I didn’t arrive at a Jew-wise, racial realist worldview because my forefathers fought for the Confederacy or because I want to make things awkward at dinner parties. I arrived at it because it’s the single most predictive model of reality; the simplest and most reliable framework for explaining not only how things got to be, but how they’re going to be.  I could have stood before Congress in 2001 and warned them that No Child Left Behind would fail. I can predict with a negligible margin of error that the next educational fad will flop, Detroit will continue deteriorating, Japan will bounce right back from its string of disasters, and the organized Jewish community will churn out more pop culture that’s hostile toward White America’s Christian majority.

While we may lack political power, as an ideological and philosophical force we have strength beyond our numbers. Why? Because we have the truth on our side. Our racially aware frame of reference gives us the power to find demonstrable truths and to falsify popularly accepted dogmas. Only a handful of dissidents hold the Jew-wise and race realist line in institutional academia, but the Bell Curve dealt a body blow to politically correct psychology.

Mearsheimer & Walt’s “The Israel Lobby” created a major row in policy circles. Steve Sailer’s humble blog often provokes responses from rarefied masters of multicult dogma like Malcolm Gladwell.

Personally, I believe many in our movement diminish the credibility of our fundamental insight by indulging in conspiracy theories and wild speculation. Our truth, opposed as it is by the near universally embraced secular religion of equality, can be made to sound like a crank’s conspiracy theory, and our enemies are all too eager to frame it as such. When we as individuals dive headfirst into the latest idle speculation about Obama’s birth certificate or the Bin Laden assassination “hoax”, we do more than merely set ourselves up to look like fools when the establishment trots out the long-form birth certificate and graphic photos of what’s left of Bin Laden’s head. We make it that much harder for ordinary people to take seriously  our decades of peer-reviewed research on differences in intelligence, or volumes of meticulous work on how the organized Jewish community is subverting their host population.

We set ourselves up to be even less trusted than the establishment. The establishment lies and deceives the public all the time, of course. They do it most often by omission and diversion rather than making bold statements that could be contradicted by dozens if not hundreds of different people scattered throughout multiple organizations and institutions.

No proposition should be suppressed, per se. If you’ve got proof that Obama was born in Kenya or that Bin Laden was killed a decade ago, make your case. If you know that colloidal silver has healing properties, direct us to a trusted reference to learn more. For all I know, fluoride may be poisoning us all and vaccines may be causing the spike in autism diagnoses. Conspiracies have happened in the past and are probably happening right now, but the same standard of skepticism should be applied to them as is applied to the establishment line.

For instance, shortly after Obama released the long form birth certificate, I was forwarded the video of the man explaining how the PDF document was a forgery because it contained “layers”. He never explained what were in the additional layers, leaving one to envision numbers and names being altered, damning stuff being excised, and such. He didn’t show us the layers, which on further examination were perfectly typical for some scanning software and didn’t contain anything that even appeared human generated.

While it’s appropriate to be skeptical about Obama’s birthplace, the skepticism has to cut both ways. There is far more evidence that he was born in Hawaii than in Kenya. For him to have been born in Kenya and to have pulled off this deception for this long would have required a pretty elaborate effort fit for jewel thieves. Sure, it could have happened, but is it the simplest and most likely explanation? No, I don’t trust Obama, but don’t we have more verifiable or at least more relevant points of fact to focus on?

The simplest explanation for his reluctance to disclose his birth certificate was the prominence of his middle name “Hussein” which he wanted concealed by the media during the presidential election.

Later this week, when the White House trots out their gory images of Osama’s body, few if any of the people who were claiming that this is an elaborate hoax will publicly recant. They’ll just move on to the next conspiracy theory, perhaps declaring that the images were doctored or that the concrete coffin dropped overboard contained a dummy. For all I know, any of that could be the case, though it seems pretty elaborate and it’s also pretty tangential. Whether or not Osama was already dead, was recently killed, or resides among the reptilians in a far away galaxy doesn’t make much of a difference, does it? Does it make enough of a difference to stake our credibility on it?

While at the AmRen 2008 Conference, I enjoyed Michael Walkers’ definition of a crank, which has stuck with me…

Many who point out unwelcome truths are called cranks. For those heavily invested in the conventional wisdom, anyone who denies that wisdom can be viewed as cranky and disagreeable. However, my definition of a crank is someone who cannot confine discussion of his dissenting or “cranky” views to appropriate settings and audiences. It is one whose views are either so persistent, so emphatic, or so extreme as to cause embarrassment in “normal” company. If you feel you might be embarrassed by, say, having someone to dinner with friends or relatives—especially relatives—then he is likely to be a crank.

Women have a better nose than men for cranks – those who lack awareness of socially appropriate boundaries and the reactions of others -  and women are less afraid to call a spade a spade. Some years ago I went with my wife to a meeting in Germany organized by a man who edited a publication I read regularly and enjoyed. When we arrived a little late he was in the middle of addressing a meeting in exactly the terms one might expect of someone who had just achieved supreme power. In fact he had reached about paragraph 20 of what he called the “Constitution of the Fourth Reich.” My wife was pitiless: “Quite definitely a nutter,” she told me.

I emphasize that one must distinguish between “cranks” and dissidents who are merely derided as cranks. There’s a very real difference. Walker at Amren 2008  described the crank as one who’s an embarrassment around normal company. That’s a pretty succinct working definition, but I would like to extend that with one observation: overclocked pattern recognition. We’re all designed to detect patterns in nature and in our social interactions. We couldn’t function without that capability, but we sometimes detect patterns where none exist: the man on the moon, the Virgin Mary on the grilled cheese, or the guy who’s trailing you because he happened to turn in the same direction you did an unlikely number of times.

As an example, the net effect of Jewish influence on its victims may feel like it was  the unanimous action of all 15 million members of that race organized by elders gathered from time to time to fashion and execute meticulous plans and protocols. But it is not. It’s the emergent effect of a group evolutionary strategy which has evolved and adapted over centuries to exploit weaknesses in a group that is unable to organize themselves to resist that influence.
It is the weakness of that host group that allows small and detached groups of Jews with similar interests to dominate whole industries and institutions and to shape the popular culture.

I am reminded of an amusing parody, “Local Jew Feels Left Out of Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy“. To believe that Jews could impose upon all members of their race the obligation to labor for and take orders from the ADL or SPLC is to believe that humans are far more submissive, loyal, discreet, and organized than they are. And if you talk to a crank long enough, you’ll often learn that this pattern of thinking isn’t limited to politics. They’re often into “numerology”, obsess over calendrical coincidences, and suspect close friends and family members of micro-conspiracies against them. They rarely if ever attribute anything to mere happenstance or seek a simple innocuous explanation.

There can be no worldwide Jewish conspiracy of the sort lampooned in the Onion article, because not even Jews are capable of the level of secrecy and organization necessary to pull that off. What they have is a milieu within which countless little conspiracies can succeed unopposed, such as the conspiracy to drag the US into the Iraq War, the conspiracy to bring as little attention as possible to the embarrassing relationship between Obama and Jeremiah Wright, or the conspiracy to ignore his illegal immigrant aunt.

There was evidently a conspiracy within Pakistan’s military elite to hide Bin Laden. While Pakistan’s military elite probably didn’t conspire as a cohesive unit to hide Bin Laden, it was sufficiently sympathetic to Bin Laden – and interested in continuing the foreign aid which his continued existence secured – to create an environment in which that large elite could ignore the small handful who did conspire to hide him for a long time. A couple neighborhood kids here and there probably knew about it, and others here and there probably knew or guessed. Some of the servants were probably in on it, as well. But it was the kind of subculture where “omerta” prevailed and people didn’t tend to turn in “freedom fighters” to the imperial Yankee invaders.

Conspiracies exist. After all, every profit making enterprise that employs the efforts of more than one person is a “conspiracy” of sorts. Most “conspiracies” are benign or beneficial. We tend to call them “conspiracies” only when they are doing something illegal or destructive and thus depend upon secrecy and deception for success.

But conspiracies are subject to the same rules of inquiry as any other subject. As Professor MacDonald has demonstrated with his trilogy and Mearsheimer and Walt have demonstrated with their report, it’s very possible to expose those conspiring against us with the illuminating glow of skeptical inquiry and methodical peer-reviewed research. If we divert our energy into “chemtrails”, obvious hoaxes, faked moon landings, or Kevin Trudeau’s nature cures then we invite our opponents to use such easy to understand foolishness to diminish our work and our message.

But I would like all of you to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

We all react powerfully to the videos of helicopter gun ships blasting groups of supposed “terrorists” on the ground in central Asia. We react equally to videos of very expensive munitions fired from drones that slaughter groups of these supposed “terrorists”.

I say “supposed” for the simple reason that the men being slaughtered happen to be half way around the World from us, and have no visible means of getting to our shores unless we provide the means. Indeed, if the population of the U.S. were entirely homogeneous and light skinned, there would be little fear of terrorism simply because we could not see any of these central Asian Muslims around us.

Thus, the fear of terror would be implausible, and support for trillion dollar expenditures to support a vast anti-terror bureaucracy is very much at risk, unless that anti-terror bureaucracy—coincident with the bombings and slaughters—imported relatives of the victims to circulate among us and make the threat of domestic terror visible, and hence support for the anti-terror machine and its trillion dollar budgets plausible.

As usual, multiculturalism is always and everywhere a means by which a minority can impose its will and its system of social control by pitting one group against another.

But the key to survival in this modern world is to see the pieces of the puzzle that are in plain view right in front of you and from their shape, accurately deduce the shape and nature of the pieces of the puzzle that are not visible.

For example: is it necessarily true that the regime would use helicopter gun ships and air to ground rockets fired from drones to exterminate domestic revolutionaries? Would the regime need to “go loud” like this and risk alarming the neighbors and waking them from their stupor?

So what is it about the populations that do get bombed and strafed that might differentiate them from us. After all, while they get bombed and strafed, racialists in the U.S. are free to fly unhindered; we are treated with extraordinary courtesy during traffic stops; and are typically let go with a smile and a warning (no snickering or winks and nods from the Cat 3 peanut gallery please!). Despite early attempts to shut down racialist web sites, the powers that be are allowing them to multiply like mushrooms in spring rain during recent years.

In similar fashion, there is a huge commerce in firearms—mostly assault rifles—that the regime tolerates with total equanimity.

Is there a unifying characteristic of those differing people who get bombs dropped on them from safe altitudes? Anything beyond the simple fact that they hate the regime because they supposedly “hate our freedom”, while we hate the regime because of our loss of freedom?

Let me make a radical suggestion.

The populations of Iraq, Afghanistan and Serbia do share a common characteristic. And it is obviously not the Muslim religion or brown skin color. Serbia is the “Ethiopian in the fuel supply” that tips us off to the shape and nature of the puzzle pieces that are not visible.

Serbs are as White as Austrians, and they are Eastern Orthodox Christians, heroes who for centuries have repelled invasions of numerous Asian and Muslim hordes seeking to invade Europe.

But at the time of our most excellent adventure over the skies of Serbia, they maintained an autarchic economy and did not participate in the Western banking system. In short, while Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan may have had local banks, and while varying percentages of their populations may have had bank accounts and credit cards—scaling from perhaps a majority in Serbia, to a minority in Iraq, to a miniscule number in Afghanistan—neither the Serbian, the Iraqi nor the Afghan banking arrangements were within the reach of Interpol or the FBI (which, curiously, seems to operate worldwide).

One day several years ago I walked into a branch of Wells Fargo and sat down to chat with the branch manager. I asked her whether the FBI could simply erase my checking account, and if so would they have to notify the bank first. She said that the FBI has a direct electronic connection to the accounts at that bank and every other bank that is a member of the Federal Reserve System and they can delete or freeze an account at any time without ever having to notify the bank.

Then I said, “How about my investment account with your brokerage subsidiary? Same answer. They can delete or freeze it electronically and they do not need to tell us why. (Same with your credit card and debit card, by the way.)

If they were to do that, the victim could not sell his house and collect the proceeds, and he would not have the means to hire a lawyer and file for relief in Federal Court. He would be immobilized, unable to purchase an airline ticket, and unable to fill the gas tank in the car or buy food.

What could a fellow do under those circumstances? Go complain to the neighbors that all his accounts have been deleted by the government and risk getting himself committed to a mental institution? From the regime’s perspective it sure beats having a helicopter gun ship scare the crap out of the neighbors by strafing and demolishing someone’s house, killing him with 20mm cannon fire!

Lets back out for a larger look at the numbers.

In the U.S., we have approximately 55 million adults who are on welfare and we have another 30 million adults who are receiving and are dependent upon Social Security/Old Age benefits. This group is completely under the thumb of the regime. A cancellation of the automatic deposit or a failure to reload the plastic food card would cast any individual revolutionary in this group into the hedge rows to starve. And the government knows exactly who these people are.

Next, look at the number of people with credit card debt. Odds are overwhelming that these people are loyal “consumers” and have no stash of cash or precious metals that could see them through an account deletion. Again any dissident individual in this category could be immobilized and would starve in the hedge rows.

The gold dealers and gold bug websites estimate that only one half of one percent of the population owns physical gold or silver. All large purchases of gold or silver must be made by wire or credit card, so the regime has a pretty good handle on who has substantial stashes of the metal. There may be some extraordinarily disciplined savers that buy a few hundred dollars worth of silver rounds every month with cash, but those are almost certainly confined to those who have no credit card debt, narrowing the pool in which to search for suspects.

