Category: Codreanu

The Strategic Objective

Nietzsche’s child rather than lion (or camel) – a constructive thesis.

Let’s first consider two points that form the foundation of the thesis of this post.

Point 1. A primary objective of terrorism and guerrilla warfare is to provoke repressive measures from the government, which will negatively affect the population, alienating and radicalizing that population, and turning them against the government.

This is generally true, and as I recall was favorably mentioned by Pierce in The Turner Diaries.

Note that while this statement derives from historical examples of political violence, it can also apply to memetic “terrorism” and “warfare” as well.  Thus, discussion of Point 1 does not in any way imply advocacy of actual physical terrorism or guerrilla warfare (which are, by the way, primarily performed by the political Left), but instead illustrates the point – the historically demonstrated fact – that provoking a government to repress its people typically generates hatred of the people toward that government, to the benefit of the adversaries of that government.

Point 2. Revolutions typically do not take place during the time of the greatest repression, but rather occur when that repression is suddenly relaxed.

This point (previously mentioned at this blog) is also generally true.  Note that the System either consciously or unconsciously recognizes this to be so, since its reaction to Trumpism and the brief rise of the Alt Right has been to viciously double down on the repression and on its anti-White narrative. They have absolutely rejected the path of concessions and reconciliation.

Obviously, Points 1 and 2 are not fully compatible with each other, which allows a prudent strategy of provocation to present to the System a dilemma manifested by a choice between two unpleasant, and ultimately destructive, alternatives.

If the System responds to Far Right provocations with increasing repression – and it is fundamentally important that the repression must be distributed among at least a sizable fraction of the White population and not just tightly targeted to the Far Right – then it will alienate and radicalize that portion of the population (Whites) on which the System’s own effective function, and its overall long-term viability, depends.  The System will lose moral authority as it props itself up by using the same terror it purports to fight.  

With the loss of moral authority comes more resistance, and while Revolution per se may not occur during this period of great repression, the loss of moral authority, and the cycle of repression, hatred, resistance, and more repression cannot go on forever. Eventually a breaking point will be reached in which the System can no longer be tenable while repressing and attacking the very population necessary for ensuring the System’s efficient maintenance; the System will either break down and collapse under the weight of what is essentially a runaway, and ultimately fatal, autoimmune reaction (i.e., attacking its own body after being exposed to an antigen), or it will be forced to attempt to salvage the situation by making concessions, leading us to Point 2. 

On the other hand, if the System wants to avoid the scenario of Point 1, sensing that if it pushes Whites too far and too fast it will eventually lose everything, or if tries repression and it fails, and it starts making concessions (relaxing the repression, Point 2), then the System loses moral authority by looking weak, tacitly admitting that its Far Right adversary has legitimacy, and admitting that White interests and White opposition to the System are at least partially valid.  This will lead to a “snowball” effect as increasing concessions lead to increasing legitimacy for White demands and thus further concessions, undermining the System’s whole raison d’etre of anti-Whiteness.  

As long as the Far Right is prudent enough to keep up the pressure, keep up the demands, keep up the provocations, keep up the memetic war, keep on “heightening the contradictions,” then the loss of moral authority for the System will become irreversible and lead to the loss of political, economic, and social authority as well.  Keep in mind that Coloreds, with their sense of entitlement and hatred of Whites, will see any concessions to White interests as a betrayal by the System (which they see, all grievance rhetoric aside, as THEIR System), further weakening the System’s moral authority, and making the System have to choose between placating sets of incompatible tribal interests. The endpoint is collapse, perhaps from different mechanisms as the collapse of Point 1, but collapse nevertheless.

The System would try to solve this dilemma by doing what it is doing now – attempting to specifically target repression to a relatively small subset of Whites, including the Far Right itself, while slowing down White dispossession enough so as to “boil the frog slowly.”  More recently, with the hysterical reaction to Trumpism, this strategy is starting to fray, and repression is more and more leaking out to the general White population.  In a very real sense, that general repression has always been with us – forced integration, affirmative action, racial double standards, mass immigration, political correctness, social pricing, hate crimes laws, hate speech laws in Europe, etc. – but it is becoming more obvious now.  This demonstrates the validity of this post’s general thesis – if something as mild as Trumpism, and as inept as the Alt Right, could provoke the System as much as it has, and “dropped the mask” to the general White population, what would a serious and strategic strategy of (memetic) Far Right provocation achieve?  Thus, any movement would need to create conditions so that backlash against it would affect Whites outside of that movement, so as to put “in play” the various processes outlined in this post. For example, serious and authentic community activism and political engagement would create ties between the Far Right and the broader White population, so that repression targeted at the former would be necessity negatively affect the latter.  Of course, we need intelligent, disciplined, and rational Type II activists to plan these strategies; Type I activists have demonstrated, time and again, their inability to effectively manage (or even attempt) these approaches.

