Category: revolution

Security and Coordination in a Clandestine Organization

Important reading.

Some background information.

Maybe Der Movement should be reading things like this instead of screaming “Kek” and chugging gallons of milk, but what do I know?  Obviously, I’m not in tune with “youth culture.”

We develop a model of an underground organization. The model is designed to highlight the tradeoff between the operational capacity and operational security of clandestine groups. The underground in this paper is defined by a collection of individual cells that are united by a network of internal communications. The attributes of this network, we show, have important implications for the vitality of an underground group in the face of regime efforts to identify and target its component cells. We examine the implications of various network designs for group performance in the short run, and the implications the group’s short run performance will have for its operational prospects in the long run. In the final section of the paper, we discuss the conditions under which a conflict between a regime and an underground organization will reach three alternative equilibria. The results of this paper will be useful to those interested in both the design and dismemberment of clandestine organizations.

When reading the paper, please do not be misled by footnote one, which describes the entity under consideration as one that has illegal goals and uses primarily illegal means. Pro-White activism, particularly in America, is in the unique situation in which the primary goals and means are (at present) legal, but nevertheless sharply persecuted by both governmental and non-governmental actors. Thus, the article applies just as much to the legal goals and means that are persecuted by the System as to illegal ones.  In addition, it is possible to adapt the information presented for the types of situations similar to that experienced by racial activists, even if these are different from what is described in the paper.

To briefly summarize the main points of the paper and their relevance:

1. There is a tradeoff between organizational capacity (the effectiveness of the group, its ability to actualize objectives) and organizational security (its ability to evade detection and compromise by the enemy).  This is of course obvious, but is rarely so starkly presented. The more aggressive, open, action-oriented, integrated, and willing to attack the power centers of the enemy, the more vulnerable the group is to detection and counter-attack. The more secure, the more isolated from the enemy, the more resources invested in operational security, the less growth, capacity, and actualized effectiveness there is of the group. Of course, capacity is in the long run tied to security; a group detected, compromised, and destroyed obviously will have no capacity.  However, with respect to the ongoing functioning of the group, the tradeoffs are clear. 

The “movement” has historically compromised organizational security in favor of organizational capacity; unfortunately, the latter has failed to yield any victories.  Essentially, organizational security has been sacrificed for nothing. At the current time, I would advise the “movement” to focus more on the organizational security end of the spectrum; particularly if capacity is going to be limited regardless, an emphasis on security can assure the continued existence of the group and allow for the possibility of future secure growth, and the ability to expand capacity in a sustainable manner. This will of course require an understanding of operational security that includes “extreme vetting” that goes beyond asking “are you Swedish?”

2. As the size of a cell increases, the ability of leadership to exert effective control over the cell decreases.  Codreanu wisely limited Legionary “nests” to thirteen members.  If the group sustains growth, the number of cells must also increase concomitantly.  This of course requires the necessary effective cell leadership to be available.

3. The greater the ability of the cells to coordinate their activity – for example via effective inter-cell communication – the greater the possible organizational capacity.  This comes at a cost of decreased organizational security. Communication can be nonsecure or secure. Nonsecure communication requires fewer resources and allows for more rapid use of organizational capacity; however, organizational security is usually compromised.  Secure communication incurs costs of resource investment (that could have been used for growth and/or action), but allows for greater security. The cost/benefit ratio will of course be influenced by how effective the enemy is in detecting, blocking, infiltrating, and otherwise compromising communication.

Given all of the problems the “movement” has had regarding this, the more secure, the better. With respect to the tradeoff between redundant communication that is robust to enemy blocking but is more vulnerable to detection vs. thinner communication connections that are vulnerable to jamming/blocking but are more secure, the latter is in my opinion preferable at the current time.  A distributed communication system, allowing more cell autonomy in communication – more decentralized – would have to be “secure and thin” in order to maximize operational security, to prevent compromise of one cell to “taint” and compromise others.  Indeed, one major benefit of the cell system is to prevent compromise from spreading (the Hermannson infiltration is an example of such spreading). Thus, a “high level of interconnectivity” can result in increased organizational capacity, but this is usually outweighed by increased vulnerability.  Mathematical modeling by the authors, summarized in Table 1 of the paper, outlines the results of a comparative analysis of different scenarios, including that of variation in communication connectivity and security. The benefits of increased security in the face of a competent enemy are clear.

4. The group can have its man focal point (“headquarters”) at the periphery of the enemy or at the enemy’s central point (e.g., a capital or other major city). The former is more secure but more restrained as far as possibilities for action, the latter is the converse. “Eastern” modes of revolutionary cell systems tend to build in the periphery (e.g., rural) and expand toward the center; the “Western” models tend to start at the inner core of the enemy and expand outward. The latter is worse for security and historically has been more effectively compromised by the enemy.  