Similarly, cash withdrawals from banks are monitored, and any sudden large cash withdrawals must be reported as suspicious by the teller. An army fights on its stomach, as the saying goes, and it would take massive amounts of cash or sales of precious metals in order to finance the movement of a few thousand men to the Pacific Northwest. Why do you think that in the latest “Patriot” Act the government required 1099 filings for sales of precious metals back to dealers?

They are watching for this, and any sudden pattern of cash withdrawals or physical metal sales would be detected and correlated with lists of known dissidents and with the individuals who show up on the carefully mapped neural networks of persons who call or email these known dissidents. The regime doesn’t care what you say, they only need care who you are saying it to.

So it seems completely clear to me that the reasons for the helicopter gun ships, the missile launching drones, and the bombs falling from safe altitudes half way around the world are two-fold.

First and foremost, Iraqis and Afghans are not “consumers” tied to the credit system, and therefore there is no way of controlling them other than by armed force. And second, the broadcast of carefully selected videos of these slaughters serves to impress upon the public mind the terror that the regime, in all its majesty, can inflict upon those who are not addicted to cable TV and going into debt to buy expensive toys and expensive vacations. These slaughters serve the same purpose as was served by the Coliseum in Rome and the gladiatorial amphitheaters constructed throughout the Roman Empire and are, in the eyes of the regime, worth the trillions that the videos cost.

Given the new tools that modern technology and modern consumer behavior have bestowed upon the regime, it seems clear that they can control us without violence, and I would bet big money that they have no intention of ever blasting us wrong-thinking “consumers” with helicopter gun ships or missiles fired from drones.

Even if we were to begin funding a mass movement of men and arms, we would be picked up quietly, most likely on the road or outside a store with little or now show of force and most likely with the same solicitude that Cat Threes are greeted on the highway. After all, there is no way the regime would be stupid enough to start a panic and trigger copy cats by using our pathetically inadequate movement of funds and men to signal that an armed revolution is afoot. To do so would be to allow us to leverage their resources to our purposes.

What would lead any of us to believe that the regime has not learned the lessons of Ruby Ridge and Waco? Americans are not going to be entertained by videos of neighbors who have always left them alone being burned to death or shot to pieces by helicopter gun ships. As long as you are not a “public figure” and have no swastikas or rebel flags on the wall, the regime is unlikely to sacrifice its image by frying you or chopping you into hamburger meat in public. Unlike the helicopter gunship videos from Afghanistan which show the targets only at a distance, such a slaughter on U.S. soil would result in close up cell phone videos of the corpses all over the Internet.

Dead veterans wearing their old dog tags would be a deeply troubling propaganda disaster for the regime.

Now let us back out and look at the puzzle pieces before us from an even more distant perspective.

Each new layer of complexity designed to increase efficiency and reduce costs in our economy increases its fragility and renders it more vulnerable to black swan events. Our just-in-time delivery systems give us about five days worth of food and about ten days of gasoline. Bernanke’s loss of control over long term interest rates—that QE-2 was intended to lower—could lead to a series of financial catastrophes that destabilize our society and leave our population cold and hungry.

The real danger to the regime is a military coup as a result of one or more of these catastrophes.

But a coup by the military would only capture and disable the facade of government—the elected and appointed officials in Washington. In fairness to the military, they do know that they would have to get control of the radio and TV stations, turn off the satellite feeds, and get control of the broadcasts.

But it is very unlikely that the the officer corps would have any idea how to identify and capture the real government of the U.S.—the people in New York and Los Angeles who would oppose their takeover, turn their coup into a propaganda disaster, and likely defeat them unless quickly deprived of their power—which would almost certainly require our help. We are the only ones who could identify the moles who would do everything in their power to subvert the coup and topple the military.

Once we were given access to the computers of the surveillance state, a few well designed database queries would give us a list of the real government, and all of them could have their bank, brokerage and credit cards erased or frozen, which would then immobilize them and cast them back into the lowly and dependent “consumer” status that they have so carefully crafted for us while avoiding a bloody mess and the feelings of revulsion that would turn the people against the military.

Few would have to be detained. For a coup to succeed, one must understand the levers of power that inhere in the surveillance apparatus of the state.

A far more likely scenario is a slow withering away of the regime’s resources, and a gradual abandonment of functions it can no longer afford.

Secession happens slowly, by degrees.

First there are the noticeable stresses and fissures that become visible: rising unemployment, falling real incomes for our children, and government policies that deprive us of secure savings opportunities.

In this case we would be wise to stay where we are and make ourselves useful to local officials: the county sheriff and the elected state representatives, those with the power to quietly and unobtrusively reverse the policies which unfairly burden our people, as we transform ourselves from an educational charity to a welfare organization that helps our people through rough times, provides teachers and schools for the gifted (when these programs are canceled for lack of funds), organizes medical care as the insurance system collapses, and provides emergency food and shelter for those most likely to rebound and contribute. These are all activities that, through selection of recipients, provide help in ways that reverse the wildly dysgenic effects of the welfare state on the fitness of our people.

Already serious strains are showing up in state and local finances that put the local authorities at odds with the Feds. Most of the states have elected representatives who actively solicit educated, unpaid volunteers to serve as legislative analysts. Since most of the TOQ crowd have college degrees, and many have graduate degrees, we are particularly qualified to take advantage of these stresses by helping our elected state legislators.

If you have a Republican state representative, call him or her and volunteer. With every analysis you are asked to do, you prepare an estimate of the impact of the proposed legislation on Republican voters, a useful proxy for Whites capable of being salvaged. This will condition your Republican representative to actually think about the interests of their Republican voters—something which Republicans generally are not inclined to do. Of course, you never mention WN, but you should constantly remind them that a Republican must motivate the base, and that real political motivation requires not just remote benefits to a universalized “everyman”, but benefits us and not the identifiable “them” who oppose us and our interests.

In Texas, we have a part time legislature and those elected to serve in the Texas House (as opposed to the Senate) have no budget for staff beyond a lone secretary/receptionist. It will be the same in most other states. So the opportunity for meaningful activism is there. Carpe diem!

Now is also the time to declare independence from the consumer culture:

• We cancel our cable subscriptions.
• We stop watching professional sports.
• We sell the big house and trade down to a smaller house (and do it early to beat the rush).
• We cut up our credit cards, start saving money, and begin buying silver rounds for cash as insurance against a total collapse of the monetary system.
• We boycott brand-name goods in favor of generics.

In short, we starve the beast.

The good news is that millions of Americans are canceling their cable, and millions more have stopped watching pro sports (the NBA has begun playing White basketball players even though any idiot can see that the black players do what they can to avoid passing them the ball).

We need to recognize and ride these trends. We need to pace our fellow Whites and encourage the above behaviors.

Most of all, we must be good and useful neighbors to our fellow Whites, building awareness and understanding,  always making ourselves helpful and useful.

Of course, it’s still rather dangerous to do so, as I discuss in an article on the A3P website (“Being White in Public“) two A3P people manning a booth in San Juan Capistrano were harassed by a Latino gang. Vastly outnumbered, they had to withdraw.

Peter Brimelow has recently documented the obvious fact that although there was a media-driven moral panic about the Hutaree militia, the left has repeatedly engaged in violence and intimidation:

“Political violence” in the U.S. and throughout the Anglosphere exclusively comes from the Left. Who shut down the recent American Renaissance conference with death threats? (An atrocity, incidentally, that the Washington Post did not deign to report, although it happened in its home town). Who prevents Ann Coulter or Tom Tancredo from speaking on campuses? Has this ever happened to any Left-wing group or speaker?

As I note in the article, Anti-Racist Action is quite upfront about their willingness to resort to violence to keep White advocates off the streets. We have to be willing to be publicly visible. I think one of our first priorities should be to loudly and proudly participate in public events aimed at explicit White advocacy. Doing so in large numbers would make it very difficult for the left to shut it down.

The encouraging thing is that the number of intelligent, articulate young people who are willing to do that. These people have somehow grasped the depth of the problem faced by their people in the teeth of wall-to-wall propaganda directed against White identity that they have endured throughout their school years and the enormous social pressures they face as adults against advocating for their people.

Another very promising group of young people is Youth for Western Civilization — an organization aimed at college students that certainly deserves financial support as they try to fund a full-time staff. (Needless to say, A3P is also deserving of financial support and for the same reasons.) Kevin DeAnna, the founder and president, is a very articulate and effective spokesman for the preservation of our culture and traditions. And he understands that in the end it’s about the people who will make up the country.

His excellent video, linked here, shows the true face of the immigrant invasion: Ethnocentric and unassimilable non-Whites with historical hatreds against Europeans; commitment to far left ideologies rather than constitutional government and the rule of law; trampling on the American flag while waving their own flags; minority activist organizations like La Raza, often with an explicit ideology of conquering the US for their people — well-funded by corporate America and leftist foundations; unions of public service employees such as the Service Employees International Union, led by Andy Stern, that are committed to big government and non-White immigration; and sell-out politicians like Dick Armey who are attempting to influence the Tea Party movement to welcome immigration amnesty as somehow good for the Republican Party.

As the film shows, Armey is indeed a sell-out, receiving huge fees from pro-immigration activist groups. One of our biggest problems is that it is financially lucrative for Whites to become whores for the interests of people who hate them. Funding organizations like A3P and Youth for Western Civilization means that a critical mass of young people have a viable career option in what amounts to pro-White activism.

As DeAnna says toward the end of the film, if the Republican Party accepts amnesty, it really means the end of the country. He is absolutely right. And the sad thing is that even if amnesty is defeated, it will simply slow down the process of White displacement. Unless the illegals are deported and legal immigration is stopped, White America is doomed. That is the position of American Third Position.

The Occidental Observer Blog, April 3, 2010

“In the final instance civilization is always saved by a platoon of soldiers.”

–Spengler

We are soldiers who serve the cause of Europe’s Renaissance — a cause as pure, hard, and imperious as our banners.

We are soldiers because we refuse the reformist tinkering of the dominant system, which — through its electoral and party committees, its partisan venalities, and its parliamentary charade — endeavors to ensure the self-regulation and recycling of the corrupt elites controlling the existing plutocratic system.

We are soldiers because we believe that the salvation of Europe’s family of nations depends on the destruction of the present system.

We are soldiers who serve and not merely talk, we reflect and we act.

We serve the cause of politics in the sense of Julien Freund [France's leading Schmittian scholar], knowing that the essence of action is action itself.

Our trifold praxeological, destining, and eschatological understanding of politics transcends the purely operational, pragmatic, and secular policies of modern politics. Going further, we think that propaganda by ideas is a chimera and that ideas come from action and not the reverse.

This is why we embrace the revolutionary dialectic of Carlo Pisacane, Enrico Malatesta, Carlo Cafiero, Paul Brousse, and José Antonio, who advocated the propaganda of the deed — the deed pregnant with ideas.

Our soldierly faith and duty is wedded to the national-revolutionary ideal that seeks a new political, aristocratic, hierarchical, anti-democratic, and anti-egalitarian order, situated within a European continental frame, geopolitically self-centered, disconnected from the global economy, independent of our present Atlanticist servitude, and rooted in a Eurocultural concept of civilization based on the values of blood and soil.

We are soldiers because we see history as a clashing dialectic between antagonistic forces, whose constituent elements are peoples and nations.

For conflict and struggle, as the work of Stéphane Lupasco and Max Planck demonstrates, are inherent to every system.

History is thus an endless battle between peoples organized around their distinct cultures and communities, each, consciously or unconsciously, motivated by a desire to expand and dominate.

As soldiers, we fight for the restoration of the poltical principle in the noble sense of politea, imperium, and auctoritas, and in function of Evola’s anagogy, which is capable of impregnating peoples with those specific metapolitical, spiritual, and anti-materialist values that ensure the masses’ spontaneous adhesion.

For us, as for Carl Schmitt, politics is that privileged arena in which the enemy and the friend is clearly designated.

This is why we reject the administrative or managerial concept favored by party politicians, who promote a state sustained by hedonistic frenzies — a state whose subjects are cretinized and emasculated, manipulated by consumer society and the media — subjected in this way to a whoring enterprise which organizes, directs, and patronizes them in order to dissolve all revolutionary effort in the solvent of a fake, hyper-festive order of permanent entertainment.

As soldiers, we advocate the ideal of a “polemological” state charged, above all else, with defending the survival and growth of Europe’s power from assaults by American hegemonism, radical Islam, and the extra-European colonization of our ancient lands.  In this sense, we categorically reject the social-contractual conception of the nation and seek to restore it as that mystical body passed from one generation to another.

The nation for us remains a determinism, a necessity, a force, and a will.

We are soldiers because we believe that war-like activity is the highest degree by which civilizations become complex and by which history’s primordial lever raises motherlands and city-states.

War in this Heraclitian sense has animated international relations from the time of Thucydides and from that of Machiavelli.

War is the highest expression of the state, as Hegel shows; it evokes its greatest consciousness and its greatest efficacy.

The state is and remains above all a war machine and all its other functions are subordinate to it, even if the bourgeois and managerial conception of the dominant democratic state has patched together a certain order from the ruling delinquency and its corrupting prosperity.

The international authority of the state is as great as its ability to inflict harm, and history shows that only those attached to mos majorum (ancestral law) and to a conservative opposition to the centrifugal forces succeed in attaining the aureole sovereignty of military glory.

This is the way it was in the Rome of Augustus and Diocletian, in the Russia of Peter the Great and Lenin, in the Islam of Mehmet Ali and Mustapha Kemal, in the China of Huang-di and Mao Zedong, each of whom won domestic and foreign victories before daring to impose the profound revolutionary transformation in which they believed.

As political soldiers, we seek to restore the ideal of a political vocation that transcends contemporary economism and to re-legitimate the ideal of those exceptional men who articulate and embody an ethic of conviction, responsibility, and duty.

