Vantard StrategiesGreg Johnson
My recent article “Vanguardism, Vantardism, and Mainstreaming” was directed primarily at mainstreamers. My goal in distinguishing between genuine vanguardists and “vantards” was to force the mainstreamers to focus on the substance of the vanguardist position, which I think is entirely defensible, rather than on the non-productive strategies of the vantards, which I characterized in two ways: (1) as needlessly linking White Nationalism with German National Socialism and the Holocaust, and (2) as embracing “premature populism.”
Colin Liddell sent his initial salvo in this debate, “Andrew Anglin’s Inverted Ghetto,” to Counter-Currents, but I did not want to run it. Liddell was responding to Anglin’s response to RamZPaul’s attack on Robert Randsell. (See how complicated this gets? And this was just the beginning.) I told Liddell that I want Counter-Currents to stay above this kind of web drama because it is wearisome and usually unproductive.
I particularly objected to Liddell’s suggestion that Andrew Anglin is working for the enemy. My gut tells me that Anglin is sincere — but so is bad poetry. Moreover, I think that we should presume that people are sincere until proven otherwise. And even counter-productive behavior can be quite sincere. Too often one has occasion to ask: “If so-and-so were working for the enemy, would he be doing anything different?”
I thought RamZPaul’s attack to be pointless, because evidently he wants people like Randsell to shut up and go away, and they never will. So one needs to find a way of dealing with them. For instance, if you want to seem more moderate and reasonable, you can always point to someone like Randsell. And if you take umbrage to being linked with Randsell, well, that would not stop even if he did go away. The enemy is not “fair.” They would simply play the Hitler canard. So one has to have an answer anyway. Best, then, to focus on honing your own message than calling Randsell a clown.
Anglin then responded to Liddell, prompting Liddell to write a real stylistic and argumentative tour de force, “Stormer in a Teacup,” which at a stroke elevated the discussion to a level that prompted me to take part. Anglin then responded to both Liddell and me. (And Alex Linder has also chipped in.) Then Liddell responded yet again with “Go Straight to NAZI; do Not Pass Go . . .” To which Anglin — who obviously relishes playing the victim and collecting props from dullards — has now penned another response.
This controversy has proved useful, because it has prompted Anglin and Linder to set down some of their presuppositions, which I would like to examine critically.
They’ll Call You a Nazi Anyway, so You Might as Well Be One
Liddell’s strongest argument is that linking White Nationalism to German National Socialism is self-defeating. Our enemies go out of the way to assert such linkages. They even claim that harmless conservatives like Rush Limbaugh are Nazis. Why do they do that? Because they correctly perceive that linking any Right-wing cause to Hitler stigmatizes it in the minds of most people. Being linked to Hitler, for example, is much more damaging than being linked to the devil himself, which is quite a feat. Why, then, go out of one’s way to tie White Nationalism to Hitler, when it is hard enough to get Americans or Swedes or Englishmen concerned with stopping their own ethnic displacement in the here and now?
I think Liddell makes a good point, which I would like to amplify. I think it is necessary to reject the premise shared by both vantards and the enemies of White Nationalism, namely, that White Nationalism really, authentically just is National Socialism. If you really are a National Socialist, then that is true. And if, like me, your intellectual journey took you through the Old Right, there is no point in denying it.
But, in truth, National Socialism is just one path that people take to White Nationalism. It is not the sole path. It is not a necessary path. Why? Because White Nationalism is based on reality, which is common to all peoples, places, and times. Because White Nationalism is the only rational and moral response to the white race’s ongoing, programmed march to extinction. Because a rational man who had never heard of Adolf Hitler or World War II would still conclude that ethnonationalism is the best political philosophy for all peoples.
Anglin and Linder, in effect, argue that “You’re going to be called a Nazi anyway, so why not go ‘full Nazi’?” Rejecting the label, they imply, looks weak. Of course in this movement, it is inevitable that they will be accused of being fags, Jews, and FBI informants as well. But for some reason, they don’t wish to embrace those identities. Is denying such charges, if untrue, also “weak”?
If one is not a National Socialist, then one should indignantly reject the charge for what it is: an attempt to distract people from the present-day reality of our race’s demographic displacement. Even if one is a National Socialist, the charge is no less an attempt to distract us from the present justification for White Nationalism. For White Nationalism is justified based on what is happening in America and England and France and Germany and Italy today. And nothing that happened in Germany 70 years ago can make it either more or less true.
But one must not, like RamZPaul, think that one will be spared that charge if people like Randsell and Anglin shut up and go away. And it intensely irritates me when our people think it is clever to pre-emptively throw Hitler under the bus to appease public opinion. But, at the risk of sounding like an old drunk lecturing the youth on the virtues of temperance, I completely sympathize with the Identitiarians, BUGSters, and others who wish to create a case for White Nationalism without reference to Hitler and the Holocaust.
The “Holohoax” Hoax
Anglin stridently asserts that (1) the Holocaust is a hoax, and (2) this hoax is the foundation of Jewish power today, such that undermining the orthodox Holocaust story will undermine Jewish power.
I think that both claims are false.
First, even if one deducts all the falsehoods and exaggerations so ably debunked by revisionists, there is still Holocaust enough for Jewish purposes. How many Jews died and how? Probably in the millions, by all causes. But whatever the historians determine in the end, we can be reasonably assured that it is enough to be (a) the worst thing that ever happened to Jews, and (b) an occasion for endless moral and financial blackmail directed at whites — until we simply harden our hearts to the sob stories.
Second, as Mark Weber has pointed out, the Holocaust is not the foundation of Jewish power. It is certainly a handy tool of Jewish power, which they will exploit to the hilt. But Jews already had enormous financial, cultural, and political influence in the white world long before the Second World War, and the ability of Jews to capitalize on the Holocaust presupposed existing Jewish power in politics, academia, and the mass media. Even if the Holocaust could be completely debunked — and no sensible revisionist argues that it can — the pillars of Jewish financial, political, and cultural power would still stand.
Fortunately, as I argue in my essay “Dealing with the Holocaust,” even if every jot and tittle of the Holocaust story were true, it does not undermine the validity of White Nationalism.
Anglin and Linder interpret the existence of laws against Holocaust revisionism and “denial” as a sign of Jewish vulnerability. But this does not follow. Such laws may be merely one more expression of overweening Jewish power, self-confidence, and vengefulness. They may not be necessities, but luxuries. Just another boot stomping on a human face, forever.
