Ideal Speechmaking Groups for Dissident Rightists

Posted By James Dunphy On In North American New Right | Comments Disabled

[1]3,230 words

I’ve attended many groups based on a common interest. They were the best gatherings in the world — at least in my opinion –, but they left me feeling a bit unsatisfied.

Some groups have a totally structured session with little room for dialogue, which is stifling. Others allow total freedom, but platitude-spouting blabbermouths take over. Still others have a combination of structure and freedom but fail to attain any intellectual value, as they discuss either boring business details or entertain small talk. Some groups lose their original purpose, turning into a kind of tourism as members go to the same restaurants, eat the same food, drink the same beer, and have the same parking woes as normies. Gatherings should not be pro-white versions of what everyone else is doing. We can do better.

The opinions expressed here are mine alone, but I am borrowing Greg Johnson’s idea that members of the New Right should give Toastmasters-style speeches [2]. I like speeches because they encourage intellectual expatiation, necessitate structure, and set the tone for the unstructured parts of the meeting. They also help white advocates become better representatives of their cause by improving their public speaking skills.

Holding meetings against barren landscapes outdoors or amongst urban ruins is my ideal. An austere background makes one focus on the message. It probably won’t be popular among the members given the threats bad weather and antifa spies pose, however.

Restaurants, libraries, hotels, and other public places offer protection from both the elements and Leftist kooks, and they offer the best plausible deniability for covert pro-whites — i.e., “secret agents [3]” – as they are seen entering the building. Greg Johnson states [3] that restaurants located in central business districts often do most of their business on weekdays, and may be more flexible with scheduling on weekends.

It’s best to gather at the same place each time because it will spare regular group members the hassle of trying to find it. The room should have good soundproofing and be fully closed off to the public. According to Greg Johnson [3], it’s best to get a room that doesn’t require a deposit. If you call a restaurant and tell them that you need a regular meeting space for a Toastmasters-style group with ordering off the menu and no deposit or fee, they may agree even if they normally require those things if they know you’ll be a regular customer. If they’re not willing to waive fees, deposits, and so on, then you can always find another place that will.

The group session should last two and a half hours. The group leader needs to take charge and act as master of ceremonies, and the first hour and a half needs to be fully scripted. This will prevent blabbermouths from taking over and dominating the group with long-winded monologues. The leader should not be a blabbermouth himself, and conduct the meeting so that things run according to schedule.

In the first ten minutes, the leader should make everyone feels like they are characters in a story: the story of white resurgence. Everyone should choose a group-specific nickname for himself. Instead of going around the room and giving their personal pronouns as Leftists do, members could give their nicknames. These may be comedic or based on their interests.

The next 20 minutes should involve reading the minutes from the last meeting, as well as discussing upcoming events, finances, and other necessities. The group may also vote on issues at this time. There should be clemency for people who arrive late, but the group should carry out its duties without waiting until others arrive.

The group should keep a small operating budget of no more than $1,000. This will dissuade Leftist New York lawyers from targeting it with lawfare. Ideally, the group should have no operating budget at all and be nothing more than a series of informal gatherings supported by informal donations.

Speech-making groups should not engage in activism or outreach. Other groups that specialize in such purposes should carry out these duties. In this way, if they encounter any legal flak, New York attorneys won’t be able to rope in other members of the movement. This is important because whites are not treated fairly in the legal system. While BLM can freely pepper a city with George Floyd flyers, hanging up “It’s Okay to be White” flyers will make Leftist authorities salivate at the chance to virtue-signal against the canvassers with tendentiously applied charges.

Newcomers should be vetted prior to joining the group by inspecting their license or other ID, as well as their social security card, birth certificate, a piece of mail, online presence, political party affiliation and voting history (if legal), professed ideas, and so on. The leader and at least one other person should know the person’s real name, unless the individual has already been vetted by someone the leader trusts.

