Category: strategy and tactics

State of Der Movement, 4/1/18

It is not good.

Read this, emphasis added:

…for the first time since 2010 — the year we were founded — Counter-Currents lost money… 

…What happened? The answer is simple: Charlottesville, then PayPal deplatformed us, and we lost our monthly donors. Many donors did not miss a beat. They went straight to our Donate page and signed up for monthly pledges with their credit cards. Others signed up at Hatreon, which is now defunct. But many never returned. Some were wedded to PayPal. Others took it as an opportunity to re-evaluate their spending. Others were swept up in the widespread post-Charlottesville disappearances. Whatever their reasons, we lost a significant number of supporters, and that put us in the red.

Probably, the multiple infiltrations, as well as the Johnson vs. Spencer/Friberg feud eruption, can be added to that list of reasons. Although I will agree. if forced to name one reason more important than the others, that Charlottesville has to be named as reason #1.  The other things are problems, and serious ones, but they added on more problems to that termed here “Charlottesville Ragnarok.” All the Alt Right “spin” aside, the Unite the Right fiasco was one of the biggest blows against the progress of White racial activism in America.  Don’t get me wrong: the Far Right has every right (no pun intended) of having access to public spaces, and there is nothing wrong with claiming the right to such spaces, if you do so with adequate planning and understanding of the underlying realities.

It’s not like all the fearless leaders shouldn’t have seen that coming.  It’s not like it was so difficult to predict that a poorly planned mass rally would end in disaster.  Most of all, it should have been known that the System works hand-in-glove with “Antifa” – and for the purposes of this post, “Antifa” describes all of the currently extant Far Left domestic terrorism groups, regardless of what they call themselves.

The “movement,” with all its grand intellectuals, is unable to comprehend the difference between an official de jure factoid and an established, truth-on-the-ground, de facto reality.  The following three statements constitute the de facto reality in America (and with slight rewriting of the statements, applies for most of Western Europe as well).

1. Antifa is part of the System.

2. Antifa is part of the US government.

3. Antifa is part of the Trump administration.

Let us consider each statement in turn, from the perspective of Der Movement.  Most of the Alt Right would, I believe, agree with Statement One will little quibbling; after all, it is obviously true (but that underscores the gross incompetence of Der Movement, because if Statement One is obviously true, the  behavior of the Charlottesville government and police should have been anticipated and planned for).  A smaller fraction of activists would agree with Statement Two; although in reality Statements One and Two are equivalent, in that the US government is part of the System (and NOT the other way around, by the way), so all who agree with One should also agree with Two.

It is Statement Three that would cause problems for the dimwitted Type I Alt Right Trump fanboys; this ties into the lack of understanding to my previous comment at this blog that “President Donald Trump is the head of Antifa.”

Now, that last comment is not meant to be taken literally, in the official de jure sense.  Of course, it is not true in the literal sense.  After all, Antifa loathes Trump and his supporters, consider them all “racist fascist bigots” and actually considers Trump, if anything, “the head of the Alt Right.”  For his part, Trump considers himself a “law and order right wing populist.”

But I’m not talking about official roles here, and I’m not talking about perceptions, and I’m not talking about a literal reality in which Trump gives the leftists their marching orders.  No, I’m talking here about on-the-ground de facto reality.

Consider: Trump as President is the head of the US government’s law enforcement. It is his constitutional obligation as head of the federal branch of government, assisted by his Attorney General, to clamp down on domestic terrorists (including domestic terrorists who attack his own supporters at rallies!).  For Trump and Sessions to take action against Antifa is not some sort of crazy, rightist fantasy; it is part of their mainstream obligation, their constitutional responsibility.  When Far Left domestic terrorists run wild in the streets (often masked, further violating the law), it is the OBLIGATION and the RESPONSIBILITY of Trump and Sessions to take action.  This they do not do.  Their inaction enables domestic terrorism and allows the Far Left to act with impunity.  Why Trump and Sessions behave in this manner is not the point, the point is that, whatever the reason, this is what they do.  Not only that, but Trump signs congressional edicts condemning the victims of the domestic terrorists (and some of these victims are Trump’s own supporters!), pledging to use the resources of the federal government against the victims.  Therefore, by unimpeachable logic, it is Trump (and Sessions) who enable Antifa; therefore, the latter can reasonably be seen as part of the government of the former.  As long as Trump and Sessions refuse their lawful obligation to take action, it is a de facto tacit approval of the leftists.  That the Far Left hates Trump, and that Trump may call them “bad guys,” is irrelevant.  Action, or the lack thereof, is relevant.

If Der Movement understood all of this, understood that the entire Charlottesville system would be against them, that Trump would condemn them, and that Sessions would refuse to use the power of his office against the Far Left, then Charlottesville 2.0 would never have happened.  But it did happen, so clearly Der Movement understands nothing.

This is relevant to the funding issue since it is possible that some of the loss of funding is due to donors becoming disgusted by, and weary of, constant failure and bad judgment.

I’ve already written before on what needs to be done, so no need to repeat all of that; suffice to say it is time for a strategic retreat and some quiet, behind-the-scenes building infrastructure in-depth, which is what should have happened after Trump’s election. The Type II response to Trump being elected would have been “we’ve got a least four years of breathing room; let’s take advantage of this interregnum to really build and prepare for the interesting times ahead.” Instead we got the Type I approach of publicity, mass rallies, cosplay costumes, juvenile bravado, immature podcasts, and comedic infiltrations.  Obviously new leadership, with fresh perspectives, is required; just as obviously, the continued affirmative action program in the “movement” will prevent the emergence of that leadership.

Let us consider more “movement” insanity. What respect for, and interest in, had for Faye’s work significantly evaporated after reading this nonsense.  Can we come back to reality for a moment, and deal with the issues at hand? I mean, yes, good science fiction/fantasy (as opposed to bad, such as March of the Titans) can be thought-provoking, and thus useful in helping to consider alternative future possibilities, but this Fayeian nonsense is boring and juvenile. And of course it led to a stereotypical Type I comment:

Snigga Odinson
A day in the life of a delusional capitalist who dreams of muh Western Civilization.
There is no future outside of the forest!

