Category: revolution

The Very Model of a Modern Major Revolution

Overthrowing the System via democratic multiculturalism.

Read here concerning the Fall of the Soviet Union.
Now, the Soviet defector “Viktor Suvorov” (Rezun) made the point in one of his books that revolutions do not take place during the period of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed. The French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the Fall of Soviet Communism are all examples of this.
From the linked “Business Insider” article is this quote that support’s Rezun’s thesis:

DELVING INTO THE causes of the French Revolution, de Tocqueville famously noted that regimes overthrown in revolutions tend to be less repressive than the ones preceding them. Why? Because, de Tocqueville surmised, though people “may suffer less,” their “sensibility is exacerbated.”

Given that, let’s take a look at the article and see how it applies to our situation.

LIKE VIRTUALLY ALL modern revolutions, the latest Russian one was started by a hesitant liberalization “from above” — and its rationale extended well beyond the necessity to correct the economy or make the international environment more benign. The core of Gorbachev’s enterprise was undeniably idealistic: He wanted to build a more moral Soviet Union.

If we want to start a revolution, one strong possibility – not the only one of course – is one starting from a “hesitant liberalization from above.” In the modern American context of a viciously anti-White regime of soft totalitarianism, that would mean a “liberalization” that “softens” the System’s animus toward White interests, perhaps with a scheme similar to Salter’s proposal of “democratic multiculturalism” in which the interests of the majority (or, soon-to-be plurality) are officially and formally incorporated into the multicultural consensus. Is Trump’s campaign a harbinger of this? Regardless of the outcome, will the System believe it needs to somehow co-opt growing White anger? If this is put in starkly moral terms, always the preference of both SJWs and individualistic White cucks, with they be able to resist?


To Gorbachev’s prime minister Nikolai Ryzhkov, the “moral [nravstennoe] state of the society” in 1985 was its “most terrifying” feature:
[We] stole from ourselves, took and gave bribes, lied in the reports, in newspapers, from high podiums, wallowed in our lies, hung medals on one another. And all of this — from top to bottom and from bottom to top.
Another member of Gorbachev’s very small original coterie of liberalizers, Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, was just as pained by ubiquitous lawlessness and corruption. He recalls telling Gorbachev in the winter of 1984-1985: “Everything is rotten. It has to be changed.”

Sounds a lot like 2016 America, eh?


Democratization, Gorbachev declared, was “not a slogan but the essence of perestroika.” Many years later he told interviewers:
The Soviet model was defeated not only on the economic and social levels; it was defeated on a cultural level. Our society, our people, the most educated, the most intellectual, rejected that model on the cultural level because it does not respect the man, oppresses him spiritually and politically.

Again, 2016 America oppresses the White Man “spiritually and politically” – true that most Whites do not yet reject the System, particularly the “most educated and intellectual” but perhaps the racial and cultural angst behind Trumpism may percolate upward (with the help of the far-Right) infecting those “above.”


Those who instilled this remarkable “break in consciousness” were no different from those who touched off the other classic revolutions of modern times: writers, journalists, artists. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed, such men and women “help to create that general awareness of dissatisfaction, that solidified public opinion, which … creates effective demand for revolutionary change.” Suddenly, “the entire political education” of the nation becomes the “work of its men of letters.”

Note: not neckbeards tramping through the woods, eating twigs and branches, and firing off their “semi-automatics,” but “writers, journalists, artists” who help to create a “general awareness of dissatisfaction.” Time to turn Whites against the System!


That reforms gave rise to a revolution by 1989 was due largely to another “idealistic” cause: Gorbachev’s deep and personal aversion to violence and, hence, his stubborn refusal to resort to mass coercion when the scale and depth of change began to outstrip his original intent.

That’s the hope: that the “scale and depth of change” will begin to “outstrip [the] original intent” of the System’s “hesitant” steps toward racial reform.


