Category: strategy and tactics

The Ethnic Genetic Interests of Imperium

Optimizing European EGI

By Imperium, I obviously mean Yockey’s overarching idea, not his book. In the debate between “Big Europe” pan-Europeanism, as exemplified by Yockey, and atomized ethnonationalism, where do ethnic genetic interests (EGI) fit in?

First, let us clear up misconceptions about Yockey, misconceptions that assert he advocated a complete European panmixia in which all distinctions between Europeans would disappear.

English, German, French, Italian, Spanish — these are now mere place-names and linguistic variations. Like all of the other rich products of our great Culture, they will continue but they are no longer political terms. Local cultures in Europe may be as diversified as they wish, and they will enjoy a perfect autonomy in the European Imperium, now that the oppression of vertical nationalism is dead. Anyone who seeks to perpetuate petty-statism or old-fashioned nationalism is the inner enemy of Europe. He is playing the game, of the extra-European forces, he is dividing Europe and committing treason.

Treason now has only one meaning to Europe: it means serving any other force than Europe. There is only one treason now, treason to Europe. The nations are dead, for Europe is born.

“Local cultures in Europe may be as diversified as they wish, and they will enjoy a perfect autonomy…” – hopefully that clarifies the dishonest “Yockey wanted to eliminate all intra-European particularisms” argument.

We also need to keep in mind that Yockey wrote this several years after the end of WWII; faced with the undisputable poisonous fruit from the ethnonationalist tree, Yockey championed a militant pan-Europeanism, an ideal which he would likely have championed anyway (even without the war and its aftermath) – although perhaps with less stringent rhetoric – because he saw a United Europe as the next step in the organic evolution of the West. But no doubt his ill-concealed rage toward those who questioned, in any way, his vision was in part due to the devastation he saw around him – although I must say I agree with him that those who continue to try and divide Europe are indeed traitors (intentionally or not).

Small-minded and short-sighted “activists” today, who have forgotten the lessons of two world wars, instead look at the EU and recoil at any idea of European unity.  One cannot just look at what’s right in front of them, but also look toward the ages. That’s something that today’s “movement” pygmies are incapable of doing. In any case, Yockey suggests eliminating European nations as political entities, with Europe itself being the only political entity with real sovereignty; on the other hand, Yockey allows for local autonomy in this scheme, preservation of local cultures and, presumably then, preservation of the ethnic stocks actualizing those cultures.

There are of course EGI costs and benefits to Yockey’s imperial scheme.  Let’s consider EGI, in a qualitative sense, along the ethnonationalist/pan-European continuum.  What are the options? We need to find the “sweet spot” where maximum genetic interest can be obtained at the ethny level by balancing interests and investments at both the racial and ethnic levels.  Of course, there is not (as of now) any calculable metric to give us any definitive answers here, even if we accept that answers may change in a context-dependent manner.  As noted above, the arguments will necessarily have to be, at least for now, qualitative rather than quantitative.

Now, Yockey’s vision (and the somewhat similar ideas of Mosely) are not the most extreme manifestation of pan-Europeanism   Probably von Hoffmeister’s ideal would be classified as such; read this:

The mixing of different European nationalities should therefore be encouraged. We must support sexual unions between Russian women and German men, Spanish men and Swedish women. Only by radically breaking down the artificial barriers dividing Europe can we create the new breed of man…

(Constantin von Hoffmeister, “Our Motherland: Imperium Europa,” in Norman Lowell, Imperium Europa: The Book that Changed the World (Imperium Publishing, 2008), 24)

One can envision then a continuum in which at one end we have von Hoffmeister’s panmictic vision of pan-Europeanism; on the other end we have the Counter-Currents scheme of extreme ethnonationalism, in which balkanized European nations and regions guard their sovereignty from their neighbors, and are ready to go to war – including ethnic cleansing! – against fellow Europeans who in any way offend them.  So, the endpoints of the continuum are here:

CC——————–CvH

…and I’ll fill in some other viewpoints in a qualitative, impressionistic fashion.

Key:

CC = Counter-Currents

CvH = Constatin von Hoffmeister

FPY = Francis Parker Yockey

TS = Ted Sallis

NL = Normal Lowell

C = Center

OGI = On Genetic Interests discussion of “civilizational blocs” as one political approach to EGI (this is not meant to be a comprehensive and/or current summary of Salter’s views, which may well be slightly more in the ethnonationalist direction, although I cannot speak for him)

BSS = “Black” SS – as per Coogan, the more Nordicist and Germanocentric portion of the SS 

WSS = “Waffen” SS – as per Coogan, the more pan-European faction of the SS (not necessarily the same as the Waffen SS proper)

AH = Adolf Hitler

MC = Montreaux Conference of 1934

Thus:

CC -AH/BSS——WSS/MC-C-OGI—TS/NL—FPY—CvH

Note that is not the final word, it is my interpretation, and things may certainly change with more data.  But that is a reasonable starting point for discussion.

Thus, Mosely may be around where Yockey is, or perhaps a bit toward the left, Spencer the same. 