Right…Whites should be in the forest, eating twigs and branches, or “snug in our hobbit hole” as one defunded failed “leader” so eloquently put it – we’ll just leave it to the Asians to build and maintain technological societies, employ nuclear weapons mounted on hypersonic missiles, engage in eugenics, conduct scientific research, explore and colonize space, and reap the benefits of exploiting science and technics.  What could go wrong with that?  Why, they’ll just leave us in peace, snug in our hobbit holes in the forest, and the borders of the West can be guarded by Chinese girls with guns (high, high, high-IQ Chinese girls, let us not forget).  And then Der Movement wonders why even thick-headed fanboys are starting to wise up and become tight with the purse strings?

Then we read Sailer’s typical rambling.

As someone with a background in the natural sciences, I can assure the reader that the net impact of population genetics studies is to CONFIRM and SUPPORT the racial-biological agenda of this blog, which was NEVER about “purity” – see my writing here (deemed “sophistry” by a deranged mestizo Mexican Nordicist) – but about genetic differences between populations, differences in genetic kinship, and how all of that should be interpreted politically through the lens of Salter’s EGI thesis.

“Racial purity” has never been a driving force, or meme, of this blog; it has instead been the driving force, and fossilized meme, of the ethnic fetishists and crazed Type I Nutzis opposed to this blog. The Levantine alien Reich can scream and cry all he wants, but his work in toto strongly supports some of the main theses underlying what is discussed here, which are in part tied to the idea of genetic difference, NOT “purity.”

Read or listen to this.

They have not yet realized that slow, patient, and relentless effort may be required, possibly over multiple generations, before the National Alliance’s ideas of radical racial-nationalism will triumph as the best, and indeed the only reasonable, way to govern society. We’ve always known we were in this for the long haul, and you should too.

Right…which is why, in my experience, the National Alliance always had a “the revolution is just around the corner” Der Tag philosophy, with one prominent NA activist (to be fair, not Strom) pontificating back in ~2001 that “I don’t understand why White people have bank accounts or go to college, don’t they know that it is 100% certain that the entire System will collapse within five years?”  

How did that work out?  If Der Movement continues to be a tragicomic clownshow, then they should not wonder when the tin cup remains empty and disillusioned followers drift away.

Advertisements

One Advantage of WN 2.0

They have no single “Grand Poobah” holding them back.

While I tend to be critical of White Nationalism 2.0 (the Beavis-and-Butthead Alt Right) and their pretensions of being ever-so-superior to White Nationalism 1.0 (the Pierce model), I do have some positive things to say about the WN 2.0 crowd.

The fact that the 2.0 folks are much more decentralized than we 1.0 folks used to be (I’m talking about my analog activism period “back in the day”) is helpful in getting things done.  Now, often (i.e., almost always) the things that get done are stupid and counter-productive, but at least for the purposes of spreading chaos and promoting balkanization, it’s sometimes a net good.  It’s true that the times are more propitious for street activism now than it was in the past, with the declining racial status of Whites combined with Trump’s incoherent wrecking ball campaign and “train wreck” Presidency, and the presence of the Internet is another important factor promoting a more decentralized “do-it-yourself” activism, but, still, a major factor is the Millennial free-wheeling independence of 2.0 to do things without needing “permission” from some “movement”-appointed affirmative action Fuhrer.

It’s not like we WN 1.0 folks ~20 years ago didn’t want to do “in real life” street activism.  We did.  I remember some of the more rambunctious fellows at meetings had to be “restrained” like attack dogs on a leash.  But, we were told, you see, “you are political soldiers” and have to subject yourselves to the discipline of the “national leadership” and “follow directions” like good little boys.  By some strange coincidence – I’m shocked, shocked! – the only activities we were allowed were those that were directly or indirectly tin cup panhandling for the “national office.”  Buy books!  Buy tapes!  Buy all the pre-made, moronic, locally-irrelevant “propaganda materials!”  Pay your “membership dues!”  Distribute stickers and leaflets, which were nothing more than membership and fundraising for the selfsame “national office.” Have pathetically infrequent meetings in the “little rooms” (as per the Dresden song) to discuss distributing more leaflets or putting stickers on bus stops.  Strike a blow for the White race!  Buy more of the pre-printed garbage displayed on the table!  And if someone had the idea of designing their own propaganda that was actually relevant to current events and particularly relevant to the locale in question?  No, no, a thousand times, no!  After all, the propaganda had to be “professional” and “standardized” – code words for funneling the shekels to the Grant Poobah for laughably irrelevant, uninspiring, and tiresomely boring material produced by the budding Goebbels of our heroic leadership.  Really, we weren’t allowed to use the restroom at a meeting without getting approval from the “national office.”  And so nothing got done, people got discouraged, and the whole enterprise collapsed.

WN 2.0, for all its faults, is too independent of mind, too free-wheeling, too proud of its own freedom, to be constrained by rent-seeking martinets and their calls for a highly centralized, vertical command structure, where orders flow downward and the shekels flow upward.

Yes, the 2.0 folks need to ditch the Beavis-and-Butthead attitudes, the tragicomic cosplay optics at rallies, and have better planning, strategy, and tactics.  But, at least they have the freedom of action to get things done.  Those “things” need to be done better and more professionally, but they do need to get done. They should learn a lesson how WN 1.0 activism was “smothered in its crib” by self-seeking quota queens play-acting as Der Fuhrer, and the blind obedience of 1.0 activists to the prancing martinets, as opposed to just organizing among themselves to get things done.

Meet Jared Spencer Johnson

The title of the post will become clear at the end: the post itself is an evaluation of judgement and accountability.

Last year, the Northwest Forum’s June and August meetings had three infiltrators. One was Patrik Hermannson of Hope Not Hate. The second was the girlfriend of a member of the local Cascadia group. The third was David Lewis, a Seattle journalist.

I will give Johnson credit here for admitting an unpleasant truth – it wasn’t two infiltrations, it was three.  But the second one described here – the yeastbucket infiltration – is puzzling. Was the Cascadia member an infiltrator himself (using the masculine here, since I’m assuming we are not talking about lesbians)?  If not, if he’s sincere, then why was his girlfriend an infiltrator?  Was she an anti-racist honeypot with a mission to infiltrate the Far Right by hooking up with a Nutzi?  Were they a genuine couple and the guy was too clueless to know she was a leftist?  Der Movement is so bizarre that anything is possible?  Update: this is sort of answered below.

Obviously, we needed to rethink our vetting procedures.

You think?

Hermansson got in because he was vouched for by the organizers of The London Forum. 

That includes a grown man who attends meetings wearing shorts (hint: a London Forum meeting is not the Afrika Korps in the North African desert; there’s no reason for a mentally competent adult to attend such a meeting wearing shorts) and who blows Viking horns.  I mean, why doubt such a stalwart fellow?