THE ROLE OF ideas and ideals in bringing about the Russian revolution comes into even sharper relief when we look at what was happening outside the Kremlin. A leading Soviet journalist and later a passionate herald of glasnost, Aleksandr Bovin, wrote in 1988 that the ideals of perestroika had “ripened” amid people’s increasing “irritation” at corruption, brazen thievery, lies, and the obstacles in the way of honest work.

Again, sounds like today’s America, except that Whites are not quite ready to break with the System, or at least not on an explicitly racial basis. They need help – is Der Movement up to the task?

Anticipations of “substantive changes were in the air,” another witness recalled, and they forged an appreciable constituency for radical reforms. Indeed, the expectations that greeted the coming to power of Gorbachev were so strong, and growing, that they shaped his actual policy. Suddenly, ideas themselves became a material, structural factor in the unfolding revolution.

Please re-read the last sentence of that statement immediately above. And the read it again. And ponder…

Gradually, the legitimacy of the political arrangements began to be questioned. In an instance of Robert K. Merton’s immortal “Thomas theorem” — “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequence” — the actual deterioration of the Soviet economy became consequential only after and because of a fundamental shift in how the regime’s performance was perceived and evaluated.

This is absolutely essential. Whites are still spell-bound by the American myth, that somehow this is a “White man’s system” – we need to redefine for them the realty, to cause a “fundamental shift” in how the System’s racial policies are “perceived and evaluated.” Gregory Hood’s writings are good for this.

…a moral resurrection was essential. This meant not merely an overhaul of the Soviet political and economic systems, not merely an upending of social norms, but a revolution on the individual level: a change in the personal character of the Russian subject. As Mikhail Antonov declared in a seminal 1987 essay, “So What Is Happening to Us?” in the magazine Oktyabr, the people had to be “saved” — not from external dangers but “most of all from themselves, from the consequences of those demoralizing processes that kill the noblest human qualities.”

Saved how? By making the nascent liberalization fateful, irreversible — not Khrushchev’s short-lived “thaw,” but a climate change. And what would guarantee this irreversibility? Above all, the appearance of a free man who would be “immune to the recurrences of spiritual slavery.” The weekly magazine Ogoniok, a key publication of glasnost, wrote in February 1989 that only “man incapable of being a police informer, of betraying, and of lies, no matter in whose or what name, can save us from the re-emergence of a totalitarian state.”

Imagine this liberalization that becomes “fateful” and “irreversible” is one of a pro-White racial nature, forced upon the System by insistent pressure from far-Right agitation and growing White dissatisfaction.

The circuitous nature of this reasoning — to save the people one had to save perestroika, but perestroika could be saved only if it was capable of changing man “from within” — did not seem to trouble anyone. Those who thought out loud about these matters seemed to assume that the country’s salvation through perestroika and the extrication of its people from the spiritual morass were tightly — perhaps, inextricably — interwoven, and left it at that. What mattered was reclaiming the people to citizenship from “serfdom” and “slavery.”

