Eugène Delacroix, "Liberty Leading the People," 1839
3,377 words
German translation here
I have on various occasions criticized the tendency among a subset of racial nationalists to indulge in improbable revolutionary fantasies, where the liberal system collapses, the white masses rise up, and evildoers hang from lampposts in one great Day of the Rope. “Mainstreamers” have, in turn, criticized the tendency among another subset to be bookworm revolutionaries, hermitic, eccentric, and too absorbed in their abstruse intellectual vaporings to be effective harbingers of change in the real world. Both subsets are emblematic of the retreat from reality that results from perceived powerlessness. Both represent vanguardist tendencies. Does that mean that vanguardism is a failed strategy, and that only mainstreamers offer a viable approach?
Far from it.
Vanguardism plays a key role in any movement seeking fundamental change when a system that can no longer be reformed, that has to crumble to make way for a new one, built on different foundations. What is more, it needs not stand in an either-or relationship with mainstreaming: it is possible—indeed it is preferable—to integrate both approaches into a coherent strategy.
Before I begin, I will define the political categories “Right” and “Left” as I intend to use them in this article. By Left I mean those who believe in the ideology of equality and progress; they are associated with liberalism and modernity. By Right I mean those whose outlook is elitist (inegalitarian) and cyclical; they are associated with Traditionalism (in the Evolian sense). By Right I do not mean conservatives, whom I regard as Classical liberals, only with socially conservative attitudes.
From Dystopia to Utopia
Commentators on the Right are prone to spend most of their energy analyzing and critiquing the modern dystopia. But while this is necessary, it is not sufficient: saying that we have arrived at a wrong destination and that we need to be elsewhere without at the same time indicating where that elsewhere is does not imply motion, only the recognition of the need for motion; therefore it is not a movement. For movement to occur, for an idea to gain adepts who then follow each other in a collective act of motion, the destination must be known, a priori, which implies it must be communicable in some way. This destination is the movement’s utopia: the perfect accomplishment of its goals.
Utopias exist only in the imagination. Most of the time they are communicated through fantastic art and literature. At best, they are only ever partially and/or imperfectly implemented. At worse, they are highly unrealistic and impractical—most are to some degree. Yet this does not mean they are not useful: they are in fact necessary, and a pre-condition for movement. Their active ingredient is not their being scientifically accurate, but their capacity to exert an enormous sentimental force on a large enough collective of individuals. And its conception is the charge of the vanguardist, the intellectual outsider, the pioneer, the dreamer, the creator—the individual, or group of individuals, whose task is to break us out of the cognitive cages built by the incumbent system; out of the system-sponsored illusion where anything that is anathema to it seems unthinkable.
Those who adopt mainstreaming approaches often despair at these dreamers because they appear—obviously—impractical, eccentric, and lacking in good sense. The problem is that creative innovators and iconoclasts often are: creative types comprise a peculiar breed, and within that, those who are truly innovative, truly at the vanguard, often shock, worry, and discomfit their less creative peers because they are less fettered by convention. There are undoubtedly good and bad sides to this, but this does not detract from the value of the creative process, even if not all of its byproducts are eventually adopted. The task of the mainstreamer, who abuts the vanguard and the mainstream, is to calculatingly take whatever can be used from the vanguard to stretch the limits of the mainstream, with a view to fundamentally transform the later in the long run.
Dreamer as Pragmatist
Despite having the science, the data, and the logical arguments on its side, the Right has been in retreat for many decades. This alone should be sufficient indication that humans need more than just data, arguments, and truth to be persuaded into a change of allegiance. Yet many who identify with the Right continue operating under the illusion that this is not the case: if people believe in equality it is because they do not know about race differences in IQ; if people believe in multiculturalism it is because they do not know the black on white crime statistics; if people believe in liberalism it is because they have not read Gibbon, or Spengler, or Schmitt; and so on.
