How To Passivism

Last week, I went over the extensive case against right-wing activism. It predictably drew a lot of attention. I deliberately left out the case for alternatives, which I will now outline here. Much like the term “activism” really refers to an umbrella of similar and related activities, the alternative to activism is an umbrella of activities that we call passivism. You learned what not to do last week – what will get a right-winger beaten, arrested, jailed, imprisoned, exiled and killed. Remember that being beaten, arrested, jailed, imprisoned, exiled or killed is not a victory – it is a loss. I’ll come back to that later, since a lot of people seem to be convinced that this sort of losing is actually winning.

To begin with, let’s be clear about what passivism is not. Passivism is not pacifism. It sounds similar, but that’s a quirk of the English language.

Passivism is not “do nothing.” Passivism is a command not to do anything to try and gain official power. Passivism is not a command not to do anything to gain power. Passivism is a command to ignore and avoid the official political system, on the grounds that the official political system is a screwed-up, dysfunctional, evil and corrupting mess that needs to be removed in its entirety from the outside– a system that is so deeply flawed and cancerous that it cannot be fixed from the inside.

Also note that activism does not mean “doing something” and passivism “doing nothing.” Per Google the definition of activism is “the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.”

Activism is participation in the official political process, which the Brahmins at Google have found fit to define as “campaigning to bring about political or social change.” Passivism is not “doing nothing,” it is non-participation in the official political process.

Why does campaigning work for the Left? Because the left already controls the official and semi-official state. When a leftist gets beaten, arrested, jailed, imprisoned, exiled or killed, that leftist becomes a martyr and the other countless leftists galvanize with state permission. Then the state grants the leftists a Bureau of Diversity here, or a Foundation for Equality there – perhaps just an initiative or lucrative consulting pay-off, but a victory nonetheless. What happens to a rightist? They get beaten, arrested, jailed, imprisoned, exiled, killed – and then? They are memory-wiped from everything but horror stories. This is not even an anomalous system, this is the very nature and purpose of the state. It’s just too bad that leftists got hold of it.

The official political system includes all the boards, parliaments, legislatures, congresses, bureaucracies, bodies, news agencies, universities, film studios, non-profits, courts, NGOs, PACs, activist groups, etc. that make up the organs of management of public opinion and the execution of state power.

These countless organizations are not neutral institutions that have been co-opted by the left; they are institutions that were built with faulty structures and flawed reasoning that made them susceptible to leftist entryism, and that have since been made totally unusable for any purpose besides advancing leftism. At one time they may have been salvageable, but that time is long past. Attempting to appeal to these organizations will result in an unceremonious crushing. That these institutions do not necessarily describe themselves as left-wing is not a bug, it is a feature.

Everything is lost! No, not quite everything, but almost everything. Fixing Western civilization in 2016 is almost like reviving a corpse – almost, but not quite. At the moment, the corpse is being buried in an avalanche of foreign migrants, but there is still time to pull the body out and pray to the Lord for mercy – there was at least one resurrection in canonical Christian history. Hell, there might even be a little life left in there. Such a Hail Mary is at least more likely to succeed than jumping into the grave with chemotherapy equipment, and that makes all the difference.

So what should you do?

Build a cabal. And to build a cabal, build a Männerbund, as outlined here.

When the problem is the entire official political system, the solution is not to participate in that system, but to build (or rebuild, depending on your viewpoint) a new, better political system. That is Step One of the Procedure: become worthy.

Are Ivy League millennials really the worthiest rulers? Not by some theoretical historical standard, but if nobody has replaced them yet, then yes, they are. That is not an indictment of passivism or Moldbug’s theories. It is an indictment of our civilization. You must become worthier than our current rulers. That does not just mean personally being healthier and more virtuous than they, it means, as a group, being more capable of good government – more capable of providing order, justice, law, virtue, truth, and glory.

Besides the current Cathedral-State, is there anybody out there with functioning institutions for determining truth, disseminating the official viewpoints, organizing mass social life, and providing lucrative careers and safe families for competent young men? You may dispute the use or definition of the word “functioning” – and there is much to dispute — but where is the Harvard of the right? Where is The New York Times of the right? Where is the Department of Justice of the right? Where are the courts of law of the right? Unless you have an obviously superior replacement to Harvard, nobody is obligated to stop listening to Harvard, stop trying to get into Harvard, or stop singing Harvard’s praises. Any criticism of Harvard will be just that, and a moot point to boot.

Perhaps the rising Harvards and NYTs, etc. of the right were unfairly crushed by the state at some point in the past, which explains their non-existence. That is probably mostly true. That is, however, also not an excuse. What did you expect to happen when you openly threatened an existing competitor?

There is no point to being open or public before you can win openly and publicly.

If you can provide more order, justice, law, virtue, truth, and glory than the competition, you will eventually win. And since the main political problem in the West is a lack of order, justice, law, virtue, truth and glory, you’ll be achieving victory every time you provide an instance of any of these. You cannot bring back order by lobbying the corrupt political system designed to quash it.

You must simply build order yourself. Building replacements to the entire official and unofficial government quietly, privately, non-politically without ever veering into activism may seem pretty difficult. It is. These may seem like stringent conditions for victory, but this is a planet with stringent conditions on life. Google “Skull Tower” if you need reminding.

To provide order, etc., you must first have some measure of personal sovereignty. Sovereignty begins with intellectual sovereignty and status sovereignty. To be fully sovereign, you first have to be sovereign over your own mind. You have to be sovereign over who and what gets your attention, time and energy. Only once your attention, time and energy are under your full control can you identify what paths to victory are most valuable, and then pursue them.

Intellectual sovereignty means you read the news furtively, but you read old books proudly, rather than the other way around. Do you control where your attention lies? The Pope does not. Do not let the media choose which battles you fight and which problems you think about. “Read old books” is not a snarky command, but a very serious program to remove the chains of modernity.

When you read enough old books, eventually you will not be living in 2016, but in 1616, and you will have new ideas that were not possible before – ideas that a typical modern simply could not comprehend. Right now, those ideas are by definition incomprehensible, but some of them might be the right ideas you need to win. There is only one way to find them. A good place to begin reading is here.

Status sovereignty requires a Mannerbund. One man alone will be hard-pressed to revive Western civilization, especially if doing the things necessary to do so makes his peers look down on him, or makes him forgo other actions that will raise his social status. Your internal status-seeking system has to be realigned to seek status along traditional lines. To fix this problem, you need to be in touch with other like-minded men, you need to meet them regularly, you need to help them out, you need to exchange ideas and plans with them, you need to build bonds with them – such a small social program will be a small victory in the larger scheme of things, but a good civilization itself is nothing more than a million of these small social programs concentrated in one territory.

Even the tallest tower began with a single stone. If you can’t even build one stone, you will never build the million stones necessary to win. Get building.

