1,025 words
Decades of unending failure from both ends of the spectrum.
I am not much interested in sports, especially Negro-dominated American football, which features simian behemoths colliding on a field in front of cheering crowds of inebriated jock-sniffing White fans. Nevertheless, football contributes certain phrases that help visualize action, such as “moving the football down field,” as an analogy for consistent progress toward a goal.
My cursory knowledge of that sport is that there are two main approaches to “moving the football” — the more aggressive and risky passing game and the more conservative and limited running game. As a “movement” analogy, passing is “vanguardism,” and running is “mainstreaming.” Vanguardism is long on vision and long-term goals, but ignores shorter term objectives and is particularly weak on pragmatism; it is all “ends” and no “means.” Conversely, mainstreaming lacks vision, confuses means with ends, and lacks any inspiring “the outcome justifies the sacrifices” long-term goals.
One can compare European nationalist groups, but for now, I will focus instead on post-WWII (actually, post-“Civil Rights era”) American activism. On the “passing game” side we have the vanguardist National Alliance founded William Pierce, and on the mainstreaming “running game” side we have Taylor’s American Renaissance and associated groupings, such as the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC). I argue here that both extremes are sub-optimal, just as any football offense that is too heavily focused on passing or running becomes vulnerable to the defensive strategies of opponents.
Pierce had a vision (albeit one some may consider highly flawed), but zero pragmatics. The history of the National Alliance makes this clear, the lack of any progress for the ~30 years or Pierce’s leadership, and the grotesque collapse of even that small-scale “success” after Pierce’s death. Currently, Pierce’s extreme vanguard approach has evolved into tragicomedy. A wild passing game, heaving footballs in the air with no plan (and no open receivers) is a recipe for failure.
But has mainstreaming succeeded? Has the cost of a lack of vision been compensated by some sort of sustained practical success? In football terms, has the running game ground out those yards, a few at a time, setting us up for the touchdown? Or must we punt and give the ball to our opponents, time and time again?
Amren started out on C-Span, and ended up being run out of conferences to the indifference or delight of the White masses. Currently, Amren is a website with no print journal (the ending of which is another “mainstreaming success” I presume), which holds conferences at a government facility protected by police. The closely associated CCC, which is a “council” of “conservative citizens,” primarily a group of white-haired men who wave Confederate flags and decry “Black crime,” has had their conference reservations cancelled.
After a full generation, a full quarter-century of such “running game” mainstreaming, it can be argued that the state of the “running game” today is worse than it was in the 1990s. Yes, the vanguardists have failed but so have the mainstreamers. To point the finger at one while making excuses for the failure of the other (“they just need more time! 25 years is not enough to show even one small success or any progress whatsoever”) is laughable special-pleading. The other side can make the same excuses as well.
One can argue that the mainstreaming failure is even worse than the vanguard failure, because the mainstreamers have failed precisely in that arena that was supposed to be their strength — pragmatic “nuts and bolts” small scale activity and mainstream appeal. The mainstreamers cannot even hold a conference outside of an armed camp government facility, they have less mainstream access than they did during Bill Clinton’s presidency, they’ve gone backward in many aspects (conferences, print journal, quality of writers, the abysmal quality of the commentators on the website) — so what’s the payoff? The vanguardists have their vision and goals coupled to failed pragmatics, and the mainstreamers couple their failed pragmatics with no real vision at all. It appears that the “mainstreaming quarterback” is “getting sacked” just as often as the “vanguardist quarterback.” If there is no payoff for the sacrifices and compromises of mainstreaming, and if the only riposte is “we need more time” (which is exactly what the vanguardists would say), then where is the empirical evidence in favor of mainstreaming — other than mere personal preference? And this is no apologia or promotion of the pure vanguardist approach, since I’ve made clear that has failed as well.
This post is not about making suggestions about what should be done, although I’d strongly suggest the “movement” consider the Codreanu Legionary model for some clues, as well as check out certain modern European nationalist parties, which typically integrate electoral politics with real-life community activism with youth groups with solid propaganda and with useful theorizing. I have also made suggestions here and elsewhere on that blog (see “The Fundamentals” sidebar there).
All of that is just the beginning of the conversation and not “The Answer.” One thing I can definitely suggest is that the “movement” really needs leadership that thinks things through, has contingency plans, uses long-term strategic thinking, with a healthy dose of common sense. Do the CCC folks really need to be told that with all the Amren conference cancellations and the controversy of the Roof shooting, that their own meeting may not go as planned? Do “movement” organizations really need to be told that if they give “the keys to the kingdom” to guys who call themselves on the Internet something like:
“SuperHitlerNaziwerewolf1488swastikalonewolfSSManUltraAryan” that there is a good chance that person will be a defective lunatic? That he may shoot some place up? That he may walk out with a bunch of files and hand them over to a “watchdog” group? Do we need to tell “movement” “leaders” that 25 years of failure is probably sufficient to at least prompt serious questions about whether the approach used is sound?
Ironically enough, both ends of the “movement” spectrum denounce affirmative action. Talk about a lack of self-awareness — a certain biblical passage concerning motes, beams, and eyes comes to mind. “Movement leadership” should look in the mirror on that.
Source: http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2015/08/moving-movement-football.html
11 Comments
I like the football analogy used here, though I too am no fan of this negrofied sport, which others have termed the “opiate of the masses” in the U.S. Between the lines, I read some frustration on the author’s part, that things are not moving fast enough, and virtually all WNs would like the movement to be growing faster, getting larger, making more progress.