Before we conclude with an outline of things to do, let us briefly consider: how could an alternative System – for example, a racial nationalist System – avoid being placed in the sort of dilemma outlined here?  Simple: by representing the interests of the people, by supporting majority rights rather than that of minorities, by making Whites into authentic stakeholders in the System and its well-being.  Whites have long since stopped being authentic stakeholders in the current System, in any real sense, long ago.

What to do? The following have been discussed at this blog in detail previously, but briefly we can summarize:

1. Build a legionary cadre.  No defectives, no Alt Right lulzers, no obsessives and fetishists, no zombies mindlessly parroting “movement” dogma, but hardcore, “vanguardist” political soldiers, truly vetted (extremely!) and put through years of long apprenticeship, a genuine movement akin to that of Codreanu, a pan-European Brotherhood that will form the core of the undermining of the old System and the creation of a new one.  And guess what?  This is not talked about in “interviews” with the media, it is not recruited online in sniggering “forums,” it is instead done privately and prudently, slowly, carefully, and with forethought.  Obviously, the existence of such an organization would not be a secret, just as the existence of the CIA, MI6, KGB, and GRU were not secrets, but the inner workings of the group, by analogy to those others, would of course be hidden from the public.  

2. Community activism.  Real community activism is done, not talked about.  It is done as much as possible “under the radar.”  You do not broadcast it to mocking media operatives, you don’t go through the motions for the sake of a quick blog post, this is not something done overnight.  True community activism is for the long-term, it is a work of years, it is done to help the community, not with an attitude of expecting an immediate compensation – the idea of compensation should not come into it at all. Of course, community activism by its nature cannot be kept secret; the point is that such activism is its own publicity – in other words, it becomes known because it occurs and it is effective, it is its own advertisement, it doesn’t become known because activists spend more time talking to the media than they do actually helping people.

3. Metapolitics and infrastructure. Metapolitics has been discussed endlessly by the Far Right, and so there is no need to repeat all of that here. Such activity is essential, as long as it is fresh, creative, and open-minded, and not merely the regurgitation of fossilized “movement” dogma.  We need real infrastructure to carry out our objectives, approaches to defeat social pricing, funding that goes beyond tin cup panhandling but actual involves earning money through some sort of productivity, service, and/or representation, we need lawyers (and not to drive them out of the “movement”), we need businessmen, doctors, academics, plumbers, mechanics, schoolteachers, politicians, we need a recreated and actualized society. By the way, metapolitics should include Salter’s democratic multiculturalism, which overlaps with both community activism and electoral politics.

4. Electoral politics. This has three purposes.  First, education, propaganda, and recruitment.  Second, provocation, heightening the contradictions, undermining the System, promoting chaos and balkanization.  Third, if elected, these people can not only leverage their office for the preceding two purposes, but also to protect the movement as much as possible,

5. Rallies, etc. – false-flag and genuine. False-flag rallies are meant as a distraction, to focus attention of adversaries to the open and superficial “cosplay actors on the street” as opposed to the more serious work going on elsewhere.  It would still need to be credible, to be viewed as a genuine threat and so worthy of attention, and also so as not to repulse Whites interested in joining the cause.  Later on, with the success of the other objectives 1-4 above, rallies and mass meetings, of a highly professional nature (even more so that the false-flag ones), can occur for all the positives such events can genuinely provide to a real and growing firmly established movement.

Advertisements

This is Serious

This all needs to change.

Thus, my recent supposition – made at the time with no knowledge of the details of these affairs whatsoever – that Morgan joining Counter-Currents is somehow fundamental to this feud has turned out to be correct.

I have no idea whether the accusations made in this post are true or false.  I have no idea whether the accusations made against Friberg are true or false. I have no definite idea whether O’Meara’s accusations against Spencer in the comments thread are true or false, but I believe the accusation that Spencer is a “CIA asset” is patently absurd.  Of course, I have no evidence that it’s not so.  I also have no evidence that Spencer isn’t really an alien from a planet circling a red supergiant star in the Andromeda galaxy.  Some things are more or less likely than others.  And read more through the comments section.  Besides the anti-Spencer “CIA plant” ranting, we also see rude and vulgar attacks against Greg Johnson (similar to the vile crap at Majority Rights), who is an excellent writer and nationalist theorist (albeit one who has soured on Sallis, but, hey, no one is perfect), other back-and-forth personal attacks, and the like.  All about personality; nothing about ideology.


