Category: security

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.

Please Watch This Video

I’ve been warning you about all of this for many years.

The price of affirmative action – if you watch anything, watch this.  It’s a must. You can find it on Amazon, for example.

It’s all there. The humiliating ease of the infiltration, and how quickly and seamlessly Hermansson rose within the ranks of the pitiful Alt Right. Note that, apparently, ZERO significant (if any) background checks were done on him. Note that no one bothered to check whether or not his false persona was real, whether or not that false persona was, in reality, actually a university student writing a dissertation. No, the “extreme vetting” was essentially: “Are you Swedish?”- literally.  Thus: “You’re Swedish…talk to Steadman.”  That was followed up with meeting with Stead Steadman at Steadman’s favorite eatery…The Nordic Bakery.

I kid you not. You just can’t make this stuff up. Nor could you make up the “Odin Ceremony”- if I tried to invent a parody of Der Movement’s ethnic fetishism, I couldn’t do a better job.  If I tried to invent a scenario demonstrating how Der Movement’s extreme Nordicism has real-life negative consequences, I couldn’t do any better than this. A jug-eared, effeminate, pipe stem-armed Swedish homosexual, with a transparently false identity, is rapidly brought up in the “movement” to the point that he’s doing background checks on legitimate meeting attendees (and laughably warned about “Martin the HopenotHate infiltrator”), and giving a opening speech about the dangers of infiltration (!) at one of Johnson’s meetings, all simply because of Steadman’s ethnoracial obsessions.  I’ll pass over the juvenile jackassery of the “Extremist Club,” the counter-productive provocations of Turner, and the delusions of Jorjani.

What an absolute train wreck. Don’t say you weren’t warned. At the same time all of that was going on, the “crazy and bitter” Sallis was denouncing the Alt Right, warning all of you about the Alt Right, denouncing Jorjani and the whole AltRight Corporation, warning about the “movement’s” ethnic fetishism and Nordicism, being skeptical about the “extreme vetting” – correct about it all.

All of the people who facilitated Hermansson’s joyride through the “movement” have NO business still being involved in racial activism in any capacity – but of course they still are. Of course.  Affirmative action works wonders, eh?

See this.  It’s so easy for them.


And let us not forget this great moment in “extreme vetting” operational security (emphasis added):

I e-mailed Dr. Greg Johnson, organizer of Northwest Forum, Seattle’s hottest closed-door white nationalist convention, asking for an interview on the latest in regional racism. He turned me down. Thanks to the internet, the far right no longer needs the mainstream media to get its message out. Print, television, and radio lose their relevance when everybody’s just a click away from Pepe the Frog, Disney songs dubbed with racist lyrics, and pseudo-intellectual essays that somehow try to bring ancient Rome into all this.

Also thanks to the internet, it only took me about an hour to change my identity from David Lewis, Seattle historian, to Dave Lewis, Neo-Nazi film editor and aspiring book critic from Charlottesville, currently living in Los Angeles. This Dave Lewis has never been to Seattle, but has always wanted to attend Northwest Forum.

My film editor persona dangled a giant chunk of cheese in front of Dr. Johnson. In addition to being a racist, Johnson is also a huge cinephile…Dr. Johnson bit the cheese. Entry into Northwest Forum typically requires “extreme vetting,” which means meeting in person and getting a beer with one of the Northwest’s white separatist organizations like True Cascadia. But I didn’t even have to send in a photoMy e-mail invite listed the forum for August 26th at noon…

Accountability?  Zero.  Consequences?  Zero.  Indeed, the “D’Nations” keep on flowing in.

Our goal this year is to raise $100,000. So far, we have received 367 donations totaling $92,489.93. This is an enormous outpouring of commitment and support.

Remember that the next time Hood scribbles that “the only thing we need is money.”

Santayana:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

That is why you rank-and-file fellows need to be reminded, time and again, of the humiliating stupidity and collapse of the Alt Right, and of the practical consequences of the “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action program.