To ensure the quality of the speeches, group members may want to impose a minimum IQ score on group membership. This would help protect against mere platitudes in the speeches. What’s more, an IQ test may be a good rite of passage to encourage people to value membership. The leader could administer these IQ tests in a quiet section of a public library. However, if group founders decide to set an IQ minimum, they shouldn’t set it so high that they can’t get enough people to have a decent-sized group, or so high that they exclude themselves from their own group.

Crazy people can cause a lot of turmoil in such a group. It’s a simple cost-benefit analysis. If an individual is a little crazy but brilliant and helpful, then keeping him around is okay, but if the harm outweighs the good, or if there’s no good at all, then he should be excluded. Malicious individuals suffering from Cluster A and Cluster B personality disorders in the DSM do the most harm. Group leaders should become familiar with these disorders by studying them. I recommend psychologist Todd Grande’s videos on YouTube [4].

[5]

You can buy The Alternative Right, ed. Greg Johnson, here [6]

I find that truly crazy people often give you an “a-ha moment.” Since they belong to our group, we often think of them almost as our children and seek to disregard their obvious nuttiness and try to help them be more normal, but in the context of political gatherings, casting pearls before swine will only result in being stampeded or worse. Nature is doing her part to remove certain individuals from society, and thus sexual consideration, by giving them delusions, an inability to determine what’s normal, and so on. Leaders shouldn’t interrupt her process.

Fortunately, social scientist Emil Kirkegaard has found [7] that mental illness is far less common on the Right than on the Left. A third of men who are “extremely liberal” have been treated for a mental illness, while only about 5% of “moderate” or “conservative” men have. Thus, insanity is more of a problem for antifa and BLM. They don’t have a monopoly on insanity, though. If an individual seems very off and has nothing positive to offer in terms of original ideas, then it may be best to cease inviting him. The discomfort experienced from this ordeal will be unpleasant for both parties, but it is better than having to placate him despite all his neuroticism and correct his misconceptions and delusions until the moment of their inevitable exclusion down the road. It helps to imagine a person as someone who doesn’t share one’s group affiliation and then judge their statements and actions thusly. If they appear obviously bad from this perspective, then it may be best to cease inviting them from the outset.

In addition to crazy people, psychopaths should also be excluded. People defined as clinically psychopathic are 1% of the population, but probably make up 2% of white gatherings, since nearly all psychopaths are male and pro-white gatherings are mostly male. Psychopaths tend to manipulate crazy people to attack their rivals, especially while battling for status in the group. The synergizing of psychopaths’ bad hearts and crazy people’s bad heads results in bad outcomes. Expect about 1 in 50 individuals to be destructively psychopathic and about the same proportion to be maliciously crazy. Therefore, if you have a group of 50, then needing to expel a few is to be expected. On the other hand, if you’re expelling, say, one out of five, then you’re probably throwing out some babies with the bathwater.

One might object to rooting out crazy and psychopathic individuals from a mere speechmaking group. However, such a group can serve as a gateway for psychopaths to worm their way toward power in the movement. Crazy people can also end up serving as potential fuel for the fires the latter will start. Thus, it’s best to keep both out from the beginning.

Some individuals with anti-social tendencies sincerely want to “break good,” as it were. The leader should assure them that as long as they do the right thing, their position in the group will be secure, but the leader should also admonish them against interpreting all criticism of their ideas, information, and so on as a threat to their belonging.

After the first 20 minutes, the group should operate for an hour according to the Toastmasters model. Toastmasters speeches normally last 7-10 minutes, but these are too short for anything worthwhile. Speeches should last around 15 minutes (13-17), with another 15 minutes of critique at the end. The total time allotted for each speech, including the critique, should be a half-hour. This is the average length of a human conversation [8], and a speech is basically a conversation between the speaker and everyone else. During that hour, there should therefore be two speeches. The person present who has gone the longest without speaking will speak first, and the person present who has gone the second longest without speaking will speak second. Taking turns like this will prevent individuals from hogging all the speaking opportunities. If an individual is next up, but running late, the person slated after him may speak first, and he can take the second slot if he arrives in time for it.