The London Forum generally has very good security, so I thought it reasonable to trust them. 

See above.

This was obviously a mistake. 

The mark of a prudent and competent leader is to realize the obvious in advance, not in retrospect.

Simply being vouched for is not enough. We need to take an independent look into everyone who is sent our way.

I could have told you that from the beginning.  It’s the same thing I was telling IRL Nutzis 20 years ago.  

 In Hermansson’s case, simply asking him to show me picture ID before we sat down to an interview would have been enough to expose him as a fraud.

But you didn’t do it.

But here’s the rub: virtually everyone at the June 2017 Northwest Forum would have refused to give his picture ID, even the ones who later whined most loudly about the security breach. 

There’s no “rub.”  If the people don’t trust the meeting organizer enough to show picture IDs (and here the lack of trust would have been justified), then what’s the point of attending a “extreme vetted” meeting?  How is this “building a community?”  

Indeed, most of the people in the Cascadia group knew each other only by online aliases. 

All that security botched by the incompetence around them.

I even wonder if the fellow whose girlfriend later declared herself an infiltrator knew her real name. 

That comment lends credence to the honeypot hypothesis.  Regardless of how the loving couple met, we ask: what kind of unmitigated idiot brings to a private Far Right meeting a “girlfriend” he obviously knows little or nothing about?  Let me guess: this must be one of the wonderful Alt Right WN 2.0 Millennials who is going to save the White race.  Hail Pepe!  Hail Kek!  Sane response: flush the entire “Cascadia group” down the Type I toilet.  Der Movement talks big about “eschewing defectives.”  Case in point, no? 

Obviously, in such a culture, “extreme vetting” is just a meme, and I was foolish to think that anyone vouching for any individual was meaningful.

Just a meme.  Very nice.  You know, the sincere activists who attended probably expected “extreme vetting” that was not “just a meme.”  I cannot understand, cannot fathom, why all you rank-and-file activists out there accept this Keystone Cops routine

As for the Lewis breach: that was entirely my fault, for which I am sorry. 

That’s not accountability.  Real accountability is taking action instead of saying “sorry,” said action including admitting you are not cut out for a leadership role, and making way for people who are.

Again, though, his cover would have evaporated if I simply asked to see his picture ID. Fortunately, the Hermansson story had already weeded out the people who were most skittish about doxing. 

Chutzpah alert!  Johnson’s third mistake is explained and excused by the fallout from his first mistake.

Beyond that, Lewis was simply a journalist looking for the opportunity to sell some snark, not an antifa agent, and as far as I can tell, the only people harmed by his story were the perfectly nice people who rented the venue to us. They got some bad publicity and were shaken down by local Leftists, who offered to take the blood money we had paid them, to cleanse them of guilt by association. Such is the price of doing business in the liberal utopia of Seattle.

Dear god, he still doesn’t get it.  Dr. Johsnon: the point is not what damage these people did, the point is your bad judgment (and that of Steadman and others) for allowing it to happen in the first place.  The same lack of judgment can – and likely will – lead to an even greater disaster in the future.  We are not talking about 20-something people here. If middle-aged men cannot show minimal judgment by now, they likely never will.

At that point, I decided to quit doing The Northwest Forum. 

Good call.  Some good judgment at least.

But others in the Northwest wanted to continue it.

Two Proposals for Dealing with Inflitrators

Two proposals to deal with the infiltrator problem were discussed but ultimately rejected for reasons outlined below.

The first suggestion was simply to make The Northwest Forum a public event, open to all who buy tickets. This would make a virtue of necessity. It would make publicity work for us rather than against us.  It would attract new people who are not afraid of attending public events, and it would keep skittish people away. (No vetting procedure can be 100% foolproof, and public meetings strip away any false sense of security.)

The sense of security was “false” because the genuine attendees were misled that there was going to be “extreme vetting,” rather than letting any Swede or movie critic walk in without interference.

The second suggestion was to allow journalists to cover the event as long as they would abide by the same rules set down at the American Renaissance conference, namely that they would be clearly identified as members of the press (with the equivalent of a yellow star) and would not disclose the names or faces of attendees without their permission. The benefit of this is that our message would not be confined to just the people present. The media would carry at least some of it to the larger public.

Both of these suggestions would deal with one of the main problems of private meetings: namely, the fact that they can be framed as “secret” and thus invite “undercover” journalists and antifa. Leftists wish to frame our activities as secret because they wish to make them seem sinister, even criminal, with the eventual goal of using the state to ban our ideas and their dissemination.

For instance, Patrick Hermanson’s entire “scoop” from The London Forum and the Jonathan Bowden Dinner consisted of framing information that he could have gotten without false pretenses as the result of an undercover investigation at sinister secret conclaves. But I said nothing to Hermansson’s hidden microphone that I had not said in public many times before, and my picture had already been released online by movement scum.

I presume the “scum” in question is The Movement Critic. Now, while I appreciate The Movement Critic blog, I do not agree that Johnson’s picture should have been revealed, that’s a form of doxing and is unacceptable.  That said, Johnson’s continued attempts to offload accountability by repeatedly downplaying the impact of the infiltrations, are, frankly, disgusting. So, then, if The Movement Critic had not posted Johnson’s picture, then Hermansson would have been the first to do so. Regardless of the specific outcomes, the piss-poor judgment underlying the Hermansson infiltration remains the same.  It does not matter – repeat, IT DOES NOT MATTER – that the “scoop” wasn’t that damaging.  It could have been, had Hermansson not been a bumbling amateur, or if he had decided to stay undercover longer and really burrow his way in deep as a mole (for that matter, we do not know if any such moles already exist).

Furthermore, to underscore how completely unnecessary Hermansson’s deception was, a legitimate journalist was present at the same London Forum meeting and Jonathan Bowden Dinner. She was identified as a member of the press and agreed to respect people’s privacy, and she heard basically the same things that Hermansson did, without the necessity of deception.

More misdirection from Johnson.  The point is that a more competent and dedicated (and patient) infiltrator than Hermansson could have leveraged the lax security and ethnic fetishism to become deeply integrated within the Alt Right, including Counter Currents, and have done incalculable damage.  Question: why do typos in a job application scare off potential employers?  Is it because the typos are damaging in and of themselves?  No, it is because a person who would submit a sloppy resume is someone who cannot be trusted to show the attention to detail to perform the job effectively.  Likewise, the problem with these infiltrations is not what the immediate outcome was, the problem is in what it tells us about “movement” “leaders.” The problem is with the poor judgment and easily-manipulated obsessions of “leaders” – not that the infiltrators did or did not do any specific action.