A cabal, built out of a Mannerbund, is an engine for right-wing action. Not activism, but action. The cabal is neither public, nor open, nor easy to find, identify or reach. But it has real power. Once the moment is right, the cabal will be able to act. That is Step Two of the Procedure: accept power. Step Three (Rule!) is not a problem that has to be solved right now, since by definition it will be the job of the ruler to solve. The problem that has to be solved right now is how to gain power. The way to gain power is to build it yourself. The way to build power is to build a cabal.

A finely tuned cabal has achieved intellectual and status sovereignty, and is then capable of achieving and defending some further measure of sovereignty – physical, geographic, economic, financial, whatever. The point is that by building a secure cabal, you create the possibility of securing some real sovereignty and power over something outside of the cabal. Without the cabal, you do not have something with which to hold and defend sovereignty. What precisely you have to hold and defend to win is the job of the cabal (or cabal leader) to figure out. All I can tell you is that, without a cabal to begin with, you are not going to get anything else.

The details of building a cabal will vary from place to place. A manual on cabal-building could certainly be written, but it is beyond the scope of this article. What this article should impart to you is that you need to forget about official power, and begin thinking about building your own sovereign system of status within a private cabal of men that can share intelligence, communication, and resources. Done well enough, that cabal will eventually become the official state. Done poorly, it will become a de facto state for the members of the cabal, and that is a small permanent victory already. The official state itself is on an inevitable path to destruction guaranteed by its own mad ideology.

Could you have pulled off Rachel Dolezal better than Rachel Dolezal did? Could you have imagined Germany’s immigration policy in 2015? No individual is as depraved as a headless system, nor can any individual be depraved enough to fathom the next moves of a headless system. So forget it; build your own system and weather the storm.

A cabal does not need to be multi-continental and all-powerful to be successful. If you can build a local cabal of the worthiest local men, who communicate with each other regularly, seek status from each other, and otherwise prepare to act as a cohesive unit when the conditions are right, then you will have won some territory back. A cabal of men is necessary to provide those men with property rights and sexual morality that is not just de jure but de facto. The official government no longer enforces sexual morality, and it is loudly wavering on its commitment to enforcing the few property rights that haven’t been indirectly subverted. The activist may see fodder here for a placard and propaganda slogan, but a passivist sees an excellent opportunity to build a superior machine for providing and enforcing property rights and sexual morality: a machine built out of men – the cabal built out of a Mannerbund.

With enough of these cabals, they can start communicating with each other and building even bigger super-cabals. The web of civilization must be rebuilt, and so must the machinery.

Some broad contours of a cabal can be practically guaranteed: secure communication, high barrier to entry, no public presence, life-long membership, legal activities, etc. Have you seen how most classic fraternal organizations work?

I do not think there is a lack of available tools for us, so much as a lack of men able to understand and wield the tools that we have been given.

That’s not to say things will go smoothly and without fighting. Believe me, I know all about Skull Tower. But there’s no point in lowering your standards from flawless victory.

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

100 Comments

  1. Crossposted from a comment I left at Free Northerner’s site, but it’s apropos here as well, so why not:

    Among other things, passivism seems to operate under the delusion that if one just keeps a low profile and doesn’t make any trouble, the left will leave them alone. This fundamentally misunderstands leftism, which is messianic and coercive: they must save your soul – save you from yourselves – whether you want them to or not. To quote myself from my most recent blog post:

    “[The left] will stop at nothing, nor will they respect any borderlines, in enforcing their dictates. As Fred Reed noted, in the New Order, no one will be left alone – not anyone, not anywhere, not ever. There is no corner of the internet hidden enough, no small-town bakery obscure enough, no private sanctum deep enough within your own walls, no low-down barroom dingy and smoky enough, and no alley in Chinatown dark and narrow enough that the Puritan left’s Inquisitors – whether they are officials of the state or private vigilantes – will not insert themselves there in their hunt for demons to exorcise and witches to burn.”

    Don’t believe me? Ask a Branch Davidian.

    There is nowhere you can retreat to where the left won’t follow you. Eventually, they will sniff out your secret hiding places, and insert themselves into them. Then you’ll be instructed to let black Jewish transsexual illegal immigrants into your Mannerbund, and every last one of its members will be fined into homelessness by some or another Orwellian equality commission if they refuse. Or you’ll be infiltrated, named, and shamed by some clever SJW vigilante with a hidden camera. A few hundred calls from an SJW lynch mob to your boss asking why they employ a hateful Nazi extremist later, you’ll find yourself unemployed and wondering how you’re going to put food on the table for your kids. And yes, the left is perfectly happy to starve your children to make a point. Don’t believe me? Ask a Ukrainian Kulak.

    Sooner or later, one way or another, you’ll have to fight them. It’s one thing to say that you’ll go to ground for the moment and wait until the time is right to strike. I’m all for that. Inevitability is pulling on the current system; it is unsustainable, collapsing under its own weight – things that can’t go on forever, don’t. Saying that we should let gravity do most of the work is sensible. And maybe we’ll get lucky, have a collapse, go through a decade or so of horrendous poverty, and end up with an American Putin. One can hope.

    Speaking of Russia: On a cold winter’s night around Christmas of 1992, I went down to the West Village to see a poetry reading by the Russian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko. A year and a half earlier, Yevtushenko had stood next to Boris Yeltsin at the Russian White House, facing down the tanks that the plotters of the August coup had sent to depose Gorbachev and restore the Soviet Union. Had the events of those days gone differently, Yevtushenko would have been shot as a traitor. I talked to him one-on-one for a few minutes after the reading. I remember him as a slight, soft-spoken man with the mannerisms of a mildly absent-minded intellectual. But when the time came to stop writing, to take to the streets and to stare down the barrels of tank cannons for what he knew was right, he did.

    What if Yevtushenko, and others like him, hadn’t done what they did? What would the world look like then? The Soviet Union was doomed to fall, and soon, you say? Maybe. Even if so, nice 20/20 hindsight. It didn’t look that way in August of 1991. Yevtushenko, deprived of that luxury at the time, took a risk with his life. He won. So did we all.

    And had things gone differently, you would be deriding Yevtushenko as a fool, as you (Don’t bother denying it!) are now with Gen. Piquemal.

    So, humbug on passivism. Frankly, the more I look at it, the more passivism looks like an attempt to turn the fiercest, smartest, and bravest intellectual movement of the new century into a right-wing version of a New Age self-help movement – or worse, a way for lonely spergs to fulfill their dream of finding some bros to hang out with and, y’know, be all alpha and stuff together.

    Humbug, I say!

    1. Don’t believe me? Ask a Branch Davidian.

      Classic. Don’t wanna be Wacoed? Don’t stockpile weapons and act all crazy like a doomsday cult… Which is exactly what we’re saying.

