Counter-Currents
1,813 words
There’s been a lot of discussion about whether or not we’re all too “black-pilled” in the days since criticism first broke of the Tommy Robinson fiasco. The implication of this line of criticism is that the New Right is failing (or going to fail) because:
1. we attack “our own” with the energy that we ought to be directing at our common enemies, and
2. the “black-pilled” critics are low-energy naysayers who simply attack anyone who is doing anything at all while they sit politely behind their keyboards doing nothing.
I understand this perspective, because I’ve felt it. In fact, it was my own initial reaction just a few days ago when I first encountered criticism of Tommy after watching the original video of his arrest myself (as I document here).
Let’s put aside the insular, in-group vocabulary about black pills, white pills, red pills, and all the rest of the memes for just a second, and let’s talk about being realistic.
A realistic assessment of our situation is that we simply do not have a ready collective of prepared people who are ready for prime time. We don’t have a network of disciplined organizations full of large numbers of people who are ready and able to effectively present our message to the American public, or take effective, focused action.
Are we working on it? Absolutely. Are we making great strides? Most definitely. Do we have promising candidates? For sure. American Renaissance is an utterly invaluable resource. Identity Evropa is rapidly recovering from the embarrassing mistake of Eli Mosley and developing an effective style of media activism that doesn’t mire us in lawsuits or allow the media to place pinpoint focus on our mistakes.
But it is also definitely true that we just aren’t there yet. We’re building it. And do you know what it looks like to build effective organization? It means sorting the wheat from the chaff so we can create something that is all wheat and no chaff—and that means criticizing the chaff so that it can get out of the way and make room for the wheat.
Notwithstanding the fact that what we stand for are principles that vast numbers of people do (and should) consider common sense, we are a fringe political movement. And fringe political movements attract weirdos no matter what their political position. Online movements attract people who have extra time on their hands and choose to spend it reading on the Internet. To make it into our niche in particular, we had to be curious and intelligent enough to read and comprehend essays on things like human biodiversity—but not so curious and intelligent that we’d already made a career in academia, where acknowledging these findings would risk ruining everything we’d built. The situation we are in is intrinsically, inherently paradoxical. To succeed by “democratic” means, we need to reach ordinary people; but we are, by definition, weirdos.
This isn’t “black pilled.” It’s realistic. And if we can’t take a realistic look at the hand we’ve been dealt, we’ll never do what needs to be done to win with it.
Furthermore, “public leadership” is a position which is doubly attractive to the worst of peoples’ personality traits. People with families and children whose well-being they care about are inherently less likely to do it, but the more narcissistic a person is, the more likely they will.
The last time I allowed the social pressure against “punching Right” to deter me from speaking my mind was in relation to Matthew Heimbach. Then TrailerGate happened, and I am now ready to defy anyone who claims that keeping our mouths shut and allowing weaknesses in our movement to fester is for anyone’s good. From now on, I’m going with my own instincts.
And the bottom line is: we all deserve better than “better than nothing.”
For a movement whose ideals are built on hierarchy and the elevation of “greatness” as a moral value of central importance, this reluctance to make high demands of those we call “leaders” is especially ironic.
And for a movement so focused on mocking the modern world’s obsession with “inclusivity” and how this causes everything from the military to firefighting departments and educational faculties to constantly lower their standards regarding actual performance and success, we sure do seem to be demanding a heavy share of standard-lowering “inclusivity” of our own.
If anything, what we really need is to be a whole hell of a lot more exclusive. I owe the inspiration for this point to the Zman: How many people are actually able to make it into biker gangs with demanding membership requirements? Very few. But how many want to mimic their fashion? Millions.
This fashion is able to maintain its signalling value because the organizations they mimic are able to maintain their reputations. But if the organizations themselves began letting in anyone simply because they liked the fashion, how long do you think they would maintain that reputation and the cultural value that results from it? Not for long.
We desperately need to incorporate an understanding of how this dynamic really works into how we operate. It absolutely is possible to have a greater effect on society at large with fewer people, if those people are organized properly.
Every once in awhile, I switch on the far-Leftist, Peruvian-American rapper Immortal Technique and listen to a few random tracks. I do this to reset my baseline for what it ought to be acceptable for me to say out loud. I do this to remind myself how the Left celebrates an angry black man for expressing himself, even when the thing he has to express sounds something like, “I’ll cut your face off, and wear it while I’m fucking your mother.”