Within the bourgeois democracies governing and offending us, there thrives a class of professional politicians and bureaucrats, of demagogues and opportunists of all sorts, whose mercenary use of high political office is motivated solely by reasons of personal gain or career.

As soldiers, we will make the necessary sweep that sends these impostors, these betrayers of our great European political ideals, to the devil.  And in this we aspire to see emperor and proletarian, animated by the same revolutionary faith, marching shoulder to shoulder: paradigm of a new heroism.

We uphold that there is an essential contingency between the state of exception and the essence of political sovereignty, constituting the point of disequilibrium separating public law from political fact.

We advocate a state of exception in order to establish the state as the emanation of a new order, as a means of terminating the general anomie and the reigning disorder.

The syntagma “force of law” rests on a long tradition of Roman and medieval law constituted for efficacy and loyalty.

We would like to restore an operational perspective invested with the archetype of the Roman juridical institution — the iustitium – enacted whenever the Roman Senate was informed of a situation that might compromise the Republic — a senatus consultum ultimum dictating measures necessary to ensure the state’s security.

This way of dealing with states of emergency harped back to the ancient concept of sol-stitium: to those instances when the law came to a stop, like the sun at its solstice, [and where the question of sovereignty -- the question of who holds ultimate authority -- was forthrightly posed].

Above all, we are political soldiers because we are militants.

Etymologically, “militants” refer to the theological distinction between the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant.

An analogy can be made between the political militant and the believer, whose truths inform all aspects of his being, especially in its essence and totality

The militant fights, attacks, and pays with his person for the triumph of his ideals.

The verb “to militate” comes from the Latin militari, which means “soldiers” (in the plural), to whom belonged a Church (an army) that required a spirit of discipline, self-sacrifice, and abnegation.

This is why militancy is at the heart of our political struggle.

The ideal militant for us must be a revolutionary, capable of dialectically linking his theoretical and practical knowledge to a global understanding of the society in which he lives.  He thus voluntarily submits himself to a disciplined routine, realizing in it a unity of theory and practice.

As political soldiers, we do not believe that evolution is automatic or that revolutions are spontaneous, because there are no fatalities in politics or in economics; the dominant, liberal, capitalist order well knows how to regenerate itself and how to overcome contradictions in order to survive.

The masses too are not solely exploited, they are mentally manipulated and alienated.

There is no revolutionary advance without a process of development, culminating in a struggle between warring peoples (lutte des peuples).

These struggles are manifested in many forms, in sectional or local struggles (at the level of the enterprise, the region, etc.)

They may appear spontaneous but they are linked to a changing consciousness and to the effort of militants who rise from below as they are directed from above.

Rank and file struggles, however exemplary, cannot accomplish a global change of the system, because such struggles address only certain lived particulars, products of the larger social complex, [not the system itself].

Instead, they need to be linked and coordinated in the form of a global, ideological vanguardist action, capable of posing issues from a system-wide perspective. It is necessary, then, to avoid an overly rigid elitism and an unserious reformism — in order to ensure a dialectical liaison between the global struggle and the local struggle, between the political action of the vanguard and the mass movement.

As political soldiers we advocate a revolution that brings about not merely structural change in the economy and the state, but also in the spirit, an ontological change that will lead to the formation a new man, free of bourgeois individualism and egoism.

This “total revolution” will affect the relations and ethics regulating the larger significance of our quotidian life.

The revolution we advocate will be a return to origins, a revolving back, that establishes an authoritarian state-order, a managed economy, and an exclusive conception of identity — a revolution carried out in harmony with the distinct mentality of European peoples and in accord with a principle of homology that purges institutions and mentalities of alien, distorting elements.

As political soldiers, we are irredeemably imbued with a tragic conception of life, knowing, with Alfred Weber, that every superior order ends up perpetuating a certain chaos as it enhances its power.

Tragic because we are conscious of the imponderable grandeur of the universe and the world and of the imperfection and finitude of human nature.

In face of this constant and paradoxical metaphysics, we advocate a re-enchantment of the world and an aestheticization of the state, as envisaged by German romantics like Goethe, Novalis, Schlegel, and Müller — conscious, as we are, that the illuminist ideas of the French Revolution [the liberal revolution of 1789], along with the general process of secularization, has since disenchanted the world in Max Weber’s sense.

We want, like Novalis, our revolution to become an organic, poetical totality in which the new state is the existential and aesthetic embodiment of our ideal of human perfection.

And once we complete this task, we will go somewhere else, farther away, always farther, way over there near our gods.

Source: “Pourquoi sommes-nous des soldats politiques?” (2003)

http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/tag/soldats%20politiques

Many would put themselves at grave risk of being fired from their employment, as the examples of Sam Francis, Kevin Lamb, Michael Regan and countless others show.

Some organizations, as the erudite Wilmot Robertson observed, consist of nothing more than a weird collection of undercover government agents, informers and oddballs.  I recall attending some National Alliance meetings several years ago and thinking that some of the attendees mirrored his observation.

I think this is a very harmful state of affairs.  Some deal with “activus interruptus” by simply drifting away.  Others may deal with it through foolhardy outbursts that accomplish nothing.

One acute problem is this:  there are countless implicitly white efforts that never go anywhere (conservatism in general being the chief example) because they don’t state the issues clearly.  And then there are the kamikazee pro-white efforts that never go anywhere precisely because they do state the issues clearly (the National Alliance might be an example).  Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.  We’re too hot to handle, but we can’t stay silent.

I don’t have a handy solution to this problem, but I wanted to name it.  I thought “activus interruptus” was a fitting phrase.  And I wanted to throw some thoughts out.

1. I don’t think it’s true that implicitly white activism, like being active in the GOP, is totally useless.  I recommend erring on the side of doing something instead of nothing.  If all you can safely do is participate in the GOP or donate to the NRA (because your husband is a federal judge, for instance), that’s all you can safely do.  Don’t quit doing that just because it’s not explicitly white.  Of course, you shouldn’t lull yourself into thinking that’s it:  look for any and all opportunities to push and persuade.

2. Inside all areas of life, there are opportunities to advance the white cause.  If you’re elected to the local school board, you can vote for the less-PC history textbook, for instance.  Small beer, sure — but it’s something.

3. Don’t assume that joining a group is the same thing as advancing the cause.  Or starting a group.  Whites feel compelled to create groups with names and then run a flag up the pole.  Are the groups having an influence?  Sometimes, individual action — like running for office — might do more good.  Let me emphasize:  groups are always going to disappoint you.  The Democrats, as an organization, are very disappointing to many individual Democrats.  This doesn’t stop them, however.

4. On the other hand, you might ask yourself whether certain types of activity really are that risky.  We sometimes buy too much of the notion that we’re so marginal that we really do need to “crawl under a rock”, as our opponents like to tell us.  Run through the possible consequences and ask what’s likely to happen, or not.  If you’re called to step out there more, step out.  If you need to rearrange your life in certain ways to make yourself more protected as an activist, do it.  Think long-range.  Self-employment is an obvious answer to the risk of being fired.

5. Use the system.  Yes, the system is against us.  Our goal is to change it.  But that doesn’t mean we can’t use it to our benefit in the meantime.  I think the legal process is a good example of this.  Don’t equate use of the system with validation of the system.

6. Don’t worry that you’re being watched.  Of course you are being watched — by “civil rights” ninnies, radical leftists, the media, the government.  But don’t get too excited about this.  The government doesn’t like anyone who rattles the status quo, and they infiltrate all kinds of radical groups.  The government probably had the “civil rights” movement totally infiltrated, but it was ultimately successful.

7. Keep moving.  Don’t become static.  Things like cancellation of AmRen are a blow, but that should be your cue to get flexible and think, write, speak, meet, connive, conspire, strategize and maybe do a little (legal) sabotage of your own.

8. De-emotionalize the white cause.  In the end, it’s about inevitable group conflict and how we as whites will deal with it.  If you’re convinced that whites as a group have a right to self-determination, you’re there.

We need changed minds and changed policies.  No bigger changes are going to happen without that groundwork.

The Occidental Observer, March 15, 2010

“The best way to make a movement, if you really care, is to courageously follow and show others how to follow. When you find a lone nut doing something great, have the guts to be the first person to stand up and join in.”

Sivers is not pro-white, and presumably not even conservative (statistical odds). He is a musician and music entrepreneur with more than a dash of idealism—although his video isn’t about that.

In 1997 he founded an online music store called CD Baby to sell his own CD. But he invited other independent musicians to sell through his website as well. His utopianism, or idealism, can be seen in the ground rules he set for his new company, which he ran from his bedroom in Woodstock, New York: “The musician will be paid every week. The musician will get the full name and address of everyone who purchases their music. The musician will never be removed from the system for not selling enough. The site will never accept advertising or paid-placement.”

Sivers’ idealism manifested itself again when he sold his company for $22 million in 2008. He first transferred ownership of the firm to a charitable trust for music education. The trust, rather than Sivers, then actually sold the business. He did this because “I already have enough” (“Why I gave away my company to charity,” Dec. 4, 2009).

The Dancing Man and His First Followers

“Leadership Lessons” is a poorly-shot, out-of-focus home video containing no sound other than Sivers’ narration. It shows a shirtless young white man dancing on the edge of a crowd of twentysomethings on a hillside at what appears to be a music fest. First one young man joins in, then another, and very quickly the whole crowd rushes forward.

But it is Sivers’ narration that is the eye-opener. He brilliantly distills the essential dynamic of the scene as he perceives it. Among his observations are the following:

“A leader needs the guts to stand alone and look ridiculous.”

The first follower joins in

“Now comes the first follower with a crucial role: he publicly shows everyone how to follow. Notice the leader embraces him as an equal, so it’s not about the leader anymore—it’s about them, plural.”

This first follower is seen on tape signaling others, encouraging them to join: “It takes guts to be a first follower! You stand out and brave ridicule, yourself. Being a first follower is an under-appreciated form of leadership. The first follower transforms a lone nut into a leader.”

“The 2nd follower is a turning point: it’s proof the first has done well. Now it’s not a lone nut, and it’s not two nuts. Three is a crowd.”

“A movement must be public. Make sure outsiders see more than just the leader. Everyone needs to see the followers, because new followers emulate followers—not the leader. Now here come 2 more, then 3 more. Now we’ve got momentum. This is the tipping point! Now we’ve got a movement!”

Finally, Sivers makes an extremely important point. “As more people jump in, it’s no longer risky. They won’t be ridiculed, they won’t stand out, and they will be part of the in-crowd, if they hurry. Over the next minute you’ll see the rest who prefer to be part of the crowd, because eventually they’d be ridiculed for not joining.”

Listen to Sivers’s excellent narration, and closely observe the behavior of the dancers and crowd in the video that accompanies it.

The Crowd

Let’s think about this a minute. The validity of Sivers’s observations is readily apparent. But qualifications are also necessary.

What sort of group are we dealing with? To borrow Kevin MacDonald’s term, it’s a “face-to-face” group. It is not an impersonal, atomized television or newspaper or Internet audience, for example. So there are dynamics specific to that fact.

The group is larger than a “small group” (a jury, say, or the 6-8 participants in one of Jewish psychologist Solomon Asch’s conformity experiments), but smaller than a mass audience, like attendees at the Super Bowl. It qualifies as a “crowd” in the terminology of French psychologist Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931), who examined group behavior. Different psychological and behavioral dynamics apply to each of these distinct categories of face-to-face groups.

What about race and gender? The portion of the crowd we see appears to be white by a large margin. The dancer (in Sivers’s terminology, the “leader”) is also white—and male. But, interestingly, the all-important first and second followers—also males—appear to be non-white (though not black) as far as we can tell. Why two minority members in an overwhelmingly white crowd should be the first to step forward is unclear. On the other hand, it does not seem wholly irrelevant either. The very important third and fourth joiners are white males. The “3 more” that immediately jump in include the first females, also white.

The Thug

There is no “Thug” in the video, as there is in our real world movement. A Thug is anyone, anything, or any set of rules that effectively erects a barrier between the “lone nut”/leader (which could also be small, marginalized groups or “sets of individuals”) and potential followers.

The Thug possesses the all-important capability of shielding the leader from the sight and consciousness of the crowd, of distorting or misinterpreting his message in the minds of the crowd, of ridiculing the leader and early followers, of jailing, killing, censoring or otherwise removing the leader and his followers, and of threatening or punishing members of the crowd.

The Thug, in other words, guarantees that there will be enormous risk—near-certain risk—that otherwise-motivated individuals will be ridiculed, stand out, and never be part of the in-crowd if they make any move whatsoever to join the leader or contribute to his legitimacy.

The Thug has innumerable mechanisms at its disposal to accomplish its objectives. Among them are the media of mass communication. To quote academic writers on cultural transmission: “The media act as a powerful type of one-to-many cultural transmission [a single source sending a single message to a mass audience] that can effect rapid cultural change.” On top of that, “many-to-one” transmission [a different type of transmission] consists of many persons or institutions “transmitting the same idea or practice to one individual,” resulting in social or peer pressure. “Because this many-to-one transmission is concerted, with every transmitter giving the same signal, this group effect provokes powerful conformism.” (Stone and Lurquin, A Genetic and Cultural Odyssey [2005], 101.)

The Thug is super-sensitive to crowd dynamics. Recently the ADL and SPLC, powerful racist groups with deep and extensive ties to the government, have busied themselves erecting a barrier between white racialists and the conservative Tea Party movement. They will stop at nothing to forestall a tipping point like the one depicted in the video.

