Category: communism

The Movement Tripod

Tripod of victory.

Recently, I criticized Walker’s pro-mainstreaming Counter-Currents piece on populism. There’s a saying: don’t criticize unless you provide a solution, a better way of doing things, an alternative. Therefore, I’ll present my “triangle of activism’ that provides a balanced platform for achieving our goals.  Note that Walker’s meme is actually one the points of the triangle, one of the legs of the tripod.  My objection to Walker’s thesis is that he apparently views it as the primary, or sole, approach we should take, a major strategic approach, while in actuality it should be only one component – and that the least important – of an integrated revolutionary Movement.  

Why a triangle?

Soviet defector V. Rezun has written of the triangular structure of the Soviet system – Party, Army, KGB – being a source and stability (*):

A triangle is the strongest and most rigid geometric figure. If the planks of a door which you have knocked together begin to warp, nail another plank diagonally across them. This will divide your rectangular construction into two triangles and the door will then have the necessary stability. 

The triangle has been used in engineering for a very long time. Look at the Eiffel tower, at the metal framework of the airship Hindenburg, or just at any railway bridge, and you will see that each of these is an amalgamation of thousands of triangles, which give the structure rigidity and stability. 

The triangle is strong and stable, not only in engineering but in politics, too. Political systems based on division of power and on the interplay of three balancing forces have been the most stable throughout history.

Multiculturalism is destroying the American system, also put on a tripartite structure of Federal, Legislative, and Judicial, but that structure nevertheless also has demonstrate remarkable staying power overtime.

I propose the following Movement tripod:

1. The Elite: this is the hardcore vanguardist (avant-garde) element that constitutes the most important part of the triangle, the focal leg of the tripod, and the top of the pyramid.  This element is not so much concerned with policy positions and such details, but instead provides leadership, unalterable fundamental principles, moral and spiritual guidance, commitment and discipline, and the impetus for creation of the New Man and raciocultural renewal.  As a model for what this Elite should be like: Codreanu’s Legion.

2. The Movement: this is also vanguardist, but not the hardcore Elite; the Movement constitutes the shock troops, the main group of political soldiers who implement the principles and objectives set forth by the Elite.  It is at this level that policy positions and other details are formulated, guided by the Elite’s hardcore principles; it is this level that provides the human material for the Elites, it is this level that overlaps both the higher Elite level and the lower Mass level with respect to actualizing the “mass movement” aspects of the endeavor.  If Der Movement was to be reconstructed sanely, it would serve as the basis for this level – but as it currently exists Der Movement cannot constitute any part of this tripod structure.

3. The Mass: this is what Walker talks about, this is the mainstreaming, populist leg of the tripod, that reaches out to the people, engages in mass politics, recruits for the Movement, and makes the tactical alliances and compromises without affecting the strategic goals and ideological fervor of the Elites and the Movement.

Each of these three focal points serves a purpose. Each is necessary. Each is incomplete without the other two. But they are not of equal importance.  In biological terms, the Elite is akin to the stem cells of the overall Movement.  If it exists and thrives, it can over time efficiently reconstitute the other two parts of the system.  However, if the stem cells are lost, the organism’s only hope for survival is for some differentiated cells to dedifferentiate and reform the stem cell pool.  That’s a tricky process; here one would have to hope that the Movement leg of the tripod could somehow generate a new Elite- but even so there’s the chance that core principles would become “mutated” and who knows what make take its place. The Elite is of prime importance, but without the Movement, the Elite is like a head with no body, and the Mass  – the people – are ultimately what the Elite (and Movement) want to save (or at least the better parts of them). The Mass without the Elite and the Movement is just an atomized herd, and the Movement without the Elite is a headless body, and the Movement without the Mass loses its purpose.

Just like the cells of the body, each plays a role.  None should proliferate out of control – cancer – imperiling the entire body.  Walker’s thesis is just this type of cancer.

