Category: security

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.

Advertisements

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.