Note two things.  First, this is a Far-Right continuum along the ethnonationalist/pan-European axis.  The Far-Left EU is discussed below.  Second, as this is a two-dimensional spectrum, the fact that two points are near each other does not mean they agree on other issues.  For example, I (TS) favor the pan-European approach, but one that allows for national/local sovereignty to some extent, and the definitive preservation of ethnicities and their cultures.  Lowell, with his Imperium vs. Dominion dichotomy (large-scale Imperium vs. local rule Dominion) is similar, although we may disagree on other issues.  I favor an authoritarian national socialist regime; Lowell favors libertarian capitalism.

Is it fair to describe Counter-Currents as more extreme than Adolf Hitler and the “Black” SS? The Nazis wanted to dispossess the Slavs and reduce them to the level of serfs; Counter-Currents publicly endorsed the idea of European nations ethnically cleansing each other in particular circumstances.  As genocide is more extreme than enslavement, the placement on the continuum is in my opinion justified.  

The “Waffen” SS and the Montreux conference is on the ethnonationalist side of the equation: although these SS men were more pan-European, they were still Germanocentric followers of Hitler, and they promoted the idea of a Europe of nations (led by Germany of course).  The Montreux conference promoted a Fascist International ideal of pan-European cooperation, but cooperation amongst ethnonationalist movements, each retaining their full sovereignty.  In OGI, Salter discussed the idea of civilizational blocs that are fairly permeable internally but closed to the outside, yet EGI is fully compatible with ethnonationalism and no clear cut definitive recommendations were made there.  Thus, that discussion in OGI is slightly to the pan-European side of center.  Those further to the right on the continuum have already been discussed.

Where would the EU fit in this scheme?  Actually nowhere, as this continuum is for pro-White, rightist planning, while the EU is orthogonal to all of this an anti-White, leftist creation of globalist elites. If we were to judge, however, strictly on the criterion of relative sovereignty, then the EU would be in between my ideal and that of Yockey.  The EU is less extreme than Yockey in that in retains European nations a political entities, but it is more extreme than my vision in that it dictates even local matters, it promotes migration between EU nations, and essentially today the entire enterprise can be summarized by the vision of the harridan scold Merkel, standing astride Europe holding a rolling pin, grinding down opposition to her radical race replacement agenda.  I would certainly suggest more national independence than that!

Extreme ethnonationalism would attempt to maximize EGI at the ethnic level, while foregoing racial European EGI as a whole in the global context.  Extreme pan-Europeanism would do the opposite: maximize racial EGI of Europe vs the Colored World, while sacrificing ethnic EGI, which would be significantly degraded through the proposed process of panmixia.  Of the two, I would argue that extreme ethnonationalism is actually more self-contradictory, since extreme ethnonationalism can actually damage the specific ethnic group practicing it.  Salter talks in OGI how Hitler’s extreme ethnonationalism damaged the German people as a result of his wars, and the reaction of other nations against him.  Also, since European ethnic groups are relatively similar genetically (some more than others)  with some kinship overlap between neighboring states, an extreme ethnonationalism would harm the people practicing it, from an EGI standpoint, because they would be in opposition to people fundamentally similar to themselves, while more alien peoples of other continents may well benefit from intra-European strife.  Extreme ethnonationalism, by attempting to maximize narrow gross genetic interests, can backfire on those practicing it and result in a net loss of genetic interest.  The Germans had Hitler; now they have Merkel.  Their extreme ethnonationalism boomeranged into suicidal Universalist altruism.  Perhaps if Hitler was a dedicated pan-Europeanist, and one without a “zero sum game” ethnonationalist attitude, the German people –and all Europeans – would be better off today.

That said, both extremes are sub-optimal for European EGI.  For example, I cannot see a logical argument as to why a European panmixia is necessary to actualize an Imperium capable of safeguarding the interests – ethnic genetic and otherwise – of all European peoples.  If it is not necessary, then the foregone ethnic-specific EGI is wasted for no reason.  Indeed, one can argue that the prospect of a panmixia that eliminates ethnic-specific particularisms would spark an ethnonationalist backlash as groups attempt to safeguard their uniqueness through a “narcissism of small differences” campaign against their fellow Europeans.  Occam’s razor for civilizational planning: do not multiply complexities beyond necessity.  In the absence of a convincing argument in favor of panmixia (if there is such an argument I would like to see it produced and fairly evaluate it), it is an unnecessary complication.  But those who would critique that threat to European ethnic diversity are hypocrites if they do not equally denounce the “ethnic cleansing” of Europeans promoted by the extreme ethnonationalists.  Such genocidal lunacy obviously is detrimental to the EGI of all Europeans.

One can envision charting on the x-axis the ethnonationalist-pan-European continuum (ethnonationalist on left, pan-European on right) and on the y-axis the net effects on both ethnic-level EGI and racial-level EGI as two distinct lines.  In general, the ethnic-level EGI line would start highest at the ethnonationalist side of the continuum, although I argue (see above) that extreme ethnonationalism is corrosive of even narrow ethnic interests; however, for the sake of argument, let’s consider a simple downward slope moving from left to right on the graph (from ethnonationalist to pan-European).  On the other hand, the racial line slopes upward as one moves rightward in the pan-European direction.  Of course, things are not that simple even here, given how ethnic and racial interests overlap; the racial is composed of the ethnic, and kinship overlap confuses ethnic interests with that of other ethnies in the racial.  But again, for the sake of argument, we can consider a simple mode.  We can then envision a graph like this.