I do this to inoculate myself against experiencing any drop of guilt for even a moment if the far-Left hypocrites who invited this man to be their campaign running mate ever think of trying to shame me for my own speech. I do it to remind myself that despite all the things that I’ve said, I’d still be hard-pressed to say anything half as racist and offensive as a man whose success these people celebrate.
And then I resolve to be twice as racist and offensive in defense of my own side—as well as twice as successful.
A few weeks ago, these lines from the song “The Martyr” stood out to me for expressing something that I think captures a universal truth that applies to us as well:
Pawns only move a square in the game that they’re used in
And realize it too late, like the shooting of Huey Newton
Or Patrice Lumumba and Salvador Allende
Slaughtered by the power-hungry branches of their own gente
Gandhi wasn’t killed by Pakistani nationals
He was assassinated by a Hindu radical
And Che Guevara, rebel to a US continent
Was sold to the CIA by Bolivian Communists
Wasn’t Yitzhak Rabin murdered by a Zionist?
And Anwar Sadat a victim of the same violence?
Malcolm X was seen as a threat to the FBI
But to blast ‘em they used Muslims from the NOI
Even the thirty-fifth President of the Republic
Was murdered by factions of his own government
As a general rule, movements really don’t collapse because of challenges from the outside—they collapse from the inside out.
And white people really are their own worst enemy.
That goes for all of it. Whatever complaints we may make about black violence, or Muslim rape gangs, or whatever else, the deeper root of the problem has always been us. White policemen participated in the cover-up of Rotherham. We brought blacks to this continent as slaves, and then we freed them. We took positions on issues like these simply because we wanted to signal our superior virtue against other white people instead of thinking seriously about what was good for us. We wanted cheap labor, and cared more about producing cheaper goods than the long-term preservation of healthy, socially cohesive ways of life. We had so little concern for the well-being of our own that we allowed our homeless to rot in the streets while we gave the bounties of our societies away to strangers who feel no loyalty to us whatsoever as a result of it.
I respect what Jason Kessler tried to do with “Unite the Right,” and I wish him well in his efforts to return with the utmost sincerity. But it seems rather obvious to me that the idea of literally “uniting the Right” is both counter-productive and impossible. First of all, witness the way that key headliner Richard Spencer disavowed Kessler himself the moment the “Unite the Right” event didn’t go how he hoped it would—and the loyalty he had afterwards for all the peons who put themselves in harm’s way and ended up in jail because they followed Spencer there. If we can’t even count on the very people at the center of an event called “Unite the Right” to actually do it, how the hell do we think we’re going to bring everyone else on board into following that rule?
But second of all, how united does the Left look to you? Black groups viciously criticize feminists for not being pro-black enough. Feminist groups attack male homosexuals for their misogyny. They’ve already been “eating themselves,” as we put it, for years, and guess what? They’re still winning. As an apostate from the Left myself, I’ve never seen as much infighting on the Right as I did in my time on the Left. So whatever the explanation for the Left’s cultural success may be, it sure as hell isn’t their “unity.”
Just as mosquitos can only thrive and settle in swamps, the problems we collectively face now can only fester in the swamps of our own sins. Swatting mosquitos one-by-one will never get us out of this mess as long as the swamp is still there breeding more of them. We have to drain the swamp itself. And that means demanding more of each other and more of ourselves.
Ironically, my critics actually demonstrate that they agree with me no matter how hard they may try to pose arguments otherwise. Consider this: the implication of their very own argument about how destructive “black pilling” is, is that they think the biggest obstacle in our way is white people like me! Hello: I’m still white people. I’m still us. Even if they try to oppose me in the details of my argument, they still thereby endorse and prove correct my broader premise that we are in fact our own worst enemy.
We just disagree over whether the details that fill out that picture are narcissistic, short-sighted public leaders, or those of us who are willing to stand up and expose those “leaders” for what they are.
Well, I know where I stand.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
41 comments
Alt-right folks should be working out, eating high T diets, taking supplements, practicing legit religious rituals (e.g.,Liber Resh) daily.
Aesthetics trump ideology every single time.
I used to run an alt-right self improvement group on FB and the amount of childish BS I had to put up with, the number of people I had to boot, etc was astronomical.