For example, the SPLC instructs government officials and other elites that the “anger” and “rage” of conservatives (overwhelmingly white tea partiers), whom it paints as “revolutionaries,” hearken back to the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building that “left 168 men, women and children dead.” “The Oklahoma attack was the culmination of political anger against the government. Today the fury is building again,” the SPLC slyly insinuates. In part this is due to “the country’s changing demographics.” Tea partiers are “laced with extreme-right ideas, conspiracy theories and racism.”

The SPLC describes tea party groups as “nascent.” The whole purpose of the organization’s vociferous defamation of tea partiers, of its massive assault on the fragile, struggling movement’s freedom of speech and assembly, is to prevent the outcome that Sivers’s video so powerfully depicts.

The Lesson

Collin Wynter, dancin' fool

“Followers” are also leaders! They set a powerful example for others when they stand up for the values they believe in, no matter how unpopular. With stakes so high, every person has a moral duty to step forward and join the dance.

For more than fifty years, the menacing Thug has jealously retained sole power to mediate reality. More than any other factor, The Thug has thwarted every attempt by Americans and other Europeans to halt the downward spiral of our historic people into planned oblivion.

If enough people join the dance, the bad guys will get a taste of their own medicine. Social change can occur swiftly and unexpectedly once the tipping point is reached.

As I have said repeatedly, the main reason people go to these conferences is for the networking, camaraderie, friendships, and behind the scenes action. I’m told some attendees have found mates there. The real conference takes place in the casual conversation that goes on in the breaks between speakers, at lunch, at the bar, at dinner, and after hours in the hotel rooms. The scheduled lineup of speakers is really just an excuse for geographically dispersed racialists to gather in a central location. It is a shame that Amren only puts on this show every two years.

We all know by now that public conferences have serious drawbacks. They attract anti-fascist scum who poison the environment and pressure hotels to cancel our reservations. Anyone can attend a public conference. This includes people who many of us would prefer to exclude. Antifa spies can attend, snap damaging photos, and use ritual shaming and guilt by association to damage the careers of high profile attendees. Lots of people don’t attend the public conferences for this reason. All of these factors combine to depress turnout.

A private conference has none of these disadvantages. The private model also retains the advantages that make a conference worth the expense of attending. If I were organizing a national conference, I wouldn’t even consider the public model. I would only invite people I know and trust and “known entities” who comrades can vouch for. The 2010 Amren conference was forced to adopt this model at the last minute. It is a superior model anyway, and I hope future conferences will be organized along these lines. Next time around this should be done well in advance.

The catch of the private model is getting new people involved in Amren and the broader White Advocacy movement. Lots of good people show up at the biannual public conferences who don’t have a record of previous involvement in the pro-White scene. They don’t know anyone. Quite often their racial views are still evolving. I have two friends who attended previous Amren conferences at this stage of their development. We need a new mechanism for getting newbies to the national conference while filtering out potential spies and saboteurs.

Local clubs are the solution to this problem. Ideally, we could create Amren clubs in every state of the union and the major metropolitan areas. These private clubs could host monthly events at local restaurants, state parks, or historical sites. There is an endless number of potential meeting places for this type of social networking. It is my understanding that the Chicago group has been doing this for years. New recruits could meet established racialists in their local area. These established racialists could then decide whether to recommend inviting them to the private national conference.

The networking, camaraderie, friendships, and behind the scenes action that go on at the biannual conference, which only lasts a few days a year, could potentially go on around the clock all year long. The only thing better than the biannual gathering is having racialist friends in your local area, on your college campus, or within driving distance. OD is taking its first steps in this direction with the Virginia Network. We already have a few local people who are interested in organizing a regional book club and touring the local historical sites. In particular, I can’t wait to get the time to hike the Blue Ridge Mountains and go kayaking in the spring.

I’m learning how to do online social networking with Pip Pockets. We’re gradually learning the basics of Twitter, Facebook, Digg, and YouTube. We plan to fully exploit all of these mediums to amplify our message and increase the size of the OD audience. We’re also going to take a hard look at podcasts. I’ve joked around several times now about adding a “Radio Free Virginia” section to OD after the site redesign. Jim Giles is correct when he says that radio and video are more powerful than the written word. Most Americans don’t have the patience to read more than a few lines of text. This limitation alone severely restricts the size of our potential audience.

Amren could profit by moving in this direction as well. They should have a daily updated WordPress blog and Facebook page. Twitter is still a mystery to me, but Stuff Black People Don’t Like is building a huge following there. I’m told that every journalist in America is on Twitter now. Young people love YouTube. There are all sorts of missed opportunities to exploit with video. All of these social networking mediums could be exploited to organize racialists into a web of real world state and regional groups. Personal interaction in the real world will drain a lot of the poisonous acrimony, conspiracy mongering, character assassination, fantasism, and backbiting that prevails in racialist circles on the internet.

Just some food for thought. If Jared Taylor plays his cards right, I think Amren could emerge from all this stronger and more influential than ever before.

Occidental Dissent, February 28, 2010

On the blogs and email lists I see essentially three strategies:

(a) Do not change, keep trying to hold the event in private facilities. Problem is, the current system is rigged against us. We are sitting ducks for these thugs.

(b) Buy up land somewhere and hold an event on private land. Fine for small invitation-only gatherings, but for events larger than a dozen it strikes me as pure fantasy. Even if it could be arranged, it sounds creepy and isolated. When people go to conferences they want to be close to restaurants and other amenities.

(c) Hold the event in a public venue. This is the best of the three, because it puts government into the picture as a mediator. However, it does not address how to deal with terrorism from groups like the One People’s Project. It is also vulnerable to government hostility towards the organizers.

I would like to offer another scenario. Before describing it I need to define the various components of an academic conference.

Speakers: Good speakers motivate people to pay a registration fee and travel.

Lecture facilities: Conferences provide a place for those attending to gather in one place and listen and ask questions in real time.

Comfortable lodging: People attending like to stay in an attractive, comfortable location, close to the lectures.

Face to face networking: It is often said that the real activity at conferences is between sessions. Conferences give people who share a profession, academic discipline, or interest an opportunity to meet and talk in person.

The standard approach to organizing a conference within our community is for one person or organization to reserve space for attendees to gather and listen to speakers in real-time (components 1 and 2), and also “book” a block of rooms (components 3 and 4 above) in the same hotel for attendees, perhaps at some discounted room rate. The terrorism (yes, terrorism) against the organizers of the 2010 AmRen Conference in D.C and the 2008 EURO Conference in Memphis demonstrate how pro-White events can be disrupted and even canceled through intimidation and threats of violence towards the management of the hosting facility. We can expect that the American Third Position will encounter the exact same problem when they try to stage a conference.

A New Model is Needed

A modernization of our approach to staging a conference through thoughtful application of commodity technology can preserve the essential nature of the conference experience yet make it impenetrable to the kind of tired, predictable harassment we have come to expect. The vulnerable point in the current model is booking the lecture venue. This is where our enemies attack. Our enemies focus on smearing the reputation of the person or people organizing the event, then forcing the hotel management into a “are you with or against the White Supremacists?” decision. Hotel management caves in to the pressure every time.

The way to make that vulnerability disappear completely is to remove the hotel management from the equation. Migrate the lecture component to commodity collaboration technology called a “Webinar” (or “webcast”). The model that I am proposing is actually a hybrid: traditional conference hotel gathering (face-to-face networking must be preserved), with an embedded Webinar. If we eliminate the need for a physical lecture space we can decentralize room reservations, too. In fact, in the model I propose, the conference organizers have no contact at all with the hotel management. The hotel management does not even know that a conference is taking place within its walls.

Webinars work as follows. Attendees register for the event. In exchange for registering they are sent a URL (and optionally a unique code) that they paste into their Web browser at a designated time of the event. A webinar presenter can broadcast to dozens all the way up to thousands depending on the software used (see note below on service options). Browser-based Webinars are now common in business as an alternative to travel.

Hypothetical Example

I will now illustrate through a hypothetical example how this could work. Let’s call this hybrid conference, EURO 2010.

David Duke announces that on Saturday, September 4 (Labor Day weekend), EURO 2010 will take place in Memphis. Speakers will include Duke; James Edwards of The Political Cesspool radio program; Greg Johnson, editor of The Occidental Quarterly; Bill Johnson, Chairman of the American Third Position; and others. The conference program starts at 9:00 am and ends at 5:00 pm. Registration is only $50 because the costs and risk of organizing an event have been radically lowered. Registrants receive a short list of Memphis area hotels, all clustered within a short distance of each other, where they are encouraged to stay during the conference. Why more than one hotel? It’s optional. More than one hotel makes it even harder to pinpoint an attack on us. Furthermore, if one hotel has no vacancies, it directs attendees to reserve a room at one of the other options. The total size of the conference is self-scaling. Registrants also receive a lapel pin that has printed on it a distinctive but non-controversial symbol.

Actually, the conference begins on September 3, at a local attraction. It could be Graceland. It could be someplace close to the hotels. EURO 2010 organizers choose a mid-morning walking tour of downtown Memphis, starting at Confederate Park. No event permit is necessary from the city because the quiet gathering is informal, just a starting place. (Alternatively, a formal permit could be requested if the organizers and attendees want to stage a public media event.)

There are several benefits to the gathering. The walking tour gives attendees an opportunity to meet up with old friends and perhaps make arrangements to watch tomorrow’s conference events in small groups. A nice secondary outcome of the gathering is to give people an opportunity to be out in the fresh air with like-minded folks, in a public place that has historical significance. If the location itself holds special meaning to European Americans, as Confederate Park in Memphis does for some of us, then the event itself adds to the lore of the place. (For a growing list of other places special to European Americans, review the entries on my blog, ourgazetteer.org.)

At 9:00 am Saturday morning attendees turn on their laptop computers and log into the conference Webinar. Folks without laptops join with others who do have a computer — sharing resources encourages collaboration and friendship building. Duke starts the conference off with a talk on the First Amendment. In addition to audio, Duke makes use of the Webinar application’s ability to broadcast a video feed from his computer’s built-in webcam. To facilitate two-way interaction, the Webinar software allows participants to send in questions via a chat window. Q&A is also possible via telephone. A moderator helps Duke to sort through the questions. It should be emphasized that Duke could be anywhere giving his talk. He could be in one of the three conference hotels or he could be across town at a friend’s house.

As it turns out, Duke and all but one of the speakers is broadcasting from the same hotel suite. Some people registered for the conference are not even in Memphis: Moscow, London, Los Angeles — all around the world. Attendees outside of Memphis miss out on the full experience, although this problem could offset that by getting together with friends and watching in a small regional group. During his talk, Duke suggests that conference attendees log into Twitter in a separate computer window or on their cell phones and use the hash tag #EURO2010 to post comments and links. This twitter feed serves as a public conference side channel. Notice the general shift towards decentralization. At the end of the talk Duke mentions that he will be eating lunch at the BBQ restaurant across the street if anybody wants to join him.

Following two more speakers, the conference pauses for a lunch break. A generous two hours offers attendees plenty of opportunity to talk over their meals. An incident breaks out at the BBQ restaurant. Jeffry Imm appears with a couple of cronies as Duke is about to walk inside. Imm starts to verbally assault Duke, but something interesting happens. Two large groups of conference attendees arrive and immediately stand between Imm and Duke. They repeatedly pepper Imm with insults: “loser,” “get a job,” “idiot” while inching him towards the curb until Imm backs down and slithers off humiliated. And every bit of it is recorded on video by a half dozen different people — attendees are strongly encouraged to carry some kind of video recording device. Within an hour the video is uploaded to YouTube, the link is posted to the conference Twitter feed and several blogs. Imm swallowed Duke’s bait, and the hook.

In the afternoon session, one speaker chooses to reduce the size of his video feed in order to make more room for a slide show that accompanies his talk, to emphasize and illustrate the talking points he is trying to convey. The other speakers stick to the talking head style, including Nick Griffin, who logs in from London. After the last speaker of the day, attendees disburse into the lobbies of the hotels and make arrangements to meet over dinner and drinks.

The continuum from implicit to explicit whiteness is represented in the hotel lobby. Some participants wear their conference lapel pins; others do not provide a single clue that they are registered for the conference. Texting between cell phones is used by many to facilitate real-time communication. Of course there are spies in attendance, but it hardly matters. They have no easy target to attack. What the spies see around them in the lobby are hotel guests. Conference attendees are energized by the cloak and dagger mischief.

Experiment

Keep our enemies off balance. I can envision variations of the Webinar model; for example, a Webinar could be used as a backup plan, in the event that a traditional lecture venue contract is cancelled. Or the morning session could be conducted through the Webinar, and right before lunch the location of a large afternoon meeting room is revealed.

I recommend running two or more half-day, invitation-only events. These experiments will help organizers work through the details of operating the Webinar software, try out Twitter, carefully consider how much information to release and when, etc. Through practice and attention, better microphones, cameras, and lights can be integrated to lend a more professional appearance to the Webinars.

With creativity and commodity technology it is impossible to stop a pro-White conference.

Webinar Options

DimDim (http://www.dimdim.com/): $79/month for meetings with up to 1000 attendees.

GoToWebinar (http://www.gotomeeting.com/fec/webinar/gotowebinar_pricing): $499/month.

WebEx (http://WebEx.com): call for price.

Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro (http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobatconnectpro/): call for price.

The Occidental Observer, February 26, 2010

Sheldon’s strategy of using Webinar technology would probably work — provide the benefits of a pro-White conference without drawing the attention of their Leftist opponents. It is an excellent prescription for a group that must remain underground in order not to expose its members to the usual costs of being associated with White advocacy (job loss, etc.).