This frankly, is the only benefit to having mainstream media around, since we have our own media to get our messages out. We can, for example, post videos and audios of Northwest Forum speeches online, for the whole world’s edification.

Why We Will Not Invite the Press…Beyond that, the purpose of events like the Northwest Forum is not merely to disseminate ideas. After all, we could do that online without leaving the privacy of our own homes. The main purpose of the Forums is to promote face-to-face community and networking. Having speakers is simply an additional incentive to get people to come to events. Such networking and community building cannot take place at public events, where members of the press and complete strangers are free to roam about.

Networking and community cannot take place either at private meetings where every other attendee is an infiltrator.

The Way Forward

Public events are a way of combating a false sense of security about doxing. But the best way to do that is to give people a real sense of security by establishing better vetting. Thus, going forward, Northwest Forum events will be for a closed circle of highly vetted people. No more aliases. No more loose vetting and vouching. The people who are continuing the Forum all know one another’s real names and addresses. If you want to join that circle, you will have to:

pay for a background check to verify your identity

present picture ID to register

And don’t forget your Swedish passport for immediate admittance, no vetting required.  Cephalic index measurements optional.

And, how about some transparency on your part?  Who is going to have access to this personal information?  Greg Johnson?  Patrik Hermansson?  Who?  Who is going to be responsible if something goes wrong?

Should we have had these sorts of procedures in place from the beginning? No, for the simple reason that the Forums never would have gotten off the ground. 

Absolute bullshit.  No, you could have gotten the Forums “off the ground” with a very small circle of highly trusted people – like you are suggesting now after the fact! – and slowly built it up over time.  You could have built up trust by running successful and non-infiltrated meetings. Johnson argues here that AFTER he has botched the meetings by allowing the infiltrations, NOW is the time to tell people to reveal their personal information to leaders who have lost the confidence of activists by repeated bouts of bad judgment.  He’s got the entire order of things reversed.  Better to have a successful private meeting with three people, then “off-the-ground” forums publicly infiltrated and subverted.  Over time, the three could have become six, then twelve, then thirty, then sixty.  You don’t first allow infiltrations and expose yourself to public ridicule from the likes of Hermansson and Lewis and then turn around and say, “hey after all our successes, now you guys have to prove your identity.”  Madness.  Madness.

Still, we managed to have three very successful meetings 

”Very successful.“ Madness.  Sheer madness. Is being delusional sufficient grounds for being dismissed as leadership material?

…even with loose vetting, and those meetings formed the basis for ongoing real-world relationships, which created a desire to continue the Forums and a willingness to adopt stricter vetting going forward.

That self-serving mendacity is beyond disgraceful.

The Northwest Forum will continue as a private event. We will not seek publicity. Who attends and what is said will be off the record, although we will continue to record some of the presentations for future release with the permission of the speakers. We will do our best to keep away journalists and other antifa, but please bear in mind that no vetting is foolproof, and no real-world meeting is without risk.

No vetting is foolproof, but it would help if there are vetting criteria other than “are you Swedish?’ or “are you a movie critic?”  or “are you someone’s girlfriend?”  

If you wish to be invited to future Northwest Forum events, please email samantha.hilton@protonmail.com

The next Northwest Forum will be held in Western Washington on Saturday, March 24, from noon to 5 pm. The speakers include Greg Johnson, James Allsup, Matt Flavel, and C. B. Robertson. I hope to see you there.

Is there a reason to announce any of this information in advance?  After the fact, you can discuss the wonders of your super-secret meeting, particularly if you have more genuine attendees than infiltrators this time.  But why give out any information on a public forum in advance?  Where’s the percentage in that?

I need to stress this point: it is the judgment not the outcome that is the issue here.  To better illustrate this point, let us consider two scenarios:

Scenario A. John Doe organizes a private racialist conference.  Doe does everything right and has air-tight security at the meeting, couldn’t have done it better.  The keynote speaker is an internationally known and respected racialist activist, Jared Spencer Johnson, who has been a leading figure in “movement” circles for almost 30 years.  Johnson later mingles with the crowd, recruits people to join his organization, gets subscription information for his journal, and is accepted into the local activist community.  Later, it is revealed that Jared Spencer Johnson is a mole, a deep-cover infiltrator into racial nationalism, supported and funded at the highest levels, who now takes all his information and connections and uses those to wreck the “movement” and specifically to wreck John Doe’s local group.

Scenario B. John Doe organizes a private racialist conference using piss-poor judgment, laughable “operational security, and does almost everything wrong.  A comically inept infiltrator, Nordrik Swedensson, is welcomed into the local group with no vetting at all; later Swedensson comes out as an infiltrator and writes a tawdry “tell-all” piece about his time with the local group.  In the end, no lasting damage is done.

Obviously, the outcome of A is much worse than that of B.  Equally obviously, A does not really reflect badly on John Doe’s judgment – after all, if Jared Spencer Johnson is a mole, anyone could be.  At that level of deception, worthy of a Le Carre spy novel, Doe cannot realistically be blamed for the outcome.  However, in B, Doe’s behavior and lack of judgment demands censure, and the fact that the outcome was better than in A was due purely to luck and circumstances.

By the way, in Scenario A, one could speculate that Jared Spencer Johnson was allowed to infiltrate and worm his way to the top in the first place because of the bad judgment of other people decades in the past.  So, yes, some people are responsible for Scenario A, just not John Doe.

Dissecting the Fundamentals, Part I


Another look at “the fundamentals.”

Pan-Europeanism as the major focus will replace other more narrow “isms” – be they national, ethnic, subracial, etc.  The narrower “isms” will not disappear, they can continue to exist, but at a lower level than the overarching pan-European unity.  The two fratricidal world wars of the 20th century wrecked Europe, the West, and the White race, and those who continue to promote division even now, are, whether they know it or not, working for the enemy, working for the Death of Europe and for the destruction of the worldwide fraternity of the European Peoples.  Therefore, all those who preach division within the European family – be that division genetic, phenotype, cultural, historical, religious – are the enemies of European Man and enemies of the West and enemies of our Identity and our Future.

