Category: strategy and tactics

The State of the Press

Sigh.

Read this.

I’m of two minds here.  On the one hand, my major impulse, and strong belief, is that no one broadly on “our side” should talk to the Press. I see no percentage in it and it inevitably ends badly (as it did here). On the other hand, Taylor is probably the best spokesman Der Movement has right now, so if you guys want anyone speaking for you, it would be him (*).

But this episode demonstrates, once again, that you simply cannot trust the Press, and that my major impulse was and is correct and that dealing with the Press under circumstances in which they have to be trusted is simply bad judgment.

I would advise “movement leaders” to refuse such offers unless the Press is willing to sign off on a legally binding document that constrains their ability to smear and distort – for example. forbidding them to use words like “hate” or “White Supremacy” or ‘White Supremacists,” etc. and preventing them from running the interview without the prior approval of the interviewee (so that what will be presented is an accurate reflection of reality). If they violate the pact, then sue. Taylor won against the state of Tennessee allowing his conference to go forward without ruinous security fees, so using the court system to remediate an ironclad breach of contract, with respect to an agreement with the Press, is not impossible.

The argument would be: “The Press would never agree to those conditions.”  Very well, so be it. If they refuse to agree, doesn’t that clearly indicate the strong possibility that they plan to use smears and distortions?  If they refuse a reasonably worded and not overly restrictive agreement, then you are better off not doing it.

And this underscores the need for racialists to have their own media (in all its forms) and other infrastructure, instead of relying on a hostile System.

As far as the White-hating Asian (more simply: Asian) Zakaria goes, I’ve written about him before (if memory serves, most prominently during my time at Majority Rights), and I have to say he has always reminded me of the Clement Dio character from The Camp of the Saints.  Zakaria is in my opinion one of the filthiest pieces of absolute vile scum imaginable.

And as far as Zakaria’s moronic statements on race, the “movement” would probably be better positioned to effectively argue against that if it had as allies genuine STEM people (particularly in the broad field of biology) instead of alienating such people and driving them away.  Hint: Lynn, Rushton, et al. are/were not in my opinion STEM or scientists of any kind, but politicized hacks.  Do better.

*I’ve written before how the System has been ignoring folks like Taylor in favor of more inept spokesmen. That they are turning to Taylor now suggests that they have an agenda to discredit him as the lone reasonable voice among the bunch or they’ve simply run out of alternatives with the utter collapse of the Alt Right.  Or did they try to get other people and were refused?

Advertisements

Of Webinars and Genetics

And other news.

Guys like Taylor and Spencer would like to give speeches at colleges and universities, but the problem is violent Antifa protests (protected not only by the academic institutions themselves but also by the radically far-left and anti-White Trump administration) and the reluctance of the institutions to provide security.

Have these (and other) gentlemen considered the option of webinars as a stop-gap until such time that live speeches can again grace the halls of American academia?

Assuming they can get someone at the institution to make the invitation and arrange the webinar, this would seem to be a reasonable option.  Although there are of course drawbacks of webinars compared to a live appearance, there are some advantages as well, particularly in the current climate of repression.

1. It saves the cost, time, and inconvenience of traveling to the venue.

2. In case of a cancellation, less is lost.

3. There is no problem of physical security for the speaker, while the focus of security for the institution is shifted from that of an outside speaker to the institution’s own students (and employees) and their own property.  Let’s consider this last point in more detail.

For a live speech, the major focus of physical protection is the speaker, who is an outside presence, with the intended audience being secondary.  For a webinar, the focus of physical security is the audience, who are likely to be students and employees of the institution, as well as the property (e.g., computers, audiovisual, etc.) of the institution. The obligation of the institution to protect their own students and employees, as well as protect their valuable equipment and other property, is not something they can reasonably (or legally) evade. They could in theory ban the webinar, which would reach levels of absurdity and legal ramifications significantly beyond that of banning a live speech event.  If the institution would go to the embarrassing extreme of cancelling a webinar – a webinar! – then that’s a choice they should be forced into making. Think of the implications. It’s one thing for a college or university to claim that the costs and trouble for providing security for a live visit by an outside speaker is prohibitive – and even there they come up against the legal problem of the heckler’s veto – but to actually tell their own students and employees that they cannot even just gather in a room to communicate electronically with someone in a webinar format is another thing entirely.  They are going to tell tuition-paying students that they cannot listen to a webinar?  I’m sure they would like to tell the students that, but what they would like to do, and what they can do with impunity, are two different things entirely.