      Frankly, the more I look at it, the more passivism looks like an attempt to turn the fiercest, smartest, and bravest intellectual movement of the new century into a right-wing version of a New Age self-help movement – or worse, a way for lonely spergs to fulfill their dream of finding some bros to hang out with

      That really does sound like one of the most horrible things doesn’t it? Self-improvement… what a fscking waste of time.

      We have come to the conclusion that being the “fiercest, smartest, and bravest intellectual movement” is not enough to win. If you want to win, you have to do more.

      1. Actually the ATF’s authority in the situation came from the ban on anti-tank rifles.

        You can stockpile thousands of guns, but nothing that can take down an M113.

      2. > “Classic. Don’t wanna be Wacoed? Don’t stockpile weapons and act all crazy like a doomsday cult… Which is exactly what we’re saying.”

        But who determines what “acting crazy like a doomsday cult” is? The government and the media, who hate you. For example: it later turned out that many of the more sensationalist claims the government and the media made about the Branch Davidians simply weren’t true. It didn’t matter. They died anyway, and by the time the truth surfaced, everybody was on to the next news cycle.

        The press will lie about you, the government will take action based on those lies, and most of the public won’t know any better, and will cheer as you burn because you’re officially-designated bad guys. That’s the reality of the situation.

        > That really does sound like one of the most horrible things doesn’t it? Self-improvement… what a fscking waste of time.

        Another crosspost, but here goes: It must be said that it seems like a there are some people in NRx who see their involvement largely as a journey of personal growth (this is where the “becoming worthy” part comes in). While I understand why that appeals to some, and why they want to go down that road, it’s not particularly anything that I’m very interested in. I’m not claiming to be perfect – Lord knows, I’m a fallen sinner like everybody else – I’m also in my 40s, have been around the proverbial block a few times, and other than maybe wanting to lose a few pounds or pick up studying languages again, I’m pretty satisfied with who I am as a person and where I’m at in life. I’m about as “worthy” as I feel the need to be right now, so while I wish genuine and wholehearted good luck to those who are off on a great quest for self-discovery and self-mastery, they can go on ahead with that without me.

        > “We have come to the conclusion that being the “fiercest, smartest, and bravest intellectual movement” is not enough to win. If you want to win, you have to do more.”

        It sounds to me as if you’re actually proposing doing less.

        1. Michael Perriloux April 19, 2016 at 2:43 pm

          >It sounds to me as if you’re actually proposing doing less.

          Strange. I have the opposite impression. We are saying “before you do anything else, become worthy. Once you are worthy, the rest will be easy or at least possible.” and you are saying “no that’s nonsense, becoming worthy is not necessary because the left is coming to get you no matter what you do, and all we have to do to stop them is light some garbage cans on fire.”

          Can you clarify what it is that the activist contingent has in mind? What is your master plan that does not involve becoming worthy to rule or staying out of the crosshairs of the massively superior enemy?

        2. But who determines what “acting crazy like a doomsday cult” is? The government and the media, who hate you.

          This is starting to sound talmudic. Everyone knows what “acting crazy like a doomsday cult is”… we have the Branch Davidians after all.

          The press will lie about you, the government will take action based on those lies, and most of the public won’t know any better, and will cheer as you burn because you’re officially-designated bad guys. That’s the reality of the situation.

          But we already agree they have no idea who I am, what my group is, who’s in it, or what we do. So… there’s zero target surface.

    2. There is nowhere you can retreat to where the left won’t follow you. Eventually, they will sniff out your secret hiding places, and insert themselves into them. Then you’ll be instructed to let black Jewish transsexual illegal immigrants into your Mannerbund, and every last one of its members will be fined into homelessness by some or another Orwellian equality commission if they refuse….

      There is so much wrong with this paragraph, I hardly know where to begin. But I’ll try

      Too much outrage porn. The left has come knocking on my door precisely once. And I had the agency to not invite her into my house. My attorney at the HSLDA is only a phone call away. The left has its hands rather full dealing with actual dysfunctions to spend much time dealing with non-dysfunctions. Does bad stuff happen? Of course it does. Does that means it’s just a matter of time before it happens to you? Unlikely.

      In order for the Cathedral to integrate our group, they’d 1)have to know it exists; and 2)know where to show up. Neither of which they know, and it has never been easier to hide that information. Do you think the NSA is gonna get involved? Really? Again, they’ve got bigger fish to fry. Like actual crimes by actual enemies. And Oh I’m gonna be so embarrassed at my employer for having attended a men’s hunting and hiking trip up in Sussex county.

      Too much outrage porn. Don’t be defeated by it. Look around you. Look at your 100 square meters. You are remarkably free. Do you anticipate the government getting more competent or less? If more, then they deserve to win. But if the government is really getting more competent, then that’s what we’re looking for anyway.

      Sooner or later, one way or another, you’ll have to fight them.

      Probably true. But what’s the hurry? Time is on our side.

    3. Michael Perriloux April 19, 2016 at 2:21 pm

      >Frankly, the more I look at it, the more passivism looks like an attempt to turn the fiercest, smartest, and bravest intellectual movement of the new century into a right-wing version of a New Age self-help movement – or worse, a way for lonely spergs to fulfill their dream of finding some bros to hang out with and, y’know, be all alpha and stuff together.

      Frankly, that’s what most of y’all need. It is 2016; none of us are worthy to be engaging in any kind of ambition in our current forms. Come back and complain about wasted potential when we can all look our ancestors in the eyes and tell them we’re men worthy of rule. Until then, become worthy.

      The brotherhoods and local crews focused around becoming well educated, strong, well organized, and actually worthy to rule are exactly the prerequisites to any kind of effective action as well, so I don’t see what is getting you guys so steamed. You want to go light some garbage cans on fire and say “hey, everything is fucked, put me in charge and I’ll fix it”, when we won’t even man up to spend some time on putting our own selves and communities in order? Please.

      As for the left noticing and infiltrating, I disagree. They can only catch what they learn exists, and which hypes them up in fear. Stay quiet. Don’t advertise for local white supremacists in the newspaper. Don’t march around and block traffic, complaining about bad government, and then complain when the cops kick your ass. Just find good men who think like you, invite them into your secret treehouse, and become worthy.

      I don’t believe in the omniscient communist boogeyman that we can’t escape no matter how dark we go, but somehow we can defeat if we simply stand up and fight. That’s absurd. We can stay quiet and read our books and do our research and make connections, and no one is going to bother us, except for a few regurgitated hit pieces in DC rags.

      Yes, this “quiet secret treehouse” and “passivism” thing sounds boring and harmless. That’s the whole point. It is boring and harmless. Something boring and harmless is the only possible foundation of the kind of real work we need to do to fix this thing. I’m convinced that no one has a real strategic counterargument here, just a bunch of rash keyboard warriors who want the dopamine rush of watching “their side” light something on fire.

