Anti-fragile strategy and tactics.
Pro-White racial activism in America is in a bad place right now, and it is only getting to get worse. Decades of tragicomic incompetence by a failed affirmative action “leadership,” horrifically bad judgment, error after error, culminating in the Alt Right fiasco and the wasted four years of the Trump interregnum, has led to the current sorry state. If Trump wins re-election in 2020, we’ll have more leftist attacks coupled to Trumpian inertia, as his own government allies with the Left against his own supporters. And a Trump victory merely "kicks the can down the road" to 2024, with respect to the complete takeover of America by the unhinged Left. If, as currently seems likely, Kamala Harris is elected (Joe Biden being an irrelevant dementia-ravaged figurehead, assuming that he is not removed from the ticket by November), obviously Der Movement will be in a far worse position, starting next year. One fundamental problem is that the American “movement” is extremely fragile, and anti-robust in all aspects; the entire current mode of "movement" operation is low-hanging fruit for easy and painless disruption by the Left.
What we need to do is stress activism that is more robust – that is, more resistant to attacks by the Left/System – as opposed to more fragile forms of activism that are less robust and therefore extremely vulnerable to attack, repression, deplatforming, etc. Please note that I am using the modifying qualifiers “more “and “less” here – I am talking in relative terms, not absolutes. There is of course no form of activism that is absolutely robust and definitively secure, just as there are no forms of activism that are fragile in all circumstances.
It is true that a sufficiently motivated Left/System can attempt to shut down any dissident activity, regardless of the cost. In theory, they could, for example, put all right-of-center White Americans into extermination camps, and no doubt many leftists secretly (and in some cases, not so secretly) wish to do so. But they are (currently) unwilling to incur the costs of such an action. So, again, I am not dealing in absolutes, but I am asking - what forms of activism would require the Left/System to incur substantial costs in order to suppress that activism? What forms of activism can yield positive benefits for us yet be more difficult for the Left/System to effectively address? What forms of activism are more resistant to deplatforming and what forms are, in contrast, extremely vulnerable?
The sort of activism the Far Right does today is extremely fragile and we constantly observe the real-life consequences of that fragility. The over-dependence on the Internet places activism at the mercy of private actors that deplatform and censor at will. Thus, online metapolitical activism - and this blog must be included in that category – is highly fragile. Another fragile form of activism is the public rally, with Unite the Right being a perfect example. Such rallies are optimal targets for anarcho-tyranny – they are attacked by leftist thugs working hand-in-glove with the authorities; if rightists defend themselves it is they, and not their attackers, who are arrested and prosecuted. Public speaking engagements by rightist pundits and metapolitical activists are similarly vulnerable to the tactics of anarcho-tyranny. If all of these things occur during the Trump administration, one can only imagine what liberal Democrat tyranny will bring.
Younger readers will no doubt consider me to be a hopeless Luddite reactionary when I now claim that there should be an important role for physical, analog, publishing. Now, yes, we can continue to argue that the Internet, website hosts, social media, all of it, is and should be regulated as a public service, a public utility, and not be left to the discretion of private actors. Nevertheless, it is currently a private domain and there are powerful actors who wish to keep it so. Deplatforming and digital censorship are now easy, a decision made by private actors, as simple as pushing a button, and the victims are left with little to no recourse for remediation. The over-reliance on digital activism has made the Internet - has made private control of digital goods - a chokepoint, a bottleneck, a strategic target to be used by the Left/System to silence the Right. Of course, we should and must continue to fight for our right to access what is in reality a public utility - the Internet as a collective social good, a public resource. But we need to be prepared against the day in which digital access is denied.
When various “movement” publications ceased paper publication and went online only, I was not pleased. Again, as a reactionary in these matters, I prefer physical reading material. But, also, personal preference aside, the over-reliance on the Internet set off alarm bells. Yes, I understand the strong economic rationale for going online and dispensing with physical publishing. Most people these days get their news and information online. Physical publishing and mailing is expensive, and also consumptive of time and physical resources. One cannot blame activists for bowing to financial pressures and fiscal realities. Very well.
But we are faced with a situation in which we may have no other choice but to revive paper publishing. It would be prudent to at least prepare for that possibility, to get everything in order so as to move as seamlessly as possible back to physical analog publishing if that should prove to be necessary. In America, the products of that publishing would then need to be sent via "snail mail" to readers via the US Postal Service.
Now, some would argue that use of “snail mail” can be targeted for repression as well. True enough. Virtually anything can. But, can we deny that it is much easier to deplatform dissidents from privately owned digital entities than it is to deny dissidents postal services that are “explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution” through the federal government’s United States Postal Service (*)? I understand that the Postal Clause allows for certain materials to be considered “non-mailable,” but to leverage that against political content as opposed to physical content (certainly, it would be reasonable if the Post Office considered a cow or a mobile home to be “non-mailable”) would constitute a level of government intrusion that under current legal conditions would violate the First Amendment (remember again, this is the government, not a private entity, that would be acting).
Again, the point is to make things as difficult and costly for the Left/System as possible, to force them into error and into public relations disasters, to expose their totalitarianism, and thus to undermine the confidence of White Americans in the legitimacy of the System. Censoring the Internet by leveraging private entities and “woke capital” is low hanging fruit for the System. Violating the constitutionally mandated obligation for mail delivery is much higher hanging fruit, and would involve subversion of federal functions and create significant opportunities for legal action. Under current interpretations of the First Amendment, interfering with mail delivery for political reasons would be constitutionally prohibited. On the other hand, private digital entities are, as we are constantly told, not bound by those restrictions, and can censor who they wish with impunity.
