Siege is an influential white nationalist book which argues that white radicals should either maximally disengage from the system or engage in acts of lone wolf terrorism to sow chaos and ultimately precipitate a collapse. It is hoped that this will weaken the system sufficiently to allow white nationalists to fill the power vacuum and form a new state based on the National Socialist model. It’s not a viable plan because there are very few willing to engage in acts of racial martyrdom and the system is anti-fragile, finding a pretext to tighten its grip over the population and demonize its enemies in response to practically impotent acts of sporadic violence against its branches or proxies. White nationalists are not a powerful or organized group so they are highly unlikely to fill any power vacuum in a collapse scenario. Perhaps revealingly, the author (James Mason) never committed such an act of terrorism himself; 99% of Siegetards are posers and voyeurs (terrorist fantasies are a form of ideological pornography). In recent years Mason has come to disregard the utility of violence (“we don’t need any more martyrs”) abandoning the distinguishing aspect of his worldview; broken by the reality of the racial situation.
It’s his philosophy however where Mason was most confused and in my view, totally self-refuting.
Mason's weltanschauung is fundamentally based on Nietzscheanism and “might makes right” social Darwinism but power is aracial and Mason’s political analysis predicates the uselessness of democratic politics based on the overfed, brainwashed and castrated nature of practically all white men alive today. He asserts that Western civilization is dead:
“With the death of Adolf Hitler in the close of the 2nd World War in 1945 Western civilization, as it had existed and is still perceived DIED once and for all. The only thing that was left now was a gene pool.”
If one is a true amoral power-nihilist Nietzschean, why would you want to join the ranks of a tiny, marginalized movement that is fighting for what it concedes is a lost cause, and bases its crusade on nothing more than a desperate attempt to ineffectually lash out at the quasi-omnipotent “Zionist occupation government”?
For a female Nietzschean and social Darwinist the choice to side with the Power is even more of a no-brainier. Amorality can’t provide any reason to remain loyal to defeated men just because they share your pigmentation or genealogy. Might makes right is naturally in accordance with female submission to dominant men, which in modern white nations means men with lots of money and status (Jews) or men with lots of muscle and sexual potency (blacks) not the race which, according to what are supposedly its leading advocates, is heading for extinction.
“The advanced brain and physique of the Aryan wasn't intended, and didn't evolve, to have the hell pummeled out of it for sport. But if you're going to pit a White Man and a Black in the ring and call it a "match," why not pit a Black in the ring with a gorilla? Same logic, same kind of "match." You know who'll win every time: the more primitive”. - James "white boys can't fight” Mason
One section of his book is titled “The whole is greater than the individual”, which focuses on black-white differences. Mason suggests that on an individual basis, white men can't stand up to black men physically and have to hide in a crowd to gain an advantage. Mason acknowledges that whites are terrorized by black physical and sexual violence in the schools and on the streets (if he were totally honest he would have mentioned the prisons as well) and concedes (if anything overstating his point) that Negroes are vastly superior boxers, American footballers and sprinters due to their faster and more robust primitive physiology but he asserts that as a collective, whites are superior due to their greater intelligence, discipline, work ethic and ability to organize. This argument fails because it’s not based on anything more than hypothetical potential in a scenario that’s extremely unlikely to ever come to fruition (violent race war) while the demoralizing facts of Negro violence, physical and sexual superiority and Jewish tribal and intellectual supremacy are practical realities. On the one hand, he states that “such things as “past” and “potential”, together with 50 cents, will get you a cup of coffee” and on the other, he bases his claim of white superiority on what? A great past and (abstract) potential!
In a comment about the apparent nobility and superiority of instinct over intellect, Mason claims that “When it comes down to male/female relations, it’s a matter of what animal signals are sent out and how well the other party senses these. In one-on-one, animal combat, instinct takes over completely and the intellect shuts down so as to not impede the organism in successfully fighting to preserve its existence.” Again I believe Mason overstates his point (fighting and romance do involve intellect) but as we’ve already found out, Mason regards blacks as being vastly superior to whites in primal physical combat, so his claim that attraction is fundamentally based on “animal signals” seems to concede sexual attractiveness to black men as well as physical power, as they are the more instinctual, primitive and animalistic race by his own admission.
Finally, Mason admits that “If you want to make something “thrilling”, you make it forbidden”. He claims repeatedly throughout Siege that he’s beyond “reactionary hang-ups” over sex and even goes so far as to endorse contemporary “sexually liberated” attitudes, so long as the sex is between whites. In contradiction to his previous stated position, he admits that “There was just enough reactionary left in me to get my blood hot at the sight” of a tabloid picture of the Nordic Brooke Shields and the Negro Michael Jackson in embrace, implying interracial sexual contact. He also notes that “a lot of the most rabid, sneering miscegenators are blonde, blue-eyed doll babies” and “if you couldn’t blast the head off of one or a thousand of these types, then you better bow out right now”.
Capital punishment for miscegenation? It doesn’t get more “forbidden” or by his own logic, more “thrilling” than that! (And without a credible threat of physical force behind it, his advocacy of execution for race-mixing comes across as not just horrific, insecure and desperate but impotent).
