It is lacking in racial nationalism.
The “movement” lacks a Tradition of Success. This problem cannot be over-stated. Success breeds success. Yes, it is true that you can learn from failure – although the “movement” seems incapable of doing so – but an excess of failure is poison to the growth of a dissident movement.
In contrast, success brings confidence, success brings followers (people love a winner), success brings resources, success provides a margin of error that allows the successful to take calculated risks (which is not the same as foolhardy risks) – the sort of high-risk/high-reward approaches that yield further success. It is important, absolutely crucial, to nurture success. When the “movement” “plans” things stupidly, when they set themselves up for failure, when they do things that you know in advance are going to fail, this leads to disillusionment, loss of morale, despair, a culture of failure. Just as success breeds success, failure breeds failure. Sometimes it seems like racialist activists are just going through the motions, doing things that they – and everyone else – know is going to end in failure, because they don’t know what else to do and despair of actually winning at anything. And the failure has been endless.
Revilo Oliver talking about 50 years of “movement” failure… 50 years ago. Consider David Duke leading and abandoning one organization after another – KKK, NAAWP, EURO (originally NOFEAR, which had its name legally challenged, which is another typical “movement” defeat paradigm – remember the Church of the Creator lawsuit name defeat); Duke’s legal problems (and that of Strom); Richard Spencer jumping from one failed project to another; Spencer forced to cancel his college speaking tour; cancelled conferences (Amren, VDARE, NPI, etc.); Spencer and others being physically attacked in public with impunity; Spencer’s Budapest meeting fiasco; public rallies in which the rightists are typically outnumbered, attacked, and ritually humiliated; Johnson deciding to focus on YouTube just as YouTube is censoring the Right; all the feuds and fall-outs; the outrageous embarrassment of the “extreme vetting” infiltrations – including having a (transparent) infiltrator invited to give a speech on the “dangers of infiltrators” and being allowed to participate in the vetting process; the destructive stupidities of Kessler; the Heimbach-Parrot comedy; the Man on White Horse Syndrome error repeated again and again; the failures of overt neo-Nazis like Rockwell and Pierce, defeats, losses, back-tracks, and social pricing; Derek Black turning on the “movement” and against his father’s ideals; the deplatforming; the failed gamble on mainstreaming in Europe. When is the last time the “movement” – particularly in America – had a clear success? I suppose that Amren occasionally holds successful conferences – as long as the police do their job and as long as judges don’t impose conditions inimical to the conference (e.g., allowing violent leftist thugs direct access to the venue). But that small-scale sporadic success – which has not been consistently reproducible – is not enough, not by a long shot. And no, the election of the fraud Trump is not a “success” of the “movement”- and even if Trump is sincere, his election was due to forces independent of the Pepe/Kek crowd.
Now, I understand that sometimes calculated (not foolhardy) risks need to be taken. I understand that sometimes a dissident movement can benefit from a “glorious failure” – a practical defeat that serves as a rallying cry, as a moral victory to galvanize support. Pierce spoke of Mathews and the failed crusade of The Order as such an example. Yockey’s own personal crusade ended in jailhouse suicide. And there is the end of WWII, with remnants of the SS – including the French Charlemagne division – making a last stand in the ruins of Berlin. That’s true. But, first, one cannot build a successful movement on endless failure, even “glorious failure,” and, second, most examples of “movement” failure are not inspiring moral victories. Unite the Right (I or II) was not a heroic defense of the Fuhrerbunker; Patrik Hermannson’s infiltration was not Francis Parker Yockey’s lonely last decision; Spencer getting elbowed in the face was not Mathews’ last stand on Whidbey Island. So let’s get real here. There comes a time when success needs to be “baked into” the plans, to pursue prudent courses of action that directly channel activity in successful directions.
1. Most activity, particularly at early stages of development (where racial activism is still stuck at, due to decades of endless failure), needs to be designed so it has a very high probability of success. While low risk/high reward is of course optimal, such scenarios are rare (short-term). I would suggest frequent low risk/low reward activities to build up a tradition of success and a “habit of winning” (with as many low risk/moderate reward activities as are possible). All those “low rewards” can build up into something substantial; constant small (net) gains are helpful. With such success achieved, consistently and reproducibly, moderate risk/moderate reward approaches can then be advanced.