Sieg Heil!  Those high-IQ, racially superior, Inner Hajnal German purebloods make history once again!  Sieg Heil!

Complete ignorance of subject matter doesn’t stop Amren speakers from making fools of themselves. Neolithic farmer ancestry?  According to this retard, it never happened.  A few “Neolithic hunter gatherers” (sic!) were hanging around, not Mesolithic or anything like that, no sir!  We’re all from the steppes!  The smallest part of the European genepool is now the major part. Nothing else to report, except of course for some pesky sub-Saharan contaminants – but he seems to have forgotten some other examples.  Well, I suppose that weasel words like “practically absent” covers the omissions. I presume it’s “practically absent” from Portugal as well, hmmm?  Mongols in Russia – but evidence of Northeast Asian admixture in Northern Europe is mysteriously also missed in this ever-so-cogent analysis.  

We got to get this moron together with Durocher and Duchesne to give a presentation on European racial history – it can be sponsored by Ostara. These guys just make things up as they go along.  The fact that there is a rich literature of population genetics studies doesn’t prevent liars like this Amren speaker from literally inventing a history absolutely and definitively proven to be wrong.

Do you trust Der Movement?  Are you that naïve?

Ah yes…dem dere modern Greeks are dumb, but we need to better “robustify” the results. Very well.  But, if the Minoan and Mycenaean samples were the brainiest, more than the Neolithics and the moderns, perhaps we can look at Reich’s work and make some conclusions about those big-brained ancients?

Like, you know, certain things that the fundamentally dishonest “movement” likes to omit, such as that those ancients were dark-haired, dark-eyed “Mediterraneans,” genetically closest to modern Southern Europeans (e.g., from Southern Italy and Greece); they were not “Nordics.”

Good luck finding any “movement” YouTube videos stressing those aspects of “archaeogenetics.”  Good luck finding any breathless Mr. Caliper Unz Review essays or Amren articles about that either.  After all, Der Movement is all about “uncovering the truth about race” – up until the moment that “truth” conflicts with established dogma, at which point “truth” is conveniently ignored.

The Creativity Gambit

Religion.

Sociopolitical opinion and ideology does not define a “protected class” in America, leaving White nationalists and others on the Right vulnerable to social pricing and other forms of persecution.

This, of course, needs to be remedied by law, and I have previously proposed such a law. However, no such protections currently exist.

Religion, however, is a protected class.  Could WNs utilize religion as a vehicle to shield their beliefs from official persecution?  Creativity, for example – and there are other race-based and race-aware fringe religions (for Whites or some subsection of Whites) as well.

The System of course may simply refuse acknowledge the validity of such religions, and attempts have been made for such invalidation.  The legal findings have been a mixed bag but the favorable rulings suggest the religion gambit may be worth trying, but of course activist judges and the System in general may still continuously attempt to define religion in a manner so as to exempt anything pro-White.

One can argue that religions such as Christian Identity, Asatru, and Cosmotheism may reflect a concern for the “imponderables” more so than Creativity and therefore may be better for challenging System refusal to accept the validity of such beliefs as protected.  New religions (EGI-based? The Church of the Holy Salter?) can also be developed that would be fully compatible with White nationalism while dealing with so-called “imponderables.”  This might be best as all existing racial religions are seriously flawed and it is embarrassing to be openly affiliated with them; however, it is worth considering all options.  

Of course, the definition of utility of “imponderables” to define religion should itself by challenged.  Who decides what an “imponderable issue” is?  Are kosher and halal dietary laws “imponderables?”  They sound very secular and practical to me. Is the Muslim dislike of dogs an “imponderable?”  What about the Hindu caste system?  How is that related to deep moral and ethical issues?  The reality is that religion is for the most part a technic for controlling human behavior, dressed up (in some cases) with a lot of supernatural mumbo jumbo and in most cases with hypocritical cant and in virtually all cases with arbitrary dictums. Creativity (and other race based religions) are certainly no worse and in some cases clearly better. Any religion that helps preserve EGI would seem to be on a higher ethical plane than, say, a ban on eating pork.

