Analyzing some important points.
For 15 long years, beleaguered Rhodesia maintained near total tactical military supremacy in the region despite severe weapon, materiel, and manpower shortages. Yet, military victory bereft of a strategic vision and clearly delineated political objectives is ultimately self-defeating. The political objectives of Rhodesia changed throughout the course of the war. Initially Rhodesia sought to maintain White minority rule, later hoped to create an African puppet regime, and finally sought nothing more than a seat at the proverbial “multicultural table.” This last political objective sealed the fate of tiny Rhodesia, and led to the pogrom of White genocide presently occurring in southern Africa. The nation of Rhodesia faced a series of overwhelming odds since its inception as a sovereign nation, but its greatest threat was its internal lack of strategic aim. This is a mistake we cannot afford to make.
This is very true. A fundamental error that is often made is confusing strategy with tactics, and vice versa. Means and ends are not the same; objectives and the tools to achieve those objectives are not the same. One problem with mainstreaming is precisely this; the idea is to “mainstream” in order to “achieve (and maintain) power” so the power can be used to “preserve race and culture.” Very laudable. Let’s put aside the empirically determined fact that mainstreaming simply doesn’t work. Let us assume it does work. What happens when selfish human nature takes over and the attainment and maintenance of political power ends up being the ultimate objective, the end, rather than as means to achieve racial-cultural objectives? You may object: the same power-fetish may occur even with a vanguardist strategy. That’s true, but less likely. The farther one’s “everyday” activity is separated from their ultimate objective, then the easier it is to lose sight of that objective. Mainstreaming is, in theory, a way to actualize vanguardism; vanguardism in turn is (in theory if you will) a way to achieve racial-cultural goals. Being one major step removed from the alleged “real objective” makes mainstreaming more susceptible for activists to give up on their supposed goals and pursue political power for its own sake. Vanguardists, on the other hand, live in “racial extremism” on an everyday basis and are less likely to lose sight of the objective that is “in their face” on a constant basis. Vanguardists are thus more likely, in my opinion, to understand, and remain focused on, the strategic aim.
As Greg Johnson articulated in New Right versus Old Right, white racial survival is the ultimate goal of White Nationalism, but I would go one step further and say we must explore not only how to survive, but also how to thrive racially as one people.
Fair enough. Preservation is the first step. Overcoming and progress comes next.
The policy failures and lack of strategic vision of former Rhodesia mirror those of the contemporary White Nationalist movement. The survival of the White race is imperative, but whites will only succeed if they maintain unity; in what form this “unity” manifests itself, and how centralized or decentralized it is, is open to debate. In order to reach our peoples greatest potential, we must seek unity of both race and thought, and harmonize these into a new European/White ecumene.
There may be truth in this. But it is a futile exercise to attempt to get everyone in the “movement” on board with a common vision. It’s not going to happen. Out of the morass – or perhaps from a fresh direction – a dominant memetic structure will emerge. Whether that will be the right direction, or a disaster, remains to be determined.
In Ricardo Duchesne’s penultimate work, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, Duchesne rightly speculates that a penchant for rational abstraction is the hallmark for White racial success. From this ancestral proclivity new and old ideas must be forged, crafted in a manner conducive to White unity. We’ve all borne witness to the perils of abstraction run amok, such as diversity for the sake of diversity and so-called “human rights”, but abstraction, when grounded in blood and soil and beholden to a people rather than to a proposition like universal equality, can produce a clarity of vision commensurate with the greatness of our race. I’m not opting for ideological orthodoxy or an outright purge, but I am suggesting that we as a movement begin a dialogue towards what we can and cannot accept.
Again, I’m doubtful that the feuding activists of Der Movement – all Chiefs and no Indians – will come to such a consensus.
Rhodesia wasn’t able to formulate a clear sense of strategic national purpose, because they couldn’t decide what they could and could not accept. Pragmatism is the basis of power politics, but it must be grounded by an immoveable set of axiomatic principles.
