1,673 words
I would like to further explore some aspects and implications of the idea of “democratic multiculturalism” — the idea supported by Frank Salter and Ricardo Duchesne that Whites need to play the multicultural game by demanding a “seat at the table” while resolutely demanding that White identity and interests be taken seriously by the regime.
My contribution to the debate was advocating that Whites become as loud and obnoxious in this regard as are the Others, constantly pushing memes of anti-White discrimination and forcing the diversity-mongers to take their ideals at face value instead of as a thinly disguised grab for Other-Power.
This has of course prompted the usual outcry from the peanut gallery of the pathetic “movement” — this strategy is “weak” and it “dishonors our ancestors.” As if the current “movement,” with its decades of unending failure, tragicomic buffoonery, complete infiltration by System operatives, and unrelenting stupidity, is something that “our ancestors” would be very proud of. Those complaints demonstrate that the complainer is too stupid to discern that the strategy outlined is “means” not “ends” — it is, simply put, a form of sociopolitical ju-jitsu to undermine the multiculturalist system by forcing that system to live up to its own ideals down the slippery slope to chaos, or be exposed as hollow and hypocritical. Stating this openly is not a problem, since the System will know it anyway; the point is to press the issue in such a way as to create a “heads we win, tails they lose” scenario so that the System fails regardless of how they attempt to address the issue.
Consider that multiculturalism is based on the “ideal” of minority collectivist mobilization and majority atomization and passivity. Minorities will continue to be mobilized; that is the first principle of multiculturalism, even more fundamental than majority passivity. Minority mobilization is a given (and we would wish it so, since minority passivity would lead to full assimilation and miscegenation even faster than currently, and would lull Whites to sleep even more than now). Therefore, the key to destabilize the System is majority mobilization. To mobilize Whites, one needs to give them something to get mobilized about. Like it or not, in today’s Last Man society, the White masses will not get mobilized to “honor their ancestors” or to “actualize a High Culture.” The far-Right pro-White elites may be so motivated today, and, in a future state run according to our principles, the masses would follow the path of honor and greatness. But today? Today, Whites need to be mobilized through grievance, through racial self-interest, through anger, through exposure of anti-White discrimination, through the entire immersion of Whites in a self-discovery of identity through the same paths followed by other groups in the morass of multiculturalism.
At this point, we need to consider some of the possible ways the System may attempt to derail the strategy of democratic multiculturalism. The following is in no way a comprehensive analysis, but a brief survey, to stimulate further thought, analysis, and refinement. Please note this applies mostly to the American situation, the situation in Europe is quite different. Europe has rigid speech control laws (which activists there need to overturn), while, at the same time, having relatively weak social pricing. In America, we have the opposite: de jure free speech, coupled with de facto control due to intense social pricing.
The System would either Refuse or Accept the place of Whites as full partners at the multicultural table. Refusal is more likely than acceptance, at least at the early stage. Both refusal or acceptance can be turned to our benefit. However, at the same time, the System would attempt to manipulate both refusal or acceptance in ways beneficial to their side. How could they do so and what could be our response?
With respect to Refusal, there could be: Ignoring, Ridicule, Argumentation, Social Pricing.
Ignoring is the easiest to deal with in the long run, although it may seem daunting in the short run. If we are to believe our own propaganda, then the situation for Whites will become more dire, more unpleasant, with the passing of time. We must persevere in our attempts to speak out, to ask Whites why their legitimate concerns are ignored. We should look at “ignoring” as an opportunity: an empty niche to fill with our own voice. Granted, that voice has to be reasonable, and not full of “movement” Nutzis ranting about cephalic indices, 0.15% “admixtures,” Evola and Savitri Devi, Atlantis, Hitler as the man above time, or other crackpot stupidities.