I am not recommending this for everyone – for example, I am not a religious person and I have very serious problems with all of the aforementioned extant racial religions.  However, I cam imagine that Type I activists would find much of that very congenial.  If so, why not attempt to take advantage of possible religious protections?

If all else fails, there is always the Church of the Almighty Bomb and the Holy Fallout.

Messiah or Naughty Boy?

Also:  comic book art, McSpencer, and other items.

Watch this. If you want the executive summary, start watching from 27:50. The video also punctures some fantasies about the Oriental Gods. HBDers weep bitter tears.

This is another example of Sallis being right. After Rushton died, Johnson censored my negative comments about Rushton from Counter-Currents (I was not “banned” from that platform at that time) when there was a Rushtonite hagiography going on there.  After all, we are not allowed to question the dogma – and “Rushton was a messiah” is part of the dogma. However, Dutton (“one of the boys”) researched Rushton’s life and work, and Dutton’s conclusions about Rushton are even harsher than mine were. Sallis right, Johnson wrong.  You can copy and paste that last phrase to explain just about everything.

Trump is “going to look into it.”  Who knows, perhaps the horse is Jewish.  Just look at its nose!

From September 2016:

…if Der Movement is co-opted and subsumed by the Alt-Right, and if the Alt-Right itself is co-opted by the HBD Alt-Wrong, then White Nationalism becomes effectively replaced by a cult worshiping Jewish and Asian IQ. This need not be immediately overt and obvious, a shallow facade of cardboard racialism could be put up as a front, with the ironclad edifice of Jewish/Asian supremacy setting the agenda just behind that facade and manipulating all the “latrine flies” against their own racial interests.  That is not far-fetched if you consider that the described scenario represents what is already going on in certain precincts of the “movement.”

And now, years later, we see Alt Right heroes throwing their lot in with the Jewish anti-WN HBDer Unz.  Prediction correct.

All of this bears close watching, close monitoring.  I would advise a double strategy: on the narrower, intra-Alt Right level, the WN Alt-Right needs to fully and definitively separate from the HBD Alt-Wrong. 

Instead, after the collapse of the Alt Right, they allowed themselves to be bought off for thirty shekels of silver.

On the broader “movement”-scale level, there needs to be a critical mass of quality activists who remain separate from the Alt-Right (although there may of course be cooperation between these activists and the hardcore WN Alt-Right action).

They didn’t listen, did they?

If that doesn’t happen, I fear that all the eggs in that basket of deplorables will end up being clones of Humpty Dumpty.  And we’re all headed for a great fall.

Which took place.  Sallis prescient again – or is using “Sallis” and “prescient” together in the same sentence a superfluous redundancy?

This is hilarious, and not much different from this.

In my opinion, this is the single greatest panel in comic book history. 

Now, the Jew Kirby has (with justification) been given great credit for his work.  However, Joe Sinnott as the inker has been relatively neglected in all the praise and Sinnott’s role needs to be explicitly acknowledged.

Some artist-inker combinations work well; others do not.  Kirby-Sinnott was classic; Bucker-Sinnott was excellent as well.  But Sinnott did not gel well with John Buscema, and I believe Buscema eventually requested his younger brother Sal to do his inking. Sal Buscema eventually became an important artist for Marvel, perhaps ultimately eclipsing John.

This brings up another issue. Artists, at least Marvel artists in the Silver and Bronze ages, all had distinctive styles, in some cases, very highly distinctive styles.  Kirby, for example. Think Ditko, Trimpe, Tuska, and others.  Probably none were as distinctive as Sal Buscema. I immediately knew that Sal Buscema was the artist of a comic book just from a brief look at some panels. Truth be told, at that time, I was not a fan of Sal’s art, particularly with respect to The Incredible Hulk, for which I was used to the art of Trimpe; in general, at that time, I preferred the smooth and rich lines of Kirby (with Sinnott) and the similar “roundness” of Trimpe, as opposed to the harsh lines and clenched-fist faces of Sal Buscema.

However, in the intervening years, my view has changed, and I now view Sal Buscema as an outstanding artist, one of the Marvel Pantheon, with a style more realistic than that of the more “roundness” artists – although in some ways I still prefer the latter. I still am not a fan of Sal Buscema’s depiction of the Hulk specifically, but in general Sal’s art was excellent.  