That’s correct, and why mainstreaming is bad even if it would be politically successful – because there pragmatism itself becomes the “immovable axiomatic principle.”
Our lack of a cohesive vision is tantamount to a proverbial arming of the natives, and the natives are getting restless.
True, but, again, one cannot force a collective vision on a collection of individuals and mini-groups who cannot even decide on the parameters of “Us” vs. “Them.” The Us/Them division is the fundamental characteristic of what a group is; if even that cannot be agreed upon, then there is no group.
Old hostilities and petty ethnic rivalries exacerbated an already precarious military and political situation. Intra-racial division, aside from contributing to Rhodesian political incongruity, proved deleterious to the war effort by limiting the mobilization of the population…
Let’s have more dem dere narrow ethnonationalism, as well as more divisive Guntherite racial theories! That’ll bring folks together in unity, no doubt!
We contemporary White Nationalists find ourselves in similar circumstances. The rampant division within our movement, though generally not based upon intraracial ethnic distinctions…
“…not based upon intraracial ethnic distinctions…” Uh, I think the author of this piece just missed the last century of failed racial nationalism. “Intraracial ethnic distinctions” constitute the first major division of “movement” disagreement. If one wanted to do a memetic “PCA plot” of Der Movement, then the subracial/ethnic question would be the first major axis of variation.
Like our former Rhodesian brothers, our numbers, though growing, are few and the upcoming struggles will require mobilization of our entire movement for the survival of our race.
Not going to work. You need to find the optimal segment of Der Movement – or better yet start a New Movement beginning with first principles – and build your unity out of that.
European civilization has always been conflicted, agonal in nature, and historically our propensity for low-level kinship violence has been evolutionarily beneficial.
Perhaps in the past, not the present. The definition of what is “evolutionarily beneficial” (i.e., adaptive) depends on the environmental context.
However, in the midst of possible racial extinction, it’s of the utmost importance that internecine movement division stop. But how can division stop, particularly if we begin to explore new strategic paradigms, as dialogue breeds division?
Put simply, we can stop division through dialectical synthesis. The musical virtuoso J.S. Bach wasn’t simply a master composer and performer; he was first and foremost a “synthesist” and thus able to harmoniously weld together an eclectic assortment of European musical styles into a cohesive melody. More to the point, like the works of Bach, we in the White Nationalist movement must shed the detritus of the past and form a new metapolitical imperative based upon a thoughtful, long-term strategy and movement unity. Strength in numbers is a very real thing, and as was the case for our Rhodesian ancestors it will be a deciding factor in our movement’s life or death.
That’s not an answer. It’s hand-waving. How to, in real-world terms, practically speaking, create the unity the author refers to? Actually and precisely, how?
Native Africa never truly overcame the so-called “k-factor,” though it did receive outside help from a variety of forces, from international finance to Communist China…
A side note: Asians are always going to be on the forces of anti-Whitism and anti-Westernism. Yockey understood that. Can today’s yellow fever fetishists understand that as well?
My criticisms aside, I liked this article and believe the author is on the right track, sort of. But I myself went through this stage, long ago, of thinking that the entire “movement” could unite around some fundamental principles, have unity, and move forward. Not possible. As I said, the “movement” cannot even agree on the most basic distinction of all – Us/Them – how is anything else possible? The author it seems wants to make “preservation and advancement of the White race” as the “immoveable axiomatic principle” – good luck with that since Der Movement cannot agree on what the “White race” is and who does or does not belong to it.
So, while the author’s heart is in the right place I have to tell his head: it’s not that simple. It’s not like others haven’t come to similar conclusions before. It just doesn’t work that way in reality. The solution for him, personally, is either find a segment of the “movement” that fits his perspectives and try and build that segment into the dominant activist vehicle, or, if no such suitable segment exists, then help build a new one from the ground up.