For a Positive Critique Redux

Brief book review.

See this.

I recommend the book For a Positive Critique, by author and nationalist martyr Dominique Venner (1935-2013). Since this is a very short book (50 pages), this will not be a very long and comprehensive review, but I will simply highlight a few important points to whet your appetite to read the entire work yourself. Another reason for not writing an extensive review is that I have already reviewed this book; see here. Why am I writing a second review of a very short work?  Well, I re-read it, and felt that it is of such importance that bringing it to the attention of this blog’s readers, once again, is important. In addition, in the four years since I read it last, I may have developed some slightly different perspectives about the book’s topics and for that reason may emphasize some parts of the book here more or less compared to what I did in the past. So, thus explaining why a second review of the same book is appropriate, let’s get to task.

After reading Venner discussing (unprincipled) opportunists in activism (prescient about today’s Quota Queens) and then criticizing delusional “Mythomania” we find on page five criticism of “counterproductive violence and terrorism” that is the “best way to alienate the general population” (never mind being easy prey to System infiltrators, informants, and agent provocateurs). That is especially relevant in this today of random ‘acting out” killing sprees by unbalanced “activists” as well as the Type I “twigs and branches” crowd and their tropism to Turner Diaries scenarios and tramping through the woods with their rifles (or muskets). On page 15, we see the beginning of a discussion of the importance of a revolutionary doctrine, to which I would add the obvious caveat that it needs to be a sane doctrine and not typical Der Movement retardation.

On page 27, we see discussion of “A Young Europe” that stresses that:

Unity is indispensable to the future of European Nations.

And he includes Eastern Europe in this formulation; as this was written during the Cold War, he envisions those nations first being free of Soviet domination. This is a grand pan-European vision. But he avers that this unity is not to be dominance of any one nation, not due to economics, nor any sort of “standardization or cosmopolitanism” – he does not promote a mindless panmixia. But he realizes that an isolated and divided Europe is doomed to defeat, but they will be an “unstoppable force” if united. The first step in this process, he suggests, will be a political one, forming “a single collective state in an evolutionary form.” On page 30, we read the following Yockeyian comment to conclude this section:

Thus a young Europe, founded on the same civilization, the same space, and the same destiny, will serve as the active center of the West and of the world order. The youth of Europe will have new cathedrals to construct and a new empire to build.

It is obvious what he proposes here is NOT the current anti-nationalist, economic-based, anti-European, and German (and French)-dominated “European Union.”

On page 36, in the section “Bluffing and Effectiveness” he critiques those “notables” (involved in the fight for a French Algeria) who despite “these colossal means at their disposal” “did nothing.”  While today’s Quota Queen notables may not have “colossal means” at their disposal, they have achieved virtually nothing with millions of dollars of support and decades of having loyal followers. On page 39, in “Zero plus Zero,” Venner looks forward to today’s “movement” catastrophe, stating:

Zero plus zero also equals zero.

As he decries the “cranks” and other defectives who impede progress, and who must be “pitilessly pushed aside.”  So much for the “big tent.” On page 47, he critiques “Theatrical Revolutionaries” with their bombastic speech and “the promise of Apocalypse” – essentially akin to Type I Nutzis always stated that “the collapse” is “five years away” (that they’ve been saying since the 1960s) and that we need to “head for the hills” with our muskets to eat twigs and branches while enacting Turner Diaries scenarios.  After a discussion of page 48 on establishing “bases” – “systemic and patient penetration” of the System – he concludes on pages 49-50 to oppose individual people trying to do everything and instead promotes a division of labor and thus specialization of tasks to those best suited but then suggests we need a highly centralized command – which may not be feasible today with the current need, or at least reality, of a more decentralized structure.

But, perhaps, in the end, a more centralized command will indeed be required, at least in a relative sense.  Of course, to have that, we need competent commanders, of which today there are none.

In summary of the book as a whole we see Venner proposing a professional revolutionary cadre, with a sound and realistic revolutionary doctrine, with pan-European cooperation, recognition of Western solidarity to be extended to and include Eastern Europe, eschewing defectives and theatrical revolutionaries, avoiding grifters, infiltrating the System to impede its function, and building “bases” throughout society to control key points – these are all sound points.  Also sound is the call for a meme of a Young Europe and to stop mythologizing the past, including a past of outdated and/or failed nationalist approaches.

Is the “movement” listening?

A Positive Critique

Dominique Venner.

This book has already been reviewed at Amren, so instead of just repeating what has already been done, I’d just like to cite a few relevant points from this excellent book (highly recommended) and how these points fit in to some of the opinions promoted here.

Venner begins with outlining “the flaws of the nationalist opposition” (if he did so today, he would be termed “crazy and bitter,” as “punching right” is only allowed for affirmative action panhandlers); these flaws include (today’s equivalents in parentheses): ideological confusion (of course, the entire “movement”), conformism (Der Movement’s fossilized dogma), archaism (Nutzism, Traditionalism), opportunism (all Chiefs, no Indians, and all Chiefs with the tin cup out), mythomania (conspiracy theorists), terrorism (acting out), and anarchism (lulz lulz).

