Category: movement

Barriers to Entry

Saying something positive about Pierce.

Readers of this blog know I am critical of Pierce and his ideology and approach. With respect to the latter, I have a negative view of his move to the isolated mountains of West Virginia (WV), and I also looked with a skeptical eye at the methods Pierce used to evaluate potential Local Unit Coordinators (LUCs) (the details of which I will not describe on a public forum, other to say that I used to term his methods “the Tom Sawyer approach” – make of that what you will).

However, let me say something positive about some of these characteristics of Pierce’s approach.  By locating out in the middle of nowhere (besides the physical security advantages), Pierce discouraged casual, amateur infiltrators; only the more professional and hardened infiltrators would be willing to travel to the “National Office.”  The vast majority of sincere National Alliance (NA) members never went out to the woods of WV, one cannot imagine most infiltrators doing so.

Consider the Hermansson infiltration.  He claimed (whether he really felt this way is another story) that he felt his safety was continuously in danger when dealing with the likes of Steadman, Jorjani, and Greg Johnson. What dangerous characters!  What were they going to do?  Blow a Viking horn at him?  Wave a copy of Ride the Tiger in front of his face?  Danger!  Danger! Can you imagine someone like Hermansson making the long trip to WV in the company of real hardcore Nutzis (*)?  Pierce making prospective LUCs “jump through the hoops” also was useful in weeding out the more casual of the insincere.

So, given what’s going on with today’s wonderful White nationalism 2.0, we can consider that Pierce effectively erected barriers to entry that discouraged many of the deceptive and defective.
Now, I still am of the belief that Pierce was wrong on balance. The NA would have done better had its “National Office” been “closer to civilization” (even with the negatives that would have brought, the positives would have outweighed it all), and whatever the benefits of his LUC screening, it did not do a good job of selecting people for competence, energy, and good character.

But, coming full circle, at least Pierce had enough sense to erect some barriers – to not just accept any White featherless biped claiming adherence to your cause.

So, let’s give credit where credit is due.

*Nutzi is not being pejorative in this sense; after all, I was – still am? – a Nutzi myself, albeit an intellectual Type II, rather than a “boots and runes” Type I.

Reform or Renewal

We need to pick renewal.  Tear it down!

While professional sports are inane “bread and circuses” distractions, they sometimes provide useful analogies for serious real-life political and social questions, or reflect problems extant in the broader society (e.g., racial conflict, drug use, etc.). As Griffin likes to use baseball analogies when writing for TOO, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, so I’ll do the same here.

Team success goes in cycles. A team will have a “window of contention” in which they are successful, but inevitably fall on hard times. Big name veteran players get old, the “trade promising youngsters for established veterans that we need for our pennant push” strategy catches up to them, and the team finds itself mired in mediocrity (or worse), with aging, inept players and an empty “farm system” devoid of young talent.

What to do? Teams in this position have two strategic options, which I term “reform” or “renewal.”  Reform means that the team continues to try to stay in contention with piecemeal, ad hoc, half-measure approaches, trying to patch holes, trading, signing free agents, attempting to push off the inevitable collapse for a few more years and extending the window of contention.  This can be temporarily successful, particularly for richer teams, but kicking the can down the road cannot go on forever and at some point a price has to be paid.  Delaying the inevitable does not prevent the inevitable.  And, often, teams that try this approach are not only not successful in the short run, but their “crash and burn” in the long run ends up being longer and more painful than compared to what would have obtained if they had opted for the renewal option.

Renewal means taking some steps back in the short run to position yourself to be more successful in the long run.  So, the team accepts it needs to rebuild completely.  It trades fading veterans – and even gets rid of veterans still in their prime – for young players to stock the farm system, youngsters who can become future stars.  Even more fundamentally, teams engage in the somewhat controversial, but effective, approach of “tanking” – they “tear it down,” stripping the team of most, sometimes all, of its established star players, and intentionally field bad teams for several years, because those teams who perform worst get the top draft picks in succeeding years.  So, the team gets rid of their star players, tears itself down, gets new talent, and accepts a quiet period of low performance in order to restock and rebuild, and prepare for a new ascendance.  

The renewal strategy, although painful in the short term, is usually highly effective, leads to longer-term success, and is particularly suitable for those teams of more limited resources. Eventually, these cycles occur again but the proper strategy is obvious.  And, I may add, one way of getting around the cycle is to start the renewal/rebuilding stage BEFORE you are in obvious decline.  A team may have had success and may still be able to contend for several more years, but they look ahead and see that if they don’t rebuild now, things will get worse later on.  So they start “tearing it down” while they still have some success, sacrificing immediate success for greater success a few years down the road. That’s sort of like the psychometric experiments testing delayed gratification, long-term thinking, and time preference – does the child want one candy bar today or two tomorrow? Renewal means having the discipline to accept sacrifices today for success tomorrow.  It’s the wise approach.