The downside is that pro-White advocates would be implicitly accepting their status as an underground movement. Such meetings could essentially go on forever without effecting real change in the direction we all want.

It seems to me that we have to get above-ground visibility. We have to make noise and have a public presence if we are going to make real progress. We have to get in people’s faces and have the courage of our convictions. Hence perhaps Nick Griffin’s “frequently voiced despair over U.S. politics, given its lack of white nationalist parties” (in the WSJ article).

This is one thing that attracted me to American Third Position. The young men who are the backbone of the party go out onto the streets with signs and pamphlets advocating deporting illegals and other issues related to pro-White advocacy. They are not afraid of people spewing in-your-face hostility at them. (Guess what? You may be called a “racist” or a “Nazi.”) They do not hide away in secret conferences or restrict themsleves to discussing issues among themselves on private email lists.

Quite clearly, the left is well aware that public visibility would be the beginning of the end for their dominance of public discourse. That’s why the mainstream media has given almost no coverage to the cancellations of AmRen or Nick Griffin — the only exception I have come across is a brief mention in the Wall Street Journal. The article is noteworthy for not mentioning anything about the obvious implications for public discourse in America. The tone of the article is that some meetings of far right crazies got shut down — expressed in the same manner as a story on the cancellation of a meeting of the local school board because of a snow storm. Imagine the outrage if meetings of La Raza or the NAACP were shut down with similar tactics.

Meetings at privately owned facilities are problematic because businesses are likely to cave under the pressure of the left and I suppose that is their right as property owners.  Some people have suggested using government-owned facilities because denial by such a facility would raise First Amendment issues. I think this is a good idea. And we should be ready with attorneys willing to argue on our side if there are attempts at disruptions or if the government attempts to cancel the event for reasons like “public safety.” And we need security forces; and ways to identify the people who are doing the disrupting.

And it should all be out in the open.

The Occidental Observer Blog, February 26, 2010

For Immediate Release:
February 8, 2010
Jordan Zammit
Founder and President,
MSU Sons of Liberty
MSUSonsOfLiberty@gmail.com

East Lansing, Mich.—The newly established and registered student organization at Michigan State University, the Sons of Liberty, will host Nick Griffin as a speaker from noon to 1:30 p.m. on February 18, 2010, to discuss how the fraud of man-made global warming is used by liberals to attack the sovereignty of nation-states. Griffin is the chairman of the British National Party—the fourth largest and fastest growing political party in the United Kingdom—and he is an elected parliamentarian of the European Parliament and current candidate for the U.K. Parliament.

Michigan State University will be Griffin’s first public event; he will also speak at Kenyon College in Gambier, OH, at the American Renaissance conference in Washington, D.C., and he is expected to make an appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C., as well.

Griffin is no stranger to MSU, for on October 28, 2008, Griffin was hosted by the now defunct chapter of the Young Americans for Freedom and attempted to deliver a speech on the threat of Islam and mass immigration. During the event, left-wing agitators attempted to drown out his message by shouting him down and by pulling fire alarms after beating an effigy of him outside. Immediately following his speech, a mob of armed leftists attacked people sympathetic with Griffin’s message with baseball bats, sticks, and canes (http://statenews.com/index.php/article/2007/10/police_brief_103007). The event was briefly covered on FOX New’s The Hannity & Colmes Show.

Jordan Zammit, a political science/pre-law freshman and founder and president of the Sons of Liberty, said, “It is an honor to host a distinguished speaker like Nick Griffin. His views will greatly contribute to the marketplace of ideas which is a fundamental aspect of a collegiate education.” The Sons of Liberty was named after the secretive pre-Revolutionary War group of American patriots—including Paul Revere, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, and John and Samuel Adams—who advocated for freedom and sovereignty.

There’s a great article in Time magazine by Amanda Ripley (I wrote a review of her great book, The Unthinkable in the City Journal) on one of the most under covered security lessons of 9/11:  that an aware citizenry can defend itself.  It ends with this telling para which depicts the government reasserting its authority to prop up its legitimacy:

After the passengers [heroes] of Flight 253 deplaned in Detroit, they were held in the baggage area for more than five hours until FBI agents interviewed them. They were not allowed to call their loved ones. They were given no food. When one of the pilots tried to use the bathroom before a bomb-sniffing dog had finished checking all the carry-on bags, an officer ordered him to sit down, according to passenger Alain Ghonda, who thought it odd. “He was the pilot. If he wanted to do anything, he could’ve crashed the plane.” It was a metaphor for the rest of the country: Thank you for saving the day. Now go sit down.

The same spirit of being in control, regardless of government inaction/incompetence, should be true for other aspects of our lives under a similar assault by a global system run amok.What am I talking about?  Our economic and societal future.  If it’s not clear to you already after seeing a global economic meltdown caused by the gluttony of financial parasites, it should be.  But it’s worse than that.  The entire system has failed to produce anything resembling improvement in our lives for years:

• Median male incomes today are the same as they were in 1974 in the US (and likely all over the western world).  No progress has been made despite a doubling of productivity and massive top line GDP growth. Worse, given that female incomes aren’t on par with male incomes yet, the typical American family makes much less per hour worked than in 1974.
• All of the requirements for entry into the middle class are now private expenses.  From health care to a college education, if you can’t afford the minimum (let alone high quality versions), you aren’t allowed entry.  Worse, those expenses are spiraling out of control at rates many times the rate of inflation.  Nothing is being done to address this.
• The system is geared to make us fail.  Not only has outsourcing/off-shoring just started (everything that can be moved offshore to take advantage of the arbitrage opportunity in wage disparities between western and workers in developing countries will be) we are being laden with un-repayable debt. To wit: there’s been NO job growth in the last decade (despite tens of millions in population growth) and total debt from all sources is still near ALL time historical highs.

To add insult to injury, efforts to correct any of the above through governmental or regulatory reform have failed miserably (the government and both parties have been captured by transnational business interests):   from endless bailouts to industries actually writing the legislation that covers them to guarantee rich profit growth while solving nothing meaningful (as we saw with both the recent health care and finance bills).  We are at a dead end.So, take control.

NOTE:  My solution is to form a tribal layer.  Resilient communities that are connected by a network platform (a darknet).  A decentralized and democratic system that can provide you a better interface with the dominant global economic system than anything else I can think of.  Not only would this tribe protect you from shocks and predation by this impersonal global system, it would provide you with the tools and community support necessary to radically improve how you and your family does across all measures of consequence.  Of course, this may not be the right solution for you, but if it is…

NOTE2:  Seems like the term darknet is confusing people.  Going to need to rethink the branding and terminology.

From Global Guerrillas, January 3, 2010

Gustavo “Ask a Mexican (get a stupid answer)” Arellano: “American Third Position Party Just Laughable Ripoff of Previous Failed Skinhead Effort”

Some respectful coverage from The European Union Times: “The American Third Position, America’s BNP?“

America’s President is a man who proudly devoted decades of his life to advocating for his race, a man who smiled through over a decade of sermons against Whites from his reverend and mentor Jeremiah Wright. His wife spent her adult life ashamed to be an American because she wasn’t satisfied with number of special privileges and wealth transfers it shoveled at her people.

On Monday, January 18th, Barack and Michelle plan to celebrate the only American holiday aside from Christmas that’s dedicated to the life of one man: a Black racial advocate. The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. didn’t act like a reverend and he wasn’t really a doctor, but he was definitely a loud and proud advocate for Black Americans; a supporter of reparations who believed that our nation was “born in genocide”.

It’s about time that we White Americans had our own advocates! The American Third Position Party (A3P) is our uncompromising and unapologetic voice and they need our support. The A3P is an actual political party, organized by respected and accomplished professionals, who will be running candidates in local elections. Their platform is one of sound money, secure borders, safe streets, and bringing our jobs back.

On Martin Luther King Monday, let’s show the world that we White Americans are finally serious about assuring a safe and prosperous America for our future generations. Let’s make it loud and clear that we’re ready to make the sacrifices it takes to win our country back. Let’s have a White American money bomb. Let’s show the world that we can come together and raise $50,000 on January 18th to get this party started!

I’m trying to catch up on all of this. I first remember hearing about the “American Third Position Party” when Kevin MacDonald mentioned it in his RFM interview. I assumed it was an already established third party based in California. I heard nothing further about it until reading the posts here. It is quickly becoming a tempest in a WN teacup.

Personally, I hope this will finally shut up the Neo-Nazi cultists who complain about “intellectual pussies” and “do nothing, contribute nothing keyboard warriors.” In addition to everything else he does, which alone is more than sufficient, Kevin MacDonald is trying to create a viable third party for White Americans. His loudmouth critics haved only talked about it. I have read several of the various criticisms and disagree with most of them.

The American Third Position Party should be given a shot. It appears to be led by decent and reasonable men. If someone else creates something better, we should support their efforts instead, but in the meantime we need a focal point around which to rally our forces.

From Occidental Dissent, January 6, 2010

George Caleb Bingham, "Stump Speaking, or, the County Canvass," 1853-54 (detail)

I’m working on a Simple White Advocacy Guide that will help activists in the movement with the basics of persuasion and discourse. Its primary inspiration was the Israel Project’s Global Language Dictionary, but it will include a set of Appendices that will serve to aggregate our community’s tribal knowledge on these topics. For example, those of us who’ve put a lot of time into persuasion and discourse know that West Virginia’s relative lack of crime is good to bring up if the persuadable suggests that Black criminality is caused by Black poverty. That will be included as an item in the “Challenge/Response” appendix.

Chapter 2 of the guide is Six Rules of Discourse. It’s an attempt to boil what people need to know about conversational discourse down to a handful of memorable rules. I’ve pasted the first draft below and would appreciate feedback. Am I missing anything? Are any of the rules tangential? Is there a better way to sum up the rule? If you are thinking of suggesting an additional rule, go for it, but keep in mind that the total number of rules needs to remain as low as possible.

Rule 1: Flip the Table

When cowboys are playing poker in the saloon and they realize that the deck has been stacked against them, they flip the table over. Be a cowboy. The words and phrases people learn to describe racial issues in America are stacked against us, loaded with false assumptions, blatant biases, and the Marxist worldview. If you don’t learn how to hijack the discourse, an intelligent debate opponent can easily redirect you into arguing in favor of the KKK, declaring that you’re “a racist,” and supporting “the continued oppression of minorities.”

When you forfeit the language battle, you’ve lost the debate before you say a word

Don’t take language and terms for granted. Ask the persuadable to define loaded terms. If he declares that he rejects “racism”, ask him to define racism. If he calls them minorities, point out that they outnumber us globally and will outnumber us at home in a couple decades. If he brings up academic terms like “White Privilege”, “institutional discrimination”, or “historical oppression”, then you’re not dealing with a persuadable. Don’t waste your time with him unless there’s an audience to influence.

Rule 2: Focus, Focus, Focus

Our people have a right to exist. We don’t need to fight forgotten wars, defend dead people, or associate ourselves with any historical movements. There’s nothing to gain here and everything to lose. Don’t dwell on the problems other races have, either. Even if Black criminality were cured tomorrow, our people would still have a right to exist as a separate people.

If the persuadable brings up slavery, ask how many centuries have to pass before we move on. If the persuadable brings up the Holocaust, flip the table by declaring that you’re against genocide: every people has a right to exist. If the persuadable brings up hatred or bigotry, ask the persuadable to explain why our desire for a separate peace is “hate.”

Don’t let yourself get sidetracked from the objective of persuading the persuadable to become aware of and supportive of White American interests. The typical person can only be expected to learn and consider a finite amount in one conversation, so it’s important to keep that conversation focused on the core concern: our people have a right to exist. This simple and positive assertion can serve as a seed, growing over time in the persuadable’s mind as he considers whether his people are being allowed to exist as a separate people by today’s political and social environment.

Rule 3: Hone your Tone

Nobody likes to be preached at, but many people enjoy having a conversational exchange of ideas. It’s hard to pretend like you’re not passionate when so much is at stake. It’s hard to pretend like you’re not angry when people are so naive about what’s going on. But when you come at a persuadable with passion or anger, he’s going to become defensive, combative, and unwilling to give your ideas a fair hearing.

Additionally, we’ve been slandered by our opponents as “haters,” so passion and anger — no matter how righteous — will usually be perceived as “hate.” The tone of your voice and your body language should encourage a frank and friendly conversation. Even if the persuadable says something that offends you, smile warmly and explain why the statement was offensive. Don’t cross your arms, furrow your brow, or bug your eyes out in exasperation.

There’s no such thing as objectivity, but most Americans don’t know that. Feign objectivity. Be very careful about statements of fact, particularly sweeping statements, so you establish credibility as an unbiased expert on the subject. Even if you don’t change their mind right away, you may be able to establish enough credibility that they may want your opinion on racial issues in the future.

Rule 4: Listen and Learn

Most people love to talk. Let them. Ask them open-ended questions then find things they said in their answers that can lead to further questions. If you ask the right questions (see Appendix II – Conversation Starters), you can lure a talkative persuadable into changing his own mind while you sit there and listen intently. This is called the Socratic Method, and it can be a very effective way to lure the persuadable into examining the minefield of ridiculous beliefs and assumptions that have been planted in his head.

Rule 5: Know your Audience

Ask the kinds of open-ended questions that help you figure out how knowledgeable a persuadable is and speak at that level. Don’t lay a bunch of heavy information about the Federal Reserve system on your apolitical aunt. It’s imperative that you figure out what your audience’s position is before you attempt to persuade them.