All will be required to speak as part of their membership obligations, unless someone is attending for the first time, whereupon they will be put last on the list and required to wait until it is their turn to speak. Individuals who are not physically capable of speaking can either write down their speeches and have someone else read them aloud, or have someone interpret their sign language.

Group members should be understanding and supportive of speakers who are nervous. The group should give them good eye contact and convey acceptance and encouragement.

During the speech, there will be a gong master who rings it if the speaker lapses into platitudes. The gong master shouldn’t be trigger-happy, because that may make people lose confidence. Only serial platitude-spouters should receive a gong, and just the threat of the gong will hopefully ward off platitudes from the rest. The gong master will also alert the speaker when there is one minute remaining by ringing a bell, and then ring the bell again when 15 minutes have passed. Once 17 minutes have passed, the gong master will ring the gong and the speaker will be forced to cease speaking.

The group should average 12 attendees per session. This does not mean only 12 members on the rolls, but 12 who show up on average. When a group gets as many as 18 regular attendees, it should split into two.

Special guests should be granted the entire hour to speak — specifically, 45 minutes for the speech and 15 minutes for questions and answers from the group. Special guests should of course not be gonged or evaluated in the same way regulars are. The group should vote on who to define and invite as a special guest. Ideally, special guests would appear no more than three times a year.

Group members may advertise the events of pro-white musicians, but they shouldn’t allow them to entertain the group because it will attract attention from outside.

Of course, the speeches should never be filmed or recorded without the express consent of the speakers.

During the 15-minute critique of regular speakers, there will be:

The content of the speeches must be controlled because speakers need to respect the reason why the group has gathered. They should not focus on topics that could be discussed anywhere. Online readers can choose whether or not to read a particular article, but a speech’s audience cannot choose to leave a speech, at least without being considered rude, so the speaker should respect the reason why they’ve attended – namely, to discuss things they can’t hear anywhere else.

The “Relevance Master” will grade the speech on its relevance and issue a private report on paper to the speaker at the next gathering, where two appear together. They will identify any purity-spiraling, logical fallacies, “all or nothing” black-and-white thinking, and catastrophizing. They will also identify any failure to discuss a politically relevant topic, to articulate a pro-white stance, or to define ideals and virtues whenever necessary.

The Relevance Master will also judge when a speech has failed to attain intellectual value. This would occur if the speaker fails to reflect on relevant long-term trends, discuss the past and future as they relate to the topic, consider a worldwide pro-white perspective, account for important empirical evidence, cite sources, adequately address any opposing arguments, or bring forth any new ideas. For example, if the topic is black crime, the speaker must do more than discuss isolated incidents. They should inform the audience of its frequency relative to other groups’ crime rates, its spikes in response to events, its causes (both environmental and genetic), the demographic trends affecting frequency, and the implications for whites economically and territorially.

Poetry readings and chiefly satirical speeches should not be subjected to evaluation on this same basis.

Themes for speeches may include but are not limited to:

Racial Rivalry

Whites competing with Asians for jobs in tech and engineering

Whites competing with Hispanics for jobs in construction and manufacturing

Jews dominating elite wealth

The state of the demographic war between whites and non-whites

Demarcating their city’s “no-go zones” made hostile by ghetto African-Americans or other non-whites

Disparities in qualifications between whites and blacks in corporate jobs

Ideological Battles

Fascism versus liberalism

The End of History versus cyclical theories of civilization

Self-contained virtue versus doing whatever the market wants

Rootedness versus cosmopolitanism

Auctoritas (geometric equality) versus “equity”

