Toward a New Movement, Part I

A new series. 

I am going to start a series of posts, presented from time to time when they are available, concerning approaches to reform – better still, deconstruct and then reconstruct – the “movement.” Thus - the steps toward a New Movement.

The broad, overarching, basic underlying principles of a New Movement are listed here. Posts on this series can take many forms.  For example, the “fundamentals” linked to above can be examined in more detail. New ideas, strategies, and tactics can be addressed. Past and present failures (that occur often) and successes (that are rare) of the “movement” can be critically examined to assist in determining what should, or should not, be done next. Past installments of this series can be commented on, and expanded, and any possible comments by others about these posts can be addressed. And, of course, other types of posts may be utilized.

In the first installment of this series, I (once again) take a look at Dr. David Duke’s New Orleans Protocol.

The protocol pledges adherents to a pan-European outlook, recognizing national and ethnic allegiance, but stressing the value of all European peoples. The three provisions of the protocols are:

1. Zero tolerance for violence.

2. Honourable and ethical behaviour in relations with other signatory groups. This includes not denouncing others who have signed this protocol. In other words, no enemies on the right.

3. Maintaining a high tone in our arguments and public presentations.

Let’s dissect this from both the prescriptive (what should be done) and descriptive (what currently actually exists) standpoints.

The protocol pledges adherents to a pan-European outlook, recognizing national and ethnic allegiance, but stressing the value of all European peoples.

Obviously, anyone familiar with my work knows that I fully agree with that from a prescriptive standpoint. I put pan-Europeanism as the fundamental key, the foundation, of my work; while I do accept “national and ethnic allegiance,” the pan-European perspective has priority. And my work stresses, absolutely fundamentally, “the value of all European peoples” – with the emphasis on ALL.

From a descriptive standpoint, this part of the protocol is the most unrealistic part, that part most unlike the actual reality of the “movement.” The “movement” is instead based upon a foundation of extreme Nordicism, hatred and contempt toward “White ethnics” (particularly Southern [most of all] and Eastern Europeans), and the inherent, innate supposition that only Northwest Europeans have any value.

Zero tolerance for violence.

I agree prescriptively. Descriptively, it does mirror what the highest levels of the “movement” promote, the “leaders” are overtly against violence. However, lower level “movement” “activists” sometimes “act out” and engage in violence, in some cases because the people in question become desperate due to the unending failures of the organized "higher level" “movement.”

Honourable and ethical behaviour in relations with other signatory groups. This includes not denouncing others who have signed this protocol. In other words, no enemies on the right.

Descriptively, that is a mixed bag. With respect to the people who actually signed the protocol, it seems that they have followed this provision and have not attacked each other. With respect to the “movement” as a whole, this is of course descriptively false – all we see is constant feuding, constant attacks, and constant hostility, e.g., represented by Greg Johnson’s promotion of “punching right.”

As far as prescription goes – I believe that there is a place for criticism, for attacking those who deserve to be attacked, mocked, critiqued, and ridiculed. I agree that activists should be honorable and ethical – but that does not define the current “movement," which is instead defined by dishonorable and unethical behavior, grifting, etc. Please note that one can “punch right” but do so in an honorable and ethical manner, if there are genuine areas of significant disagreement. 

That said, it is optimal if people who agree with the basic tenets of Duke's protocol refrain from attacking each other too vigorously; if the criticism is honorable and ethical, then it should not be personal and it should be disinterested (not attacking “movement” rivals for reasons of power, ego, and/or money).

Maintaining a high tone in our arguments and public presentations.

In general, I agree with this, re: prescription, making allowances for humor, mocking, and ridicule, when and where appropriate. Descriptively, much of the “movement” openly violates this tenet, as should be obvious to anyone with any experience with the "movement" whatsoever.

So, you see in this analysis the prescription of what I see the “movement” should be and what needs to be changed from the current “movement” to achieve the optimal situation.

We need a thoroughly and authentically pan-European movement – not Nordicists pretending to be pan-European – valuing ALL European peoples, with ethical and honorable activists, non-violent, who criticize each other when necessary but do not do so for selfish reasons.

This is a start, the beginning of my analysis.