Further, this is all in contrast to the horror seen in comic books today.  In general, the art today is terrible, and in some cases unbelievably bad, and the stories are unimaginative and mostly SJW.  

Listen to this. So, it seems that the hypothesis – broached here – of a possible falling out between Spencer and Friberg is essentially not correct.  Assuming that is so, we come back to the question of Johnson’s sudden embrace of the Yang Gang – can it just be Johnson’s ego about UBI?

Spencer is correct about the power of censorship – and he’s more realistic than some folks who say “all will be well, just send in the ‘D’Nations” – and I note he admitted that the Alt Right never took any of it seriously.  Too many drunken podcasts, I suppose.  Spencer is being a bit naïve about “speed limits” for the rules of censorship.  Eventually the “speed limit” will be adjusted to eliminate all pro-White content.  What then?

Spencer is correct that Trump will likely do nothing about deplatforming and censorship, but I disagree that the “Alts” has much to do with Trump’s election, and, as stated above, he’s being stunningly naïve to believe that social media/tech regulation would leave loopholes that can be exploited by pro-Whites.

Spencer about AIM and infiltration – absolutely correct.  Friberg makes a good point about how “hate speech laws” exerts selective pressure to force the Far Right to tighten their propaganda and arguments, but this argument – and Spencer’s agreement with this – only goes so far.  Eventually, the laws will be adjusted to narrow the opening for discourse to such an extent that you’ll be left only with the safety valve of mainstream conservatism.  You cannot adjust forever without exerting pressure of your own. I’ve made suggestions about that on this site; this post is not the place to discuss those details.

About the Ukraine – look, at that time I supported the Ukrainian nationalists, but I was not under any illusions about their long term independence from the Neocons. On the other hand, Putin’s Russia is multiculturalist as well, and given the Ukraine’s tragic history I thought it appropriate to at least give the Ukrainian Right a chance to make things right – even if there was little chance of success.  Maybe that was just foolish nativete on my part. I’m not perfect.  Are you?  And would the Ukrainians be better off losing their soul and becoming part of a growing Eurasianist-Yellow/Brown-Islamic empire?

The Way of the World organizing – good idea in theory, but the “rules” put in place for safety will not work in my opinion. The Left is too skilled at infiltration, and the Right is too dumb to prevent it, for all of this to effectively function.

Trump takes decisive action!  After all, that’s why his base voted for him, right?

Is it possible for the “movement” to be this stupid?  Is it possible for water to be wet?

Anatomy of Error

A brief analysis.

I read this book long ago, when it first came out; it is very good, is recommended.  

What are some major errors in Der Movement?  What is the “anatomy of error” in (American) White racial activism?

Among many – reversing the strategic order of how things should be done.  Prudence dictates that you first thoroughly prepare for an action, build the required infrastructure, prepare for the enemy’s response and for other contingencies, and then you proceed.

Thus, first, you build an infrastructure, and then you go public with your rallies, protests, actions, and so forth.  If you want to provoke the System, you had better be prepared for the System’s reaction. What the “movement” does instead is have their rallies and protests and public meetings and violent outbursts with zero infrastructure there for support – zero legal teams, zero media structures, zero elected officials who are true fellow travelers, zero integration in the local community, zero economic self-sufficiency, zero strategy, and zero planning.

Ironically, all the representatives of big-brained European ethnies that are celebrated in the “movement” for their foresight and discipline behave worse than the most incompetent, undisciplined, and hare-brained gesticulating swarthoid.  Superiority is not a birthright, it has to be earned. And Der Movement and its failed leaders have earned nothing.

Let’s move on.  What can be done for young White men frustrated with the System, despairing of a pathetically failed “movement,” and tempted to ruin their lives by lashing out with sporadic violence against an entrenched overpowering System?

Besides taking my advice to concentrate on their own selves and well-being over all else – we need quality men, not broken boys – they need to be able to fit into a real movement that can give them a sense of purpose in an atmosphere of competence and manly collegiality (the latter of which is not effete Bronyism or homosexuals “flirting” with “cute” activists at “extreme vetted” meetings). I’ve long been an advocate of a Legionary-type structure, which would of course necessitate a real leadership and a real competence beyond that currently available in Der Movement.