Don’t skip any steps. If you haven’t convinced them that our people exist and have a right to do so, then they won’t really care if another group of people is threatening our existence. If they don’t know that a certain group of people moving into the neighborhood will have a predictable and negative effect, then they won’t really care if those people are moving into the neighborhood.

Some people are deathly afraid of disagreement, and other people are itching for a debate, use an appropriate style for your audience. But know who your audience is. This isn’t always obvious. For example, your cousin is in for Christmas from his freshman year at college and is openly explaining to the extended family that all the jobs went to Asia because Asians are smarter and work harder. In this case, the audience isn’t your cousin. The audience is the extended family. Reply to him but in their language and at their concerns.

Rule 6: Patience and Persistence

People don’t change their worldview that often, and rarely do so right in front of the person who got the ball rolling. The work of advocating for our people isn’t very rewarding work, but it’s important work. The seeds we plant take time to grow and often require some sort of trigger event that causes the persuadable to reconsider his worldview.

Even a failed attempt to persuade may help the persuadable realize that we’re not frothing hatemongers. There may also be some unforeseen event happen in the future which awakens millions in a short period of time. If you’ve established credibility with friends and relatives as a fair and sensible advocate of White interests, they’ll turn to you for answers and guidance at that time.

Most lively discussions contain at least one assertion of fact which is either contested or not entirely accepted. Use that as an opportunity to follow up with the person after a couple days. Even if you were incorrect about the fact, follow up with the correct answer. It will help protect your credibility. If you’ve shown yourself to be sloppy with facts, you’ll be incapable of persuading anybody.

From Occidental Dissent, January 2, 2010

The nightclubs of today are not like the ones parents frequented back in the 1970s, when they were aspiring teenagers full of excitement and joy. Today they are a complete transformation whose environment would shock, scare, and bewilder most parents of today should they enter. It would be an environment so alien that they would cringe in horror at the thought of their young teenage kids let loose in such dens of iniquity. The noise would be deafening, the lights almost blinding, with a positively scary looking clientele in a state of complete frenzy. “What happened to the days of Showaddywaddy and David Essex?” they would think to themselves. Well, those days are well and truly gone. It’s the day of drugs, drugs and more drugs. And that’s just for starters.

Nightclubs up and down the country are full to the brim with young kids taking drugs, with most parents (those who care) not having a clue what their nocturnal kids are up to. They believe their children are going out for the night, just as they did in the 1970s to a “disco,” and they will get a taxi home just like they did, and all will be ok.

Yes, of course they would have heard or read about nightclub violence and how shocking it is, but it will never happen to their kids, as their kids tell them that where they go is nice and friendly and not a fight in sight.

Their children will tell them that they stay away from drugs, and taking them would not even enter their innocent little minds. And you know what, their parents will believe them. And do you know why? Because they are out of touch with the real world.

Most parents (once again, those who care) don’t take enough interest in anything outside their own little world, and are too busy thinking about the next material asset they can acquire, or the next holiday resort. They let their children bully them, instead of following their instincts and laying down the law. Then there are the cowardly ones who do suspect and haven’t the guts to face the awful truth.

Parents need to go and see what is happening in the clubs that their nice sons and daughters frequent. Go and stand by the toilets and watch all the young girls coming out wiping their noses, having just snorted a line of cocaine. In fact, go in the toilets and you will see it firsthand. Go into the Men’s (dads, that is), and see several lads all piling into one cubicle: listen by the door and hear all the lines of cocaine being snorted one by one.

And if that doesn’t have you dragging your kids out, mingle with the people on the dance floor bombed out of their heads on E’s or Magic (powdered MDMA), shuffling along like zombies in a Boris Karloff movie.

Now if you are immune to all of this, like most people who either work in or frequent clubs are, you can always wait for the violence later on. I’m sure you will find someone in the toilet who’s just been bottled or slashed.

Now if violence is not what you are looking for, you will usually find someone’s poor daughter in a corner or toilet, giving sexual services to all comers (literally). Yes, I’m sure the drugs she’s been on that night would have stripped her of all her inhibitions and it’s free love for all. And if she’s really lucky, she will end up on someone’s mobile phone video, and be the next Linda Lovelace, and blue-toothed to all and sundry. Don’t you just love this hedonism? Hey, you ain’t heard the best yet!

If your kid is adventurous and wants to try one of the many gay clubs in town, I am sure they would be more than willing to accommodate them. On the other hand, are they gay clubs or unisex? I think unisex, because the girls go into the Men’s, and the lads into the Women’s toilets. Anyway, if your lad is not really that way inclined, the predators can always wait until the drugs kick in and have their wicked way later. You see, even though these are predominantly gay clubs, they still allow straights in. I wonder why? Girls in these clubs who are not Lesbos or bisexual, go to watch men at it for a twisted thrill.

Young naïve kids on drugs can easily be lured into this perversion, when it could easily have been avoided had they been educated. The amount of so–called gay or gay friendly clubs that have sprung up out of nowhere is frightening. Some even have transvestites as DJs.

Also sickening in these clubs is the activity going on in the toilet cubicle, and it’s not just drug taking. And no prizes for guessing what. The amount of drug taking is even more prevalent in these clubs than at your usual haunts because of the nature of the clientele. Yet so–called straight people love these places and do not find them repulsive.

To some extent, you can understand this as there is very little violence, if any. Nevertheless, the activities on and off the dance floor, and in and out of the toilets would make milk turn. The young kids who end up going to clubs like these were probably good kids, until they were persuaded by those who were equally once naïve to pay a visit and look at all the gays enjoying themselves with not a fight in sight. Once again, had young kids been alerted to the filth in these clubs and what comes with it, their lives may have taken a different path.

However, no one is alerting them, and no one is going to. So, who is going to do it? We, as Nationalists, are people who do actually care about what is happening to our country and young people, or we would not be involved in what we do and pay the sacrifice we pay. Yet the premier Nationalist Party in the UK, the BNP, has not uttered one word about the insidious nature of Nightclubs up and down the country to its ever increasing young membership.

Now I am not talking about a nice quiet wine bar on the high street or even some of the clubs who still play 1970/80’s tunes like ABBA or Sheena Easton, but the major dance venues and the now ever increasing gay friendly clubs.

And before anyone says, “Oh well, these are just a few clubs up and down the country and nothing to worry about,” you are wrong. Most clubs play the same type of music and a lot have drinking hours until 4 – 5am – some even later. Also, you will be hard pushed to find one club, if any, that’s drug free.

So no, you have to look at the big picture when describing clubland. And before any naïve reader says “Well, don’t the doormen search the people who go in these clubs”? the answer is of course they do, but you can’t start looking into every orifice, plus the doormen are more interested in finding weapons that can be used on them or the punters.

So why have not the BNP, via their new youth wing, The British Nationalist Youth Movement, alerted young people that its trying to recruit and those that it has recruited, about the dangers of nightlife in our towns and cities? Are the BNP like all of the parents the length and breadth of the country, naïve about matters that affect the future of our/ their children?

The BNYM is more concerned about recruiting students, when we all know this is a complete waste of time. Ask Tony Wentworth or Mark Collett how many students they recruited to the cause, and what massive inroads (if any) they made on campus. The answer will be counted on one hand. Also, their time spent pushing the BNP on campus ruined their education and set them back years.

Why the BNP leadership still puts kids through this is beyond me. When was the last time, if at all, Nick Griffin ventured into a nightclub and saw firsthand what the music of today is doing to our young people? And that’s not counting the drugs, gays, violence and general anti-social behaviour that come with clubland.

Now, not all kids end up being corrupted, beaten up, taking drugs, or suffer other destructive vices that come with a so-called good night out on the town, but an awful lot do. Go and stand at the entrance of your city centre hospital (in Liverpool, the Royal Hospital) and watch the casualties stretchered in on a Saturday night, and you will see what I mean (the Royal also has Doormen, on a Saturday night).

I had the pleasure of doing this after two colleagues were stabbed three and eight times respectively, after lads enjoying a nice day out at the Grand National, Aintree, decided to take themselves and their knives into the city centre and stab two doormen. All because they had denims on and didn’t fit the dress code to enter the club. Scary to think these animals had these knives on them at the nation’s premier race meeting. We truly are living in very dangerous times.

Are the BNP leadership and those “wet behind the ears” youth wing oblivious to what I have spelt out here? If so, they need bringing into the real world very quickly. If on the other hand they believe an attack on clubland will alienate the E and Cocaine community and even further marginalise the BNP, then we truly are living in sad times.

My generation is the last to come through that offered any hope of national rebirth. We have now lost that opportunity and have to rely on the next generation. Sadly, they are now lost and bewildered in a world they don’t understand. We are losing them day by day, and nothing is going to stop this.

We need to stop ****ing around and playing as if we are some re-born Tory party and saying “ain’t it great we are now mainstream.” Stop embracing the sickness of society in the hope it will get us more votes. We need to start reaching these kids before the destructiveness and perverseness of modern society does. And I can’t think of a more insidious environment than clubland.

The youth wing of the BNP needs to promote an alternative to clubland and permissive living. We have to get our kids back to basics and interested in healthy alternatives. You can’t strive for a national rebirth and embrace the sick society at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. You can’t tell kids to come on-board and fight to save their country, and then send them off to have a nice enjoying night in clubland with all the drugs, drunkenness, and violence, and then back to party business on the Monday. They need steering away or we will lose them forever. Once kids have fully embraced drugs and clubland, it’s very hard to stop them doing it, let alone wanting to save their country.

I am not advocating young people sit in with tins of Guinness and live boring lifestyles, but try to find an alternative to clubland. Meet friends (hopefully nationalists) who would like a challenge rather than crawling out of a nightclub at 6am, smashed out of their heads. Go and climb say, Mount Snowdon or Helvelyn, and have nice pub lunch and a pint afterwards.

If your life revolves all around clubland then you are already on the slippery slope to a dead-end life. There are a million alternatives to milling around clubland amongst drunken, aggressive people, and this must now be the job of nationalist youth, to inform the lost and soon to be lost young kids of our nation. This will not be an easy task but it must be done and not ignored.

Nationalism saved me from becoming a bigger loser than I am now, and it hurts me to say this. But I have to be honest with myself and can’t be a hypocrite when giving advice to young kids. I know the damage clubland does to young kids because it has done it to me.

However, I have unrivalled experience in the world of the street, and can put this to good use if people are prepared to listen. Most in nationalism believe they are streetwise when in fact they’re amateurs. Winning back our country is not all about academia or being from a public school, it’s about the whole package. And in my field of work, I have a PhD.

See Andrew Redmond’s review of Joe Owens’ Action! Race War To Door Wars.

Joe Owens was “on the door,” working as a bouncer at a popular Liverpool nightspot called The Garage when three fun-seekers came in: a blind man and his two companions. Sitting the blind man down, one of his friends went to the bar, the other to the men’s room. As Owens writes:

It didn’t take too long before the white trash noticed this, as well as the fact that he was blind. One scumbag went over to the blind guy and sat next to him, while removing his own shoe. He then waved this obviously smelly shoe under the nose of the blind guy and held it there. This was to the great merriment of his friends . . . (p. 193)

The bullying continued, and at last Owens was made aware of the situation:

Never have I witnessed such a despicable spectacle. Running over as fast as my legs could carry me, I kicked this low life in the face and put him to sleep. I have seldom, if ever enjoyed dishing out the ultra-violence as much as I did to this dog. (p. 193)

Joe Owens is known up and down the United Kingdom as a veteran nationalist street-fighter, a genuinely “hard man” feared and loathed by the far left, who called him the “Nazi Assassin” for the vicious, almost clinical punishment he meted out to communist and anarchist thugs who preyed on politically incorrect activists, often with the connivance of the police and special interests.

Owens’ new tell-all book Action! Race War to Door Wars, is an absorbing, fascinating glimpse inside the mind of a segment of nationalist politics many would prefer to ignore or pretend doesn’t exist: young working-class men animated not by theory and books but by tribal instinct and first-hand experience of the effects of nonwhite immigration and a changing world that leaves their kind behind.

Action! takes the reader through Joe Owens’ political awakening in the 1970s; the violence, jail time, and eventual disillusionment that followed; his career at some of the best-known night clubs of the English rave scene; and his re-engagement with politics, rising to become the bodyguard of Nick Griffin, present leader of the British National Party.

The incident with the blind man and the bully, which Owens calls “a depressing story,” is perhaps the best example of what draws many of the men of Owens’ class to nationalism. They hate bullies, despise unfairness and hypocrisy, and see nationalism less as politics than as a survival strategy. Poorer whites are the first to feel the effects of nonwhite immigration, with the crime and competition for scarce social resources that come along with it. Their response is often explosive.

Certainly the violence Joe Owens confesses to is extreme, but it didn’t come out of thin air. Owens was at the height of his game at a very important point in the racial history of the UK, the 1970s and 1980s, as the effects of the government’s open door immigration policy, never consented to by the electorate, was becoming evident to a growing number of people.

The result: a resistance movement that sank roots deep into the public housing council estates of white Britain. This pro-white group was the National Front (NF), an organization that mixed an uncompromising call for ending immigration and beginning repatriation with a defense of the welfare state and working class social gains, from the eight-hour day to the National Health Service. The NF program had the potential, largely realized, of drawing off hundreds of thousands of blue collar whites from support of the Labour Party, which had long taken them for granted. The sight of thousands of white working people marching in England’s streets to international attention terrified the Establishment, from the Tories’ corporate owners craving cheap non-white workers to the Labour Party and special interest groups who supported Third World immigration on ideological grounds.

In the 1977 London election, the NF scored an astounding 119,000 votes, with even the Labour Party admitting that the NF had put out “the most dynamic, exciting, and hard-hitting leaflet of the campaign.” The tally was a shock to the system, which felt that something clearly had to be done: calling the NF “Nazis” and “racists” hadn’t worked.