I don’t think the problem is necessarily with the strategies being followed by different groups, but rather the personnel and resources being employed. William Pierce accomplished a lot, in keeping the movement alive, and increasing the knowledge base, much like the Irish monks in the Dark Ages. One man put together resources and gathered people, and through his efforts built something that had an impact on the movement. People were educated and brought in, and many of those now sustain the current movement. Dr. Pierce’s organization was not designed for longevity, and without its CEO and founder, it soon fell apart.
The same thing goes with Jared Taylor. One man put together resources and gathered people, and created a different organization with a different outlook and strategy. Although we can group them into the “movement”, they are essentially gifted individuals who are altering the world in their own way (perhaps a relatively small way at this point). If there were many more such gifted people, who had much greater resources, I think their current (unchanged) strategies would be far more successful. Another part of the problem is that these intellectual seeds are falling on unfertile ground, which is rejecting them, in the sense of there being a political environment that crowds out newcomers, and the ground is poisoned by a hostile media, creating a populace of Whites that has been largely unreceptive so far. I think this is gradually changing over time, albeit slowly.
I subscribe to the “great men” theory of history, where amidst the currents of human activity, groups of outstanding individuals, with greater intelligence and drive than the majority form the structure of society and cause things to happen. Its not the one million 110 IQ guys that are going to change the future, but the one hundred 170 IQ guys. In fact, in my opinion, the most effective strategy for the movement would be (prepare for weirdness here) a high-IQ insemination project with appropriate training and education for those children. Had Pierce done this, I think the movement would be light years ahead.
I do think that the author’s questions are appropriate, essentially, “what can we do to increase progress?” My answer is that its not really necessarily the strategies being employed (which I think are pretty good for the most part), but lack of people and resources, although this is kind of circular, as the strategies are designed to attract people and resources. I would rather see the debate shifted away from criticizing people’s current efforts to trying new things and finding what works, and spreading this information to others (and of course getting the high-IQ cohort started).
“I am not much interested in sports, especially Negro-dominated American football, which features simian behemoths colliding on a field in front of cheering crowds of inebriated jock-sniffing White fans.”
My exact sentiment.
What’s wrong with having lots of different approaches? Counter Currents for intellectual neopagan nipsters, TRS for recovering libertarians open to discussing the JQ, AmRen and CofCC for the elderly, Daily Stormer for angry young anime enthusiasts, and so on.
To me, the problem is when people want to obscure the truth and shut others down because the masses are allegedly not ready for their message. That’s where destructive infighting begins.
Look at the Trump campaign. The media is haranguing him about the White nationalists who support him but it’s not doing any damage. If the movement mainstreamers would act like him, just stay on message while refusing to attack those to their right, that would be fine. The opposite of this approach is Marine LePen, betraying her own father at the behest of Jews.
It’s interesting to note that people who dislike sports also seem to dislike people who are different than themselves. Perhaps if these men would actually engage with others who are not like themselves that perhaps they wouldn’t be so entrenched in their hatred, anxiety & fear of the “other”.
Wow, that’s a really challenging perspective. I’ve never heard that one before.
That’s a lie – the idea that person A dislikes person B because they don’t know them. No, the opposite is true, it is because they know them all too well.
In reality, some of the most liberal Whites I know are those who have grown up, and lived, in majority-White or all-White areas. Those “entrenched in their hatred, anxiety & fear of the “other” are those who have had themselves immersed in “diversity.”
There is a particular dynamic which occurs when men confront or challenge each other in the physical arena for example Boxing, Rugby or American Football. Worthy opponents earn each others respect because they know just how tough the other men they are competing against really are. But when out of fear we disengage from others we can begin creating imaginative narratives on account of our own sense of superiority we won’t lower ourselves to engage with “those people”. If you want the other ethnic groups to respect you, you first have to show them respect and then earn their respect by your actions. The days of expecting the non-Whites to honor you because of our ancestors accomplishments are over. You’ll not be able to ride the coat tails of the Europeans who explored, conquered, invented & built so much on this planet. You’ll have to go out into the world and do something yourselves. Take of T.E. Lawrence for example, did the Arabs honor him on account of his ancestry or on account of all he contributed to their cause ?
I’m not interested in gaining the respect of non-whites. I am interested in their physical removal from my living space.
This interest would also apply to a world where you could at least physically remove yourself to a new living space where you could live an autonomous existence around others who shared your pro-White perspective, correct? I know it’s just petty semantics, but you know how some people like to weave these statements into their propaganda.
“Worthy opponents earn each others respect because they know just how tough the other men they are competing against really are.”
Gee, if Whites are interested in earning the “respect” of non-Whites, they can start by standing up for themselves, especially and including Greg’s call for their removal from his living space.
How could the English have gained the “respect” of the NEC filth who spent years abusing English children in Rotherham? By doing nothing, as they have done? No. By playing soccer with them, as suggested by the idiot here? No. By removing them from England, followed by the legal trial and public hanging of those officials who knew what was going on but did nothing out of fear of racism? Yes, you bet.
“But when out of fear we disengage from others we can begin creating imaginative narratives on account of our own sense of superiority…”
No, you liar. In reality, we disengage from others because the enforced engagement is harmful to us, and the “narratives” we create are based on bitter experience.
The problem with The Movement is that there is no movement, just erosion. Anyone who says otherwise must look at the ocean and think the beach is crashing into the waves.