Read this.  (Note: How about “HBD as anti-White pseudoscience?”)  Emphasis added:

Krosch has a broad, testosteronized punim like that of the fanatical Swedish climate crusader Greta Thunberg. 

What?  Blasphemy!  Doesn’t he know that Thunberg is Swedish?  He’s going to get his Der Movement, Inc. membership card revoked!  What are Thunberg praisers like Durocher and Counter-Currents going to think?  For shame!  (Shame culture activated!)

Now, I was rebuked in the comments to my last article at TOO for “draw[ing] attention to minor deficiencies in [the] physical beauty” of the journalists Stephen Daisley and Tanya Gold, but I don’t think the rebuke was valid. As the great Chateau Heartiste has often pointed out: “Physiognomy is real.” The ugliness of leftism as an ideology is often reflected in the ugliness of leftists as people. I also agree with a fascinating article at National Vanguard arguing that “Jews themselves are an unattractive and, on average, ugly people” and that “Jews, as a group, oppose beauty.” In fact, the Talmud advises Jews not to regard physical beauty as important in marriage: “For ‘false is grace and beauty is vain.’ Pay regard to good breeding, for the object of marriage is to have children” (Taanith 26b and 31a).

This seems to be the article in question.  By the way, my own essay on the subject was written without knowing about that National Vanguard piece. The Talmud quote supports my theory.


Those conservatives – like folks who shill for capitalism?  By the way, note how Asians mirror Black and Hispanic voting and public opinion patterns – the same as Jews, it should be noted.  Colored is as Colored does.

Ethnonationalism marches on.  Hail Brexit!  Hail ethnonationalism!  Rule Britannia!

Counter-Currents marches on:

A possible objection bears discussion. All Indo-European beliefs, and indeed most traditional doctrines the world over, posit an inevitable end to this world. Whether it comes to a close with the Age of Iron, the Second Coming, the Age of the Wolf, or the Kali Yuga…

Rewritten:

A possible objection bears discussion. All Type I “traditionalist” beliefs, and indeed most traditional doctrines the world over, posit an inevitable end to this world. Whether it comes to a close with the Age of Aluminum, the Googolplex Coming, the Age of the Hamster, or the Yogi Bear…

Behold the Millennial “activist” Jeelvy:

I am a crotchety and aging millennial, with a self-cut undercut; my body is a hearty mix of muscle and . . . heh, insulating material; and my head is full of sanity-preserving copes, nightmares, and immature dick jokes. I’ve got a tenuous grip on a sinecure, I write for Counter-Currents, I lift weights and practice martial arts, and I hike with my wife on weekends. Her tits are only slightly bigger than my clenched fist. I have a Facebook page where I post photos of puppies and horses.

The entirety of Jeelvy’s writing can be summed up thus.

Time for Jeelvy to get hysterical about “Boomer mate poaching.”  No Bueno!

Shallow and stupid: It’s Jef Costello.  Isn’t he thankful about Ann Coulter as well?  When’s breakfast going to be ready?  Dinesh is getting hungry too.

Anatomy of Error

A brief analysis.

I read this book long ago, when it first came out; it is very good, is recommended.  

What are some major errors in Der Movement?  What is the “anatomy of error” in (American) White racial activism?

Among many – reversing the strategic order of how things should be done.  Prudence dictates that you first thoroughly prepare for an action, build the required infrastructure, prepare for the enemy’s response and for other contingencies, and then you proceed.

Thus, first, you build an infrastructure, and then you go public with your rallies, protests, actions, and so forth.  If you want to provoke the System, you had better be prepared for the System’s reaction. What the “movement” does instead is have their rallies and protests and public meetings and violent outbursts with zero infrastructure there for support – zero legal teams, zero media structures, zero elected officials who are true fellow travelers, zero integration in the local community, zero economic self-sufficiency, zero strategy, and zero planning.

Ironically, all the representatives of big-brained European ethnies that are celebrated in the “movement” for their foresight and discipline behave worse than the most incompetent, undisciplined, and hare-brained gesticulating swarthoid.  Superiority is not a birthright, it has to be earned. And Der Movement and its failed leaders have earned nothing.