      1. > “That’s the whole point. It is boring and harmless. Something boring and harmless is the only possible foundation of the kind of real work we need to do to fix this thing.”

        Again, this utterly misunderstands the left. Being “boring and harmless” is irrelevant. They are messianic, universality, and coercive – anything that is not them is a threat, and must be eliminated. It is hard to think of anything more boring and harmless than being a Buddhist monk. Did that save them from Mao?

        The left is not you. They don’t think the way you think. And if there’s one lesson the right should have learned by now, it’s that just because we are reasonable towards the left, that doesn’t mean they’ll be reasonable towards us.

        1. “They are messianic, universality, and coercive – anything that is not them is a threat, and must be eliminated.”

          Yes, and if that is 100% true for passivism, it is 1000% true for activism. Anything they would do to passivists they will do to activists, just sooner, more rabidly, and — since you do 90% of their job for them by revealing yourself — more easily.

          What is necessary to win a confrontation is superior strength. The way to acquire superior strength is to build it. That is passivism.

          The Left has a gun and the Right has nothing. The Left has also outlawed gun stores. What do? Rush the Left empty-handed? Nope, that’s been tried and it results in death. That’s activism. Try building a gun. Is it hard? Yes. Is it unclear what needs to be done? Yes. Does it require lots of time and resources? Yes. But it needs to be done. Even a knife or a big stick might do, but right now the Right has nothing.

    4. Your example of Yevgeny Yevtushenko seems strange. Did Yevtushenko have some sort of occult power stare that caused tanks to stand still in their tracks and military officers to lose heart? If not, reassess *actual* power relations.

      I don’t know the full background of that story, so if more context would change my analysis, I’d be willing to re-look at it.

      1. This is a hilarious comment. This shows your total inability to comprehend social rituals or symbolism. Yevtushenko was an inspiration to millions of demoralized people, so ya, you could say that is “magic.” Human beings, by their nature, desire leaders who demonstrate virtue and self-sacrifice in the face of adversity, not cowards who will concoct any intellectual rationalization that justifies their unabating impotence and failure to conserve anything of value, or to even try.

        I don’t know of any leftist group decrying right-wing activism as much as you guys at this point, so you’re basically campaigning against the Right. Looks like my lil’ argument with Mark has turned into an obsession over there.

        Funny thing about this “cabal” he suggests is that it is far more likely to draw the attention of a criminal investigation than just an honest public organization like the NRA or Families First, because you are publicly describing your desire to foment an underground anti-government conspiracy, which is bizarre. Not smart. You are also urging your own allies to retreat from the “official political process” which is a very dangerous and foolish idea when the Right is actually gaining significant ground among young men.

        Just to be clear, “passivism” as you all continue to define it, is a form of activism, albeit the laziest, most cowardly, low-liability, and ineffective form of activism imaginable, and one which has never worked, ever. It is also the most likely plan to attract the negative attention you seem neurotically mortified of. The language you even use here is appalling in how bad it is: “passivism,” and “cabal,” is some pretty terrible word choice. Nobody wants to associate themselves with things like that. So perhaps you’re achieving your goal, which appears to be spreading defeatism and demoralizing anyone seeking positive inspiration, which ought to be the goal of anyone in the New Right.

        You’re carrying the water for the leftists. I’m sure they absolutely love Yuray’s writing, cause remaining “passive” is exactly what they want the Right to be.

        1. > “Funny thing about this “cabal” he suggests is that it is far more likely to draw the attention of a criminal investigation than just an honest public organization like the NRA or Families First, because you are publicly describing your desire to foment an underground anti-government conspiracy, which is bizarre. Not smart.”

          Look, obviously the FBI (and social justice vigilantes) will never investigate our secret cabal. We’ve told them quite plainly right here on neoreaction’s official website that it’s a secret, and surely everyone involved will be gentlemanly enough to respect that.

      2. Reed did a good job answering this, but since the question was directed at me, I’ll take my shot at it.

        Yes, Yevtushenko did have a superpower. His superpower was the balls to face down a system that had a long history of brutally murdering people who got in its way. It was the balls to keep standing where he was even when he had been told that that system had sent tanks to come and kill him.

        It was an incredible risk. Yes, 20/20 hindsight tells us that Yevtushenko won and (for now) Piquemal lost. But if I knew in advance how life’s risks would all pan out, I’d be writing this in a hilltop mansion in Hawaii instead of from a rented bedroom in a working-class neighborhood. Since you haven’t ever mentioned anything about being a billionaire off of stock dividends and winnings in Vegas, I’ll assume that you don’t have any better angle on any of that than I do.

        And that’s the bottom line on all of this really – risk. Passivism is a solution for people who want a no-risk strategy. I understand the appeal. But the rule of this world is that people who risk nothing, gain nothing.

        1. How is passivism a no-risk strategy when you have outlined the many and sundry risks of passivism? You tell us they’re going to hunt us down and crush us if we try to quietly build our own communities. So passivism is risky.

          1. My point precisely was that, although many people here are drawn to Passivism as a no-risk strategy, in the end they’re fooling themselves. They think they’re avoiding risk, but they aren’t. Often not taking a risk, is in itself a risk.

          2. We are doing nothing illegal. We intend to do nothing illegal. Our stated doctrine forbids illegal activity — in fact it forbids all activism. All federal agents will be greatly personally improved by spying on us and hanging out with us — if they do, since, after all, we are doing nothing illegal, we intend to do nothing illegal, and our stated doctrine prevents us from doing anything illegal, or even anything that would garner attention. Until the current regime no longer exists. But we will make no efforts at all to fight or remove it. God no! We will only prepare for what comes next, and there is time yet before quietly questioning the regime’s viability becomes a capital offense.

            “My point precisely was that, although many people here are drawn to Passivism as a no-risk strategy, in the end they’re fooling themselves. They think they’re avoiding risk, but they aren’t. Often not taking a risk, is in itself a risk.”

            Wrong. Speak for yourself. We are not advocating passivism because it’s low-risk, but because it’s smart. That was made clear multiple times. That is the whole point of this and the previous article. Saying otherwise does not make it so.

            What should we do?

            First, there are legal and illegal activities. We forbid illegal activities.

            Second, there are activities that garner media attention and activities that do not. We forbid activities that garner media attention.

            That’s it. That’s passivism. Nothing illegal. Nothing that garners media attention. If we do either, we’ve made a mistake, and we’ll be crushed in proportion to how bad the mistake was. That’s only two rules. There’s a whole world of things out there to do. Find something useful and do it. I’ve outlined my strategy here.

            Note that I didn’t say “don’t do anything risky.” Note that I didn’t say “don’t commit violence.” Note that I didn’t say “don’t get off your couch.” Note that I didn’t say “don’t get off your keyboard.” Note that I didn’t say “don’t do anything.”