Fetishizing masculinity and power from a position of self-confessed emasculation and powerlessness while erecting life-and-death sexual taboos against your women defecting to the admitted physically and sexually superior, violent and aggressive enemy race that’s invading and outbreeding you in your own territory is a terribly unwise proposition, unless the idea is to sow the seeds of a self-reinforcing spiral into “jungle fever” or racial cuckoldry. Far from being white supremacist, Siege is in fact a white inferiorist book.
It’s his philosophy however where Mason was most confused and in my view, totally self-refuting.
Mason's weltanschauung is fundamentally based on Nietzscheanism and “might makes right” social Darwinism but power is aracial and Mason’s political analysis predicates the uselessness of democratic politics based on the overfed, brainwashed and castrated nature of practically all white men alive today. He asserts that Western civilization is dead:
“With the death of Adolf Hitler in the close of the 2nd World War in 1945 Western civilization, as it had existed and is still perceived DIED once and for all. The only thing that was left now was a gene pool.”
If one is a true amoral power-nihilist Nietzschean, why would you want to join the ranks of a tiny, marginalized movement that is fighting for what it concedes is a lost cause, and bases its crusade on nothing more than a desperate attempt to ineffectually lash out at the quasi-omnipotent “Zionist occupation government”?
For a female Nietzschean and social Darwinist the choice to side with the Power is even more of a no-brainier. Amorality can’t provide any reason to remain loyal to defeated men just because they share your pigmentation or genealogy. Might makes right is naturally in accordance with female submission to dominant men, which in modern white nations means men with lots of money and status (Jews) or men with lots of muscle and sexual potency (blacks) not the race which, according to what are supposedly its leading advocates, is heading for extinction.
“The advanced brain and physique of the Aryan wasn't intended, and didn't evolve, to have the hell pummeled out of it for sport. But if you're going to pit a White Man and a Black in the ring and call it a "match," why not pit a Black in the ring with a gorilla? Same logic, same kind of "match." You know who'll win every time: the more primitive”. - James "white boys can't fight” Mason
One section of his book is titled “The whole is greater than the individual”, which focuses on black-white differences. Mason suggests that on an individual basis, white men can't stand up to black men physically and have to hide in a crowd to gain an advantage. Mason acknowledges that whites are terrorized by black physical and sexual violence in the schools and on the streets (if he were totally honest he would have mentioned the prisons as well) and concedes (if anything overstating his point) that Negroes are vastly superior boxers, American footballers and sprinters due to their faster and more robust primitive physiology but he asserts that as a collective, whites are superior due to their greater intelligence, discipline, work ethic and ability to organize. This argument fails because it’s not based on anything more than hypothetical potential in a scenario that’s extremely unlikely to ever come to fruition (violent race war) while the demoralizing facts of Negro violence, physical and sexual superiority and Jewish tribal and intellectual supremacy are practical realities. On the one hand, he states that “such things as “past” and “potential”, together with 50 cents, will get you a cup of coffee” and on the other, he bases his claim of white superiority on what? A great past and (abstract) potential!
In a comment about the apparent nobility and superiority of instinct over intellect, Mason claims that “When it comes down to male/female relations, it’s a matter of what animal signals are sent out and how well the other party senses these. In one-on-one, animal combat, instinct takes over completely and the intellect shuts down so as to not impede the organism in successfully fighting to preserve its existence.” Again I believe Mason overstates his point (fighting and romance do involve intellect) but as we’ve already found out, Mason regards blacks as being vastly superior to whites in primal physical combat, so his claim that attraction is fundamentally based on “animal signals” seems to concede sexual attractiveness to black men as well as physical power, as they are the more instinctual, primitive and animalistic race by his own admission.
Finally, Mason admits that “If you want to make something “thrilling”, you make it forbidden”. He claims repeatedly throughout Siege that he’s beyond “reactionary hang-ups” over sex and even goes so far as to endorse contemporary “sexually liberated” attitudes, so long as the sex is between whites. In contradiction to his previous stated position, he admits that “There was just enough reactionary left in me to get my blood hot at the sight” of a tabloid picture of the Nordic Brooke Shields and the Negro Michael Jackson in embrace, implying interracial sexual contact. He also notes that “a lot of the most rabid, sneering miscegenators are blonde, blue-eyed doll babies” and “if you couldn’t blast the head off of one or a thousand of these types, then you better bow out right now”.
Capital punishment for miscegenation? It doesn’t get more “forbidden” or by his own logic, more “thrilling” than that! (And without a credible threat of physical force behind it, his advocacy of execution for race-mixing comes across as not just horrific, insecure and desperate but impotent).
Fetishizing masculinity and power from a position of self-confessed emasculation and powerlessness while erecting life-and-death sexual taboos against your women defecting to the admitted physically and sexually superior, violent and aggressive enemy race that’s invading and outbreeding you in your own territory is a terribly unwise proposition, unless the idea is to sow the seeds of a self-reinforcing spiral into “jungle fever” or racial cuckoldry. Far from being white supremacist, Siege is in fact a white inferiorist book.