For such an activity, real vetting and security are required.  Now, I’m not going to discuss what could and should constitute such vetting on a public forum, but I will give two examples of what such vetting should not be.  “Are you Swedish?” is insufficient as “extreme vetting.”  Having a Skype conversation in which you congratulate a candidate (in reality, an infiltrator) on their Northwest European heritage, while mocking Brooklyn Italian-Americans, also does not meet the standards of effective vetting and security.

It’s interesting, but in my analog, meat-space, IRL WN 1.0 days, there were zero instances (insofar as I am aware) of private meetings being infiltrated.  Now, public meetings were another story, operational security there was sub-standard, but at least the physical security was sound, so the outcome of public meeting infiltration was a bit of snooping (which admittedly was bad) and not violence.  But the private meetings were sound – thus, the WN 1.0 crowd, for all their faults, were a step ahead of WN 2.0. Thus, the lack of proper operational security is a major error of Der Movement today, and is in fact part of the infrastructure problem cited at the beginning of this post, since “opsec” is one of the most fundamental pillars upon which to build everything that follows.

Let’s consider the problem of freakishness and silliness. There are of course many divisions within the “movement.” Pan-Europeanism vs. ethnonationalism, pan-Europeanism vs. Nordicism, vanguardism vs .mainstreaming, Christianity vs. anti-Christians, ethnic fetishists and those who oppose them, etc. Readers know I have strong views on these topics that often clash with established “movement” dogma. But even when I oppose that dogma, at least I can understand it, I can see the points of the other side, and it is something within the realm of rational possibility.  It can be in some ways defensible through reasoned argument, even if I disagree ad make my own reasoned arguments against the memes I oppose.

However, when observing the current WN 2.0 fiasco, things occur that are so outlandish that I simply cannot understand how any ostensibly intelligent, sane, and rational activist can promote any of it. Yang Gang? Tulsi Coconut? The years of slavish Trump worship? Bronyism – My Little Pony, for godssakes!  I’m at a loss, completely at a loss.  WN 1.0 was a disaster, sure, but it was a disaster mitigated at least by an aura of seriousness, or at least semi-seriousness.  What we have now is like a bad comedy routine.

Thus, another constant error of the “movement” is the promotion of freakishness that has no direct connection whatsoever to racialism. For example, it is because of anti-science raving retards like this that we have a growing measles problem in the US. Some microbes are indeed just waiting for you.  Measles has a very high infectivity rate; if you are exposed and not immune, your probability of illness is close to 100%.  You can of course argue that filthy scum not getting their children vaccinated – and many of these in the current outbreak are Ultra-Orthodox Jews – is a sign of weakness (in this case mental), and I’ll agree with that. Leave it up to morons like “Stronza” and we would still have smallpox epidemics and folks in iron lungs from polio.  Pepe!  Kek!  Traditionalism!  We can bury those dead five year olds snug in our hobbit holes!

This completely superfluous stupidity damages the image of racialism to both the general public and to the science and technics types that we need as one component of our arsenal of human material. I’m not surprised that the affirmative action “leadership” doesn’t know any better. 

Coming full circle, we can mention another fundamental flaw of Der Movement, on par with reversing the order of organization (which should come first) and action (which should come after) – the inability to clearly and decisively define an ingroup. This is something I’ve written about often. The defining characteristic of any group is the decision of who is in and who is out.  Without a clearly defined and stable boundary of membership, there is no group.  That boundary needs to be decided BEFORE the group is formed, before people are recruited and action is taken. If there are going to be any changes in the composition of the group (changes which should be rare in any case), it always should be in the direction of greater inclusion – and if current members of the group object to that inclusion then they can voluntarily leave – freedom of association – and form their own groups with their own boundaries. But you cannot start redefining your ingroup for the purposes of exclusion after the fact, after people have been members for months or years (or even decades), investing their time, effort, money – their blood, sweat, and tears – their lives, for the group.  That’s not the time to tell them – “hey, we’ve reconsidered, you’re not part of the ingroup after all.”  

You’d think things like that should be obvious to the high born honorable superior big-brained heroic figures of Der Movement, but apparently not.