Greg Johnson’s response.


I’ll give credit to Greg for this:


But the only way to “win” these sorts of public battles is not to get involved in the first place. And since I obviously failed at that, the second best option is to stop them before they escalate any further. So, for my part, it stops here.


I hope that’s correct.  But the Friberg-Spencer side have their arguments as well, and much of that focuses on Morgan.  Again, it seems to me as an outsider here that Morgan switching to Counter-Currents was an initiator of this sorry sequence of events.


Greg also writes:

And since criticism is inevitable, isn’t it better to get it from our friends now than from our enemies later?


Er…yes.  Exhibit one: Ted Sallis’ criticism of the “movement.”


And although I grant that there is definitely a place for barbs and mockery in driving home a well-argued point or skewering pretense and folly…


So, it’s not always “crazed bitterness?”

Apparently, there are no real consequences for wrongdoing in this movement. 


I’ve been saying that for years.  That’s what you get with a dysfunctional “movement” with affirmative action “leadership.”


A movement that seeks the renewal of white civilization should, at the very least, try to maintain a few minimum standards of civilized behavior. But the movement today resembles a post-apocalyptic wasteland in which warlords and their gangs fight for spoils.


Exactly.  And therefore isn’t vehement criticism of such a “movement” – including “barbs and mockery” – justified in “skewering” the “pretense and folly” of such a “movement?”


The original of this post was written before Greg Johnson’s response.  This version of my essay is not substantially different from this version (hardly different at all) – I still do not know who is right or wrong (both sides make plausible arguments but show minimal concrete evidence and I am not taking sides).  I am glad though I waited so I could link to Greg’s riposte. However, as you will see as I make my argument below, it really does not matter who is more in the right and more in the wrong here.  Someone here did wrong and the entire episode is a blight on the Alt Right and by extension the “movement” that the Alt Right has, unfortunately, become the predominant element in.  


For all these people’s criticisms and ignoring of that crazy shit-stirrer Ted Sallis, they are, by far – by an order of magnitude or more – “stirring the shit” more than I ever have.  And my “shit stirring” has always been about substantive issues – ideology or “movement” defectives and their unethical behavior. It’s not been a “movement catfight” of folks hurling accusations against each other.

And to me all these explanations seem incomplete.  Not that it matters for my final thesis of this post, but: what was the true origination of the Johnson-Spencer feud that seems to have predated this latest imbroglio? Why did Morgan leave Arktos for Counter-Currents? From an ideological standpoint, how does all of this background drama affect, for example, the (in my opinion unfortunate) embrace of narrow ethnonationalism by some of the people involved over the last few years?

Let us crudely divide the combatants in two camps.  First, we have the Spencer-Friberg-Jorjani-Arktos camp and then we have the Johnson-Morgan-O’Meara Counter-Currents camp.  Some very serious accusations and counter-accusations have been made in both directions.  As I’ve said, I have no idea where the truth lies here. I previously asserted on this blog that Spencer and Johnson should settle their differences for the good of racial nationalism; this obviously does not appear likely to occur.

What are the broad implications here?  Now, it is of course very possible that the storylines of both sides are mixtures of truth and falsehood.  Reality – particularly in these sorts of internal squabbles – is never so clear cut that one side is all pure moral goodness and the other side pure evil.  For example, imagine that the Counter-Currents side is mostly correct, but O’Meara’s accusation about Spencer is not true (which I believe it is not). Or maybe some of the Counter-Currents folks were bad-mouthing Friberg. On the other hand, if the Arktos side is essentially correct, it is still possible they are exaggerating and embellishing the “crimes” of the other side and taking things out of context.

However – and this is the key pint – it is HIGHLY improbable, to the point of impossibility, that each side’s storyline is an exactly equal distribution of truth and falsehood; exactly 50:50.  In fact, it’s far more likely that one side is completely right and the other completely wrong than it is for there to be an essentially equal distribution of mixed truth and falsehood. In other words, it is most likely that one side of this conflict is mostly telling the truth (even if some embellishments and misleading “spin” is thrown in) and is in the right, and the other side is mostly lying and is in the wrong.  Oh, I guess it is theoretically possible the whole thing started out as a misunderstanding – but don’t you think that rational and disinterested players would have realized this and settled the matter by now if that was really the case? The situation is only getting worse – suggesting there is “real meat” to some of the accusations and/or there are some strong (financial) interests at stake.