            But I did say “don’t do anything illegal” and “don’t do anything that garners media attention.” That’s it. Nothing illegal. Nothing that garners media attention. I endorse these two rules 100% with all my heart and will follow them to victory.

        2. Lost in all this is that – brave or no – Yevtushenko was a pawn of predatory globalist oligarchs who merely handed Russia another method of despair. The implicit affirmation of Yevtushenko in a forum like this, and specifically in this context, seems bizarre.

          1. Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

    5. Yevtushenko already had sympathetic elements in power. He wasn’t taking power via activism, he was preventing the already dispossessed old guard from recovering it.

      You don’t get a successful Yevtushenko unless a Gorbachev is already on the scene. General Piquemal didn’t have a Gorbachev.

      1. So… do you know who is running for President right now? Do you think there is a even a possibility he is sympathetic to our views? What if he is not even sympathetic, but just unwilling to genocide what remains of our civilization, and therefore willing to let us grow, considering our enemies would undoubtedly be the exact same people that try to riot at his rallies and malign his reputation.

        And what would happen if he won? What would happen if he lost?

        Seems to me that the only certain way to fail at this is to do nothing and remain “passive,” as if we actually need some patronizing article to describe to us how to be “passivist.” Just read some blog and a hit a bong, I mean honestly, why even write the article?

    6. What I’m seeing in a lot of the answers here is projection – the assumption that the left thinks basically the same way that you do. I assure you all that nothing could be further from the truth. I’ll also say that it is precisely the fact that the right projects its own way of thinking onto the left that has gotten the right’s ass kicked for the last hundred years. For example, the heart of the “cuckservative” meme is the alt-right finally awakening to the fact that the left is not just a bunch of people who basically want the best thing for the country, who will respond to rational arguments, who can be negotiated with in good faith, and who will keep their word, especially when they promise to go only this far, and no farther. All of this is projection of the way the right does business onto the left, and none of it has anything to do with reality.

      The central assumptions behind passivism show a serious disconnect with reality that centers around a fundamental misunderstanding of how the left thinks – specifically, yet another mistaken assumption that they share certain basic premises with you on the right, when they don’t.

      One of these assumptions is that if you behave like a reasonable person and do not act like (what you would take to be) a threat, then the left will deal with you you reasonably and will not treat you you as a threat that must be neutralized. But that is not how the left thinks. Again, they are messianic and universalist. The fact that anyone, anywhere still rejects their philosophy is a threat to their power, because if anyone anywhere can successfully resist them, that shows that everyone, everywhere can do so. The reasons why this cannot be permitted should be obvious.

      The idea that they won’t come after you because they “have bigger fish to fry” is similarly delusional, and completely misunderstands what lies behind the left’s well-known penchant for anarcho-tyranny. There is no bigger threat to them than someone who is getting away with resisting them. Murderers, rapists, bank robbers, and even terrorists are either irrelevant or are minor annoyances when it comes to maintaining their power. What do you think was behind that $135,000 fine for not baking a gay wedding cake? A man ruined, rendered homeless, not able to feed his children… and for what? Why were SWAT teams called and national news made over some cows grazing in the wrong place out in the wide-open west? Why were RICO statutes – designed to break the back of the mafia – brought to bear against pro-life protesters?The state doesn’t really care that much about rape and murder. Those crimes don’t represent any existential threat to it. Non-belief in the founding myths of a system, on the other hand, can be fatal to one.

      It is also true that to the left, there are only two kinds of people in the world: themselves (including their protected classes) and LITERALLY HITLER. If you’re not planning to become one of them, then you will always be LITERALLY HITLER no matter what you do, and if there’s one thing we know for sure about LITERALLY HITLER, it’s that he was both evil and crazy.

      Related to all of this is the idea that if you don’t act like what you would take to be a crazy person, the left will assume that you aren’t crazy. This, again, is not true. To leftists, their beliefs are not a philosophical position or a political opinion, but objective reality, and denying them is as crazy as believing that water is dry or that things fall sideways instead of down.

      If you take solace in the idea that the left has not yet taken action against you, and have convinced yourselves that this means they never will do so, you’re fooling yourselves. The system left the Branch Davidians alone – until it didn’t. The system didn’t force the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for abortions – until it did. Every line that the left has ever solemnly sworn it would never cross, it eventually crossed. Do you think it will stop where it is now, and never go any father? Why? Because of muh Constitution? Because the public won’t stand for it? Have you been paying attention to what’s been going on?

      Whether you share these premises or not is immaterial. Whether these premises are batshit crazy or not is immaterial. They are the premises on which the left operates, and therefore they are the premises on which the left’s actions against you will proceed. To ignore that is to ignore reality, which you do at your peril.

      1. Well considering we were all leftists raised by leftists in a leftist world, I don’t think it’s really that hard to imagine the mind of the leftist. It’s impossibly easy to read and to fake.

        Leftist hegemony may indeed become as extreme as you say. If so, I’m not hearing a better plan of being prepared than to pursue virtue. If not, it will have still been worthwhile to pursue virtue. Suffice it to say we at least appear to be quite far from American gulags. And it is easier to make hay while the sun shines.

        1. > “If so, I’m not hearing a better plan of being prepared than to pursue virtue.

          As I said below, eating a hotdog is just as good a strategy as pursuing virtue when it comes to accepting power (or resisting the power of your enemies, which are really two sides of the same coin).

          > “If not, it will have still been worthwhile to pursue virtue.”

          And it’s worthwhile to eat a hotdog, too. I like the ones at Costco: a footlong dog and a refillable soda for $1.50 – can’t beat that with a stick.

          But again, neither has been established to lead to accepting power, which is the goal being discussed here.

          Look, if you want to pursue virtue, that’s great. Really, I’m not being sarcastic here – I think it’s wonderful that people should do that. I strongly encourage it. But if you pursue virtue, do it because it is its own reward, not because of false hopes that it will lead to temporal power. Overselling what virtue will do for you will just lead to eventual disillusionment and disappointment. Let’s “keep it real”, as the kids say.

        2. If we go around telling people (or at least very heavily implying to them) that if they pursue virtue, they’ll end up with power – but without us having any real plan for how to make that actually happen – then how are we fundamentally any different from some “prosperity gospel” huckster who tells people that if they pray enough, God will make them rich?

          1. You don’t believe virtue leads to power? And you’re Catholic?!!

            Added: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virtue

            “From Middle English vertu, from Anglo-Norman vertu, Middle French vertu, from Latin virtus ‎(“manliness, bravery, worth, moral excellence”), from vir ‎(“man”); see virile.”

          2. Nobody with a perfectly thought-out and highly-detailed plan to gaining power is going to post it on the Internet, duh.