The UK’s equivalent of the Anti-Defamation League is the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which met in 1977 with Labour Party officials to devise a strategy. A small Trotskyite sect called the Socialist Workers’ Party was approached with a view to a plan to destroy the National Front.

Like all Trotskyite groupuscles the SWP was (and still is) marginal at best, but their leader “Tony Cliff” had a nose for business. Born Yigael Gluckstein in 1917 in what would soon (in 1920) be British Mandate Palestine, Cliff had earlier on made an ideological concession to “imperialism” over the Korean War and had no problem with concocting an ideologically correct formula to benefit the corporate immigration agenda by agreeing to help form the Anti-Nazi League, the ANL, which with swift inevitability was called ANAL by its detractors.

(American readers will recall the outcry in 2006 over “Nuestro Himno,” the version of “Star-Spangled Banner” sung en Español by famous Hispanic artists as part of the run-up to the illegal alien amnesty campaign. The man behind the record was Adam Kidron, none other than the nephew of Tony Cliff/Yigael Gluckstein.)

Among the ANL’s initiatives was Rock Against Racism, which enlisted popular bands for well-financed carnivals and concerts to draw large numbers of kids in the hope of overshadowing the NF’s self-financed events.

These machinations were high level, but the effects were soon felt on the streets of the United Kingdom by the likes of Joe Owens, who discusses a nationalist Liverpool sidewalk paper sale when he saw a group of “Reds” coming. “The leaflet they were distributing was advertising a Rock Against Racism Carnival. . . . I had not even had time to read it when all hell broke loose. . . . Immediately dropping my papers I ran to the aid of my comrades” (p. 16). What followed was merely one of many brutal physical confrontations with communists who, empowered by the connection their leadership had to power and finance, were in fact the paramilitary arm of corporate/state policy enabling Third World immigration.

The people involved in attacking nationalism were not only weedy lefty students, but hardened criminals and killers, drawn from the demimonde of drugs and organized crime. One who actually pulled a gun on a local BNP organizer was Dessie Noonan, head of a Manchester crime family and responsible, police say, for numerous murders. Noonan himself was eventually to die on a sidewalk, stabbed to death by his black crack dealer.

Members of the ANL, and spin-offs like Red Action (some of whom were Irish Republican Army terrorists) had no compunction about attempting to kill dissidents, emboldened as they were by the official protection they enjoyed. The most famous nationalist victim was probably Albert Marriner, an old-age pensioner, Second World War veteran, and NF member who was hit on the head with a brick and killed in 1983.

The aim of the orchestrated violence was to send a message to white Britons that they could engage nationalist politics only at their own physical peril. As a result, nationalism became isolated and attracted a number of people who thrived on the atmosphere of intimidation.

What is interesting in Owens’ account of his early political career is how small a role ideology played in the “action” the book is named for. He confesses that he was ignorant of the ideological identity of the political thugs he punished so mercilessly. “I knew what Communist meant and associated it with Russia. I could not understand why they were concerned” (p. 15). Three decades after one beating he says that “I am now aware that they were the Socialist Workers Party. This was a violent Trotskyite grouping, whose aim was revolution and the smashing of the UK state. We commonly knew them as Reds.” Indeed, Owens’ disgust for the “Reds” often seems more elemental than ideological: “Like some scripted scene from a TV show they moved in in unison in our direction shrieking, ’NAZI! NAZI! NAZI!’ . . . What a bunch of sad bastards and total misfits they were” (p. 27).

Ideological considerations were also only secondary in the curious life-or-death lash-ups that occurred among the street-level nationalists Owens talks about. The National Front had a number of “more hard-line” grouplets on its coattails, each claiming to be more extreme than the next. One such organization was the British Movement, founded in 1968 by Colin Jordan, uniforms and Hitler worship included. Another group was the National Socialist Party of the UK (NSPUK), run by an elderly lady in Eire, where speech laws were liberal by UK standards, and where US-derived National Socialist propaganda was run off with abandon.

The NF was a fanatically “loyalist” group, totally opposed to the Irish Republican Army and what it stood for. It openly renounced Nazism, pointing to its numerous war hero members, but despite the BM’s Nazism and the NSPUK’s support for the IRA (which goes unmentioned by Owens), none of these details of history and politics stopped cooperation in Liverpool against the common “Red enemy.” After one punch-up, Owens had to explain his alliances to a larger NF meeting. “I . . . explained what had happened on Church Street. I gave a very detailed account of the British Movement lads being arrested . . . that without the British Movement guys we would surely have  taken a very bad beating” (p. 18). It is unknown how much further the violence of the controlled left played a role in determining nationalist policy like this, but still, straight up neo-Nazis, in the Hollywood sense, were able to work side-by-side with working class white patriots like Joe Owens, driven together by common need.

One explanation for such cooperation is that the fetishism of Third Reich symbols and slogans among some white blue collar youth does not necessarily indicate a commitment to, or even real understanding of National Socialism. Instead, swastikas and lightning bolts are often seen as the most powerful sigils available to evoke a sense of militancy in the face of often-immediate physical danger. To youth raised on media portrayals of “Nazism” as ominous and evil, these symbols become the ultimate expression of brawn and rebellion.

It is often ineffective to point out that their use defeats the overall purpose, because for many of these kids the purpose is to intimidate, and even offend, not to transform society. Many older activists have responded either by catering to this short-sightedness or by rejecting this class of young people out of hand. A more sensible course, followed by many European groups, has been to wean young people from Third Reich fetishism by giving them a substantive ideological education.

Similar ideological looseness can be seen in the schizophrenic response of Owens’ circle when it came to political action. Owens understood that the racial crisis in the UK was the result of official, government policy, enforced at all bureaucratic levels, right down to the police, who protected the Reds and arrested nationalists. Yet when the black Liverpool slum of Toxteth exploded in riots against the police, Owens found himself fighting on the side of the cops and their chief, a politically correct creature named Chief Constable Ken Oxford. “Now don’t get me wrong, I was no Oxford fan. I looked upon him and the rest of his kind as sellouts to the mob and the Reds. Shouting ‘Oxford in’ was just to wind the Reds up and get a bit of publicity” (p. 41). Provoking reactions from political enemies had the expected result for Owens’ new political group, John Tyndall’s New National Front (NNF), which even planned a pro-police march. “The NNF gained a lot of local publicity from all this, but sadly failed to make real political headway . . . In hindsight, it is a shame that confrontation was our only approach to politics” (p. 43).

In those days before the internet, the NF had to make news to be seen, and marches were key to raising their profile. In the end, by being physical deterrents to leftist/state violence, men like Joe Owens prevented the NF from being wiped out. That task, once again, fell to better-schooled people at much higher echelons. Owens touches on one aspect, the self-destruction the NF underwent, “with infighting in every quarter” (p. 23).

Efforts with names like the “British Campaign Against the Boat People” seemed to calculate an accommodation to the leftist image of nationalists as heartless people bullying the weak. “In retrospect I wonder what those Vietnamese must have made of it all. A small army of assorted skinheads who screamed abuse at them, attacked them. Did anyone explain to them who we were? Why we were there?” (p. 21). While the system that allowed the immigration crisis to deepen was at fault, people widely viewed as clearly helpless were, if anything, easily manipulated into being made into the victims of a carefully controlled image of intolerance.

Eventually, the all-around pressure on the National Front, among which was a lack of strategic focus, led to dissolution from within. Joe Owens touches on the numerous splits and purges and how he stayed with the “hard-line,” ideologically committed to John Tyndall.

While the Board of Deputies of British Jews sank undoubted millions into defeating the National Front, and internal mayhem weakened it, Margaret Thatcher’s 1978 nod to the concerns the NF had aroused is widely assumed to have gelded the NF and won Thatcher the 1979 election. “People are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture,” she said, receiving thousands of supporting letters and gaining an immediate 5 percent jump in opinion polls. The NF, “associated with violence” that had been manufactured, and incapable of constructing a coherent profile, never recovered. Nationalism sank into sectarianism, extremism, and irrelevancy, consumed by the confrontationalist politics that had been so skillfully imposed on it.

While Owens had never been a physical slouch, and the National Front was physically fearless, Owens was eventually overtaken by the actions and thinking of his extreme associates. In 1983, “a silly thing to do,” as he admits, was sending “envelopes lined with razor blades to prominent members of Liverpool’s Jewish community.” Despite the fact that he was motivated by the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians at Sabra and Chatilla in Lebanon, he admits that “they were just the straws that broke the camel’s back as far as I was concerned” (pp. 52, 53). He was jailed for a year.

Back on the street, Joe Owens’ political commitments weakened. In the early 1970s he had been influenced by the Bruce Lee juggernaut, a fad that also fascinated another hard man of Owens’ generation, Andy McNab, whose book Bravo Two Zero on his SAS Special Forces experiences has a lot in common with Owens’ own account of another kind of active life (see note 1). Owens parlayed his interest into competition fighting, where he excelled, and then into a lucrative career as a bouncer.

The long, fascinating section of his book detailing his nightclub life has little if any political interest for readers, but does say a lot about Owens’ character as a genuinely tough man. He doesn’t brag or gloat, but gives worthy opponents respect, part of the honor ethos he says he learned in martial arts. A stoic approach was certainly called for. In those days, Liverpool’s nightlife was plagued by organized crime, and the feuds and violence saw the police attempt to frame him for various crimes, most seriously murder. People like Owens see a side to policing most of us don’t: the corruption and brutality that pervades the operations of many police forces.

Owens’ sense of personal honor shines throughout his book. The mix of objective political events and the hard work of a new generation of serious nationalist leaders had made the British National Party into a viable political force, the first such nationalist group in the UK since those heady days of Joe Owens’ youth in the 1970s. With the advent of the internet, marches became unimportant, and with them went the organized opposition nationalism had faced in the 70s. But that didn’t mean people weren’t still gunning for the BNP. Nick Griffin, the new BNP chief, needed protecting, and Joe Owens offered himself, an absorbing tale he tells in the final chapters of the book. Among his adventures is a tale of how he bravely helped fend off a Red mob anxious to tear Griffin and French leader Jean-Marie Le Pen limb from limb.

Owens’ personal code made his engagement with the politics of the possible difficult. Far from the hard streets of his political youth, Owens faced the disillusionment many feel among professional politicians. And while his problems with the new BNP seem personal, he definitely shows a high degree of insight into modern nationalist thinking. With biting candor he points out that we “only have to look at the white power movement in the USA, to see how far off track our cause has gone . . . If our race has to rely on swastika tattooed skinheads to survive then we are finished.” But Owens’ main insight has to do with those who should know better and yet haven’t broken out of the old fashioned thinking that has held the cause back.

He is also honest: “I have led a very mixed-up life, without any real sense of purpose. . . . My life has been both exciting and dangerous but sadly, I have nothing to show other than plenty of odd and amusing memories” (p. 291). But Owens, despite his disillusionment, remains unrepentant, something that was in question when news that he planned to release a book came out, especially since he had had a public falling out with the BNP. There was some concern that his memoirs would be a “prodigal son” recantation in the style of Führer Ex and the tattooed convicts paraded regularly on daytime television to bemoan their past lives of “hatred”(see note 2). Searchlight even greeted the news of Owens’ pending book with a headline, “Nazi Godfather Spills the Beans.”

The mainstream author Owens initially worked with had something like that in mind. Since the late 1990s the UK has seen a renewed and lucrative interest in “lad” programs, books, and films, a reaction to the engineered emasculation of white males over the course of the previous three decades. Tell-alls from former gangsters, soccer hooligans, and Special Forces veterans fly off the shelves. Author Graham Johnson saw a chance to benefit from this market, and he and Owens began work on the project. But there was a catch:

Graham explained to me that the book would have to show that I had now changed my views, and looked back on my life with disdain. I compromised saying I wouldn’t change a thing in my life but would admit the path I’d taken hadn’t really changed anything. (p. 272)

Owens’ well-honed sense of suspicion—the hotel room meetings Owens suspected may have been bugged and the leading questions about Owens’ alleged crimes—finally led Owens to drop out of the project, returning a cash advance in the process, something he didn’t have to do but which was demanded by his personal code. Owens struck out on his own, penning a highly readable, politically uncompromising memoir as a result.

It is a testament to the rise of the new media—the same media that ended the old nationalist confrontational politics—that Action! Race Wars to Door Wars even appeared. Instead of hoping to find a main-stream publisher, Owens turned to Lulu, an on-demand internet publishing service (see note 3). Action! suffers from a clumsy title and the lack of a seasoned editor. It also could use an index. But as an absorbing read, Action! is difficult to put down.

(2) Ingo Hasselbach, with Tom Reiss, Führer Ex (New York: Random House, 1996). Among similar “confessional” snitchographies are Thomas Martinez with John Guinther, Brotherhood Of Murder (New York: Pocket Books, 1990) and Ray Hill and Andrew Bell, The Other Face of Terror (London: Collins, 1988). In all three books, the protagonists claimed to have experienced epiphanies about the odious nature of their “hatred” when faced with serious criminal charges. Needless to say, their accounts are deemed highly suspect by some readers, and their denunciations of their former “comrades” often revolve around illegal behavior they themselves instigated or otherwise enabled.

(3) Available in three formats, download, paperback, and hardcover, from the Lulu website:  http://www.lulu.com/content/985684.