Envision the ethnic line as blue and the racial line as red.  There will be a point of intersection – the “sweet spot” – in which there is an optimized balance of ethnic and racial genetic interests (and, likely, interests in general, including the important proximate interests, particularly High Culture). The question remains, where is this spot, and or course it is unlikely we will agree on an answer, although most people would likely agree that the spot is not at either of the extremes (although, theoretically, it could be). Again, this is a qualitative, impressionist argument (similar to Salter’s genetic interest plots in OGI), but one needs to consider it nevertheless, even knowing that without the (impossible) option of side-by-side testing of alternatives, we are making educated guesses, or, more optimistically, informed and logical estimates.

There is always going to be a trade-off between narrower and broader genetic interests.  Of course, it goes without saying: context is important.  The “sweet spot” is obviously going to change based on context and circumstances.  If the overall race is secure, but your particular ethnic group is threatened then, obviously, the cross-over point at which the genetic interest lines intersect will fall closer to the ethnonationalist direction.  On other hand, race-wide crises would necessitate shifting the intersection point in the pan-European direction.  In particular, if your ethnic group is relatively secure, but the race as a whole – that includes ethnic groups relatively similar to your own, for whom you share some (somewhat more diluted, but still substantial – particularly given the numbers involved) genetic interest – is threatened, then the intersection point needs to be far to the pan-European direction.  If both race and ethnic group are secure, more investment in self and family is prudent’ if humanity as a whole is threatened, one must look toward that (while still giving preference to your own people, so defined).  In the current situation, both ethnic group and race are threatened for all Europeans, so a balanced approach is best.  What’s optimal then?

I would propose that my vision of a balanced pan-Europeanism, formulated with EGI in mind, in which local sovereignty is retained and intra-European differences are preserved, while enfolding all the peoples of Europe in an Imperium to safeguard their existence, actualize a High Culture, and reach the stars, is the sweet spot” between the extremes.  Lowell’s Imperium Europa has many of the same advantages.  Although we cannot know this for sure, without an actual side-by-side testing of schemes that is impossible, it is logically reasonable to conclude that a balanced approach would preserve European EGI than both panmixia as well as lunatic ethnonationalist schemes in which atomized Europeans ethnically cleanse each other in bloody warfare.  Although the OGI point, not far away from mine, may also serve.

Again, a balance is needed, which I believe my scheme exemplifies.  Ethnic and local particularisms (biological and cultural) are preserved, intra-European borders are preserved, intra-European demographic flows are restricted, but, at the same time, one has an Imperium, which cuts off all flow from the outside, and sufficiently integrates Europe – for defense, foreign policy, racial matters, top-level cultural and science/technics issues, etc. – so as to safeguard the entire and prevent EGI-corroding intra-European feuding.  There’s no ethic cleansing in my scheme, nor any panmixia.  It is certainly a reasonable and viable candidate for the “sweet spot.”  The bulk of both ethnic and racial genetic interests are conserved, some compromises are made, and political mechanisms would need to be put in place to ensure the long-term maintenance of the balance between ethnic and racial level interests.

This is the beginning of the analysis, and I see it a good start.


And what about Yockey’s Imperium idea?  Assuming he was serious about the commitment to local autonomy and preservation, then his authoritarian Western state could do a reasonably good job at balancing ethnic and racial European EGI, although other ides may be more optimal (or not).  We do need to remember Salter’s warning that a permanent solution to preserving and defending EGI is likely impossible.


We do the best that we can.