As I said I do not know which side is the one mostly right.  And maybe, just maybe, in the broad scheme of things, it does not really matter.

What does matter is this.  If my understanding is correct and one side here – whichever side it is – is essentially in the wrong, that means that one major component of the Alt Right, one major faction of Der Movement, is in fact guilty of (some of) the serious accusations made against it.  From my perspective it really doesn’t matter which side it is – since I’m opposed to the Alt Right in general and opposed to Der Movement as it currently exists as well.

But, let us agree – both sides cannot be essentially right and ethical at the same time. Someone has done (serious) wrong; someone has been engaging in unethical subterfuge at the expense of the good of racial nationalism as a whole.  And, truth be told, even the (relatively) “innocent” faction (whichever it is) is not handling the situation well, as both sides are escalating the feud – the Arktos side keeps on running anti-Counter Currents articles at AltRight.com, while O’Meara is accusing Spencer of being a CIA plant.  They keep on “airing dirty laundry.”  So, even the “innocent” side – whichever it is – is in fact behaving more destructively than the dreaded Sallis ever has, with my tongue-in-cheek mocking ridicule of “movement” stupidities (which as we see has been justified).  They claim they are “restraining themselves,” threatening they could “disclose even more.” That’s great.  It’s a public site, read by everyone and anyone; keep it up, it’s obviously doing us all a world of good.


And guess what?  I could “disclose” many things as well, but choose not to do so.  What would it achieve?

Yes, the Alt Right spurns Sallis, thinks Sallis is crazy, and ignores Sallis. That’s great; you know, at this point, with all of this going on, I’ll consider it a compliment.


Indeed, as Johnson writes:


All things considered, though, it is better to sacrifice personal friendships than to weaken the movement as a whole.

Yes, indeed.  See the last few years of EGI Notes.

I for one do not have any financial interests in activism, I earn zero money from it (it is actually an opportunity cost taking time away from other endeavors) and I’m a third party disinterested observer to this whole mess. Do not misunderstand: I do not begrudge overt full-time activists from earning a living from activism.  Obviously, they must do so and they should do so.  In fact, if we want high-quality full time activists we need a situation where at minimum they can have a comfortable middle class existence, etc. But this should not be achieved through vicious squabbling over financial resources, unethical behavior, and the like (I also do not like constant Alt Wrong panhandling so that kosher conservative “activists” earn exuberant six figure professional-scale salaries while funneling money into the pockets of “writers” who are race-mixing child porn apologists).  From what I can see this feud is NOT over ideology or any grand statements of principle. It’s about personality, it’s about claims to leadership, it’s about the resources (such as they are) of Arktos, and it’s about money.

If it was actually about ideology and principle, then it would be at least understandable, if regrettable. But it is not.

And, I must say – the “rank and file” “movement” “activists” are to blame for this fiasco as well.  It are they who enable the “leadership,” it are they who add fuel to the fire of the feuds, it are they who keep on propping up a failed “movement” instead of looking elsewhere to people offering an alternative.

Fact is – one year after its “breakthrough” the Alt Right is a feuding muddy mess.  Who was skeptical of the Alt Right?  Who has been skeptical of Der Movement and its leaders?  Was this the same “crazy” and “bitter” person who warned you all that Trump was a vulgar beta cuck buffoon?

That’s OK though.  Double down on the Alt Right, scream “Hail Kek!,” draw some more Pepe cartoons, and let the affirmative action train keep on rolling along.  Here’s a comment from someone who understands.  Excerpt:

I don’t identify as Alt-Right – after all it isn’t an organised movement and has no clear manifesto, it’s a free for all of undisciplined rabble. It’s perfectly possibly to be Right wing and not Alt-Right. I think you find that the majority of Right wing people would never associate with such a trashy bunch of people. Teenagers might enjoy memes, but I think you will find that the adults have all the money…

All the rest of you get the “leadership” you deserve.  And you obviously are deserving of what you have.  Enjoy.

And let me rewrite this Johnson comment:

If the best among us had any conviction, people like Daniel Friberg would have never grown into the menace that he is today. If the best among us had any conviction, they would speak out against him. If the best among us had any conviction, then the worst among us — people like Friberg, Spencer, and Forney — would have no audience for their lies and no platform from which to broadcast them. They would have no credibility, no friends, no supporters, no authors, no podcasters, and the sole audience of the tabloid freak show at Altright.com would be the chan nihilists and Left-wing press they so eagerly cultivate.