At this point readers should realize I’m talking about Der Movement here. Even those in the “movement” honest enough to admit it has serious, fundamental problems typically stop short of supporting renewal.  No, they only want piecemeal reform – either they don’t want to put their own status as “leaders” in jeopardy, they are delusional to believe the problems (despite being serious and fundamental) can be fixed at the surface level, they think short-term and cannot accept the need to take a step back in order to take many steps forward, or some other excuse or rationale prevents them from accepting the full scope of doing what is necessary.

In fact, the situation for Der Movement is even worse than that of the hypothetical baseball team described above, since the “movement” never even had any prior period of success; it has been a failure all along.  So, it is not even at the point of trying to stretch a period of contention past its expiration date; Der Movement has never been a contender at all.  So, real and meaningful excuses for avoiding renewal fall flat, and one can speculate that opponents of required renewal have selfish or ideological reasons for their opposition.

However, those tired of seeing a “movement” that goes nowhere fast, that wastes years and decades with unremitting failure, which is on a treadmill to nowhere, such people should act in favor of the renewal approach.  Der Movement needs “tearing it down” – it needs all the fading quota queen “superstars” and fading “rock stars” to be out to pasture, it needs the dust swept away and years of festering mold growth disinfected, it needs fresh faces, fresh ideas, and new directions.  

Of course, if some elements of the “movement,” some faction, want to continue on the path of “reform” that’s fair enough, they can do so; it is always good to hedge your bets against problems with renewal, it is never good to put all your eggs in one basket, and it may be useful to have some minimal public “movement” activity ongoing, even if the real work of renewal goes on in the background 

But, regardless of the existence of reformist factions, there must be a major push for renewal, and deconstruction and reconstruction from first principles.  Otherwise continued failure is guaranteed.

More On Yockey and Race

Understanding Yockey’s motivation.
In some of my previous writing on Yockey (summarized here) I made clear that I believed that the major motivation for Yockey to take a contrarian attitude about (“vertical”) biological race (favoring, instead, cultural and spiritual “horizontal race” concepts) was that this was the only way Yockey could conceive of to oppose the hierarchical Nordicist racial theories that set Europeans against each other, thus threatening his ideal of European Unity, Imperium.
See here (emphasis added):

However, as the 1960’s wore on, and with the failures of the NSPA to prosper, Cawthron came to see ‘Nazism’ as – a tactical mistake. Then, he ‘found’ Imperium around 1965-6. Certain passages in Imperium were obviously critical, but also cryptic, references to Nazi Germany. Cawthron referred me to three passages that moved him to revise his views:

“The materialist race-thinking of the 19th century had particularly heavy consequences for Europe when it was coupled with one of the early 20th century movements of Resurgence of Authority. Any excrescence of theoretical equipment on a political movement is a luxury, and the Europe of 1933 – 2000 can afford none such. Europe has paid dearly for these old-fashioned racial theories and they must be destroyed.”

“The racial snobbery of the 19th century was intellectual and its adoption in a too-narrow sphere by the Resurgence of Authority in Europe between the first two world wars was a grotesquerie.”

“The attempt to interpret history in terms of Race must be abandoned. The 20th century sees it quite otherwise. It had a vogue of a century. It is now quite dead. Its last formulation, and its most radical, attempted to intervene in the sphere of action. That was the last attempt. An Empire of a thousand years duration – yes, but that has been actualized – in India, China, Egypt.” (17)

Indeed, Yockey had amplified these thoughts in The Enemy Of Europe (1953), a pamphlet that sought to mobilise neo-fascist cadres and historical-fascist residue into a new politics. He said:

“Everyone must now openly admit that the engrafting of the outworn nonsense of the vertical race theory onto the glorious European Resurgence of Authority brought about by the European Revolution of 1933 was an enormous tragedy – all the more so since the coupling of these two ideas was in no way necessary or even logical.” (18)

Cawthron could see by 1967 that there had been ‘neo-fascist’ objections to key components of the ideology and practise of Nazi Germany, criticisms which were valid and compelling. Nazi Germany had pursued a false ‘racial doctrine’ which had set Europeans against each other, the very thing which the neo-nazi movement claimed Nazism did not do and which they would negate with their new racial faith.

