Rational vs. Irrational Fascism

Another look at fascist ideology.

Previously, I objected to Quigley’s description of fascism as “irrational" - 

[Side note – I do not like Quigley’s correlating fascist states and movements to irrationality in the sense he does – while such movements were opposed to hyper-rationalism of modernity, they were not irrational in the sense of what was best for the nation and ethny and the organization of society had many positive rational aspects. I would argue that modern liberal democracy is truly irrational].

There are two basic issues here.  First, the definition of irrational.  Second, what do we mean by fascism?

Let’s consider this definition of irrationality:

Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking, or acting without inclusion of rationality. It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate use of reason, or through emotional distress or cognitive deficiency. The term is used, usually pejoratively, to describe thinking and actions that are, or appear to be, less useful, or more illogical than other more rational alternatives.

Irrational behaviors of individuals include taking offense or becoming angry about a situation that has not yet occurred, expressing emotions exaggeratedly (such as crying hysterically), maintaining unrealistic expectations, engaging in irresponsible conduct such as problem intoxication, disorganization, and falling victim to confidence tricks. People with a mental illness like schizophrenia may exhibit irrational paranoia.

These more contemporary normative conceptions of what constitutes a manifestation of irrationality are difficult to demonstrate empirically because it is not clear by whose standards we are to judge the behavior rational or irrational.

The last part is in my opinion crucial to this discussion – it is difficult to definitively define political behavior as irrational given the problem of “whose standards” and the intense nature of political identification. Hence, it is just very easy to simply label your opposition as “irrational” as contrasted to your own “rationality.”

What about:

Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking, or acting without inclusion of rationality.

What’s “rationality?”  Thus, we see controversy and subjectivity there as well, so defining “irrationality” as the absence of “rationality” is not helpful if we are unable to clearly define “rationality.”

One (somewhat vague) definition of “rationality” that conforms to the manner most people use the term is beliefs and/or behavior (e.g., a decision-making process) based (predominantly or completely) on the use of (verifiable) facts, logic, and consideration of consequences in pursuit of some objective(s) that is (theoretically) achievable and that would enhance the status and/or well-being of some (verifiably) real entity or entities (or useful mental constructs of such). “Irrationality” would therefore be beliefs and/or behavior that does not conform to that described above.

This then comes back to the issue of subjective standards, since I am sure most fascists would consider their beliefs and behavior as conforming to ethnic, racial, social, political, and historical realities and that the objectives pursued would enhance the status and well-being of the group or groups involved. Anti-fascists would disagree, and then one would have to do a “deep dive” into fascist ideology and its consequences, and each step of that analysis would, no doubt, be steeped in controversy. I suppose that the “irrationality” of fascism would be ascribed to, e.g., the emotionality inherent in many of its manifestations, including a “mystical” (sic) tie to blood and soil, as well as the alleged “irrationality” of certain palingenetic objectives, which would not always correlate to the types of issues (e.g., economic growth, peace, human rights) of interest to classical liberalism.  One could also ascribe “irrationality” to certain fascist critiques of modernism, materialism, and, not surprisingly, to a purely rational approach to life, even though there may well be – from the fascist perspective – rational reasons for such beliefs.

From a pro-fascist standpoint, given ethnic genetic interests, one could aver that fascism is more adaptive than are Universalist ideologies, although Salter did criticize fascism for an ultimately self-defeating over-investment in ethny (perhaps an example of “irrational” behavior).  Thus, the hyper-nationalism of fascism led to expansionist militarism, destructive warfare, and the mobilization of other states to crush fascism, leaving the fascist states arguably worse off than before. But does the fact that this over-investment took place stand as evidence of fascist irrationality? Note that it is unlikely that Mussolini would have conducted aggression within Europe in the absence of Hitler’s influence; further, the other fascist movements in Europe did not have expansionist militarism has part of their ideology.  Indeed, “fascist militarism” essentially was a Nazi legacy, and had as much, or more, to do with Hitler’s fixations, and to historical German militarism, than to any inherent characteristic (“irrational” or otherwise) of fundamental fascism.

Perhaps it would help to look at definitions of fascism itself. Griffin’s description of fascism as palingenetic ultra-nationalism is a good starting point.  We can then tackle some of the ideas of Maurice Bardeche on this topic.

See this.

