Saturday, August 8, 2015



Should a movement with revolutionary ambitions proceed from a premise of absolute truthfulness; or should it seek to gain popularity by appeal to prevailing prejudice and error? Should its starting point be one of complete candor, or that of concession and compromise? These are questions which are broached by NEW ORDER Commander Matt Koehl in this unique editorial, which appeared in the Fourth Quarter 1995 issue of the NS Bulletin.

Today our Movement is not a very popular one. It is not popular for the simple reason that it is a revolutionary movement. As such, it does not pander to popular prejudice and ignorance, but dares to challenged the most devoutly held taboos of society.

What is a taboo? Very simply, it is an unwritten social no-no which places certain persons and things off limits to challenge or criticism.

The term itself comees from a Polynesian word meaning "sacred." Among primitive tribes of the South Seas, a sacred prohibition is placed up certain people, things or acts, making them untouchable and/or unmentionable.

Every society—primitive or advanced—has its taboos. They are reliable indicators as to who exercises effective power and control in a particular society. One can, in fact, tell who runs a given society by its taboos, i.e., by asking the simple question: Who and what cannot be criticized? Who and what are untouchable in that society?

In Communist China, for instance, you cannot criticize the Beijing regime. In North Korea you can't criticize [Kim Jong-un] and his cohorts. In Cuba one doesn't criticize Fidel Castro. In Iran one does not speak against the [Supreme Leader] and the Islamic revolution. In Saudia Arabia you don't go around criticizing the royal family, just as in Kuwait one does not speak ill of the Emir. In Burma it's the military junta that is off limits.

It is taboo. In each case, it tells who wields power.

But is it only so-called totalitarian or authoritarian states that have taboos, which place the respective controlling parties and personalites above criticism? Or do so-call democratic regimes have taboos, as well?

In that fountainhead of liberal democracy, the good old U.S. of A., who and what is one not suposed to criticize?

Can one criticize the Republican Party? Can one criticize Democrats? Can one criticize liberals or conservatives? Can one criticize Catholics or Protestants? How about the various European Americans—Anglo-Saxons, Germans, Irish, French, Dutch, Scandinavians, Poles and Balts, for example, not to mention the white race generally? Can they be criticized? Of course, they can. And so, what it tells us is that none of these groups possesses real power.

On the other hand, is there a taboo against criticizing blacks? Is there, in fact, a taboo against criticizing any designated quota group? Indeed, is it taboo to criticize the very notion of racial equality and minority preference? Again, we all know the answer.

How about homosexuals? Is it taboo to criticize lesbians and sodomites in today's lovely society?

What about Israel and the so-called "Holocaust"? Can these idols be criticized?

Actually, these last two form part of a common taboo. What group is it, above all, that stands above even the hint of criticism?

We are all familiar with the "J" word, and how one is supposed to pronounce it with greatest deference and respect and with just the right tone in one's voice. As a matter of fact, most good citizens have been trained to such a degree of awe and reverence that they are no longer capable of uttering the very simple word—Jew. It usually comes out something like "a nice Jewish person" or "people of the Jewish faith."

There is, in fact, a hierachy—a pecking order, so to speak—in Taboodom. Even blacks, queers and other special-interest minorities get into trouble when they venture to look cross-eyed at one of the Chosen and fail to observe this most sacred of taboos.

Indeed, this hierarchy of taboos corresponds to actual power relationships under the present liberal-democratic regime in America. A similar patter of relationships, of course, exists around the globe in other countries of the Zionis satellite system.

*   *   *

The taboos spoken of thus far all refer to the stigma that attaches to expressions of negative sentiment. There is, however, another kind of taboo from which one is also to abstain, a taboo reflective of the particular hatred and bias of those who rule. Just as one is not supposed to say anything critical about certain persons and things, so one is to refrain from saying anything favorable or positive about certain other persons and things.

For example, the simple suggestions that there might be more to racial difference than mere skin color is quite out of bounds, as are calls for the improvement of human quality through eugenics. A similar proscription applies to expressions of white racial pride, including official—as well as unofficial—displaysof the battle flag of the Old South.

More than any of this, however, there is one Idea that is even more taboo—National Socialism.

Similarly, there is one symbol that is proscribed by taboo as totally beyond the pale—the Swastika.

Above all, there is one person of whom nothing favorable or positive must ever be said, the most hated man of all time—Adolf Hitler. And THAT is the greatest taboo of all!

These taboos constitute the parameters of acceptable public discourse in our contemporary society. The define what is commonly called "Political Correctness" which, in turn, provides the ideological support for a system upon which the entire Old Order rests.

*   *   *

Unfortunately, most people accept and go along with these societal taboos to greater or lesser extent—and, accordingly, they are ruled.

But what should we do—we opponents of this system of alien control? What should be our response to all of this? Should we also join in accepting such taboos? Any of them? Perhaps we should rather ask: Can our situation be cured by accommodation and opportunism?

The question is really: What are we trying to do? If we're satisfied with the Old Order, then it follows that we should go along with the taboos that sustain that system. If, on the other hand, we are looking for a New Order and real change in this world, then we have to look at things a bit differently.

There are some outside our Movement who have ventured to challenged a number of system taboos. Some, for example, are willing to discuss th racial question. Others will criticize Israel and Zionism. Still others will go so far as to castigate Jewry itself.

However, when it comes to confronting the greatest taboo of all, they "freeze up." They are afraid to say anything favorable about Adolf Hitler or do anything which might tend to identify them as "Nazis." As a matter of fact, they often feel it necessary to "cover themselves by saying something  disparaging and unkind about the Leader. The rationale, of course, is that this will help them be more "effective."

But effective for what? It is the greatest mistake to believe that one can ever sneak into powever and achieve a real, lasting effect—without challenging all of the tabools established by Political Correctness. It just won't work any other way.

Even if one were to make every compromise and curry every favor—indeed, if one were to attain highest political office—what would one have actually gained? There certainly would be no constituency for the kind of fundamental change that is needed. In a word, one would have done nothing more than join the same old crowd. That's why every single one of the system taboos—without exception must be challenged.

As has been noted, the greatest taboo is the one that attaches to Adolf Hitler and his Cause. The enemy knows who Hitler is and what he represents. It is vital to our ultimate success that we also possess this knowledge.

*   *   *

The Old Order is like a house of cards. Its whole existence rests on a foundation of lies and taboos. Once the central support of its greatest lie and greatest taboo is removed, it will simply collapse.

The fact is that we will never be free of the shackles of alien rule as long as we accept any of its taboos, including the greatest one of all. With such moral hesitation and inhibition, one can never make the revolution and bring about a better world.

No, if we want to achieve a New Order of things—if we want to be free of the present plague, free to realized our finest hopes and dreams, free to pursue our high destiny—then there is only one way to go about it: We must first demolish the ideological underpinnings of the Old Order. The means that we must be prepared to reject Political Correctness in every shape and form. Andthis means that the taboos must go—all of them!