Local Strategizing
Ideas.
Following up on the Dalton strategy controversy, we read this comment (spelling corrected):
NorthWitchsays:June 19, 2020 at 5:22 pmI was just coming to say this. It seems to me childishly naive to think whites can just form organizations and go from there. If it were that simple it would have been done long ago. The current situation is one in which every single thing whites have ever built is being torn asunder. Absolutely no one is going to stand by twiddling their thumbs while a White Lives Matter group books a library room for meetings. The library would never allow it; anyone who shows up would lose his job; his children will face both violence and retaliation by teachers at school and elsewhere; he would lose his bank account; he may lose his children. Not to mention such a group would end up comprised primarily of feds. This is not a workable path forward.
While that reflects some of my own critiques of Dalton, it goes too far in the other direction. The basic problem I have with Dalton’s local organizing approach is not the fundamental idea itself, which I support and have long advocated. Instead, I find fault with the ludicrously shallow, blithely superficial, and painfully naïve manner in which he discusses the topic. Essentially he says – “Hey! Get together with some like-minded friends [Sallis note – just like that], tell your library you want space for 'White Lives Matter' meetings, publicly advertise, and see who shows up.” Frankly, I almost burst out laughing reading his piece.
It is humorously ironic how the behavior of Der Movement activists and “leaders” so contradict their ideology. They assert that certain European ethnies are racially superior, having evolved in the frigid northern climes (where the cold winds blow!); they are, naturally far-sighted, strategic, prudent, and stoic, in contrast to the gibbering, gesticulating southerners who can’t think past their next plate of pasta. And yet it are these superior types who exhibit an order of magnitude less foresight and long-term thinking that the dumbest ghetto Negro, and, apparently, a cringing subhuman like myself needs to state the obvious.
To actualize even a small scale level of what Dalton proposes will take months, if not years, of careful planning and preparation (you know, what the last four years of Trump could have been used for). Where to begin? Just off the top of my head, with about five seconds of consideration, I can tell you that you will need a dependable meeting place. You can do the Amren government building approach, but that’s most appropriate for larger gatherings. Smaller gatherings will either have to be (a) cryptic without the host (hotel, meeting hall, etc.) knowing its true nature (and that won’t last long, that’s for sure) or (b) private, such as at someone’s home (or place of business if they are self-employed and work outside the home (although problems exist here as well). Very small scale meetings at a home can work at first; however, given the overall possibilities and risks, it would be preferable if the homeowner was retired or self-employed, with no small children, etc. You will absolutely, 100%, require dependable legal representation, and this should preferably be (if possible) with a lawyer or law firm that is at least rightist-oriented and/or dedicated to free speech and association (if not outright fellow travelers). Having “friends in high places” in the local administration, law enforcement, business community, etc. would help, but you cannot depend on that to be possible in all, or even most, cases. Having strict codes of conduct is a must. REAL extreme vetting – not “are you Swedish?” – is a must, but BEFORE you ask ordinary folks to share that level of information you must already establish an infrastructure that provides sufficient confidence that going through the vetting process won’t backfire on those being vetted. For example, having comically transparent infiltrators assisting with the vetting is not a good idea. Apparently the Herrenvolk need a swarthoid to tell them things like that.
The “chicken and egg” nature of the problem means you need to have a minimum cohort of like-minded, more or less absolutely dependable, people to start with, to establish the infrastructure, preferably people you know well enough that the extreme vetting in their case will have already occurred through your long-term relationship with them and/or their long-term commitment to pro-White activism.
All of this, and more, will require money, but don’t whine about that, when a cursory look at ProPublica’s not-for-profit database informs us how hundreds of thousands of dollars per year are being wasted on greedy "activists" who essentially do absolutely nothing. The money is there, it is just being misdirected. How to get it properly directed is a mission for all you racially superior folks out there. Indeed, if any pro-White groups taking in “D’Nations” want to make themselves useful they can start putting together guides for local organizing, including information on our-side-friendly legal help and all of the other “nuts and bolts” intricacies required. They can help the dependable central cadre of a local group find each other. Properly leveraging the resources we have, instead of wasting them on stupidities and grifters, can help enormously. Can they do at least that? If not, why are they being sent money for?