But the group was fairly legit.
Then I left my self-creates bubble and joined some other groups that attracted folks of similar political persuasions (even though my group was technically non-political) and… holy shit.
The saying is true: you’ll meet both the best and the worst people who exist in the world on the alt-right.
A huge problem, as I can attest, is that groups are afraid to enforce strict rules and kick out the lumpenproles because that tier of moderation is practically a full time job.
But it needs to be done.
You’re spot on with your comment that aesthetics trump ideology. We spend a lot of time debating the ‘optics’ of the movement, but what about the optics of the individual? I know some people ridicule the idea of self-improvement as something we should focus on, but this is absolutely vital. Anyone who cares about the future of the white race should be doing his (or her) damnedest to become as fine an example of the race as they possibly can.
People who may not like the message may be more prepared to listen when it’s coming from a fit, charming, erudite, charismatic and even friendly person (the ‘halo effect’ is a real thing). There also seems to be a lot of fixation on shifting the Overton window on a societal level, but why not also devote some effort to waking up a few of the normies you know on a personal basis? It’s easier when they like and respect you.
I tend to believe that we can’t really change anyone’s mind if they’re unwilling to change it themselves. However, as demographic replacement accelerates I think whites will become less able to dismiss what is happening around them, and more receptive to alt right ideas, at which point we will need to ensure the messengers are as attractive as the message.
I’ve never heard so many wrong statements in such a small space.
Really? Try reading The Communist Manifesto.
The whole punch to the right thing has been much discussed and I don’t think there is any answer, because what people are trying to find is a rule, and there can be no rule. It depends on circumstances.
I would say this. We should not disrupt or confuse narratives.
The Rotherham (etc) narrative is incredibly powerful. I would say I became redpilled by it, in the early 2000s. I read a lot of pretty right wing blogs at that time but I would never ‘descend’ to the far right (eg blogs like this), because to my mind they were full of idiot nazis peddling lies. One of the lies I saw was the crazy conspiracy of Muslim rape gangs. I saw a guy I thought was an idiot Nick Griffin talking about it on a BBC clip, and being extensively rebutted. “Just another dumb nazi”.
And then after a bit of digging I realised it was all true. From that I questioned everything I’d ever been told. And here I am.
As I say it’s an incredibly powerful narrative. For one thing it’s like a powerful leftist movie narrative – inhuman perpetrators, defenceless girls, official coverrup. Dynamite.
Plus it proves all our diagnoses correct. Race, class (this is my narrative, maybe not an AR narrative), even sex (difference between the sexes).
Above all it screams – THINGS ARE NOT OK. That is what most of us are here, because we believe things are not OK. The people who think things are not OK are on either the extreme right of the extreme left. We need to transfer normies to the ‘things are not OK’ mindset. TBH it doesn’t matter that much if they go to the left or the right. One day they will drift to us. The real enemy is the apathetic middle.
What we should do is not confuse or disrupt the Rotherham narrative. Robinson is a key populariser of that narrative, in my view (Caveat – I am not in England, people on the gorund may have a better view).
As my friends at Antipodean Resistance say, “just being white is not enough.”
Well, most major social movements have been started by individuals and small groups (Christianity, Buddhism, the Suffragette movement, National Socialism, etc), so why can’t a small group of white nationalists change the world? I absolutely agree with this article!
Unfortunately, we can’t stop Andrew Anglin or Heimbach from giving us all a bad reputation. It’s also reasonable to imagine this bad reputation is what makes so hard for our movement to bring people who really matter. Besides, the most powerful people tend to side with the establishment and they are usually much more concern with individualism. To make matters even worse, elite jews are 1/3 of the richest people in America and there’s good reason to believe the other 2/3 are in bed with those semites (Donald Trump and Kalergi are good examples). Therefore, trying to recrute wealth people is a bad strategy. However, I think we have a lot to offer to other very important groups: dissident academics and middle class whites.
Only academics and middle class people can dialogue with both the elites and the working class.
Middle class whites are not as affected by demographics as poor whites, but remember, no one likes to be forced to stay at home for fear of being robbed, raped or killed by non-white criminals. Only rich whites can afford to live in completely separated communities from non-whites, that’s why they don’t care.
Academics are important because they are the only ones who possess credibility with the elites.