Was Pierce therefore correct to go to the mountaintop, despite my criticism?  There are tradeoffs to consider.  I still stand by my criticism.  The National Alliance was (and is) not an illegal guerilla organization. The top leadership of activist groups are public figures, they are not attempting to avoid detection by the System.  So, there is no reason vis-à-vis detection to avoid the central node of the enemy. The major concern is physical security as well as operational security with respect to information gathering since it is expected to be easier for the System to monitor the center than the periphery. All that said, I have previously discussed the advantages of having leadership close to the centers of society and there is nothing in this article that argues against that as long as we are talking about public, overt, legal activity.

5. The group can exhibit growth, with respect to recruiting more members (with a requirement for more cells), or there can be decay, as cells are successfully targeted by the enemy, there is a net loss of members, etc. Both growth and decay can be self-reinforcing, and a present concern is that the failures of the Alt Right have started a self-reinforcing loop of decay.

There are tradeoffs also between investing in growth and investing for the capacity for action.  A group with extra resources can focus on growth while maintaining a certain level of operational action, or the opposite – increasing the frequency and level of action while keeping growth constant.

Essentially, the group has three possible outcomes.  First, an inability to grow beyond its base, in which case it never becomes a viable threat to the System and may in fact get eliminated; second, self-sustaining growth, in which case it becomes a “political contender” and may “defeat and displace the standing regime;” or third, a case in which neither the group nor the System can win outright, and a stalemate is reached, in which control over different parts of the territory is achieved by each side. One can speculate that this third situation is not stable long term, unless actual political separation of the territory occurs. Currently, Der Movement reflects he first possible outcome, primarily due to poor leadership and horrifically bad strategic decisions.

I would like to point out that the authors’ mathematical modeling shows that improving internal security is one effective strategy for ensuring survivability and growth for the group. Internal security being, of course, one of the “movement’s” greatest weaknesses, as the Far Right is seemingly infiltrated at will by the Left, with virtually no effort required.

Conclusion

Even if the organization finds an optimal balance between capacity and security, victory is not guaranteed.  The relative strength of each side is crucial, and an “ebb and flow” of fortunes between the two sides may in fact occur, with a protracted struggle.  A “functional win” by the standing regime can be achieved by, as the authors state, forcing the revolutionary organization back to “an equilibrium position that is sufficiently low to neutralize any threat it might pose to regime stability, even if is able to remain in the game.” This equilibrium may be maintained unless some internal or external change occurs to destabilize the equilibrium – that is undoubtedly why Der Movement fantasizes about various “collapse” scenarios that would break them it out of the pathetic cul-de-sac it has been in for decades.

Of related interest, by the same authors, on recruitment:

We examine the role played by popular expectations in the process of political mobilization and the dilemma this poses for nascent revolutionary organizations. In any target population, we argue, there will be a small ‘hard core’ minority of unconditional supporters of each side. The large majority of individuals (though they may have definite sympathies toward one of the two sides) can be influenced to support either side depending upon their predictions of others’ behavior and their related estimates of each side’s prospects. The conditional nature of such support, we argue, poses an early mobilization problem for revolutionary challengers. The revolutionary opposition begins the struggle from a position of weakness. The expected returns to membership are, therefore, quite low and the expected costs of association are correspondingly high. Why would anyone join such a high risk enterprise in the first place? Revolutionary groups attempt to overcome this challenge through the use of symbolic violence. Group violence is used as a surrogate variable by would-be supporters to estimate the size and relative prospects of the armed opposition. This process, if properly managed, can result in a situation in which agent expectations eventually become self-confirming, permitting the group to ‘jump start’ the mobilization process and achieve a self-sustaining level of revolutionary activity.

The “movement” can, at the current time, substitute “successful activity” for “symbolic violence.”  If Unite the Right had been successful, that may have been a step forward, but since it was a botched disaster, it had the opposite effect.

A Message for Eric Kaufmann

A brief message.

Following up on this, we read this:

Eric Kaufmann was born in Hong Kong and raised in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. His ancestry is mixed with a quarter Chinese and a quarter Latino. His father is of Jewish descent…

So, the person advising on how to ease the anxiety of Whites so that they can be more easily (slowly) dispossessed and, eventually, race-replaced by mixed-race individuals, is himself mixed-race and half-Jewish. I’m shocked, shocked, I say.

So, here is a brief message for Kaufmann:

Dear Sir,

I do not know your level of sincerity concerning your work on White interests. Regardless, taken to its logical conclusion, and from your own words, the ultimate outcome of Whites following your advice is their slow but inevitable demographic eclipse and their race replacement by a mixed-race population.

I note that your own ancestry is described as “mixed with a quarter Chinese and a quarter Latino. His father is of Jewish descent.”  Even if we were to assume that the “Latino” is Euro-Iberian, then that still leaves 75% of your ancestry of non-European descent. Therefore, by the standards of those who most closely exemplify the pursuit of White interests you pontificate about, you are not “White.”