Pan-Europeanism is the First Principle, the non-negotiable, the underlying thesis, the Idea of Yockey (opposed by those ethnonationalists who make pretense of being some sort of Yockey acolytes, presumably for fundraising purposes), the organic evolution of the West. Now, as Yockey stated, and I certainly agree (as does Lowell and others), narrower forms of Identity can and will exist within the context of pan-Europeanism, but these will be local and secondary.  The European, the Western (in the broadest sense, not equivalent to the modern decadent West nor even to the current Faustian High Culture, which we must overcome and supersede, as it is dying, if not already dead) Identity must be primary and existential.

Let’s quote Yockey here:

Our European Mission is to create the Culture-State-Nation-Imperium of the West, and thereby we shall perform such deeds, accomplish such works, and so transform our world that our distant posterity, when they behold the remains of our buildings and ramparts, will tell their grandchildren that on the soil of Europe once dwelt a tribe of gods.

That’s what is important, that’s the inspiring vision for the future, not a dismal future of squabbling ethnonationalists ready to “ethnically cleanse” each other over disagreements about “sovereignty.”

Now, I must stress: to a large extent this Yockeyian vision is for elites.  Nietzsche was willing to grant the masses their Christianity, their religion of resssentiment, if they so required, but the elites, the Overmen must eschew such childish crutches.  Similarly, the masses can have their ethnonationalism for the time being, as they are slowly weaned off of it; better ethnonationalism than globalist universalism.  But the nationalist elites have to be true acolytes of the pan-European Ideal, and eventually lead the masses in the correct direction as those masses become improved and enlightened over time.

Genetic kinship will replace racial “purity.”  As per Salter, ultimate interests are genetic interests, and genetic interests are based upon genetic kinship.  Only genetic kinship is relevant for biopolitics.  This contrasts to the unscientific strawman of racial “purity” which is usually derived from some a priori comparison to a picked parental population.  Since all genetic differences, regardless of their derivation (e.g., “admixture” [real or an artifact], selective pressures, genetic drift, etc.) influence genetic kinship, measurement of such kinship is the most inclusive and definitive approach for understanding our ultimate interests.  We accept the European genepool for what it is now and strive to improve it in the future.  To use Yockey’s terminology in a new way, we completely replace outdated and unscientific “vertical” concerns with “purity/admixture” with “horizontal” concerns with genetic kinship and genetic interests.

The “movement” will resist this, no doubt.  Some precincts of the “movement” play lip service to this idea, but as always look at that they do more than what they say.  Look what posts they present, what authors they promote, what memes they spread, what their commentators are saying – it doesn’t match their ostensible “position” on this matter.  Remember Horace: “You may drive out Nature with a pitchfork, yet she still will hurry back.”  Unscientific fetishistic fantasies will collapse under the edifying light of science, the reality of facts, and no “movement” flim-flam and sweaty fossilized dogma will stand up to truth in the long term.

How to fuse these horizontal concerns with genetic interests with Yockey’s vision, which was flawed by its blithe dismissal of “materialistic” race concepts?  See this.

Total biocultural Identity will replace as narrower biological and cultural identities as the major focus of European Being.  The narrower identities will still exist, but as part of Identity, and the narrower identities will become increasingly aligned with that of Identity.  Biological and cultural classifications by themselves are not disjunctive, only total Identity is disjunctive. The ultimate solution to any discordance between Identity and biological identities is this: we will align our biological/genetic interests with Identity by closing the borders and stopping non-European gene flow into European territories.  Thus, over time the genetic boundaries between Europe and the Others will become ever larger and more distinct; the genetic commonalities between Europeans, compared to the Others, will become larger and more integrated.  The same applies to any potential cultural overlaps between The West and The Rest.  Examples of this possibility, as exemplified by the Levant and by China, are shown here.

This is an important point, and an answer to sweaty fetishists using minute difference in Fst values – ignoring that Fst is a flawed metric for measuring genetic differentiation – to make asinine comments about negligible levels of relative ethnic genetic distances.

Biopolitics will replace the old fraud of Right vs. Left.  We care not if any specific policy of ours, or our entire program, is deemed “rightist” or “leftist” or whatever outdated label.  We are not conservatives, reactionaries, not in any way beholden to “right-wing” thought.  We are revolutionaries, striving to create a new order.

This should be self-evident.  We are not conservatives, reactionaries, or traditionalists.  We look to the future, not to the dead past.  This leads to:

Futurism, not Traditionalism.  Unlike some of the more reckless statements in support of Futurism, we do not call for the abolition of museums, the disregarding of our past and the great deeds of our ancestors.  Past, Present, and Future are all linked.  However, we look to the Future, our real Golden Age is that which we will make in the Future, it is not some sort of delusional Traditionalist fantasy set in the Past.  We will not reject the deeds of our ancestors, but these are not the sum of our being, we do not settle for them – we must surpass them.  We remember the Past, but for the purpose of spurring us to achieve greater deeds in the Future. 

One of the most unpleasant aspects of the “movement” is its obsession with gnostic esoteric “traditionalism” and with a Lord of the Rings style romanticization of feudal values.

Rational realism and empiricism is for facts, values and objectives can be irrational.  Thus, we reject the old, timeworn, factually incorrect knee-jerk beliefs, memes, and paradigms that have defined to so-called “racialist movement,” particularly in America.  With respect to facts, history, knowledge – the age of “movement” dogma is over.  We reject the misanthropic freakishness and lies of the old movement.  With respect to facts, we depend on rationality, on realism, on empiricism – on real Science.  But these things cannot provide us with our values and our objectives – they are merely tools.  Our values and objectives can be irrational as they spring forth from our vision of the reality we want to come into being.  But we cannot confuse what we want with what actually is – nor can be settle for what is instead of what we actually want.  What is – that is the current reality, which must be discerned with empiricism.  What we want is derived from our values, irrational as they may (or may not) be, and for these objectives, empiricism is only a tool, a means, not an end to itself.  As part of this, the fantasies of Traditionalism – which invents false facts – must be put aside in favor of empirical facts and the irrational objectives of an enlightened Futurism.

This gets to the core – one core at least – of my criticism of the “movement,” and why “movement” “leaders” have made me persona non grata in their circles.  My message is blasphemy and, what’s more, gets in the way of “business as usual,” and the concomitant tin cup panhandling that is facilitated by giving “movement” “activists” the dogmatic “red meat” they crave.  The “movement” wants to continue dwelling in its little cul-de-sac of crazed religious fervor with its fossilized memes; but this is an dead end, a recipe for failure, and anyone who actually wants to win, and actualize their ideology into reality needs to understand – truly understand – what that reality is all about.

