Right-Wing Activism Always Fails

Flashback to early January of this year, in Germany. ‘Germany shocked by Cologne New Year gang assaults on women,’ from the BBC:

The scale of the attacks on women at the city’s central railway station has shocked Germany. About 1,000 drunk and aggressive young men were involved. City police chief Wolfgang Albers called it “a completely new dimension of crime”. The men were of Arab or North African appearance, he said. What is particularly disturbing is that the attacks appear to have been organised. Around 1,000 young men arrived in large groups, seemingly with the specific intention of carrying out attacks on women. Police were deployed outside the central station because of the crowds on New Year’s Eve, but failed to spot the many attacks, according to reports. There are also fears that a number of women did not report assaults.

Emphasis mine. Going just by the heavily abridged and self-censored description from the BBC, we learn that a thousand organized, drunk, aggressive young Arab men arrived in large groups at the central railway station and main square of Cologne – a city with a population of over a million people in Germany – on New Year’s Eve, and engaged in a campaign of thefts and sexual attacks. Police were deployed, but “failed to spot the many attacks.”

Allow me to repeat that. In a large city in Germany, on the main square and central railway station, on New Year’s Eve, police failed to spot a thousand organized, drunk, aggressive young Arab men committing what have now been revealed as over 1000 crimes. How many police were deployed exactly? Three? According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung article, there were 80 police officers instead of the previously-reported 140, but I still fail to understand how 80 police officers in an area that – being very generous – is the size of the prison island of Alcatraz failed to spot one thousand criminals committing crimes. Cologne Main Square area

I don’t mention Alcatraz without reason. Ninety officers worked at Alcatraz at any given time, managing an average of 260 imprisoned criminals. Ninety policemen were enough to manage 260 prisoners in an area the size of the greater Cologne main square area, but eighty policemen were not enough to even notice a single crime being committed by 1000 criminals in the same area – in one night! The police just aren’t what they used to be, I guess.

Oh, but wait:

Riot police broke up far-right protesters in Cologne on Saturday as they marched against Germany’s open-door migration policy after asylum seekers were identified as suspects in assaults on women on New Year’s Eve. Police said around 1,700 people attended the rally organized by the far-right anti-Islam PEGIDA movement, which has seized on the alleged involvement of migrants in the Cologne attacks as proof Merkel’s policy is flawed. A police spokesman said roughly half of those at the PEGIDA protest were from the ‘hooligan scene’. Some in the crowd threw bottles and fire crackers at officers, and riot police used water canon to disperse the protesters. Two people were injured in the clash, and police detained a number of demonstrators, a Reuters witness said. In all, about 1,700 police officers were on the streets of Cologne, dwarfing the number on duty during the chaotic scenes of New Year’s Eve when at least 120 women were robbed or sexually molested. “The events on New Year’s Eve led to a lot of emotion,” said a police spokesman. “We had feared that emotions would boil over.”

This article was from January 9. In other words, on January 9, the Cologne police had 1,700 police officers in riot gear and reinforced by water cannons break up a rally of around 1,700 people, but a week or so earlier they couldn’t muster more than 80 police officers to patrol the main square during the busiest night of the year as a thousand Arabs went nuts on the locals. Are these even the same police forces? Apparently, rather than fearing thefts and rapes, the police feared that “emotions would boil over,” and going by the numbers of arrests, they indeed prepared terribly for the former, but magnificently for the latter.

All of which goes back to the title of this article. My dear right-wing activists: you will not be allowed to succeed. Your emotions will not be allowed to boil over; they will be kept cool with riot police and water cannons at any cost.

The notion that activism is the path to power is not just wrong, it is fully backwards. It confuses cause and effect. Arab migrants in Germany are allowed to grope women and steal iPhones from the locals. They do not do it in spite of the police and government, they do it thanks to the police and government. German right-wingers are not allowed to publicly demonstrate they exist, or that they oppose the state-imposed campaign of Arab rape and theft. This conundrum is not accidental, it is intentional.

Moldbug wrote about the folly of political activism in support of right-wing causes a long time ago. Activism of any kind is not the path to power, it is the end result of power. It is not the way to gain power and influence, it is a victory dance for those who already have it. Doing the victory dance when you have power only reinforces your power. Doing the victory dance when you don’t results in an unceremonious crushing by the state, followed by subsequent official wiping of anybody’s memory of you – unless you came close to succeeding, in which case you are officially rewritten in history as a villain and trotted out as a dirty, evil bogeyman to anyone who suggests anything vaguely resembling your ideas or opinions.

There were always plenty of right-wing activist organizations. I can safely say that any single one of them were more technically correct (though possibly not as sophisticated) about major issues at any given time than the ruling governments. What is the track record of technical correctness beating state-backed incorrectness and insanity? What happened to the KKK? What happened to the John Birch Society? American Nazi Party? What happened to the National Alliance, which used to have a yearly income of $1 million? Remember when Britain’s National Front had thousands of dues-paying, marching members committed to a whites-only party and repatriation of non-whites? What happened to the Irish toughs who fought desegregation in Boston? Did boycotts and protests do anything for them, or did the police dutifully act on the state’s orders to put black kids in formerly white schools at the cost of beating white women and schoolchildren? And how is that time period presented in all official schools, universities, and media publications today?

As long as I can remember, the media has been claiming that there are Nazis, fascists, and religious right-wing theocrats hiding in every closet and under every bed, just waiting for somebody to express an opinion that was in vogue 30 years ago but horribly unfashionable now, at which point all these Nazis, fascists and religious right-wing theocrats would jump out and reveal themselves, impose a totalitarian government, and kill just about everybody. This would be horribly offensive to women and minorities, and therefore unacceptable. I would not recommend potential right-wing activists take the media’s word for it, however.

The media’s business model depends on printing comfortable and popular lies, and it is therefore full of society’s best liars. The media does not stop lying when it claims there are brownshirts under your bed just waiting to suddenly return and attempt a Fourth Reich. In reality, there are no powerful right-wing institutions, few if any powerful people who are openly right-wing, and no powerful right-wing political parties on the cusp of seizing power. But if the ordinary person realized and internalized that fact, there would be no need for the radically left-wing parties masquerading as level-headed moderates that rule Western countries nowadays.

The Brown Specter keeps the Reds in power.

So, what happens if you make the mistake of believing the media, and you attempt to publicly join the incipient right-wing revolution? Well, the police show up, beat you, detain you, arrest you, use the latest high-tech crowd dispersal technology against you, the media notes that somebody made a Nazi salute somewhere near you (therefore discrediting your message), and then everyone disowns and disavows you. Then you are used as proof that the Nazis could be back at any second, and to ensure peace and prosperity the government absolutely needs to import another 2-3 million Middle Eastern and African migrants, lest there occur another Holocaust. All of this might seem silly and unjust to you from a jail cell, but that’s the system we live in. It’s not unmerited pessimism if it’s true.

One photo of a little dead Kurdish boy on a Turkish beach, and the media is unanimous: Europe must accept millions of Syrian (or wherever they came from) migrants immediately. And Europe does. Thousands and thousands of photos, videos and stories of degeneracy and violence by migrants or other left-wing victim groups – nothing. Noticing them is enough to get you fired in some places. In Britain, it could get you arrested. Does being technically correct or technically legal help you at all? Not really, looks like. Protected left-wing groups can break border laws dozens of times, commit rapes, thefts and terrorism, and still remain in the good graces of the official ruling organs. Right-wing groups that protest this consistent criminality are put down immediately, legality be damned. Progress does not wait for the law.

Despite the total efforts of dozens of right-wing political parties and political activist groups over decades (if not centuries), there has been no sustained reversal, halt, or even deceleration of the left-wing program. Public right-wing groups attain some modicum of success, then get crushed, then eventually peter out, and the next new generation of right-wingers never learns about them and gets convinced they are finally ready to bring the gospel to the people, only to get crushed again. Only controlled opposition like the mainstream center-right parties in Europe and North America may exist permanently, and they are worse than useless.

So what is to be done? I recommend passivism. In the short term, public political action and activism looks very flashy, very impressive, and looks like it’s scaring the right people. In the long run, public political action and activism amounts to next to nothing. The main benefit of right-wing activism — when it doesn’t end in life sentences — is that it inadvertently forms bonds between right-wing-minded people. That is good, great even. We need bonds between right-wing minded people. There are friendships, marriages, children, careers, families, and networks that would not exist today if it weren’t for right-wing activist and public political groups. But this benefit is incidental.

The main stated goals of these organizations tend to be to influence the official political process. Political maneuvering and protest without the state power to make them useful. The main benefit is relationship-building, which can in any case be done more efficiently if less time is spent on activism and more time is spent on the relationships.

Coincidentally, the few places where right-wing activism demonstrably works are the places where right-wing governments are already in power, and the countries are run by naturally right-wing alliances of mafiosos, rural patriarchs, and members of the local security services, rather than by the media, academia and permanent bureaucracy. It’s been repeatedly observed that the dueling center-right and center-left parties in the West will ally with each other to prevent a rise in influence of a far-right party. Yet in Hungary, far-right Jobbik members complain that the majority Fidesz party adopts their policies to stanch their support. This aligns with my earlier point: public protest and activism is not the path to power. It is the end result of it.

If you want to be a right-wing activist, I recommend you move to Eastern Europe first, where the police will look away if you shout down a No Borders anarchist with a black bandanna, then beat him up later. In the West, the police will make sure you only very quietly and politely protest the No Borders anarchists, and if you literally or figuratively raise your voice, they will arrest you for inciting violence, or will look away as people in black bandannas wreck your car. If you punch a leftist, you incited violence with your fist. If a leftist punches you, you incited violence with your words. If you want be an activist, first go someplace where that isn’t true.

Activism is either dangerous or harmless to the state. If harmless, it is LARPing and will not result in any permanent solution to our civilization’s problems. If dangerous, it is felonious or will be made felonious quickly when you are noticed. Just because the state doesn’t have a legal justification to crush you now doesn’t mean it won’t figure one out, or won’t reinterpret the existing laws to figure out a justification. Frankly, it doesn’t even mean the state will have to follow the existing laws – Angela Merkel’s plan to resettle half the Near East in Bavaria wasn’t technically legal by EU law, but that didn’t seem to stop her, or even arouse much ire. You don’t want to be the first to discover that hate speech isn’t protected by the First Amendment, or that your views constitute emotional violence that is just as harmful as physical violence to a protected group.

Achieving right-wing goals for the long-term has to begin with renouncing activism. Right-wing activism is only a challenge to the system in theory. In reality, it is the system’s lifeblood, and if it were possible to muster enough right-wing activists to overthrow the system completely it would have happened a long time ago – one infamous man came very close, but ultimately failed when he discovered that genocidal Soviet communists were preferable allies to the United Kingdom and United States, and no right-wing movement has come close since.

As things get worse, there is little reason to believe any will come close or succeed in the future.

Mark Yuray is verified on Gab. Follow him there and on Twitter.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

135 Comments

  1. Hadley Bishop April 5, 2016 at 9:54 am

    Works for whom? If you could provide some counter-examples to the article, that would be helpful.

    1. Laguna Beach Fogey April 5, 2016 at 10:35 am

      #Gamergate, AmRen & NPI conferences, and the Trump campaign are some recent examples of successful right-wing activism.

      Telling our people to remain passive is shitty advice.

      1. All folk activism and astroturf efforts I’m afraid. Gamergate isn’t going to make the press any less left over time. In 20 years, it’ll just be more holiness spirals which dictate how we consume interactive media. The Trump campaign, if it wants to be successful, will go Kasich in substantive policy quickly. If not, he’ll be as derided as Goldwater or Buchanan in 20 years.

        AmRen and NPI doesn’t strictly count as activism. Activism means people power and these, in my observation, at the very least try to find quality people on the right.

      2. None of those are remotely successful, perhaps barring Trump.

        Gamergate: “I just want to play video games,” dominated by liberals and resulted in nothing but further propagation of liberalism.
        AmRen: Definitely affects the way things happen in the West.
        NPI: Dragging the supposedly “far-right” leftward.

      3. If you read what Moldbug wrote, you’ll find that passivism is not the same thing as being passive.

      4. Trump can’t be an example of “successful” activism, because pro-Trump activism hasn’t achieved anything yet. To be successful, it would have to both install Trump, and have him actually achieve something we want. The first might occur, the latter probably won’t.

        The conferences aren’t activism; they’re conferences.