In his latest, Anglin writes:
Watch one of the presentations of Richard Spencer or Jared Taylor, and ask yourself: “who exactly it this supposed to appeal to?” Go peruse Counter-Currents – or any of these other “intellectual” blogs – and ask yourself the same thing.
The answer, obviously, is middle class White liberals over the age of 40 – precisely the most useless group of people on the face of the earth, as well as the group that is the least likely to have any interest whatsoever in issues of White survival.
That is why virtually no one at all cares about Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor or any of the rest of these people, and no one ever will.
So then, who am I targeting [in America]?
First, I am targeting all disenfranchised and angry White males under the age of thirty, which is where all of the real power lies. This site appeals to members of all socio-economic classes in that age bracket.
Second, I am targeting all age groups of traditional American conservatives, who generally come from the working and middle classes. This is still the core of America . . .
Now, Anglin is mistaken about my intended audience, which is whites of all social classes who are above average in intelligence, morality, and taste. But let’s just accept his terms for the sake of argument. Why would one wish to convert “middle class White liberals over the age of 40,” whom Anglin disdains as “the most useless group of people on the face of the earth”? Well, because middle class white liberals over the age of 40 have a huge amount of the power in this society. And Counter-Currents certainly does not neglect the tastes of the rich, who have even more power. Every society is ruled by elites. Every revolution is launched by elites. My approach to White Nationalism is to target elites: the existing elite and the elite that we will raise up from all social classes to replace them.
Anglin is also mistaken about his actual audience. He claims that he is appealing to “all disenfranchised and angry White males under the age of thirty” and working and middle class American conservatives. In fact, his site is designed to appeal to whites of all social classes who are below average in intelligence, morality, and taste — and, based on a perusal of his comments, he has hit his target. But no society is ruled by the below average. No revolution is made by the below average. Below average people are just historically inert ballast moved around by elites.
Anglin claims correctly that conservative working and middle class people are “the core of America.” But they are also politically inert and powerless. Anglin also makes the ludicrous claim that “all of the real power lies” with angry and disenfranchised young white men, who are also politically powerless and inert. Again, these people are mostly just historically inert ballast manipulated by elites.
Average whites, and below average whites, are still our people. We still wish to save them. We still represent their racial interests. But they will not save our race without leadership, and to be effective, the leadership of the white masses must be, on average, better than the masses. They must be an elite that can outmatch our Jewish and plutocratic enemy elites in brains, will, and ruthlessness. And that sort of elite will be more likely to emerge among the readers of Counter-Currents and The Occidental Observer than from the readers of The Daily Stormer and VNN Forum.
1. If socialism (welfare statism) is an essential trait of National Socialism, then Linder is not a National Socialist, because he believes in free enterprise. Of course this is also true of George Lincoln Rockwell, who still insisted on calling himself a National Socialist — sometimes a “Free Enterprise National Socialist.” I have no idea what Anglin believes on this issue, but he calls himself a National Socialist, so I will accept that at face value.
Plato’s Phaedo, Part II
Úryvky z Finis Germania Rolfa Petera Sieferleho, část 4
Plato’s Phaedo, Part I
The Worst Week Yet: May 28-June 3, 2023
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 2: Hegemonía
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 535 Ask Me Anything
Úryvky z Finis Germania Rolfa Petera Sieferleho, část 3: Nové státní náboženství
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 534 Interview with Alexander Adams
The Stormer crowd often betrays its own deeply ‘egalitarian’ world view in dismissing the role of elites, philosophers, financiers etc in favor of the bar-room brawlers. Even the most supposed ‘bottom up’ movement in history–Christianity–would be nowhere without the highly educated Paul, the early Roman elites who joined the movement and the convert Pagan philosophers.
What they illustrate however, is that when the ‘philosophers’ fail to create convincing arguments and holistic worldviews for our people to engage with–it’s easier to revert to the crudest, reactionary method and look to revive departed phantoms.
On this point, I would have to agree that so far, there has been a systemic failure in creating this world view–thus strengthening both the vantards (just kill’em all) and cowardly mainstreamers (cryptic mantras/it’s our own fault) . At least Counter-Currents admits this difficult process.
Ultimately, the vantards don’t need these websites… As situations degenerate, people become more reactionary–but then they lose (South Africa, Golden Dawn, Spartacus) because they have very little ‘Elite/Intellectual/Philosophical’ support for their plight.
There is a big difference between learning from the past and being stuck in the past. Breaking through the demonization of Hitler was a big step for me, but it did not transfer to the idolization of him which is just the opposite. Gleaming the good ideas from NS is productive. Trying to imitate it is a farce for it was the German solution at that time in history.
How can you claim the holocaust happened in the manner that 6 million jews were intentionally murdered in homicidal gas chambers is completely ludicrous, there is zero evidence to back up your claim aside from one sided hollywood, jewish propaganda.
I’m done with this site as your claims are completely ridiculous, you probably think that 19 arabs did 9/11.
I didn’t claim “the holocaust happened in the manner that 6 million jews were intentionally murdered in homicidal gas chambers” you fool. Go back and read it again and again until your lips grow tired.
And yes, I do think 19 Arabs with box cutters did 911.
And yes, Counter-Currents is not for the paranoid, credulous, and hysterical. Begone.
Just for your information. It is someone else that is claiming to be me that is making this comment above in the name of mattiasalmloef and even linking to my website.
I just want to say that I didn’t make this comment above. Someone else did under a false name, even linking to my website. So it is someone that is claiming to be me but isnt, in the post above.
I think that a lot of people in this general ideological sphere are simply not national socialists. So they tend to reject the label due to their being technical. Then the liberals who’ve gone full retard insist that they are “nazis” and this causes a lot of irritation. So then they tend towards being upset with the section of this big tent (that’s what it is as of yet) who are actual national socialists.
You can’t have rational discourse with extremists. If extremists were logical people, they wouldn’t be extremists. They’re a tragic lot, really. They’re obsessively passionate about their cause and claim that — above all — they wish it to succeed. And yet, all of their words and behaviors bring only defeat. As someone whose been in the “movement” a long time, I’ve met hundreds of people all across the nationalist spectrum. And I can tell you that in many cases, the personalities or mindsets of casual extremists are just as self-destructive as their ideologies. Some of the impressionable youth that are influenced by casual extremists can be saved and reoriented towards positive nationalism, but the rest of them aren’t interested in anything that fails to satisfy self-indulgence.
The best way to distract attention away from the extremists is leading by example. One legitimate point of Anglin’s was that for all the good ideas and great events of the normal nationalists, we still haven’t built an influential movement in America. On their own, ideas are meaningless, and unless we apply our ideas to building real-world organizations and large associations in our own communities, we — like the extremists — will fail.