Preservationism plus eugenics replaces static preservationism.  We are not interested in preserving a racial stasis…We wish to promote eugenics to improve the stock and, also, allow for the creation of new stabilized blends of European stocks – while also at the same type preserving the original stocks – to increase the diversity of European Man. Ethnic genetic interests are compatible with (gradual) genetic change within the race…

There are a number of important points here, all of which focus on a forward-looking, palingenetic view of race (i.e., futurism, not traditionalism).  Contra to misinformed complaints that a concern for EGI leads to “genetic stasis,” here we see an overt call for eugenics (albeit a prudent form of eugenics that seeks to avoid both unnecessary loses of genetic interest and unforeseen negative consequences to designating traits – and the alleles that code for them – as worthy of replacement or increase without understanding possible consequences of such changes), and the call for “the creation of new stabilized blends of European stocks…increase the diversity of European Man.”  As long as original stocks are maintained, there’s nothing wrong with creating new variants of European man, in diaspora regions such as America.  When such crossing create excellent new strains, such can be cultivated as new ethnies to be preserved and improved; if negative strains (however defined) are produced, they can be selected against.  The creation and selection of new dog breeds can be a model for this process. Gradual genetic change that eschews mixing across continental population groups (broadly: races) and that preserves the vast bulk of genetic interests is a natural part of the lifecycle of evolved organisms, is part and parcel of genetic interests, and is wholly compatible with a prudent and well-informed eugenic scheme.

Two Levels of Insurgency

Outer and inner.

Any student of insurgency, of warfare against a stronger power, of guerrilla tactics, of dissent opposition, understands that the fundamental strategic objective of the insurgency is to maintain its existence.

Insurgent armies will often avoid full frontal assault against the entrenched power, will engage in hit-and-run tactics that weaken that enemy while preserving the existence of the insurgent force.  The mere continued existence of the insurgency, in the face of a more powerful enemy, is itself a victory, it undermines the power of the enemy and the confidence of the people in that power, and it allows the insurgency to exist to fight another day.  As long as the insurgency exists, it has the potential for overcoming the enemy, if by attrition if by no other mechanism.  The continued existence of the insurgency will attract followers, it will allow for growth and adaption, it may attract the support of other powers; this is why the enemy state prioritizes the complete elimination of the insurgency – “containment” is not good enough, it is an admission of defeat – and why the insurgency itself puts a premium on existence.  Thus, the brilliant strategy of George Washington in the American Revolution, the Fabian Strategy (despite the negatives that strategy can bring and Washington’s own frustration at his critics), that allowed the Colonial army to survive in the field long enough so that important foreign support, and eventual victory, was achieved.

In this context, the Outer Insurgency is that of racial nationalists/nationalists/Far Right against the System, against the globalists.  Priority number one has to be continued existence of the Far Right opposition; after all, if you do not exist, you will be unable to eventually come to power yourself.  At the current time, the power imbalance between the Far Right and the System requires the former to engage in a Fabian strategy and guerilla tactics against the latter, a form of memetic/political/metapolitical ju-jitsu to use the clumsy bulk power of the System against itself.  A wonderful example of this is the “It’s OK to be White” meme, which puts the System in a lose-lose situation. If the System ignores the meme, ignores the posters and leaflets, then it displays weakness and emboldens imitators and others to push the memetic envelope further; if the System acts against the meme, then it “heightens the contradictions” and makes people wonder: “why isn’t it OK to be White?”  The System is forced to choose between being weak and being openly anti-White in a ham-fisted manner; the System cannot simply say, “Yes, it is OK to be White,” since the System’s entire foundational ideology is anti-Whiteness.  That’s a form of ideological guerilla warfare, a memetic insurgency, which attacks the System at its ideological core without putting the existence of the still-weak insurgency at risk.  Priority one: existence.  Priority two: attack and undermine the opposition. Leading to priority three: systematically replace the opposition and achieve power.

The second form of insurgency – the Inner Insurgency?  That’s the insurgency within the “movement” itself; relatively weak dissidents, presented by EGI Notes for example, staking out a niche in opposition to the (in relative terms) clumsy ham-fisted “movement,” which needs to be critiqued and undermined. Thus, it is the first priority for the Inner Insurgency to survive, to have a continued existence, to engage in a Fabian Strategy when necessary, to mimic on a smaller internal scale the same struggle that is taking place on a larger scale at the level of the Outer Insurgency of Der Movement vs. The System.

The “movement” has made this Inner Insurgency necessary by not engaging in the necessary reforms and by not giving dissidents “a place at the table” to bring their legitimate grievances to be aired without being summarily dismissed or labeled “crazy.”

Indeed, this “craziness” derives from the same source as consistently being correct about things, recognizing problems at an early stage, and realizing trends before they become apparent (if they ever do) to the “sane” among us.

I attempt to view things as they are, without sentimentality, or pity, or self-delusion, or moral posturing, or dogma, to get to the core of an issue, understand it, and project trends going forward.

This of course gets me into trouble both in Der Movement and in “real life,” as I come up against people (the vast majority of people fit into this category) who view things through one prism or another of the aforementioned characteristics that distorts their vision, often giving them whatever picture they want to see, or one that comfortably fits into moral conformity and social acceptability.  To them, I’m “crazy” or “bitter” or “impossible” or “autistic” or “cruel” or “cold” or whatever other ad hominem critiques of my character (some of which may have a kernel of truth) that enables the people in question to disregard my message and feel good about their own delusions.  Also, by disparaging my character, these people don’t have to engage with the unpleasant reality that I’m right in my prognostications 99+% of the time.  Rather than dealing with the hard realities inherent in a truthful message, the weak-minded turn their fear and frustration against the messenger.

I am of course not infallible and do make error; this is usually when I am relatively uninterested in an issue or outcome and do not dissect too deeply into it.  For example, I was wrong about Trump’s chances of being elected in 2016; however, while that was important, it wasn’t an issue of deep existential concern for me.  My real interest was how the Trump campaign was affecting the political, social, cultural, and moral climate in America, its potential to promote racial balkanization and sociopolitical chaos, and the long-term effects of Trump on future populist/racialist “demagogues.”  Much of my predictions in this regard have come true, and we’ve seen the spectacle of System hacks like Frank Rich repeating certain points of my The Nazi Next Time essay two years after I wrote it.  So it goes….

The Inner Insurgency continues.

Crush the Infamy!