I do think the only way this movement is heading forward is when important and dedicated people organize, but maybe it is a good thing that we are trying different strategies at the same time. The system can’t go after so many white nationalists at once. Because of this, white nationalism will never go away, and that’s maybe the reason why our ideas will triumph sooner or later.
Would you explain why you think Anglin gives WNs a bad reputation? My take is he’s playing a different game, one of being taboo and therefore appealing to young people (i.e. middle school and high school students and upwards). The DS is the only on- message media source I know of that may actually reach that demographic and help to vaccinate them from feminism, white guilt, etc.
I think Anglin is effective at what he does and glad for his work. Lumping him with a guy like Heimbach seems unfair to the man.
You can listen to the far left rapper but Heimbach is too trailor trashy?
Why don’t we have more high quality people in our ranks? Because 99%+ of the highest quality Whites are embedded in the status quo. They work for the system and love it, because the system still works for them.
It’s harder than ever for a White man to make lots of money in business, a government job, or whatever, but it’s still possible.
Men who are ambitious, hard working, creative, intelligent, but also capable of following orders and cooperating instead of being petty and quarrelsome, are using those talents and skills to make money to raise their families.
As bad as it sounds, I think people who are more successful as far as careers, marriage, and general quality of life are concerned, are less interested in what we have to say that those who are less successful.
Who can blame them?
Pretty true. White men still tend to do quite well in the existing system. However, I liken this to a game of musical chairs. As the years go by, every time the music stops there are fewer and fewer decent opportunities for a lot of these men who may have previously been successful, or the workplace becomes more and more intolerable.
I know quite a few men who tend to be quite successful in their professional lives. The first inkling they get that something is wrong is that they can’t find a decent woman for a wife. This is despite the fact that they ‘followed the rules’ and did everything society expected. Not long after that, they discover PUA and the red pill, then they graduate to race realism and maybe even the JQ.
It’s true we may not reach the top-tier corporate alphas who are doing extremely well under the current system. But I estimate there are vast numbers of men who find the modern corporate environment dissatisfying and emasculating, and creativity and intelligence are, in reality, not that highly valued. Many men I know will play along with the whole diversity agenda and dutifully attend the sexual harassment prevention workshop, but in private they’ll roll their eyes or snicker under their breath.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I’ve seen a huge influx of creative, hard-working and intelligent people entering the WN movement (to be honest, the most creative and intelligent people I’ve ever met). I wouldn’t be surprised if we start to find more and more of them among us as time goes by.
Yes, successful people tend to have low time preferences and think far ahead. And successful white men are having an increasing difficulty envisioning a future for our kind.
I respectfully disagree. Throughout History, most revolutions followed a more or less precise pattern: first, there came the disgruntled intellectuals, followed by leaders and men of action riling up the masses. The men of action were always surrounded by a core of true believers who were either failed intellectuals or the dredges of society.
Notice someone missing? Yes, these are the “professionals” and those that “made it good” under the current system. The politically neutral quantities who Carl Schmit almost abandoned his highly reserved, preternaturally dry tone in order to criticize in his writings on liberals. I think we’re at the stage of finding a leader to energize the Alt-right and we should only expect for the veritable social flywheel that are the burgies to join only after our movement is normalized.
Maybe the internet changed things and our true believer denizens are the multitudes of 8/pol and the TRS forum, which we cannot just wish away as embarrassing, which wouldn’t serve any purpose anyway. We don’t have too many of low quality (again, all successful movements in the past had those), but too few of high quality (meaning energetic men of action and a leader)
Why don’t we have more high quality people in our ranks? Because 99%+ of the highest quality Whites are embedded in the status quo.
High quality whites would not want to be embedded in the status quo for long. They would see how antiwhite it is and reject it with all its perks. Anyone wanting to spend a lifetime there is the lowest of the low.
I’ve often thought about that myself.
But then I wonder, how is this concept of “the successful people are rotten and immoral” so different from Marxism?
@LtCol Blackwater. You ask,
But then I wonder, how is this concept of “the successful people are rotten and immoral” so different from Marxism?
Just by way of discussion, I guess that would hinge on your definition of “successful”. Only the individual himself can decide, and it’s not complicated: success is the reaching of one’s goal. I sense that all those powerful white folks who day and night think up ways to change the racial content of their own countries are probably happy with their station in life; I don’t see them running away from what they are doing. Politicians, teachers, preachers, academics, high level bureaucrats, leaders of every kind, the whole lot. I read their obituarites and see plenty of evidence that they died doing what they enjoyed – ruining the lands that gave them life and contentment.