Sowing Dragon’s Teeth

Quo Vadis, “Movement?”

In the aftermath of Trump’s election, the Left was at a fork in the road, sociopolitically and strategically speaking. They could have chosen the path of conciliation, of trying to understand the grievances of White America, the path of making concessions in the hope of stabilizing a situation that, if left unstabilized, had the potential of disrupting the multicultural consensus.  Alternatively, they could have chosen the path of defiance, to double down on their anti-White agenda, to become even more extreme in their destructive militancy, to stand up to Trump and the Right, and to crush the spirit (and body) of White resistance. They chose the second path.  It was a wise choice (at least in the short term).

Suvorov’s Law of History: Revolutions do not occur at the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed. If the Left had become conciliatory, if they had relaxed the anti-White repression, if they had eased back and had made concessions, if – and this above all – they had granted legitimacy to the idea of White interests, then that would have started the ball rolling in the direction of an upheaval that had the potential of truly wrecking the multicultural system. If they had showed weakness, even the pathetic rightist guppies may have turned into sharks smelling blood in the water.

Whether from a careful reading of history, from political savvy, from instinct, or just as a side effect of blind hatred towards Whites, the Left avoided the error of easing up on the repression and instead took the other fork in the road – they doubled down, tripled down, quadrupled down and more, on the repression. The Left has unleashed a tidal wave of anti-White hatred, of repression of the Right, of a savage political correctness, the like of which has not heretofore been seen in America.

The Left took a gamble with their choice, of course.  If Trump has been a genuine man of the Right, a man of honor who promoted and defended his supporters, then the Left would have had a hard time of it.  If the Far Right had been clever, and had used the past two years on infrastructure-building, electoral politics, and real metapolitical education – never mind the most important task of building a New Movement to correct the flaws of the Old – then the Left would have been challenged by an authentic strong opposing force.  But the Left took the measure of Donald Trump and of the Far Right and rightfully found them wanting.  

However, whether or not the gamble will work for the Left in the long term depends on how the Far Right (I do not care about the Mainstream Right) deals with its own fork in the road. The Left is smarter than the Far Right (which is not saying much), but the word “smarter” implies a comparison in the relative sense. In an objective sense, the Left is stupid. Yes, given the situation they found themselves in after November 2016, they made the right decision, but why were they in that position to begin with?  They started boiling the frog of White dispossession too quickly; they were so intoxicated by their dominance and by their anti-White hatred that they did not realize that they were pushing too far too fast. 

So, yes, they made the right choice given their limited options. But ultimately the Left is sowing dragon’s teeth and they may one day reap the whirlwind.  If that happens, from their perspective it will be because they “inadvertently” caused “unforeseen negative consequences” due to their efforts “to make the world a better place,” but to the rest of us, the outcome was quite easily foreseen – IF the Far Right chooses the right direction. Does the Far Right follow the same old path of failure and disaster or does it take a fresh path, a new path, and remake a failed “movement” into a real movement that will make the Left pay for its gamble? We need to take advantage of all those sown dragon’s teeth, all the bitterness and balkanization the Left has created, and force the Left to a new fork in the road.  But this time if they choose to push back with more repression, they’ll find a Far Right ready and willing to push back, and push back hard; on the other hand, if the Left backs down and chooses conciliation, we need a Far Right ready and willing to accept nothing but total victory, to keep on pushing, and not “declare victory (prematurely) and go home” as it usually does.  We need a Far Right ready to push past conciliation into revolution.

No more Men on White Horses, not more Yang Gangs, no more stupidity – ourselves alone – and with real leadership, not affirmative action basket cases driving us to one disaster after another.  There is the fork in the road – one path to deliverance, the other to the abyss.  Which one to take?

Quo Vadis?

Racing the Red Queen

What should we do?

Read this.

Also read this.

The Quota Queens like to say that their critics do not offer alternative approaches. That is, of course, a bald-faced lie; I have many times outlined strategies and tactics.  Here I do so again, with an emphasis on adaption – adapting to the situation your enemy puts you in, challenging that enemy with your own pressure, forcing the enemy to prove that they can adapt to your new tactics, and if they do, then you counter-adapt yourself.  Racing the Red Queen. Do things different – the same old story of “education” and “D’Nations” accomplishes nothing except enrich the grifters.