Let’s move on.  What can be done for young White men frustrated with the System, despairing of a pathetically failed “movement,” and tempted to ruin their lives by lashing out with sporadic violence against an entrenched overpowering System?

Besides taking my advice to concentrate on their own selves and well-being over all else – we need quality men, not broken boys – they need to be able to fit into a real movement that can give them a sense of purpose in an atmosphere of competence and manly collegiality (the latter of which is not effete Bronyism or homosexuals “flirting” with “cute” activists at “extreme vetted” meetings). I’ve long been an advocate of a Legionary-type structure, which would of course necessitate a real leadership and a real competence beyond that currently available in Der Movement.

For such an activity, real vetting and security are required.  Now, I’m not going to discuss what could and should constitute such vetting on a public forum, but I will give two examples of what such vetting should not be.  “Are you Swedish?” is insufficient as “extreme vetting.”  Having a Skype conversation in which you congratulate a candidate (in reality, an infiltrator) on their Northwest European heritage, while mocking Brooklyn Italian-Americans, also does not meet the standards of effective vetting and security.

It’s interesting, but in my analog, meat-space, IRL WN 1.0 days, there were zero instances (insofar as I am aware) of private meetings being infiltrated.  Now, public meetings were another story, operational security there was sub-standard, but at least the physical security was sound, so the outcome of public meeting infiltration was a bit of snooping (which admittedly was bad) and not violence.  But the private meetings were sound – thus, the WN 1.0 crowd, for all their faults, were a step ahead of WN 2.0. Thus, the lack of proper operational security is a major error of Der Movement today, and is in fact part of the infrastructure problem cited at the beginning of this post, since “opsec” is one of the most fundamental pillars upon which to build everything that follows.

Let’s consider the problem of freakishness and silliness. There are of course many divisions within the “movement.” Pan-Europeanism vs. ethnonationalism, pan-Europeanism vs. Nordicism, vanguardism vs .mainstreaming, Christianity vs. anti-Christians, ethnic fetishists and those who oppose them, etc. Readers know I have strong views on these topics that often clash with established “movement” dogma. But even when I oppose that dogma, at least I can understand it, I can see the points of the other side, and it is something within the realm of rational possibility.  It can be in some ways defensible through reasoned argument, even if I disagree ad make my own reasoned arguments against the memes I oppose.

However, when observing the current WN 2.0 fiasco, things occur that are so outlandish that I simply cannot understand how any ostensibly intelligent, sane, and rational activist can promote any of it. Yang Gang? Tulsi Coconut? The years of slavish Trump worship? Bronyism – My Little Pony, for godssakes!  I’m at a loss, completely at a loss.  WN 1.0 was a disaster, sure, but it was a disaster mitigated at least by an aura of seriousness, or at least semi-seriousness.  What we have now is like a bad comedy routine.

Thus, another constant error of the “movement” is the promotion of freakishness that has no direct connection whatsoever to racialism. For example, it is because of anti-science raving retards like this that we have a growing measles problem in the US. Some microbes are indeed just waiting for you.  Measles has a very high infectivity rate; if you are exposed and not immune, your probability of illness is close to 100%.  You can of course argue that filthy scum not getting their children vaccinated – and many of these in the current outbreak are Ultra-Orthodox Jews – is a sign of weakness (in this case mental), and I’ll agree with that. Leave it up to morons like “Stronza” and we would still have smallpox epidemics and folks in iron lungs from polio.  Pepe!  Kek!  Traditionalism!  We can bury those dead five year olds snug in our hobbit holes!

This completely superfluous stupidity damages the image of racialism to both the general public and to the science and technics types that we need as one component of our arsenal of human material. I’m not surprised that the affirmative action “leadership” doesn’t know any better. 