The section on “Revolutionary Theory” is standard fare and all good, and a wakeup call for those who believe that no firm ideological underpinning for activism is necessary.  Basing activism on vague ideas and “acting out” leads to the sort of weak-minded, Type I activists who turn traitor as soon as they meet that “one nice Black person” they heretofore stupidly believed could not exist (when you have a childish view of reality, all people are binned into rigidly Manichean categories of all good vs. all bad).

“Young Europe” – Venner calls for pan-European cooperation, against the division of narrow ethnonationalism. “Unity is indispensable to the future of European Nations.” Indeed, and that’s a key feature of my work over the last 20+ years, as opposed to the ethnonationalists and their publicly proclaimed dystopian vision of European nations ethnically cleansing each other.

The section “For a Man or an Idea” is an attack on what I call the Man on White Horse Syndrome, and is highly relevant in this the Time of Trump.  Venner writes: “Passive herds, expect their miracle men to fix everything. Even the smallest groups have their idols. The inevitable disappearance of the great men leaves the naïve embittered and discouraged.”  Sound familiar?  And then: “The Nationalist does not need followers but militants who are defined by their doctrine, not in their relation to a man.”  Indeed.  Anyone listening?

Venner criticizes the “Theatrical Revolutionaries” who are “enemies of the revolution.”  The part about “costumes” I will address below, but in general, this criticism is relevant to all the Nutzis who ruin us all – Type I dimwits.  Venner talks about “Zero plus Zero” – in other words, grouping zeros together just gives you a bigger zero (the history of Der Movement, Inc.).

With respect to Venner’s criticism of “costumes”-  I both agree and disagree.  It depends upon context and what kind of “costume” one is talking about. Should activists dress up like Nazis?  Strut around with swastika armbands and SS uniforms?  Of course not.  Should they take the Alt Right and Alt Lite course of action, and appear at rallies like refugees from a cosplay convention, aping Captain America and Batman?  Certainly not.  Should they wear uniforms when simply interacting with normal people or going “undercover?”  Of course not.  Compare Joe Tommasi, who stopped dressing up Nazi like he did at first and “went native” as part of his guerilla war program, to the costumed Nutzis who eventually killed him.

Having said all of that, there is nothing wrong with uniforms per se, when attending certain types of meetings, or attending public rallies, or when engaged in more overt action.  There are benefits of wearing uniforms: for esprit de corps, discipline, professionalism, etc., these benefits are well known, which is why they have been used for military and paramilitary groups throughout civilized history. There is a history of uniformed paramilitary political solders in virtually every (ex)-Western nation, including America and the Silver Shirts.  Tasteful, utilitarian, culturally endogenous, and non-nutty uniforms are fine – better than the cosplay crew, better than the Nutzis, etc.

Lastly, Venner talks about “Division of Labor and Centralization” – people should do the tasks to which they are most fit, and propaganda needs to be local if possible: “…the propaganda branch should be able to rapidly supply material adapted to local groups, rather than over-generalized and locally irrelevant material.”  In relation to this, see some of my criticism of the National Alliance here.

Yes, you can have, as Venner suggests, a centralized leadership, but the actual “field work” has to be properly local and decentralized.  When activists need permission from “the National Office” to use the rest room, then nothing gets done.  The unwillingness of Pierce to allow local units to create and distribute their own propaganda specifically suited for local conditions and local current events was a terrible error, as much strategic as tactical.  All sorts of explanations were given (“quality control” and “we want to recruit people who understand the big picture and who are not merely emotionally excited about some local event”), but one suspects it was as much about maintaining tight control and the exercising of power, as well as maximizing National Office income (local units actually had to purchase the propaganda material they were to distribute!) as about anything else.  You know, it would still have been possible for the National Office to (quickly) review and approve (or suggest changes in) locally produced material – so the first objection falls flat.  As far as the second objection goes – there is nothing wrong with leveraging local conditions and current events to bring your group and its ideology to the attention of prospective recruits, one can always cull the herd once people are initially brought in, most likely only the truly dedicated will join an overtly public racialist group anyway, and by focusing on local conditions and events, you let the people in that locale know that you understand them and their problems, and that you are there to help – it’s a two-way street, not merely a bigwig somewhere trying to pad their membership rolls in order to boost monthly dues income.  So, the second objection falls flat as well.  Venner was correct: propaganda should be both general and local; if it is just extremely generalized it becomes stilted and stale, and puts too much of a distance between the prospective activist and the organization.  Idealism is great and should be paramount, but one cannot eat Idealism, and Idealism alone will not protect a community from the Colored hordes and their Levantine masters.  Idealism has to be built upon a foundation of pragmatic activity and real-world concerns.  Once you take care of the latter, then you can indulge the former.

In summary, the problem with important books like this is that they get no serious attention from the “movement.” I’ve seen this again and again.  Yes, sometimes such books are discussed and favorably reviewed.  Some people say, yes, yes, we need to follow this advice, and then with the short attention span of the Type I retards, all is forgotten, and all just falls back to “business as usual” – the default setting of “movement” dysfunction wins again.

Expect more of the same with this book.

Was Venner’s suicide at least in part motivated by a realization of the utter failure of the “movement?”  It was about 50 years from his book to his death – what had been accomplished?  Did anyone listen to what he wrote?  What has happened since his death?  We have now the Alt Right making a mockery of serious nationalism, flouting many of the suggestions Venner made.

Perhaps it is time for a Negative Critique?