This suggests that my hypothesis is correct and that Cawthron perceived that “Nazi” racial ideology “had set Europeans against each other” and that was something to be avoided. Thus, Cawthron saw in Yockey’s racial views a way to avoid this problem, supporting the idea that Yockey’s racial ideas were primarily focused on de-emphasizing intra-European differences.
Now, of course, Yockey was somewhat misguided because one can understand biological distinctiveness without imposing a hierarchical superior-inferior value system on it.  And since Yockey would allow local preservationism in his Imperium, distinctiveness could have been maintained even in political unity. One can also distinguish between variable levels of difference – just because there are differences between Europeans does not mean we need to adopt the Arnold Leese approach of considering non-Nordic types such as “wops and dagoes” to be akin to “Kalahari Bushmen.”

Against Accelerationism

And other news.

Long time readers of this blog know that I am a critic of the accelerationist “worse is better” school of White nationalist revolutionary theory, which asserts that it is a good idea to make things as bad for Whites as possible as quickly as possible, so as to stimulate a pro-White revolutionary response, and bypass the “slow boiling of the frog” phenomenon.  
Looking at it from a purely theoretical way, the approach would seem to make sense.  I do not reject it out of hand, but have two major objections – one more general and one more specific to current conditions (here I refer to the “a Biden victory would be best”)..

The general objection is based on White behavior and the seemingly unlimited capacity for Whites to accept abuse and humiliation and to accept the practical consequences of their complete dispossession and descent into subaltern “untouchable” status.

The accelerationists would argue that (a) things haven’t gotten bad enough yet and/or (b) it is happening too slowly, akin to “boiling the frog slowly.”  My response to the first point (a) is that it presupposes some threshold beyond which a response is going to occur.  Now, if everything that has happened so far hasn’t yet reached the threshold one wonders what that threshold would be. For accelerationism to work, the threshold needs to be reached BEFORE the situation gets so bad that it is irreversible and nothing can effectively been done about it.  If the threshold is reached only after Whites are irreversibly on the road to extinction and/or in an irreversibly subaltern low caste position with no chance of freeing themselves, then that strategy is a failure. Whites are unlike EVERY other people on the face of the Earth – ANY other group would have reacted by now.  And before the HBD-Nordicists start their song-and-dance, it is not clear that Southern and Eastern Europeans (even if they are more hostile to non-Whites than are Northwest Europeans) are demonstrating any useful response to current dispossession trends.  Putting those details of intra-White details aside (other than to state that if the HBD-Nordicists really believe their shtick, they should want Southern and Eastern Europeans to lead the White resistance), in the absence of a reasonable threshold for a White response, “worse is better” translates into “worse is worse” and simply accelerates White decline and makes the irreversible racial doom occur more quickly.

As far as the second point (b) – are things really happening slowly now?  Look at what has been happening over the last several months, particularly in America.  That’s rapid.  How about the recent migrant crisis in Europe?  Rotherham?  If you are then going to argue that the “slow boiling” has already acclimated Whites to these more rapid changes and to these more immediate horrific revelations, then this goes back to the threshold argument above. If the “slow boiling” that has already occurred has already moved the reaction set point to an unreasonably high level, then “worse is better” is an approach doomed to fail.  Or, perhaps, it is just too late for that; maybe “worse is better” would have worked decades ago.  Regardless, accelerationism is a strategy with serious problems.  

To summarize, there is seemingly no limit to the abuse Whites are willing to accept, no clear idea of a threshold for response that would be within the limits of being able to reverse White decline, and no evidence that even rapid changes in White fortunes can trigger a response. There is as of now zero empirical evidence that accelerationism can work, and recent events constitute data points against that approach. If the accelerationists claim that “we are getting close” then we shall see, since it seems like things will get worse regardless of what pro-White activists do.  At some point however, after decades of “worse is better” not showing any White response, the theory is in need of revision.

The more specific objection I have with respect to current events is that Der Movement is completely unprepared for the consequences of a Trump loss and a Biden Presidency (and the possibility of a Democrat control of all levers of government).   Unfortunately. Der Movement essentially is (American) pro-White activism today, as there is no established alternative.  If there was a New Movement ready to rise from the ashes of the Old, that would be one thing.  But the Quota Queen grifters, who care about themselves and nor for the race, hold onto the Old Movement that ensures their status and their incomes (the latter of which may be doomed, eventually, in any case) and they oppose any change that would dethrone them from their lucrative “leadership” positions.  The rank-and-file wholeheartedly support the “movement’s” strict ethnic affirmative action program, so new leadership cannot emerge, since pro-Whites of “acceptable” ethnic backgrounds apparently support the status quo of the Old Movement. So, we are currently left with the Old Movement, and that “movement” is woefully unprepared for the likely dark days ahead.  In that case, it is better to “kick the can” down the road to 2024 and buy more time.  