Coming full circle, we can mention another fundamental flaw of Der Movement, on par with reversing the order of organization (which should come first) and action (which should come after) – the inability to clearly and decisively define an ingroup. This is something I’ve written about often. The defining characteristic of any group is the decision of who is in and who is out.  Without a clearly defined and stable boundary of membership, there is no group.  That boundary needs to be decided BEFORE the group is formed, before people are recruited and action is taken. If there are going to be any changes in the composition of the group (changes which should be rare in any case), it always should be in the direction of greater inclusion – and if current members of the group object to that inclusion then they can voluntarily leave – freedom of association – and form their own groups with their own boundaries. But you cannot start redefining your ingroup for the purposes of exclusion after the fact, after people have been members for months or years (or even decades), investing their time, effort, money – their blood, sweat, and tears – their lives, for the group.  That’s not the time to tell them – “hey, we’ve reconsidered, you’re not part of the ingroup after all.”  

You’d think things like that should be obvious to the high born honorable superior big-brained heroic figures of Der Movement, but apparently not.

Full Metal Jerkoff

Der Military.

Read this.  Excerpts below.

Leaked chat logs have connected seven current members of the U.S. armed forces to a white nationalist group, according to a HuffPost investigation.

For years, Identity Evropa members have used a server on Discord, a group chat app popular among the alt-right, to send messages to one another. 

Opsec?  Why?  Why use “a group chat app?”  And if you do use it, why discuss where you did ROTC, your school wrestling career, and what your Dad does for a living?

Last week the independent media collective Unicorn Riot published the contents of that Discord server in its entirety. 

How did this happen? Infiltrators? Discord itself? 

A largely anonymous network of anti-fascist activists…

Never any leaks, infiltrations, etc. from that direction.  Have you ever noticed that?

…reviewed the Discord logs, using biographical details mentioned…

Mentioned why? 

….by Identity Evropa members, most of whom posted under pseudonyms, to uncover their offline identities.

Building off that research, HuffPost verified the identities of seven men currently serving in the military. 

So, Huffpost is the media outlet for Antifa?

The Marine Corps, the Army, the Air Force and the Texas National Guard confirmed to HuffPost that the identified men were active members in those services. After HuffPost’s inquiries, the military is investigating some of the men’s possible ties to Identity Evropa….

So, essentially the Far Left works hand-in-glove with the military-industrial complex – just as we already know they work with globalist big business interests.

Kathleen Belew, the author of Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America, told HuffPost that white nationalists in our armed forces pose a clear danger. 

Gangbangers, Middle Eastern terrorists, dual loyalty foreigners…all of course pose no danger whatsoever.

The group has been working to infiltrate the GOP — one member won an uncontested seat on his local Republican Party committee — and recruit members on college campuses. A recent report from the Anti-Defamation League found that Identity Evropa’s campus flyer campaigns were partly responsible for record-setting levels of white supremacist propaganda spotted across America last year. 

In theory, that’s good.  Let’s give credit where credit is due (in theory, if not in practice). Infiltrating the System is a good idea.  You just have to work on secure communication and proper vetting.

Days after the chat logs were published, Identity Evropa’s leader, 29-year-old Patrick Casey, a resident of Virginia who rose to a leadership role after producing videos for a white nationalist site, announced a rebrand: Identity Evropa is now the American Identity Movement. 

That’ll fix the problem!  AIM!  Are we sure that doesn’t stand for Advanced Idea Mechanics? What’s MODOK’s cephalic index? Looks rather brachycephalic to me.  A no good Alpinid!

The problem was not with the name or symbolism, it  was, and still is, with the people, particularly the leadership.  Now, there is a worse name, worse symbolism, but the same failed leadership.  Surprise!

A list of the servicemen in Identity Evropa identified by HuffPost is below.

Members In The U.S. Marine Corps

Stephen T. Farrea…Jason Laguardia…

Shabbos sud stepandfetchits?  That’s not going to work out for you guys.  Experto crede.

A photo from a gathering of the American Identity Movement, originally called Identity Evropa, posted to Twitter in March 2019. Laguardia, a Marine, can be seen in the photo.

Posted to Twitter.  Why?