Reclaiming Whites from “serfdom” and “slavery.”
What we need to do is present to the System a “lose-lose” situation, in which:
1) The System believes that it absolutely has to reform in a more pro-White direction in order to survive, but
2) If the System reforms in such a direction it will initiate a series of event leading to its eventual downfall; the first relaxation of anti-White suppression will initiate an irreversible series of events in the direction of balkanizing chaos and racial nationalism.
Salter’s conception of “democratic multiculturalism” helps here. What the “movement” peanut gallery and its previous criticism of my writings in this regard (“it dishonors our ancestors” – in other words, let’s just keep on reading The Turner Diaries and measuring each other’s cephalic indices with calipers) didn’t quite get is the idea this is merely means and not ends. The whole point is to force a “lose-lose” situation on the System in which they will have no choice but to initiate liberalization – “hesitant” or otherwise – in order to keep the White Man (who after all is the one who keeps the System running) engaged in the multicultural consensus. The System wants Whites to continue slaving away to support a System that is destroying those same Whites. We want Whites to “wake up.” Given that most revolutions seem to follow a pattern of “first fissures appear in the dam and then the floodwaters rush through” we need to get to the point of generating those fissures, the initial liberalization, the initial relaxation of oppression, the initial signs of weakness and appeasement from the System that will make Whites “smell blood” and realize more is possible.
That is why the chaotic racial energy unleashed by the Trump campaign is so important, why Trump’s right-wing populism is like a punch to the solar plexus of the System. The System is a bit stunned, but can recover if they are allowed to. We must not allow them the time to recover.
Instead of the breathless rounds of self-congratulations for their fifteen minutes of fame, the Alt-Right should be leveraging the Trump phenomenon to enhance the awareness of White dissatisfaction; indeed, to actually contribute to growing the dissatisfaction to levels sufficient to threaten the System and force concessions.
Now, of course, the System will hope that an initial round of concessions will be sufficient to satisfy Whites, to co-opt Whites, to ensure that Whites will accept a new anti-White race replacement status quo just a little bit less onerous than what we have now.
This is why the Right must resist its natural tendency to “declare victory and go home” and instead emulate the Left, who go from real victory to real victory by: never admitting any final victory, always striving for more, always demanding more, never being satisfied, always pushing the envelope, always taking each victory as merely a step toward the next one. Indeed, the Left treats each concession to their agenda as “blood in the water” that drives them and their followers to a “feeding frenzy” of further demands and agitation. 
Thus, similarly, whatever concessions the System is forced – repeat, forced – to make will merely be a stepping stone toward the next phase of agitation, dissatisfaction, and further concessions and further weakening of the System’s position. Each concession, each relaxation of oppression, will further awaken the sensibilities of the White population to the extent of their racial dispossession and the extent to which they have been racially and culturally defrauded. This will be a “feed forward” positively reinforcing feedback loop in which every System concession leads to a further set of demands and dissatisfaction, leading to even more concessions, leading to yet more agitation and chaos.
It is imperative therefore that the first set of concessions include the admission that White interests, and the group pursuit of those interests, are legitimate, that Whites have real grievances, and that Whites must have a seat at the “multicultural table.”
Now, of course the System is not stupid (although not as clever as they – and some of us – believe) and they will likely understand our strategy and try to derail it. They may try to get puppets, White “Uncle Toms,” to fill those “seats,” and try to use their propaganda megaphone to convince Whites that the initial concessions are enough.
This is why we need to be planning and organizing now, and be steadfast in our demands – demands that MUST include that only genuine activists fill those seats and the demand that WE, not the System, decide in what manner the concessions will be implemented.
In order to have such leverage, and to get the ball rolling to induce the original concessions to begin with, there must be sufficient agitation to FORCE the System to go against their every inclination. That must be increasing racial chaos and balkanization that threatens to undermine the very existence of the multicultural consensus, an unsettling force of dissension and unrest that creates a situation so untenable that the System is forced – no matter how hesitant they may initially be – to come to the bargaining table and deal with real pro-White activists and make concessions that will integrate those activists into positions that can be leveraged to strong-arm the System even more. Thus, the legitimization of White interests, and of White activists, will damage the social pricing mechanism, and allow for more overt pro-White activism, and establishment of integrated structures of White propaganda and empowerment. Once those are established, it is only a matter of time…
But again, this is not going to happen on its own. Only steady balkanizing pressure, only a steady increase in racial dissension and unrest, in which Whites, for the first time in a long time, take an active role in defending their own racial interests, will force the System’s hand in the manner.
Is Der Movement up to this challenge? Or will they let the Trump phenomenon fade away, once again demonstrating incredible uselessness and incompetence?

Advertisements

Best Article So Far to Appear at Counter-Currents

Read it and then read it again.

In my opinion, this is the single best article ever to have appeared at Counter-Currents (including my own).