Ridicule is a potent weapon, since we live in “the age of snark.” We should expect the System to mobilize its celebrities, comedy routines, quick-witted Levantines, smug politicians, etc. to mock the idea that “privileged Whites” could possibly have any problems. They would prey upon right-wing insecurities about “looking weak,” “being beta,” or “dishonoring our ancestors,” as if a stoic “stiff upper lip” while your race and civilization is being destroyed, as if “sitting poolside,” as if doing nothing — as if all of that is somehow “strong and honorable.” Winning honors our ancestors; losing disgraces them. Do what you have to do to win. Persevere through the ridicule. Again: if we believe our own propaganda, the situation for Whites will deteriorate to a point that I guarantee that, eventually, they will not find anti-White ridicule funny at all. We can ask why is the System mocking your legitimate suffering? Why are your legitimate interests ridiculed? Why is your identity a joke? And, most important: we absolutely must use the weapon of ridicule against our opponents. They are far more vulnerable in that regard, objectively speaking. It’s just that they have the “megaphone” and we do not. Getting our message out will be a challenge.
Argumentation will be used, the standard leftist boilerplate about “White privilege” and the usual sociological nonsense. In a “fair fight,” we could easily defeat our opponents in any such debate (provided we keep the Nutzis gibbering among themselves in a corner, where they belong). The problem is inherent in the other components of Refusal: having the power and the “megaphone,” the System could Ignore or Ridicule our Argumentation, or subject our representatives to Social Pricing. So, we can win Argumentation only to the extent that we can solve these other issues and create a more level playing field. In any sort of “fair fight,” intelligent and rational racialists would wipe the floor with their opponents; the System knows this, which is why such a “fair fight” is not allowed. We must struggle to obtain it.
Social Pricing is in the long run the most difficult problem we face. Le Brun stated as much in a podcast, talking to Greg Johnson. In Europe, the social system does a better job of protecting folks from social pricing, while in “free market” America, such protection does not exist. Ultimately, we need to build an infrastructure of sufficient breadth and depth so as to make social pricing a weaker weapon of the System. Unfortunately, the pathetic “movement,” with its incompetent affirmative action leadership, shows no signs of doing so or even of acknowledging that such is necessary. Decades of time, money, and support have been wasted by “movement” trash and their “Der Tag” apocalyptic fantasies. The truth is far more mundane and less “heroic.” The “movement” won’t want to hear it. I’ll say it anyway. In my opinion, the real “turning point” will NOT be when “Whites storm the ramparts” or whatever other doomsday scenario whets the onanistic fantasies of the “movement” — instead, the turning point will be when overt pro-White activists can safely and securely live a comfortable middle-class existence while simultaneously being public far-Right representatives of White interests. I can only imagine the “movement” reaction to that. All the keyboard warriors will get lathered up into a frenzy over the “dishonor” and “pettiness” of such a statement. By golly, we need to “head for the mountains” and “smash the System,” while playing “Rambo” and eating twigs and branches. That’ll show ’em! I hope sane and rational minds will consider my proposed “turning point” and realize I’m right about that.
What about Acceptance? What if the System says, yes, White Identity and Interests can be part of multiculturalism? What then? If they do so, it will be for the purpose of co-opting our strategy, from putting forth bogus “White leaders,” masters of the “implicit Whiteness” game, to lead Whites into a sterile cul-de-sac in which mild complaining will be allowed, System representatives will pretend to listen, and all else goes on as before.
Thus, Co-Opting/Selling Out is the major System ploy I expect in the event they at same point choose the Acceptance option. They would try to defuse White anger by faux concessions, transparent ploys that would be accepted by the fake leaders and thus also accepted by the not-too-bright masses (the same masses routinely hoodwinked by the GOP).
The answer here is to have disciplined, sincere, vetted, visionary leaders who know how to expose the phony leaders, who would demand that only genuine pro-White leadership be representatives of Whites at the multicultural table, leaders who understand the difference between means and ends, and who have their eyes fixed on the endgame — destabilization of the multicultural system.
For White mobilization under genuine leadership will be the death knell for multiculturalism, the harbinger of chaos. Minorities, nurtured in an atmosphere of self-righteous racial-moral posturing, who believe they have a birthright monopoly on racial mobilization, these folks would never accept White mobilization. Whites standing up for themselves as Whites is the ultimate blasphemy for Coloreds and White Leftists, the Original Sin (which is why the System would, I think, prefer Refusal if they could get away with it). And the more angry the Coloreds/Leftists get, the more White Identity will become hardened, the more the societal divisions will fossilize into balkanization, the more untenable the whole situation will be.