I’d rather live in a neolithic society, dragging a stick through the dirt, where everyone has his head screwed on right. All this advancement and superiority is killing us.
Stronza: That is an interesting comment. I have met and known (to some degree) the top level leaders in two industries; the military (if that can be counted as one) and the defense electronics. Both leader groups were what I call “bureaucrats”. Just paper pushers. Just front office managers. Just “helmsmen”, rather than ship’s captain and navigator. They sway/bend with whatever wind comes along. I would include the Washington DC federal politicians and other establishment people.
I personally don’t see any change for Whites in America through voting. Trump will likely be the last White male President and even the last Republican party President. Only some kind of authoritarian rule/gov’t would correct America’s course of doom. I don’t relish the prospect of such a scenario. Once the winds/tornado of revolution is unleashed, no telling where/how that will take us.
But this and your comment about (what I call) the establishment class makes me wonder: what to do with an establishment class after said (successful) revolution, meaning those that are left over. They will obviously be a disloyal and subversive group in a White ruled country, even an all White country.
I think we can imagine what will have to be done with them.
The problem is that WNs/people on the Alt-Right will eagerly attack other pro-Whites for a host of petty ideological side-issues (e.g. Hitler, religion, socialism, tradthots, etc.) but always seem loathe to call out public figures for being stupid, irresponsible or dishonest. Is it any wonder that we’re still so marginal? I think that the relative freedom that has been granted American WNs compared to other White/European countries is what has allowed this kind of destructive behaviour to flouish.
How many of us are there who are isolated by virtue of our life situation—families who would disown us, jobs at risk, shunned (or kicked out) by social or religious organizations? We cannot approach others to find out who might be like-minded without risk. We have only the internet to find news, opinion, inspiration. I long for the day when I can say, “what! You too?” And finally meet my people.
“I respect what Jason Kessler tried to do with “Unite the Right,” and I wish him well in his efforts to return with the utmost sincerity. But it seems rather obvious to me that the idea of literally “uniting the Right” is both counter-productive and impossible. First of all, witness the way that key headliner Richard Spencer disavowed Kessler himself the moment the “Unite the Right” event didn’t go how he hoped it would—and the loyalty he had afterwards for all the peons who put themselves in harm’s way and ended up in jail because they followed Spencer there. If we can’t even count on the very people at the center of an event called “Unite the Right” to actually do it, how the hell do we think we’re going to bring everyone else on board into following that rule?”
My impression has been that the so-called Alt Right and the developing Counter-Cuckservative movement of traditionalists and reactionaries against what I call Hyper-Liberalism, has a cllear sense of itself as reactionary — an attactive but also easy position to take given the general madness of our present — but very little sense at all as to how it will and how it could become mainstream in any sense. I remember I think Greg speaking of some point in time when this New Right might ‘take the reigns of power’ but I must admit I have no idea what this State would do or how it would organize itself in the word vis-a-vis the world.
I have been reminded that this reactionary movement of our present shares similar features to the reaction in the Interwar Period of the 1920s-30s. That has been an area where I have turned my attention. The reaction was certainly popular and religious (Christian) but had also to demonstrate social democratic goals in order to compete (and oppose) Marxian forms which were storming along. In this sense our movement, if it can be at all spoken of in a singular form, is a populist reactionary movement which can be seen as sharing common features with, for example, the various popular and people’s movements that have always formed in the US in reaction to powerful capital and the corruption of so-understood democratic government forms.
If what I say is true then this would also mean that the reactionary right of our present is similar in its popular reaction to some popular but ‘progressive’ movements. But while these progressive movements seem to define a general program of what they seek politically and socially, the reactionary right of our present seems not to be able to develop much of an agenda.
I have to admit that in my case I cannot quite see where it would go and how it would develop. The notion of a White Ethnostate is an attractive dream but, in truth, the ‘rising tide of color’ and all its allies seems adamantly opposed to this idea. And while Israel’s ethnic identification is used as a sort-of model, Israel is a criminal state and one that requires overt violence to maintain itself. It seems to me an unlikely and rather unfortunate model to hold up. The idea of such a state is, it seems to me, not very popular at all. It is marginally popular though and the idea is held by a fringe. It would be (and is now being) resisted by vast concentrations of power which are mercilless and driven to achieve their ends.