Course Correction

A realization of utter failure?

Listen here.

Hey, Richard, at least read this.  Even if you disagree with its premises and conclusions 100%, at least by formulating why you think it is wrong it will assist in your course correction and redirection.

More fundamentally: any strategy and every event needs to be very, very carefully planned, with every contingency covered.

With all your talk of having “fun” at events, don’t you guys get it yet?  It’s war; it is not supposed to be “fun.”  If you want to have access to the public space, which you are being denied by FORCE, you need to use EQUAL OR SUPERIOR FORCE to take back your “right” to access that space.  If the opposition is “willing to go more far” in their actions than you or any other group, they win and you lose.

And, yes, it’s true, Antifa is being protected and enabled by the Establishment.  Now, who is in charge of Federal law enforcement in America?  Donald J. Trump and Jeff Sessions.  Think about that.  Think carefully: during the Obama administration, would Far Right groups have been allowed to openly (illegally wearing masks by the way) engage in domestic terrorism?  Would Far Right groups have been allowed to openly organize on campuses, armed and dangerous?  Would Far Right groups have been allowed to intimidate non-Whites moving into White neighborhoods?

Yet, Trump and Sessions allow Antifa to run wild in the streets, they allow Far Left armed groups to form on campuses, and they allow the Far Left to intimidate and attack Whites who “gentrify” non-White neighborhoods.

Who is the real enemy here?

So, I will agree with the excuse that it’s not really Alt Right vs. Antifa, it is Alt Right vs. Antifa + Establishment, with Trump and Sessions being on the side of Antifa (their unwillingness to perform their law enforcement role is functionally equivalent to complicity with the Far Left).

This is a tough nut to crack – the institutional racism against Whites, structural racism against European-Americans, the fact that Antifa is indirectly and implicitly supported by the entire American Establishment, including “fascist bigots” (sic) like Trump and Sessions.

At the very least, the Alt Right should have enough decency and self-respect to call a spade a spade and “call out” the ultra-leftist, White-hating Trump and his buffoonish, inept Attorney General for conspiring with the Far Left to deprive White Americans of their constitutional right of public assembly.  That would not, of course, solve the problem, but it would at least name the problem, recognize the problem, and you cannot solve any problem that you are unable to even recognize.

The God Emperor is functionally equivalent to Head Bolshevik and Mr. Magoo Howdy Doody is also complicit, through his utter and complete inaction, with the Far Left’s domestic terrorism.

While Spencer attempts to figure out what to do next, why doesn’t he at least mentally toughen up and admit the facts of the case?

In a real sense, following this line of argument to its logical conclusion, Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions are the de facto leaders of Antifa. If not them, then who? If they wanted, Trump and Sessions could solve all of Spencer’s problems overnight, and only by strictly following the letter of the law, simply by doing their jobs and fulfilling their minimal obligations. That’s not even being “pro-Nazi” – it’s simply them stopping putting their thumbs on the scale in favor of Antifa.  But they refuse to do so.  It’s doesn’t really matter why – it matters what.  And the reality of what is, as stated: Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions are the de facto leaders of Antifa

Two brief final points.

First, readers of this blog will question why I bother to give advice to Spencer and the Alt Right, since I have expressed my opposition to the Alt Right “movement.”

My answer is simple.  On a personal level, I’m a disinterested actor here. I don’t care about “movement personalities” as people, one way or the other; I have nothing invested in personal feuds (of which we know of several currently extant in Der Movement).  My interest is solely focused on ideas and actions and how these people influence ideas and actualize those idea through action. I have no personal ambition to be any Grand Poohbah or Fearless Leader in Der Movement; in any case, those roles are strictly apportioned through Der Movement Affirmative Action Program, from which I am barred. Thus, if any “movement” personality actually shapes up and starts doing well, then I’ll support them and more power to them.  If they screw up, if they promote maladaptive, destructive ideas, then I’ll criticize them. I give advice to be helpful, in the forlorn hope that someday one of these heroes will actually listen.

And my approach – judging people based on their ideas and actions – is better than the way they do things – which is to judge ideas and actions based on what they think of the people who espouse them.  For example, after the Johnson-Spencer feud became “hot,” mysteriously Johnson became a rabid ethnonationalist with an anti-Russian flavor, while Spencer’s previously tolerant attitude toward homosexuality suddenly vanished.  All a coincidence, I guess.

Second, I would suggest that those on the Far Right have long memories.  If and when the wheel turns, and the power shifts more in our direction, we should be as intolerant to the Left as they are to us.  No – more so, since we have Truth and Justice on our side.  Everything they do now should be returned with interest, returned a thousand-fold.

Addendum: Does being “selective” (something is better than nothing) contribute at least to some extent to what was a minor success?

Of course, that’s an order of magnitude less selectivity than is needed.

The Strategic Objective

Nietzsche’s child rather than lion (or camel) – a constructive thesis.

Let’s first consider two points that form the foundation of the thesis of this post.

Point 1. A primary objective of terrorism and guerrilla warfare is to provoke repressive measures from the government, which will negatively affect the population, alienating and radicalizing that population, and turning them against the government.

This is generally true, and as I recall was favorably mentioned by Pierce in The Turner Diaries.

Note that while this statement derives from historical examples of political violence, it can also apply to memetic “terrorism” and “warfare” as well.  Thus, discussion of Point 1 does not in any way imply advocacy of actual physical terrorism or guerrilla warfare (which are, by the way, primarily performed by the political Left), but instead illustrates the point – the historically demonstrated fact – that provoking a government to repress its people typically generates hatred of the people toward that government, to the benefit of the adversaries of that government.

Point 2. Revolutions typically do not take place during the time of the greatest repression, but rather occur when that repression is suddenly relaxed.

This point (previously mentioned at this blog) is also generally true.  Note that the System either consciously or unconsciously recognizes this to be so, since its reaction to Trumpism and the brief rise of the Alt Right has been to viciously double down on the repression and on its anti-White narrative. They have absolutely rejected the path of concessions and reconciliation.

Obviously, Points 1 and 2 are not fully compatible with each other, which allows a prudent strategy of provocation to present to the System a dilemma manifested by a choice between two unpleasant, and ultimately destructive, alternatives.

If the System responds to Far Right provocations with increasing repression – and it is fundamentally important that the repression must be distributed among at least a sizable fraction of the White population and not just tightly targeted to the Far Right – then it will alienate and radicalize that portion of the population (Whites) on which the System’s own effective function, and its overall long-term viability, depends.  The System will lose moral authority as it props itself up by using the same terror it purports to fight.  

With the loss of moral authority comes more resistance, and while Revolution per se may not occur during this period of great repression, the loss of moral authority, and the cycle of repression, hatred, resistance, and more repression cannot go on forever. Eventually a breaking point will be reached in which the System can no longer be tenable while repressing and attacking the very population necessary for ensuring the System’s efficient maintenance; the System will either break down and collapse under the weight of what is essentially a runaway, and ultimately fatal, autoimmune reaction (i.e., attacking its own body after being exposed to an antigen), or it will be forced to attempt to salvage the situation by making concessions, leading us to Point 2. 

On the other hand, if the System wants to avoid the scenario of Point 1, sensing that if it pushes Whites too far and too fast it will eventually lose everything, or if tries repression and it fails, and it starts making concessions (relaxing the repression, Point 2), then the System loses moral authority by looking weak, tacitly admitting that its Far Right adversary has legitimacy, and admitting that White interests and White opposition to the System are at least partially valid.  This will lead to a “snowball” effect as increasing concessions lead to increasing legitimacy for White demands and thus further concessions, undermining the System’s whole raison d’etre of anti-Whiteness.  

As long as the Far Right is prudent enough to keep up the pressure, keep up the demands, keep up the provocations, keep up the memetic war, keep on “heightening the contradictions,” then the loss of moral authority for the System will become irreversible and lead to the loss of political, economic, and social authority as well.  Keep in mind that Coloreds, with their sense of entitlement and hatred of Whites, will see any concessions to White interests as a betrayal by the System (which they see, all grievance rhetoric aside, as THEIR System), further weakening the System’s moral authority, and making the System have to choose between placating sets of incompatible tribal interests. The endpoint is collapse, perhaps from different mechanisms as the collapse of Point 1, but collapse nevertheless.

The System would try to solve this dilemma by doing what it is doing now – attempting to specifically target repression to a relatively small subset of Whites, including the Far Right itself, while slowing down White dispossession enough so as to “boil the frog slowly.”  More recently, with the hysterical reaction to Trumpism, this strategy is starting to fray, and repression is more and more leaking out to the general White population.  In a very real sense, that general repression has always been with us – forced integration, affirmative action, racial double standards, mass immigration, political correctness, social pricing, hate crimes laws, hate speech laws in Europe, etc. – but it is becoming more obvious now.  This demonstrates the validity of this post’s general thesis – if something as mild as Trumpism, and as inept as the Alt Right, could provoke the System as much as it has, and “dropped the mask” to the general White population, what would a serious and strategic strategy of (memetic) Far Right provocation achieve?  Thus, any movement would need to create conditions so that backlash against it would affect Whites outside of that movement, so as to put “in play” the various processes outlined in this post. For example, serious and authentic community activism and political engagement would create ties between the Far Right and the broader White population, so that repression targeted at the former would be necessity negatively affect the latter.  Of course, we need intelligent, disciplined, and rational Type II activists to plan these strategies; Type I activists have demonstrated, time and again, their inability to effectively manage (or even attempt) these approaches.

Before we conclude with an outline of things to do, let us briefly consider: how could an alternative System – for example, a racial nationalist System – avoid being placed in the sort of dilemma outlined here?  Simple: by representing the interests of the people, by supporting majority rights rather than that of minorities, by making Whites into authentic stakeholders in the System and its well-being.  Whites have long since stopped being authentic stakeholders in the current System, in any real sense, long ago.

What to do? The following have been discussed at this blog in detail previously, but briefly we can summarize:

1. Build a legionary cadre.  No defectives, no Alt Right lulzers, no obsessives and fetishists, no zombies mindlessly parroting “movement” dogma, but hardcore, “vanguardist” political soldiers, truly vetted (extremely!) and put through years of long apprenticeship, a genuine movement akin to that of Codreanu, a pan-European Brotherhood that will form the core of the undermining of the old System and the creation of a new one.  And guess what?  This is not talked about in “interviews” with the media, it is not recruited online in sniggering “forums,” it is instead done privately and prudently, slowly, carefully, and with forethought.  Obviously, the existence of such an organization would not be a secret, just as the existence of the CIA, MI6, KGB, and GRU were not secrets, but the inner workings of the group, by analogy to those others, would of course be hidden from the public.  

2. Community activism.  Real community activism is done, not talked about.  It is done as much as possible “under the radar.”  You do not broadcast it to mocking media operatives, you don’t go through the motions for the sake of a quick blog post, this is not something done overnight.  True community activism is for the long-term, it is a work of years, it is done to help the community, not with an attitude of expecting an immediate compensation – the idea of compensation should not come into it at all. Of course, community activism by its nature cannot be kept secret; the point is that such activism is its own publicity – in other words, it becomes known because it occurs and it is effective, it is its own advertisement, it doesn’t become known because activists spend more time talking to the media than they do actually helping people.

3. Metapolitics and infrastructure. Metapolitics has been discussed endlessly by the Far Right, and so there is no need to repeat all of that here. Such activity is essential, as long as it is fresh, creative, and open-minded, and not merely the regurgitation of fossilized “movement” dogma.  We need real infrastructure to carry out our objectives, approaches to defeat social pricing, funding that goes beyond tin cup panhandling but actual involves earning money through some sort of productivity, service, and/or representation, we need lawyers (and not to drive them out of the “movement”), we need businessmen, doctors, academics, plumbers, mechanics, schoolteachers, politicians, we need a recreated and actualized society. By the way, metapolitics should include Salter’s democratic multiculturalism, which overlaps with both community activism and electoral politics.

4. Electoral politics. This has three purposes.  First, education, propaganda, and recruitment.  Second, provocation, heightening the contradictions, undermining the System, promoting chaos and balkanization.  Third, if elected, these people can not only leverage their office for the preceding two purposes, but also to protect the movement as much as possible,

5. Rallies, etc. – false-flag and genuine. False-flag rallies are meant as a distraction, to focus attention of adversaries to the open and superficial “cosplay actors on the street” as opposed to the more serious work going on elsewhere.  It would still need to be credible, to be viewed as a genuine threat and so worthy of attention, and also so as not to repulse Whites interested in joining the cause.  Later on, with the success of the other objectives 1-4 above, rallies and mass meetings, of a highly professional nature (even more so that the false-flag ones), can occur for all the positives such events can genuinely provide to a real and growing firmly established movement.