Der Movement had therefore better consider the contingency plan of going back to the “stone age” of physical publishing and “snail mail” delivery of content.
Then we have another relatively very robust approach to activism – electoral politics. The point of electoral political activism for the "movement" is to be a vehicle for promoting metapolitics, to spread pro-White ideas, to expose the Left/System, to organize, to build infrastructure, and to make connections, etc. Certainly, if a candidate wins, so much the better; it a candidate achieves office and can leverage their position for “movement” benefit that would be excellent. But that would be “icing on the cake” – the cake itself would be the benefits accrued by using electoral campaigns as a substitute for other communication methods from which we may be barred.
Read this.
…let me stress that political campaigns constitute (at least for now) the most censor-proof way of getting our ideas across. One has to consider the System’s perspective, its imperative not to boil the frog (Pepe?) too fast, the need to keep up appearances for at least as long as Whites are still a majority of America’s population (and its voters).
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…The other argument would be – there’s no money. That’s a lie. If there’s enough money to support…Quota Queens with their do-nothing “activity,” then there’s enough money to help jumpstart insurgent political campaigns. So – what? A Puerto Rican barista with hardly enough brain cells to piece together an articulate sentence can get elected to Congress, but Mighty Whitey the Heroic Activist Ubermensch cannot? Yes, yes, I know – the “Jew System.” But, still…we’re not even talking about getting elected here, but running a credible campaign to disseminate ideas, organize, stimulate radicalization create balkanization, and further the cause in many ways.
The above paragraphs summarize the rationale, the need, for electoral politics, and answers some of the arguments that would be made against that approach. Again, yes, the Left/System can in theory repress electoral politics. Yes, today they even try to deplatform the President of the United States, Donald Trump. Yes, in the current climate of hysterical SJW anarcho-tyranny, anything is possible. But as I wrote above, a fool-proof, objectively absolutely robust approach does not exist. Making use of the tools at hand, with the cards we have been dealt, we must simply choose those approaches that are relatively more robust, relatively less fragile.
We should not make things easy for the Left/System. If they are going to repress us, make it as costly and painful for them as possible. Make them exert as much time, energy, and effort as possible – that may divert their attention and allow some other activity to slip under their radar. Force them to reveal themselves, force them to prove they can adapt and handle your new approach, and always push. Why leave low hanging fruit for them to pick so easily? By analogy, force them to climb up an unsteady ladder, sweating and grunting, to reach for that high hanging fruit barely within their reach. Put them in a position where they may fall off that ladder, they may fail in their objectives, commit a faux pas, awaken some folks, create bad publicity for themselves, cause a scandal, and be exposed as hypocrites. The mantra should be to always make things as difficult for the enemy as possible. Elbowing an Alt Right leader in the face and getting away with it – easy. Elbowing a congressional or senatorial candidate in the face and getting away with it – more difficult. Censorship some random blogger – easy. Censoring a legitimate political candidate – more difficult.
And, yes, no one argues that campaigns are easy or inexpensive. But we are running out of options. And considering who and what gets elected these days, let us not pretend that things are more difficult than they actually are in reality.
That is also why private gatherings are a more robust response than public. VDARE’s private meeting property is a much more robust tactic than depending on the Left/System to respect the right of assembly in public places. This is the inverse of the private/public argument, of the preceding paragraphs, with respect to disseminating information. With respect to lines of communication - infrastructure belonging to others - public is better than private as the public are regulated collective goods while the private assert their property rights to do as they please. With respect to meetings, if you can conduct them on your own private property, like VDARE can now, that is best (assuming you can depend on the authorities to respect and defend your private property rights - that is of course never certain). In this case, you assert your property rights and hope that those rights are enforced. Of course, if you have to depend on someone else for a meeting hall, then the situation is different, and, like Amren, you may be forced into the public arena. But, the whole point of this essay is to identify the most robust approaches, and here the VDARE approach is best.
Community building and overall infrastructure building are other robust strategies – as they are not only private endeavors but, if done intelligently and discreetly, can “fly under the radar” to a considerable extent, at least until such time as the projects would become more impervious to assault. And while 501c3 organizations do depend on System regulations, forming such groups is still a good idea, when possible, as part of infrastructure building – much better than Unite the Right rallies and such. Another robust approach is building a legal infrastructure – getting lawyers and legal foundations as part of a team to support and defend “movement” activism. Lawfare is leveraged against fragile activists; thus, defending against lawfare improves robustness, and using lawfare ourselves as a point of offensive attack would reinforce robustness.
Being pan-European is robust. Diving Europeans against each other, and alienating potential White allies, is fragility. Reaching out to Europeans worldwide and having sound international alliances and good relations is robust; being narrowly focused inwardly and ignoring the world is fragility.
Allowing defectives into the “movement” is fragility; having standards is robust. Real vetting is robust, asking people “are you Swedish?" for vetting is fragility. Engaging in easily debunked conspiracy theories is fragility, engaging in sound argument based on science and facts is robust.
Another potentially robust activity – if and only if it is done correctly – is to devise propaganda meant for non-Whites, designed as if it was produced by the non-Whites themselves. For example, propaganda for Negroes designed as if was produced by Negroes. The propaganda can be used to foment animus between different non-White groups as well as to promote chaos, balkanization, and distrust, and to delegitimize the System. Again, this is robust only to the extent that the propaganda is taken at face value. Otherwise, if its true origins are uncovered, it would be an example of extreme fragility.
Footnote:
*One can ponder whether this constitutional mandate can somehow be leveraged to control the “delivery” of “electronic mail” Internet content. If someone wants to view website X, isn’t that delivery of “mail” from website X to the viewer? Why should private entities have monopoly control over such “mail delivery?”
Labels: politics, strategy and tactics