*Yes, the Soviet Union collapsed – but that was due to the unworkable stupidity of Marxism and the fact that – as Yockey noted – “rationalist” (and Jewish) Marxism is alien to the “Russian soul” – Russia making up the core of the old USSR.  The System as such was stable, but the underlying foundation it was built on was nonsense and in the end no one cared enough about it to stick with it when it crumbled.  Considering how flawed the Marxist foundation was, the fact that the Soviet system lasted three quarters of a century, surviving Stalin, World War II, and several decades of Cold War, is evidence supporting Rezun’s thesis.

Advertisements

Time for Some Plain Speaking on Trad Vlad and Other Things

Things that need to be said.
As someone who recently criticized Strom’s pro-Putin broadcast, and has been an opponent of the “movement’s” pathetic blushing schoolgirl crush on bare-chested macho man Trad Vlad, I’ve noted the recent dust-up at Counter Currents over Greg Johnson’s more comprehensive critique of Strom and comments on the whole Russia/Ukraine mess.
I side with Johnson in this instance (*). The whole thing is becoming ludicrous, a pathological form of unrequited love.  The pro-Putin arguments are easily dismissed.  We are told that Russia has always been multiracial, and that a “White supremacist” (sic) policy would destroy Russia.  Can’t the same be said about America?  With Amerindians and Negroes around since the very beginning, is America then to be identified with multiculturalism? Are American WNs delusional? If errors were made in the past, does this mean error must continue in the future?  Does past multiracialism doom a nation and its majority population to ever-growing diversity and racial displacement? White Americans have the right to demand an ethnostate, regardless of whether this would destroy multiracial America; White Russians have that same right. Preservation of race trumps preservation of state.  This also ignores the fact that Putin’s Eurasianist policies are making the problem worse – his ideals are actively working in favor of the Asianization of Russia. Putin is therefore no different from any aracial “conservative Republican” in the USA, who could justify mass immigration by citing America’s multiracial history.  Of course, the ethnoracial core of America has always been European, with an Anglo-Saxon founding stock. Russia has always had a Slavic-Russian core, and that core is demographically endangered by Putin’s racial policies.
Then we have the argument that Johnson is unfairly critiquing Putin because Trad Vlad is not “ideologically pure” – suggesting that the bare-chested macho man is practically pro-White, it’s just that he deviates from “ideological purity” from time to time.  That’s nonsense – Putin is a dedicated anti-racist and anti-fascist (using fascism in its real historical sense, not merely as a modern-day expletive), he is an aracial conservative, a “civic nationalist” who doesn’t believe Russian ethnicity is a prerequisite for Russian nationalism.  It’s not the case that he is merely a practical-minded ethnic nationalist – his regime actively persecutes real Russian ethnic nationalists.  Putin is not on the other side of America. He’s part of the same multicultural global system.  The US vs. Russia disagreement is NOT a fundamental disagreement over differing worldviews – it is instead more like the Democrat vs. Republican squabbling here in America: two entities that share the same basic worldview and similar overarching goals, but who are merely competing for the spoils, for power and prestige.  It’s the “in-your-face” Western degenerate multiculturalism vs. the more restrained and implicit Russian multiculturalism.  It’s arguable which is worse – possibly, the Russian form is more dangerous since it is more subtle and a less obvious enemy – to the point that WNs fall for the charade.
Then we have the argument that Ukraine will never be independent, that Ukraine is a historical fiction, that we have to make a choice between an American/Jewish-dominated Ukraine and a Russian-dominated one.  I’ll let the Ukrainians themselves defend their historical legitimacy as a people; however, I will note that this technique of delegitimizing a people’s identity is an approach often used by anti-racist globalists and multiculturalists. As regards realpolitik, it is true that the Ukrainian revolution, such as it is, has been compromised. I’ve previously said that WNs really don’t have a dog in this fight (as usual). Russians vs. Ukrainians fighting among themselves for two sets of multicultural masters is a tragedy. But – unlike the schoolgirls professing their love for Trad Vlad – I’m not singing paeans of praise for the Ukrainian government, and neither is Johnson.  The issue goes beyond the immediate Russia vs. Ukraine issue – it gets to the heart of the stupidity and naivete of the “Old Movement” – the constant fixation on “the man on the white horse” (Nixon, Reagan, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Putin, etc.) who will “save us,” the constant delusions of seeing support where none exists, the poor judgment of embracing enemies as friends, and turning real friends into enemies.  The schoolgirl crush on Putin is symptomatic of deeper problems within the “movement.”  