Chaos! Our ancestors would be honored by that; the conflict would inflame their blood. Let’s do it.
12 Comments
Brilliant piece. I have been noticing some recent reactions from the Guardians of the System, and have found them ferociously aggressive in their mockery of Whites wanting a place at the table. The ridiculing retorts are being bantered around as the Systemites blithely ignore their own so-called egalitarian policies to discriminate openly against Whites in every societal arena.
However, Whites will not blithely ignore the hypocrisy, particularly if it is brought to their attention in a consistent, intelligent, and even-handed manner. I see Sallis’ proposal working like butter in a heated skillet. The conditions are right, the strategies sound, and timing couldn’t be better.
Great. Now what do I do to make it happen?
http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2015/01/practical-advice-democratic.html
“The turning point will be when overt pro-White activists can safely and securely live a comfortable middle-class existence while simultaneously being public far-Right representatives of White interests”
This is excellent but where does it start?
Even the congressman who ctually noted a “war on whites” seems to have gone radio silent.
Trying to negotiate with the enemy is pointless. They want you dead not marginalized. This war started in the 1960s. It will end when they are dead or gone. Trying to get a seat at their table only gives credibility to a system that has none.
I’m not sure how an approach described as similar to “ju-jitsu” can be misconstrued as “negotiating.” I outline a strategy to undermine multiculturalism by forcing the multicultists to either follow the logic of inclusion and accept White identity and interests (which would eventually wreck the foundations of multiculturalism) or be forced to admit, openly, that multicultural inclusion specifically excludes Whites (which is implicit in the ideology but as it is never stated as such, allows Whites to tacitly support the system). Either way, in the long run, they lose, as long as we avoid the System counter-measures outlined above. Either they let the fox into the henhouse or they very explicitly tell the fox it is not wanted. But what if the existence of the henhouse is dependent on the goodwill and hard work of the fox? What if the henhouse exists only because the fox is both excluded but at the same time made to support the existence of the henhouse? What if the hens know that admitting the fox inside will destroy them, but they also know that if the fox abandons them and doesn’t support them, they’re finished as well? What if they have somehow befuddled the fox into not quite realizing the situation? Someone needs to slap that fox across the face and tell him to knock on the door of the henhouse and DEMAND admission.
If that’s “negotiating,” so be it.
One tactic missing here: setup.
Tommy Robinson was set up by police, to take down his street activism and behead his organization, EDL.
This is a good video where he takes an oxford university audience through his experiences, but especially enlightening is perhaps a recorded sequence, where he is doing a charity walk to raise money, and is being set up by the police, who in the aftermatch is aided by the press to make him and his cousin look guilty. See for yourself from 38 minutes in to 46 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84503534&x-yt-ts=1421914688&v=GyzGayfI400#t=2296
But what if the existence of the henhouse is dependent on the goodwill and hard work of the fox? … What if they have somehow befuddled the fox into not quite realizing the situation?
Nicely stated.
The dilemma is not that the enemies of the white race are so strong. It’s that they are so weak. If white people were to wake up in any organized numbers, the war would be over in 24 hours. Much of the strategy of the anti-white side has been to exploit its own weakness via civil disobedience, the cult of victimization, and ad nauseam. This had rendered everything from police dogs to nuclear weapons useless.
But what if white people were to stand up and say: “Yes, we know, white civilization has been responsible for imperialism, aggressive wars, ‘genocide,’ apartheid, and everything else you accuse us of having committed. And we are proud of it all…and will now be using these weapons against you and your hordes of wide eyed children with their begging bowls.”
The multicult’s tactics have revolved around the psychological disarmament of white people. i.e., destroying the will to fight (and even survive). Once that occurs, the superior weaponry and technology of white civilization is rendered useless. This has been so at Selma, during the Vietnam and other wars, and now is playing out in the streets of Ferguson, Malmo and Paris.