Many of the lessons outlined here apply not only to the armed phase of struggle, but also to the times we find ourselves in now. For example:

Saul Alinsky writes in Rules for Radicals that organizers must be masters of “political schizophrenia.” They must sincerely believe in what they are doing, if only to give them the strength of will to carry forward in difficult times. However, they should never become a “true believer” in the sense of fully internalizing their own propaganda. The point of politics is to achieve concrete ends, not simply to remain true to a dream. 

The Myth of nationalist (and racial) redemption is True in some platonic sense. That doesn’t mean it has to be a suicide pact. Revolutionaries have to be willing to die for the dream, but idealism does not exempt them from the laws of political reality.

The “movement” can learn from this, as it simultaneously manages to be both too serious/internalizing of its silly dogmas, but, on the other hand, completely non-serious when it comes to practical political work (in all its guises).

It’s unlikely that these Irish revolutionaries were measuring each other’s cephalic indices, or arguing whether they were men above time, beyond time, or unable to tell time. Putting aside the issue that de Valera was a half-Spanish hybrid.
Probably the most serious “movement” folks were the likes of Mathews, Scutari, Lane, etc. – but they misjudged by an order of magnitude their chances of success.

Durocher Doubles Down

But then backs off.

At first, this seemed like just another one of Durocher’s breathless love letters to Orban. But then (perhaps during the orgasmic refractory period), a glimmer of sense appeared:

The conservative populists will not, in themselves, save Europe, even if they successfully impose a solution to the current migrant crisis. Their opposition to non-European immigration is as a rule instinctive and electoral, not ideological and principled. They oppose immigration, to the extent they do, because it pays and will cease to do so when it no longer pays. Indeed, Orbán’s poll numbers have shot up thanks to his successful crisis management and it is hard to say the extent to which his position is really ideologically principled or merely politically opportunistic. The conservative populists’ objective role — visible especially in France, Germany, and Belgium — has often been to steal votes from the nationalist far-right, without actually addressing the underlying problem of immigration.

While it is possible that Orban may personally prefer Hungary to stay Hungarian, I believe he is an opportunist whose current position is solely due to pressure on his political right from Jobbik. His constant waffling in the face of EU pressure is not consistent with a principled position. Then we have his attack on the NPI conference. No one was asking him to endorse the conference, much less promote or even attend it, but just to leave it alone. But, no, with all the fervor of a “point-and-sputter” SJW, he made sure to crush the conference and harass Spencer. Is there still any doubt about his “principles?”
A correct attitude toward Orban would be brief and infrequent mild and skeptical praise when he says or does (preferably, does) something useful, but to always “hold his feet to the fire” and never trust him to do the right thing on his own. The onanistic frenzy of the mainstreamers about Chicken Wire Vik is as unseemly and embarrassing as the traditionalists with their hands in their pants over bare-chested Vlad, or “the Donald’s” army of dreamy-eyed PUA girls lying in the grass wetting themselves over “the Trumpening.”
As to why the mainstreaming excitement over Orban:

Barring a bloody revolution, the only way for us to achieve the policies necessary to halt immigration and save Europe from destruction is by restoring that junction between our ruling elites and the ostracized nationalist dissidence. Thus our peoples’ interests and right to life would again be secured, and our ruling elites might again be legitimate leaders of the people they govern. 

EGI Notes is of course a peace-loving and pacifist blog that preaches a strict doctrine of non-violence. I – no doubt, no doubt! – absolutely abhor any thought of anything other than bookish intellectualism as a solution to our problems. However, I unfortunately realize – with deep regret, shaking my head sadly – that to solve the race problem will very possibly require “bloody revolution” and that “our” ruling elites in such a scenario would be made to learn to “play the piano” real fast.  The mainstreamers, on the other hand, horrified by the thought of soiling their dainty hands with any of that, refuse to consider the possibility. Let’s leave the traitors and opportunists in power; after all, anything else would be “radical” and “bloody.” Thus, the mainstreamers eagerly grasp onto Orban or any other established conservative figure that offers hope that a partial compromise solution can be found that would not require any dreaded bloodshed.