Advertisements

A Positive Critique

Dominique Venner.
This book has already been reviewed at Amren, so instead of just repeating what has already been done, I’d just like to cite a few relevant points from this excellent book (highly recommended) and how these points fit in to some of the opinions promoted here.
Venner begins with outlining “the flaws of the nationalist opposition” (if he did so today, he would be termed “crazy and bitter,” as “punching right” is only allowed for affirmative action panhandlers); these flaws include (today’s equivalents in parentheses): ideological confusion (of course, the entire “movement”), conformism (Der Movement’s fossilized dogma), archaism (Nutzism, Traditionalism), opportunism (all Chiefs, no Indians, and all Chiefs with the tin cup out), mythomania (conspiracy theorists), terrorism (acting out), and anarchism (lulz lulz).
The section on “Revolutionary Theory” is standard fare and all good, and a wakeup call for those who believe that no firm ideological underpinning for activism is necessary.  Basing activism on vague ideas and “acting out” leads to the sort of weak-minded, Type I activists who turn traitor as soon as they meet that “one nice Black person” they heretofore stupidly believed could not exist (when you have a childish view of reality, all people are binned into rigidly Manichean categories of all good vs. all bad).
“Young Europe” – Venner calls for pan-European cooperation, against the division of narrow ethnonationalism. “Unity is indispensable to the future of European Nations.” Indeed, and that’s a key feature of my work over the last 20+ years, as opposed to the ethnonationalists and their publicly proclaimed dystopian vision of European nations ethnically cleansing each other.
The section “For a Man or an Idea” is an attack on what I call the Man on White Horse Syndrome, and is highly relevant in this the Time of Trump.  Venner writes: “Passive herds, expect their miracle men to fix everything. Even the smallest groups have their idols. The inevitable disappearance of the great men leaves the naïve embittered and discouraged.”  Sound familiar?  And then: “The Nationalist does not need followers but militants who are defined by their doctrine, not in their relation to a man.”  Indeed.  Anyone listening?
Venner criticizes the “Theatrical Revolutionaries” who are “enemies of the revolution.”  The part about “costumes” I will address below, but in general, this criticism is relevant to all the Nutzis who ruin us all – Type I dimwits.  Venner talks about “Zero plus Zero” – in other words, grouping zeros together just gives you a bigger zero (the history of Der Movement, Inc.).
With respect to Venner’s criticism of “costumes”-  I both agree and disagree.  It depends upon context and what kind of “costume” one is talking about. Should activists dress up like Nazis?  Strut around with swastika armbands and SS uniforms?  Of course not.  Should they take the Alt Right and Alt Lite course of action, and appear at rallies like refugees from a cosplay convention, aping Captain America and Batman?  Certainly not.  Should they wear uniforms when simply interacting with normal people or going “undercover?”  Of course not.  Compare Joe Tommasi, who stopped dressing up Nazi like he did at first and “went native” as part of his guerilla war program, to the costumed Nutzis who eventually killed him.
Having said all of that, there is nothing wrong with uniforms per se, when attending certain types of meetings, or attending public rallies, or when engaged in more overt action.  There are benefits of wearing uniforms: for esprit de corps, discipline, professionalism, etc., these benefits are well known, which is why they have been used for military and paramilitary groups throughout civilized history. There is a history of uniformed paramilitary political solders in virtually every (ex)-Western nation, including America and the Silver Shirts.  Tasteful, utilitarian, culturally endogenous, and non-nutty uniforms are fine – better than the cosplay crew, better than the Nutzis, etc.
Lastly, Venner talks about “Division of Labor and Centralization” – people should do the tasks to which they are most fit, and propaganda needs to be local if possible: “…the propaganda branch should be able to rapidly supply material adapted to local groups, rather than over-generalized and locally irrelevant material.”  In relation to this, see some of my criticism of the National Alliance here.
Yes, you can have, as Venner suggests, a centralized leadership, but the actual “field work” has to be properly local and decentralized.  When activists need permission from “the National Office” to use the rest room, then nothing gets done.  The unwillingness of Pierce to allow local units to create and distribute their own propaganda specifically suited for local conditions and local current events was a terrible error, as much strategic as tactical.  All sorts of explanations were given (“quality control” and “we want to recruit people who understand the big picture and who are not merely emotionally excited about some local event”), but one suspects it was as much about maintaining tight control and the exercising of power, as well as maximizing National Office income (local units actually had to purchase the propaganda material they were to distribute!) as about anything else.  You know, it would still have been possible for the National Office to (quickly) review and approve (or suggest changes in) locally produced material – so the first objection falls flat.  As far as the second objection goes – there is nothing wrong with leveraging local conditions and current events to bring your group and its ideology to the attention of prospective recruits, one can always cull the herd once people are initially brought in, most likely only the truly dedicated will join an overtly public racialist group anyway, and by focusing on local conditions and events, you let the people in that locale know that you understand them and their problems, and that you are there to help – it’s a two-way street, not merely a bigwig somewhere trying to pad their membership rolls in order to boost monthly dues income.  So, the second objection falls flat as well.  Venner was correct: propaganda should be both general and local; if it is just extremely generalized it becomes stilted and stale, and puts too much of a distance between the prospective activist and the organization.  Idealism is great and should be paramount, but one cannot eat Idealism, and Idealism alone will not protect a community from the Colored hordes and their Levantine masters.  Idealism has to be built upon a foundation of pragmatic activity and real-world concerns.  Once you take care of the latter, then you can indulge the former.
In summary, the problem with important books like this is that they get no serious attention from the “movement.” I’ve seen this again and again.  Yes, sometimes such books are discussed and favorably reviewed.  Some people say, yes, yes, we need to follow this advice, and then with the short attention span of the Type I retards, all is forgotten, and all just falls back to “business as usual” – the default setting of “movement” dysfunction wins again.
Expect more of the same with this book.
Was Venner’s suicide at least in part motivated by a realization of the utter failure of the “movement?”  It was about 50 years from his book to his death – what had been accomplished?  Did anyone listen to what he wrote?  What has happened since his death?  We have now the Alt Right making a mockery of serious nationalism, flouting many of the suggestions Venner made.
Perhaps it is time for a Negative Critique?