What I find myself thinking about is that now, in our present, we must understand that the essential battle is ideological and that this battle is one taking place within what is best described as Psy-Ops. I mean that Psy-Ops are being used against us, as they have been used against the will of people (thinking along the lines here of E Michael Jones and ‘The Slaughter of Cities’). My understanding is that behind the scenes there are forces and interests, deeply enmeshed with systemic power, which are deeply alarmed by these reactionary ideas, helter-skelter though they may be. And since they are expert at using subtle and not-so-subtle means to influence society and steer it to ends that better serve their plans and interests, we have to be aware how powerfully they are now acting in a war for hearts and minds as it were. If they can keep the ideas from becoming attractive, if they can make these ideas seem sick or mad or regressive, they will always hold the advantage. Because no one wants to be associated with regression or oppression.
I would like to read more and learn more about what people are thinking as it pertains to actually gaining some foothold within institutions. I know that recently Poland has come up as an example of a conservative social model, but has this not come about because the Polish are still unified religiously? Yet this New Right in which we participate ideologically, while it pretends to traditional religiosity (sometimes) is not at all a religious movement. It would never be able to avail itself of this unifying power and to manifest itself from, if you will, a solid platform in metaphysics.
If these thoughts seem rambling, so be it. It is the condition I find myself in.
Tommy Robinson is all we have in Britain, I will be very disappointed if he is out of action for a year. His new media project was reaching masses of normies and he would have been too big for the mainstream media to ignore soon. He does have plenty of faults, but we simply don’t have anyone else to replace him with who has the mass-appeal that he does.
Think of the next 13 months as an opportunity for someone better to launch himself.
That’s just it Greg, he has already spent 10 years building up his profile. We dont have another 10 years to wait for someone else to come along. Maybe Mark Collett could do something, but he doesn’t have the experience or the finances that Tommy does. Tommy has a huge movement over here in Britain and he has massive crossover appeal. The alternatives are Gerard Batten of UKIP, or Anne Marie Waters of For Britain and although both seem to have integrity, neither of them hold a candle to his charisma and ability to inspire people. If it’s journalists, then all we have is PJ Watson or Katie Hopkins and both of them seem more interested in America. This is how bad the situation is in Britain, Tommy is the best we have to actually get anything done.
It is sad when you invest everything is a charismatic, reckless blockhead. Better start building up alternative now rather than later.
I agree, I don’t see it as one or the other though, we need to make use of whatever we get. Over half a million people have signed the petition to get Tommy out and 90% of them are probably our target audience. If we want to recruit them, then we shouldn’t be attacking their hero, we should be supporting them and become a part of it so we can influence it’s direction.
It was a huge blunder to not request a space to speak at his free speech event as he could not have refused that without losing significant face. At least we could still make use of what is happening now though, if we don’t set ourselves up as enemies to his supporters. Half a million people is a lot of people power.
https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-free-tommy-robinson
It is a shame that over half a million people have been deceived this way. I would think they would be glad to learn that they have been deceived and that their anger and activism are being exploited and wasted.
I think the hope here is that we take the members of that crowd who have the most integrity, the most discernment, and the most committment to directing their energy at important targets effectively without being manipulated into misguided hero worship, and we capture that subset of this audience for ourselves.
If these people are only interested in the cause because they were turned on by Tommy, I’m not sure how useful they are to us. They’ll disappear the minute their preferred ‘leader’s’ personality doesn’t engage and excite them anymore, anyway.
If they’re interested in Tommy’s case however because they’re truly angry about the important, overarching problems throughout society, then they should indeed be glad to have their energy rerouted to somewhere more effective — and to be rerouted to a group of less gullible, more discerning and committed people to communicate and work with.
I think it should also be quite obvious that more effective collectives should come from bringing this subset of people together.If I was a lone voice in the wilderness, I might find the argument compelling for keeping my mouth shut. Fortunately, however, I have the ability to say “Hey, there are groups of people who understand all this stuff that you can come join and work with if you see our point and understand and would like to seek better tactics (and others who are more serious than Tommy about finding them).”
