Several more “tactical” points.
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.”
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.
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?”
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.
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.