The characteristics of fascism, we have seen, are disputable, and only a small number of those we have examined have been retained in a logical definition of fascism. The single party, police methods, propaganda, Caesarism, the very presence of a Führer are not necessarily attributes of fascism; still less an alliance with reactionary politics, the refusal of control and open membership to the masses, the inevitability of prestige operations and military raids.

A firm and stable direction of the nation, the primacy of the national interest over private interests, the necessity of a discipline loyally accepted by the country, are the true political foundations of fascism, those that emerge from its very definition. 

That seems reasonably rational to me, from the standpoint of the well-being of nation-state and ethny.

Power may be exercised in a fascist state by a central committee, a council, or a junta as well as by a designated leader; such rule need not be brutal and abusive. It can also be tolerant and supple. The essential political instrument of fascism is the role that it grants to a minority of disinterested and committed militants capable of leading by the example of their own lives and to bear the message of a just, loyal, and honesty polity. The famous fascist methods are thus constantly and ceaselessly reevaluated. What is more important than mechanisms is the idea that fascism has of man and freedom.

So far, that all can be consistent with rationality.

See this.

Democracy puts no limits on freedom beyond prohibiting harm to others. Democrats are quick to discover that one might harm the government without harming others, and their codes are filled with political offenses. But they have never admitted that without harming others individually, one can still harm the nation as a whole through the abuse of freedom.

Such harm from democracy would be irrational, no?

Fascism opposes this anarchic concept of freedom with a social conception of freedom. It does not permit that which harms the nation. It permits everything else. It is wrong to believe that it is in the spirit of fascism to limit individual freedom or freedom of thought. Nothing has changes in the everyday life of a country when it becomes fascist: contrary to the famous saying, when someone rings the doorbell at seven o’clock, it must be the milkman…

…Fascism recognizes this irreplaceable mystique of achievement. It is a sign of degeneration when the worship of a man is substituted for the task to be accomplished and when the nation nourished with nothing more than words, authority without a program, portraits disguised as principles: it is nothing more than a donkey with a policeman trailing behind him.

Thus, fascism leads to a different social morality than democracy, and it seeks to develop a human type that the democracies ignore or combat. Just because fascism nurtures different values than does liberal democracy does not mean that the former is “irrational” (an idea that assumes liberal democracy is “rational”).

The democrats believe in the natural goodness of man, in progress as the course of history. They think that all parts of the personality merit equal development. For them, the state does not make men moral, it merely teaches them to read; education is a panacea that can work miracles. Democracy does not intervene to establish its own image of man. Its fine ideal exists nowhere. One cannot even say that the men in charge choose subjects to suit their agenda, like leaders of seminars. Democracy is only concerned with diplomas. Democracy distributes awards for excellence. She places her best pupils in the Pantheon. But in 100 years, she has not produced a single hero.

Fascists do not believe in the natural goodness of man; they do not believe that progress is the irreversible direction of history. They have this ambitious idea that man has the power to create, at least in part, his own destiny.

I suppose that the strict materialists and liberal democrats believe that talk of “destiny” is “irrational” – but it seems to me that creating destiny through an act of will is more rational than a fatalistic attitude of passively accepting whatever comes and/or merely pursuing short-term hedonistic materialism or trusting in “Fate” or “God."

See this.

The purpose of the fascist state is to shape men according to a particular model. Unlike democratic states, fascist states do not hesitate to teach morals. Fascists think that the will and energy available to the nation are its most precious capital. They make it their highest priority to encourage the collective qualities that shape and preserve the national energy. They seek to develop such national qualities as discipline, a taste for order, love of work, the sense of duty and honor. In the practice of everyday tasks, these national moral principles are expressed in a sense of responsibility, a sense of solidarity, awareness of duties of command, the feeling of being at home in an accepted order and in an important task.

That also sounds quite rational.   

Is developing The New Man to build The Moral State rational or irrational?  I would say that regardless of your subjective opinion on that, The New Man and The Moral State can be harnessed to achieve rational objectives; hence, they are ultimately rational with respect to ends (even if not always with respect to means).

It would seem therefore that fascism, in its essence, and apart from the particular manifestation of Nazism, was not especially irrational. Indeed, how is fascism any more irrational than its main competitors?  Liberal democracy disguises the power of an oligarchic plutocracy behind the veneer of popular sovereignty, and is currently undergoing self-immolation due to a tidal wave of demographic and cultural destruction.  Communism resulted in millions of dead, gulag states, economic depression, and pseudoscientific ideas like Lysenkoism.