The fact that the enemy may adapt to your new tactics is no reason for not trying those tactics.  Quite the opposite.  You should take advantage of any opportunity to move into new strategic and tactical niche spaces, and you should force your opponent to prove they can effectively adapt to your new approaches. This is the Red Queen Hypothesis in action.  Constant adaption and response to the adaption of others, an evolutionary arms race, is part of the reality of evolved organisms, and it is part of the reality of successful movements as well.

In military history, nations come up with new weapons and tactics, gain an advantage, then see that advantage lost as their opponent adapts and compensates.  Then newer weapons and tactics are devised. In sports, a player or a team has an approach, is successful, then must change when the opponent adapts. No one gives up in advance.  A nation does not say “Hey, if we come up with an ICBM, our opponent will come up with an anti-ballistic missile system, so what’s the point?”  No, they build their missiles, and they FORCE the opposition to prove they can come up with an effective response, at which point the process of adaption and counter-adaption continues.  A baseball, player may be unable to hit a curveball, so pitchers feed him a steady diet of curveballs.  Either he adapts and learns to hit the curveball, or he’s finished. The pitcher does not say, “Hey, I better not throw curveballs, he may learn to hit them, I’ll just throw fastballs and get hammered.”  No, FORCE the other fellow to prove they can adapt, put pressure on him, test him, exhaust him, and if he does adapt, then you counter-adapt in turn.

At some point, it is possible that one side is no longer able to adapt.  Species become extinct.  Nations are defeated and wiped from the face of history.  Baseball players retire when they cannot perform. So it goes.  We must FORCE the System to prove it can adapt – after all, that’s what they are doing to us.  At some point, one side or the other will reach a breaking point.  Better them than us. But if we do nothing, business as usual with no adaption, we are doomed to extinction.

Now, one can make an argument that – rarely – it may be prudent to keep a strategy in reserve for use at the most propitious time, but that should not be an excuse for inaction, for business as usual.  To the extent that some aspect of an overarching strategy should be kept in strategic reserve, that’s an issue for high-level discussion and debate (in private, among real leaders, none of which currently exist).  Given our current situation, I don’t see that any of the things proposed here should be kept in reserve.  These are all obvious and necessary things that need to be done now.  Thus:

1. Get out in the real world, the analog world, stop being so dependent on the Internet.  I am NOT saying to stop digital activism, of course not. That’s what this blog is, after all.  But we are going to have to get back into “meat space,” and do it correctly.

2. Finally, defectives must be eschewed.  Finally, we need to stress quality over quantity – not just talk about it, as the Quota Queens like to do, but actually DO IT.  I talk about identifying defectives here, and the need for ruthless intolerance here. Is this a person who you would be comfortable associating with in private life?  Are they a drug addict?  A pervert?  A freak?  A tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorist?  Some bizarre ethnic fetishist?  An effeminate?  A hedonistic womanizing gamester?  Someone with a non-White (usually Asian) spouse?  A grifter?  A gambler?  A hypocrite?  A video gamester or porn gobbler, spending all their time indoors, indulging in their vice?  How about saying NO to these people?

We should follow the lead of Codreanu and the Legionary Movement.  The New Man comes first, THEN we worry about programs and policies.  We need BETTER PEOPLE, and then we worry about nitpicking details of ideology.  You would think that “race realists” and “eugenicists” would understand the need for better people. The point is, the “better” is not only racial characteristics and IQ – it is basic character more than anything else.

3. A real pro-White movement should be for all Whites.  If a group or leader purports to be for “all Whites” – which most do – then they should walk the walk, not just talk the talk.  We need an end to the ethnic fetishism and the affirmative action program.  All the low hanging fruit of dissatisfied and potentially ethnocentric White ethnics should be picked – and not just for dues-paying stepandfetchits, but as equal and valued members of the endeavor. I realize that Der Movement’s ideology is that the White ethnics are stupid and inferior, and so the supposition is that these people can continue to be hoodwinked, but, no, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. The sort of intelligent and productive people you would (or should) really want to recruit will soon realize that they are being taken advantage of, being asked to sacrifice for someone else’s interests. That assumes such people are being recruited to begin with, that they are not ignored or actively repulsed.

