...we need to establish lines of influence to every white constituency…
Including White ethnics? Now, there’s a failure we can be ruthless about.
...and shade of opinion…
Including pan-Europeanism? It simply doesn’t exist in the “official” American “movement” – never has, although a fraction of activists promote it and there’s a strong undercurrent among some activists in Europe.
We cannot, therefore, be held hostage to the most reckless and selfish among us, people who commit crimes or flout basic principles of operational security. Showing solidarity to such people rewards vice and penalizes virtue. Intelligence agencies regularly disavow spies who go rogue or allow themselves to be captured.
So, if a well-known “WN organization” brings in a some guy with a handle like “SuperNaziSSman1488Hitlerwasgod” and gives that guy “the keys to the kingdom” and that guy walks off with organization files and hands it to a “watchdog group,” then those folks should be disavowed? Well, that happened, and insofar as I know, I’m the only one who criticized (not even disavowed) them. The “movement” is routinely infiltrated, security is non-existent – yet who else other than me critiques Der Movement as a whole?
We should take ourselves just as seriously and be equally ruthless with failure.
As I’ve said many times, Revilo Oliver talked about 50 years of “movement” failure nearly 50 years ago. However, I seem to be the only one “equally ruthless with failure” to suggest the entire “movement” needs to be deconstructed and then reconstructed from the group up. That to me seems reasonably serious and ruthless with failure, but others in the “movement” fail to even acknowledge the proposal, much less engage with it, much less than that to agree with it.
The good way is to adopt a civil and charitable tone, to give the most generous possible reading of an opposed position, and then offer sound reasons (facts and valid arguments) for the superiority of one’s own view.
Whether or not Spencer has been treated in this way recently, I’ll let the reader decide.
The bad way is to adopt a paranoid and aggressive tone, to give jaundiced readings of opposed positions, and to play fast and loose with facts and logic.
There’s a difference between that and mocking ridicule, the latter justified when endless decades of failure are not even acknowledged.
Enemy agents say stupid things, commit crimes, start rumors, and sabotage organizations. But, unfortunately, so do a lot of sincere people.
True enough. But if we are to be “ruthless with failure” maybe folks who act like anti-racist trolls should be treated as such, even if they are “sincere.” I also can’t quite get my head around folks who change their memes and ideology from post to post and from blog to blog, all with the end result of maximizing chaos, or single individuals who post and do podcasts (do they think us deaf?) under different names – it sets off alarm bells. OK, maybe they are “sincere.” But the damage at the end of the day is the same.
“Not punching right” is an absurd principle, but calling people informants without evidence should be an absolute taboo…
I agree (is Ramzpaul now taboo?); however, I’ll note for the record that suggesting someone is trolling is not the same as suggesting they are actually an active informant. I’ll also note I’ve never accused anyone of being an informant (without evidence); I have accused folks of trolling when they’ve behaved in the manner described above.
So the suspicion of being an enemy agent should fall back on anyone who throws around that charge without evidence. They stand convicted by their own flimsy standards of evidence.
So, to combat false accusations of being an enemy agent, we falsely accuse others of being enemy agents?
As long as we bring our respective audiences closer to white survival, then in terms of strategies and style, diversity is actually a strength.
With respect to White ethnics and pan-Europeanism, the actual “diversity” in the American “movement” is practically close to zero (at the higher levels).