In your sense I think this already gives Tommy the credit for being an initial spark that he deserves. He did get plenty of attention and anger people who are more or less motivated by concern over ethnic rape gangs and political correctness. But at this point I think we’re quite capable of taking it from here.
For comparison, plenty of people were first brought to the New Right by listening to Milo Yiannopoulos. But there was no need for him to remain a revered New Right leader just because of that history and anyone who was serious about taking that shift in their lives was quite able to move on from him upon seeing his flaws, too. After this manipulative stunt, we need to view Tommy much the same way.
Im just pleased we have half a million people that may now find out about Jez Turner and others being jailed, as well as journalists being detained and deported. This is a golden opportunity. We have already had new listeners coming over to Radio Aryan from Tommy’s camp.
Greg Johnson
Posted June 2, 2018 at 4:35 pm | Permalink
It is a shame that over half a million people have been deceived this way. I would think they would be glad to learn that they have been deceived and that their anger and activism are being exploited and wasted.
Surely you jest Greg. No one’s ever glad to find they’ve been had. It’s a bitter pill precisely because so many have invested so much emotionally in this man. By attacking their prophet, you attack them, so you will be seen as the enemy. We need to find a way to sweeten the truth without lying, that takes advantage of the partial wokeness of the tommytards, and takes them further out of the cave towards the light. I’m with Southern Dingo on this one.
Seeing through Tommy Robinson doesn’t require higher mathematics. I don’t think these people are as stupid as you do. I just think they are deceived.
I’ve long believed that Lenin was absolutely correct about the need for an political elite “vanguard” to lead (or force, in his case,) the “people” towards a new system. Once you reject the central egalitarian ideal behind democracy and realize that people by and large do not want to think for themselves, it becomes almost obvious. The vanguard thinks for the demos, and the demos adopts the vanguard’s thinking because it would be socially maladaptive not to do so.
This is ably demonstrated by the left today. The people pushing the Overton window to the left are the extremists and the elites, and ideas that were obviously true 10 years ago are now racist or sexist. Because the elite made them so and the populace just went along with it.
Basically the point is that all you really need to succeed in changing the culture is a strong enough elite that the average person is scared to be seen disagreeing with them, and then will convince themselves that they agreed all along.
(I’ve been toying with the idea of writing an essay/article on this concept and exploring it in more depth. Please let me know if the idea is interesting enough to justify the effort.)
I myself (and this might simply be indicative of a lack of creative power on my part), have always believed we needed a “Marx of the Right” and a “Lenin of the Right,” to replicate a Bolshevik-type victory for white nationalism – as hypocritical and irksome that might sound to some of you. The Soviet experiment surely failed inevitably, but this was due to the contradictions inherent of Marxist ideology rather than a failure of Lenin’s political and social revolt. Lenin’s methods proved effective and having Marx as an absent movementarian godfather whose word is law certainly helped his cause.
Many barbs have been thrown in the direction of the lightweight Bannon for desiring a Leninism of the Right to disassemble the current state – and while he deserves much scorn for many things he has said, I believe that statement isn’t one of them.
But let’s never forget what precipitated the Bolshevik victory in Russia; a completely failed state and the catastrophic consequences of a terrible and ravaging war. We, in the comfort of our current times, have no such luxuries.
A good, fiery piece. More of it, I say. The problem with the dissident Right is its disparity. This is because anyone who is not marching lockstep with the Left, according to the Left, is de facto far Right. The Right therefore becomes defined by what it is not rather than what it is or might be. In most sports games, different players have different roles, but they unite to try to win. The Right would do well to emulate that model.
I agree, Mark. The alt-right (by any name) has too long been a fountain of negativity and bad optics. In a book I recently finished (“Beyond This Horizon – A White Nationalist Blueprint For Tomorrow”) the author explains in further detail what so many of our saner minds are now seeing: that we are so concerned with “our message” that we have neglected to notice the flawed characters of those who bear it – most of which are so obviously unsuited to be leaders that there is no way they could ever engender a mass movement to save the white race from displacement. It needs to be said and said again: most of our so-called “leaders” are reprehensible and until we rise up and replace them we will continue to fail.
Punching right is fine as long as it serves to protect the ideals of the right. But these ideals can only have weight to begin with if there is at least one consolidated and semi-popular force on the right that promotes these ideals. Punching right in this current, delicate stage would risk marginalizing any force that might have a chance at standing out.
