Tuesday, April 30, 2019

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.