Col. Ted Wong, a spokesperson for the U.S. Marine Corps, told HuffPost in a statement that the branch is investigating Farrea’s and Laguardia’s connections to Identity Evropa. 

“There is no place for racial hatred or extremism in the Marine Corps. Our strength is derived from the individual excellence of every Marine regardless of background,” Wong said. “Bigotry and racial extremism run contrary to our core values. The Marine Corps will investigate the allegations and take the appropriate disciplinary actions if warranted.” 

After all, someone named “Wong” is just the person to tell White Americans what is or is not appropriate behavior in our armed forces.

Here’s a secret video of an Alt Right Marine Corps meeting.  The Blacks in attendance are members of the Yang Gang – or perhaps simply mistaken for wops and dagoes.

Lawrence of Eurabia referred to biographical information in his chats. 

Why?  For what purpose?  No one (legitimate) should have wanted to know any of it, and he shouldn’t have wanted to share it.

He said he is a member of the ROTC program at Montana State University in Bozeman and is in the Army National Guard. He also said that he was a wrestler in high school from a town in Montana and that his dad worked as a stonemason there. 

Why didn’t he just post his social security number, fingerprints, and retinal scan?

Those details match publicly available information about Jay C. Harrison, 20…

Well, you couldn’t have gotten any more detailed.

And the article continues in this vein, in more painful embarrassing detail.

Compare the advice given to young activists by Sallis to the Warrior of Walmart mocking the idea of people infiltrating the System and building infrastructures in depth.  Sallis – correct. The Quota Queens – wrong.

Now, you may say, but isn’t infiltration what IE was doing?  In theory, yes, in practice, no.  Moles are supposed to burrow deep, not cheerfully discuss the most minute details of their lives on Discord, pose in publicly available photos, etc.  That’s not infiltration.  That’s people setting themselves up to get infiltrated.

You want these guys in the military to either:

A) Rise through the ranks and be in a position to do good.  You want them to be the higher levels guys doing the investigating, not the lower level schlubs getting investigated.

B) Put in your time, get an honorable discharge, and use that military experience to train cadres, quietly, behind the scenes.

Sallis advises to build your careers and lives, take care of yourselves first, and infiltrate the System.  The Warrior or Walmart ridicules the idea of slow and patient infiltration – instead, mount the ramparts (dressed like Batman or Captain America or wearing a TWP t-shirt with Codreanu’s picture on it), and proclaim your allegiances to the rooftops.

As far as this military fiasco goes, those fellows are young and they really didn’t know any better.  The real fail here was with “movement leadership” who’ve been making the same types of mistakes over and over again.  

My advice to activists, particularly young ones, remains – at least for the time being, drop out of active participation in Der Movement (and that includes giving “D’Nations”). You can continue reading the blogs, educating yourself, keeping track of the “movement,” but concentrate on yourself and making your own life better.  To the extent possible burrow deep into the fabric of the System.  But don’t actively participate in anything, including meetings, until such time that competent leadership arises – finally!– to put things right.

And yes, there here is real funny.  Perhaps Hermansson would like to give a meeting keynote address on the dangers of Discord.

White Bloc

A good idea.

I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of a “White Bloc” security squad to provide protection for public events. The Far Right cannot cede public spaces and their right to use such spaces without losing credibility to the general population.

There needs to be a division of labor.  You have the leaders, speakers, writers, intellectuals and you also need the “shock troops”  the “boots on the ground” to provide secure niches for the former group to effectively do their job of creating and spreading memes.  

If the Legion Europa idea had caught on, such a security squad would have emerged organically from such a pan-European elite formation.  But that was not to be.  Can a White Bloc be built up from Pepe-Kek lulzers?  Or are there some serious people out there? Spencer mentioned someone with military experience, so maybe there is hope.  I would strongly advise to go for quality not quantity.  Start with a small high-quality group and add similar people as they emerge, with extreme vetting (and sufficient training and discipline). Going for quantity will fill the ranks with morons and infiltrators, who will do – out of stupidity or mendacity – something stupid to discredit the group and get it into legal trouble.