        Gamergate is an open question, so there’s that, I suppose, but I doubt it’ll achieve anything in the long run (is Sarkeesian short of dough? Is her army of white knights thinning out?)

        1. Laguna Beach Fogey April 5, 2016 at 7:11 pm

          Of course conferences are examples of activism. Not only that, they were (are) very successful examples.

      5. Passivism =/= do nothing. Passivism = do not attempt to gain power as a right-winger through the official power structure, or you will be co-opted or crushed because that is the nature of the system, it is designed to sustain itself.

        Not sure what lasting achievements GG has.

        AmRen and NPI = mostly conferences, so more passivism than anything else.

        Trump hasn’t achieved anything permanent yet, and in fact just highlights how correct NRx theorists are about the nature of power. Trump has done what he’s done as a member of the elite, and in fact as a former member of the progressive-liberal NYC elite. Trump already had power before he went off running for president and trying to shift the Overton Window rightwards.

        Without Trump, where would his supporters be now? Probably not voting and not paying attention, as most of them say they were doing on TV before they heard about Trump. If any single one of them tried to do what Trump did, would they have succeeded? Nope. It takes a member of the elite who already has a significant chunk of power to do anything notable. Without Trump, it would’ve been Bush vs. Clinton 2016.

        If you want to advance right-wing causes, in the absence of Trump’s level of power, your best bet is not to imitate Trump’s behavior now when he has power, but imitate his behavior before he had power. So passivism: network, build, do quiet and useful things until you have an independently powerful institution or group. Get to $10 billion net worth and then begin activism, then at least you have some recourse from being totally and immediately crushed.

        1. Laguna Beach Fogey April 5, 2016 at 7:23 pm

          Your claim that “right-wing activism always fails” is clearly wrong. It’s the bold claim of an amateur.

          You’ve failed to provide adequate refutations to the point that GamerGate, the AmRen & NPI conferences, and the Trump campaign–to name just a few–have all been very successful examples of recent right-wing activism.

          The simple act of providing a venue for right-wing activists to network and exchange ideas, in the face of left-wing protest and systemic censure, is a success.

          (Conferences, by their very nature, are activism).

          Revolutions, as you know, don’t always happen overnight.

          The NRx kids, in their impatience, are showing their inexperience.

        2. Right-wing activism existing is not a success for the Right.

          Right-wing activism would be successful if it lead to permanent long-lasting power and right-wing institutions.

          This has not happened in recent history, despite many attempts at right-wing activism.

        3. The problem is we are aping the tactics of the left which only work because they are tactics that appeal to the type of person who becomes a left winger. Even Islamic terrorism is alinskyite before Alinsky; it tells a bunch of thugs to be as thuggish and drug addled as they like provided they victimize the right people.

          The original idea behind mass protests was to cause riots that destabilize the forces of order enough to cause revolution. “Nonviolence” was a refinement of the idea, realizing the threat itself was enough without violence, or less of it (you either deal with MLK or you deal with Malcolm X).

          The tactics that will work for us need to be where our strengths lie, not playing a game the enemy is not only better at but invented specifically to favor himself.

        4. @Hoyos

          Good point too. It feeds into the order/chaos nature of the Right vs. the Left.

          I was standing in the front-row at the infamous Trump rally in Chicago. I saw it all happen up-close. So what happened there? Why did the Left win?

          The Left won primarily because UIC is a watering hole for 30,000 brown-toned leftists with low impulse control, where they are legally, socially and financially enabled to sit around all day repeating Marxist slogans to each other and smoking pot. Then, every once in a while, MoveOn.org pays them a few bucks to go and “protest” the wrong kind of person when they show up on campus.

          The Right lost because the Right has reputations, jobs, careers, families and children. The Right doesn’t have a giant street mob of violent drug users lying in wait at all times, to be summoned with a little media chicanery and Soros money.

          There are some right-wingers who would have you believe that this is the Right’s problem, and that to win, the Right needs something approximating the Left’s street mobs. And yet the very nature of these mobs is totally disordered and inherently oppositional to right-wing goals and values. We are neither desirous nor capable of matching or outdoing the Left’s capacity to cultivate an army of drug-addled morons with low impulse control. That is inherently antithetical to right-wing goals.

          Mob violence is a leftist’s strategy. The key elements of mob violence are destruction, inclusion and non-discrimination. The Right has been losing because it’s been imitating the mob violence strategy of a leftist, but doesn’t have the moral and personal depravity necessary to out-do the Left at its own game. It’s time the Right started using a right-wing strategy based instead on creation, exclusion and discrimination — conspiracy.

  2. [citation needed]
    In a left leaning country, where the legal system is mostly left-sympathizing?

    1. Ummm… what planet are you from?

  3. One right wing activist group that has gone down the memory hole is Operation Rescue, which used non-violent blockades of abortion clinics to prevent and protest abortions. It was the largest non-violent protest movement in America. In 1988 nearly 12,000 people were arrested in 182 abortion clinic blockades. In 1989 over 12,000 people were arrested in 201 blockades. No other left wing protest movement comes even close. Not the vaunted civil rights movement, the leftist campus sit ins, or the anti-war movement of the 60’s.

    You would think this would have some political effect. This sort of widespread activism should get the attention of politicians and you would think they would want to give some concessions to the pro-life cause. Just the opposite occurred. In 1994 blocking an abortion clinic door became a federal crime.

    Protest movements only work when there are powerful people behind them. When their leaders are made into heroes in the media, rather than villains. When politicians pass laws the activists demand, but which they were going to pass anyway. The purpose of the left wing protests and activists is to make the next left wing ratchet turn palatable to the masses. See? We must pass these laws, look at all the protests! It’s a sham. A political side show.

    Yet when right wingers bring thousands out to be arrested for activism, the movement is derided in the media, ignored by the politicians, and crushed by the state.

    1. One whole hitler failed. And you guys think a couple of millihitlers is going to somehow succeed.

      [Apologies to Augustina, this was not in response to you, just an off hand general comment.]

    2. Excellent comment. I’ll be noting down this failure.

      Until aspiring right-wing activists realize that the playing field is not level, and is in fact not even a playing field but a big trap designed for them, all we’ll have is a talent and manpower drain.

      How much opposition do you think the state can muster against a growing right-wing movement with a target on its back thanks to its public nature? Well note that mass rape by Arabs, Muslim terrorism and allying with the Prison of Nations is all preferable to admitting the far-right might be right about something, or — Ford forbid — be allowed to have power.

    3. “No other left wing protest movement comes even close. Not the vaunted civil rights movement, the leftist campus sit ins, or the anti-war movement of the 60’s.”

      Anti-abortion was small potatoes. In ’70 (I think) during ONE anti-war demonstration in DC (could have been the Moratorium which attracted 500,000 – mostly college kids) 10,000 were arrested in one day. The majority were briefly held at RFK Stadium and released without trial.

    4. Protests never work unless they are either backed by credible threat or serve the state

      2003 saw millions of people protesting the gulf war and nothing happened.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003,_anti-war_protests

      However passivism doesn’t work either. The future belong to those who show up and do stuff .

      So what does this call for ? Power is Truth, Separation or Death , Utra-Fash , Exterminatus?

      No one knows.

      More importantly no one knows because for the most part the .Alt Right is morally solid but doesn’t really have a real ideology of any sort.

      If there was an ideology even as one as simple “Non Whites defined as X get out of Y land” it could accomplish something . But it can’t because they are incapable of setting down and deciding how say a Provisional Government of National Restoration would actually work. How it would govern and what standards it would adhere too.

      Pro Tip as the kids say, when the Northwest Front is farther ahead on planning its unachievable goals than you are your achievable ones, you have a problem.

      And yes I know the Right is full of idiot Libertarians and is terrified of publishing ideas as if somehow the state knowing your end goals will make it stronger. Its bullshit, put up something that can be worked for or shut up and take it.

      Once a general idea is hashed out at that point people can take action or not take action as desired.

  4. So this is interesting, if for no other reason than that it highlights some tensions within NRx itself. At least as far as strategy goes. There seems to be those who view mass movements and politics in a positive light and those who view it in a negative light. It’s pretty clear, more or less, how the “mass movement” types want to proceed. What’s not so clear to me is how the anti-politics, “passivist” crowd wants things to play out. Do you really think that if you convince enough upper caste types about the values of “the Right” they will suddenly come around and impose it, top down, on society like a new corporate policy? Are we waiting on a “Great man of History” to come and save us? Are we waiting for the collapse of Liberal society so we can start over? Many of the things you pointed out about the dangers of Right wing politics are certainly true, but writing off the entire political enterprise as impossible seems like a council of despair to me. I guess I just don’t see how a quietist stance does anything. To paraphrase a great philosopher: ‘Say what you want about National Socialism, but at least it’s an ethos.’

    1. There is no tension within NRx proper about mass movements. Mass movements are officially proscribed. We wish ’em all well, but it ain’t NRx.

      NRx has an ethos: Rule what you own. You wanna rule more? Buy (or get) more. It is very serious about sovereignty. Becoming worthy is about sovereignty, over self, over family, over community, over the economic means of community.

      In answer to the specific question: Yes. If enough elites decide to back a different horse, things could change very rapidly. Conversion of elites is necessary and sufficient for restoration.

      1. I agree with pretty much everything you said, except the last part. Conversion of elites may very well be necessary but I am highly skeptical of the claim that it is sufficient. Most modern societies aren’t neatly divided into Masters and Slaves, there’s a lot of worker bees of various ranks in between them. These people are also important, some successful Coups were carried out by junior level officers for instance. There are many different fulcrums of power, you need to be in control of most or all of them in order to succeed. You’d need to convert a large number of people of various classes. A strategy of all Generals and no Soldiers doesn’t usually work out, just ask the GOP. I understand if NRx and Social Matter itself want to focus on appealing to elites. I just don’t think, in and of itself, it will be sufficient for a restoration.

        1. Then I shall be even more extreme in my claims. Conversion of a critical mass of elites is identically equivalent to holding power.

      2. Zerfall der Ordnung April 5, 2016 at 4:51 pm

        Nick, in response to your “Rule what you own” comment, I must question the extent to which you can own anything under the present order. A non-sovereign property owner is essentially a vassal. Your titles are dependent upon your willingness to play ball with current political objectives. If you refuse, all your titles will be stripped from you. I suspect you already know this, but I’m wondering how you’d respond.

        1. Live your life the way you see fit; Don’t compete for power; Stay under the radar. This has been the recipe the Amish have used. They had a minor setback a couple generations ago: They were forced to educate their own kids thru 8th grade in their own schools. Could the Cathedral crush them like a grape? Maybe. But doesn’t the Cathedral have some Nazis to catch? And besides that’s a whole lotta grapes by now, and a whole lotta martyrs to make. When the fit hits the shan, the Amish will be little affected.

      3. I’d say a wholesale slaughter of elites is a much more realistic path to restoration.

        1. Like Mao. Trouble is, no matter how many elites you slaughter, you’re always left with a bunch of folks at the top.

    2. FWIW, I’m on the same page as NBS. He gets it.

      As for being a council of despair: after 200+ years of unceremonious failure, to the point that millions of Arabs and Africans are being imported in our homelands every year unchecked, against the law, where they rape and bomb us willfully, and the government *still* supports it — perhaps it’s time to take a hint and come up with a different strategy? There is not a point in time for the last 200 years that somebody somewhere wasn’t vigorously attempting right-wing activism, as far as I am aware. 200 years, still no Restoration.

      Mistaking passivism for pacifism isn’t going to make you right about it. Even right-wing street self-defence gangs would be legitimately passivist, if they were obviously structured in such a way to prevent rape by Arabs rather than to get media clicks and influence elections.

      Right-wingers really have a case of battered wife syndrome when it comes to democracy and elections. Re-read the beginning of this article wrt. the Cologne scandal. This is all openly known in Germany. And what does the public think of it? Based on opinion polls, a literal illegal invasion by millions of alien rapists, thieves and terrorists doesn’t Wake The White Man Up(tm), it just gives a moderate eurosceptic party a +10% boost in the polls. Woop dee doo.

      It’s fun to think that there’s a coming wave of far-right populism that will send the bastards home — to Brussels and to Beirut — but that’s really not the case. If open invasion by armed rapist hordes from the Middle East can only bring a moderate eurosceptic party 10-15% of the national vote, there is no hope in elections.

