Sunday, February 18, 2018

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., and 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?