Once the fertile ponds of the political fringe have grown such a force, one with the clout to stand out, promote basic white nationalism and attract a considerable following, it would be in the best interest of the entire right wing to punch against the other right wing elements that would challenge this force, and wait for that force to simply absorb or push aside its competition.
But as of yet, this force doesn’t exist. The best thing to do in this stage is to keep the peace, and let such a force coalesce organically as both an “anti-other” reaction to the current political climate of virulent neo-Marxism and a “pro-self” revolutionary message promoting its own religious/political climate. Keep disseminating ideas and make the appearance of a political side that is viable and welcoming to those who are of European stock and skeptical of the status-quo. To punch right, too quick, and too soon, would be no better than the left “eating itself.”
I don’t understand the problem.
You don’t have to marry him. You don’t have to change your letterhead to read “The Tommy Robinson Movement”.
You just have to send off a public-facing signal that you identify with his struggle, condemn the injustice being waged against the British by their own government and call for his immediate release.
You apparently have severe reading comprehension problems.
I am certainly not going to call for Yaxley-Lennon’s immediate release. He was entirely in the wrong here. The British state was prosecuting the rapists, and by showing up and pulling this stunt, he actually endangered rather than promoted justice. So he belongs in jail.
If nationalists want to have credibility, we need to condemn the system where it is doing the wrong thing. There are no shortage of genuine outrages in the UK. People need to reserve their sympathy, anger, and activism for them, not the reckless, dishonorable opportunist Yaxley-Lennon.
These arguments will soon be academic, if they aren’t already. The British state is the enemy of the (white) British people, regardless of whether it manages a few belated, token prosecutions of ‘Asian’ child rapists. The state wanted Robinson/Lennon back in jail. If it hadn’t got him on contempt it would have got him on something else (last time it was mortgage fraud, not an offence which normally attracts a sentence in a high security prison).
There’s something highly subjective and willfully irrational about the kind of apodictic cynicism that you and other Tommytards are preaching. You are simply waving aside evidence to the contrary to state:
1. The British state is simply working for foreigners against the British people. This very case, where the state was working to prosecute the alien rapists, and Yaxley-Lennon was impeding rather than promoting justice, is too embarrassing to your narrative, so you simply wave the facts away.
2. The state simply wants Yaxley-Lennon in prison, and the pretexts are neither here nor there. So it does not really matter to you that the last time he pulled this stunt, they didn’t throw him in jail. Instead, they gave him a suspended sentence.
This really reminds me of black cynicism. They just know that nothing is ever their fault, the system is entirely against them, and everything is controlled by the all-powerful, malevolent white man. It is understandable as a manifestation of alienation, but it is not a reliable guide to reality and action. It is what gives us chimpouts.
I have never liked Right-wing conspiracy theories of the Alex Jones type because the people who promote them are liars and cynics, and believing them is a mark of stupidity. I block anyone on Facebook who talks unironically about “crisis actors.”
When people try to argue that this is a good thing because it is a manifestation of lack of trust in the system, I cannot agree. Yes, you can destroy a society by promoting distrust and unreason. But we are trying to create a new order, not simply chaos. And once you have created a chaos in which people are willing to believe the worst about one another, explain to me how you are going to create a new order out of that?
Thanks for the reply, Greg. In prinicple I agree with you. The difference in our viewpoints is the extent to which we believe that the British state is simply a traitor state. I, along with just about any other British nationalist, would say that it is much further down that path than it appears to you (if I’ve understood), and that a peaceful transition (back) to a normatively white society seems ever less likely. On the point about dismissing things which don’t suit our narrative: I pesonally don’t, they are signs that all hope is not lost and that reasonable people can make a difference, but we are still in a very bad place. The question on which you end is, indeed, the right question, and I don’t know what the answer will prove to be.
Punches ought to be reserved for our real enemies. We shouldn’t be punching right or lite for that matter, but oftentimes a slap is in order. A punch is generally a full force attack that can do lasting damage to the puncher and the punched, whereas a slap signfies disapproval or disdain and should always be followed by a reasoned explanation. A punch will usually lead to enmity, but a slap leaves the door open for reconcilliation. The recipient of a slap should never feel that they are completely wrong, but that what they are doing is wrong. We are in no position to be burning bridges.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment