Category: strategy and tactics

Bowery is Right about This

Responding to Griffin.

Read this.

My view is somewhere in between that of Griffin and his critics.  I agree with the critics that Griffin underestimates the immense pressures and restraints imposed on White men, particularly young White men trying to make their way in a vehemently anti-White, Colored Privilege America.  On the other hand, Griffin is correct that there are options other than a quixotic and suicidal gesture such as that of “Sky King.”

James Bowery has, I believe, a good perspective on this.  After citing this publication, Bowery states:

Young white males are well advised NOT to “suck it up and buckle down to serve the economy and social stability,” as Dr. Griffin does, but rather to organize in such a way as to destabilize society and do so identifiably as young white males.

This is consistent with my call for approaches that enhance societal and demographic balkanization.  Remember Salter’s dictum: the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is a multiculturalism that does – since the latter efficiently and quietly, without much fuss, manages the race replacement of native White populations.  If multiculturalism does not work, it may produce enough societal pain to induce cowardly and feckless Whites to begin to understand the problem and do something about it.  

So, young White males should destabilize society and they must do so in a racially identifiable manner so as to heighten the contradictions, provoke responses, and balkanize society along racial lines.

To paraphrase that Batman movie – “some people just want to watch the world burn.”  

Indeed.

Advertisements

The Six Percenters

Lost opportunities.

Consider the condition of White America today and the continued deterioration of the White racial position.  6%?  Six?  It should be, at least, 60%.  What kind of pathetic maladaptive sick losers are White people?  Whites are positively subhuman in their lack of adaptive fitness, in their pathological altruism, in their demented and disgusting self-abasement.  And even if the 6% is a low figure, because “people are afraid to give honest answers in the survey,” would it really speak better of Whites if it was, say, 8% or 9%?  And do you really expect people who are afraid to even answer a survey honestly to be useful potential recruits for an activist cause?

However, even if the 6% figure is shockingly low, it still translates into millions of people, as many as 11 million.  How is Der Movement utilizing this potential pool of recruits?  Consider if Der Movement was just able to mobilize 10% of those people to start with.  That’s 1.1 million White Americans – a considerable activist force if properly utilized and motivated.  If each of those contributed just $10 per year (just $10!) that would be $11 million added to “movement” coffers (putting aside that current “movement leaders” would waste the money).  If each gave $100 per year – that’s $110 million.  If these activists and their donations were in part utilized to recruit more of the remaining group of the “racist 6%” then all these numbers would grow dramatically.  

All this potential, all this opportunity: wasted.  Instead we get prancing quota queens with their Unite the Right cosplay rallies, their bizarre fossilized dogma, their errors and stupidities and obsessions, their complete lack of security, their Jew-worship and Yellow Supremacy, everything designed to repel and repulse potential recruits.

Only new leadership, with fresh ideas, strategic vision, and a commitment to long-term planning can win over the six percenters.  The “movement” has had its chances, and failed time and time again.

Not Dead Yet

Still around.

As what will no doubt be a disappointment to “movement” ”leaders,” the “crazy” and “bitter” Ted Sallis is not dead; the lack of recent activity here has been due to digital problems, stemming from the decaying infrastructure of Third World America.

Never forget: America is a dead country with no future.

And, no, voting for the likes of Trump is not “going to save us all.”  Even if Trump was really an “American Caesar who is going to save White demographics” the fact remains that a subsequent President could undo all that good; further, a significant change in the political representation in Congress could very well lead to a Trump impeachment.  Thus, even if a pro-White President was elected, but with the rest of the System in place, do you really believe anything racially useful could get done – and stay done?

No; instead, electoral politics are for three main purposes:

1. Propaganda, education, and recruitment, as well as a focal point around which to build infrastructures that could also be used for other, more fundamental, purposes.

2. Promoting chaos and balkanization – heightening the contradictions.

3. If any Far Rightists get elected, they can use whatever power and status they have to provide some support and “cover” for more “vanguardist” metapolitical activism.

Meanwhile, getting back to the main point of the post – I’ve been away, but I’ve still been around.  This enforced break has been useful to get away from “movement” stupidity for a while, and some reorientation hopefully can result, a “silver lining” so to speak.

One last note: Burn in hell, John McCain, rot in hell for all eternity.

Rallies vs. Conferences

When should the protection of the System be reasonably expected?

There is a fundamental difference between a private activist conference and an activist rally (a category that includes [public] mass meetings), a difference which informs my opinion why police protection, etc. is appropriate for the former but not (in most cases, although there can be exceptions) for the latter.

A conference is a private affair, involving (often academic-style) discussion, that typically has no direct immediate impact on public spaces or on anyone not involved. The types of people attending conferences can include intellectuals, the middle-aged and elderly, and others who cannot reasonably be expected to get involved in “street fighting,” nor should such violence be reasonably expected at any sort of private meeting. Hence, it is quite reasonable to expect protection by the police or other authorities against crazed thugs who wish to break up your private meeting, although such conferences and various other types of private meetings may consider providing their own security to supplement that of the authorities (Type Is – make yourselves useful).

On the other hand, a rally is a public event, meant to occupy a public space, and which therefore does impact public spaces and affect people present in those public spaces. While this does not justify attacks against the rally, it nevertheless separates a public rally, and its expectations, from a private conference.  I’m not talking about legality here – from a strictly legal standpoint, a lawful rally (e.g., with a permit) should have the same protections as a private conference. However, from a practical, political, moral, social, and “public image” standpoint – a realistic standpoint – there is an expectation that attempts of a controversial (rightist) group to occupy a public space may well be met with opposition from those who wish to contest that occupation. From this realistic standpoint, activists who want to occupy public spaces should be prepared to defend themselves and their occupation, and not hide behind police or other authorities (who are in many cases hostile to the rally to begin with). A public rally is not the same as a private speech in, e.g., a hotel meeting room.  Of course, the authorities should not interfere with your legally convened rally – which they often do – but on the other hand, expecting the System to provide caring support for a rally dedicated, ultimately, to overthrowing that System is (even if legally reasonable) a bit much.

The Far Right does have one legitimate claim for police protection at public rallies and similar events: fear of selective prosecution and lawfare if they do in fact defend themselves.  This is the idea, based on some experiences (e.g., Unite the Right I), that if the Left attacks, and the Right defends itself, it will be the Right (only) that is selectively prosecuted (and possibly subject to civil suits as well), while the Left gets off scot-free. While this does not occur in every case, it does occur often enough to be a concern.  This, however, does not justify a long-term dependence on the police, not only for reasons of politics and image, but, practically, because in some cases the police and other authorities conspire with the Left to “set up” the Right to be attacked (e.g., Unite the Right I).

The ultimate solution to the problem of selective prosecution and lawfare consist of two components:

1. Rallies for which the Right plan to defend themselves need to be in jurisdictions in which there is a reasonable chance of some degree of legal fairness.  In contrast, if you enter the belly of the beast, expect to be digested. In SJW enclaves, selective prosecution, at minimum, is almost certain.

2. As I’ve said over and over again, the Far Right needs to march through the institutions, it needs followers and fellow travelers in positions of influence, in elected office, in areas that can affect public opinion and public policy.  It needs an infrastructure of dependable legal help, a committed legal team, and it needs articulate spokesmen and “connections” to get a fair hearing.  Before you say “easier said than done,” consider the endless decades of failure, the wasted millions of dollars, all of the lost opportunities.  It is not my fault that the “movement” and its “leadership” has lacked the vision and the ability to do the things that needed to be done, and that still need to be done.  You need new leadership.

A Tradition of Success

It is lacking in racial nationalism.

The “movement” lacks a Tradition of Success.  This problem cannot be over-stated.  Success breeds success. Yes, it is true that you can learn from failure – although the “movement” seems incapable of doing so – but an excess of failure is poison to the growth of a dissident movement.

In contrast, success brings confidence, success brings followers (people love a winner), success brings resources, success provides a margin of error that allows the successful to take calculated risks (which is not the same as foolhardy risks) – the sort of high-risk/high-reward approaches that yield further success.  It is important, absolutely crucial, to nurture success.  When the “movement” “plans” things stupidly, when they set themselves up for failure, when they do things that you know in advance are going to fail, this leads to disillusionment, loss of morale, despair, a culture of failure.  Just as success breeds success, failure breeds failure.  Sometimes it seems like racialist activists are just going through the motions, doing things that they – and everyone else – know is going to end in failure, because they don’t know what else to do and despair of actually winning at anything.  And the failure has been endless.

Revilo Oliver talking about 50 years of “movement” failure… 50 years ago.  Consider David Duke leading and abandoning one organization after another – KKK, NAAWP, EURO (originally NOFEAR, which had its name legally challenged, which is another typical “movement” defeat paradigm – remember the Church of the Creator lawsuit name defeat); Duke’s legal problems (and that of Strom); Richard Spencer jumping from one failed project to another; Spencer forced to cancel his college speaking tour; cancelled conferences (AmrenVDARE, NPI, etc.); Spencer and others being physically attacked in public with impunity; Spencer’s Budapest meeting fiasco; public rallies in which the rightists are typically outnumbered, attacked, and ritually humiliated; Johnson deciding to focus on YouTube just as YouTube is censoring the Right; all the feuds and fall-outs; the outrageous embarrassment of the “extreme vetting” infiltrations – including having a (transparent) infiltrator invited to give a speech on the “dangers of infiltrators” and being allowed to participate in the vetting process; the destructive stupidities of Kessler; the Heimbach-Parrot comedy; the Man on White Horse Syndrome error repeated again and again; the failures of overt neo-Nazis like Rockwell and Pierce, defeats, losses, back-tracks, and social pricing; Derek Black turning on the “movement” and against his father’s ideals; the deplatforming; the failed gamble on mainstreaming in Europe. When is the last time the “movement” – particularly in America – had a clear success?  I suppose that Amren occasionally holds successful conferences – as long as the police do their job and as long as judges don’t impose conditions inimical to the conference (e.g., allowing violent leftist thugs direct access to the venue).  But that small-scale sporadic success – which has not been consistently reproducible – is not enough, not by a long shot.  And no, the election of the fraud Trump is not a “success” of the “movement”- and even if Trump is sincere, his election was due to forces independent of the Pepe/Kek crowd.

Now, I understand that sometimes calculated (not foolhardy) risks need to be taken.  I understand that sometimes a dissident movement can benefit from a “glorious failure” – a practical defeat that serves as a rallying cry, as a moral victory to galvanize support.  Pierce spoke of Mathews and the failed crusade of The Order as such an example.  Yockey’s own personal crusade ended in jailhouse suicide.  And there is the end of WWII, with remnants of the SS – including the French Charlemagne division – making a last stand in the ruins of Berlin.  That’s true.  But, first, one cannot build a successful movement on endless failure, even “glorious failure,” and, second, most examples of “movement” failure are not inspiring moral victories. Unite the Right (I or II) was not a heroic defense of the Fuhrerbunker; Patrik Hermannson’s infiltration was not Francis Parker Yockey’s lonely last decision; Spencer getting elbowed in the face was not Mathews’ last stand on Whidbey Island.  So let’s get real here.  There comes a time when success needs to be “baked into” the plans, to pursue prudent courses of action that directly channel activity in successful directions.

Three tenets:

1. Most activity, particularly at early stages of development (where racial activism is still stuck at, due to decades of endless failure), needs to be designed so it has a very high probability of success.  While low risk/high reward is of course optimal, such scenarios are rare (short-term).  I would suggest frequent low risk/low reward activities to build up a tradition of success and a “habit of winning” (with as many low risk/moderate reward activities as are possible).  All those “low rewards” can build up into something substantial; constant small (net) gains are helpful. With such success achieved, consistently and reproducibly, moderate risk/moderate reward approaches can then be advanced.

I’d like to point out that while low risk/high reward activities are rare in the short-term, the ability to leverage risk to reward increases with a long-term time horizon.  Community-building and infrastructure-building activities can in the long run be high reward, but can be achieved with relatively low risk (or at least low-to-moderate risk) when performed slowly over time.  One needs to be patient.  Rome was not built in a day.  Not everything needs to be immediate gratification.

2. Avoid foolhardy activities; avoid like a plague those activities with a high probability of failure.  Most of all, avoid activities in which the reward is always lower than the risk – e.g., low to moderate rewards coupled to moderate to high risk. Unite the Right is a perfect example of a negative imbalance of risk to reward.

3. Eventually, when one builds up a sufficient “store-house” of success, one can spend some of that capital on calculated (not foolhardy) risks – activities with a high reward that may have moderate to high risk.  But these must be planned very carefully, and never should be “all or nothing.”

In all cases, risk mitigation should always be practiced and all reasonably conceivable contingencies planned for.

Postscript

Perhaps not surprisingly, Greg Johnson believes the embarrassing Unite the Right II fiasco was a “triumph”

To summarize his “argument” – Kessler and his merry little band “triggered” the dastardly Left into exposing their distorted selves to all the “normies.”  Sorry, I don’t buy it, Greg, and here is why.

Healthy-minded people already know the Left are hateful freaks.  That’s not the major issue.  The major issue is that normal people have either lost hope or they think that “voting Republican” solves the problem.  What the Far Right needs to do is:

1. Show that the Left is not invincible; they can be defeated.  Victory is possible, so the healthy masses should not give in to apathy or despair.

2. Demonstrate that the Far Right, and only the Far Right, is capable of defeating the Left.  The GOP, Trump, cuckservatives, civic nationalists, etc. cannot do so.  Only the Racial Right can provide victory.

What Quota Queen Kessler achieved with Unite the Right II is to strengthen the appearance of the power, inevitability, and invincibility of the Left, and the pathetic powerlessness, isolation, and “representing the dead past” sad aura of the Far Right.  Unite the Right II may have emphasized leftist freakishness, but that only serves to increase White despair, as the freaks emerged dominant and triumphant, while the Right scurried away, tail between their legs, protected by the police.

Unite the Right I was a disaster, but at least there the Far Right was represented by the System as a dangerously powerful – albeit sinister – force.  Unite the Right II just made pro-White racial activism look weak and pathetic. To paraphrase Saint Adolf: the masses are like women, they respect and crave (male) strength, and despise (male) weakness.

In summary: exposing the Left as deranged freaks does not weaken them.  They and their supporters – which includes the System apparatus – revel in the freakishness, which they consider “being on the right side of history.”  As stated above, healthy-minded “normies” already know what the Left is about, and are tired of seeing the Left always win and the Right always lose.  Standing up to the freaks with a show of strength, determination, numbers, and vigor would have been a success for the Far Right, breaking the Left’s aura of inevitability.  Even a “glorious defeat” – going down fighting – would have been something positive. But this?  This?  A tiny hapless group shepherded by police?  It was just another typical failed “movement” rally, no different from the endless parade of failure that has made American Nutzis into a laughingstock, a punching bag for the Left.  

And by the way Kessler and Johnson, the “Gandhian non-violent” movement in India engaged in mass passive resistance and civil disobedience, and they were not afraid to suffer attack by their opponents. They did not hide behind the police; they did not beg for help from the same System they wanted to overthrow.  If you want to be “Gandhian” then act “Gandhian” – not Rockwellian, which is more the truth of the matter.  I do not support the Gandhian approach, but if that’s your “grand new idea,” then at least be honest about it; be authentic.

Finally, I can’t help but think that if Kessler was a Spencer ally – or, even “worse,” if Spencer himself was involved in the action – then Johnson would be denouncing Unite the Right II as a failure.  But, alas, Kessler and Spencer had a falling out, so Kessler is “good” – blah, blah, blah.  Plus, there’s some solidarity among the quota crew (excepting the cases of major feuds) – it does no good if activists recognize Kessler as an affirmative action product – after all, if they recognize that, maybe others would be also recognized as such as well?  And we can’t have that!

This is What a Monopoly Looks Like

Saturday Movement Roundup.  In all cases, emphasis added.

There are various forms of rent-seeking behavior that revolve around suppressing competition, such as raising barriers to entry, monopolization, etc.  These tactics of course lead to inefficiency, stagnation, and eventual ineffectiveness, as accountability for poor performance is removed from the equation, and as the adaptive process of selection is thwarted and failure is institutionalized.  Thus – the “movement” “leadership.”

Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents unveils a bold new direction:

In May, I had dinner with several movement colleagues, and I asked how I could improve Counter-Currents’ reach and effectiveness. Everyone at the table told me to invest more time in our YouTube channel, CounterCurrentsTV, because it has the most potential to amplify out message and reach new audiences. They were quite emphatic, actually, and the whole discussion took on the air of an intervention. I was convinced, though, and began planning to take Counter-Currents in a new direction.

That’s the ticket!  Refocus Counter-Currents in the direction of YouTube, and similar social media platforms!  What could go wrong with that?  Well, readers likely know that Johnson’s grand announcement was not only made right after Alex Jones was censored from YouTube, but after yet another example of Jared Taylor – who is significantly less radical than Counter-Currents – being censored as well.  This is all a continuation of the censorship and deplatforming of Taylor and other so-called “Far-Right” figures.  If and when Counter-Currents’ YouTube presence becomes more popular and influential, why wouldn’t the plug will be pulled on that as well?

The grand solution to that problem?

Greg Johnson

Posted August 11, 2018 at 12:39 am | Permalink

Then we move somewhere else.

Where?  If there is a safer place available now, why not use it?  If it is because such a place is virtually unknown compared to YouTube, then being kicked off YouTube is functionally equivalent to being deplatformed and censored.

To declare an intention to focus on a strategy that has already failed is daylight madness. It’s at the level of parody.  Then, in response to the obvious objection brought up by Counter-Currents readers, the answer essentially is: “if our obviously flawed strategy eventually – and inevitably – fails, we’ll think of something else.”  If I had accused Counter-Currents of planning a YouTube-public exposure-based strategy I would be accused of being an “unfair bitter blackpiller.”  But that’s what it is.

Likewise, after the fiasco of the Unite the Right and its aftermath – violence, death, doxing, lawsuits, hate crimes indictment, collapse of the “Alt Right brand,” people dropping out of the “movement,” Jeff Sessions supporting Antifa, etc. – if I were to sarcastically joke that “Der Movement is probably going to plan Unite the Right II,” I would also be accused of being “crazy and bitter” with “nothing to contribute.”  But, alas, the joke’s on you, dear reader, since Unite the Right II is a reality, not a Sallis parody (hard to tell the difference these days).

Once again: ultimately, I blame the “movement” rank-and-file for this. They enable it.  They support it.  They can end it, but choose not to.

And what about those “movement colleagues” of Johnson whose “intervention” consisted of “put videos on a forum from which you are almost certainly going to be tossed off from?”  The blind leading the blind.

I know that one riposte from the fundamentally dishonest “movement” will be “the crazy and bitter ‘blackpilling’ Sallis is always complaining, but never offers solutions.”  Long time readers of this blog know that this is a shameless lie, but for newer readers, I’ll just point out five – of many – instances in which I have outlined, in greater or lesser detail, things that I believe need to be done:

Agree or disagree, but do not pretend such input was never given.  The problem is that so-called “metapolitics” is not enough.  If not backed up and supported by community, infrastructure, and, above all, “friends in high places,” your metapolitical agitation can be suppressed when it becomes too successful.  There’s a reason why the deplatforming is occurring now: Trump’s victory, the Alt Right getting too “uppity,” the fear that too many Whites are being exposed to too many “hateful” ideas.  Politics is required in addition to metapolitics – you need people in positions of influence who, if not explicitly on your side, will at least “provide cover” for you on the pretext of “protecting free speech” or some other rationale.  Over time, if you are successful with such implicit protection, it can become more explicit later on (of course, if explicit support can be given early in the game, so much the better).  In turn, the metapolitical activism can assist the political, which in turn provides ever more explicit protection for the metapolitical – a positive, self-reinforcing “feed forward” mechanism.

And as to why these supportive infrastructures are not already in place – blame the previous generation of quota queens.  The preeminence of Pierce in the American “movement” was a disaster, because his viewpoint was that reflected in his Turner Diaries, and actualized in abortive form by Mathews and company – revolutionary cells “acting out” with violence for a Der Tag scenario.  The idea of a slow “march through the System,” of infiltration, of patience, of a multi-tier approach including electoral politics, all this was rejected because “the System will collapse in the next five years” – a prediction repeated for at least for the last 50 years or so.

Next: It appears that the EGI Notes tin cup paradigm is somehow filtering out to the “movement” – in this podcast, when soliciting donations, Taylor mentions that he does not want to appear to be “rattling the tin cup.”

I find it hard to believe that any of the “movement” leadership reads this humble blog, particularly since acceptance of criticism is not a strong point; this may just be an amusing coincidence, or perhaps some third party mentioned that criticism of tin cupism takes place here.

My view on this issue is clear: I have no problem whatsoever with full time activists living off donations IF such activists are earning their “salary.”  If they do important things to advance the cause – things that “amateurs” cannot do for “free” – then certainly they should and must be supported by the rank-and-file.

I for one would like to see Salter get supported; writing books like On Genetic Interests is a full time job and support for possible future works of that nature would be money well donated.

On the other hand, I’ve criticized VDARE because, according to past tax records published by the media and discussed here, they’ve been absorbing a very large fraction of “movement” donations, and for what?  Running a blog?  

As regards the podcast itself, apparently, Taylor believed the NY Times would dump Jeong once its (not “her”*) comments came to light.  Taylor has been at this several years longer than I have – doesn’t he know by now that Jeong’s comments were a reason to hire, not fire, it?  Hatred of Whites is the bedrock foundation of the System, and isn’t the NY Times – classified at this blog as an overt hate organization – a leading mouthpiece of that same System?  The NY Times is likely to hire Eric Clanton for their editorial board.  If not them, someone else will give him a mouthpiece. I mean, if he had actually killed someone, he would be more marketable, but still, assault and battery is sufficient for his System bonafides.

In summary: the quota queens and their “movement” use their affirmative action policy to restrict entry to leadership positions, forming a monopoly for the Pierces, Spencers, Johnsons, Taylors, and Kesslers – leading to inefficiency, error, stagnation, endlessly repeated mistakes, and tragically lost opportunities.

*Looking at the various photographs of Jeong accompanying the articles about it, it is not clear to me how the physical appearance differs from that of, say, a 12-year old male Korean.  Secondary sexual characteristics are not, at least to me, readily apparent.  Therefore, in the absence of a karyotype demonstrating two X chromosomes, the word “it” seems a more prudent descriptor of that anti-White racist fanatic.

Related gamester comment:

Space Viking

Not sure how you can tell the difference between the g00k and -ette either. Very low sexual dimorphism.

Political Fighting

The Right loses, again and again.
Read here. Emphasis added:

“And then a miracle occurs” is a long-standing fringe-right temptation.  You see it in all sorts of places: in Ayn Rand’s hugely influential Atlas Shrugged, once a lone scientist moves to Galt’s Gulch and doesn’t have to worry about the leeches, he literally cures cancer. In the much less influential wish-fulfillment novels by literal Nazi Harold Covington, his Mary Sue goes from poverty-stricken and railing into the ether to the inspiring force behind a mass white nationalist movement because, for no reason, white people suddenly start listening to his screeds and mailing him five-figure checks. Bluntly put: “and then a miracle occurs” is the equivalent of “I don’t have to change or put forth any effort; someday I will be great and people will like me for who I am.”  As Righties know, this is something lazy and inadequate people say.

Related to this, Zman discusses the Tinker Bell Effect.
This is Der Movement’s solipsism that I have critiqued many times – the idea that something is true simply because you believe it is true, or want it to be true, all of the fossilized dogma, and Type I stupidities of the “movement.”  Related to this is the “we are on the verge of victory” hysteria of the Far Right mocked by Roger Griffin in his book on Fascism, and recently exemplified by the Alt Right Poobahs saying they are going to “conquer a continent” when they can’t show their face in public without being punched and are facing a ruinous court case due, ultimately, from their own ineptness and immaturity.  First, the Alt Right can conquer the college speaking tour, and after that no doubt the continent will quickly fall into place.

The organizational capacity required to build a new world is the same organizational capacity have Lefties built to pressure government. So who’s in a better position to shape the big moment when it comes?  Hell, if tomorrow civilization goes completely Mad Max: who’s got existing local networks of people who they’re used to turning out and doing stuff with on a regular basis?  Answer to both questions: not the Right.

That’s correct.  And all the Type I nitwits with their “worse is better” and their Der Tag Turner Diaries fantasies will be grossly disappointed.  The Type Is will end up hiding “snug in their hobbit holes” while raging leftists and feral coloreds mount the ramparts and dictate the outcome of the “big moment.”  And that won’t change until merit, and not affirmative action, determines “movement” leadership.

Passivists say activism accomplishes nothing. What it actually accomplishes is practice.  Practice for networking, practice for turnout, practice for speed, practice working as a team. Anybody who’s ever tried to get five people together for dinner knows it’s a pain, but look at the airport protests after the travel ban, and see how many people the hard Left can turn out on next to no notice.  Say the balloon were to suddenly go up: forget having a detailed and specific plan; in that first five minutes, do you — not some veterans’ network you’re hoping will salvage things, not some imaginary Great Man; *specifically you* — even know who you’re going to call?

I guess they could call Hermansson or Lewis.

The Lefties do. And that’s why righties who say the Right has nothing to learn from the Left are wrong. That’s because righties don’t read lefty books. I read lefty books and organizational manuals, and I can tell you: they’re smart.

That’s right.  The Left practices meritocracy, the Far Right practices affirmative action.  Guess who wins?

Accordingly, righties face two major challenges: building things, and understanding the strengths, weaknesses, and tactics of their Lefty opposition.  Righties won’t do the same things as the Left, or do them in the same ways, but that doesn’t mean the Lefties don’t have lessons we can learn.

Since the Left does almost everything better than the Right (except telling the truth and bathing), I’d certainly agree that the Right – and here I specifically mean the Far Right has much to learn.

The first thing righties have to understand about Lefties is that lefties have a lot more practice building their own institutions, and assuming control of existing institutions, than their counterparts on the right do…

Infinitely more practice than the Far Right, which has absolutely none at all.

…and they share their practical experience with each other. Righties who like to build churches will build a church and worship in it. Lefties who like to build churches will build a church, write a book telling people how to build churches, go out and convince people church-building is the thing to do, run workshops on how to finance, build, and register churches, and then they’ll offer to arrange church guest speakers who’ll come preach the Lefty line.  Righties need to do a better job of teaching each other.  And not just teaching the right-winger closest to them. The most organized groups on the Right are the pro-life and RKBA activists; everybody else on the Right should be learning from them.

Note that the only effective “rightist” groups are the aracial types outside of Der Movement.  Hopefully, that will not come as any great shock to you.

The second thing to understand about Lefties is how they actually function.  There’s a lot of independence involved. Righties like hierarchy, so often think of the Lefties as taking marching orders from George Soros or whoever in a very hierarchical fashion. Not so much. A lot of left-wing organization is very decentralized, and they negotiate with other lefty groups as to exactly how they’ll do things and time things to not hurt each others’ work, so the labor movement’s march is not derailed by black-bloc window-smashing (see, for example, DIRECT ACTION, L.A. Kauffman’s excellent history of the Left from the 60s on).

While Der Movement exemplifies petty feuding, such as that between Spencer and Johnson.  How much of the feuding is due to jealousy and squabbling over limited tin cup resources, I’ll leave to the reader to decide.

The Lefties call that approach “embracing a diversity of tactics,” which, taken to its logical extent, is a weasel-worded way of saying that the lefty mainstream is comfortable with radical leftist violence. People don’t like to talk about this much. But while it’s impossible to imagine, say, an abortion clinic bomber getting a cushy job at an elite university, that’s exactly what happened to a number of alumni of the 1970s leftist terror group known as the Weather Underground. As fugitives, they were financially and operationally supported by members of the National Lawyers’ Guild; afterward, they were so normalized that the 9/11 issue of The New York Times infamously ran a profile lauding Weatherman alumnus Bill Ayres.  By contrast, right-wing terrorist Eric Rudolph’s fugitive days were spent hiding in the wilderness because no one would help him. He was caught literally dumpster-diving for food. Potential right-wing extremists face opportunity costs that their left-wing counterparts do not.

Hey, Rudolph was “snug in his hobbit hole in the forest.”  What could be wrong with that?

Righties frequently make allegations of paid protestors when Lefties get a bunch of people together. Again, that’s not how it works. Think of Lefty protests as being like a Grateful Dead concert.  People absolutely got paid at a Grateful Dead concert: the band got paid, and the roadies got paid. But the Deadheads who followed the band around didn’t get paid.  They weren’t roadies, they weren’t the band; they were there because they loved the music.

Lefties are excellent at protests, not because they pay seat-fillers, but because they’ve professionalized organizing them, as you’ll discover if you read any of their books. The protestors aren’t paid.  The organizers are paid.  The people who train the organizers and protestors are paid. Basically, the way the Lefty protest movement works is sort of like if the Koch brothers subsidized prepping and firearms classes.

Meanwhile, in Der Movement, Brimelow and Derbyshire get paid so they can sit on lawn chairs in the leafy Connecticut suburbs and smirk at all you suckers forking over the shekels.

Left-wingers have a combination of centralized and decentralized infrastructure, because they have different kinds of groups.  Some groups use centralized organization: they’ll go out tabling, recruit people, trying to grow big.  Other groups, particularly anarchists, favor a decentralized approach, where actions are performed by the collaborative actions of multiple small cells called affinity groups.

The affinity group structure began in Spain: anarchists there organized themselves into small groups of very close friends who knew each other very well, because such small groups were difficult to infiltrate.  Even if they were infiltrated, exposing one group wouldn’t blow the whole organization.

And presumably, their vetting did not involve hardcore questions such as “are you Swedish?  “Are you a movie critic?”  “Are you the girlfriend of some guy I’ve never met before?”

The American Left picked up on affinity groups in the late 1960s. They started as a means for organizing protests and turned into a means of organizing movements.  To coordinate, they send members back and forth to spokescouncils.  The idea is to create a very collaborative discussion.  This is partly due to the influence on the modern hard Left by Quaker organizers — if you remember those lengthy Occupy meetings that just went on and on and on, it’s because that’s how decision-making is done in Quaker meetings, and Quaker organizers taught the technique to Lefties in the ’70s anti-nuclear movement. And it spread, because lefties in different movements talk to each other and work together all the time.

“Work together all the time.”  The very antithesis of Der Movement.

By contrast, righty organizations have historically been slow to organize. When they do, right-wing activists tend to stay in their own lanes and not work together, share notes, or reach out to one another’s followers.  Think about the mishmash of signs you typically see at a Lefty protest, and then try to remember the last time you saw, say, an RKBA sign at a pro-life rally.  More unfortunately, when righties do become active, they tend to do something like start a blog. Or make a YouTube channel. Or write a magazine article. In short, they become street-corner evangelists.  They tend not to do things in meatspace.

Lefties do the work in the real world. Guess who wins?

The recent Battles of Berkeley have shown that right-wing defense groups can acquit themselves admirably in street-fights…

…But they allow themselves to be run out of a LA bar by a bunch of noodle-armed, soy-guzzling “democratic socialists.”  I’m not proud, boys.

…but hard experience has taught Lefties that an all-one-tactic mentality is a good way to give your opponents time to figure out how to counter you. If righties going to build things, they need to look at how the lefties are doing it, because they’ve been working on it for forty years. 

And for forty years, the Far Right has been talking about: Kali Yuga, how many times Evola passed gas per day, The Men Who Can’t Tell Time, the Nordics of Ultima Thule, subfractional admixture percentages, the cephalic index of Julius Caesar, and other, very, very important and practical matters.  And let us not forget – the Pyramids of Atlantis built via psychokinesis!

To paraphrase Trotsky, you may not be interested in politics, but politics are interested in you — and you can learn a lot from the people who’ve been working them to their advantage.

Yes, the Meritocratic Left, not the Quota Right.
Der Movement’s affirmative action program is in a very real way worse than the System’s.  Typically, when the System practices affirmative action, they may elevate an incompetent Negro to a position of authority, but there are competent Whites behind the scenes who do the real work.  Thus, even though efficiency is compromised (and the whole thing eventually falls apart when there are too few Whites left to maintain the creaking mechanism), things for time being muddle along and the work eventually get done, at least in minimal fashion.  In contrast, Der Movement lacks the competent people working behind the affirmative action leadership.  The situation in Der Movement wouldn’t be so bad if there actually were competent, merit-based workers behind the scenes getting things done; in that case, you could have your Quota Queen Poster Boys as the “face of the movement” in order to satisfy the Type I ethnic fetishists.  Unfortunately, the quota queens suffer under the delusion that they are indeed competent (ignoring decades of unremitting failure as evidence to the contrary) and possess their status due to merit; thus, they eschew help from the competent, leading to disaster.  None of these leaders exhibit the self-awareness to admit “I really don’t know what I’m doing; I need help” so the tragedy of affirmative action incompetence keeps on rolling along.
As a side note, what does it say about the “heroism” of Antifa that despite being supported by the entire media, academic, corporate, and legal (including Jeff Sessions) System they still wear masks?  On the other hand, look at the Rightist activists at Charlottesville – the only part of their Captain America and Batman cosplay costumes missing were the masks.  Of course, if the Right wore masks, they would – under existing law, by the way – be immediately arrested for doing so while Antifa typically are not.  That last point alone tells you who is part of the System, the de factoCorporate Police, and who the real dissidents are.  In today’s bizarro world, Spencer – opposed by the System – goes out and speaks openly, while he is elbowed in the face by a Corporate Policeman wearing a mask.  Incredible.

Another side note: Since the end of WWI, there has been a disturbing trend of Republican Presidents picking Supreme Court justices who turn out to be ideologically undependable at best, and closet leftists at worst.  In contrast, Democrat appointees are always perfectly aligned with the leftist politics of the President who appoints them.

Likewise, Holder and Lynch were dependably leftist, pro-colored SJW Attorney Generals for Obama; on the other hand, Antifa Jeff Sessions has turned out to be an ideological traitor of the first order, lionizing leftist thugs, persecuting rightists, and agonizing over “civil rights” cases from the 1950s.

Are we surprised?  The Right is ineffective, weak, error-prone, constantly betrayed, always losing, while the Left goes from strength to strength, always winning, always finding rock-solid ideologues to fill positions and do their job to wreck America and damage White interests.