One wonders if the particular focus on fascism being “irrational” has more to do with its underlying mythos than with its actual real-world manifestation. In contrast, both liberal democracy and communism are perceived as being (ostensibly) based on “rational” materialistic considerations, such as economics, happiness for the greatest numbers, etc. derived from “Enlightenment values,” while fascism with its focus on primal values of “caveman nationalism" (blood and soil) and with non-quantifiable, non-materialistic considerations of palingenesis, national glory, and The New Man, sounds ever-so-irrational  After all, one can have a quantifiable “rational” Five Year Plan for socialist production but not a similarly materialistic Five Year Plan for palingenetic overcoming and national glory. Unlike liberal democracy and communism, fascism is not an ideology for the bean-counters of a managerial elite, hence it is seemingly based upon non-quantifiable “irrational” urges.

But some in the mainstream have defended the irrational as part of existentialist authenticity, a concept that can be extended to the race question.  And can’t irrational urges be harnessed to achieve rational objectives?

See this:

…a call to “preserve our distinctive genetic information” is unlikely to motivate most Western individuals to defend their genetic interests against the titanic forces arrayed against them. It almost certainly will not motivate the masses, who, as Michael O’Meara rightfully points out, are always induced to act by “myths” that encompass a cohesive worldview. Even rational activists can often become more motivated by these “myths” (which may of course constitute objective facts to a considerable degree) than to a pure empiricism. Thus, the “myth” of Yockeyan “High Culture” may be needed to motivate the defense of rational Salterian EGI.

In summary, whether or not a political ideology is rational or irrational is to a large part subjective, and in a day and age in which the word “fascist” is used a pejorative, stripped of most of its informational value, it is difficult to arrive at an objective reckoning of fascist rationality vs. irrationality.

Given the definitions given by me here, fascism is not particularly irrational, and to the extent that is does have irrational aspects, those are not necessarily bad, and, further, can be leveraged in the service of rational goals.

The main threat is if the irrational aspects of fascism inflate to a level akin to Salter’s criticism; thus, controlling fascism’s primal urges and keeping those urges within reasonable limits would be key in avoiding irrationality overload.

Quo Vadis Activist?

Rebirth of American White Nationalism.

After chronicling the death of American White nationalism, what now?  I have written many times, in great detail, about the directions that I believe that White racial activism, particularly in American should go; for example, see here. More broadly, I have outlined the fundamental principles of a New Movement. Thus, there is no need to rehash all of that again here, but to simply put forth the need for action and to underscore that we are at fork in the road.

Shall we continue the endlessly failed approaches of the past and present, or try something new for the future?

We need a clear set of principles, and principled adherence to those principles, instead of short-sighted obsessions about optics, mainstreaming, and “brands.”

Similar to the Legionary Movement, we need to concentrate on activist quality.  While our fundamental principles are crucially important perhaps just as important – if not more so – is the quality of the activist. “People are policy” as the saying goes – you can have the best policies, the best ideas, the best principles, but if you have defective, low quality individuals you will never actualize your principles in the manner you want. You need the proper human material. The Legionaries stressed The New Man over policy, and even if they went too far in their disinterest in policy (and I believe that they did), still, their laser-like focus on building a “new type of Romanian” was correct.

Starting from the standpoint of someone who is some sort of European ancestry, with no favorites among European ethnies (unlike the “movement” with its well-known preferences), what can we say should be characteristics of a desirable activist?

Of course, an activist should present a professional physical appearance and should try to be as physically fit as possible, constrained of course by considerations of age and of health issues that may be beyond their ability to effectively remedy. My readers know I am not a Nordicist; I do not have criteria about certain racial/subracial archetypes; obsessing over “Nordic/Nordish” “blonde/blue” phenotypes is not what any of this should be about. I also do not share the “movement’s” infantile obsession with (male) height, a characteristic that is not within anyone’s ability to control. Certainly, there are certain roles (e.g., physical security) better suited for some physiques over others, but we must remember when we are judging someone within our racial-cultural ingroup, their overall worth as activists should predominantly derives from traits that they have control over, rather than those they do not.  Superiority is not some sort of innate birthright; superiority must be earned.

What about character?