Movement Roundup: Dolt Right, Yellow Fever, and Naivete

Alt Right, the Derb, and Jeronimus

Today’s regularly scheduled critique of the Alt Right will be postponed, and possibly will be significantly modified for future presentation, due to uncertainty about the ongoing chaos within the Alt Right.  It seems that – for now – AltRight.com has password-protected access and is no longer open to the general public.  Whether that is just a temporary situation, a technical glitch, or a more long-term change in their approach – who knows?  We’ll see.  And then “The Movement Critic,” in his own inimitable style, posts a continuous stream of material on Alt Right bigwigs; even if only a small fraction of that is accurate, it is troubling and indicative of a chaotic mess.

We’ll have to keep a close eye on these developments, and the potential impact on Der Movement, Inc. and on White racial nationalism in general.

At this point, I see no reason to change my “this too shall pass” prediction about the Alt Right: sooner or later it will turn out to be another “movement” passing fad, and we’ll look back (as usual) at all the wasted time, effort, and money and wonder what happened.

For me, it is getting closer and closer to 25 years – a quarter-century – of putting up with “movement” nonsense, and the most frustrating thing is seeing the same mistakes being made over and over again.  I’ve already talked about the endless Man on White Horse Syndrome, but the latest fiascos are something different: the “movement” propensity to eagerly grasp onto any follower, any self-proclaimed savior, any person who professes their “willingness to help” or their interest in any way, without the slightest degree of skepticism, prudence, alertness, or discretion on the part of the “movement” whatsoever.  Regardless of the actual outcome of the Kline/Mosely military combat revelations, the main point I get from that is (from the NY Times article):

He rose from a self-described “anonymous Twitter troll” to head of one of the largest groups in the so-called alt-right.

There you go.  A rapid rise indeed.  Some “extreme vetting” no doubt.  Anyone see a pattern in any of these recent events?  Kline/Mosely.  The Jorjani fiasco.  The comedy of Hermansson and the other recent infiltrations. It’s the same old story.  Impatience, immaturity, a lack of judgment, a lack of depth, and zero accountability.

Forget about “extreme vetting” – there is no vetting at all.  There’s no discretion, no prudence, when it comes to personnel. No screening – real screening.  No conception that a person has to “pay their dues” over time, to invest years of activism, to be known by established activists, to “make their bones” – even if merely by consistent and useful online work – before being trusted with any sort of position or authority.  No, to Der Movement, if you are ostensibly White, can fog a mirror held up to your nose, and profess allegiance to “the cause” – you’re in, handed the “keys to the kingdom” after an “apprenticeship” of weeks (or, if you’re Swedish, days…or maybe hours).  Of course, it’s true that a determined infiltrator can become a mole and put years of work in and climb in the “movement” – one has to be on guard even then.  But, by analogy, just because a highly-skilled professional cat burglar can circumvent the sophistical security you have to protect your valuables is no excuse to shrug, give up, and just leave your front door wide open.  It’s an ongoing “Red Queen” scenario of mutual completion and adaption on both sides; if one side just cedes the fight then they lose every time.  And it’s not just infiltrators, keeping up standards weeds out well-meaning but incompetent individuals or individuals who are sincere but of poor character, chronic liars who cannot be trusted.  Also, people who have invested years into serious activism, not merely lulzing or Nutzi acting out, and who prove a sound theoretical, ideological, and moral understanding of the situation – these are less likely to drop out or turn traitor.

And remember this when the Millennial Alt Righters decry the “extremism” of “Boomer” “White Nationalism 1.0”:

Speaking previously on a far-right podcast, Mr Kline identified himself as a HR person who fires “n****** and sp*** all day. Before that I was in the army and I got to kill Muslims for fun. I’m not sure which one was better, watching n****** and sp*** cry they can’t feed their little mud children or watching Muslims’ brains sprayed on the wall. Honestly both probably suck compared to listening to a k*** scream…”

The Alt Right is the enemy of White racial nationalism.  Better a hundred William Pierces than any of these crude, vulgar, lulzing, drunken jackasses.  That’s why I put The Movement Critic on my blog list, at least for now.  Not that I agree with most or all that is there (although most of it is highly amusing), but Der Movement needs a good disinfectant, and the more stringent, the better.

No doubt Derbyshire finds it ‘thrilling.”  Just his “cup of tea: so to speak, no?

Then we have Strom’s Jeronimus interviews.

Part I.

Part II.

Interesting premise and the overall strategy can be one approach, of several, to pursue, but there are some basic problems.

This Jeronimus says he in his “late 40s” but seems to not have learned too much. Contrast this to Strom in his early 60s, who exhibits a bit more prudence.  With the idea of having White families renting out apartment space in cities, Strom brings up the obvious problem of “fair housing” laws and that the project “will need a good lawyer.” That’s realistic and prudent, and anticipates problems and contingencies.  Jeronimus, on the other hand, blows off these concerns, blithely assuring us that “no one will bother you” as long as you are “not LARPING” (why must a Generation Xer use such Millennial terms?).  I tend to agree with Strom’s skepticism.  You’ll need to very carefully “fly under the radar” and to the extent the strategy is successful, the greater the chance of the System understanding what is going on and attempting to sabotage it.  The fact that some scattered Nutzis here and there are presently unmolested, while doing something vaguely similar, in one sense proves my point, as the System will target the more successful and, hence, dangerous manifestations of this.  Perhaps by not “LARPING” and being more serious that would make the project more of a target?