The irony is that the best example of why this approach is flawed exists all around us: the consumer society. As a child I was irritated by the unrealistic scenarios, the catchy jingles, and the constant sloganizing of television advertising, and I resented the irrational superficiality implied in this method of selling products. I thought that it would be far more logical to have a man in a suit seated at a table, facing the camera, like in a newsroom, and listing the product specifications to the audience in an unemotional monotone, so that viewers may be able to make a rational choice, based on solid data. Any adult with sense knows, even if he cannot explain exactly why, that this would never work in the real world. The reason is simple: the consumer society is not founded on utilitarian logic or reason, but on Romanticism, daydreaming, status display, and utopias. And it is founded on these principles because that is what has been found to work—vast sums of money has been spent researching human psychology in the effort to maximize consumer mobilization. Colin Campbell and Geoffrey Miller provide theoretical and evolutionary explanations for the human motivational aspects of consumerism this in The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism and Spent respectively.
Therefore it is fair to say that he who daydreams and purposefully induces others to daydream is, in fact, more of a pragmatist than the self-avowed pragmatically-oriented rationalist who seeks to persuade through reason. The former at least understands the irrationality of human nature, and plays (preys?) on it, while the latter fantasizes about abstract humans who act on the basis of rational self-interest.
Truth as a Lifestyle Choice
Far from an asset, a belief in the power of “the truth” is one of the main obstacles for White Nationalists seeking converts to their cause. If they are frustrated by the failure of individuals to support them despite masses of scientific and statistical data showing heritable race differences in IQ and heritable propensities to violent crime, it is because they have failed to realize that humans choose the truth that suits them best, according to whether it makes them feel good about themselves and about the world, and whether it makes those whose opinion they value feel good about them, at any given point in time and space. Humans are more strongly motivated by the innate need for self-esteem and belonging than by abstract reason. Thus, faced with voluminous, conflicting, and virtually indigestible data and arguments emanating from multiple factions, each claiming monopoly of the truth, it is easy to choose the most emotionally and socially convenient of available options. For the majority of people this means the truth sponsored by the cultural establishment, because it means easier social integration and higher rewards. Those who choose a truth anathematized by the cultural establishment become reliant on alternative networks and even unconventional methods to survive within a system that seeks to purge them. Ultimately, and perhaps especially in a materialistic society, truth becomes a lifestyle choice.
Substance & Style
For the above reasons, a strategy purely based on what we tend to regard as substance (i.e., empirical data, logical arguments, reasoned conclusions) is doomed to fail. And in the case of White Nationalism, it has long proven a failure. Also for the above reasons, an effective strategy needs to employ a methodology that taps, like consumerism, into the pre-rational drivers of human behavior. The lesson of consumerism does this through the calculating use of style and aesthetics, which in the consumer society are constantly deployed to induce the desired behavior (consumption).
I am familiar with the calculating use of style and aesthetics through my role in the consumer culture, which I played via my record company. Before the advent of MySpace and the free illegal download, whenever I designed an album cover, a logo, an advertisement, a newsletter, or a website; whenever I crafted an album description; even whenever I described an album verbally, I was acutely conscious of the need to appeal and stimulate interest in my target audience. I did not expect them to make rational decisions (especially since to hear the music they had to first buy the CD), but because I successfully triggered an emotional response strong enough to elicit the needed response: an immediate purchase. (Of course, I did not always get it right, and from time to time I got stuck with unsellable stock, something I blamed as much on bad artwork, ill-judged names and titles, and uninspiring logos as I did on the quality of the music.) Advertisement agencies thrive on the exploitation of style and aesthetics for purposes of mobilizing the public into consuming products, supporting a campaign, or voting for a political candidate.
We all know that as far as the White voters are concerned, Obama got elected purely on the basis of aesthetics: he sounded good, was telegenic, and his “blackness” reassured millions of whites eager to prove (mainly to themselves) that they were not racist. Slogans like “Hope” and “Change” contained zero substance; it was all about the Obamicons; and yet they excited the right sentiment among voters who felt hopeless and wanted change. Televised debates about policy emphasized visual presentation and catchy soundbites; they were more about what the candidates looked and sounded like while discussing—but not really—an ostensibly serious topic than about really discussing a serious topic. Annoying? Certainly. But there is no point fighting this. It works.