I’d like to see more emphasis on establishing solid activist, cultural, and community networks from normal nationalists.
As pleasing as a nail hammered home.
So Mr Johnson thinks it isn’t clever to denounce Hitler for the sake of public opinion. But what if I really do think that Hitler was an evil man? Why should I bother to defend someone I consider to have been a self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing tyrant who made Germany and its revolutionary national movement into his private army and estate, and was responsible for the deaths of millions of Slavic and other European Christians? Does denouncing Hitler automatically make a an unprincipled mainstreamer? Do you know what really irritates me? That seemingly everyone on this site constantly and uncritically repeat the line that if the Nazis had won WW2, the world would be a better place. Really? And for whom may I ask? For the millions of Slavic untermenschen that he intended to enslave or wipe out, for the people of Germany who no longer had any say over how their country was run, not even in the top ranks? Or for that matter the other nations of Europe living in subjugated client states of the Third Reich? I thought you wrote that the North American New Right was based on the rejection of Old Right politics, and yet for some reason Hitler and his regime must be shielded from all criticism within its discourse.
If you really believe that, then of course you should say it. And yes, even with all the bad stuff you list, I still think our race as a whole, and the world as a whole, would have been better off if Hitler had won the war. But that particular debate is off topic for this thread, so this is not the place to have it.
Is there a place to have it then? Or is it just not on counter-currents?
There’s a big web out there. Stake a claim, plant a site. We have discussed Hitler’s evil plans for Ukraine on this site, sometime between April 20 and 30, if I recall. I can’t very well decry getting sidetracked by the Third Reich in the article then allow that to happen on this particular thread.
I don’t want to side-track the thread either, but I think what you really believe is that it would have been better for WWII never to have started, but that once it started, despite all the undeniable bad stuff, it would have been better for the Germans to have won. If this is what you believe, then I think you should include the part about the war not taking place, otherwise you sound more like an Old Right racialist than you actually are.
Point taken. At other times, I have made it clear that I think it would have been better to have avoided the whole war to begin with.
While I may dislike Anglin’s Walmart White Nationalism, I do recognize that the Daily Stormer has a necessary, albeit cringe-worthy, role to play. The intellectual foundation has been laid and will continue to be reinforced by those with the intellectual capacity to do so. Next, our message must be brought to a wider audience. Anglin is delivering his version of our collective message to a broader audience. Many of us find his style, or lack thereof, repulsively simplistic and juvenile. It is. But that is irrelevant. What’s important is that there exists a market for pro-White schlock among frustrated young Whites. Anglin is filling this void and should be applauded for his efforts and even tacitly supported by those in possession of advanced degrees and six figure salaries.
The majority of pro-White Whites have a duality of tastes and personality traits. We all enjoy a burger in the backyard and an occasional filet mignon. Many can appreciate Mozart and Modest Mouse. We love America, England, and Hitler too. Based on our new morality, I see no contradictions. This is healthy.
Hopefully, this fratricide between high-brow esoteric pro-White Whites and low-brow exoteric pro-White Whites will cease. We mustn’t put ourselves in a position of doing either or. We must do both. Any White man pursuing the fulfillment of the 14 Words is A-Ok with me, even if I don’t care for his sophomoric tendencies. Whether Richard Spencer achieves the 14 Words via Mac tablet and NPI conferences or Andrew Anglin and his band of Wal-Mart shoppers achieves it by romping through the White House gates in a monster truck named “Machismo” is of little concern to me. I support both sides and their respective tactics.
Disclaimer-I was and presumably still am banned from the DS by Mr. Anglin.
I don’t see this as fratricide, and I am not foolish enough to think that Andrew Anglin will just go away. I see this as a spirited but substantive discussion of important issues.
I don’t think that Andrew Anglin is a below average white person, either, although judging from his writing style — grandiose, exaggerated, graphomanical, and illogical — he is burning through brain cells by using stimulants. I think Anglin is slumming and pandering because of mistaken ideas.
Unless, of course, he takes Christian Identity seriously.
He disavowed Christian Identity the other day. I think he admires their ferocity and feels they are good allies. Add to that the idea that most people need a religion and I think his position is clear. Some people will convert to Paganism or secular religious ideals, such as “My Race is my Religion.” But many will want to stay Christian so why not a version that’s not suicide? This approach probably wouldn’t work in Europe, but Americans are famous for sticking to Christianity but shopping around for a new sect that feels better to them.
I have not read Mein Kampf, but some very fine minds who have done so tell me that whilst the book is admirable, it has little to do with the direction Nazism took in later years.
The same could be said of Christianity. When people criticise it, they are criticising the direction it took after about 500 A.D. If you go back to the source, the whole Bible from start to finish is insistent that people (Jew or Gentile) must live in separate nations with separate identities and languages – otherwise you get the Tower of Babel, where there is a cacophony all speaking one language – and paradoxically the cacophony is caused by all speaking one language. So God scattered the people in Babel back into their different nations and languages and ordered them to remain that way.
This is of course a Jewish Bible initially, but the New Testament picks up the assumption that God has ordained man to live in separate nations for a very good reason. And in fact, Jews remain the most “racist” race and religion of all, to this day – and have managed to preserve their ID despite not having a fixed homeland (which is not permitted for Jews anyway, according to some Orthodox Rabbis).
Instead of raging at them, perhaps we should take a leaf out of their book (only one!).
Anyway, going back to Hitler – the obsession with him, either pro or anti, is completely irrelevant. He was not a Nationalist in the end, because he engaged in territorial expansion, treading on the toes of other Nationalists in other countries big time. He was ruinous for Germany’s nascent Nationalism (Germany was a very new country in those days) – indeed I sometimes wonder if he was not a plant by forces who wished to destroy the growing power of a truly independent and nationalist Germany.
In the same way, neither Churchill nor Cromwell did Britain any good at all. This is why the most effective Nationalists are Monarchists, agreeing with Plato that Aristocracy is the best form of government provided that the Aristocrats are philosophers and also from a military background, so that they are neither thoughtless nor self-indulgent. Democracy is a poor form or government and always ends up as Tyranny – without fail, according to Plato. If Plato was right, this means the West is in for a spell of Tyranny for a while – which may have started already, don’t you think?
As Greg Johnson astutely points out, Zionism started long long before the Holocaust. I do not know what caused Herzl and Rothschild and other founders of Zionism to start panicking in Germany in the late 19th century – but something did. And it was not Hitler, obviously.
