’ signed off on by Bill Clinton?
I say again. I am not here to argue for libertarian notions. I know where you stand on these matters. I am here to keep you honest. The Republican party has no connection to reduction of state power, even ‘socialist’ state power, except in meaningless rhetoric (or in the Social Security issue, to transfer the power from state bureaucracy to state-supported corpratocracy)
Wow it’s good that somebody is here to keep me from getting away with dishonesty. Thanks.
You are engaged in tedious nitpicking.
The content presented at this web site thewhitenetwork-archive.com is the sole property of the program host and/or writer and The White Network. All rights reserved.
Before copying or re-posting anything from this site, please refer to our Copyright and Re-posting Policy.
Before commenting, please refer to our Comment Policy.