That’s not say: “don’t so it.”  DO do it.  But don’t go in half-assed, assuming everything will work out, and not having contingency plans for problems.  Don’t underestimate the enemy and don’t underestimate their mendacity and persistence in preventing White organization. Of course you’ll need legal representation and a whole host of other things that this Jeronimus apparently has not considered (no worries though – all those imaginary billionaire sugar daddies will find it all).  I for one cannot really trust the judgment of anyone who would so casually dismiss Strom’s caution.  And why publicize the project at such an early date, to increase the probability of being targeted?

Related to that, it was Strom who brought up the obvious point of “should we be talking about this publicly?” (But they continued to do so and this has been put up on the website).  “The revolution will not be televised” – but  it sure will be podcasted about in advance, I guess.

The same “movement” ineptness, lack of judgment, absence of prudent contingency planning, etc.  Everything is half-assed, assumed, poorly planned.

And the idea that any of the current crop of White Billionaires will fund anything pro-White is ludicrously naïve.  If these billionaires were so inclined, there’s a lot they could have done already to help pro-White causes.

And: Allen Dulles killed JFK?  Evidence?

There’s that old saying that “military intelligence” is an oxymoron.

And so it goes…

Run Silent, Run Deep: Helping the Community

Good news and bad news, and some constructive criticism.

The good news: some “movement” Nutzis understand the importance of community organizing and community outreach.

The bad news: they not only do it ineptly, but they broadcast it to the enemy.

Lesson: Never, EVER, have Type I activists monopolizing leadership positions in ANY racialist group, strategy, tactic, or endeavor. NEVER, EVER. For godssakes, do I have to draw you a picture?  You Do, and do QUIETLY, you don’t broadcast it at an early, embryonic stage. You don’t participate in blustering “interviews” with White-hating, anti-racist, yeastbucket shills.

Again, why is it that the allegedly “low-IQ, undisciplined, useless, low-time preference” Negro knows how to do community organizing correctly, and the White Superhero does not?

Some constructive criticism and suggestions:

The next time some idiot asks you for an interview, respond thus: “No thank you, I don’t have the time; I’m busy helping people.” Be discreet, don’t call attention to your actions.  It won’t stay undercover for long, but there’s a difference between word getting out because you are doing and accomplishing, and word getting out because hateful SJWs mock you publicly after you call attention to yourselves and invite the fox into the henhouse.

You should set up Euro-American help centers. These can be one or more on-site physical facilities and it can also be activists driving to meet those people who need help where they need it. Help real people – White people and White people only – who have real problems.  Don’t help those hostile to their race and our cause, but certainly do help apolitical normies who don’t know much about anything than their own life situation.  One doesn’t have to be on our side (at first) to get help – after all, there are so few of them – but certainly they should at least be neutral and not overly hostile. And of course, White activists should be helping each other.  By analogy with “god helps those who help themselves” we will be most effective in helping, and recruiting, White normies if we ourselves are all straightened out and doing well.  The same structures available for the normies can be used for activists.

Political education should be an integral part of the process, but it must be done prudently and patiently.  You do not want to be ham-fisted about it, pushing pamphlets (or websites) on people, wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth, etc. Initially, it has to be about making a personal connection, establishing a rapport, and introducing the most basic ideas after that, all the time trying to connect those ideas to their personal issues, problems, and experiences. Of course, from the very beginning they should know who and what you are and what you stand for, be upfront about it.  They should know who it is who cares about them and wants to help them.  But be genuine in your desire to help, make that predominant at first, don’t use helping as a mere excuse to engage in Nutzi propaganda from the get-go.  If people think you are just humoring their problems, using that just in order to recruit them, they’ll be turned off and lost to you.

If possible, contact “movement”-connected lawyers to make sure your dot all your i’s and cross all your t’s especially in the event any activity may require that those you help sign liability waivers (or some other issue of which we may be initially unaware).  We who are racial activists need to pool our expertise to help each other do productive activities – those of us who are lawyers or doctors or plumbers of electricians or businessmen or scientists of mechanics or schoolteachers or soldiers or police or firemen or whatever – the expertise is out there.

What about the System co-opting your efforts?  Of course, the quieter and the more discreet you are about your efforts, the more you can forestall co-opting efforts.  However, more fundamentally, the best way to prevent co-opting is to offer something that cannot be precisely mimicked.  The System can certainly throw money and resources at a problem (if they wish to do so), but what they cannot do (and still be true to the System and its ideology) is to provide sincerity, authenticity, a genuine desire to help, the proper political education, and the ability to give Whites back their Identity and make them proud of that Identity. The System is more likely to send a bunch of condescending, arrogant, White-hating SJW blue hairs unable to establish a connection with the people they are supposed to help, and certainly unable to connect those people’s uplift with a positive self-image rooted in racial and cultural identity.  If you do it right, it cannot be co-opted; or to put it another way, if the System was able to precisely co-opt your efforts, then they’ll be working to spread pro-White activism.