            This is a plan for a plan; a guide for you to figure out your own highly-detailed plan to gain power.

    7. The Left is going to attack you whether or not you pursue a passivist strategy. That is true. But the Left is more powerful than you right now, and if you pursue an activist strategy the Left will remain more powerful because they will immediately destroy you. Passivism allows for time to become more powerful before direct confrontation. That doesn’t mean it can last forever. But it does mean it can last long enough to let you become more powerful, and able to beat the Left.

      Time is on our side, not theirs.

    8. Charles Hammer April 24, 2016 at 9:56 pm

      Well-written and sometimes hilarious post. I enjoyed it.

      Though I am essentially with the Nick B. Steves of the world, good ol’ democratic nativism still has potential in the “right” hands and for as long as it’s around I will 3/4heartedly support. For a few more years anyways. It at least gives us something to build on or delay the hordes.

      Beyond the obvious cultural rot we need 1.) Law enforcement 2.) Strict welfare 3.)Immigration control 4.) Non-interventionist foreign policy in Civilizational/Racial paradigm 5.) Fair Trade

      Don’t we have a candidate somewhat like that? I’ll take what I can get at this point! Trump is a pretty big “get” at this point. No Neo-Reactionary could possibly deny that.

      The only way we will have a massive cultural 360 is some kind of collapse, “world war”, or another Great Depression. Like the Poles and Russians the masses will have to suffer MIGHTILY to come back home to tradition.

      This all coming from a young guy who has the felt the societal meltdown in a very substantial way. Hopefully it will give me a way rise to the occasion.

  2. Your mention of fraternal organizations got me thinking. Belonging to a fraternal organization used to be a big thing for American men. There were dozens of these associations (Lions, Shriners, Woodsmen of the World, Moose, Elks Lodge, etc…) with millions of members going to frequent local, state and national meetings.

    Though membership has plummeted for these organizations since the 1960’s, many of them still nominally exist. They have organizational and communication structures in place that link chapters nationally. Not to mention privately owned meeting places in most American towns & cities. What they do not have is members below the senior citizen age range.

    This presents a fine opportunity for entryism on our part. We could begin joining these organizations and use them as an environment for building our mannerbunds.

    1. Michael Perriloux April 19, 2016 at 3:16 pm

      This is a good idea. I think the first step is to build local groups that can proceed on such a mission of identifying and joining the local old-man frats.

    2. This was the exact strategy mentioned by the Rebel Yell guys on TRS radio just the other day.

      https://soundcloud.com/musonius-rufus/rebel-yell-20160414-113-manifest-destiny-brent

      We’re quite far from the only ones talking about brotherhoods of various sorts as an integral part of the solution.

      1. I’ll mine the comments here now & then and… What a fine community of people this is! Obviously, the writing is top-notch. I love you engage your (highly intelligent) readers. Very smart. To see this level of engagement in a comment section is almost surreal.

        It’s interesting when I read these articles and my own ideas repeated. On this note, I remember in particular Wilmot Robinson talking about the formation of “secret societies”. This always hit me as an intriguing idea. I have been thinking for a long while about starting a group in my area. Any suggestions to get it started?

        Anyways, keep up the outstanding work, gentlemen. This thing is going places.

  3. I was quite the activist in my youth. I’ve been to protests, organized groups, gotten arrested, convinced other people to go out and get arrested, gotten visited by the ATF, the FBI, and CYS. I got throwed in jail, as the song goes. So did getting throwed in jail crush me? Nah. I’ve got some amusing jail stories to show for it.

    I then had to live my life the way I said I should live it. When I started having babies I gave it all up. I stayed home and took care of them. The CYS visit came when I made the mistake of giving up homeschooling and put them in a Catholic school.
    So I pulled them out, instantly.

    If you poke your finger in the eye of a senseless rabid animal, don’t get surprised you get bit and bad things happen. The question is: will poking the rabid animal actually accomplish anything? It won’t, so don’t poke it. The modern state is a rabid animal, let it stumble about frothing at the mouth until it dies.

    Do we need to help each other out, and defend our people? Yes, indeed. So if the state decides they’re going to come and take your food, or your kids, then perhaps that is the time to fight. Nobody is saying lay down and die.

  4. Anti-democracy Activist, if you propose activism, then exactly what form would that take? Marching in protests? Organizing public meetings? Attending local school boards and insiting they keep boys out of girls bathrooms? Holding sit-ins? Campaigning for political candidates? Running for office?

    Any of the arguments about the power of the left that you claim would hunt passivists down and crush them can be said about doing any of the activist things I mentioned. So what, exactly, do you recommend we do?

    This is not a snarky request. I am interested in your ideas for how the right should move forward.

    1. Dear, if I knew the right way to overthrow the Cathedral and restore throne-and-altar monarchy, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

      I am, however, pretty sure that I know how not to do it.

      1. You can’t restore throne-and-altar monarchy with political activism. That should be pretty damn obvious if you read through the histories of actual throne-and-altar monarchies, since none of them began with political activism.

        If you want to restore throne-and-altar monarchy (we do), you should identify the essence of what was done in the past to enact throne-and-altar monarchies.

        That essence was definitely not political activism, unless you want to redefine martial conquerors and religious figures as “political activists,” at which point you would be brutally torturing the English language.

        Using metaphor #9231 to explain passivism (in my boundless charity, for the 9231th time), we can emulate either martial conquerors or religious figures. Martial conquerors didn’t win by charging the enemy with ten random guys that showed up for their protest. They didn’t even do it with a thousand, or ten thousand. Ten thousand brave, dedicated, loyal warriors, perhaps. But where are your warriors? And who are they loyal to? Do you even know what kind of warriors you would need to win? Unlikely.

        Furthermore, don’t give me the BS that political activism is some kind of preparation for war, or some kind of mock warfare. Political activism is not warfare and preparing for activism will select for good activists, not good warriors, and we are trying to enact a system without any activism at all, so you’d be hurting your own end goal, not helping. If you train your ten future brave loyal warriors by staging a protest and getting all ten beaten, arrested, defamed, dispossessed, imprisoned and raped, you’ve done absolutely nothing. I’m being extreme? OK, fine. You get your ten guys together, stage a protest, one gets arrested, two punch a leftie in the face (one guy got lucky) and the other seven stand around and yell. So what? You got 1-2 punches in for practice and one guy is out of the fight. All everyone else got was a rush.

        There is no point. You could get 10,000 punches in with an underground boxing club. You could get 100,000. Your army of brave, loyal warriors cannot and will not be built in the public view. The conclusion is passivism.

        1. > “Using metaphor #9231”

          Using more metaphors to explain a creaky, half-baked idea won’t make the idea any better.

