Toward a New Movement, Part VI

Continuing the series. Emphasis added.

Some tactical points.

It is crucial that any viable movement first, decide what the ingroup is; subsequently, any members of that ingroup should be viable as potential leaders, and that should be based solely on merit. The ethnic affirmative action program of Der Movement must be absolutely eschewed in any New Movement. If you want only Northwest Europeans as leaders of your movement, then the entire movement itself should exclusively be for Northwest Europeans only. If, however, all Europeans are in your movement, then all should be able to rise to leadership, based on merit. Thus:

The ethnic/subracial “affirmative action” program in the “movement” – in which individuals are raised to positions of leadership based upon their membership in a favored ethny – needs to be replaced by a focus on merit, accomplishment and responsibility. If a precinct of racialism asserts that its ingroup is “X” then any member of X should be able to rise or fall in power, influence, and authority based upon merit, or the lack thereof.  If such opportunity does not exist, this is evidence that this movement precinct does not represent ingroup X, but only represents that fraction of X from which favored individuals derive.  Hence, if any movement entity claims to be “Pan-European” then a person of any European ancestry should have equal opportunity for “upward mobility” and any person of like ancestry should equally be held to account for failure.  This has unfortunately not been the way things have been done in the “movement.”

Related to that, all fossilized dogma, particularly the knee-jerk hostility toward non-Nordics, need to be equally eschewed. Thus:

It cannot be stressed enough that the knee-jerk, boringly predictable “movement” dogmas need to be replaced.  If an article is about, say, immigration, or a political crisis, in Spain or Italy, one can always depend on “movement” “activists” to chime in with superfluous and tiresomely predictable comments about “admixture,” “Moors” or what have you.  An article on Greece’s Golden Dawn will lead to similar comments and “observations” such as “the head of Golden Dawn doesn’t look very white to me.”  Something about Russia may lead to comments about Russia “not being Western” and about “Mongols” and “Asian admixture.”  Something about Ancient Rome?  The original Romans were “Nordic” and the Empire collapsed because of “racial mixing.” However, articles on, say, Iceland or Scandinavia will not lead to commentaries about why Bjork and Bromstad look half-Asian – that’s not part of the “movement” dogma, that’s instead “blasphemy.”  The “movement” has its very carefully crafted, rigid “talking points” from which we are never supposed to deviate.  When a point is reached in which even Ancient Egypt (of all things) is called a “Nordic Desert Empire” then this is a level of ludicrousness that can put even Afrocentrists to shame.  The Old Movement can continue to play in their fantasy sandbox if they wish, but the New Movement has to completely eschew such nonsense.

We can’t have rigid dogma and we can’t base a viable movement on fantasies and lies. We begin to see how different aspects of the “Toward a New Movement” series overlap. Our stress on pan-Europeanism leads to a rejection of the affirmative action program, as well as rejected the old, tired, and false dogmas endlessly repeated by many activists (even in the face of refutation by archaeogenetic science and other studies).  This rejection of dogma includes “traditionalism” and also ties in to a rejection of conspiracy theories and other forms of paranoid ideation and pseudoscience; thus:

The same applies to “activists” who bring superfluous and tangential issues to their activism, tainting racialism with their stupidity.  For example: moon landing hoax, “smoking doesn’t increase the risk for cancer,” weird dietary advice, all sorts of conspiracy theories (e.g., space aliens, Federal Reserve, Illuminati, etc.) – even if these idea are true, what do they have to do with racialism?  And the fact that most of these ideas are utter nonsense – and is justifiably viewed as such by many on the right side of the bell curve – merely adds yet another self-inflicted wound to how racial nationalism is viewed, how it is perceived.  The fundamental tenets of racial nationalism themselves are considered “crazy” by many people – as we try to present our case to we need to complicate things by bringing up things that further raise the “crazy alarm?”

We then reject the freaks, defectives, and dysfunctional types that are typically attracted to fossilized dogma, paranoid ideation, conspiracies, etc.; thus:

Misanthropy, personal freakishness, and flaws do nothing but taint activism with the personal failings of activists. The same goes for poor judgment, an enduring failure of “movement” “leadership” and a particularly dangerous trait given the power and resources of our opponents.  We need thoughtful strategizing, shrewd tactics, and the proper caution, not the reckless stupidity, and the “if they say they agree with us, give them the keys to the kingdom” naïveté, that leads to infiltrators and agent provocateurs and online trolls doing their usual damage.  This ties in with the need for a merit-based leadership, rather than the “affirmative action” program which puts unqualified individuals into leadership positions because they, so to speak, “look the part.”

By its very nature, dissident positions attract marginal personalities.  However, there must be standards.  Allowing “the inmates to run the asylum” results in a negative spiral, in which quality people are repelled by “movement” freakishness, increasing the proportion of misfits, and further alienating potential recruits and disgusting what few good people remain.  On the other hand, an insistence on standards, on activist quality, on responsible and thoughtful leadership, on ostensible “normalcy” – without in any way compromising beliefs – will attract more good people and lead to positive reinforcement. The higher the initial quality, the better people will be attracted, which will in turn maintain and raise the quality, attracting even more good people. Again, no beliefs need to be compromised.  Radical, revolutionary, and dissident ideas can be coupled to the positive personal traits listed here; radicalism does not require marginal misfits.  It’s a matter of insisting on standards. 

Identifying defectives should not be “rocket science” – 

Many in the "movement" play lip service to "excluding defectives" - but of course they never do it, giving said defectives pride of place within organizations, blogs, websites, comments threads, etc. One can define "defective" in such a way as to exclude even the worst "movement" misfits, and it is always "someone else" at "some other blog" or in "some other organization" who is the defective, never one of your own.

How then to effectively define "defective" in the context of racial nationalism?

A defective is someone whose ideas and/or behavior will repulse, alienate, and turn-off most White people independent of racial nationalism.

The last four words of the definition are crucially important.  We acknowledge that just being pro-White is itself often enough to repulse many Whites and is enough to have one be considered "defective" by the mainstream.  What I'm saying is let's eliminate that variable.  Let's look at the person above and beyond their racial nationalism.  Forget all about their pro-White activism.  Is there anything else - anything independent of pro-White attitudes - that would make the person truly defective?  That's the key.  If we are pro-White, then that's a given and whether or not pro-White attitudes are considered "defective" by the mainstream is irrelevant, since we still need to promote pro-White memes. But that should not, and must not, be complicated by truly defective ideas and behaviors that have nothing directly to do with being pro-White.

This in turn ties in to the need for committed activists led by competent and effective  leaders (thus we come full circle to the rejection of the affirmative action program):

Better support an inch wide and a mile deep, rather than the reverse.  Strong, narrow support can be expanded, slowly, and in depth, maintaining and expanding the strength of commitment.  Broad and shallow support will evaporate when a crisis hits.  Strong support on the other hand provides the firm foundation to withstand shocks.

It is crucially important that a solution be found to the problem of social pricing.  Having a high quality membership, that avoids embarrassing and compromising associations, is a start.  Investing resources in providing “professional” activists with the means for good standard-of-living support (financial, social, etc.) is a must.  Effective leadership is required.