Very well, you have the right to express your opinion.  So do I.  And my opinion, expressed here, is the same that I have expressed toward other non-Whites attempting to interfere with the expression of White interests by Whites.  

Whites have their own internal debates, their own conflicts (ethnicity, sub-race, religion, etc.), their own consideration of different strategies, and their own concerns. These are OUR affairs, not yours.  These are OUR conflicts, not yours. These are OUR debates, not yours.  And these are OUR interests, not yours.

How Whites relate to each other, how Whites decide to work together (or not), how Whites decide to strategize (or not) in defense of their own interests, that is something for US to do, not you.  Ultimately, WE have to be the arbiters of OUR fate. OURSELVES ALONE.

And, no, we do not need, or want, non-Whites with their every “helpful” advice, telling us that our best option is to slow down our displacement, replacement, and destruction; that we are “dying of Whiteness;” promoting intra-White division; that we need alliances with Asians in which Whites must grovel before their Yellow and Brown masters; that we must have a multiracial “White separatist state;” that we are akin to child molesters and are “latrine flies;” that we must accept the “racial status quo;” that racial preservation for its own sake is “insane;” that we must have a “Red State nation” that accepts “conservative Blacks;” etc. 

Maybe, sir, you can take your advice to Israel, and suggest to the Jews there how they can accommodate their eventual race replacement by Arabs through an increased short-term focus on Jewish interests (hard to say how they can go beyond what they already have), or you can go to China and spread a similar message there – although, contra Frost and the “Arctic Alliance” crowd, the Chinese are hardly in any danger of race replacement.  But, wherever you go and whatever you do, we can do without your proffered chalice, dripping as it is with carefully concealed poison.

Whatever the outcome of the White racial problem, I do not believe the outcome is going to be pleasant for the likes of you. If you are wrong, and Whites quietly go to extinction without any expression of self-interest, then the resulting Colored dystopia will ultimately not be of benefit for the Coloreds themselves.

What if you are correct about the situation? That you are correct that it is untenable to suppress the expression of self-interest by a group whose demographic majority is disappearing? Let’s say I agree with you – even the White omega race may well become ever more demanding of their racial self-interest.  Where I disagree with you is with the idea that this discontent can be effectively managed through a safety valve release of controlled, moderate expression of racial self-interest. 

As Suvorov wrote – revolutions do not occur during the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed.  Louis XVI learned that, as did Gorbachev. Once the expression of White racial interests is legitimized, once the pent-up fury of a wronged people begins to be released, how can it be safely controlled? Once the genie is out of the bottle, and the toothpaste is out of the tube, can everything be safely be put away again once things begin to spiral out of control?

The future is chaos. And your stage-managed attempt at orderly White extinction will only add to that chaos. Enjoy.

Best regards,

Ted Sallis

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.

Two Maxims

Some things I’ve discussed before, but which are worth emphasizing.

The first came to my attention from the work of the defector “Viktor Suvorov.”

Maxim One: Revolutions typically do not occur during the period of greatest repression; instead, they take place after that repression is suddenly relaxed.

Examples: The French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, Glasnost leading to the Fall of Communism in Eastern Europe.

The System/Left knows this, if only instinctively.  Hence, they are doubling down on all their anti-White, SJW narratives and repression after Trump’s victory.  They refuse to concede an inch, refuse to take White concerns seriously; they understand that if they start compromising, they are (eventually) finished.  And they correct to believe that; however, we must create a situation in which they simply will not have a choice but to attempt compromise; the alternative for them being, in the long-term, even more untenable.  That’s why I advocate in favor of Salter’s strategy of Democratic Multiculturalism, a form of sociopolitical ju-jitsu that forces the System to either compromise with the White Right (eventually dooming them) or openly admitting that their entire worldview is morally illegitimate (eventually dooming them as well, particularly as that would increase White demands for the Democratic Multiculturalism option, bringing the System back to square one).  But the nitwit Type I activists of the “movement” reject that strategy in favor of their Turner Diaries fantasies and other stupidities.

Maxim Two: For any dissident force – guerrilla armies in the field, underground dissidents, racial nationalists and other fringe political movements – maintaining your existence in the face of System oppression, surviving, continuing Fabian tactics and strategies, still being there, that is itself a victory.  As long as you exist, the System has not won; as long as you exist, you prove that you could win, you place doubt in the minds of your opponents and of the masses, and if you can outlast your foe, eventual victory may very well be yours.

Thus, the importance of prioritizing survival, for not directly engaging with a superior foe, for using ju-jitsu and Fabian strategies; hence, the value of continued existence in the face of a seemingly overpowering adversary.

This applies to the “movement” as a whole, as well as dissident groupuscules within the “movement” such as EGI Notes.