          1. Great job ignoring the other 95% of my comment.

    2. Well, now that you mention it, yes. All those things you listed could potentially be tried, along with thousands of other options, and trying them all would still be a better and more virtuous course than doing absolutely nothing, or forming a “cabal” that will “accept power,” – which is such a naive idea it ought to be embarrassing anyone is even suggesting it as an option. But by far the most astoundingly stupid and counterproductive option of them all, is to commit your energy to criticizing your own allies, who are actually working towards something you are too cowardly or lazy or faithless to even entertain.

      To simply believe you can “become worthy” and “accept power” shows an utterly callow, infantile understanding of how power or cultural hegemony works.

      The left seized power by trying every option they could conceive of, not by being “passive.” And the suggestion that your “cabal” will “accept power” is so ridiculous and unsophisticated I honestly wonder if it’s a joke.

      “How will you bring about a restoration of our civilization and tradition?”
      “Oh, ya know, accept power when the time comes.”

      1. Well, yeah. To crosspost again:

        Most especially, I am puzzled by this: If passivism’s plan is, 1) Become worthy, 2) Accept power, 3) Rule, then what exactly is the strategy for making 2) happen? It looks to me as if this stage is glossed over in the manner of the infamous “underpants gnomes” of South Park. But it is not an unimportant question, and it would seem that passivism is all about avoiding it on the assumption that if we just become worthy enough, power will eventually come knocking on our door, hat in hand, begging us to accept it. I find this to be rather unrealistic, to say the least.

        1. Presumably, by the time you’ve become sufficiently worthy you will know when and how to accept power when the time comes. By that time you’ll have built institutions and increased your sphere of influence sufficiently enough that you should seize power with minimal resistance and bloodshed.

          The reason there hasn’t been much emphasis on accepting power is because the bulk of the work lies in becoming worthy. The dirty little secret of passivism is that we aren’t just sitting around in an echo chamber waiting for the opportunity to accept power; we’re creating the opportunity to accept power, in cognito, right under the Cathedral’s nose. When we’ve become worthy i.e. set up the conditions for victory, then accepting power will be the easiest of the three steps.

          1. > “Presumably, by the time you’ve become sufficiently worthy you will know when and how to accept power when the time comes.”

            Presumably? Presumed by whom? Based on what?

            If you expect to be able to finally crack the mystery of how to ensure that only worthy people end up with power in this world – a question that has plagued humanity’s best minds since the days of Confucius and Socrates – then I have to admire your ambition, but (no offense) I’m rather skeptical of your ability to actually pull it off (unless you cheat by declaring that anyone who has power is, simply because they do have power, by definition “worthy” – which technically satisfies the conditions of the question, but also renders the entirety of human philosophy null and void). Presuming that you won’t actually do that, then you’re still left with the Underpants Gnome problem, i.e. that the truth is that as it stands right now, your strategy is:

            1) Become worthy
            2) ????
            3) Accept power
            4) Rule

          2. The problem is that if you can’t explain how we get from “Become worthy” to “Accept power”, then in terms of gaining power, becoming worthy remains useless. You might as well replace it with any one of a thousand other things you could do which also have no clear path to being able to accept power attached to them. For example, you could just as easily lay out the path to rulership as:

            1) Eat a hotdog
            2) ????
            3) Accept power
            4) Rule

            As long as 2) remains a black box, there is literally no difference between my formulation of the path to rulership and your formulation of it. You don’t know how becoming worthy will result in you accepting power, just as I don’t know how eating a hotdog will result in my accepting power. We’re in exactly the same position, except that I’ve at least had some lunch.

        2. If the whole task of Restoration from now to then is 100%, then Step 1 is 99%, Step 2 is 0.9% and Step 3 is 0.1%.

          Let me repeat that. 99% of winning is in Step 1. Become worthy. This is the overwhelmingly difficult and overwhelmingly important step.

          We have not said much about Step 2 because Step 2 is not obvious until you have done Step 1, and we are not at all close to being done with Step 1, although I would say we’ve definitely begun, and we have pretty good chances all things considered.

          Step 1 looks a lot like what I outlined in this article, though there is a lot more I can’t say outright because it’s a part of Step 1 that’s too local, too personal or too specific to give general vague outlines online to strangers. Too bad; I’m doing my best. A good way to achieve Step 1 is to start a multi-billion dollar business and spend a lot of time and money acquiring high-placed disaffected contacts, sharing your unique knowledge with a cabal of like-minded reactionaries, and funding groups for masculine activities and reactionary thought. But I can’t tell you _how_ to start a multi-billion dollar business, or how to become a prodigy at something, or how to be a huge success and use your gains for good — that’s why it’s a vague and general command. Too bad; life is hard like that. Know thyself. Then use your knowledge to win, and win good and hard. The most definite thing I can tell you to do to win besides “get good and win at something” is “stay in touch with like-minded men.”

          Step 2, like I said, does not look obvious until you have done Step 1. Perhaps Step 2 is very messy and looks like the Spanish Civil War. Perhaps it’s a little messy and looks like the March on Rome. Perhaps it’s executed perfectly, and all that needs to be done is for the incipient King to send a text message to the 1000 most powerful people in his rolodex: “Its time. Restoration tonite. Sick of democracy lol. Execute Order 1488.” A declaration is printed in every newspaper but nobody even blinks. Some left-wing protesters get the kibosh put on them because the King has power, the King is the State, and not the leftists.

          My goal is that last one. Like I said: no reason to lower your standards from perfect flawless victory.

          PS: Don’t claim either the March on Rome or the Spanish Civil War for yourselves on the so-called “activist” side — not until you’re a general or party leader commanding the unquestioning loyalty of thousands and thousands of men. If you were, I’d pat you on the back and wish you Godspeed. But if you were, you wouldn’t be commenting here, would you? The shouting, protesting, whining and activism were not Step 1 for Franco, Pinochet, Mussolini or (now) Trump. They were Step 2. But you can’t skip steps here any more than you can skip steps when building a bridge. If you do, the result will be what I’ve been repeating it will be for a while now: an unceremonious crushing.

          If you want to invoke Trump’s rise, spare me the laughter and first do what Trump did to get to where he is now:

          1. Spend 40 years building a multi-billion dollar international real estate company.

          2. Spend 40 years learning about and gaming the media, as well as what are probably hundreds of journalists and news agency chiefs.

          3. Spend 40 years learning about and gaming the civil bureaucracy, elected politicians, and international political/bureaucratic figures.

          4. Spend 40 years learning about and gaming other powerful businessmen.

          5. Spend 40 years donating large sums of money to politicians and foundations of all stripes.

          6. Spend 8 years building an internationally-recognized reputation as a terse, firm but just billionaire boss on your personal TV show where you order people around like a King.