I became interested in Simon Bolivar at one point. He struck me as being a nationalist who was both highly educated and a military general – he was also a wealthy aristocrat. But he seems to have got a bit deranged later on, and wanted to unite the newly independent nations of South Amercica (independent thanks to him) under one flag. Oh dear. He may in fact have been ill in his last years of life, as he died of TB aged 47.
Also, what about the Amerindians? Was it them he was fighting with, or was it just Spaniards wanting to throw off the Spanish Monarchy? You have to be awfully careful with Nationalism, it is so easy to give it entirely the wrong flavour. A true Nationalist does not of course ever want to leave his own homeland, and I cannot think of any situation in war or peace where Defence of your Patria is not best conducted from inside its borders. In this sense, I am afraid the Taliban, the Viet Cong, etc., are true Nationalists. Robin Hood, Hereward the Wake – you get my point.
Oh, thanks – I might have known you have read Mein Kampf and what’s more understood it. For me, “digests” like yours will have to do.
I notice that someone called Moreland replied to that article by saying that Nationalists should use more “agitprop” as Globalists call it. But all we really need to do is pull out from storage and dust down the symbols that are ours anyway because they are historic and have automatic meaning on the instinctive level. Russia did this in 1993 when it threw off the Communist yoke.
“The reinstatement of double-headed eagle of National Emblem of Russia signifies continuity of national history. Contemporary National Emblem of Russia is a new emblem, but its main elements are absolutely traditional; it reflects different periods of Russian history and develops them on the eve of the new millenium.”
There is a nice timeline down the right-hand side showing the various forms the same symbol has taken in Russia over the centuries.
All ethnic groups have these iconic symbols – they are very distinctive, as distinctive as the company logos that often part of pub quizzes in the UK. I think Hitler should not have used the swastika – it caught on, true enough, but the double-headed eagle would have been more Germanic, even though it is so popular it has been used by the Hittites, the Byzantine Emperors, the Mercian Kings, the Austrian Empire, and lord knows who else.
In fact there is a 1974 documentary about Hitler’s rise to power called “The Double Headed Eagle”, but as I have not seen this film I don’t know to what extent this ancient symbol was used by Hitler before he hit on the swastika and the single-headed “Reichs-Adler”. Certainly the double-headed eagle was the symbol of the Holy Roman Empire, then the Austro Hungarian Empire, and then the new German Confederation formed at the beginning of the 19th century.
In general, Nationalists have all the best symbols (as well as all the best tunes). We just need to pick them up and use them. In fact you can see them being used quite a lot in tattoos, although they can get a bit lost in the multitude of tattoos now available. It is important to use a historic symbol that relates to your own country rather than someone else’s in a tattoo. My daughter states that she hates nationalists – however I notice she has a tattoo of a unicorn on her leg, a tiny anchor on her ankle, and the classic coloured swallows on her wrist. So whatever her head is telling her, her heart is saying something different. If the next one is a double-headed eagle, something I have never mentioned to her, I will begin to think there is a pattern forming which is genetic rather than taught ! But really I do hope it is not an eagle, the unicorn is quite enough for a lady.
I don’t think you are orientated about the history of Christianity and what is exactly “critisized” about it today. Old Charles Maurras for example would say that Christianity took the RIGHT way from the 4th century onward by becoming more and more Roman and covering up and neutralising all the Jewish subversive stuff in the gospels. The next step came in the 8th century, when German Kings turned into Roman emperors. The more Christianity is getting de-romanised and de-germanified, however, all this is getting reversed… that is not exactly my view, but just to have it mentioned.
The idea “God has ordained man to live in separate nations for a very good reason” is not questioned in the New Testament, but it is also not concerned about that problem in any way. The Christians who wrote the NT were living in a state of Apocalyptic expectation, of the soon-to-be coming of the Kingdom of God which “is not of this world” and which would make all nations and the idea of nations itself pointless. (There were not so many clearly defined nations anyway at that time around, let alone those who remained settled in their homelands. Instead, lots of tribes, conquering each other all the time. A cosmopolitan, imperial Roman-Greek culture ruled in what is known today as the Far East.)
The New Testament states explicitly that nationality, race, ethnicity, sex, and class don’t matter and don’t exist in the Christian church:
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on him;
– Romans 10:12
For by one spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one spirit.
– 1 Corinthians 12:13
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
– Galatians 3:28
a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.
– Colossians 3:11
Yes, but in the same way we are all Nationalists, whichever nation or ethnic group we belong to.
At the same time, we are Jews, Greeks, etc. I think it is the failure to understand the extreme power of an umbrella organisation that is crippling Nationalists. It is no good being isolated groups – this way the enemy can divide and rule, pick us off one at a time, etc. We must be entirely different groups each with a fierce national ID, yet having an overall cohesive Charter.
In South America in the 17th century the Jesuits fought tooth and nail to preserve the tribal identity of the natives against the incoming tide of Spanish and Portuguese colonisers – although the Jesuits were themselves Spanish and Portuguese. This is the true spirit of the word “Catholic”. If you have Catholic tastes in music for instance, you like various distinct types of music which must of course never merge or all there will be is muzak.
I know that very often an umbrella organisation turns downright nasty and megalomaniac. All the same, it is better than nothing at all. Not unlike a Family. It works best with two parents at its head, and x number of children being obedient but allowed to retain their individuality to the max provided it does not cause conflict.
I have no patience with people who dislike obeying any orders at all, even good ones. What is the point? Isn’t that called Libertarianism? Or Liberalism? Yuk.
For our purposes, when it comes to holocaust revisionism and NS, it is important to recall what Orwell said in 1984: “he who controls the past controls the future”. This is a fact of life for us and we must be prepared for a staring contest over this, no matter what we think of that historical period.
For propaganda purposes, what really happened is mor or less irrelevant, it is all a matter of who can be put on the defensive. Anything that will reveal the holocaust for the manipulative atrocity propaganda program that it is, must be used to make them back off on it when they make this move. This has to be faced with courage.
Read my “Dealing with the Holocaust” and tell me if my argument seems sufficient to you. https://counter-currents.com/2014/04/dealing-with-the-holocaust/
There are a lot of valid points in that article. However, at street level we need routine ways to deal with holocaust attacks and innuendo. This would involve redefining and desacralizing it. (i.e “the holocaust is a false religion based on atrocity propaganda stories”, ridicule and asking pointed questions “why did they make up those stories of soap and lampshades?, is everything else about the holo cast true?” Etc…
There need to be standard techniques of dealing with this.
Revealing the “Holocaust” allegation as manipulated atrocity propaganda in three steps:
1. That there is no objective, technical, forensic evidence to substantiate the allegation that the Germans murdered millions of Jews during the Second World War was confirmed by the then world-wide expert, Professor Dr. Raul Hilberg, acting as an expert witness at the trial of Ernst Zundel, held in Toronto, Canada in 1985, (Source: The Great Holocaust Trial, by Micheal A. Hoffmann II.)
2. The claim that millions of Jews were murdered at Auschwitz was extracted by the most extreme torture from the former camp Kommandant, Rudolf Hoess. Hoess was captured at the end of WWII by a special unit of the British Army. He was beaten almost to the point of death in order to extract his “confession” of mass-murder, which was then accepted at face-value as evidence of probative value at the Allies’ post-War Nuremberg trial of the defeated German leaders. The victorious Allies were of course the USA, the Soviet Union of Josef Stalin, Britain and France. (Source: The Legions of Death, written by Rupert Butler, published by Hamlyn Books, London, 1983.)
3. The Allies’ Nuremberg trial of the defeated Germans was condemned at the time by leading American jurists as a “Lynching” ( Harlan F. Stone, the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court), and as a “perversion of Justice” (US Senator Robert Taft). This “perversion of Justice” trampled on every principle of traditional, western jurisprudence, including the acceptance by the Allies’ court of self-incriminating confessions obtained under torture. (Source: The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, by Professor Arthur Butz.)
Concluding remark: One can see that there is a great deal more to the “Holocaust” than just the “Holocaust”. The present United Nations draws its claims for legitimacy from the “Lynch mob” of the Allies’ “perversion of Justice” as practised at their Nuremberg trial. To this day, there has been no peace treaty signed with Germany; to this day, the United Nations officially condemns Germany as the “Enemy State”.
Question: Is it too much to assert that the fate of Germany is now the fate of the White race ?
I agree with most of what you say here, Greg, but allow me to add some comments.
1. The definition of ‘vantard’ needs to be more specific (and in one respect more general). In addition to “needlessly linking White Nationalism with German National Socialism and the Holocaust”, the vantard does so in a clownish fashion. And even that doesn’t really capture the essence of the concept! Admittedly, George Lincoln Rockwell did all that, often in a clownish fashion, but he was by no means a “vantard” (or any sort of -tard); to the contrary, he was one of the very top minds in post-war white nationalism – because he did it in an intelligent way for a specific purpose. Instead, a vantard is someone who clumsily emulates surface features of National Socialist propaganda methods and aesthetics, without appreciating the deeper thought and purpose behind those methods and when they are appropriate. In essence, vantardism is a cargo cult of National Socialism. This excludes GLR, but includes groups such as the NSM. And I wouldn’t include Anglin in that category (although, I must admit, I first noticed his website in connection to this discussion).
What would be appropriate today, for us, is to not bring up the subject more than necessary (the “Remembering Hitler” articles, around April 20, are in no way inappropriate). But if a political opponent brings it up, and calls you “Nazi!” (or asks if you are one), you laugh at it and say “you will have to come up with something better than name-calling if there is to be any point in having this discussion”. The important thing is not taking it (or him) seriously. Laugh it off and keep you eyes on the target: getting your message out. If you need a label, “(white) nationalist” is fine. As long as you don’t start going down the slippery slope of “I am not a racist/nazi, but … “; if you do that, you are lost from the start.
2. However, one thing that Anglin gets right in his latest post (“Infinite DramaQuest”) is that Liddell et al. are basically liberals. They are liberals who think that black people are scary. In that respect, they are just like the Sweden Democrats: they want to keep the rotten society that has created this mess (or at least allowed it to be created) in the first place – minus the blacks/muslims. And so they are irrelevant to our future. They are liberals because they lack an alternative world-view, and one thing that Hitler was definitely right about is that only a world-view can defeat another world-view; to think otherwise is to be utterly naive (although I have no illusions that a wunderkind like Liddell would take advice from a novice like Hitler). There are no vacuums in politics, and thus frustrated criticism without positive backing is futile.
Counter-Currents is not liberal – if it was, I wouldn’t support it. You advocate thoughts that can actually replace the fundamental principles destroying our people today, and therefore you can make real headway in metapolitics.
3. This debate is framed in a way that makes it look like the different projects are mutually exclusive. One of the main reasons why nationalism has failed during the post-war period is that the mind has been separated from the body – the intellectuals are attacking the working class, and the working class is attacking the intellectuals. This is also something Rockwell pointed out (clownish though he may seem to liberal hipsters): that the leftist elite supports its own troops, while the rightist “elite” constantly attacks its own guys who are fighting on the streets. Ironically, the class war left is able to work as an organic body, while the rightists, supposedly working for Volksgemeinschaft, are engaged in class warfare among themselves. Of course the senile conservatives didn’t understand this, so they stabbed Rockwell in the back.
Revolutions are always led by elites – elites that are able to reach the masses! Elites who are satisfied with talking to themselves in small groups will remain irrelevant forever. That is why I don’t agree that there is such a thing as premature populism – only competent populism and incompetent populism. It is never too soon to reach the masses. There have been brilliant projects – as good as anything we have now – that have remained irrelevant. Wilmot Robertson published an amazing intellectual magazine steadily for twenty-five years, and it had no effect whatsoever. The Frankfurt School became immensely relevant, though, because its ideas reached the masses through popular culture and popular journalism. Today, 4chan is part of popular youth culture.
Rockwell’s solution was to have three propaganda channels – one consisting of comic books and cartoons, targeting the masses; one consisting of regular newspapers, targeting the bourgeois middle class; and one consisting of academic journals, targeting the elite. Like it or not, today “memes” and 9gag and short Youtube videos, etc., have replaced comic books, and that is the audience Anglin is reaching. People wanting a quick laugh. We don’t have the privilege of choosing our masses; we have to work with the masses we’ve got. Counter-Currents, on the other hand, reaches the intellectuals, and should continue doing so.
A mass movement without a head will inevitably collapse, it has no direction, and an elite movement without a body will remain irrelevant forever. Therefore, the whole movement must be built simultaneously. In other words, we can’t afford being too picky when it comes to the masses (or people on our side reaching the masses). They are what they are, so why would we leave them in the hands of the left?
Well said. I do think that Rockwell had a well thought out rationale for his approach, but even he was moving away from it at the time of his death.
As for liberalism: it all depends on the definition, I suppose. I would certainly not vote to keep today’s liberalism, just without non-whites. But on the other hand, I think certain modern liberal principles, such as freedom of religion and thought, are worth preserving. Wouldn’t most of the problems of modern liberalism disappear if one made two simple but fundamental changes: (1) recognizing that people — individuals, the races, and the sexes — are unequal, and justice requires treating unequal people unequally (“one law for the lion and the ox is oppression”) and (2) putting the common good ahead of individual liberty (and idiosyncracies) when they conflict?
I agree that those would be good changes, but I am afraid they would be insufficient. One of the major problems with liberalism is that it is individualist, in the sense that people choose their own “identity” and goals, and thus life becomes meaningless, and people stop caring about anything (because if the choice is up to you, that goal and that identity isn’t for real, it is just fake). I think we need something akin to a nationalist theocracy, similar to ancient Athens or Rome, where the people participates in the state as in a religious cult. With great freedom of thought, of course (the important thing is the ritual and actions, not to control the details of people’s thoughts).
Well that’s partly what I mean by having the common good trump private interests.
I agree that we need to get rid of inauthentic constructivist/voluntarist forms of identity and awaken people to their real identities as whites, and as Swedes, Englishmen, generic Europeans, etc.
I do think the sort of intellectual hegemony we seek will have the status of a civil religion. See my https://counter-currents.com/2013/08/racial-civil-religion/
But it actually may be less liberal than what you have in mind, since really, I think we need a kind of soft totalitarianism in which all available options are certified safe for whites and our more specific ethnic identities.
Liberalism is in essence the centralisation of the individual and practically every political philosopher with a less than stellar view of it critiques it for this very reason. You seem to seek not liberalism to ensure certain freedoms but something else entirely. Ethnocentric ancient worlders enjoyed certain freedoms and yet their communities can hardly be described and defined as liberal.
Have you read Leszek Kolakowski’s essay, “How to be a Conservative-Liberal-Socialist”? It’s online at:
I’d regard myself a conservative-liberal-socialist in the manner, but not necessarily in the exact sense, that Kolakowski defines these terms, with the caveat that I’m first and foremost a racial nationalist. There are certain ideas, values, and institutions associated with conservatism, with liberalism, and with socialism that are quite compatible with racial nationalism, and that can be accommodated within a “polytheism of values.” But I find it impossible to identify with conservatism, liberalism, or socialism in their current forms or as closed systems.
From a racial nationalist perspective, we (by which I mean racial nationalists) can evaluate particular elements of conservatism, liberalism, and socialism in terms of their compatibility with, and utility to, the racial community. I see no reason why we can’t nationalize, socialize, or racialize these things.
I think this position would enable us to address many contemporary concerns and put them “right side up.” A conservatism, a liberalism, a socialism that is defined in abstract, universalist, internationalist, or egalitarian terms is grotesque and self-defeating because it fails to properly define and understand the boundaries and characteristics of the community or polity to which it is addressed, and also because it entails a one-sided, simplistic, and narrowly partisan approach to politics. We can address the root concerns of our people in a way that mainstream political movements cannot, because we’re not bound to their dogmas, taboos, and masters. We can address these concerns without using the false weights and measures of the system. We can discuss contemporary realities without cant. And we can, I think, establish a great deal of common ground between us and a wide range of people who are injured and alienated by the system. We shouldn’t think of ourselves as being to the right of the Republican Party, the Conservative Party, or what have you. We should think in much bigger terms than this.
I think it’s a mistake to believe that this movement needs to be monolithic and have only one message and one method of attack. The left had all sorts of inner quarrels and disagreements on how to proceed, but one thing they never did was throw each other under the bus. That seems to be what we’re doing with all of these attacks on one another.
We’re never going to agree on everything, so we shouldn’t even try. Different websites and people should use different tactics. Rightists who think it’s wrong to bring up Hitler, the holocaust, and National Socialism don’t need to bring them up. Rightists who think it’s absolutely necessary to praise Hitler and National Socialism should do so.
The mistake is in trying to get this movement under a single leadership, whether it’s Amren, NPI, etc., and in denouncing the views of other rightists. If we’re just one group of people, we’re just one single target for our enemies, and a single blow from them can fell us. If we’re many different groups, it just makes it that much harder for our enemies to attack us.
As for TDS and Anglin, the simple truth is that we need that site. This movement needs the young and the angry, white guys in their teens and 20s, and that’s what TDS appeals to. It’s brash, funny, offensive articles and headlines are just what younger people are looking for. You might say that it appeals to all unintelligent people, but remember that kids in high school and college are not going to be motivated by stuffy essays on traditionalism. There’s room for essays on Nietzsche and Heidegger but there’s also room for mocking the holocaust memorial and the ebola virus. Finally, its the young and “dumb” that are going to be doing the physical fighting if it comes to that. Remember what a warzone Berlin was in the 20s.
I agree with you in the abstract, and I know The Daily Stormer will not be going away until Anglin burns out on it, but no, I don’t really think we need TDS. Not today. We should focus our energy and talent on creating a leadership caste for our race, a new elite. We don’t need mass appeal until we have an elite that can actually lead the masses. That’s why I think populism is premature. Premature populist buffoonery has been the bane of the American movement for decades. We should reach out to all classes of society, with the aim of recruiting the best people from all classes. The masses will still be there when we can lead them, and there will still be plenty of grassroots trolling and irreverence on the web without our movement making that a priority.
I wholeheartedly agree that we don’t need them for the creation of a vibrant movement, since their participation only militates against that goal. As Mr. Johnson has pointed out, they’ll always be there, so it’s best we ignore them and focus our time and efforts on areas that actually yield positive returns. The self-indulgent extremist groups are only useful for taking in all the people normal nationalists would do well to avoid. Forward thinking nationalists should be thankful when neo-nazis condemn us, as this is useful in debunking far-left smears.
By and large, a sound analysis. The bits and pieces that occur in responses (Christianity, George Orwell) require book-length analyses.
Anglin claims correctly that conservative working and middle class people are “the core of America.” But they are also politically inert and powerless.
This is untrue. The populist movements currently sweeping through more than a few white countries are made up primarily of conservative working and middle class white people. They are driving the elites up the wall and giving them a good run for it. It would be more accurate to describe them as “not powerful enough to take power” – not “powerless.”
Attempting to appeal to them with an explicitly pro-white message is not only a good use of activist energy in general (when is it ever a bad idea to try to awaken white racial awareness among the white masses?), it also shows a canny sense of timeliness and engagement.
My criticism of DS in this respect wouldn’t be that there is no point in trying to communicate with conservative working class and middle class white people who have shown quite clearly that they are organizing and getting some shit done – it’s that DS could do a better job of it. A lot better. They’re doing good on the lowbrow humor front though, I’ll give them that. Perhaps they should just focus on that.