And it is even more salient today. If there is ONE single thing I would advise White racial activists to do today, it would be to emphasize, to focus on, character and moral rebirth, to focus on The New Man.  With that, anything is possible.  Without that, nothing is possible. Although ideology, science, intelligence, strategy, et al. are all crucially important, they take a back seat to character and moral integrity.  You cannot build a worldwide revolutionary movement on a foundation of quicksand; you cannot build a victorious movement on a foundation of freaks, grifters, phonies, frauds, the morally defective, perverts, liars, gaslighters, deranged fetishists, tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists, individuals with all sorts of completely superfluous hang-ups and bizarre theories, weaklings, traitors, and all the rest. We have to remake ourselves before we try and remake the world.

Recruiting people of sound character is a must, and, just as important, helping them to further build on that and improve their moral character after recruitment is essential.

Please note that this is not a plea for an unattainable perfectionism, nor is it an expectation that all activists be a “finished product” of the highest quality from day one; of course, I make no claims that I myself am without fault (as my critics would be eager to point out).  We can instead view this as a continuous process of self-improvement, a striving toward the optimal.  Further, there must be some standards and, yes, some of these standards can be expected from day one –not perfection, not optimal, but a solid starting point, a solid foundation of good character from which growth toward the optimal is possible. Unfortunately, in the “movement” with its low standards – despite all of its empty talk about eschewing defectives – this solid foundation is missing for many activists. Let's identify defectives in the context of pro-White activism:

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.

Also see this.

It is clear what needs to be avoided and hopefully our understanding of what should be strived toward is improving. We need both strong principles, firmly espoused, and the quality people required to promote our ideals and actualize them into reality.

Addendum

One should not underestimate the extent to which non-ideological factors influence the “movement,” particularly at its highest levels.  There is of course self-interest, rent-seeking, personal obsessions and preferences (and perversions), as well as ego, ambition, and money-grubbing grifting. Just as much, personal relationships play a major role. If you dislike someone, if you feud with them, then you attack their entire ethnic group and oppose their ideology. On the other hand, personal friendships, warm feelings, do the opposite. Quota Queens have personal positive, friendly, relationships with Derbyshire (*), who is married to a Chinese woman with mixed-race children, and who says the right (i.e., highly negative) things about Negroes.  Quota Queens visit the Derbyshire household, eat meals made by his wife, invite him to speak at meetings, etc. In this manner, HBD and Asia-worship have a greater influence on Der Movement than they would have had in the absence of those positive personal relationships.  If you think I am joking, I assure you I am not; I have never been more serious.  It may sound absurd, but the reality is that “Rosie” has had more influence on the current state of Der Movement than, say, Salter or Yockey. If you think about it carefully and dispassionately, you will see that I am correct; this is all basic human nature. That is of course just one example; I can cite others. Of course, from the standpoint of serious pro-White politics (broadly defined), this high degree of influence of the personal is clearly unacceptable, but here we are.  

*See this.

I am at too many psychological disadvantages. I like and admire John Derbyshire very much. His delightful wife has fed me Chinese food she made with her own hands and she grows azaleas that could win a prize. I have even met Mr. Derbyshire’s very pleasant children.

Now, you may argue that Taylor then went on to oppose miscegenation, despite his friendship with the Derbyshire family. Well, race-mixing is a “bridge too far” – one cannot maintain status as a “movement” “leader” if one doesn’t oppose miscegenation. But I never said that miscegenation is being normalized; instead, HBD, Asia-worship, and the acceptance of Asians in America is being normalized. One can, for the sake of one’s position (and personal preferences) oppose, at least in theory, miscegenation (particularly White-Black race mixing), but once you get to “delightful wife has fed me Chinese food she made with her own hands and she grows azaleas that could win a prize” would you support the enforced repatriation of such a “delightful” person?  Or would you instead promote memes about how “high IQ” and “law abiding” that “delightful” person and her ethny is?

This is why character is so important, as well as an adherence to principles. To allow the likes of Derbyshire to contaminate the “movement” because of “friendship” and the perceived positive characteristics of his racially alien Chinese wife is simply unacceptable.

See this.  Forget about GOP politics - these people, along with urban/suburban White ethnics are low-hanging fruit for a sensible racialist movement attuned to real people and real local communities. Instead, we get Savitri Devi and The Homo and the Negro. Do you still need endless "movement" failure explained? Is that all not an indictment of poor character and of a lack of principles?

Toward a New Movement, Part VIII

The Moral State.

Western Destiny essay.