Having said this, substance is still important. We all know that a strategy based purely on stylistic flash without it being backed by at least some substance eventually implodes. (In the United States, many duped voters have since realized that Obama is an empty suit; in the United Kingdom, many duped voters eventually realized that Blair was a liar.) Emphasize style over substance in too obvious a manner and your strategy will, in fact, turn against you. (This was a major problem for the Blair government during the late 1990s; heavy “spin-doctoring” got Blair elected, but in time everyone was complaining about it.)
It is obvious, therefore, that the winning strategy is one that has both style and substance—substance that backs the style and style that backs the substance—that, in other words, projects the substance as well as the nature of the substance.
This is nothing new, of course, but it is amazing how many fail to realize the importance of style and aesthetics. Is it because we live in an age that is so obviously about style over substance that there is an instinct to rebel against it?
Weaponizing Aesthetics
In a metapolitical context, we can speak then of weaponizing aesthetics: translating ideology into art, high and low, and using it to push culture and society in a pre-determined direction, to cause culture and society to undergo fundamental change.
In my experience with various forms of underground music and their associated subcultures, an individual’s transformation of consciousness goes through identifiable phases.
First, individuals are exposed to a particular genre of music through their peers; the response, positive or negative, is often immediate, instinctive, the result of a combination of innate biological predisposition, personal history, and sociological factors.
Next, if the individual’s response is positive, there begins a process of researching and collecting albums by bands that play in that genre. And if the individual’s response is extremely positive, the process is intensive, and becomes gradually more so, causing him eventually to become completely immersed in the associated subculture.
Music-centered youth subcultures are easily identifiable because they are highly stylized and stylistically distinctive. They also have their own ideology, which both emanates and reinforces the values coded in the style of music out of which it has grown. Sometimes the ideology is derivative, an extrapolation, or an exaggeration of certain mainstream values. Sometimes the ideology is fundamentally antagonistic to the cultural mainstream. Also, sometimes the ideology is superficial, sometimes it is not. But in all cases, music fans who have become immersed in the associated subculture come to adopt and internalize its ideology to some extent.
Depending on the nature of this ideology, members of a subculture may undergo a radical change in consciousness—even to the point of becoming proud pariahs—which endures even after they have transcended their membership. They may eventually discard the garb and take up conventional salaried employment, but their allegiance to the music will endure, sometimes as a guilty secret, and traces of their fanatical past will remain in their cognitive structures, lifestyle, home decor, vocabulary, and choice of associations. What is more, even decades after, former members will recognize each other and have a common bond.
And all this is achieved aesthetically, through art. It bears iterating: to the extent that values are absorbed, they are so not because they have been presented logically or scientifically, but because they were presented in an attractive and artful or aesthetically pleasing manner—in a manner that exerts a strong sentimental force on its consumers. And anyone with an awareness of popular culture will know that its power to excite extreme emotion, unite psychologically, and mobilize the masses—to cause them to act irrationally, violently, even against their own rational best interests—cannot be underestimated. When the last volume of the Harry Potter series of novels was published, people queued for hours, in the cold, in the rain, in the wee hours of the morning, to be the first to get their hands on the first hardback edition. And this is a very mild example. We have film evidence from the 1960s showing young women absolutely in hysterics at Beatles concerts, and there is little doubt that their personal lives were partly consumed by thoughts and fantasies involving members of the band. Did their record company present an especially logical argument?
Of course, mass mobilization is possible within popular culture when the product or event in question encodes culturally mainstream values. The less mainstream the values, the less the capacity for mobilization. All the same, in the age of mechanical reproduction we have seen that when a synergistic aesthetic and ideological system is deployed using the methods of popular culture, even radical anti-system propositions are capable, under the right conditions, of mobilizing large enough bodies of people and growing until it establishes itself as a new hegemonic order.
The National Socialists, beginning in Weimar Germany, offer perhaps the most iconic example in the West. Like all political movements, however, National Socialism had metapolitical origins, and arguably occult origins in daydreams of Atlantean and Hyperborean civilizations, which the SS later sought to substantiate. It was more a certain set of ideas and daydreams, a certain sentiment, a certain political romanticism, a certain look, before it was actual politics with an actual label.