As:

If the best among us had any conviction, people like Der Movement’s “leadership” would have never grown into the menace that they are today. If the best among us had any conviction, they would speak out against them. If the best among us had any conviction, then the worst among us — people like the “leadership” that’s failed us continuously for many decades — would have no audience for their lies and no platform from which to broadcast them. They would have no credibility, no friends, no supporters, no authors, no podcasters, and the sole audience of their tabloid freak show at Altright.com would be the Game/HBD/Nutzi nihilists and anti-racist freaks they so eagerly cultivate as show opposition.


My advice to third party observers such as myself: be patient and wait until the Alt Right contagion, burns itself out.  This is, by the way, we need something like Codreanu’s Legion; we need the New Man, ethical and moral leadership. not something accurately described as a “freak show.”


Delenda est Alt Right.  This episode is a perfect reason why.

A Diaspora Future For Whites?

A similar viewpoint.

I’ll chalk up the similarity of this piece to my essay here with the old adage: “great minds think alike.”

Putting aside the issue of memetic precedence and considering content, I believe the fundamental idea underlying both pieces need to be taken into serious consideration by those few serious-thinking activists.  Our future may well be more like For My Legionaries and A People That Shall Dwell Alone than The Turner Diaries or some other piece of chest-thumping “movement” nonsense.

In Praise of Extremists

A critique of mainstreaming from Counter-Currents.

This seems to me a reasonably forceful criticism of mainstreaming, and I of course agree wholeheartedly:

Vanguardism must be repeatedly emphasized, because the instinct of every politician seems to do the exact opposite. Politicians are inveterate panderers and flatterers of the public mind, which unfortunately has been completely molded by our enemies for generations. Politicians follow the people. Vanguardists seek to lead them. Politicians take public opinion as a given. Vanguardists seek to change it. Politicians always seek to soften their message to appeal to the public. Vanguardists realize this is folly. If one attracts lukewarm followers who are in only partial agreement, then under normal circumstances, you will be fighting with them as much as with your opponents — and when things get tough, they will sheer off and leave you alone anyway.

That’s what I’ve been preaching for years – mainstreaming, at its best, will leave you with support a mile wide and an inch deep.  I’d rather have the opposite: support only an inch wide, but a mile deep, and then take the time to expand that mile deep support ever wider. Greg seems to agree; thus:

Thus Vanguardists realize that there is no real substitute for the slow, painstaking, and difficult work of converting a significant minority of our people to our way of thinking. We have to uphold a radical and absolute vision and then bring as many of our people around as possible.

Yes, indeed.  Less Le Pen and more Golden Dawn. Less Trump and more Salter. Less Alt Right/Alt Lite/Alt Wrong and more EGI Notes.  Let’s talk about the ideas of Yockey rather than obsess over cartoon frogs or civic nationalist political candidates.  How about more emphasis on Codreanu and the Legionary movement and less emphasis on how to boost Marine Le Pen’s vote totals?

And then we have this:

 
We should follow the old Roman maxim, “Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re”: suave, supple, and infinitely pragmatic and persuasive in style — yet firm and steadfast, indeed adamantine and dogmatic about essential principles.

Which is exactly what I’ve been saying for a long time. Modifying rhetoric and tone?  Certainly. After all, the hard tone of this blog is not meant for the general public.  But modifying core principles?  Absolutely not. And even if we wanted to do so, it doesn’t work.  Mainstreaming fails, time and time again.

…extremists are important. Cultural and political innovations take place on the extremes, at the margins, and then are diffused to — or imposed upon — the mainstream. Thus we should treasure extremists. We should cultivate them. We should encourage their creativity. 

I certainly agree.  I would like to see this attitude actualized.

Then we should steal their best memes and spread them far and wide.

If only people in the “movement” would steal my best memes and spread them far and wide. Please do.

And foremost among those memes is that the “movement” is a complete failure, needs to be deconstructed, and reconstructed starting with first principles.

A Durocherian View on Romania

Makes sense from a mainstreaming view.

This is what Inspector Durocher believes is a politically-incorrect Romanian patriot:

He is pro-Jew, pro-Gypsy, anti-Hitler, and anti-Iron Guard


Just like communist informer Sir Chicken-wire is a Hungarian patriot, eh?