Of direct relevance to building a New Movement:

The type of “leaders” found in today’s (American) “movement” – meritless affirmative action hacks, money-hungry grifters, gaslighting liars, inept incompetents with no sense of personal responsibility or accountability, shameless hustlers and mountebanks, sweaty obsessive fetishists, conspiracy theorists, drug addicts, sexual perverts, the chronically impaired with piss-poor judgment – these need to be eschewed. There is no place in The Moral State for failed “leaders” such as that. We deserve better. Our people, our race, and our civilization deserve better. We can and must do better.

And, in general, the entire focus on morality and an ethical code, which was such an important part of Codreanu's Legionary Movement and the concept of the "New Man," is essential to any New Movement, and is opposed to the disgusting present morass of Der Movement, Inc.

What Should Be Done, Again

Strategies.

Every once in a while at this blog, I find it useful – albeit somewhat repetitious for long time readers – to discuss the strategies that I believe that (American, but also applicable throughout the White world) racial nationalism needs to implement in order to make progress and achieve objectives.  As noted, this has been discussed here before.  Also see this.

Read this.

1. Build a legionary cadre.  No defectives, no Alt Right lulzers, no obsessives and fetishists, no zombies mindlessly parroting “movement” dogma, but hardcore, “vanguardist” political soldiers, truly vetted (extremely!) and put through years of long apprenticeship, a genuine movement akin to that of Codreanu, a pan-European Brotherhood that will form the core of the undermining of the old System and the creation of a new one.  And guess what?  This is not talked about in “interviews” with the media, it is not recruited online in sniggering “forums,” it is instead done privately and prudently, slowly, carefully, and with forethought.  Obviously, the existence of such an organization would not be a secret, just as the existence of the CIA, MI6, KGB, and GRU were not secrets, but the inner workings of the group, by analogy to those others, would of course be hidden from the public.  

2. Community activism.  Real community activism is done, not talked about.  It is done as much as possible “under the radar.”  You do not broadcast it to mocking media operatives, you don’t go through the motions for the sake of a quick blog post, this is not something done overnight.  True community activism is for the long-term, it is a work of years, it is done to help the community, not with an attitude of expecting an immediate compensation – the idea of compensation should not come into it at all. Of course, community activism by its nature cannot be kept secret; the point is that such activism is its own publicity – in other words, it becomes known because it occurs and it is effective, it is its own advertisement, it doesn’t become known because activists spend more time talking to the media than they do actually helping people.

3. Metapolitics and infrastructure. Metapolitics has been discussed endlessly by the Far Right, and so there is no need to repeat all of that here. Such activity is essential, as long as it is fresh, creative, and open-minded, and not merely the regurgitation of fossilized “movement” dogma.  We need real infrastructure to carry out our objectives, approaches to defeat social pricing, funding that goes beyond tin cup panhandling but actual involves earning money through some sort of productivity, service, and/or representation, we need lawyers (and not to drive them out of the “movement”), we need businessmen, doctors, academics, plumbers, mechanics, schoolteachers, politicians, we need a recreated and actualized society. By the way, metapolitics should include Salter’s democratic multiculturalism, which overlaps with both community activism and electoral politics.

4. Electoral politics. This has three purposes.  First, education, propaganda, and recruitment.  Second, provocation, heightening the contradictions, undermining the System, promoting chaos and balkanization.  Third, if elected, these people can not only leverage their office for the preceding two purposes, but also to protect the movement as much as possible.

5. Rallies, etc. - false-flag and genuine. False-flag rallies are meant as a distraction, to focus attention of adversaries to the open and superficial “cosplay actors on the street” as opposed to the more serious work going on elsewhere.  It would still need to be credible, to be viewed as a genuine threat and so worthy of attention, and also so as not to repulse Whites interested in joining the cause.  Later on, with the success of the other objectives 1-4 above, rallies and mass meetings, of a highly professional nature (even more so that the false-flag ones), can occur for all the positives such events can genuinely provide to a real and growing firmly established movement.

I would once again like to describe what I think should be done, so as to pre-emptively answer the screeching of the Quota Queens, who would falsely accuse me of only criticizing and not offering constructive suggestions. I have of course often given such suggestions, as noted above, and will do so again now. Let us consider the three major legs of the strategic tripod.

1. Electoral Politics

I have often talked about the need for involvement in electoral politics, as well as the wasted opportunity right after 2016. Right wing populism was “hot,” there was momentum; prudent planning could have set up some interesting local campaigns for 2018.  But, instead, the Quota Queens gave us Unite the Right, drunken podcasts, the Pilleater Chronicles, and all the rest.  But the wheel turns and as the Left exposes their insanity for all the world to see, and as Trump exposes himself as an insincere, semi-retarded fraud, there may once again be room for maneuver on the Far Right edges of American electoral politics.