Here are some of my public goals and resolutions for 2010:

1. Continue to publish TOQ. Maintain our high standards and work upward from there.
2. Continue to publish TOQ Online. Maintain and raise the quality of the contents.
3. Incorporate audio and video features into TOQ Online.
4. Expand TOQ Online‘s critical engagement with popular culture.
5. Expand the number of TOQ Editor’s Dinners around the country. The goal of these meetings is to foster real-world networking. Improve on the follow-up networking, so we do not fall into the meet, eat, and retreat trap.
6. Continue and expand efforts to network with and cultivate high quality writers, activists, and organizers. Do not neglect the character dimension. Talent and ideological commitment are not enough.
7. Be less tolerant of weakness in myself and others.
8. Prune my existing network of problematic people: those who are defeatist, inactive, unreliable, squeamish, neurotic, two-faced, dishonest, etc.
9. Cultivate and encourage a culture of frankness within my network. One of the major weaknesses of the movement is the inability to communicate openly about matters of great importance. It is a problem of character.
10. Work on my public speaking and interviewing skills to become a more effective advocate for our cause.

As you decide on your goals and resolutions for 2010, ask yourself: Will our race be another year closer to victory or oblivion on December 31, 2010?

What do you plan to do for the white race in 2010? Feel free to share your ideas below.

Happy New Year!

Harold Covington: The internet is a reality of 21st century life. I understand and accept that. It can no more be un-invented than gunpowder or nuclear power can be un-invented. The Net has become a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless, in my opinion.

For one thing, the internet is largely sterile politically. It produces almost nothing except more Net. Somebody sees a great pro-White web site and they are inspired with enthusiasm—to build another web site. There is this immense disconnect between what is essentially a fantasy world in cyber-space and the real world out here where White people are unemployed and foreclosed White families are beginning to live in tent cities called Obamavilles.

The internet gives the White male a feel-good factor which he doesn’t have to earn. He sits down at his computer after work with a bowl of nachos and a few cold brewskis, he plays around on VNN or surfs the web looking for racial stuff, maybe he makes a post or two, and then at the end of the evening he gets up and staggers off to bed with the feeling that he has accomplished something, but he hasn’t. All he has done is to generate words, and words are no good on earth if they never translate into physical action.

The internet provides the White male with a substitute for action, and with a place where he can hide. Yes, I understand that most of us have jobs and families and homes we have to protect, but the fact remains that at some point in time we are going to have to stand erect once more, like men, and not with our heads hung down and our eyes lowered and our feet shuffling in the presence of our Jewish and liberal lords and masters. The internet does not facilitate the strengthening of the one ancient virtue of our people which we need most of all to re-discover: simple physical courage.

Finally, the internet provides something that our highly dysfunctional people cannot resist: consequences-free misbehavior. This is not just a Movement phenomenon; it’s a White thing. The internet is a looney bin, and everyone knows it. The internet is where sick and twisted and often quite deranged people go to vomit. I have never seen anything like some of the filth, the depravity, the idiocy, and the just plain raving madness that I find on the internet every day. I know quite ordinary and apparently stable, functional, and successful people who sit down behind that keyboard, and all of a sudden they get a visit from Mr. Hyde. You’ve heard of discovering one’s Inner Child? It’s like the lure of consequences-free misbehavior on the internet unlocks some people’s Inner Nut.

All of this having been said, the internet remains the only medium of mass communication we have access to, the only place that provides anything remotely resembling a level playing field, which is probably why the Jews and the government hate it so much. Love the internet or hate it, we seem to be stuck with it.

TOQ: Many of our people dwell on negative signs, and there are plenty of them. Do you see positive signs? Do you think there are good reasons for hope?

Harold Covington: Oh, yes, certainly. So long as one doesn’t confuse hope with optimism.

For one thing, it is a historical truism that nothing last forever. This Francis Fukuyama rap about liberal democracy being the “end of history” is horse dung. Everything ends, and the present Zionist world order will end as well, quite possibly within the lifetime of those now born. It may not end the way we want it to end, and it may drag the White race and Western civilization down with it, but oh, yes, it will end. Our task in this and coming generations is to make sure that we survive the collapse of this massive evil, along with at least some semblance of Western civilization.

For another thing, for all our weaknesses and flaws we are still the most intelligent and potentially the bravest and most hardy race on earth. It takes more than 100 years of liberal brainwashing, political correctness, and McDonalds’ Happy Meals to contaminate and extinguish a whole human genotype. Deep down we are still the men our ancestors were, it’s just sometimes it’s so deep down we can’t read our genetic script.

We can do this thing. We can beat these bastards, any time we so choose. The question is, will we so choose? The Weltfiend is counting on his ability to obscure our racial light in a murk of questions, indecision, introspection, corruption, and apathy, to drag the whole world into the shades of grey in which the Jew thrives. If we can achieve moral clarity in our souls we will recover our courage, and when we recover our courage we will rip their hearts out.

TOQ: One of the things that most struck me about your Northwest Quartet is the attitude of high moral seriousness that these novels communicate, which I think is a valuable corrective to the movement’s general ethos of emotional self-indulgence. But you are better at communicating this than I am. Most white nationalists accept that our race is facing oblivion. What more do they need to get serious?

Harold Covington: The stock answer to that is that things have to get so bad that every White man, woman and child is personally affected in their own lives by the current crisis of civilization. They must lose their houses, their jobs, their SUVs and their plasma TVs and all that nice cold beer in the fridge. This is certainly true as far as it goes, and it is now at long last beginning to happen during this onset of the Obama Depression.

But I believe that more has to happen. There has to be a genuine spiritual awakening that burns away the past several generations of excrement that the Jews have caked around our souls. Our people must once more learn to value something higher than their own private lives and their own creature comforts. I personally found this in National Socialism, others find it in religion, but one of the advantages of turning this into a colonial war is that it allows for the creation of a new (or rather old) idealism in our hearts, a secular nationalism that aspires to the creation of a new country, free of alien oppressors. That will work. Ask the Irish.

TOQ: Early in your career, you were an avowed National Socialist. How has your thinking changed since then? In your view, what are the enduring truths in National Socialism, and what are its limitations?

Harold Covington: I am just as much a National Socialist now as I ever was. The enduring truth of National Socialism lies in one slogan: “Our race is our nation.” National Socialism affirms the primacy of race over lesser aspects of human existence such as religion and nationality.

I have, however, come to realize that most Americans are totally spiritually unequipped to accept such a doctrine. They don’t speak the language. They simply haven’t been engineered that way, and of course 70 years of Jewish hate propaganda, misrepresentation, and distortion hasn’t helped. Back in my youth in the old Party, we had the idea that through a process of long and slow education we could wean a sufficient number of our people away from the Jewish narrative and make them see the truth, but we didn’t do so hot at that, and now we are out of time. Simply and starkly, it’s about racial survival now, and that has to take first place in our strategy.

In order to convince people, you must first put yourself on a credible basis of communication with them, and you can’t do that by immediately confronting them with symbols and ideas that they have been conditioned from birth to reject. Every essential principle of National Socialism has a perfectly reasonable and understandable circumlocution that can be used within the American context so as to bypass the socially-engineered rejection mechanisms which have been implanted in White people’s brains. Call it National Socialism Lite, if you will. I don’t like it, but the urgency of our racial crisis overrides my personal feelings.

TOQ: What are the books, writers, and historical events that have most shaped your particular version of white nationalism?

Harold Covington: Besides National Socialist works and history? First and foremost there is the life and work of Commander George Lincoln Rockwell. There’s the American Civil War, of course. I was born and raised in the last of the Old South, when it was considered entirely normal to have Confederate flags on one’s possessions and when it was still possible to see Confederate heroes positively portrayed on TV and in comic books, etc.

Easter 1916 and the Irish War of Independence is another obvious example. I think the situation in Ireland in the 1920s is probably as close a parallel to our situation today as can be drawn. Later on we may draw some insight from the Spanish Civil War, which I always liked—the last war the good guys actually won.

My main Movement mentors were Major William Gaedtke, the last head of the old America First Committee (the Lindbergh one) and Pastor Robert Miles. They taught me the ropes. I learned a lot from Matt Koehl as well. I never thought I’d say this, and I still don’t agree with what Koehl did to the NSWPP, but after three decades I now understand why Koehl did a lot of the things he did.

Read Part 3 here.

Read Greg Johnson’s review of Harold Covington’s Northwest Quartet here.

Recession? Teenagers Get It, and Are Cutting Back
By STEPHANIE ROSENBLOOM
Published: December 25, 2009

After a year of observing their parents pinch pennies and fret about the economy, the nation’s teenagers may be coming to grips with reality.
Sales are down sharply in recent months at nearly every major retail chain catering to teenagers, and interviews with teenagers suggest that the reasons go beyond their own difficulty finding part-time jobs.

“I think my sister and I, throughout this year we’ve kind of lost an interest in getting gifts and things like that,” said Morgan Porpora, 16, who in the past had a list of things she wanted for Christmas. “I guess we’ve noticed the economy and we just kind of even feel bad I guess asking for a lot.”

Last month, stores that specialize in clothing and accessories for teenagers were the worst-performing sector in all of retailing, posting a 7.8 percent year-over-year sales decline, according to Thomson Reuters.

Consumerism has caused cultural development to go backwards; it has made mental children of grown men and women. Any setback of consumerism will force deeper, more mature thinking, which will lead to more local cooperation and more of a concept of a collective interest or a public interest.

This is the trend we’ve been waiting for. It’s our wave to surf, because our appeals have always been to practical matters and common sense. Consumerism encourages an atrophy of common sense and practical thinking; the waning of consumerism will see a waxing of common sense and practical thinking.

Multiculturalism and diversity has taken advantage of child-like adults, of cargo cult consumerists. The Multicult won’t go away over night, but the waning of consumerism and the waxing of practical thinking will create better conditions for us, and worse conditions for the Multicult.

A gardener doesn’t think only about the pest insects. It’s actually more important to think about the conditions that help pests thrive. White Nationalism 2.0 must focus more on the conditions, and less on the “pests” themselves. In a healthy garden, there are “pest insects” present, but their damage is only cosmetic. They don’t have a noticeable effect on yields.

I’m betting on society moving in a healthier direction. I recognize it’s a gamble, but any time you make a plan for the future, you are gambling. Things could turn out differently.

Just as many Whites helped Jews undermine society, there will be Jews that will jump on the bandwagon of anti-consumerism/economic relocalization, despite the fact that such a thing will ultimately be bad for the agenda of Organized Jewry.

Only a small percentage of society understands the concept of economic/cultural conditions being favorable to certain ethnic groups. Consumerism good for O.J., decentralized and relocalized, steady state economies which devolve power to localities are good for YT.

Why is devolved, decentralized power better for us and worse for Organized Jewry? Real simple — there’s more of us! A LOT MORE. Six million them, at least 150 million us. 25x more of us.

They depend on centralized control; on pushbutton power; on one phone call from Ehud Barak to George W. Bush causing the latter to interrupt a speech, take the call, and then call Condi Rice and order her to do Ehud’s bidding. It’s like magic, but it’s highly leveraged. I have read both of Victor Ostrovsky’s Mossad exposes, “By Way of Deception” and “The Other Side of Deception.” Israelis in the government, military and Mossad understand quite well how much Jewish power depends on leverage, in a way that American Jews do not. The second book talks about how Israel has wanted to get the US to attack Saddam Hussein and finish him off way back in the 1980’s despite the common view that Saddam was a stable ally of the US and not particularly hostile to Israel. Ostrovsky thought this was a crazy idea and part of his work in trying to undermine the Mossad was to stop them from using the US to fight proxy wars. This was 1986!

Back in 2002, myself and a friend attended a lecture by Daniel Pipes at my alma mater. We handed out a leaflet to the audience with a graphic of Daniel Pipes’ head on a vulture. The vulture’s “right wing” said, “neoconservatism, rapture religion, Wars for Israel” and the “left wing” said, “Communism, race mixing, open borders” and the caption was “Right wing? Left wing? It’s all the Jew-wing of America!” The American Jews at the lecture were extremely hostile and threatening and raging at us. Pipes did say during the lecture, and I quote, “The United States will have to do the heavy lifting, militarily speaking, in the Middle East.” This was 6 months before the invasion of Iraq.

A group of American college students, including a couple of Jewish college students, and one well known, outspoken militant Likudist Israeli college student, sat with us. The American kids took seats in a row in front of myself and my friend and were very hostile and threatening, but the Israeli kid took a seat right next to us, told his friends to shut up, and politely asked us several questions. He seemed extremely concerned with ordinary Americans being angry about Israeli influence on Middle East policy. Several times he had to shush his friends who wanted to demonstrate their righteous hatred of myself and my friend. The Israeli tried to ask a question of Pipes but was ignored, and jokingly blamed it on us, as he was sitting next to us. When I read Ostrovsky’s books, the Israeli’s attitude made sense to me.

Ostrovsky is one of the sensible Israelis, who understands that they have it good and don’t want to upset the apple cart. But his faction was overthrown by the hard core Likudists, who want to keep Israel in a constant state of tension with the Middle Eastern neighbors. Likudists apparently fear peace, because the Israelis will go soft and maybe even start mixing with Arabs. They know that modern Muslim Palestinians were probably the original Jewish Israelites, and don’t want to end up like them.

So however bad you think we have it, and however powerful you think the Jews are, remember that all their power is leveraged. If you don’t believe me, read Ostrovsky’s books. You will learn things that O.J. most certainly does not want you to know.

To recapitulate:

A decentralization of the economy and devolution of power, will be a deleveraging of the power of O.J. Socio-economic conditions will be better for us, and worse for them. The best thing we can do is meet the coming challenges head on, and do our best to thrive and amplify all healthy, life-affirming trends.