Ethno-collectivism versus multiracial plantation-style economic systems

Benevolent paternalism versus the incompetence of the median voter

Ethnic sovereignty versus Jew-mediated globalism

Scientific impartiality versus bell curve denialism

Universal ethnonationalism versus Jewish minoritarian special pleading

White racial essentialism versus technological solipsism

White wit versus multicultural banality

Moral Struggles

A white conscience versus Leftist Machiavellianism

White generosity versus atomized miserliness

White courage versus conformist cowardice

White sincerity versus multicultural virtue-signaling

White vigilance versus consumerist apathy

White prudence versus non-white foolhardiness and vainglory

White collective self-assertion versus Leftist collective self-abnegation

White modesty versus materialist vanity

Sex as procreation versus sex as recreation

Just wages versus economic exploitation of intelligent white youth

Faithful activism versus defeatist pessimism

Obedience to legitimate authority versus indiscriminate anarchism

Metapolitical Debates

Principled ethnonationalism versus pragmatically siding with more white-friendly superpowers

Intelligence-based aristocracy versus wealth-based aristocracy

Taking refuge in Eastern Europe as Neo-Byzantium versus promoting ethno-secessionism

Prioritizing birthrates in the long run versus working for secession/deportation within the next decade

The Past & Future

[9]

You can buy Greg Johnson’s It’s Okay to Be White here. [10]

The permanence of civilization disintegrating into the ephemera of barbarism

Unsustainable material vanity disrupting demographic viability

Manifestations of sexual selection becoming too costly and thus maladaptive

Concerns with form overtaking function and vice versa

Sexual competition within a group versus demographic competition between groups

Identifying the cultural parameters of white population growth

Creating new cultural forms and myths to inspire racial solidarity

Demarcating the white race’s lost territory

Movement Prerogatives

Syncing up short-run plans with the medium and long run

Defining realistic medium-run goals in the next few decades

Identifying personality and demographic characteristics of potential followers

Proposing resettlement programs for non-whites

Deporting non-whites from their urban strongholds

Creating a cyber ethnostate in the metaverse

Pitching the benefits of ethnonationalism to members of the various industries, most notably the whitest and most Republican, including oil, nuclear, natural gas, mining, and logging

Speakers should brainstorm to come up with topics for review such as these.

Following the speeches, individuals may freely socialize with each other for an hour. The leader should greet and chat with every member of the group, asking them about their lives and sincerely sympathize with their misfortunes when someone is experiencing them.

When the group disbands from the meeting place, no other official group activities should be scheduled for that day. If individuals want to meet up afterwards, they can do so as individuals. When conflicts occur (as they inevitably will), they will be limited to the individuals involved and not reflect on the group or its mission.

Once a year, the group should gather for a feast. (They may need a bigger venue for this.) They should invite non-members who share their beliefs at no cost as a display of their generosity. The food should be communal and involve buffet-style covered dishes and some grand dish, like a pig on a spit. This may seem unnecessary, but there is something subconsciously unifying about a communal meal.

One may wonder how to find people interested in forming such speechmaking groups. One idea is to meet them through Counter-Currents. Another is what I call night runs. Basically, you go jogging after dark in a major city on a busy street that is safe. Wear a wristband, and if you see another white guy jogging and wearing one as well (women shouldn’t try this, for safety’s sake), then run alongside him and ask if you can jog along with him at a conversational pace. Bring up political topics and see what his opinions are. Exchange information and determine whether he is pro-white and sincere in his interactions. You never know — he may be trying the same thing, or he could be an infiltrator. It may be best to carry some sort of legal weapon for self-defense if you decide to try this. Maybe some commenters can think of better ways to meet people.

Another idea is to meet in the metaverse with voice-obscuring software, but such groups would be vulnerable to feds trying to stir people into saying illegal things.

It’s hard to get people together these days. Groups that stick to the Toastmasters model may be hard to form and keep going, but it’s better than waiting for a lightning strike somewhere.

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:

Paywall Gift Subscriptions

[11]If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:

To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.