Well, the Tea Party is the most recent conservative-populist movement, and it was rapidly coopted and pretty much neutered by vectors of elite control. But yes, point taken. The people do occasionally show up pitchfork in hand. But The existing system has pretty much figured out how to play them, because they don’t have the right kind of leadership. Which brings me back to my point: populism is premature unless we have the right kind of leadership cadre.
I have disagree with you both:
Could it be that you are using the metaphor “inert” incorrectly? Words like “fuel”, “accelerant” and “ignition source” seem more apt to me.
The leadership of these european parties and movements consists of elite old right holdouts in some cases and bourgeois upstarts in others. These very small elites came first. And their working class followers aren’t conservative. They don’t go to church, they are in favor of the welfare state, they are hedonistic, promiscuous and crude.
The elites were absolutely necessary for these movements to form. But ideologically they were probably more influenced by the sentiments of their followers than the other way around. The FN ditched catholicism, the Nordics, Wilders and soon Farage their libertarianism and the Austrian Freedom Party disposed of their 150 year old pan-Germanism which formed the core of their whole identity. I’m sure that Jobbik would drop their silly Turkism from one day to the next, if it were to seriously impede their success.
The comprehensive intellectual edifices these elites had prepared and obsessed about prior to their sudden popularity proved to be useless for their current stage of success. Instead they have started to synthesize the gut instincts and common sense feelings of their followers into a more intellectual form that is fit for public discourse.
To the old “No Enemies to the Right” we must add “No Enemies below (or above) your Class.” And I mean class in the broad sense of both socio-economic level and culture. The Nazis united people of many different levels but Hitler started with the Working Class even though he wasn’t that himself. But he had worked in factories, had sympathy for them, and could relate to them even though his cultural level was much higher and his economic level as a bohemian, lower.
Was Mr Angelin invited to speak at the NPI Conference? Perhaps next time he could be. As William Gayley Simpson said, part of the function of any Elite is to raise up people with potential into its ranks.
Linder doesn’t go “full Nazi,” though. He praises the Nazis for their racial and anti-Semitic views, their propaganda, and their tactics for coming to power. But he claims that he is not a Nazi, but a believer in limited government, the free market, etc.
That’s true, but it is also true of people like Rockwell, who actually called the World Union of National Socialists “The World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists” for a while. Does that mean that Rockwell was not a Nazi? There are plenty of neo-Nazis in North America and around the world who hold liberal rather than socialist or social-welfarist economic views.
But yes, if some sort of welfare statism is essential to National Socialism, then we would have to remove the founder of the American Nazi Party as well as Alex Linder from the list of “full Nazis.” Seems like quibbling to me.
I was going to include a section on Linder’s strategy in the piece above, including a discussion of his libertarianism, but I decided it was long enough already.
Maybe I will add a sentence above in the “Call You a Nazi” section. So thanks for prompting me for clarification.
Linder also disputes that he endorses the two points about the Holocaust I attributed to him. That’s his prerogative, so I will fix it.
Also, “full Nazi” is a riff on “full retard” — which is just some pop cultural vulgarity that should not be freighted with strict semantic analysis.
Looking back over the past several decades, the evolutionary growth of this concept (etho-nationalism) has taken many forms, it has been taught and re-packaged by sincere and not so sincere individuals; it is claimed as their own by millions of those of Western stock; it has its supporters and detractors, it has its philosophers and ideologues; it has its ‘public figures’, its scientific proselytes, and it has its martyrs. In short, the concept of White Nationalism has become all things to all people who seek to protect and serve the larger good – that is, their Folk – yet the divisions of interpretation and practice are as removed from themselves, as it ever seems to be.
The cacophony of voices, some of which see clearly, but have no telling numerical audience, the others, morphing their own world-vision into what they would call ‘white nationalism’, are usually those who have first access to the media, creators of their own websites, or have publishing financing for their individual efforts, are now disagreeing both publicly and privately on just what White Nationalism means and, more importantly, who or what will lead the next generation into the future.
Implicit in this conversation is the development of a whole set of constructs, of psychological changes in both individuals and institutions which make up the political and governmental bodies of the West, and carried to these bodies by a relatively unorganized and, for the most part, unprofessional body of adherents, fighting for scraps left by the internecine, and juvenile wars of its practitioners. This development has causual aspects, which cover many areas of human psychology: Intra-personal contact, intra-tribal survival mechanisms, and supra-national and intra-national hegemony, which helps to form or destroy these interrelationships. These interrelationships, these feelings of national inspiration, are millennial within the framework of specie and specie survival; the West, however is, or has become, quite obtuse when faced with this truth.
The White Nationalist, on the other hand, sees clearly through this fog of deceit, mischaracterization, and blatant lies which ever seek to confine their aspirations, hopes, dreams and fulfillment as a unique and sovereign people.
This fog of deceit and mischaracterization often comes from the very rank and file of the white nationalist milieu, which has exponentially grown in the last generation. This is not their fault, as children and novices must be taught by experience and proper mentorship by those who have gone before them; this is a long process, but falls within the acceptable duration period of less than two generations. So why do we have such divergence of opinion? One answer is that the focus of distinct ideological imperatives, of motivations and tactics have strayed from a singular strategy of revolutionary thought, namely, that the ‘old order’, or the traditional conservative mentality has failed in its attempt at conserving anything approximating a Western American race-culture. (See: http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-The-Twenty-First-Century/dp/1463562217/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413487905&sr=8-1&keywords=frank+l+desilva)
Dialogue is healthy, but as you say, Mr. Johnson, it is proper and right, to hold these discussions at the highest levels as possible, between ourselves and others (when able).
The disparate level of discussion and contradiction amongst our own peers is, of course, problematic, as peers would denote a certain repricocity, at the level of agreement and experience, and this is not mutually exclusive, as those who speak for the Folk must speak with one voice, at least on the major issues. Until this is acomplished, if it be one or a hundred, who share the same world-view, must possess the greatest market share of the public at large, if these views are to recieve a chohesive and deliberate response from the public.
As usual, the ‘comments’ and interplay on this site, are a cut above.
I have nothing but praise and admiration for Hitler and the National Socialist movement. Having said that, I wouldn’t run around giving the Roman salute and displaying swastikas. I feel that Hitler is going to be a great asset to our movement in the future.
My approach to White Nationalism is to target elites: the existing elite and the elite that we will raise up from all social classes to replace them.
