Why is the left worshipping Che Guevara, a White Supremacist?
Posted on April 24, 2016
Above is one of the most iconic pictures in the world, and the man himself, Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara is a legend. A legend that has served as a guiding light for the left over the last few decades. I am certainly not the only one who have wondered why the left hails this man as a hero (at least up until now), and I will thus try to shed some light upon why he has received such a hero status.
Let us first of all of look at some statements made by Che in regard to Mexicans and Subsaharan Africans.
“The Negro is indolent and lazy, and spends his money on frivolities, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent.”,
“The Negro has maintained his racial purity by his well known habit of avoiding baths”,
“We’re going to do for Blacks exactly what blacks did for the revolution. By which I mean: nothing.”
“Given the prevailing lack of discipline, it would have been impossible to use Congolese machine-gunners to defend the base from air attack: they did not know how to handle their weapons and did not want to learn,”
“Mexicans are a band of illiterate Indians.”
Given the views above he hardly fits the role as a hero of the left. Before I elaborate on the answer to the question posed in the title it is prudent to briefly discuss another important aspect of the left as a political force. The Left Will Eat Itself, remember these words, because they will be increasingly important in the coming time. Cultural Marxism is an ideology based upon conflict and destruction, and the narrative is constantly changed to find new oppressed minorities and new struggles to focus on. The original left (when they had intellectual legitimacy) was focused on tangible questions such workers’ rights. Today’s left, in sharp contrast, do not stand for anything. They only stand against the White Western Patriarchy. Every group that can be used as a weapon to destroy Western civilization will be used to do so. One need not look further than the paradox of supposed “women’s rights” and the acceptance of a mass immigration of Muslim men into Europe to dispel any notions of intellectual legitimacy in the modern left.
Which group the left is fighting for is changing with each year, yet the continued theme is that it is the White Patriarchy who is the enemy. This means that the left can love and promote one oppressed minority one year and the next year casually cast them aside in favour of another group. The various “oppressed” minorities are, contrary to the hopes and beliefs of the left, not striving for the same goal; the end of the White Patriarchy, but will strive to promote their own agenda. The notion that Muslims and Gays will unite is as preposterous as it sounds and will soon come to rest.
With all that said, let us now answer the question; why is he the hero of the left? It is quite simple actually; because they have none other. Che Guevara was the last of a generation which had the possibility of being an alpha leftist, someone who actually stood for something and did so in a masculine and heroic manner. Che Guevara, in sharp contrast to today’s leftists was a man of action who fought for a sincere belief; a free Latin America with self-determination devoid of foreign influence. In fact I would argue that he has more in common with today’s nationalists or identitarians than he has with today’s left.
Today’s left does neither attract, nor promote the virtues that made Che a valiant (if slightly misguided) individual. The men of Che’s nature, the hero-adventurer is today not present within the left but is rather found in the rapidly growing Real Right that is making its return in the Western World.
The left have no other hero and must thus turn to a White Straight Man with a penchant for violence.
Lastly, it is in order to mention that I do not look up to Che as an individual; he was too flawed in character for reverence.
Pre-Orders and Orders for New Garments!
Posted on April 12, 2016
The new garments are finally here! The Aux Armes Fleur-de-Lis T-Shirt is an upgraded version of the old one with a higher quality garment with a better fit in addition to a bolder and sturdier print. The two new designs are gym stringers with a traditional heraldic Evropean Lion!
More information: https://narcissus.se/store/
Sizing Guide
The t-shirt is a very good fit and you can go with your normal size here. The stringers have most of their material on the bottom so depending on your body shape you can go either with your usual size or one size smaller (to make it tighter in the midsection).
Aux Armes Fleur-de-Lis Fitted Royal Blue. 26 EURO.
Gym Stringer The Golden Lion of Evropa. 20 EURO.
Gym Stringer The Bordeaux Lion of Evropa. 20 EURO.
Free Trade, Libertarianism, David Ricardo, Protectionism. The Glorious Pill Stance
Posted on April 2, 2016
When discussing National Capitalism it is also important to elaborate on what stance should be adapted in terms of foreign trade. For the classic Liberal, who adheres to the teachings of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, Protectionism is a hindrance to prosperity. However it is prudent to point out that those gentlemen were products of their times (as every thinker is) and thus presented their arguments in accord with contemporary circumstances. For the Nationalist, even one inclined to agree with some of the merits of free trade and open markets, it is outright madness to not have a native agriculture (to use the most obvious example). That companies outsource to nations where they can pay lower wages can be understood, even though it is not optimal for the Western worker. What must be combated at all cost, however, are dangers posed to the nation’s native agriculture. There might just be the case that another nation can produce cheaper food products than what is available in the native market. The classic Liberal would invoke the voice of David Ricardo and recite his theory of Comparative Advantage and claim that it makes perfect economic sense to let each nation focus on what it does best and import the things that another nation does better. This makes sense indeed.
Alas the Nationalist has the well-being of his own nation and people first and foremost on the agenda. A nation without a healthy agriculture is tantamount to a nation without an army. It is simply a matter of essentials. We have discussed the virtues of supporting your local communities and eating as much locally produced foods as possible. Now we must also approach this from a political viewpoint. In the case of an unstable world, which the world always comes to sooner or later, it is of paramount importance to be able to feed your own population. This will be impossible if the native market has collapsed due to the state’s inability to properly protect its agriculture from aggressive foreign competition. The protection methods can vary from subsidies to your own agriculture to tariffs on foreign imports. Whichever method ensures the prosperity and continuation of the native production must be the measure taken.
We do not suggest complete autarchy in terms of food products. Indeed there are plenty of produce that for geographical reasons need to be imported. To give a basic example; oranges are not native to Scandinavia and cultivating oranges is not integral to Scandinavian self-sufficiency. This goes for many a product. The general guide-line in terms of protecting the native agricultural industry is; if it can be produced by the native farmers, their production should be protected. However, if the product does not exist in the native market; there can be great benefits of having a prosperous foreign trade.
A truly Nationalist state will furthermore not allow itself to be coerced into trade agreements which will cause harm to its people or nature. This is easier said than done, of course, since the threat of foreign intervention will always be presence should a nation be to unruly in the international arena. However, the state must not be gulled into accepting false promises by voracious international elements at the expense of its native population.
Patrick Pearse Quote: “We have not lost…”
Posted on March 26, 2016
“We seem to have lost. We have not lost. To refuse to fight would have been to lose. We have kept faith with the past, and handed down a tradition to the future.”
– When condemned to death following the Easter Rising 1916.
The Golden One 
You must be logged in to post a comment.