Category: strategy and tactics

In Der News: 11/3/17

News, news, news.

So, how’s that ethnonationalism working out for you?  Emphasis added:

Pro-Brexit leaders like Nigel Farage and Daniel Hannan have hinted that after free movement from Europe is stopped, they want to open the doors to the world, and they don’t just mean in terms of trade. Politicians like these two seem to be very enthusiastic in promoting immigration from the former Colonies of the British Empire like India. The reason for this is that they believe, quite stupidly, that Britain has more in common with its former third world Colonies than the White countries of eastern Europe.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of mass migration, whether it is from White countries or non-white countries. The mass movement of people has always had negative effects and has always disproportionately impacted the working class. However, I am slightly perplexed by the hatred shown towards eastern European immigrants by normie-white British people, who also seem to show a rather laissez-faire attitude to their non-white neighbors.
I guess they simply are the clearest example yet of why civic nationalism is such a joke.
It would be ironic then, that if by freeing themselves from the European Union, British nationalists may actually succeed in making their own people’s demographic situation worse.

Yockey was right.  Narrow ethnonationlism is race treason; it’s treason to the West and our High Culture.

Hey, Roissy, how’s your God Emperor doing?

Outstanding comment:

It appears that the Trump administration has appointed antifa the national arbiter of who gets free speech on gov’t property and who does not.
NPI has had 4 or 5 successful conferences in the Reagan Building since its first there in 2011. I attended three. There has NEVER been ANY violence from NPI attendees. On several occasions there was violence outside the building by antifa, but it was contained.
Before each conference, antifa has threatened to disrupt the event. Even under Obama, the federal gov’t would not allow the threat of violence to shut down the NPI conference. Under Trump, that’s no longer the case.

Trump is President and Sessions is Attorney General, while Antifa runs wild in the streets with impunity, and Trump signs documents pledging to fight “dem raciss.”

But oh boy, he really knows how to “neg” folks, what an alpha he is!

The Far Right needs its own private property.

Spencer is correct about “Americana” here.

Vanguard movement?  Yes.  Nazi imagery?  No. A place for uniforms?  Yes.  Spencer has been making good sense recently; jettisoning Jorjani may have helped.  Addition by subtraction. Get rid of the jackassery as well.  “The European uniform” – yes. A flag?  What about the Legion Europa symbol – a Greek “L” and a runic “E?”   Er…Pepe?  Please, no. Overdoing the meme war…dear god yes.  Please stop it.


Advice For the Young Activist

Navigating the madhouse.

What advice would I give a (real, not infiltrator) newcomer, particularly a young one, to the “movement?”  Since most, albeit of course not all, such newcomers would be expected to be relatively young, and since younger, less experienced, individuals would be more likely to be vulnerable to errors of judgment, I entitle this piece: “Advice For the Young Activist,” although it applies to all people who find themselves in The Movement Madhouse.

Based on plenty of experience (most of it negative), I would start off with the following.

Be careful of who you deal with, who you have confidence in, who you trust.  In more than 20 years involved with racial activism, I can honestly say that there have been only two people I’ve known in the “movement” that I have had complete confidence in, who I would consider 100% trustworthy.  One of these is someone I’ve known for nearly 20 years, the other is someone I worked with very closely for several years before he passed away. That’s it.  Two in 20+ years, of the dozens and dozens (if you can online commentators, hundreds) of people I’ve encountered.  If we relax the criteria and ask how many people in the “movement” I have reasonably solid confidence in, people I’d be willing to invite over for dinner, interact with personally – maybe half-a-dozen total (including the two already discussed).  The point: be very careful who you associate who you trust.  You will meet some of the best people you will ever know in the “movement,” but also some of the worst, and the latter will outnumber the former.  A dissident movement will by its very nature tend to attract marginal personalities, and that has been amplified by freakish dogma, lack of quality control, and piss-poor leadership.” Combine that with outright trolls infiltrators, and agent provocateurs, as well as the weak-minded who join for dubious reasons and then leave – without being able to keep their mouths shut about it – and you have a recipe for disaster unless you are very careful. Then one hears rumors of “homosexual grooming of young boys” at “Alt Right pool parties” – I have no idea if that is true or not, but young men should exercise caution.  The same applies to young women entering the “movement” who may be the center of attention from the sex-starved heterosexual activist contingent.

Don’t fall in with personality cults.  Note to the “movement”: there are no “rock stars” – or there should not be any; no one is infallible; and although there are some important personages who have done real solid work, which should be respected and appreciated, no one is above criticism.  The idea that we should, on the one hand, critique “the personality cults of Jewish intellectual movements” while, on the other hand, mimic the same type of personality cult among racial activism, is outright hypocrisy and demonstrates a stunning lack of self-awareness.  If you read or hear “rock star” in reference to anyone, if you see, read, or hear anything that tells you that criticism of certain people is forbidden, then run as fast as you can.  That’s a cult, not a genuine movement.

Think for yourself, don’t mindlessly swallow fossilized “movement” dogma. The same admonitions against cultism applies to dogma that is above criticism.  We all know the official dogma: Nordicism, ethnic fetishism, Ostara-like “racial history,” HBD, etc. If there is something you are not allowed to criticize, then that’s a cult, not a real political movement.

Be wary of real-life public meetings and rallies, know very well what you are getting into and be prepared.  There are a number of dangers here.  First, even in the absence of leftist opponents, you will likely be exposed to some “sincere” unsavory characters.  Second, the leftist problem exists and comes in two flavors.  There’s the “infiltrator” flavor and then there’s the overt “in your face” flavor, the latter of which runs the spectrum of merely loud protests, and the taking of pictures and filming, to actual physical assault. Most likely, your personal self-defense will be your own responsibility, and don’t expect any real security to weed out infiltrators or to even to prevent someone sticking a cell phone camera in your face.  Weigh the costs and benefits of such meetings, look at your own personal situation carefully, understand the implications and consequences, and go from there.  If you do attend meetings at which there is no confidence of security (most of them), you at least would want to consider investing in some “technics” to obfuscate identity if you do have that cell phone camera in your face.  It goes without saying that unless you want to play a leadership role – and you know you would be accepted as such based on your merits (see below on “affirmative action”) – then do protect your pseudonymity.

Take care of yourself first.  When you travel by plane, you are told than in case of emergency, you put your own oxygen mask on first and then you help the person next to you.  The same principle applies here.  If you and your life are a mess, you’ll be little help to anyone, including “the White race.”  Education, career, financial security, family, health – all come first, racial activism comes second.  That’s not “selfish individualism”  – is it just good sense and putting yourself in the position of being the best you can be, which will be of benefit to everyone around you.  Be wary of the siren song: “I don’t know why people bother going to college or saving for retirement – don’t they know that the System is going to completely collapse in five years?”  They’ve been saying that same nonsense for more than 50 years now.  Ignore them.  Essentially what they are saying is: “Don’t take care of yourself – take care of ME instead.”  They want your time, your effort, and, above all else, they want your MONEY.  Don’t fall for it.  In many cases, calls for “selfless altruism” are actually self-interested appeals for the altruist to sacrifice himself for those doing the calling.

Don’t buy into the “Armageddon” rhetoric that “the collapse of the System and the revolution” is just around the corner, within five years it’ll all collapse.  As noted above, they’ve been saying that for more than 50 years

Don’t waste time with online comments threads flamewars.  That speaks for itself.  That’s all a waste of time, unproductive, revolving around personalities and not issues, and this time sink will get you more involved with activist freaks than you would ever want.

Don’t have unrealistic expectations and then get “burnt out” when you don’t see victory right around the corner. I’m not necessarily echoing Spengler’s “Optimism is cowardice,” but you must be realistic.  This is a long-haul endeavor, anyone who promises quick fixes ad immediate gratification is either delusional or a charlatan.

Be persistent but know when to change strategy and tactics when a “dead end” won’t budge.  Don’t be a fossil.  Be flexible.

Don’t throw good money after bad. Many “movement” outlets have their hands out; they are very good at pan-handling.  You may feel like: “I’ve already invested so much into these people, I can’t give up now.”  No, it’s a sunk cost, accept it and move on.  This applies to the investment of time and effort as much as the investment of money. Avoid the “denial of sunk cost” trap – which you are afraid to “break” with a failed group, etc. because of the perception that you’ve sunk too much into it to leave it now.  You will just sink deeper and deeper into failure.  Accept sunk costs and move on.

If some individual/group/organization is unable to clearly define who their “ingroup” is, who they are for, run as quickly as you can.  In particular, if you are in any way unsure whether you yourself are “in” why would you waste any investment of time and resources if a group of mendacious liars or indecisive dithering idiots?  You have the right to invest in your own genetic interests.  You are not there to be the extended phenotype of someone else, defending their genetic interests at the cost of your own.  Demand transparency and reciprocity regarding interests, and if you don’t get it, take your business elsewhere.  Don’t fall for the “we’ll sort all this out after the revolution.”  No, sort it out NOW.  And if you find some individual or group trying to renegotiate the ingroup after the fact, suggesting that maybe you don’t belong after all, AFTER you’ve already invested your time, effort, and money with them, then they are utterly devoid of character, and you need to leave them ASAP, regardless of what they “decide” about ingroups.  Deciding on the ingroup is the FIRST thing – the DEFINING thing any group must do.  The definition of a group is meaningless without a clear “in/out” and if the “in/out” is going to be redefined midstream, then the definition of the group is also meaningless.  Don’t waste your time with meaningless groups….or with meaningless individuals.

Don’t waste time with “man on white horse” syndromes, magical thinking about quick fixes, and that mainstream leaders are “secretly on our side.” They’re not.

Don’t be afraid to call out “movement” “leaders” when such fail time and time again. They’ll get hysterical, “ban” you from their sites, call you names (the pot calling the kettle black), they’ll do anything to protect their money stream.  After all, we can’t let the rubes know how they are getting fleeced now, can we?  As a corollary don’t buy into, or yourself promote, the “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action policy. If any “movement” precinct declares that groups A-M are part of their ingroup, and groups N-Z are not, well and good, but then leadership of that precinct should be able to come from any qualified person derived from that ingroup (A-M).  Any “movement” group that has a caste system within their ingroup – run.  They are being disingenuous; they really want an ingroup narrower than they outwardly proclaim, and are just fishing for more money sources and other forms of support.  Again, don’t be someone else’s extended phenotype.

If I think of any more advice, a follow-up to this post will be produced in the future.

A Failed Brand

Against the Alt Right.

My view is that we should abandon the Alt Right “brand” entirely. It only functioned when it was sufficiently vague to allow there to be a conversation between White Nationalists and people who were closer to the mainstream, which allowed White Nationalists to make converts and build connections. But Andrew Anglin and Richard Spencer have pursued a strategy of polarization between the Alt Right and what is now called the Alt Lite that has deprived the term of its original utility. So they can keep it.

Readers of this blog are aware that I have never been a supporter of the “big tent” approach.  Nevertheless, it must be said that the only way that approach would have worked for the “Alt Right brand” was if it was always made explicitly clear that the Alt Right was nothing more or less than an umbrella group of various disparate rightist factions: hardcore White nationalists, ethnonationalists, Identitarians, Alt Lite civic nationalists, Alt Wrong HBD “race realists,” more extreme Paleocons, Game-Manosphere types, Southern nationalists, etc. Unfortunately, that approach was incoherent from the very beginning.

At the same time the “big tent” approach was promoted, we were also being told that “the Alt Right is the movement” and “the Alt Right is White nationalism” and “the Alt Right is White nationalism or it is nothing at all.” Then came Hailgate, the continued identification of the Alt Right with its more “extreme” elements, and the fallout ensued.

Thus, hardcore White nationalists resented being lumped together with civic nationalist cucks, execrable HBD specimens like Derbyshire, homoerotic Trump fanboys and other hedonistic “game” “pussy nerd” nihilists, and all the rest.  Likewise, various non-WN Alt Right factions resisted association with “racist Nazi haters,” or anyone who dared to offend Jews or Orientals, or any “blackpiller” who dared to criticize “God Emperor” Trump.  And of course, besides these serious ideological splits, there were those who objected to having the “movement” conflated with the Alt Right’s juvenile jackassery (politely called by the euphemism “youth culture”), and so there was a generational split as well.

Predictably – and some of us, predictably, did predict it – the “shotgun marriage” of the Alt Right fell apart.  The Alt Lite tried to take the brand for themselves; failing that, they dissociated themselves from the Alt Right proper (which returned the favor), less “extreme” Alt Wrong elements “threw Spencer under the bus” after Hailgate, there were personal feuds between various racial nationalist/Identitarian/ethnonationalist factions of the Alt Right, and so there has been significant degeneration of the “brand” from its heyday of 2016.

What is the Alt Right now?  White nationalism Lite?  Racial nationalism for Millennials? Beavis-and-Butthead White nationalism?  The vanguard of the Iranian Renaissance?

While my reasons differ from those of Greg, I mirror his call for the rest of you folks to abandon the Alt Right brand.  Indeed, with analogy to the “only Nixon could go to China” meme, it would be optimal if Spencer himself would abandon the Alt Right brand, allowing for a “re-set” that hopefully would include lessons learned from errors made by the Alt Right.

The Adaptive Value of Truth

Truth is required for memes promoting long-term effective adaptive behavior.

I have been very critical of the “movement” – an activity itself criticized by certain racialists – which I believe is necessary; only through legitimate criticism can real improvement be achieved.

Now some of my critics would deny my negative comments are legitimate, but for this post, for the sake of argument, let us assume another riposte against my comments is made: “your criticisms of the “movement may be correct, but they are irrelevant; what ultimately matters is not ‘truth’ but whether a given set of memes is adaptive or not adaptive – ‘movement’ dogma is (in our opinion) adaptive, promoting adaptive behavior, so that is all that matters.”

A similar argument can be made – and has been made – in favor of religion; that is, it doesn’t matter if faith is based on objective fact; it only matters if religious faith promotes adaptive behavior.  Subjectivity, not objectivity, of reality is paramount if such subjectivity promotes the objective fact of genetic continuity.

Very well.  My counter-argument is this: even if “movement” dogma (or any other sort of dogma) seems to be adaptive at the current time, it is highly dangerous to base adaptive behavior on untruthful, non-factual, objectively unproven or disproved, and/or illogical memes. In the long run, the truth will out, particularly if you have determined enemies ready to utilize objective truth to undermine your subjective adaptive behavior.  If you tie your adaptive behavior on the weak foundation of fantasy, bizarre dogma, and refuted ideas then your adaptive behavior can collapse along with the failed memes.

It may sometimes be inconvenient, time-consuming, uncomfortable, etc. to get to the truth, and discard failed memes, to jettison refuted ideas; it may seem more efficient to take a “hey, it’s still working, even if it is wrong,” approach.  But in the long run, you’ll suffer like the grasshopper compared to the ant in that fable about the value of planning and sacrifice. Long-term stability of adaptive interests is best ensured by basing adaptive behavior on the best, the strongest, the most truthful memes possible; it is optimal to utilize those ideas that have been proofed, as best as currently possible, against critical analysis.  Better your own analysis than that of your enemies, better to voluntarily discard failed ideas than be forced to do so after memetic attack by your foes, attacks which, if successful, will leave your followers disillusioned, and weaken their resolve to defend their interests.

Getting back to religion, one can argue that Western Man tied adaptive behavior to Christianity; thus, after the “Death of God” (as explained by Nietzsche), due to illumination by the light of science, and rationalism Christianity as it existed collapsed, taking Western Man’s adaptive behavior down with it. Today, with a globalized society and the instantaneous dissemination of information by the Internet, the collapse of failed ideas can occur very quickly.  One could argue that the System’s memes are based on lies and refuted ideas – that is true, but note that the System is much more powerful than we dissidents and more able to slow the dissemination of the truth and note more fundamentally that the System’s edifice is beginning to collapse, there are cracks in the facade, and some “movement” activists talk of the inevitable collapse of the System due to it being based on a foundation of lies.

Should we not then wish to build our own adaptive system on a foundation of truth?  Isn’t that the best insurance against memetic shocks?  Isn’t that the safest long-term bet?

We Need Real Data

This is important.

This is a topic that I’ve brought up in comments at Counter-Currents, particularly in response to some Le Brun podcasts, but is worth discussing again (and again and again).

We need data, strong empirically-determined data, to assist in understanding racial-social trends in society as a whole, as well as within the “movement.” Many assumptions are made, and strategic approaches are designed based on those assumptions, without any real founding on real evidence. This is crucial in determining the answers to crucial questions about how to get Whites in general motivated to pursue their own racial group interests, and how to get Whites actively involved in racial activism.

We need opinion polling and other types of survey data, looking at the White population (in different countries if possible, but at least in the USA), broken down, if possible, by age, sex, education, income/class, and other variables. We need to ascertain how many Whites are concerned about the racial-cultural trends, and if so why, and if not why. We need to understand why those who are concerned do nothing about it, why they eschew racial activism, and what they think of the “movement.” Looking at the “movement” we need to identify the types of Whites who get involved, what their motivations are, how they got involved, and whether the “gateway hypothesis” (that people enter through more mild, Alt-Wrong style activism and the progress to the more hardcore) is correct or not. We need to understand whether ”mainstreaming” really works (I think not), whether “vanguardists” are more attractive or not to recruits, and whether the Alt Right’s “youth culture” is really a net positive to the “movement” and whether it is really responsible for bringing in young recruits. And there are, I’m sure, dozens of other essential questions that need be answered – and answered by real data.

Why don’t the more well-funded and “connected” precincts of the Right (e.g., the Alt Wrong) at least get the ball rolling on this? Or, if not them, can the more hardcore among us pool resources and get the job done?

Real data providing real answers leading to real solutions to pressing problems.

The Message as Well as the Messenger

Being right is not enough.

This essay (the current one in TOO, not the original 1989 version) by McCulloch is fine as far as it goes.  The logic is good and the moral reasoning is sound.  One cannot easily criticize the fundamental argument from a theoretical standpoint.  The only real objection at the current time is empirical: moral arguments, on their own, have not worked to convince White people to pursue their racial interests.

It is not merely, as the essay asserts, that Whites do not care because they do not know, or that they do not know because they do not care.  One can find Whites who will reasonably agree to the premise that genocide against any group is wrong and, as a matter of course, that every group has – or should have – an inherent right of self-preservation.  Very well. But if you then – using facts, logic, and the language of moral persuasion – attempt to convince them of the reality of White genocide, and the moral imperative of resistance, you will typically encounter immediate and unalterable hostility. They will deny the reality of White genocide regardless of facts and logic; Whites have been conditioned to automatically reject and deny any appeal to racial self-interest.

And I use the word “automatically” advisedly.  No matter how much the person had previously asserted their agreement with anti-genocide and pro-preservationist premises, as soon as those premises are explicitly linked to specifically White interests, their minds close down and self-righteous hysteria and moral posturing – usually using the language of cant – ensues. One can make arguments such as those suggested by McCulloch in this essay, and yet all these people will hear is “blah-blah-blah-racist hate–blah-KKK-blah-Nazi-blah-blah-blah.”

I have no easy answers for overcoming this conditioning.  I would suggest that Hitler did state what is likely a fundamental truth with his assertion that the masses are decidedly feminine in behavior.  Thus, the messenger is as important – or perhaps more so – than the message.  Now, I do not like stating that.  As a rationalist and an empiricist, who judges arguments by their memetic content, the idea that the messenger should rise to an equal or greater level of importance as the message strikes me as one step along the road to idiocracy.  It is irrational.  But as Yockey tells us, life is irrational. In this sense, the existentialists (using the broadest sense of that word) are correct: when viewing reality from the human perspective, there are limits to the rational, limits to empiricism, limits to positivism; man is inherently irrational.

Therefore, what would be helpful is coupling a sound message with appealing messengers: attractive, confident, successful men, speaking from a position of strength, well-liked and respected, and resistant to the inevitable backlash, thuggery, and social pricing resulting from their pro-White position. One could imagine some popular celebrity – actor, athlete, or respected political figure or businessman – being better received than the typical pro-White activist.  Of course, such people, even if they were pro-White, would likely be resistant to expressing these opinions – they would fear an end to their careers, an end to their social standing and reputation (even, thus retired celebrities would be hesitant), and so only marginal dissident figures publicly express pro-White views, a situation that the masses perceive as a lack of legitimacy.

Context is important as well: the feminine masses want to see strength, virility, defiance, success – a “winner.”  The same message with the same messenger will be differently perceived and received dependent upon the context surrounding the message’s delivery. Thus, a messenger who stands his ground and is able to deliver the message without disruption, and who of course never backs down under pressure, will more effectively deliver the message than the exact same messenger, with the exact same message, who is shouted down, chased off-stage, punched in the face, is surrounded by a motley crew of cosplay-wanna-bes, has a urine-filed bottle bouncing off his head, has his rally cancelled, and, especially, backs down under stress. On a purely rational basis, the content of the message, its inherent truth, should be independent of these external factors; however, the irrational reality is that these external factors are as important, or more so, in convincing the masses, than the message itself. I wish it weren’t so, but it is what it is.

If this is true, then great care must be taken in choosing the right messengers and also choosing the optimal environment within which to deliver the message, to invoke perceptions of strength and success.  It also follows that recruiting celebrities and other public figures, and convincing them to speak out, successfully and without a damaging backlash, without backing down, would yield more benefit than the typical preaching-to-the choir that goes on online – the powerless and marginal engaged in memetic group onanism.

Again, how to actualize these suggestions is beyond the scope of this essay. I honestly do not have the answer to this puzzle.

The Purge Continues

The meaning of the purge.

The suppression of dissident opinion and The Purge of the Right continues.

How to interpret all of this?