And whatever you do, don’t engage in “movement” freakishness; real people with real problems don’t want to hear about “Savitri Devi” or “cephalic indices” or “Kali Yuga” or “subfractional admixture percentages” or “the men who can’t tell time” or “the racial provenance of Julius Caesar.”  Save that for the next “movement” circle jerk, and concentrate political education for “normies’ as the essentials.  Later, if they so wish, they can learn the esoterica.

And, again: don’t broadcast what you are doing to the System.

As the sub-mariners say: run silent, run deep.

Youth is Wasted on the Young

Talking to the wind.

Read here about some of the current legal troubles of Richard Spencer and the Alt Right.  This blog supports Spencer with respect to this situation and I hope it works out somehow, although I’m not very optimistic.  We’ll see.

One point I’ll make is that these guys had things reversed.  First, you build a presence in the community, you build an infrastructure, you spend the time – years – to build up a network of support (including lawyers) and then – after – you “go public” to the extent of participating in rallies such as Charlottesville – or organizing other public events – that have the potential for trouble and the potential for generating legal liability.

If these younger fellows would ever had asked advice and input from the dreaded over-50 crowd (and, no, Alt Wrong HBDers are not included in the group whose advice should have been solicited from), then perhaps some of these errors would not have been made.  And for those of you who say “oh, that’s 20-20 hindsight” you’re wrong: I’ve been writing about the need for building infrastructure, community, and networks for years, I’ve been preaching prudent planning and contingency preparation; further, more than 15 years ago, when I was interviewed for Griffin’s book, I made the following points (emphasis added):

I think the challenge is to heighten whites’ racial awareness — especially the sane, honest, hardworking, law-abiding whites — and convince them to form voluntary, private organizations in their own communities. These organizations would exist to do practical things. The problem now is you have racialist organizations and they say, “Join up and send us your membership dues,” and you get a little membership card and a newsletter once a month. But the members stay isolated and everything stays divorced from reality. We need racial nationalist organizations that help children with homework, and help old and infirmed people, and that clean up neighborhoods, and where everybody stands together when some outside force tries to push them around. Maybe these organizations could have youth auxiliaries.  

As it is now, we have white people thinking, “What am I going to do? I have got to send my children to the local school and it’s full of minorities and they are going to be taught all sorts of nonsense and they are going to get attacked, and my neighborhood is deteriorating, and my life is going to hell.” An activist comes up to them and says, “Let’s go protest against the United States’ foreign policy in the Middle East.” That’s great, our foreign policy in the Middle East should be protested, but there is still the question of what is going to be done to help the person scratching his head trying to figure out what he is going to do about what is happening in his life. At a very basic level we have to protect ourselves physically.  

The Nation of Islam may be an example of the kind of thing I’m talking about. It was founded in the 1930s, but it wasn’t until the early 1960s that most white Americans ever heard about the Black Muslims. They spent decades building a base of support in the black community by helping black people with whatever they were doing in their community. So when they started becoming vocal and white people in the early 1960s started saying, “Hey, these people are a problem, what are we going to do?” it was already too late. The Black Muslims were already firmly established and had become an integral part of black society. In a similar way, a white nationalist movement has to grow like a plant, with its roots firmly in the soil.

Sound familiar? Sound relevant? Build a base of support in the community.  Do that FIRST.  Have youth auxiliaries (putting Beavis-and-Butthead in their proper place).  Protect activists (and White people generally) physically.  Once you do those things, once you are firmly planted in the soil of the community, then you will have white collar and blue collar members and supporters – including lawyers – ready for when they are needed.  You’ll be grounded, on a firm foundation, you’ll have those deep roots so your trunk and branches won’t get blown away in a storm.  You have all these things and then you go out and do your rallies and protests.  Some would argue that the rallies and protests are needed to gain the supporters in the first place, to which I say that the type of supporters you need first and foremost are the ones gained by community organizing and not from rallies with cosplay actors dressed like Captain America, and also, why is it that low-IQ, low time preference Negroes did things correctly, but the ever-so-superior Whites did not, and cannot, do so?

Whenever these guys begin to realize they should get input from older people who have some useful perspectives, they know how to contact us. But it is a bit late now, these problems should not have went down like this to begin with.  If and when these legal problems are resolved, I’d advise the sort of careful, long-range, and strategic building of community, infrastructure, and networking described above, including a legal team, a security force, folks with business sense, and some older advisers to provide guidance.

Slightly off-topic, but still focused on the Alt Right and their errors and delusions, see this.  That is the most ludicrous stupidity imaginable.

In Der Movement, you don’t dominate anything.  Leadership? Ha!  Respect?  Ha!  (Just look at any comments thread to any post concerning the “Alt-Europeans”).  Interests considered? Double Ha!  Talk about delusional.

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.

What’s In Store For 2018?

It’s an uncertain and volatile situation.