Information people have on approaches for local meetings and organizing, things that work, should be shared – PRIVATELY – among dependable individuals. A cadre of dependable people need to be identified, particularly people with a long established history of pro-White activism, and these need to share information and ideas and plan strategically for local organizing. There will no quick fixes. Anyone who thinks that you can go from the idea to the actualization in a few weeks is a fool and cannot be trusted. Essentially, you need a dependable infrastructure in place BEFORE you try to reach out beyond your small founding cadre. You need to establish that you know what you are doing, have covered the bases, have prepared for contingencies, and that you take the concerns of people seriously. You need a record of success. Can you reproducibly and safely conduct meetings with your cadre? Can you point to your legal representation? Does your leadership have a long history in activism, and are not just some college libertarians who want to get “edgy” with Pepe and Kek? Are you SERIOUS? “Seeing who shows up” is not a serious proposal, at least not for the early stages. How can we take seriously anyone who would propose that?
In the 1990s, we had analog meetings, in both public and private venues. We used private residences as needed. Yes, things then were not as bad as today, and, yes, sometimes mistakes were made (typically revolving around the same bugaboo - lack of security and foresight about such), but, still, overall, meetings took place and there were some successes – and it wasn’t like there was no opposition back then either. If the knuckle-dragging WN 1.0 crowd can do that, can the heroic masters of WN 2.0 organize a single meeting that doesn’t end in disaster? Or is that asking too much from the types who brought us Unite the Right and Patrik Hermansson?
Critics may assert that I merely talk here in generalities and don’t provide many concrete details. Yes, that’s the point, such details should not and must not be discussed on a public forum. One could even make the case that the entire discussion, starting with Dalton’s original piece and followed by criticisms and updates, should have occurred in private, among a restricted group of dependable people. But Dalton’s piece was public, so the responses were as well, but nothing beyond the content here should be public. At this point, further extrapolation of the issue should be "offline," so to speak.
And I reiterate my call for “movement leaders” to make themselves useful, if they can, and provide information and support for local organizing. Even though most of these “leaders” are tragicomic incompetents, they do have some resources, some connections, some information, some experience, and whatever (positive) that they can provide is better than nothing.
The point here is that all conventional strategies designed to move White dissident thought from the fringe to the mainstream may be doomed to failure because they neglect the fact we aren’t even on the same spectrum of political possibility, or even within the same psychological framework. We are exiles, declared to be total anathema. To label something evil is to imply it is willfully engaged in the chaotic, unnatural, and sadistic. Evil implies an unregenerate irrationality as well as a complete detachment from morals. It also implies the willful infliction of suffering, and perhaps also a joy in it. Fighting from this position with appeals to things like IQ differences, crime rates, the data on police shootings of Blacks and Whites, or blandishments about the right of all peoples to self-determination, is probably entirely pointless.
There may be truth to what Joyce says here. But reflect upon a point I often make at this blog – this situation (in this case Joyce’s contention that “White dissident thought” is equated with evil) exists after many decades of “movement activism,” after millions of dollars of “D’Nations and dues,” after millions of man hours of effort by the ran-and-file. What does this tell you? Can we admit that Der Movement has been an utter failure and its “leadership” is composed of comically inept affirmative action cases and grasping grifters who suck up “movement” money with more avidity than a black hole absorbing the mass of a nearby star?
What is really required, therefore, is a “fight fire with fire” strategy that embodies emotionality and triggers psychological responses that resonate on a deeper level, beyond consciousness. This necessitates a propaganda designed exclusively to instill feelings of disgust, fear, and hatred for those opposed to White interests. In the final analysis, it must be hammered home that our opponents are not wrong, weak-willed, venal, or corrupt — they are morally, politically, and spiritually evil. They belong in the lowest Hell.
Fine. And how to go about doing this? How to propagate this worldview when the entire “megaphone” is in the hands of the Left, and decades of “movement activism” have left us utterly helpless and hopeless? How about some pragmatic input? How about showing us how it is done?
George Kocansays:June 20, 2020 at 6:49 amChina et al. have plenty of friends and collaborators in the US.
Yes – meet HBD.
And with all of Johnson’s recent attacks against Trump, the Teflon Quota Queen cannot admit being wrong about the man. Accountability? Quota Queens don’t need no stinkin’ accountability!
Comments
Post a Comment