Take a look at the Legionaries for an idea of how it all should be done.

Stupidity, Lies, and Cuckiness

The continued madness of Der Movement.

In contrast to the comically pathetic homoerotic fanboy mancrush worship of Trump by the likes of Roissy and the slightly more realistic Alt Wrong, we have the good sense of Kevin Strom, who sees the obvious beta race cucking of the Negrophilic civic nationalist Donald J. “Fats” Trump.  Trump’s inauguration speech was classic race cucking, as I’ve already discussed. Bitter disappointment awaits.

A YouTube comment which reflects the deep knowledge of the typical “movement” activist:

Isn’t Kevin MacDonald the pseudonym under which Molyneux wrote his anti-Semitic pamphlets?

Yeah, that’s right – MacDonald is Molyneux.  What stupidity. Der Movement marches on.

The Asiatrix at Majority Rights continues an analysis of the Enoch/TRS mess.  Two major arguments are made there.  First, that Enoch himself is Jewish.  The data presented are suggestive, but not definitive or conclusive. It is mostly circumstantial.  However, while I am not convinced, there is sufficient grounds to at least question possible Jewish ancestry. More data are needed; there seems to be more to this story than is coming from the TRS/pro-TRS side.  The second argument, and one for which there is stronger evidence, is that TRS was not an innocent victim here, but was attacked after they themselves attacked another forum.  There’s probably no “good guys” and “bad guys” in this story.  I do not have the interest to “go down the rabbit hole” after this latest round of “movement” insanity other than to express the general attitude of – “a pox on both your houses.”  Both sides here are discrediting racial nationalism and giving the Left, once again, a hearty laugh over Rightist dysfunction.  That most activists refuse to recognize that Der Movement is a defective failure is itself a manifestation of that defectiveness and failure.

When you have a half-Iranian in the fold, now “Persian” Iranians are “White.” Of course, “White” is a subjective term, and, of course, the mainstream “movement” does not consider a half-Iraqi, half-Nigerian such as myself to be White.  Maybe we should just talk about Europeans instead – which Iranians, “Persian” or not, definitely are not.

With well-placed contacts in the big networks and government, it’s almost certain that Trump is aware of the social engineering propaganda that has been staging shootings in order to pass gun control legislation. He is, after all, a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. The Sandy Hook shooting, portrayed as the Pearl Harbor event of gun crime is, at least on the Internet, the most mocked and parodied piece of news fakery in recent years. Trump’s refusal to denounce “Sandy Hook deniers” has not only upset The New Yorker and Rachel Maddow, but worse than that, Trump has appeared on Alex Jones and even invited a Sandy Hook denier to speak at a rally.

Why is this kind of delusional nonsense posted at Counter-Currents? Imagine you are a parent – maybe even a Far-Right, red-pilled one – and your child was killed in one of these massacres.  Then you have to read paranoid retards promoting “denial” of the massacre. It’s all a hoax!  Wax dummies in the coffins! The parents are actors!  This is a goddamned embarrassment.  It’s worse than that. It’s sick and degenerate.

And:

Even author Tom Clancy, known for his inside knowledge concerning governmental operations, died in a hit ordered by Obama, according to ex-CIA agent Jim Garrow.

Yeah, and Miguel Ferrer died from an Israeli “hit” because he played a Jewish FBI agent in Twin Peaks. No wait, he was given cancer by Randall Flagg for sleeping with a “Free Zone” spy.  No wait, it was payback against Daddy Jose from Captain Queeq/Humphrey Bogart from The Caine Mutiny. Further, the moon landing was (of course!) a hoax, to conceal the fact the moon is made of yellow cheese, which would ruin the international cheese cartels. Of course as well, smoking has no link to cancer, all made up by “Jew doctors” trying to ruin the hearty yeoman American tobacco farmer, and, of course, vaccination causes autism because, well, you know, Jewwwwww doctors…..