The same is true of our modern society: between René Descartes, Adam Smith, John Locke, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud on the one hand, and political correctness, immigration, outsourcing, and diversity training on the other, lie a mass of popular novels, films, and albums that consciously or semi-consciously encode, aestheticize, and promote the ideas and narratives of global capitalism and the Freudo-Marxist scholasticism, upon whose metapolitical tradition the modern order is founded.
The weaponization of aesthetics is the creation of an interface that facilitates the translation of the metapolitical into the political, of the vanguard into the mainstream.
Credibility
Another reason why I put such emphasis on aesthetics in metapolitical discussions is that a well-formulated and perfectly rendered aesthetic system is the fastest way of projecting credibility, and therefore of making a set of values and ideals appear credible to apolitical observers. (To political observers it may inspire pride or fear, depending on their allegiance.) Do we not judge books by their covers? Do we not judge a person by his or her appearance?
I contend that if our values and ideals lack credibility outside our immediate milieu, it is partly because we have yet to find a way to translate our metapolitics into an professionally rendered aesthetic system that is both acceptable and appealing to a wider audience—that reformulates our archaic ideas in a way that is vibrant, relevant, and forward-looking (because people do need hope and change). Needless to say that there are other very significant factors involved (such as the reality of economic sanctions), but this is certainly one of them: without an optimal aesthetic system, actual politics becomes very difficult. One cannot sell an idea without marketing. And one cannot appeal to an elite audience without the right kind of marketing.
This is why we will benefit when talented artists, musicians, designers, and literary stylists who share our sensibilities find congenial outlets and begin making a name for themselves. It is, therefore, necessary that we provide such outlets and offer viable professional and economic opportunities for creative types, lest we continue losing them to the (censoring but remunerated) alternatives offered by the establishment. Only then will we be able to grow a forceful counter-culture.
Final Thoughts
The age of chaos offers opportunities to those able to “sell” a new dream. Although the present liberal, egalitarian, progressive establishment appears superficially invincible, they do not represent a unified, cohesive, monolithic, totalitarian order: they are, in fact, a rainbow coalition of competing and sometimes contradictory factions that happen to share a set of core beliefs. They are also degenerative and disintegrative, and the logical conclusion of their project is the complete breakdown of society. This has become increasingly apparent since the adoption of multiculturalism as an official government policy, and the adoption of globalism as the modern capitalist paradigm. Worse still, they are contrary to nature, so their continuity results in constant stress and strenuous effort. Division, degeneration, disintegration, stress, and exhaustion grow ever more apparent. And the end of prosperity in the West will make social and cultural upheavals more difficult to contain or diffuse. Thus, in the escalating confusion, even the apolitical, conventionally thinking citizen will in time become receptive to new, exotic, and even quixotic ideas. Once the confusion becomes severe enough, they will be looking for a radical ideology, a harsh religion, an authoritarian strongman, or Caesar. They will be looking for meaningful symbolism, for utopian daydreams, for a new romanticism, for something that projects order and strength, is distinctive amid the chaos, and makes them feel powerful and part of something strong.
This might seem grandiose, but the beginning of it is nearer than one thinks: it, in fact, starts with pen and paper, with brush and canvas, with guitar and plectrum; it is founded on the fantasy and the daydreams that animate these utensils.
If revolutions begin with scribbles, scribbles begin with daydreams. And although this may sound fluffy and nebulous to the hard political pragmatist, it bears remembering that such verities always look so after a long period of material prosperity and political stability, while the system appears strong and credible to a majority. But, as it did in the past, following cataclysmic upheavals, when their origins and causes were catalogued by sociologists in their postmortem reports, said verities are likely to look somewhat less nebulous after the tide of culture turns and those once seemingly improbable daydreams start to take form. How long until then? Who knows? But unless we have set the metapolitical bases for our new order, unless we have a virile counter-culture upon which can build it, we might find that by the time the tide turns, others got in well ahead of us while we waited to see if it ever would.
20 comments
Simply, yes.
Here’s a good, very simple dissection of liberalism:
http://hereticsway.gluontheferengi.com/2012/04/12/western-misunderstandings-of-individual-choice/
“It is obvious, therefore, that the winning strategy is one that has both style and substance—substance that backs the style and style that backs the substance—that, in other words, projects the substance as well as the nature of the substance.”
I believe that Dr. Goebbels, no slouch in the propaganda department, once speechified along similar lines. In his introduction of Hitler after the Assumption of Power he says:
“It seems you cannot have a good government without good propaganda, but then, you can’t have good propaganda without a good government. However, you cannot lie! We must never lie! It is the Jews who must be made to pay for their lies to our people!”
This is an argument that I have been making for years. The West has lost control of it’s culture since 1945. The ongoing war has always been primarily cultural, rather than a racial struggle. There are many people that understand this but the WN movement (for lack of a better word) has a strong anti-intellectual streak. I linked my post to a company that has taken a small step in the right direction. Their CD’s are sold widely and on Amazon.
I hate pagan psychobabble gibberish as much as any other kind. Weaponizing Aesthetics and genuine “film evidence” of screaming teenage girls from the 1960’s indeed. We also have film evidence of bobby soxers screaming over Frank Sinatra and no doubt there were screaming teenage girls welcoming home the victorious Roman Legions too.
What I want to read about is hard-headed articles on National Socialist economic policies that actually helped lift the German nation in real terms and not O’Mearish romantic bullshit. Or maybe even an article about why invading Russia in 1941 was a fatally BAD IDEA.
More Thomas Hobbes and David Hume and less Savitri Devi is what white people need to be reading. White revolutionaries would also do well in studying the methods of Lenin and the Old Bolsheviks.
Counter-Currents is obviously not for you. I suggest you read other sites, or perhaps create your own. Get a free account at Blogspot.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Rudel in blockquote:
There is no “pagan psychobabble gibberish” here. Rather, there is a recognition that “pagan” spiritual forces formed a successful culture; indeed, they supplied the Primal Masculine when the Church was falling, and failing, into the Feminine mode (as it is now, with the Marian Co-Redemptrix Heresy).
Absent Men, absent the positive Masculine force, there is no Civilization. There is only Culture, an ever-stagnant agricultural society.
THIS, in good part, is what Abraham brought to his place, in his time.
Write them. Schacht wrote a book in the early Sixties. Write them. Read Speer, and remove the de facto criticisms of the NSDAP political order. Tie THOSE into the Leibnizian Model of development. Write them. Use Stafford Beer’s analysis of the Chilean economy, and what he did to make it better. Write them.
And, read “Icebreaker,” Suvorov’s analysis of why Uncle Adolph HAD to invade Russia, when he did. As a member of the Soviet General Staff, he had access to documents that prove the point.
Countering “Leviathan” with more effective social organizational models is well worth developing. Most White people have never heard of Savitri, and need to be brought along to the point that they can see what she SAW in post-NSDAP Germany.
Trust me on this – The System will crush any such claims to revolutionary actions with ruthless speed. In THIS country, Lenin would end up in a comfortable teaching post at UM Amherst. He might try to lead a Starbucks puscht, but I doubt it.
And, there is no “O’Mearaish romantic bullshit.” No, either of the O’Meara’s focus with a painfully developed sense of responsibility that recognizes the Work we are about is the Work of lifetimes.
That is a useful discipline for all of us. Dr. Michael O’Meara’s writings at another website convinced me that the best Idea could attract the best minds, and kept me hopeful that we would escape the trap of blindly worshiping the Illusions of Yesterday. If it hadn’t been for his writings, I would not have been inspired to stay the course, and be involved in this today.
With all respect, I would ask you to consider the tremendous achievements of your namesake, and recognize what he knew all too well: that the end of the NSDAP Cultural Moment was not the end of what the NSDAP Movement crystallized, for a season, and continued forward after the transformation of the NSDAP political apparatus.
With further respect, I would ask you to emulate your namesake’s example, and Do Better.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
“White folks, unlike everybody else, aren’t supposed to be interested in race.”
-Steve Sailer, TakiMag, 2012
“Racism is he faster growing trend in the White community right now, as it should be. We need to do all we can to encourage this hopeful step in the right direction.”
-Rev. Jed DeValleyism, “Racism is not a sin- it’s an instinctive prayer for White survival,” 2008
“What I want to read about is hard-headed articles on National Socialist economic policies that actually helped lift the German nation in real terms and not O’Mearish romantic bullshit.”
Well, if that’s directed at me, rather than my Doppelganger, I must point out that it seems a strange response to someone who just quoted Dr. Goebbels.
Also, the Brits had 400 years of Hobbes and Hume and what did that get them?
So, are you arguing that we should NOT seek to create a counter-culture that promotes our worldview? We should just sit back and let the degeneracy do as it pleases, unhindered?
Nay-sayers who offer no solution need to stop posting, seriously.
My previous comment was directed at Rudel, fyi. I should have made that clear.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Michael Bell in blockquote:
That is a very substantial point. Virtually ALL of WNist Thought in the last, say, half-century or so, with few exceptions, were really little more than rationalizations for the continued practice of doing nothing. Given vast, transnational organizations, and infinitely powerful Enemies, it was succor enough to feel slightly superior to others in your situation, that you KNEW why you chose the impotence of learned helplessness, even if you did not consciously choose this learned helplessness.
I’ve had it with those who preach of the Infinitely Powerful Other we are so helpless in the face of.
We took the dust of the desert, and built Civilization from it.
Yet, we take the counsel of our Enemies, blindly, and wonder why nothing seems to be “working” for us. There is an excellent reason for that, and that is that all has gone wrong has been allowed to go wrong, has been the outcome of choices made, and not made, of responsibilities either not met, or met in a most indifferent manner.
The transformation of Evil is the work of lifetimes. Yet, there is no alternative to this Duty.
Therefore, rather than complain helplessly, at least offer one Idea, no matter how trivial it may seem to you, to solve the problem before you.
Covington has the best answer, which is breathtaking it is comprehensiveness – a new Nation, a new Homeland for our Race, with a government based on the First Principle – the Prime Directive – that the purpose of the government is to defned the Race.
He has the temporal answer writ large, and you can fill in the blanks of the outline he has put before you with the substance of your life.
(Sending money to counter-currents each and every month is another excellent idea. But you are already doing that, aren’t you? Good. I knew you were.)
Be Better. Do Better. Join Us. The Northwest Republic
I’ve seen this same point (the topic, not the o t comments) made at least once a year, all the way back to G.L. Rockwell. I think people understand it, but they obviously haven’t done anything with it. Rockwell recommended hiring professionals but I don’t think he did it himself. The regime has obviously been doing it that way for ages, at least since Harriet Beecher Stowe. But then they’ve had the money to do it with.
Meanwhile, a lot of progress appears to have been made since the advent of the internet. Worldwide, no less.
Dourness is quite counterproductive, I think. If we want to convince people, we should first make them feel more comfortable about adopting an unconventional position.
One of the the great ways to do this is to create beautiful, attractive art that incorporates some dissident ideas.
Another way is humor. Our political-correct opponents are always so sincere, so serious, so dull, so dour. People do not really like such persons. This can be used against them by toying with “wickedness”, by a kind of humourous guerrilla warfare. Our aim should be to nuance, to make people laugh, to take it all less seriously. We should make people relax about other points of view.
Oscar Wilde is my favourite example. He combined a love for beauty with a humourous challenge to mainstream society. For example, and quite fitting to our subject, he writes: “In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing.” Of course, people laughed, but somehow they knew it was true.
Though not my cup of tea, music groups like “Death in June” are also doing this kind of “transgressive”, humourous social warfare. They always deny that their use of fascist symbols is anything else that just humour and art… “I could deny it if I liked. I could deny anything if I liked.” (Oscar Wilde)
And what about the countless spoofs using “Der Untergang” ( youtube.com/watch?v=qM5f_gZT06c )? Or the parody science-fiction movie “Iron Sky” about “moon Nazi’s” ( youtube.com/watch?v=Py_IndUbcxc )?