Look at the current situation in Ferguson: the demonstrations, pillaging, breast-beating and general media circus over a cop shooting an (alleged) thug in the street. I’d venture to say that there are elites in Ferguson who are fed up with it all. It may be relatively low echelon elites, like police officers or chamber of commerce members. Or people higher up the feeding chain. They may be looking for someone to stand up and tell the truth, not just about the shooting incident, but the bigger picture of race and politics.
The question is: what would be a way to approach them? Could WN create a website which says (1) here are the facts; (2) here is what you can do about it? There are elites who are looking for an alternative, and the current disorders in Ferguson can be an opening to them.
Johnson et al. ~ SS
Anglin et al. ~ SA
I don’t see a large problem here. Unless we win
I get that the NSM and WWII costume types are not a good idea. I also get that I am nowhere near being a part of the “elites” on this website. I guess I could say I identify with both but realize that I am probably classified by many as right down there with the likes of Jeff Schoep and this Randall dude.
But I DO think that those who constantly complain about the sometimes embarrassing activities of us less educated WNs stop and think for a moment. You guys really aren’t doing much to lead us or help us common folk. When I got involved in the movement over 10 years ago nobody was there to help direct what I should or should not be doing. I just had to wing it and because of that I made a huge number of mistakes. Mistakes that my family and I are paying for to this day.
Its all well and good to sit there and thumb your nose and point out the stupidity of some of the WN community but I really wish you would do something to help the situation. How come few if any of you have the wonderful white families that you say are so important for our racial survival? It would appear that the few of you who are known to be married don’t even have kids.
If you do then by all means lead by example. Promote ideas and information for the little man instead of constantly trying to out intellectualize each other. It seems like there is a whole lot of talk and not many doing the walk. The result is those of us on the less educated end of the spectrum just trying to do “something, anything” and many times the things we come up with are judged pretty harshly by many of you on the upper spectrum. .
Leaders need to actually lead. I am not advocating getting down and dirty at a street rally or even having coffee with the lower levels of WNism. What I am talking about is coming up with real reasonable direction (other than us just sending you our hard earned shekels) for the blue collar people who wish to help promote the advancement of our race and the future of our children. That was one thing that the National Alliance used to do with their website and their materials but it has been missing since Dr Pierce’s death.
I am a firm believer in class just as I am a firm believer in race. If the intelligentsia continues to distance themselves from the working class they will continue to have to be embarrassed by having them run for political office, hold rallies and events and misspell words on fliers. The media will ALWAYS give our stupid mistakes more airtime than your educated activities. We want to do something and need to be directed so that we dont make mistakes or work against you. I believe that even the basics of marriage and child rearing could be directed with websites, books and articles.
April, I think you are definitely above average in intelligence and courage, whatever class you identify with. I am just one guy running a website and publishing imprint. That all boils down to the battle of ideas. I also do some “community organizing” by putting like-minded and geographically close people in touch with each other, organizing an event or two every year, and giving a talk or two every year. That is basically all I can do. I am not cut out for politics, so I am hewing close to my strengths and giving it my all there.
But I think I can help you help others. I think it would be useful for you to write up as an article your own dos and donts from your PLE experience in Montana. I would be happy to edit it and publicize it here, where it is likely to get a good deal of readership. Give it some thought and let me know.
Give it some thought
I’m sorry if it seemed like I was laying all the blame on you personally. I just addressed it to you because you wrote the article. But I think you know to whom I refer when I write about people who criticize the Randall types while never actually giving that class of people a viable alternative.
If I wrote about what I have learned I would just be giving the enemy a guide to how to stop us and what hurts us and what helps us. I refuse to give them any more intel on our activities, current progress or changes. I have tried to give some advice to other organizers but it was ignored, hence the Lieth debacle. I am willing to give advice to people on a one to one basis as they request it. My biggest piece of advice would be to be patient and not expect magnificent results in a short time. This migration and creation of living areas has to be done over decades to be effective.
I think there’s a need to establish certain structures that can direct, promote, and support activism, and work to raise the quantity and quality of activism. We definitely need to put more intelligence, skill, knowledge, and energy into activism.
I think that one problem with activism is that many people really don’t know what effective activism entails. They lack experience, knowledge, and support in these things. A small number of people are often overworked, while a larger number of people are largely idle. The former are demoralized by overwork, by a lack of progress, and by their own incompetence (when one is a jack of all trades, when one can’t develop one’s skills and knowledge, and when one can’t pursue one’s aptitudes, one cannot rise above mediocrity). The latter are demoralized by idleness, impotence, and inertia.
On the one hand, people sometimes “jump into the deep end,” and get burnt, or suffer burnout, or both. They undertake things for which they are ill-equipped and ill-prepared, and their undertakings therefore tend to be ephemeral and ineffective. On the other hand, people often regard things that they could do, participate in, or otherwise support as being too difficult or risky for them when this is sometimes not the case. They don’t see practical examples and role models, their isolation means they lack the drive provided by emulation and competition, and they don’t see any entry point for them. They become delinquents, misfits, or dropouts.
We need structures that can give proper guidance and support to would-be organizers and activists. People without experience in activism don’t know what is required to effectively conduct the activities of an organizational branch, events, or campaigns. They don’t have much of an idea of what exactly they should do, how they should do it, what priorities they should observe, how they should raise and administer funds, how they should administer non-financial resources, how they should deal with the law, how they should measure effectiveness, and many other things. We need structures that can properly brief organizers and activists, give them adequate direction and support, give them confidence in their work, and kindle a sense of solidarity and responsibility.
2/3rds of America is overweight, a 1/3rd are obese.
You want young American white men to start taking pride in their race? Start getting them to take pride in the pursuit of strength and masculinity. After being around and reading a lot of WN sites I get the distinct impression people want to run before they can walk.
Both CC and DS seem to miss this. CC serves a more intellectual crowd, DS seems to act as a more light-hearted but incredibly rage focused.
Creating something new is infinitely harder than recycling Nazi propaganda and ideas, it seems sad to me that so many can’t create or look to anything other than a failed regime.
Its worth noting that the image of Marvin the Martian above was once sent in with a comment to Lawrence Auster in reference to Mencius Moldbug. The commentator wanted to illustrate what a cartoony character Moldbug was with his calls for a return to medieval Monarchy -as outlandish as Marvins plans to destroy the world.
It think its all a case of calling the kettle black and you would all want to settle down and concentrate on your own strategies rather then thinking to hard about who is DOING IT ALL WRONG. To the lefties you are all MARVIN THE MARTIAN.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall 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.
Edit your comment