What is likely to occur in the American scene (and in the “movement” as a whole)?  Needless to say, I do not see any realistic chance of progress as defined by the EGI Notes-Western Destiny groupuscule: therefore, little or no chance that the ideas, memes, strategies, and paradigms promoted here will be accepted by, and influence, Der Movement to any significant degree.  The American scene, and Der Movement as a whole, will continue to be dominated by Type I activists and all their associated stupidities.  I am doubtful that any grand epiphany will strike “movement” leadership, or its rank-and-file, no lightning flash illumination of their errors and the direction, the correct path, which they should take.

Given the preponderance of defectives in American racial activism, the dismal and flawed “leadership,” the lack of long-term strategic thinking and prudent contingency planning, and the “do nothing” attitude of the cuck Trump regime toward leftist extremism in America, one can reasonably expect that something – at least one thing – will go significantly wrong for Der Movement in 2018 (I realize such a prediction is almost as bland as saying “I predict the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning”).  Will it be a failed rally, beset by violence?  Will some Alt Right personage be physically targeted akin to what was discussed in a breathless schadenfreude email between a certain blog editor and his Jewish correspondent? Will it be another outrageous case of infiltration?  A major betrayal?  A feud gotten out of hand?  As I am “out of the loop” in Der Movement, functionally “blacklisted,” it’s difficult for me to predict more precisely what is likely to go wrong, as I am not privy to “movement” plans for 2018 and the latest trends or gossip (thankful for the last).  I just see it as highly unlikely that a “movement” as dysfunctional as the American scene can stumble through an entire year without some sort of disaster – at least one.  After all, 2017 saw several: Charlottesville, deplatforming, hysterical feuds, and, perhaps, worst of all, the infiltrations (and subsequent denial of accountability).

A real long-term prediction, not one restricted for 2018, is that the other shoe will drop, and at some point some major “movement” “leader” will be revealed as a mole, an infiltrator, an agent provocateur, or will be someone who started out sincere and then has a change of heart, shockingly betraying his (we’ll assume that activists will have the sense not to follow female leadership now or in the future) followers and supporters.  

Der Movement will be well served to develop antifragility; the ability to prosper from the chaos that will continue (note: if I predict anything with any certainty, it is that the chaos unleashed by Trump, and the continued multicultural morass of America and the West, will continue.  The toothpaste is out of the tube, trends are in motion).  Chaos will continue; the question is whether the “movement” will benefit from it.  To give Der Movement some credit, it has demonstrated a greater degree if antifragility that heretofore assumed (by me, or by most people).  Der Movement has benefited from Trumpian chaos, but not to the extent it could have, and whether this can continue is open to question.

On a positive note as regards predictions, if Der Movement can be led with just the slightest degree of competence and imagination, then the inevitable chaos will lead to at least slow growth.  We’ll see.

Given my distinct failure in correctly predicting the outcome of the 2016 Presidential race, I will not make any predictions for the 2018 mid-term elections.  In any case, much can change, politically speaking, between now and November.  I will make one prediction about the election, in the form of IF-THEN.  Therefore, IF the GOP does poorly this November, THEN Trumpism, right-wing populism, and the Alt Right will be (unfairly) blamed for it.  Of course, the reverse did not occur; the aforementioned memes and entities were not credited for the unexpected successes of 2016; the narrative ratchet only moves in one direction.  That’s the power of having the “megaphone,” and it is to the everlasting discredit of Der Movement that it squandered decades, and millions of dollars, without investing in practical matters such as greater access to information dissemination.  And with the power of the Internet, the omission is even more glaring.

I can predict more betrayals from the Trump administration coupled with more crackdowns and deplatforming from the System’s “private” arm, with the Trumpians looking on benignly as their real supporters are suppressed.  Trump will do a good job alienating and dispiriting his working class and middle class White supporters.  The Trump coalition will end up in the dustheap of history with the Reagan collation UNLESS new right-wing populist candidates come to the fore, and take the mantle of resistance away from the cuck fraud Trump.  There is plenty of room to Trump’s right in American politics, viable room, if someone were to seize that territory, occupy that political niche.  Trump himself has ceded the moral high ground (which he never truly occupied), someone must take that ground, and do so quickly.

The overall situation overseas, particularly in Europe, will most likely be even more static than in America.  In four words: more of the same.  More migrant invasions, spiking in the warmer weather; more terror attacks; more SJW hysteria and a lack of a proper response to all the events from sissified and deracinated (Western) European pansies.  Oh, they may well protest in the streets: protest in favor of MORE immigration, protest in favor of migrant rights and against “Nazi racists.”  Of course, one or more unforeseen “Black Swan” events can change the situation dramatically – and of course the same applies to America – and it’s also possible I’m being unduly pessimistic.  I’m much better predicting things based on insights into the character of people – Trump, “movement activist,” Whites in general – than in trying to predict events that may or may not occur, or that may occur eventually, but not in 2018.  Who knows?  Based solely on the attitudes, character, and trends inherent in European populations today, I simply do not see the potential for significant breakthroughs in 2018.  But, watch out for the Black Swan…after all, my assumption of stasis may be “normalcy bias.”

I realize these predictions are not tightly focused, but I’m better, as stated, at making more tightly focused predictions, not general ones for a given year. I will make such more focused predictions, when relevant as time goes on.