2. Metapolitical education

There is not much need to discuss this here, as it is straightforward, and it is the one thing of the three that Der Movement is actually focusing on right now. Of course, I believe that Der Movement is doing a terrible job of it, doing more harm than good.  But as far as the type of activity, then, for example, the type of thing done by Counter-Currents would be an example of metapolitics, although I of course almost completely disagree with their content.  

3. Infrastructure/Community/Organization

What is meant by this?

Infrastructure – this covers such things including, but not limited to, financial resources, physical structures such as headquarters and meeting halls, competent personnel, equipment, a very competent and aggressive legal team, media resources, publishing, Internet hosting, and all of the various things required for the day-today running of a dissent movement, and its constituent organizations and groupuscules, in the context of operating in a hostile System.  

Community – you can read some of the ideas I proposed in my interview with Robert Griffin (long ago) in his One Sheaf One Vine book as examples of things we can do for outreach to the broader White community. And of course, community building can mean for our own people, setting up alternative community structures, leveraging infrastructure (see above) to defeat social pricing and allow pro-White activists to survive and thrive in a hostile System environment, and all of this can range from meetings at the small scale to actual physical communities, relatively self-sufficient, at the large scale.  And, as stated, we need outreach to the broader White population to provide assistance to them (and receive such in return) and for recruitment.

Organization – we will need the spectrum of organizational complexity, from slime mold to rhizome.

One crucial component, which overlaps with the need for community (and for metapolitical education) is the Legionary concept.  To be successful, we need The New Man.  We need a “school of palingenesis” in which activists can be reborn, improved in every way, particularly morally and spiritually. Given inherent problems with Whites in general, and pro-White activists in particular, today, this is essential.

This infrastructure/community/organization component will be the most difficult section of the three-part strategy to actualize.  After all, metapolitical education is already occurring; although I disagree with most of it and most of it is currently at a low level of quality, at least the pattern is established, and such education is scalable from the individual blogger up to a large scale organization or political campaign. Such education requires less organization and discipline for success than the other components, particularly the last one. Political campaigns can be done and the open and more “mainstream” nature of those endeavors also proves some leeway in the competence of its actualization.  

However, building community, infrastructure, and quality vanguardist organizations will require a very high level of competence, prudence, foresight, sanity, and reasonableness, all qualities profoundly lacking in the “movement.”  Look at the disasters that have occurred when any of this has been tried in even a crude initial form. Can you imagine?  You’ll have a bunch of Nutzis marching around screaming “Pepe,” “Kek,” “Jews will not replace us,” agonizing over the dire racial threat of hora-dancing Romanians and two foot tall Southern Italian Africans, while allowing homosexual sexual harassment and transparently obvious infiltrations. Actualizing these objectives will require the New Movement I have proposed.  The Old Movement will be completely incapable of doing what needs to be done.  They’ll just make a mess of everything, strangle it in the crib.

Each of these strategies synergizes with the other two.  The electoral campaigns provide a platform for propaganda, thus boosting metapolitical education and the campaigns can enhance community building, organization, and infrastructure – at the very least bringing like-mined people together and giving them real-world training in running an important endeavor.  In the unlikely event any of the candidates are elected, this would be a practical asset if they can use their position to provide assistance and protection (to the extent possible) for the other legs of the strategy, and, of course, such a victory would be a boost for morale and a propaganda asset. Metapolitical education provides the ideological framework for the other two components, and is a crucial component in recruiting people for those other components. Infrastructure/Community/Organization actualizes the metapolitical education into reality, it is the real-world outcome of metapolitical/education/propaganda efforts, and it provides the raw material in personnel, infrastructure, and other resources to assist in the other two legs of the overarching strategy.

And if we fail, I for one at least offered a generalized scheme for a back-up plan.  Meanwhile your “leaders” endorse Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang, or scream about “Pepe” and “Kek.”  Your choice, my friends. Real, serious, sober leadership or comically inept infantile grifters. We all know the outcome of that choice now, don’t we?

In any case, once again, this is what needs to be done.  This is what should have been done after the 2016 election, this is what should have been done in the years and decades preceding, and this is what needs to be done going forward, starting now.

Will it be done?  Of course not.  With your majestic leaders, dancing through cemeteries with swastika-soled boots, expect nothing more than continued endless failure.