It would be tempting for the Anti-Alt Right Far Right to adopt the attitude of “the Alt Right and associated groups caused all of this trouble and this whole mess is their responsibility.” However, that would be the wrong view. We cannot confuse means (online activism) with ends (promoting White interests).  If the only way to safeguard our Internet presence is to be completely ineffectual, to accomplish nothing, to stay in our little playpen, then the online presence is useless.  The whole point of online activism is to eventually transition to the real world.  The Unite the Right rally had every right to occur, the violence was the responsibility of the Left and the authorities, and the Purge is System repression and nothing else.  Thus, the Purge is ultimately the responsibility of the System, not the Alt Right.

Of course, there are grounds to criticize the Alt Right and the other rally organizers.  We can ask whether the benefits of the rally was worth the costs. We can point out the lack of online security allowing the planning to be infiltrated, the relative lack of organization, the participation of Nutzi types, the silly costumes, and the point that if the Alt Right pushes its hegemony over racial nationalism, then they should include major racial nationalist stakeholders in the planning, and in the overall strategic direction, of big events and other activities.

That said, as much as I dislike the Alt Right, they cannot be blamed as the fundamental cause of the Purge (which would have happened eventually, sooner or later).

If we want to point fingers on the Right, we can look toward the “movement” as a whole, the Old Movement that never created the infrastructures required to survive System persecution and to move forward.  The Old Movement for the last half-century has been invested in the Piercian Der Tag mentality that the System is about to collapse any minute and “the revolution” is just around the corner.  After all, why organize in depth, for the long haul, with a decades-long strategic vision, if you are always thinking that “the System is definitely going to collapse in five years?”  If you believe, and proselytize, the view that a Turner Diaries scenario is going to occur within the next half decade, why bother with long term planning?

And so, when we find ourselves in the current situation, we find we have no community presence, no community support, no integration into the community, we have no cadre of lawyers ready to come to our defense, we have no print journals or other analog media ready to pick up the slack of online censorship, we have no elected officials sympathetic to our cause (the retarded buffoon in the White House, who denounced “hate,” definitely does not count), we have no professionalized security or intelligence operations, we have no businesses outside of direct “movement” activity to employ activists and to generate income, we have no (insofar as I know) “reptile fund” to support required covert operational activities – we have none of it. We are woefully unprepared for the contingencies that come from dissident activism and we are paying the price for that unpreparedness.  Instead of taking rhetoric about how “the System is anti-White and doesn’t care about our people” at face value, we have ignored opportunities to reach out to the declining White middle class, we have neglected practical community-based activities to help those Red State White Americans with increasing mortality rates and existential despair, we have turned our back on the real world and have rolled around in our isolated playpens.  And now when we need White support, they are not there for us like we were not there for them.

The “movement” made three significant errors:

1. Not organizing in depth in the real world.  See the two preceding paragraphs. This has been the largest error.  Decades of time, enormous efforts, and a lot of money, all have been completely wasted.  An absolute disgrace.

2. An over-reliance on digital activism.  This ties in to point #1 above.  We have become addicted to the Internet, at the expense of real world tangible activity.  We have reached a point where the “movement” is a foundation of digital bytes (easily erased by the System) coupled to a more recent superstructure of rallies full of mostly well-meaning people many of whom nonetheless look like they’ve just left a cosplay convention.  That’s not going to work out.  We need to take stock, and while we rebuild our online presence, we should consider this a “wake-up call” to invest more in analog activism – deep and meaningful community outreach, practical politics, System infiltration, and building of new alternative communities – and perhaps invest less in talking among ourselves online about “Pepe” and “Kek” and the older “movement” memes as well.

3. A too-narrow leadership cadre.  It has been the same people – the same types of people – and the same ideas, over and over again. There is no accountability, years and decades of failure have no consequences.  Other people with different ideas are ignored and scorned, because they are of the “wrong” ethnicity and/or do not kowtow to “movement” leaders and dare to criticize the “rock stars” and/or refuse to drink the “movement” Kool-Aid of outdated fossilized dogma.  It is high time to consider other perspectives. You are not obligated to agree with those perspectives, much less actualize them, but at least give them a fair hearing.  

Having said all of this, a case can be made that the Purge may in the long run be for the best.  It would have had to happen sooner or later – and worse may yet be to come if racial nationalism becomes more successful – so the faster the “movement” adapts to the way things are, the stronger it will become having weathered the crisis.  The System will adapt as well – a Red Queen scenario is likely – but this process is necessary for any real dissident movement.  The status quo had to be broken.  Perhaps it could have been broken in a more productive manner, but what has happened has happened, and reality needs to be dealt with as it exists.