I’d like to point out that while low risk/high reward activities are rare in the short-term, the ability to leverage risk to reward increases with a long-term time horizon. Community-building and infrastructure-building activities can in the long run be high reward, but can be achieved with relatively low risk (or at least low-to-moderate risk) when performed slowly over time. One needs to be patient. Rome was not built in a day. Not everything needs to be immediate gratification.
2. Avoid foolhardy activities; avoid like a plague those activities with a high probability of failure. Most of all, avoid activities in which the reward is always lower than the risk – e.g., low to moderate rewards coupled to moderate to high risk. Unite the Right is a perfect example of a negative imbalance of risk to reward.
3. Eventually, when one builds up a sufficient “store-house” of success, one can spend some of that capital on calculated (not foolhardy) risks – activities with a high reward that may have moderate to high risk. But these must be planned very carefully, and never should be “all or nothing.”
In all cases, risk mitigation should always be practiced and all reasonably conceivable contingencies planned for.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Greg Johnson believes the embarrassing Unite the Right II fiasco was a “triumph”
To summarize his “argument” – Kessler and his merry little band “triggered” the dastardly Left into exposing their distorted selves to all the “normies.” Sorry, I don’t buy it, Greg, and here is why.
Healthy-minded people already know the Left are hateful freaks. That’s not the major issue. The major issue is that normal people have either lost hope or they think that “voting Republican” solves the problem. What the Far Right needs to do is:
1. Show that the Left is not invincible; they can be defeated. Victory is possible, so the healthy masses should not give in to apathy or despair.
2. Demonstrate that the Far Right, and only the Far Right, is capable of defeating the Left. The GOP, Trump, cuckservatives, civic nationalists, etc. cannot do so. Only the Racial Right can provide victory.
What Quota Queen Kessler achieved with Unite the Right II is to strengthen the appearance of the power, inevitability, and invincibility of the Left, and the pathetic powerlessness, isolation, and “representing the dead past” sad aura of the Far Right. Unite the Right II may have emphasized leftist freakishness, but that only serves to increase White despair, as the freaks emerged dominant and triumphant, while the Right scurried away, tail between their legs, protected by the police.
Unite the Right I was a disaster, but at least there the Far Right was represented by the System as a dangerously powerful – albeit sinister – force. Unite the Right II just made pro-White racial activism look weak and pathetic. To paraphrase Saint Adolf: the masses are like women, they respect and crave (male) strength, and despise (male) weakness.
In summary: exposing the Left as deranged freaks does not weaken them. They and their supporters – which includes the System apparatus – revel in the freakishness, which they consider “being on the right side of history.” As stated above, healthy-minded “normies” already know what the Left is about, and are tired of seeing the Left always win and the Right always lose. Standing up to the freaks with a show of strength, determination, numbers, and vigor would have been a success for the Far Right, breaking the Left’s aura of inevitability. Even a “glorious defeat” – going down fighting – would have been something positive. But this? This? A tiny hapless group shepherded by police? It was just another typical failed “movement” rally, no different from the endless parade of failure that has made American Nutzis into a laughingstock, a punching bag for the Left.
And by the way Kessler and Johnson, the “Gandhian non-violent” movement in India engaged in mass passive resistance and civil disobedience, and they were not afraid to suffer attack by their opponents. They did not hide behind the police; they did not beg for help from the same System they wanted to overthrow. If you want to be “Gandhian” then act “Gandhian” – not Rockwellian, which is more the truth of the matter. I do not support the Gandhian approach, but if that’s your “grand new idea,” then at least be honest about it; be authentic.
Finally, I can’t help but think that if Kessler was a Spencer ally – or, even “worse,” if Spencer himself was involved in the action – then Johnson would be denouncing Unite the Right II as a failure. But, alas, Kessler and Spencer had a falling out, so Kessler is “good” – blah, blah, blah. Plus, there’s some solidarity among the quota crew (excepting the cases of major feuds) – it does no good if activists recognize Kessler as an affirmative action product – after all, if they recognize that, maybe others would be also recognized as such as well? And we can’t have that!