Here’s the point, which is glaringly obvious to even a low-IQ Afro-Asiatic swarthoid like myself, but which is somehow missed by all of our racially superior “movement leaders.” When normal people, concerned with the racial crisis, come to the Far-Right, they are going to encounter lunatic crap like what this fellow Zaja and other conspiracy nuts are peddling, and all of that nonsense – completely superfluous to the core of racial nationalism – is going to delegitimize racialism for the “normies.”  They are going to think – “hey, if these racialists are so crazily wrong and paranoid about Sandy Hook and the Apollo Moon missions, maybe they’re just as stupidly paranoid and wrong about White genocide.  Let me go back to the mainstream Right and vote for Lindsey Graham.”  

I’m puzzled that otherwise intelligent people don’t get what I, in my abject inferiority, see as glaringly obvious.  And guess what – even IF some of the conspiracy theories are true, it’s still a bad strategy to focus on them, since it associates the core of racialist thought with superfluous issues (and they are superfluous to the common fundamental core of racial nationalism) and creates extra controversies that we do not need. The fact that most if not all of these theories are in fact obviously nutty tin foil hat stupidity just makes it exponentially worse.

“Time to act accordingly.”  When are any of these guys going to learn anything about operational security? Do NOT send Spencer out there essentially unprotected in the street to do interviews, for godssakes.  Have some security “buddies” with him.  Better yet, make sure some of the “buddies” are just blending in with the crowd, or even pretending to be “antis” – ready to defend Spencer the next time some coward tries a cheap shot.  The assailants would not have gotten away if there were some “bystanders” present ready for such events and capable of detaining such criminals.  

Of course, once this tactic is adopted, the other side will escalate, but that’s the point.  As the “Intolerant Politics” article makes clear, we’re headed for Weimar Germany type street brawls between Right and Left.  That’s better than one-sided assaults by Left on Right.  You do the best you can in every given situation. Having prominent activists standing alone, essentially with a “hit me” sign painted on them, is not doing the best we can in that situation. In every competitive give-and-take between opposing forces, you must always force your opponent to “up their game.”  Play the percentages and don’t give away any advantages.  This is similar to leftoid stupidity about racial profiling in airports – “if we racially profile, the terrorists will try and recruit some wholesome-looking White folks.”  Well yes, that’s the whole point – you make things as difficult as possible for them.  You force them to exert time and energy and resources getting around your best defenses, at which point, in the “evolutionary arms race,” you improve your defenses.  If you are going to let guys who look like Osama Bin Laden walk through airport security without a second glance, while at the same time strip-searching 80-year old Irish-American nuns, you are making things too easy for your opponents.  Make them prove they can escalate their game. Likewise, yes, if the Right has proper operational security, sure, the Left will put more effort (if they are capable of doing so) to circumvent it.  And that’s the point.  Make them prove they can do it.  It’s like in sports.   If a hitter cannot hit a curveball, keep on throwing him curveballs, until such time he proves that he’s learned he can hit it, at which point try something else. But if the hitter can slam a fastball and is inept against curveballs, why would you make it easy on him and throw fastballs?  Yes, eventually he may (or may not) learn to hit the curveball – but force him to prove he can do it. Play the percentages, improve your operations, and force your opponents to keep up – if they can.