Ours is a different fight than in the 1930’s. We should not be like the classical general who prepares to fight the previous war. Not too serious, too dour, too sincere. Let us toy with some “wicked” ideas. Try not to be a bore. As they say in Holland, you catch more bees with honey than with vinegar.
We aren’t losing because of a marketing problem; the Last Man is really too apathetic to care what happens to civilization one way or another. We are in the post-political, post-postmodern, hyperreal world where none of what Kurtagic suggests will ever work.
We lost the institutions … unless we have a plan to build them back or take them back, all of this chatter is wankery. Reading Le Bon might give you the impression that taking power is easy, lest you forget that the machinery now controlling the masses is iron tight and controlled by forces that aren’t going to willing give up their power.
I’ve read several of Gustave Le Bon’s works, and he doesn’t give me the impression that taking power is easy, for he clearly indicates that although particular masses can be fickle and easily swayed in certain conditions, the masses are also highly conservative. The currents are stronger than the waves.
Taking power certainly won’t be easy, but resisting, disrupting, and undermining power isn’t impossible. The sheer size and inertia of the system means that it has many soft spots where it can’t defend itself effectively, and many blind spots where it can’t see attacks coming. We shouldn’t think that the system is invulnerable or that its agents are supermen.
There are evil geniuses in the system, but they’re a small minority. Evil idiots, like George W. Bush, are far more common.
The system makes a cult of everything that is alien, mediocre, weak, and rotten. It isn’t immune to the diseases it spreads.
The system wants us to believe that resistance is futile. I think we should believe that resistance is fertile.
Why is it not enough to imitate what the leftists are doing, and simply change the lyrics? And also, is there something wrong with Hank Williams Jr’s song: A Country Boy Can Survive?
“a belief in the power of “the truth” is one of the main obstacles”
I believe in the power of repeating obvious truths :
– The emperor has no clothes!
– The Jews own the media
– We are being replaced
– The government wants to kill us
– The economy was destroyed by immigration
– Whites are about to become a small minority
It isn’t over-intellectual. It can work. Stats about Blacks are useful too. And the story of what happened in Haiti, Detroit, and so on.
It takes all sorts of ingredients to make a cake. The White racialist movement in America has failed to make any impact, this can also be said of Ireland too. With the economic chaos of 2008 our people are ready to listen to our message more and more. As you notice what is happening in Europe with the Nationalist parties, rising votes, more of our people being elected. Greece and Golden Dawn are proof plus other parties, Jobbik etc that you need a movement on the streets, not just on the internet.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Lars Pieterson in blockquote:
WHAT “White racialist movement” in Ireland, or America?
Note well how the IRA, with clumsy ineptitude as its operational hallmark, fought the British Empire to a draw, with Adams in Stormont. Note that the IRS seems to have been linked to an organic metapolitical purpose. In light of recent political and economic developments, they could mature into a seriously effective political organization.
Would the same be said for the BNP, which seems set for more brutal trouncings. Didn’t the UKIP do better than them in recent times?
Perhaps we could learn what worked for Marine Le Pen?
The American “White racialist movement” seems to have been strangled in the cradle. Every time it seemed to get started, something happened that short-circuited it. I suspect This Is Not By Accident.
Yet, you speak of a “Movement.” First, before you have a “Movement,” you must have a Cause. Jobbik, which has Dr. Morvai as a perfectly admirable representative, can define their Cause, and state their case, in less than ten words. (Incidentally, wasn’t she elected to the European Parliament? Political legitimacy noted!)
So, I suspect, can the Golden Dawn, which was matched politically by the Communists. I can think of another political party in Europe that conflicted with the Communists, and, eventually, co-opted them. Yes, that was almost a century ago, but it provides useful examples for us to emulate.
Now, how do you define our Cause? Is it Fourteen Words, for the Inner Party, and, say, ten words for the Outer Party? If so, what ten words? Why?
I think Mr. Kevin Alfred Strom developed an excellent formulation:
“Toward a New Consciousness, a New Order, a New People.”
Of course, the temporal bridge to the metapolitical order was best defined by Mr. Harold Covington, with the Northwest Republic. THAT one is for serious people.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.