      The situation is less dire in the USA and elsewhere, but the only places it isn’t dire are places where the media and the bureaucracy are subordinate to other, more local interests…

      So if you want to make Germany and the USA more like Poland and Russia, don’t begin with activism, begin by knowing your neighborhood…

    3. Michael Perriloux April 5, 2016 at 8:27 pm

      >Do you really think that if you convince enough upper caste types about the values of “the Right” they will suddenly come around and impose it, top down, on society like a new corporate policy?

      Yes. That is exactly how it will happen. It will take a while to trickle down, to achieve the slow cultural healing, and so on, but yes, if the elites are aligned behind something, it happens.

      >Are we waiting on a “Great man of History” to come and save us?

      Not quite waiting. Preparing the red carpet, and forging the sword and crown, but yes, we need great men. Nothing else can possibly work.

      >Are we waiting for the collapse of Liberal society so we can start over?

      Ideally we get our thing in order before liberal society collapses, so that when the ways become clear, the elites decide to jump ship now rather than suffer through the collapse.

      >writing off the entire political enterprise as impossible seems like a council of despair to me.

      What if it is, in fact, impossible? (it is). We are not saying “let’s all just sit around and do nothing, because the left is too powerful”, we are saying “that won’t work, we’re doing this other thing instead, which will work”.

      >‘Say what you want about National Socialism, but at least it’s an ethos.’

      So let’s talk about National Socialism. How did Hitler in fact achieve power?

      1. He constructed a glorious vision of how society could be run without marxism, and without getting squeezed by globalists.

      2. He attracted a small cadre of extremely competent party comrades.

      3. He negotiated and convinced the industrialists that his vision was viable and would be profitable to them.

      4. He built a full new state in exile, ready to go, with no incremental “first we’ll get the presidency, then slowly convert the state” half-baked unthought.

      5. He ran on the platform of *absolute* power for the *already existing* nazi state, and got elected by legal and legitimate means.

      All that stuff with the beerhall was a failed sideshow. The fact that they built a chaotic mass movement before they got absolute power meant they went critically insane in many areas (with the nasty results with which we are familiar). Note that even where the violent stuff aided them, it’s because the state did not come down on them and crush them. The violent stuff would get you crushed these days, but the actual core of NS strategy would not.

      The actual working core of the National Socialist strategy was Passivism, ie absolute power and the restoration of the golden age all at once in one fell swoop, after making a deal with the elites.

      There is only one path to power:

      1. Become worthy
      2. Accept Power
      3. Rule

  5. The advice of this article is remarkably hollow. It raises the valid point that right wing activism has been notoriously unsuccessful in the post-WWII era and how’s on to advocate passivism, but make no attempt to show how passivism would succeed where activism fails. I doesn’t follow that because visible activism in the West has been failure to date that a passive approach will be any more successful.

    The article talks of right wing activism only working when right wing times are in place. How does the author propose right wrong groups come to power unless there is a concerted effort by right-leaning individuals to first network and then take over the reigns of power? While waiting for a Deus Ex Machina to solve your problems may be safer on an individual level, it is certainly no more likely to succeed.

    1. “but make no attempt to show how passivism would succeed where activism fails”

      And? Does that make the point any less valid?

      “How does the author propose right wrong groups come to power unless there is a concerted effort by right-leaning individuals to first network and then take over the reigns of power?”

      Sure, but that’s not activism, and certainly not folk activism. That’s more like “networking”.

    2. I intentionally excluded the arguments for passivism in this article, just the arguments against activism. Next week I’ll write about how to passivism.

      Right-wing movements in the West have a 200+ year track record of unceremonious failure. Maybe it’s time to take a hint and restrategize — in fact, more right-wingers would, if they studied history, but they’re just as memory-wiped about the past as anyone who grows up in modern society.

      “How does the author propose right wing groups come to power unless there is a concerted effort by right-leaning individuals to first network and then take over the reigns of power?”

      Haha. That is not activism, that is networking, which is best done privately and secretly, which is passivism.

  6. What about right wing violence? You can’t say it is a failure if someone sends leftists to a grave, like Breivik did. But them, the terrorist in question must embrace the consequences of this action, and there is not much(if at all) right wing people willing to kill and die for their ideals(unlike muslims).

    1. OF COURSE WE CAN consider right wing violence a failure… if it is a strategic failure. And the Brevik and McVeigh attacks were strategic failures. They accomplished no goals and fed the enemy’s propaganda machine for decades to come.

      The reason Muslim terrorism (this “heroic” killing and dying for one’s “ideals”) works is that Muslim terrorists have powerful sponsors that want the kinds of change that Muslim terror pushes. Otherwise, they’d just be purple blots on the sand and no one would care. You don’t seem to understand the rudimentary basics of 4GW. What the hell are you doing here?

      1. I’m not so sure. Norway has made some good inroads on its refugee crisis. It may not get rid of enough of them or it may be a fake out but it seems to be more than Sweden is doing.

        How much of that is do to Brehvik I wonder.

        Also after McVeigh committed his crimes and paid for them, I’ll note there hasn’t been another Waco since.The Feds have been a lot more careful and dare I say professional.

        Is that a failure?

        Granted he could not shift the zeitgeist but that was in 1995 , the US was still White or seemed to be. Baywatch was still on the air and many Americans still saw the US through that lens not as Brazil del Norte

      2. Faustian Shitlord April 9, 2016 at 10:51 pm

        As white racial demographics continue to age and decline in Europe and the United States, as vastly disproportionate amounts of interracial rape, assault and terrorism continues to increase alongside mass immigration and Islamist infiltration and as the regional economy begins to wobble on its axis under the pressures of migrant welfare and healthcare exploitation I can quite easily envision a potential future scenario 5 to 10 years down the line (or perhaps even sooner) in which right-wing terrorism becomes a viable political strategy once again. By that time we will see more “far-right wing” nationalist parties like the Front National, the Swedish Democrats and Alternative for Germany gaining public support and increasing their political power. Amidst this climate harassment of politicians (physical or psychological), bombing campaigns on government buildings and assassination of public figures supportive of mass immigration could, if effectively coordinated evoke more support from the working classes than commendation once every man and his dog knows somebody who’s been raped, assaulted or killed by an immigrant (be they friends or family members). Give it time, once America and Europe begin the inevitable process of Balkanisation and Brazilianisation more right-wing terrorist groups will emerge and the media will be unable to continuously speak about them. When violence and terror reigns throughout Europe people will be desperate for solutions, just as they were desperate in Weimar Germany. Once we reach this point the Neoreactionary strategies of restoration over revolution will need to take the backseat to direct “propaganda of the deed” style violent action. What a time to be alive!

        1. A nice fantasy, except when Europeans get raped and bombed they don’t wake up, they shove their heads deeper into their pillows and scream. Might have something to do with who is holding a gun to their head, and it’s not a Muslim — yet.

    2. Brevik and McVeigh are great examples of WHAT NOT TO DO, WHAT RIGHT WING ACTIVISM SHOULD NEVER BE LIKE. Not only were their actions morally grotesque(there is a time and place for violence but slaughtering children at a summer camp isn’t one of them), they were also stupid. They are perfect examples of an impotent individual lashing out and are exactly what the Left wants/needs. Their actions advanced nothing but their own vanity and harmed the Right strategically.

      1. “Their actions advanced nothing but their own vanity and harmed the Right strategically.”

        This is true to lesser degrees for all right-wing activism (i.e. public & political) because all activism is predicated on democratic notions of power, which means all activism is based on demonstrating violence or demonstrating the capacity for it as a threat. This plays into the Left’s game, because the Left controls the state. The Right does not control the state. If the Right wants to win, it needs to stop poking the eyes of the left-wing state and begin building its own state — passivism, which is private.

      2. The Breivik love I’ve heard spouted is some of the darkest, most evil moral self castration that pops up. The man was a pure lunatic who killed children.

        I may not approve but I would understand a man who kills another man who is directly harming him (there is a scale of response and violence is way on one side). Breivik was like killing your neighbors’ children because some fellow across town was pissing you off.

        Of course moral shaming is “holiness spiraling”, etc., but come the hell on.

        1. Moral shaming is not holiness spiraling. Neither was McVeigh a lunatic. Nor, a fortiori, was Brevik. Both were however pwned by the modernist zeitgeist.

        2. Preston S. Brooks (@Rebel_Bill) April 9, 2016 at 10:48 pm

          Nits make lice. Teenage leftists become grown-up leftists

          1. This is no doubt true, but killing 1/10 of 1% of them only makes the remaining 99.9% look more heroic.

      3. Their terrorism isn’t any sort of activism though I’m not remotely sure they harmed the Right all that much.

        1. McVeigh single-handedly killed off the Old Right in the United States and the specter of “OKC” has haunted every nominally R/W sphere since.

          Clinton was on the ropes going into ’96 until McVeigh moved Pat Buchanan permanently beyond the Overton window.

          Total disaster for America’s “Right”.

          1. Preston S. Brooks (@Rebel_Bill) April 9, 2016 at 7:30 pm

            Then stodgy old moderate Bob Dole won the GOP nomination and lost in a landslide….

    3. Genocide is not a winning strategy unless you have the biggest bully around on your side. In the case of WWII, the biggest bullies turned out not to be Hitler and the Nazis, but the USA, UK and USSR. If you attempt genocide and you don’t have the biggest bully around on your side, you will end up in the Hague defending yourself from “crimes against humanity” (whatever the hell that means) while the judge’s friends organize gay parades in your home country. If you do, everybody will forget that you committed a genocide. See Serbs in Croatia in 1995 or Germans in Eastern Europe 1945-50. Believe me, I’m from the Balkans, I know.

      Breivik and McVeigh were total strategic failures. From McVeigh and Breivik to the Malheur occupiers, right-wing activists believe and claim that the people will rise up to support them at any moment. They never do. Time to take a hint. Do pick attempt mass murder and genocide as your solution unless you have the biggest bully around on your side (though I’m not even touching the moral/ethical issues).

      The genocide strategy works for Muslims because the biggest bully around is USG/EUSSR/Cathedral/etc. and it supports their campaign for violent replacement of Europeans. It’s that simple.

      1. some anonymous guy June 15, 2016 at 10:35 pm

        Dude, at this point we have the Greek problem. We are confronted with the White peoples’ 1453. Remember that while eventually after 300 and more years the Greeks rebelled and got their independence, Anatolia was forever lost. This is a big problem. If we lose this there won’t be European people around for the future. For E&C Europe the fact they were occupied by Marxists for more than 50 years was not such a disaster, as afterwards there were still Poles and Hungarians around. But in this case if we don’t fix the problem in the next 50-100 years we’ll share the fate of the American Indians and the Maori. It’s not that I disagree with anything specific here, it’s just that you don’t seem to notice that there is a timeframe issue here and that if disaster is not averted it will be permanent.

        I always wonder, what if the Greeks had organised an Eteria not in the early 1800’s, but in the early 1500’s, whould the fate of Greece had been different?

  7. All of you saying that passivism isn’t a doctrine or isn’t a method to power or is synonymous with quietism don’t understand what passivism actually is and what it counsels.

    Observation: the West is going to Hell in a handbasket. I don’t think any of us, populists, passivists, or anything else would disagree with that.

    The passivist prescription for this is to let it happen. Let progress progress to the bitter end, to the black hole, to the terminus of violence and depravity that the devils in human flesh so wish for. Let them all die in an orgy of mass suicide where they talk about how great it is one moment and shoot themselves in the face in the next.

    Meanwhile, what WE need to do is to become worthy and rule our own spaces. Keep the light of true civilisation burning in the wilderness, and defend it with tooth and claw from all comers. Then we can step into the vacuum and seize power, or inform someone else who has the gumption to seize power. (Personally, I don’t want power; I’d be much happier as one of the king’s advisors than the king.)

    What does this mean we should actually, actively do? Start communities of likeminded people. Not just internet hubs, but meatspace communities. If you don’t meet with a group of likeminded people whom you live near, you need to start. Change the way you rule your own household. Find a wife who will submit herself to you as her lord, or go become a wife of a man worthy of your submission. Have LOTS of children and teach them the truth. Learn real, useful skills, like farming, plumbing, carpentry, etc. etc. Attenuate your family’s contact with the poison of the modern world as much as possible while still flying under the radar.

    Notice that NONE of that is “go hold a sign in front of a camera somewhere.” Sign-holding never accomplishes truly reactionary goals, because it’s an essentially progressive activity. Convincing the masses means that you rely on the masses for power, or think you do, which means you want to institute a progressive government. Instead of convincing the people, convince the leaders.

    No king in history has ever given a damn what the peasants think about his politics, beyond making sure they have enough to eat and aren’t cutting up.

    Leave democracy behind. It’s a worm planted in your brain from before you could talk, and it has been feeding on your soul ever since. Rip it out of the back of your head and stomp it on the pavement, or you’ll end up back where you started.

  8. If you advocate laying down and dying then do so yourself at once. Quietly.

    Cowardice isn’t the nobler path.
    As for activism working or not: War will.

    As for the Prophet Moldbug he’s seldom very practical but when he is he’s telling Whites to lay down and die.

    Of course he is – it’s in his interest.

    Stop coming to the Right or indeed anyone for validation for cowardice. Hang your head in shame and be silent.

    1. It’s a good thing we’re not advocating laying down and dying or cowardice then. Though we make no secret of our disdain for the “right” types who want to stand up and die as quickly as possible, for no discernible gain.

    2. A simultaneous failure of reading comprehension, memory, and imagination. Bonus points for false aspersions cast.

      If you wanna start a movement, go start a movement. If you wanna fight a war, go fight a war. NRx is not stopping you. In fact, we wish you well. But we believe movements and wars are strategic errors. NRx thinks it has a better plan. If we’re wrong, time will tell, but no lives will have been lost on our account, and we’ll have still built something worthwhile. If you’re wrong, a lot of people will be in jail (or dead), and the power of our enemies will be further cemented.

      But perhaps you’re right. So then off with you. Why mingle with these lazy, pretentious, Jew-luvin’ pricks?

    3. Laguna Beach Fogey April 5, 2016 at 7:33 pm

      [Removed]

      1. Can’t speak for others, but I don’t believe Moldbug because he’s the second coming of Elijah; I (mostly) believe Moldbug because I think he (mostly) makes sense, and those mostlies are in there because I do have disagreements.

        So if you want to convince me something Moldbug said was wrong, convince me, instead of casting implicit assertions.

  9. For the most part, yeah. As Moldbug pointed out, violent people-powered movements only work when the police don’t shoot at them, the courts don’t convict the participants they arrest & the press calls the activists heroic. That’s not happening for us in the current year.

    But the right should not abandon the street entirely to the left. There is definitely value in activism, as long as we know that it won’t accomplish our goals by itself. I believe that the primary value of a mass movement of active rightists is that it demonstrates to ambitious elites that there is an alternative path to power that they could take if they converted. That’s more or less what Trump has done.

    Moreover. Mass right-wing gatherings, whether on the streets of Europe or in Trump’s rallies. at least serve the purpose of letting like-minded folks see that they are not alone. In a world where the continuous message from the media is that right-wing thought will make you a social pariah, simply refuting that lie is valuable.

    Right wing political parties put a public face on right wing thought and can get their messages into the public sphere. Even if the result is media smearing and political crushing, that has to be better than being thought of as non-existent.

    Intelligently deployed right-wing violence could carve out a safe space in invader-overrun cities, where would orcs fear to practice their orcish ways. Thereby demonstrating that we are the ones who maintain order, while the left destroys it.

    Ultimately, though, we are going to need to gain the moral high, or at least defensible by “decent” people, ground. How we can do that without control of the morality & culture propagation mechanisms of the church, academia, media & government is beyond me.

    1. Control over culture begins with 1 square meter around yourself. And scales upward from there.

    2. As far as democracy it’s a tool in the box. The tool that by the way Hitler in combination with street fighting rose to power on – the Nazi’s had the biggest share of the electorate and were the most cohesive group besides the KPD [essentially the same enemy we face now] and so he was asked to form a government. The Industrialists didn’t back him until he was in power* and offered the gun in one hand and money in the other. Hitler became worthy and then assumed power though street activism and the democratic process.

      I’m not even a fan of Hitler but that is what happened.

      *that’s a myth.

    3. some anonymous guy June 15, 2016 at 10:46 pm

      This. It is interesting to note that in many E&C European countries, such as Hungary and Romania the academia has had, historically, a right wing bent. And just as there is this archetype of the odd “far-left” academic in the west, in these countries there is often the popular image of some academics as being “far-right”. People who go into academia know this from the beginning so the whole thing, often inadvertently breeds right-wing thought. The Commies were stupid enough to severely antagonise this people so we’re left with an intellectual class that can’t decide if it’s libertarian, nationalistic or Christian, but where the word “Marxist” is something they don’t want to be associated with, much like “Nazi” in the west.

  10. So, anyone want to take up the Detroit homesteading arrangement and just demolish several suburban blocks, start a farming community, and tell the local police, “Don’t bother us and we won’t bother you?”

    I’m more than half-serious. I think I know a priest who would be on board, too.

    1. Something worth considering. The only problem right now is disparate impact. And providing your own security is gonna make the Detroit police look pretty bad. It would have to be a special deal with the State of Michigan and have impeccable (apparent) Prog credentials, which are actually very easy to fake.

  11. The writer’s thesis is indisputable.

    From the Indian “independence” movement to the “Civil Rights” movement, activism was nothing but a shadow-puppet dance for those in power. It was an exercise in the demonstration and the increase of power.

    Right-wingers are best served by adopting the Gramscian method of marching thru the institutions and capturing all major centres of power. 

    1. Worked for the Afrikaner Broederbond. Minority even of whites in South Africa, victims of the world’s first concentration camps, fast forward 60 years and they’re calling the shots.

      1. Thanks for bringing those guys up. Good example of right-wing conspiracy. Unfortunately all good things come to an end, and even they got swallowed up.

        1. Sure, nothing lasts forever, good or evil. Why some folks seem insistent on forcing a public confrontation with a superior force that won’t hesitate is beyond me.

  12. If I’m interpreting Mark and Nick’s responses correctly, we can understand “passivism” not as “quietism” (which is basically a rejection of politics) but as a rejection of democratic politics and the activism associated with it. It’s not a rejection of action, but a rejection of a particular kind of action which it views as being impotent by nature.

    I very much look forward to reading Mark’s upcoming piece, which will hopefully detail what passivism, in practice, would entail. Thus hopefully answering some of the questions expressed in these (impressively numerous) comments.

    My main question regarding passivism is: what should its strategic focus be? It seems to me you can either focus on seizing control of the current power structure, working your way to 10 billion and then buying a cable news outlet etc. Or letting the current structure decay and implode on it’s own, while you focusing on building up a parallel structure of power to replace it. One that would be mostly independent of the institutions of the Cathedral. Perhaps you could elucidate this for me in your next piece.

    1. Your impression is correct.

      You can scarcely categorically reject politics as such outright without becoming a hermit. You can however outright reject democratic and demotic politics, which is passivism.

      How to correctly do passivism is a bit of a difficult question to answer because answering it would be like answering “how does the right-wing attain power?” Not an easy question — we’re working on it — but we can safely say that mass demonstrations and op-eds in NR are not the way to go about it.

      There is a malicious undercurrent in dissident Right circles that deliberately wants to interpret passivism as comatose inaction. Passivism is not the rejection of organization and street gangs, passivism is the rejection of organization and street gangs for the sake of attention and media clicks. Is there a difference? Of course, and it is huge.

      Brahmins perceive both Putin’s Russia and Trump’s America as backwoods wastelands populated with alcoholic Christian racists. There is a reason the Cathedral has the same perception of both — yet Putin’s Russia is sovereign, Trump’s America not yet so. Why? I will not bet on Trump enacting Restoration; his enemies are far more numerous in America than Putin’s were in Russia, and America’s Left Singularity has not collapsed yet as Russia’s did in 1991.

      How did Putin and his buddies take over Russia? What were they doing in the 1990’s and before? Looking at the media, wouldn’t look like much — very passivist, those guys. So passivist it has been claimed that Putin was supposed to be an establishment hack for the looters of Russia before he did a 180 out of nowhere and went for the oligarchs’ throats. At whose behest? When Putin vacations at his dacha, who are his guests? Oligarchs? Hmm. A good conspiracy goes a long way; quit the activist BS and learn a lesson from the KGB.

      1. Laguna Beach Fogey April 5, 2016 at 7:36 pm

        “There is a malicious undercurrent in dissident Right circles that deliberately wants to interpret passivism as comatose inaction.”

        Nonsense. You’re simply incompetent in selling it.

        1. > Implying we have something to sell.

          1. Thank you for candor – you have no solution at all.

  13. “Telling our people to remain passive is shitty advice.”

    “It wouldn’t. Doing nothing–or doing nothing apart from playing video games–solves nothing.”

    Your quotes.

    Have I advocated doing nothing but playing videogames? Not that I remember. What I remember saying is that public political activism meant to advance right-wing causes has not resulted in any long-lasting permanent victories for the Right, and that this is predictable with the right theories of power. It’s a big world out there buddy, plenty to do that doesn’t need to be captured on CNN cameras and shared on Facebook.

    I’ll let the reader judge what exactly is the source of your total incomprehension.

  14. ” learn a lesson from the KGB.”

    How exactly and from where did the Chekists get power?
    By Fighting. By street action. By in fact inciting the Tsar’s military to revolt against him and then their rivals.

    You fight for your people with whatever you have, not wait on secret conspiracies [on the Internet LOL] that will save you, just sit back and wait.

    Power is violence when all the rituals are stripped away.
    As far as working on crytokey takeovers or seducing the elites…which seems to be the NRx fantasy plan…why should the elites talk to you? You have nothing to offer but your own deluded fantasies – if you’re even being honest.

    You are saying remain passive. We have and here we are…and the days of being passive are over. Being active however instantly began to pay dividends. We saw it in the Tea Party, we see it in Trump, we see it on any matter of the 2d Amendment -we see it paying dividends all around us.

    As far as denouncing you – of course. At the moment our people have begun to fight at last suddenly they are denounced as fools, skinheads and offered the counsels of despair.

    The very article begins with the counsels of despair and advises instead those looking for a solution to sit back and wait. The answer is NO, we have waited too long already.

    I comprehend your purposed course very well: you offer that any self defense is useless, that we should be passive, that cowardice is noble, that fighting is for the low bred and for those of low intelligence. Well get used to it because that’s who decides the future – just as that’s who decides the present. Those who act make the decisions.

    Action is the new voice. What form it takes is tactics and methods. To renounce action is treason to your own.

  15. No one committed to their people would counsel their people not to act, not to fight at the exact moment when they have roused themselves at last.

    This is not the counsel of a friend, ally or one who wishes our people well but one who wants them to lay down and die.

    1. 1. Nobody is counseling inaction, though you are doing an incredible job building and maintaining that strawman.

      2. Who exactly has roused themselves? What is going on in Germany, Belgium, France, etc. as we speak despite mass rape and terrorism? The portion of the population that has been roused is somewhere between 10-30% going by most public opinion polls (if even that), the other 70-90% of the population is fairly asleep and convinced everything is fine, and they won’t mind when the police put the kibosh on you — they will applaud it! This is truly gold-standard delusion.

      3. Your counsel is the counsel of a man advising his fellows to be cannon fodder for the sake of empty slogans. We’ve lost enough already painting targets on our backs — can you not see that is the very telos of the system? There are smarter ways to fight and survive.

      1. Goats always have a smarter plan for lambs.

      2. Germany is beset with arson attacks on refugee centers and those are the ones that are just reported.

        At least 222 as of Dec 2015 according the Independent with only 4 arrests.

        Its not going to slow the Leftists down because they are addicts, addicted to social signalling

        However the body politic is shifting, several nations including Germany are making efforts to stop the flow and repatriate refugees. Its not 100% it might be a token effort but there is a reality to it

        You can’t assume just because the US is passive about its Mexican invasion that Europe is about their problems. They will either have dealt with the issue or be at all out war long before the US falls apart

        A couple of other points, it never requires a critical mass to awaken. It only requires enough. Its not quite there yet but its very close in Europe and the US.

        A little more effort will trigger Europe and a lot more the US. Its still in the democracy stage though, AfD and Trump and yes Bernie in a limited way.

        How this plays out I do not know.

    2. It looks like somebody took…

      ***THE BLACK PILL***

  16. “How exactly and from where did the Chekists get power?
    By Fighting. By street action. By in fact inciting the Tsar’s military to revolt against him and then their rivals.”

    lol nope. Try “foreign funding and meddling.” When your reading of history is this wrong it is no wonder that the rest of your comment is a mix of meaningless phrases and you think there exists a dichotomy of do absolutely nothing vs. instant race war and victory.

    “The Bolshevik revolution actually was financed by wealthy financiers in London and New York. Lenin and Trotsky were on the closest of terms with these moneyed interests both before and after the Revolution.”

    http://www.wildboar.net/multilingual/easterneuropean/russian/literature/articles/whofinanced/whofinancedleninandtrotsky.html

    Check out that political cartoon of Karl Marx surrounded by “delighted” Wall Street financiers. Do you have a cabal of wealthy Jews to fund your right-wing revolution? No? Well then perhaps you shouldn’t try imitating the Chekists right off the bat. Perhaps you should focus on building your own cabal.

    1. They got the money mostly from the Kaiser.

      They got the money because they could deliver on the contract and their delivery was violence and supporting the selective democracy of the Soviets. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin were men of action as were the NSDAP later.

      You Mr. Yuray are a Goat telling sheep to remain passive and follow you with your secret plan-the secret is actually well known Judas. Ta.

  17. Historical examples of passivism – Nazi party, Bolshevik party, Monck’s restoration…if playing high low works, then do it.

    1. Interesting that passive seems to encompass rather broad spectrum of Action if passivism is pressed for details.

      I would by the way prefer Monck but first we need some sort of Cromwell to build Monck’s army.

      Still it’s better than Operation GOAT: Remain Sheep and follow me passively as we have a secret plan. If you’ve had lamb or mutton you’ve consumed the Secret Be Worthy [of Dinner] Passivist Plan.

      1. “Interesting that passive seems to encompass rather broad spectrum of Action if passivism is pressed for details.”

        Perhaps if you stopped getting high on your own supply and began actually reading and listening to what passivists had to say, you would’ve grasped this immediately and not a million words later.

        Passivism is non-participation and non-distraction with the official political system of ritual violence. Passivism is not inaction, passivism is private and non-political action. Non-political until the very last moment.

  18. When he returned to Ithaca, Odysseus faced an apparently insuperable challenge. A hundred suitors crowded his house, and if Odysseus presented himself openly, they surely would have slain him. Thus, he had to delay action, wait for the kairos, the right time to strike. He disguised himself as a beggar in the land where he was king; he went to the gate of his own house and begged guests for scraps from his own table. He did not even turn aside to greet his faithful hound Argos, so elated to see his master again at long last that his old heart gave out, for that would have roused suspicion.
    But Odysseus’ mind was evolving a plan of action. He recruited his son Telemachus and his loyal swineherd Eumaeus. He watched the servants in his house to find the only loyal man remaining, Philoetius, and recruited him. His nurse Eurykleia recognized him by his scarred leg, and he threatened the dear, old woman with death should she reveal his secret. He made no aggressive moves and even forbade those with him from acting before he gave the signal.
    When all was said and done, not a single suitor yet lived, and Odysseus’ treacherous servants followed their true masters to the grave. Some might have criticized the hero for not acting sooner and more boldly while he waited, but once the plan was brought to completion, all recognized its wisdom.

    1. Very good example.

      1. *Hmmm.* Maybe I should heed the example of my namesake.

  19. When did Mark Yuray turn into Debbie Downer?

    Anyhow, yes, we will never win by using the left’s own tactics against it. We need our own. So who’s got some of those ready?

  20. Is it possible that both are right and wrong.
    minor criticisms, on both sides.
    1) Nrx are making an assumption that rightwing activists are operating in a closed system. Eg. Euro far right cadres are returning from the Ukrainian front, they have been doing “gymnasium” with Russian organizations there. EU think tanks are in a panic about it. Massive amounts of russian money is moving through czech banks into far right organisations through out europe. Russia is effectively creating it’s own GLADIO operation. Nrx are assuming no sponsorship from foreign powers.

    2) The mistake that, I assume alt right, pro rightwing activists are making is assuming activism at the national level is useful. The cathedral media is at it’s best when propagandizing at the national level, because of it’s abstraction. Activism at the local level has far better asymmetric qualities, your more likely to fly under the radar, also the issues at the local have more partisan sentimental qualities that make it very hard to blunt for the cathedral media. Activism would be better done by a thousand paper cuts at the local level. Also if you want, you can play rope ‘a’ dope with the cathedral along the federalist angle. If they come to smash you, the collateral damage on locals will stoke partisan feelings, and maybe possible secessionist hatred at the cosmopolitan progs.

    3) It’s not an either or argument. But a case of when and where and how to do deploy. Nrx is effectively arguing for the creation of a power machine at the local levels, this isn’t so much done by activism, but by networking and operating effectively a black market, mafia system, inclosed in an entho religious orthodoxy, which makes it difficult to penetrate or understand. The activism can then be used here and there, asymmetrically.

    1. “Activism at the local level has far better asymmetric qualities.” Yes. Examples are 2d Amendment and Support your local sheriff [elective office] and local law enforcement under siege.

  21. Why so much rancor about the correct strategy, gents? How about we let a thousand rightist flowers bloom?

    Street action for those who crave it. Silent networking and alliance building for those who favor that. Efforts for separatism & exit for those who just want to make a safe place to go. LARPing & dank meme building for our keyboard warrior caste.

    The future is unknown. Nobody can say for sure which strategy will work. Something has to, since we do happen to have reality on our side. So let us ceaselessly innovate & experiment. And make the Cathedral combat us on countless & ever-changing fronts. When something begins to succeed, we can focus our efforts there.

    If I believe that my allies are misguided, so be it. I do not have to join their efforts. But neither should I join with those attacking them.

    No enemies on the Right, right?

    1. Exactly Mr. Hosswire.

      Try any and every method and no enemies to the Right.

    2. Nobody is attacking anyone, least of all passivists. Though we are pointing out that some strategies are practically guaranteed to fail and, if you actually want to win, you should begin by getting creative and finding something to do that is less likely to get you unceremoniously crushed and wiped from memory.

    3. Michael Perriloux April 6, 2016 at 3:22 pm

      The parable of the heretic:

      A heretic comes to a priest and says “I believe our holy spaces should be dirty and in their natural messy and beautiful state, so as to avoid pretensions of dominance of the material”.

      A priest says “that’s very interesting, but I think that our holy spaces should be clean and orderly to show our devotion to the gods.”

      The heretic says “I disagree, but we will all worship in our own way and the gods will smile on whoever is right.”, and wipes his boots on the carpet, and goes behind the altar to take a piss.

      The priest says “It is alright to preach tolerance of religious difference, but if you want to worship that way, you will have to do it elsewhere. Get the fuck out of my church”

      Application: There is no room for “diversity of tactics” in or near a passivist project.

  22. VXXC2014,

    You come across as former mil. I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, but charging the hill might not work all the time. Providing a solid front to the cathedral only provides a center of gravity to strike at.

    Have you read The Good Soldier Švejk. The czech’s humorous anti-hero version of Robin Hood, it’s really about subverting and hollowing out institutions. Czech humor was the essence of german jewish writer Franz Kafka.

    1. VXXC is former mil. Served in Iraq. He’s a based guy. Generally.

  23. We must make the cathedral fund it’s own destruction, much like how the left uses the taxation and the university system as means to making the Right fund it’s own destruction. For this we need a obfuscatory pseudo science system that can be the fascade/interface between funding status from the cathedral to trad-con Right wing communities. Nrx should look at the vast amount of corruption in the Refugee advocacy groups and womens shelters. most of the funds go to “Administrative costs”, very little actually goes to it’s stated purpose. I’m not sure agree and amplify, is what you’d call activism.

    I referenced svejk and Kafka above because, Czechs had figured out how to undermine hegemony since Jan Hus. You grow the corruption in the hegemonic institution it’s self, much like cancer. Until it’s too sick and cynical to co-ordinate it’s apparatus. Hence, the reality/narrative for the institution begins to take own Kafkaesque properties. With Breznev sclerosis complete, a frontal assault is possible.

    Government organs require complete accurate information to co-ordinate. Could you imagine if 20% of the population decided to deliberately feed false information into the national Census. Within 2 years US midwest towns identify as African American, and demanding welfare.

    1. You have the right idea. This is the right mentality for passivism: don’t feed the system, build your own. Right-wing activism is a form of feeding the system because you give it the wreckers and enemies it needs to legitimize and expand itself.

  24. RE: Operation Rescue. Like most of the pro lifers are actually closer to a leftists movement in that there are based on cultural signalling , how much they care about fetuses

    That said, they drove abortion providers out of many areas and shifted the majority of abortions , larger than the demographic shift to non whites. That is a pretty decent accomplishment

  25. Mark, this was an exquisitely written, and highly interesting article, as the comment attention attests!

    I do think there are some lessons that the east can teach us in regards to your very accurate assessment of the political reality in the west, that actisim is opposition from inside a neat little box full of cameras.

    Just on a historical note, it is telling that arguably the most Reactionary movement of the Interwar period was one of the least violent. Prior to the ‘National Legionary State’, the Iron Guard didn’t go around burning down Liberal nests or beating people up. In fact, their popularity stemmed from the fact that they were horrifically persecuted by the state for doing things as simple as repairing broken dams and fixing farmhouses in the countryside. This sort of ‘success through passive community works’ is of course not feasible for today as we live in very much a different world, the conditions of rural 1930s Romania will not repeat themselves. There can be no populist element to such movement today, it must all be clandestine. However, it is interesting to consider just as a historical case in point.

    In the main, I would actually urge people to take a look at how Russian rightists did things when the wall came down. In Russia, you have big right wing organizations like the LDPR (ironic name) who are hyper-nationalist and racialist, and who furnish massive demonstrations in Moscow every year, much bigger than the pitiful ‘pro-democracy protests’ the West like to inflate. For all their activities, they have achieved little more than whining about how the Kremlin arrests them for rowdiness.

    Meanwhile, the more intellectual and extreme rightists, those of a more ‘white emigre’ philosophical bent, used the Yeltsin era to establish themselves in the halls of power as political strategists, advisors, propogandists, and financiers. Their relations with the opportunistic kleptocrats in the Kremlin are close, close enough to have unwatched wine glasses touching, with narry a shot fired.

    It does make me wonder, does the West have to transcend ideology and become a system of pure kleptocracy for an opening to appear? In terms of ideology, kleptocrats are dumb, slow, and easy to meaneuver around. It is incredibly easy to figure them out. Maybe Hillary Clinton is not such a bad thing for the United States after all.

    1. some anonymous guy June 15, 2016 at 11:21 pm

      You are forgetting about the Decemviri and Nicadori. What’s interesting is that in those days, after doing what they considered was “an act of justice”, the members of the death squads presented themselves to the nearest police station and surrendered. That was the most important thing. In some of their trials some were let go because (if I remember correctly) of juries who effectively nullified the law.

      The idea is those were pople literally willing to die. To surrender oneself after (for instance) the assasination of some official or the PM or whatever it was (there were several assassinations if I remember correctly).

      But we? We’re not willing to die, not really, we’re not even willing to get fired or lose friends. We’re not willing to do anything. That’s the problem. Invaders see we won’t defend ourselves so they take from us what they can.

  26. The Dissenting Sociologist April 7, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    This might be the most thought-provoking piece I’ve seen from the Right since I first joined up (more than 25 years ago), although I think that many of its arguments and assumptions are contestable to say the very least, and that conventional political activism still has much to recommend it (I do, however, agree, that street manifestations are generally useless outside of labour disputes and the like).

    Something was bothering me about it when I first read it, but I couldn’t figure out what. The idea that the State is intrinsically incorrigible, and can’t be reformed, that the political system has an infallible internal logic that guarantees that one, and only one, elite group holds all legitimate power, and that militants ought to build parallel institutions, wait for the existing State to collapse on its own, and then ascend to power- all this struck me as something I’d seen before. Then I remembered where. In Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory, that’s where. (Yes, I was a Communist before I joined the Right). Some sort of historical circle is complete: the Right is the new Left.

    Anyways, the Marxist assessment was valid at a time when many States were still highly authoritarian, with strong vestiges of- or even actual- Monarchy, and the dissident movement made up of a congenitally disenfranchised rabble of labourers with a smattering of structurally unemployed intellectuals, artists, and hipsters of the day by way of an elite (e.g. Marx himself, notwithstanding his ultra-elite background, never held an academic post and spent much of his career in squalor).

    The situation in North America 2016 is very different. For example, the new Reaction seems to have a conspicuously substantial, even top-heavy, proportion of highly-educated professional men, in front-line economic sectors such as tech, in its ranks. They’re not some sort of powerless rabble confronting the elite from behind the gates; they *are* the elite, intrinsically powerful by virtue of their station, and able to easily get influence and representation in the present State, if they really wanted to.

    Too many Rightist militants these days seem to think of themselves as chandala, an out-caste, as though the sort of peckerwood urban street trash, isolated country bumpkins, and other marginal and socially powerless people that made up the bulk of the far Right in the 80s and 90s. But the new Reactionaries aren’t that and shouldn’t reason as though they are. Heretical views compromise one’s social status, but not absolutely. Any educated, middle-to-high income professional can publicly advocate for any cause with impunity in America. (Getting fired for doing so is much more difficult for the employer than it’s often made out to be, and accordingly exceptional). The most likely social consequence is not being invited to bon-ton dinner-parties and such as often as one’s wife would like.

    With respect to the ability of the system to suppress challengers: the likes of Constitutional and other legal rights and rules of procedure are not merely the window-dressing hiding actual rule by a single unitary elite of whatever sort. It is true that there can be no legal limits on the power of the State. But this is true only where the sovereign power is either altogether indivisible or at least capable of being co-ordinated so as to be easily exercised in concert.

    In America, the present State is internally differentiated, segmented, and agonistically polarized to an intense degree, and often just barely capable of functioning. Under these conditions, legal-political rights and procedural rules are very real barriers to the ability of various actors within the State apparatus to act, and extraordinarily difficult to set aside in normal politics. Even Obama- as much as he would, no doubt, have liked to simply arrest and imprison his Tea Party critics- was reduced to using the Federal bureaucracy to surreptitiously harass them instead, and then received prompt blowback for the blatant illegality involved.

    Ironically for NRx, one of the few things that really *can* provoke the State into setting aside legal niceties and coming for dissidents with the gloves off is when those dissidents quit above-ground politics, withdraw from public visibility in civil society, and conspire in secret to form a new State on the national territory of the old one after a hoped-for general collapse that the dissident group may or may not plan to have a hand in bringing about. Such a movement places itself in an especially deadly position, since its members effectively outlaw themselves, and so become at once dead to rights *and* subject to State power. The result? When Hitler merely *suspected* the Jews of conspiring thusly, he caused them to be gassed. Even in the USA, groups deemed to be “apocalypse cults” have proven liable to being massacred in broad daylight, or at the very least having their children seized by social-services. And many a “sovereign citizen” presently rots behind bars for assigning himself sovereignty while on the turf of another, much bigger, sovereign.

    1. Nice try on the “Where have I heard this before… Oh Marx” routine. NRx doesn’t see the state as incorrigibly corrupt. The state is a brute fact. Ancap has not so much never been tried, as it is the only social history of mankind. What NRx finds incorrigibly corrupt is the republican form of government. And this has less to with the manner in which the formal government is appointed (tho’ that is of course obviously corrupt), but with the direction of institutional evolution that such a system inevitably chooses. Liberal democracy cannot fail to produce a consent manufacture industry which aggrandizes its own power over nearest competitors. The high+low versus middle is inevitable, and the middle will always lose. Except in a time of great blood-letting, after which there will be re-arrangement followed by more high+low versus middle.

      Yes, new reactionaries tend to be elite. And no, they are not free to express any opinion whatsoever (art thou also a Fed??) They are, in fact, traitors to their caste for looking out for the interests of red-state whites. That’s why virtually all of them are pseudo. And the ones that aren’t are sorry for it. (Behold The New Blacklist.)

      Yes, no one is fully in charge of The Beast. That doesn’t make it any less dangerous. On the contrary, quite a bit more. At least it is unpredictable. But we may use the inevitable coverage gaps to our advantage (assuming we don’t blast a trumpet about it).

      What to do with you’re last paragraph? [Fed stench intensifies…] The picture you paint of apocalyptic cults is laughably far from the truth. No one is “withdrawing from Civil society”. We are overwhelmingly employed, and as you yourself noted in relatively elite positions. You’d be shocked shocked at just how normal we look. We are everywhere, yet practically impossible to find.

  27. I am actually sorry to have to take a hard line.

    It is however a fatal mistake – as in Dead [not by me dammit<!] to project or assume supine at this point in history.

    Or in fact to walk out your door or any public presentation including walking down the street not ready to defend you
    and yours.

    All I will ask in and a polite spirit of Humility is be ready to defend you and yours and discourage none
    from standing up in their own way regardless of what you consider the chances of success.

    We have waited too long already and it has done us no good.

    As far as success or for that matter fighting that takes practice and it will always be risky.
    Please do nothing to discourage others from making their own stands. Nor should you expect
    an enemy to cooperate with your plans* – even if you're doing nothing. *

    God Bless you all and good luck.

    *A word about that: Conspiracy Laws make most plans counterproductive with anyone not proven under fire and questioning already. That is experience talking. Plans are almost all downside with no upside. That's just the situation. Again good luck. Even to the Author.

    1. No one is saying “assume a supine position” here. No one is saying “don’t defend yourself”. The activism we caution against (because we believe it counterproductive ergo bad strategy) is PRECISELY not that. Activism is painting a target on your back, and contesting for institutional ground that is owned by the Cathedral. Last time, I checked the Cathedral doesn’t own (in any meaningful sense) my home, my friends, my hobbies, my social circles, Could they take those all away from me? Well, of course they could. As any sovereign anywhere at any time for any reason could. But why would they? I’m not making trouble. No target on my back. And aren’t there more pressing issues for them to fight? Like Kenyans being insufficiently enthusiastic about buttsex and poop swastikas? Meanwhile I build: the family, the mannerbund, the community, the engine of truth.

    2. Comrade, lie in the prone position with your finger on the trigger, and when the moment comes, you will know what to do.

      The rules of engagement as of right now are to minimize losses.

      But no one is going to discipline you if you scream out banzai and charge the enemy.

      Because you’ll be dead.

  28. Couldn’t you say that right wing activism fails because activism is a tactic of the left. Atleast how we define activism. I’d say the right wing activism of Pinochet and Allende were quite succesfull.

    1. Ummm… well Allende was the socialist who was deposed by Pinochet. And right wing activism of the sort where you got all the guns and the enemy surrenders is by definition not activism. It’s called “Deployment of Formal Power”.

      To review: Activism (non-violent protesting, violent protesting, voting, canvassing, collecting signature, smaking a big scene, boycotting, occupying property, randomly cracking heads, blowing shit up) only works when the activists have support of powerful string pullers who are share interests with the goons. Otherwise, it is a purely criminal matter and will be dealth with as a criminal matter. The Right have no such power string pullers on their side. The Left said they would march through the institutions and they did. The only “right” that remains in any institution in the west is controlled opposition. They will side with their masters reflexively at the first sign of social upheaval.

      1. “And right wing activism of the sort where you got all the guns and the enemy surrenders is by definition not activism. It’s called “Deployment of Formal Power”.”

        This ^^ this ^^ and this again ^^

        Even the Mexican drug cartels, some of the most well-funded and well-armed criminal organizations in the world, could not actually take down the Mexican government. The paradox seems to be, you have to possess power before you can use it to attain more power. Activists as they are presently on the right don’t have an iota of power, so to talk of activism in this sense, is really not to talk about anything but ‘making a statement’.

        1. And that statement by definition cannot be more than “I am right here and very crushable, look at me, whee” which predictably and consistently leads to crushing — what did you think the point of a state was in the first place? To be nice to its opponents?

          1. some anonymous guy June 15, 2016 at 11:34 pm

            States tend to avoid crushing their tax base too hard. The only card the right has up its sleeve is that is made up of mostly state funders. That’s why the state has to organise controlled oposition and this is why the elites will from time to time listen to right wing demands.

            It is sometimes lost on NRx types how much this is a shakedown of the productive classes. But it’s not really lost on the state. And some states are better at intimidation than others but in smaller states it should be possible to course correct at least a little bit if the social class you’re part of is paying all the taxes.

        2. some anonymous guy June 15, 2016 at 11:30 pm

          Well, we have seen that some “Colour revolutions” deployed against Russian satellites worked and some didn’t. There is something to be said for those tactics.

          I know, I know, they were funded and helped to organise. And yet… something to be said for the tactics. I’m wondering if Putin isn’t planning some “reverse colour revolutions” of his own in some places.

    2. “Couldn’t you say that right wing activism fails because activism is a tactic of the left.”

      Yes, you absolutely could, and you’d be absolutely right.

      Pinochet was not an activist, Pinochet was a general who commanded real loyalty and power as well as foreign backing. He didn’t agitate to take power, he just had power and used it.

      Passivism says be like Pinochet: build power and then use it. Don’t agitate for it or try to steal it.

  29. First off this conversation in the comments has been fantastic, there really is no light without heat. Nicholas said:
    “Activism (non-violent protesting, violent protesting, voting, canvassing, collecting signature, smaking a big scene, boycotting, occupying property, randomly cracking heads, blowing shit up) only works when the activists have support of powerful string pullers who are share interests with the goons. Otherwise, it is a purely criminal matter and will be dealth with as a criminal matter. The Right have no such power string pullers on their side. The Left said they would march through the institutions and they did. The only “right” that remains in any institution in the west is controlled opposition. They will side with their masters reflexively at the first sign of social upheaval”

    Completely true. And if you look through the History of American Right movements (not just extreme ones like Nazi party, KKK etc) you will find this to be generally true. The Left marched through all of the institutions unopposed, this is of course to their credit. They easily out thought and out fought the Right, who deserved to lose. The U.S. State is big and unforgiving of open rebellions but there’s still a lot of space to operate under the radar here and build institutions. In our particular American context “passivism” (a poorly named but solid concept) is the best (probably only) way forward.

    Now in Europe things may be different because the political landscape is completely different. The EU is significantly weaker than the U.S. (which is incredibly powerful) and under incredible stress at the moment. Especially if the rumors of Russian oligarch funding for rightist groups are true, these groups could serve a purpose. Could, of course, only if they had a decent strategy that was more than being Green Street Hooligans. If you resort to violence in anything other than indisputable self defense, you better be ready to go all the way to the Capital with an army at your back. Otherwise you’re wasting your life and damaging your cause.

    That being said, if you live in a failing and weak state like Belgium, and have both outside funding and/or an actual strategy for taking power. Direct action/activism could be a much more profitable endeavor.

    1. It’s been a great conversation. That first blockquote is spot-on.

      “In our particular American context “passivism” (a poorly named but solid concept) is the best (probably only) way forward.”

      Passivism is the opposite of activism, since the adjective passive is the opposite of the adjective active. There are hotheaded types who claim that passivism is, or at least sounds, gay and faggy. I disagree. I think activism is and sounds gay and faggy, and the first thing I think of when I hear the word is an image of a skinny vegan protester.

      Passivism is a word coined by Moldbug, defined clearly and extensively by him, and used extensively by neoreactionaries. It is not our fault that differentiating between passivism and pacifism is a cognitive barrier that is too high for some people.

      “If you resort to violence in anything other than indisputable self defense, you better be ready to go all the way to the Capital with an army at your back. Otherwise you’re wasting your life and damaging your cause.”

      Yes, exactly. And I am not aware of anybody who commands such an army or is willing to use it.

      As far as Europe goes, you are basically correct. Europe is already being dismembered by Islamists operating out of the Middle East, and Russia is also making inroads with its own agents and the indigenous far-right. Different playing field, but activism is not the key, the key is Russia which is a solid right-wing state with power, influence and funding to spare.

  30. Anybody who has read this far deserves to get this example, and it should be recorded somewhere anyway.

    Andrew Anglin, who runs the Daily Stormer, published two articles today. One was extolling his growing readership and traffic, the other was nervously commenting on a news article with a fat white woman who is a law professor at Northeastern explaining what the legal rationale would be to sue, charge and fine (and inevitably imprison) Anglin and/or weev for their recent printer hijacking shenanigans across the nation.

    First article: http://www.dailystormer.com/cant-kike-the-alt-right-with-questions-for-milo-yiannopoulos/

    Second article: http://www.dailystormer.com/forbes-says-weev-and-the-daily-stormer-broke-the-law-with-printer-trolling/

    Anglin is terribly excited about his rising stats, and yet slowly realizing nervously that a fat Starbucks-drinking librul white woman from Boston has the power to shut him down by siccing the Cathedral on him for one of his trolls. If he gets sued, he claims it will make him more powerful and bring even more media coverage, etc. etc., yet the track record of right-wing martyrs instigating a right-wing revolution in countries where the state is left-wing is literally non-existent.

    I predict that Anglin is going to get sued and financially ruined for Daily Stormer activities sooner or later depending on how much trolling he does, and he is going to go down kicking and screaming while his stormer army looks on impotently. He is going to claim he was THIS CLOSE to instigating a National Socialist revolution to overthrow Jewry constantly, and well into his exile and/or imprisonment.

    Allow me to quote my own article again:

    “Activism is either dangerous or harmless to the state. If harmless, it is LARPing and will not result in any permanent solution to our civilization’s problems. If dangerous, it is felonious or will be made felonious quickly when you are noticed. Just because the state doesn’t have a legal justification to crush you now doesn’t mean it won’t figure one out, or won’t reinterpret the existing laws to figure out a justification.”

    Anglin is watching the state/Cathedral openly devise a justification to crush him, and he’s getting nervous. Anglin claims he cannot be sued or fined under the Junk Fax law because he did not order the printer trolls, printers are not fax machines, and his message was political, not commercial.

    In a neutral court and law system, that might fly.

    In a right-wing court and law system, such as the one in 1930’s Germany, it would definitely fly.

    In a far-left-wing court and law system fully staffed with Jews and liberals from bottom to top, it will not cause a single brow to knit.

    In this court and law system, printers shall be re-defined as fax machines, the DS will be redefined as a commercial enterprise because “hate speech” is not legitimate political speech (or something, it doesn’t have to make sense when the state is on your side), and Anglin will be found guilty for benefiting from weev’s troll.

    Then Anglin will be financially ruined and probably imprisoned while he claims the people will rise up in support of him at any moment. And the Daily Stormer’s traffic stats will go from 100,000 visitors per month to 0 visitors per month. No schoolchild is ever going to hear about Anglin’s unjust sentencing, Anglin’s ideas or Anglin’s life and history. Anglin and the DS will be memory-wiped. The only people who will ever hear about Anglin are Jewish Yale law students, and they will use him as an evil bogeyman who is literally Hitler.

    And that’s the story of right-wing political activism.

    It will not even take a lawyer from Harvard Law to put Anglin in prison over this. All it will take is a fat, Starbucks-drinking woman from Northeastern, illustrating precisely how small of a threat Anglin and the DS are to the Cathedral, despite what they claim.

    What can Anglin do? Not much at this point, which is why I advocate against right-wing political activism in the first place. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. An ounce of passivism is worth a pound of activism. 95% of the dangers to being a right-wing heretic can be avoided by not painting a giant flashing target on yourself, and you lose literally no benefits. I would not recommend apologizing or moderating the message, since that just signals weakness and we are all well aware that it never works.

    My advice to Anglin would be to network more and troll less, then find some damn good Jewish lawyers who are so obsessed with legal acrobatics that they would defend the DS pro bono purely for the notoriety. I cannot imagine anything less would be sufficient defense.

    1. Good points. The pro-life activist movement was severly hampered by several of their leaders and organizations being sued under the RICO (Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations) act. I believe the prolifers eventually won, though some had judgments against them for a while and every donation they got would have had to go to the lawsuit winners (abortion clinics, etc). It took years to win on appeal and this hampered fundraising, and took up an enormous amount of time, money, and energy to fight. The use of RICO was instrumental in cutting the pro-life activist movement off at the knees.

      The skumlords (fat Starbucks drinking uni profs) will use these tactics, and they will win even if they eventually lose the case.

      Passivism strikes me as a version of “you can’t fight city hall.”

      1. “Passivism strikes me as a version of “you can’t fight city hall.””

        Precisely. In other words: you cannot defeat the state. The state is by definition more powerful than any sub-state entities. Only a state can defeat another state. Therefore, build a state. i.e. passivism.

  31. We have waited too long already and it has done us no good.

    Do not counsel others to be passive, that is your choice.

    Frankly you compliment the state – any state. This one is mad and unbearable. However if you would be passive then be so and don’t counsel despair to those who act.

    As for waiting for risk free action or guaranteed success then do wait. Passively and don’t trouble those who know such things do not exist. Even the Left takes a risk in their staged street fights. The idea that acting against this state isn’t a threat to it is utterly vitiated by reality. Even the humble Tea Party was a threat, never mind Trump, never mind Fash, never mind Molon Labe and all the rest.

    We have waited too long already and it has done us no good. If you wish to keep waiting then do so, but don’t criticize those who act.

    1. I am counseling neither inaction nor despair, I am counseling private and discreet action rather than open challenges designed to force a confrontation that the Right is obviously going to lose. If you think any action that can’t be recorded by a journalist or CNN camera doesn’t count, you’ve already lost and I will criticize you for it until you’re in a grave or prison cell. Agitation is not the path to power, agitation is the result of it. Get power, then you can parade around and shout all you want. Did you even read the article? You’ve strawmanned this so many times I’m beginning to wonder if you’re missing a few IQ points, if you’re malicious, or if you just have a masturbatory desire to signal how badass you are.

      If you have a fetish for risk-taking, buy a lottery ticket. Nobody is suggesting we avoid risks outright. That is your idiotic strawman which you consistently trot out. We are suggesting you weigh the evidence and take smart risks — open confrontation is a pretty shitty risk to take based on past experience and a common sense view of the system. Clamp down on your amygdala and try to use your forebrain for once. We are here to figure out the best way to move forward, not the best way to signal how cool we are. Becoming a martyr is a great way to signal how cool you are and a great way to release your pent-up frustrations, but it is the absolute worst way to win. I am not interested in martyrdom or signalling, I am interested in winning.

      “Even the Left takes a risk in their staged street fights.”

      No, it absolutely does not. They know they are untouchable which is precisely why they do it.

  32. The Dissenting Sociologist April 8, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    Nick Steves wrote:

    “What NRx finds incorrigibly corrupt is the republican form of government. And this has less to with the manner in which the formal government is appointed (tho’ that is of course obviously corrupt), but with the direction of institutional evolution that such a system inevitably chooses. Liberal democracy cannot fail to produce a consent manufacture industry which aggrandizes its own power over nearest competitors. The high+low versus middle is inevitable, and the middle will always lose.”

    Replace “republican” with “capitalist”, “high” with “bourgeois”, “low” with “lumpenproletariat”, and “middle” with “workers”- and you’ll have the classic Marxist assessment of the short-term prospects of political action vis-a-vis the modern State. That’s not intended to be some cheap-ass insult BTW. I just wanted to point out that this particular view of the modern State has been around for a long, long time; it’s been held up to close scrutiny by many fine intellects, and hasn’t held up very well. It has a lot of serious bugs and loose threads in it- with gravely urgent practical implications for strategy and tactics- and there’s no need for Rightists of any stripe to go through the painful process of independently rediscovering just what they are.

    I see no systemic barriers inhering in the present political system itself that would stop the middle, in America, from capturing the entire State apparatus- if the middle *really, really wanted to* (as of right now, it seems likely that it will, in fact, at least capture the Executive branch come Fall). If it fails, or doesn’t seriously try, the explanation will have to be sought in a general *failure of will* that goes far beyond politics, and not in politics in and by itself.

    Apropos the latter, P.T. Carlos above made the following, especially trenchant remark: “The Left marched through all of the institutions unopposed, this is of course to their credit. They easily out thought and out fought the Right, who deserved to lose”. This gets to the heart of the matter: voluntary servitude. As T.S. Eliot wrote, in our age “the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” I think we can agree that, to the extent that, and for as long as, this remains the case, any debate over strategy is moot.

    To these conclusions, the NRx ground-level, character-building programme for encouraging people to “become worthy” is one of most original, and, moreover, one of the very best, ideas I’ve ever heard from the Right in my entire life. All of the wise men of our past agreed that no amount of political reform can rehabilitate a people that isn’t virtuous; and even if the political project fails, the programme will still have social payoffs in that society will become a more tolerable place for enjoying the increase of “worthy” individuals in its ranks.

    ***

    “[Fed stench intensifies…] The picture you paint of apocalyptic cults is laughably far from the truth.”

    Not sure what this “Fed” business is supposed to be about. Et alors…I’m sure that the characterization of NRx as an “apocalypse cult” *is* far from the actual truth. My point, as long as we’re talking about the Fed here, is that such Federal anti-terrorist personnel and other LE as reads these blogs- as well as diverse criminologists, social workers, professional “watchdog” groups like the SPLC and ADL, and other functionaries of the social control apparatus- are likely to reach *exactly* the sort of conclusions I described based on an appraisal of the typical rhetoric involved. For example, in this very thread, a commenter wrote:

    “Let progress progress to the bitter end, to the black hole, to the terminus of violence and depravity that the devils in human flesh so wish for. Let them all die in an orgy of mass suicide…Then we can step into the vacuum and seize power.”

    How could any reasonable person *not* get “apocalypse cult” from this? It reads like it was cribbed from Charles Manson!

    1. The “mass suicide” remark was not us. And it was about the progressive state. We make no claims about how it will end. NRx analysis tends to view Breshnevian Sclerosis as the more probable style of wind down. Which, in the eponymous preface, ended with a whimper and then a bang. If the USA gets off as well as the USSR, we should count ourselves lucky. Hopefully, there will be an alternative government waiting in the wings.

  33. Let the dead bury their dead. Kick the sand off your sandals as you leave town. Stop trying to wake up the masses. They’re not called the masses for nothing: they don’t have power. They are not leaders. They are just ordinary people who go along with what the cultural expectations are, even if they don’t agree with all of it. But they aren’t going to wake up and seize power. Never have and never will.

    And winning elections does not give you power. Reagan Revolution? The Tea Party? What did they actually do? They weren’t even a bump on the road.

    So trying to wake up the masses and get them to seize power through elections or any other means is a waste of time and energy. Time and energy better spent on something else.

    Every good general knows when to retreat and retreat and retreat until they have the means for a frontal assault. As long as you still have an army you still have hope.

    1. Yes. That sounds about right.

  34. James Lincoln Rockwell April 9, 2016 at 2:14 pm

    System entry isn’t a possibility either. The post war world is built to ensure that. Even if you memed the vast majority of whites to a far right point of view our will would not be done via official democratic channels. As you’re about to see you can’t even get someone who claims to want a real border nominated for a presidential candidacy much less elected president.

    So if system entry and infiltration and mass movement voting blocks are not viable options what do you propose? I will agree that protests are useless as well. There is only one solution here to be honest and if that is beyond the pale and off the table in your mind then pop that black pill, re up your Celexa script and grab a bottle because its the only way out of this.

    1. Most real power is informally held by academia, the media, the unelected bureaucracy, and NGOs. These are, each to an extent, infiltration targets. This has long been an area of interest.

    2. some anonymous guy June 15, 2016 at 11:49 pm

      Dude, I’m from your future (by a few months) and I’m here to tell you that the nominating part turned out to be possible. It seems to me that all the NRx does this days is black pilling.

  35. Messrs Yuray and Steves, are there any lessons we can take from the American revolutionaries? They were outnumbered and, from what I understand, the percentage of the population who supported the revolution was not even a majority, and yet they eventually won.

    They had an invaluable ally in France, of course, and would probably have lost without the French. But it seems to me that the most powerful thing they had was the grounds for making a compelling moral case for their cause (liberty). Which permitted some mighty fine and inspiring speechifying (“Give me liberty or give me death,” etc) that bucked up their side with a lot of passion borne of a feeling of moral righteousness.

    Ultimately if we are going to triumph we have to have a more compelling moral position than the left does (equality as highest moral value). My take is that our moral position is “excellence is the highest value – strength, beauty, competence, ability – and excellence is best and necessarily pursued within a social framework compatible with nature: ethnic nations, the traditional family, traditional male/female roles”, etc. I think “excellence is the highest moral value” is more compelling to people – at least to the competent – than “equality”. Equality is for losers. Unfortunately our Idiocracy-like social trajectory is breeding a lot more losers than competent people.

    Which is why it might be best for the excellent to be quietly excellent and to excellently pay attention and get out of the way while the mass culling of the stupid is underway.

    1. The American revolutionaries had friends in high places. Namely in the parliament of Great Britain. They were called Whigs. There is a very real sense in which the American Revolution was the first 4th Generation War. It was fought principally in the theater of British public opinion. Most of the leading generals were Whigs (most famously Howe). The Americans did not so much defeat the British as the British lacked the full coherent will to win because, as with all such conflicts, the more powerful side was primarily at war with themselves.

  36. The shockwave that is rippling through the western electorate at the moment, is the minor realization by the white working class that the left plan to through them under the bus for a “new” foreign people. Thats a lot of worried working class, not even mention the middle class. Unfortunately for the Left it isn’t quite going to plan. ie. Orban, Trump. System destabilization is obvious to see.

    There’s going to be a panic and eventual stampede soon. regardless of whether, Nrx cares about democratic involvement.

    Remember the left had much time to carefully construct it’s mass support bases, thanks to the outer party. I very much doubt they will have the luxury of time now.

  37. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ50XmALd54

    Allegedly the organizer called the police.

    The campus police are anti-Trump.

  38. Interesting that my (civil) comment was censored here. Obviously I will have to take another route. I also expect an explanation immediately considering my own work is in your so-called “canon” and I thought we were on the level here.

    I do not want to end up warring with you all, but you are, at this point, inviting my discontentment with open arms. I’m happy to receive your invitation.

  39. **Right wingers fail because of necessity**.

    Until recently most people worked in agriculture. In an agricultural society, every pair of hands produces wealth; you don’t have to be able to read or program computers to weed, seed, or harvest. Children were also the basis for retirement if someone lived long enough to have an old age. There was no Social Security, but you counted on your children to take care of you. Part of this was custom, but part of it was rational economic thinking.

    As children brought families prosperity and retirement income, the ma­jor responsibility of women was to produce as many children as possible. If women had children, and if they both survived childbirth, the family as a whole was better off. This was a matter of luck, but it was a chance worth taking from the standpoint of both families and the men who dominated them. Between lust and greed, there was little reason not to bring more chil­dren into the world.

    Habits are hard to change. When families began moving into cities en masse, children were still valuable assets. Parents could send them to work in primitive factories at the age of six and collect their pay. In early indus­trial society, factory workers didn’t need much more skills than farm laborers did. But as factories became more complex, they had less use for six-year­ olds. Soon they needed somewhat educated workers. Later they needed managers with MBAs.

    As the sophistication of industry advanced, the economic value of chil­dren declined. In order to continue being economically useful, children had to go to school to learn. Rather than adding to family income, they con­sumed family income. Children had to be clothed, fed, and sheltered, and over time, the amount of education they needed increased dramatically, un­til today many “children” go to school until their mid-twenties and still have not earned a dime. According to the United Nations, the average number of years of schooling in the leading twenty-five countries in the world ranges from fifteen to seventeen.

    The tendency to have as many babies as possible continued into the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Many of our grandparents or great-grandparents come from families that had ten children. A couple of generations before, you’d be lucky if three out of ten children survived. Now they were almost all surviving. However, in the economy of 1900, they could all head out and find work by the time they reached puberty. And that’s what most of them did.

    Ten children in eighteenth-century France might have been a godsend. Ten children in late-nineteenth-century France might have been a burden. Ten children in late-twentieth-century France would be a catastrophe. It took a while for reality to sink in, but eventually it became clear that most children wouldn’t die and that children were extremely expensive to raise. Therefore, people started having a lot fewer children and had those children more for the pleasure of having them than for economic benefits. Medical advances such as birth control helped achieve this, but the sheer cost of having and raising children drove the decline in birthrates. Children went from being producers of wealth to the most conspicuous form of consumption. Parents began satisfying their need for nurturing with one child, rather than ten.

    Now let’s consider life expectancy. After all, the longer people live, the more people there will be at any given time. Life expectancy surged at the same time that infant mortality declined. In 1800, estimated life expectancy in Europe and the United States was about forty years. In 2000, it was close to eighty years. Life expectancy has, in effect, doubled over the last two hun­dred years.

    Continued growth in life expectancy is probable, but very few people anticipate another doubling. In the advanced industrial world, the UN projects a growth from seventy-six years in 2000 to eighty-two years in 2050. In the poorest countries, it will increase from fifty-one to sixty-six. While this is growth, it is not geometric growth and it, too, is tapering off. This will also help reduce population growth.

    The reduction process that took place decades ago in the advanced in­dustrial world is now under way in the least developed countries. Having ten children in São Paolo is the surest path to economic suicide. It may take several generations to break the habit, but it will be broken. And it won’t re­turn while the process of educating a child for the modern workforce con­tinues to become longer and costlier. Between declining birthrates and slowing increases in life expectancy, population growth has to end.

    Let’s start with three core facts. Life expectancy is moving toward a high of eighty years in the advanced industrial world; the number of children women have is declining, and it takes longer and longer to become edu­cated. A college education is now considered the minimum for social and economic success in advanced countries. Most people graduate from college at twenty-two. Add in law or graduate school, and people are not entering the workforce until their mid-twenties. Not everyone follows this pattern, of course, but a sizable portion of the population does and that portion in­cludes most of those who will be part of the political and economic leader­ship of these countries.

    As a result, marriage patterns have shifted dramatically. People are put­ting off marriage longer and are having children even later. Let’s consider the effect on women. Two hundred years ago, women started having chil­dren in their early teens. Women continued having children, nurturing them and frequently burying them until they themselves died. This was necessary for the family’s well-being and that of society. Having and raising children was what women did for most of their lives.

    In the twenty-first century, this whole pattern changes. Assuming that a woman reaches puberty at age thirteen and enters menopause at age fifty, she will live twice as long as her ancestors and will for over half her life be in­capable of reproduction. Let’s assume a woman has two children. She will spend eighteen months being pregnant, which is roughly 2 percent of her life. Now assume a fairly common pattern, which is that the woman will have these two children three years apart, that each child enters school at the age of five, and that the woman returns to work outside the home when the oldest starts school.

    The total time the woman is engaged in reproduction and full-time nur­turing is eight years of her life. Given a life expectancy of eighty years, the amount of time exclusively devoted to having and raising children will be reduced to an astounding 10 percent of her life. Childbearing is reduced from a woman’s primary activity to one activity among many. Add to this analysis the fact that many women have only one child, and that many use day care and another mass nurturing facilities for their children well before the age of five, and the entire structure of a woman’s life is transformed.

    We can see the demographic roots of feminism right here. Since women spend less of their time having and nurturing children, they are much less dependent on men than even fifty years ago. For a woman to reproduce without a husband would have created an economic disaster for her in the past. This is no longer the case, particularly for better-educated women. Marriage is no longer imposed by economic necessity.

    This brings us to a place where marriages are not held together by need as much as by love. The problem with love is that it can be fickle. It comes and goes. If people stay married only for emotional reasons, there will in­evitably be more divorce. The decline of economic necessity removes a pow­erful stabilizing force in marriage. Love may endure, and frequently does, but by itself, it is less powerful than when linked to economic necessity.

    Marriages used to be guaranteed “till death do us part.” In the past, that parting was early and frequent. There were a great many fifty-year marriages during the transition period when people were having ten surviving children. But prior to that, marriages ended early through death, and the sur­vivor remarried or faced economic ruin. Europe practiced what we might call serial polygamy, in which widowers (usually, since women tended to die in childbirth) remarried numerous times throughout their lives. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, habit kept marriages together for extraordinarily long periods of time. A new pattern emerged in the later twentieth century, however, in which serial polygamy reasserted itself, but this time, the trend was being driven by divorce rather than death.

    Let’s add another pattern to this. Whereas many marriages used to take place when one or both partners were in their early teens, people are now marrying in their late twenties and early thirties. It was typical for men and women to remain sexually inactive until marriage at age fourteen, but today it is, shall we say, unrealistic to expect someone marrying at age thirty to re­ main a virgin. People would be living seventeen years after puberty without sexual activity. That’s not going to happen.

    There is now a period built into life patterns where people are going to be sexually active but not yet able to support themselves financially. There is also a period in which they can support themselves and are sexually active, but choose not to reproduce. The entire pattern of traditional life is collaps­ing, and no clear alternative patterns are emerging yet. Cohabitation used to be linked to formal, legal marriage, but the two are now completely decou­pled. Even reproduction is being uncoupled from marriage, and perhaps even from cohabitation. Longer life, the decline in fertility rates, and the additional years of education have all contributed to the dissolution of pre­vious life and social patterns.

    This trend cannot be reversed. Women are having fewer children be­ cause supporting a lot of children in industrial, urban society is economic suicide. That won’t change. The cost of raising children will not decline, nor will there be ways found to put six-year-olds to work. The rate of infant mortality is also not going to rise. So in the twenty-first century the trend toward having fewer, rather than more, children will continue.

    Traditional distinctions between men and women are collapsing. As women live longer and have fewer children, they no longer are forced by circumstance into the traditional roles they had to maintain prior to urbanization and industrialization. Nor is family the crit­ical economic instrument it once was. Divorce is no longer economically cat­astrophic, and premarital sex is inevitable. Homosexuality—and civil unions without reproduction—also becomes unextraordinary. If sentiment is the basis of marriage, then why indeed is gay marriage not as valid as heterosex­ual marriage? If marriage is decoupled from reproduction, then gay mar­riage logically follows. All these changes are derived from the radical shifts in life patterns that are part of the end of the population explosion.

    It is no accident, therefore, that traditionalists within all religious groups— Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and others—have focused on returning to tradi­tional patterns of reproduction. They all argue for, and many have, large fam­ilies. Maintaining traditional roles for women in this context makes sense, as do traditional expectations of early marriage, chastity, and the permanence of marriage. The key is having more children, which is a traditionalist principle. Everything else follows.

    The issue is not only cropping up in advanced industrial societies. One of the foundations of anti-Westernism, for example, is the argument that Western society breeds immorality, that it celebrates immodesty among women and destroys the family. If you read the speeches of Osama bin Laden, this theme is repeated continually. The world is changing and, he argues, we are moving away from patterns of behavior that have traditionally been re­garded as moral. He wants to stop this process.

    These issues have become a global battleground as well as an internal po­litical maelstrom in most advanced industrial countries, particularly the United States. On one side there is a structured set of political forces that have their roots in existing religious organizations. On the other side, there is less a political force than an overwhelming pattern of behavior that is in­different to the political consequences of the actions that are being taken. This pattern of behavior is driven by demographic necessity. Certainly there are movements defending various aspects of this evolution, like gay rights, but the transformation is not being planned. It is simply happening.

  40. Edwin, TL;DR. Mouse Utopia has arrived.

  41. The left, bureaucracies, government rule as they effectively instill fear of loss of prosperity to those of us who wish to preserve our people and culture. Consequently this empowers the aliens willing to displace us.

    How to fight this with passive secret societies?

    The Freemasons also used fear as a control mechanism.

    So do the out law motorcycle gangs.

    It works, on a local, sate and national level.

    Passivism is ideal to form a group of like minded people who are under oppression. At first the local, state then national level. Then of course International.

    Even out law motorcycle gangs are international in scope.

    Once our groups grow in the meat space, we can then enact pressure legally in the open, and under the table using fear. It is what it is. We should utilize our whole movement, our front men all legal, while our underbelly doing the dirty work, which gives plausible deniability for our front men.

    Unless of course you wish to be Nobel, let your oppressor know your ambition so you be crushed before even getting to the local and state level.

    What is the Fear?

    The political Left, government, bureaucracies use the fear of political correctness. There underbelly being the antifa and orc hordes, even some mafiaso and gangs, an example the dirty work they do at Trump rallies, and the Cologne mass rapes. Today the Italian mafia is mainly involved in building project with local Labor organizations.

    The Freemasons used there members positions of power be it a judge, businessman… to give threats to those who infringed on there monopoly. This still happens in small towns at the local level with government grants for business.

    Out law biker gangs use enforcers, who terrorize using physical violence, shootings, torture, or extortion. Yet, they are also capable of having respectable associates who work in the welfare state, Police, Politicians, Lawyers who give the bikers great advantages in Intelligence gathering, legal front men, and politicians to facilitate there illegal activities into legal ventures.

    Now I’m not suggesting we do anything illegal, like the outlaw motorcycle gangs. Yet our underbelly would be better utilized at some stage, other wise without putting fear into the hearts of our enemies we will lose.

    Now some quotes from the art of war, which is applicable to our cultural war, and war for our western civilization.

    From Sun Tzu

    “The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.”

    “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Comments are closed.