Funding the Movement: Three Practical Problems

Three of the biggest problems.
In the latest Counter-Currents debate between Johnson and Parrott, re: conferences, Johnson made the reasonable point that money wasted on conferences could be used directly by activists (such as himself) to hire staff and get things done. I would like to comment on the issue of funding the “movement” via supporter contributions. This should not be construed as any sort of attack or criticism of Greg Johnson himself who, insofar as I know, has put contributions to good use. Nor do I expect any sort of “movement reform” – I stand by my call that the (American) racial nationalist “movement” – The Old Movement – needs to be completely destroyed and replaced by something new.  With all of that, I would still like to present what I see as three major problems that many potential contributors would have with funding the current “movement.”  I will assume that the supporter has the fiscal means to make a contribution (not true in many cases) and that there are no major areas of ideological disagreement (but see Point 3).
Point 1: The support will be wasted.  The “movement” has a terrible track record of “accomplishment” using the resources it has already been given.  This does not instill confidence that future contributions will be put to effective use.  The best example of this is Pierce and his National Alliance. Over many years, a significant amount of money (and time and effort) went into supporting the Alliance and its “home office” in the mountains of West Virginia.  And what was the outcome of that investment? When Pierce was alive, nothing substantial was accomplished, certainly nothing commensurate with the level of support given. After he died, the entire enterprise disintegrated over the course of the following decade, with much lost, until the organization was hollowed out and is now the subject of an attempt at “rebuilding.”  Regardless of what happens with this “rebirth,” it is clear that the Alliance was a black hole that absorbed a significant portion of the “movement’s” limited support, and, for the most part, wasted what it was given.  Other examples abound that need not be discussed now.  Indeed, we can turn it around: instead of cataloging “movement” failures, we can ask for a list of definitive success stories – examples of where contributor input was put to good use and accomplished something lasting of value. The list for America: NOTHING.
Point 2: Lack of security that will compromise any potential success.  Related to point 1, the “movement” has a terrible record of internal security. They pose as “dissidents in a totalitarian state” but behave as if this was all a video game. Infiltration by government agents and/or by NGO “anti-racist” groups is routine and relatively unopposed.  The slightest degree of common sense of groups with their lists of “members” and “contributors” does not exist. The “movement” is unable and unwilling to even resist “cognitive infiltration” by obvious trolls and infiltrators in online forums, so there is little confidence of any foresight, discipline, or self-awareness anywhere else. “Loose-lips” on online forums and at (infiltrated) meetings abound. I will not go into specific details about things I have seen, since that would obviously be an example of the “loose-lips” principle I am criticizing. However, I suspect that anyone with experience in the “movement” knows that Point 2 is a big problem.
Now, I don’t expect activists to openly discuss the details of their security measures, which would defeat its own purpose, and would of course itself be prima facie evidence of poor security. But we should be able to see outcome-based evidence of security considerations. We should be able to see the overt practices and outcomes (lack of breaches) that would begin to instill a bit of confidence. We could see a hard line against “Sunsteinism.”  We can see if prudent advice is dispensed.  We can see an absence of the “loose-lips” phenomenon.  We can see an absence of defective characters and suspicious activities.  That would be helpful.
Point 3: EGI blindsiding.  Some activists – with good reason (experience) – are justifiably suspicious as to whether they will get “blindsided” by animus toward their ethnies from individuals/groups that they have heretofore supported.  Consider activists of certain European ethnic origins who supported Pierce and the Alliance, later to see their suspicions confirmed by publication of Pierce’s screed, Who We Are.  It seems obvious that Pierce must have had an ethnoracial animus toward some of his own supporters.  Or, for example, we have certain Amren supporters getting a slap in the face from the “Hippocrates” incident.  There have been plenty of cases of individuals/groups/journals/sites that have made the pretense of being “pan-European” or “pan-Aryan” or “White inclusive” to maximize support, and then the mask falls off and one sees that there was always a more exclusivist (and dishonestly hidden) subracial agenda all along.  I really don’t see any American grouping that I would consider pan-European by my standards. 
Now, it is one thing to ask people to be relatively ethnically (and personally) disinterested for the common (racial) good.  It’s something else entirely to ask them to fund and support attacks against their own narrower genetic interests.  It’s hypocritical as well, since the “movement” would, I am sure, vigorously oppose the idea that Whites should be racially disinterested and support anti-White activities for the “greater common good of humanity.” Any honest racial nationalist movement (no scare quotes) would support the genetic interests of its members through the entire spectrum: personal, familial, ethnic, subracial, racial.  You cannot ask people to completely sacrifice one level for another while at the same time criticize the System for asking Whites to sacrifice their racial interests for humanity.
Any precinct of the “movement” asking for support had better be honest, transparent, and consistent about who it is they represent.  I haven’t seen that in America.