4. We need a real media presence, our own presence, not to be dependent upon the System.  “But we have no money,” the Quota Queens cry.  That’s a lie   Here’s your money.

5. Get involved in electoral politics.  Force the System to become an OVERT banana republic (or like the EU – which is the same thing) and ban political parties, jail opposition candidates, censor political campaigns, etc.  Force them to unmask themselves, force them to make it open and plain to White Americans that the System is an oppressive sham. Either the System goes on that path, which in the long term is untenable for stability, or they accept White nationalism in the political arena, which is also untenable for stability.  Ultimately, once we get over the rough patches, it is win-win for us, and lose-lose for them, IF done correctly. To be done correctly, see all the other things, discussed above, which also needs to be done.  I discussed the political option in more detail previously:

It is one thing to deplatform a blogger or YouTuber.  It is one thing to engage in lawfare against cosplayers and their enablers in Charlottesville.  It is one thing to label powerless “movement leaders “as “national security threats.”  It is one thing to push “hate crime and speech laws” against the atomized Internet lumpenproletariat.

But it is another thing entirely to publicly engage in overt banana republic tactics to shut down political campaigns, persecute political opponents, and censor political candidates.  Yes, America is far down the road to leftist victory, yes the System is corrupt and anti-White and degenerate and illegitimate, and yes Whites usually take abuse unlimited without reacting and fighting back.  Yes, that is all true.  But, still…there are limits to all of that, even now.  There are limits to how far the System will go at this time. And I believe those limits fall just short of the System completely unmasking itself, it falls just short of overtly shutting down the political opposition.

Yes, there will be ridicule.  Yes, there will be unfair media coverage and smears.  Yes, if things are going too well, then they’ll try a media blackout and ignore us.  Yes, the System will allow their Antifa hired hands run wild with impunity.  But all these things are happening now, are happening already (under the Far-Left God Emperor), so that’s nothing new.  If the “movement” is concerned with increased official persecution, then it may be prudent to shift at least some of the activist efforts into an arena in which the System will incur real costs – very serious costs indeed – if they try to censor and directly interfere.  And that arena is the political arena – the arena that Joe and Jill Sixpack consider sacrosanct in their faded vision of what America used to be.

If the System wants to shut down White advocacy, then make it as difficult and as painful and as potentially self-destructive for them as possible.  Force them into the position in which the only way to shut down White advocacy is to engage in blatant and public banana republic third world authoritarianism, force them to either accept White advocacy in the political arena or risk unmasking themselves to White America several decades too early.

The riposte would be – but, political candidates can be persecuted.  Just look at Le Pen in France!   My response is that we have to act now, before things get to that point, leveraging the meager First Amendment protections we have left. Yes, if we do nothing now, eventually we’ll reach the point of Europe and well beyond – well beyond because social pricing is worse in the USA, so if we lose the remaining constitutional brakes to leftist tyranny, we will be in fact worse than Europe.  Again, that’s why it is imperative to get started now.  And, again, the American situation, culture, and traditions of free speech (never mind the legalistic constitutional protections) are quite different than in Europe.  What France can do with minimal blowback would result in a rather unpleasant reaction here, even among cowardly omega race White Americans.  We may eventually reach the level of France, and worse, but for now, it’s not the same.  The cost/benefit ratio for the American System is different from that of France.

The System will adapt to these changes? Maybe. Let them prove it.  Let them exhaust themselves doing it.  Let them expose themselves as hypocritical mendacious totalitarians to do it. Let them awaken even the most retarded cucked White weaklings to do it. Note to Der Movement: The System has already adapted to all your current tactics – your “shitposting,” your “D’Nations,” your “education” and “metapolitics,” your freakishness, your affirmative action policy, all of it.  The Red Queen has passed you by, my friends, passed you by in a speeding automobile while you stay gibbering incoherently on the street corner. In the continuous evolutionary arms race between competing ideologies, the System adapts, and the Far Right – allegedly all about “eugenics” and “biology” and “memes” and “evolution”- stays stagnant, repeating the same mistakes over and over again.  The Yang Gang will save us!  Come one now, at this point, isn’t it obvious that business as usual is an utter failure? It is a failure for actual activist accomplishment, admittedly not a failure as a money-making enterprise for all of your fearless leaders.