Now, I doubt that four years will make much of a difference – no doubt Der Movement would waste those four the same as the last four. But a 99% chance of failure is better than a 100% chance of failure, and one can only hope that something can change in the “movement” over the next four years.  True, there really isn’t anything we can do about the electoral outcome, but at least Der Movement should be realistic about what the better outcome is, and plan accordingly (yes, I know, putting “Der Movement” and “plan” together in the same sentence is an oxymoron). And, yes, Trump is a monster, and, yes, his government persecutes pro-Whites, but the situation is not as bad as it could be under full-blown SJW hysteria. Given everything, the best option for Der Movement is a Trump victory and to be given another chance to do the right thing over the next four years, to prepare for 2024.  They won’t do it, but is there an alternative?  As I said, a slight chance of success, no matter how small, is better than no chance.  By analogy, the probability of winning the lottery after buying a ticket is infinitesimally small, but if you do not buy the ticket, the probability is zero.  Only by buying the ticket do you establish the possibility of winning; likewise, only by buying time do we generate the (albeit tiny) possibility of improvement and success.

Going back to the original problem – if “worse is better” does not really work, then what can? If revolutions are made by minorities, with the masses passive or going along with the dominant force, then we need to identify and organize and mobilize that minority fraction of Whites health enough to already be activated (no more “worse” necessary) and to provide the leadership for Whites as conditions worsen.  That is not incompatible with what I wrote above.  Leaving Whites on their own, “worse is better” translates into “worse is worse.”  Accelerationism is an unproven approach, likely a failure.  However, coupling a revolutionary vanguard cadre with the gradual continuous degeneration of the White position, with proper (non-Quota Queen) leadership – that’s the option.  Hoping that some sort of rapid “worse is better” scenario will magically do all the hard work for us is a pipedream. We need to do the hard work ourselves. If “worse” is going to occur regardless, then we do not want it to go so fast that if becomes irreversibly bad before action can be effectively taken.  If there is a strategy put in place, then you would want to slow down the decline so as to give time to enact the strategy before things are too late.  Further, given Suvorov’s Law of history, successful revolutions occur more often when repression is relaxed than when it worsens.  Indeed, the more Whites cater to Coloreds and the Left, the more militant Colored and the Left become.  There is food for thought there.  Maybe “better is better” should replace rather than “worse is better.”  A completely shocked, helpless, and despairing White population is not going to be the best human material for “White revolution.”  Salter’s Democratic Multiculturalism is likely a better strategy than Type I “twigs and branches” huffing and puffing about “worse is better” accelerationism.

Is this where the hobbit hole is?

No kidding, Ricardo:

…I wonder whether he is pushing too far the argument that Sweden today is “on the extreme end of individualism” based primarily on the criteria that this nation has exhibited, and continues to exhibit, “the most individualist family patterns in all of Europe”. I wonder whether Sweden can be classified as an individualist society given the extremely conformist culture it has engendered. We call Nordics “radical liberals” but they are not liberals anymore, since very little independent thinking and dissent is permitted against politically correct values enforced by the state without dialogue…Sweden however is striving for egalitarian conformity and uniformity of thought.

What Duchesne does not quite understand is that HBD is not science.  It is religion.  Nordicism is a religion as well.  The combination – HBD-Nordicism – is therefore “religion squared.” Religious belief is immune to facts.

Good to see that someone else noticed the same thing about the novel Tau Zero:

Ingrid Lindgren, the second officer of the Brussard ramjet Leonora Christine, spends her time solving relationship problems by sleeping with depressed male crewmen.

Indeed, Lindgren is essentially a whore, who uses her body to do her job on the ship – keeping order by having sex with any male whose behavior threatens the mission, particularly men with very important roles for the mission and who are “stressed” and/or “depressed.”  And she is open about it, no shame, giving herself sexually to such men as casually as someone may hand a street beggar a dollar bill.

Now, feminists no doubt be displeased with the author about this, but I see it as typical female behavior.  The “second officer” position for a woman – what are they going to do?  What other “skills” are there?  Just put a relatively young and attractive woman in the position and sit back and watch her utilize her only “marketable” skill, her only “useful” ability.

Amusingly, in the same book, there is a Chinatrix on the ship, described as looking “boyish” in body (at least when clothed), and who sleeps with White men.  So, I got to tell you, at least insofar as human racial physical phenotypes go, and as far as human behavior goes, Tau Zero is right on the money.