Thing is, the non-whites need whites, whether for the welfare state or affirmative action jobs or that save-the-children ™ begging bowl. But realistically speaking, what do “peoples of color” have to offer white people? Even the cheap labor comes with a price tag which makes it counterproductive.
Supposing white people got their act together and pulled the plug, letting the peoples of color self-destruct in their own dysfunctions? Imagine what Africa would look like if for 25 years whites provided no food shipments, missionary schooling, doctors sans borders, capital investing, peacekeeping forces, AK-47s, and refugee camps? Similar points could be made for dealing with third world populaces within the limes of Europa, or in North America.
Without white people propping them up, the third worlders would be reduced to demoralized, diseased and starving mobs which could be easily handled by small numbers of white troops — see the European conquest of Africa in the late 19th century.
It comes back to that issue of: how do we wake up white people?
Essentially the article is saying: use the system against itself, exploit its contradictions. These are good tactics. Here are some random thoughts:
Supposing a university has a multicultural program. White activists march onto campus flying the Confederate battleflag and proclaiming support for Southern culture. Of course, the university will trot out the party line that the Confederacy represented slavery and the overthrow of Constitutional government. Our activists respond: You have Muslim groups and Islamic studies programs — and for the past 1400+ years Muslims have enslaved people and invaded Europe. So why the contradiction?
Or if, say, one advocated for post-World War I European nationalist cultures, and is met with the usual horror stories about “fascism”–point out that the university has out-and-out communist professors and student groups, and communism has been responsible for gulags, the occupation of Eastern Europe, and working for the overthrow of the United States government. So why the contradiction?
One objective would be carving out a power base: a pro-White Studies department on campus, a pro-White student newspaper, a commission for White people. All this can be expanded to White legal defense groups, White student and worker fronts, pro-White information (aka agitprop) agencies, and so forth. The idea being to build up an alternative infrastructure to the current system. Eventually, this could be translated into real political power.
And if the university tries to crack down, use the tactics of civil disobedience, pace Selma. Put the multicultic establishment in the position of being the aggressor, and White activists as the advocates for Free Speech.
The multicultic establishment has given White Nationalists a real opportunity. The increasing censorship can be exploited by activists. Look at how a Lenny Bruce was able to use the seven forbidden words to push for a cultural revolution. White Nationalists could do the same by, say, standing on the student union steps and exercising Free Speech. Perhaps they can quote from Shockley or Rushton on the genetic determinants of IQ. Or quote Winston Churchill on Islam (which has reportedly gotten a British politico arrested). And can tell the truth about the third world immigrant crime wave.
This makes White activists the rebels. And there is real political power in that. Lots of people want to do the forbidden, to defy authority. And they’ll do so if given some leadership. The thing is in guiding this into a pro-White movement.
Nutzis? That’s not helping. We’re going to want them when Chaos descends. Or do you have other plans? The correct position is no enemies to the Right. Never throw an ally under the bus like that just to appease the Enemy. You don’t have to laud them, just remain silent about people whose activities you don’t approve – or people who are serving another function than you in the Movement. IRA/Sin Fein for example.
Nutzis are not “to the right of me.” I’m a national socialist. I’m on board with a lot of the stuff Pierce wrote in the Turner Diaries that offends others. In fact, if I were “Fuehrer” I may very well make Pierce look like a moderate.
Nutzism = stupidity, not radicalism. It’s folks walking around wearing SS uniforms, rambling about Hyperborea or Aryans from Atlantis, measuring each other’s cephalic indices with calipers, agonizing over 0.00012% admixtures, obsessing over whether Hitler was a “man above time” or a “man beyond time.” In other words, typical “movement” stupidity. When Chaos descends, the Nutzis will be useless. We’ll need hard men who act with crystal clear rationality.
I’ve seen cephalic indices addressed in works dating from the late nineteenth century by Georges Vacher de Lapouge and Otto Ammon, but I’ve never seen or heard “Nutzis ranting about cephalic indices.” I think Ted Sallis is attacking a straw man here. Other forms of HBD fetishism are surely far more common today. That said, I think the underlying point made by Sallis concerning the culture of the “movement” is sound: frivolous things are treated seriously, and serious things are treated frivolously.