Then we have the “he’s against the Jews” argument.  I’m not even going to debate the extent to which Putin is anti-Jewish.  My point is that a singular fixation on Jews is not healthy.  The “enemy of my enemies” is not necessarily my friend, it can simply be just another enemy.  This reminds me of the time, some years ago, when Pierce tried to convince me that the Soviet-apologist, post-USSR Russian communist party leader Gennady Zyuganov was a great guy worthy of support, since he was more “critical of the Jews” than the “puppet” Yeltsin.  I remember thinking, “this guy Pierce is so blinded by his single-minded fixation on Jews, he can’t see the forest for the trees.”  Yes, Yeltsin was no good, but so was (and is) Zyuganov and all the rest (***).  Real Russian nationalists are worthy of our support, not apologists for Stalin’s anti-Slav genocide.  To say that “there is no chance” for the real nationalists, just like “there is no chance Ukraine will ever be independent,” is similar to saying that, well, the White American ethnostate is just a silly dream and we all need to be practical and vote Rubio-Paul in 2016.  The “lesser of two evils” delusion has been a yoke on “movement” progress since the very beginning.
I say: No.  Sometimes, practicality and compromise are just fancy euphemisms for rank surrender. One has to draw a line somewhere.  Yes, the Ukrainians are heading in the wrong direction – NATO and the EU are anti-White horrors.  But Putin’s Eurasian Union is another anti-White horror. Yeltsin may have been a stooge, but the crimes of communism are such that any decent person should recoil from any association with that lunatic creed – to support a warmed-over Soviet because he may have said some odd comment about the Jews is stupid and juvenile.  This obsession with the anti-racist, anti-fascist, multicultural authoritarian Putin is also stupid and juvenile.  Let’s face reality: there is, currently, NO leader, anywhere in the world, that supports racial nationalism for any European people, or for Europeans as a whole.  There is NO nation that is a “bulwark for Whites.”  The USA and Russia are two sides of the same coin, and both rotten. A principled view is to say “a pox on both their houses” and not waste any precious time,energy, and resources in some sort of fit of unrequited love.
Plain talk: given what we currently know, given the facts before us, a pro-Putin attitude is indicative of immaturity, piss-poor judgment, and certainly not in accordance with what we stand for. There’s no point to it.  Putin doesn’t need or want WN support, it is inconsequential to what is happening, and the support has not been, and likely will never be, reciprocated.  WN support for Putin does nothing but compromise the moral, intellectual, and ideological integrity of racial nationalism. It makes us look foolish. It makes us look pathologically fixated on Jews.  It makes us look desperate, that we latch onto whatever world figure or celebrity that we deceive ourselves is “secretly one of us.”
This Putin crush is another manifestation of the sickness, the rot, eating away at the pitiful and pathetic travesty known as the “movement” – that morass of defectives that has accomplished nothing for endless decades (don’t forget Revilo Oliver castigating the “movement” for 50 years of failure – nearly 50 years ago).
The Old Movement needs to be uprooted, discarded, eliminated, so a more sane and rational New Movement can take its place.  No more delusions and false hopes.  It’s time to see reality as it truly is, and work our way from there.
Crush the infamy!
*Here I refer to the Johnson vs. Strom disagreement on Putin.  I am at this time not going to dwell on the moral catastrophe of letting mendacious anti-racist Silver comment at that blog, following in the self-destructive footsteps of Guessedworker (**). This is why maintaining moral integrity is important: tolerating the plagiarizing moral turd Andrew Hamilton leads to a slippery slope down to even worse fundamental errors.
**One reason why Majority Rights has degenerated into a desolate wasteland (compared to the better days of, say, 2005-2008) is Guessedworker’s tolerance of truly destructive “contributors” – both bloggers and commentators.
***I can’t be too hard on Pierce, since one can critique Yockey for much of the same.