          If you accomplish steps 1-6, you may end up with:

          – Ten billion dollars.
          – Literal tons of dirt on every important business and political figure in this country and others.
          – Personal loyalty of hundreds if not thousands of people who work for you.
          – Personal admiration and approval from millions if not billions of people who implicitly accept your greatly superior social status.

          ALL THAT may allow you to imitate what Trump did this year. But it was not because Trump said the right things or supported the right positions — that just made his cause just — it was because Trump had everything listed above, which made Trump very POWERFUL.

          Passivism says build POWER, then act, not the other way around.

          1. How do you build power without acting?

            Also, about using Trump as an example: Ross Perot did pretty much exactly the same thing in 1992, and all he accomplished was getting Bill Clinton elected by splitting the right-leaning vote. So your path from “Become worthy” to “Accept power” still seems to have a big gaping hole in it somewhere, as it seems to not work with any consistency.

          2. > “We have not said much about Step 2 because Step 2 is not obvious until you have done Step 1”

            Okay, call me when you’ve got it all figured out. Until then this “plan” is a black box, and “Passivism” is a mystery cult, not a serious philosophy.

          3. “How do you build power without acting?”

            You clearly have not even read the article above (hint: it’s in the first half), so I will stop replying to your comments.

  5. Also, is it not super-ironic that all this controversy is happening the same week that Captain America: Civil War is being released?

  6. “Once the moment is right, the cabal will be able to act. That is Step Two of the Procedure: accept power.”

    Napoleon knew when the moment was right, but how shall we? Every regime eventually declines and falls, but for every cabal that succeeds in taking power, many before them tried to and got slaughtered. Even Hitler and Castro failed on the first try; why they were given a second chance is a mystery to me.

    1. Again, the nature of this world is that those who risk nothing, gain nothing. The nature of risk is: You win some, you lose some. That’s just the way it is. One can wish that the nature of risk was that you’ll always be right and always win. That would be lovely, but it has nothing to do with reality.

      There’s a reason why “Nothing ventured, nothing gained” is an old saw.

    2. Napoleon became worthy because he fought and won wars rising from mere Lieutenant to Marshall by marching all over the European and Mediterranean world. He also took power at gunpoint.

      This plan is the Ghetto. It may be the best Yarvin or Yuray can come up with to survive. It’s not an option even for survival for us anymore than it worked for the Jews under Hitler. Once Christian rule failed in the West genocide returned as a tool of state power as it was under the pagan Romans. That’s why it keeps happening and anything passive will mean it happens to us.

      If you end up in exile in China or South America and you wish to remain Christian Americans then perhaps this is an option.
      Probably not. We’ll never be seen as harmless nor offering unique skills.

      1. VXXC: I deleted your other comment because it was totally retarded.

        This one is only mostly retarded and so deserves an answer:

        If you can take power at gunpoint, then you should. Nowhere has anyone in NRx denied this. Get to work on that, will ya.

    3. How shall we know when the moment is right? Glad you brought up Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch. Let’s stop rabdily invoking Hitler’s name for a second and actually examine what he did.

      “The Beer Hall Putsch, also known as the Munich Putsch,[1] and, in German, as the Hitlerputsch or Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch, was a failed coup attempt by the Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler — along with Generalquartiermeister Erich Ludendorff and other Kampfbund leaders — to seize power in Munich, Bavaria, during 8–9 November 1923. About two thousand men marched to the centre of Munich, where they confronted the police, which resulted in the death of 16 Nazis and four policemen.[1] Hitler himself was wounded.”

      “By agreement, Hitler assumed the political leadership of a number of Bavarian “patriotic associations” (revanchist), called the Kampfbund.[12] This political base extended to include about 15,000 brawlers, most of whom were ex-soldiers…

      …On 26 September 1923, following a period of turmoil and political violence, Bavarian Prime Minister Eugen von Knilling declared a state of emergency, and Gustav von Kahr was appointed Staatskomissar, or state commissioner, with dictatorial powers to govern the state. In addition to von Kahr, Bavarian state police chief Colonel Hans Ritter von Seisser and Reichswehr General Otto von Lossow formed a ruling triumvirate.[13] Hitler announced that he would hold 14 mass meetings beginning on 27 September 1923. Afraid of the potential disruption, one of Kahr’s first actions was to ban the announced meetings.[14] Hitler was under pressure to act. The Nazis, with other leaders in the Kampfbund, felt they had to march upon Berlin and seize power or their followers would turn to the Communists.[15] Hitler enlisted the help of World War I general Erich Ludendorff in an attempt to gain the support of Kahr and his triumvirate. However, Kahr had his own plan with Seisser and Lossow to install a nationalist dictatorship without Hitler.[15] November 1923 was the height of hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic.”

      Important notes:

      1. Hitler had ~2000 men with him, who are described as “brawlers” and “[mostly] ex-soldiers.”

      2. Hitler had the support of General Ludendorff, a WWI German hero and important general.

      3. These soldiers had been already organized into various “Kampfbunds,” which translates to “battle-leagues” and shares a root word with Mannerbund.

      4. Bavaria was already in a dictatorial state of emergency being ruled by a military triumvirate planning to establish a “nationalist dictatorship.”

      5. Germany was at the height of hyperinflation (see this insane exponential graph for how bad it was: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Germany_Hyperinflation.svg ). One gold mark in 1920 was worth 10 paper marks, but in 1923 it was worth 1,000,000,000,000.

      6. Munich is the third-largest city in Germany.

      The population of Germany in 1923 was 62.3 million. The population of the United States today is 318.9 million. Based on my calculations and observations, just to FAIL as well as Hitler did in 1923, you would have to be in the following situation today:

      1. You have the personal support of ~10,200 men who will march on the government with you, who are “brawlers” and “[mostly] ex-Marines.”

      2. You have the support of General James “Mad Dog” Mattis.

      3. These Marines are already organized into various “battle groups.”

      4. The Midwest is in a dictatorial state of emergency being ruled by a military triumvirate planning to establish a “nationalist dictatorship.”

      5. A U.S. dollar is worth 0.000000001% of what is was worth 3 years ago.

      6. You’re marching on Chicago city hall.

      Are you willing to delude yourself that we are *anywhere* near being ready for any kind of repetition? Are you willing to delude yourself that now is the time for activism, and that all the Right needs to gain power is to stand up and try to grab it?

  7. BTW, recommended reading for everyone on this topic is Arthur Koestler’s 1940 essay collection The Yogi and the Commissar, in which Koestler (a former communist who was turned against communism by the spectacle of the Moscow show trials) uses the yogi as the symbol of those who want to effect change from within (i.e. by self-improvement and enlightenment, very much in the vein of what the passivists here are describing), and the commissar as the symbol of those who want to effect change from without (i.e. by coercion, the seizing of power – very much the activist approach). Very relevant here, and it goes to show just how much you really can find in old books.

    Link here:
    http://www.amazon.com/Yogi-Commissar-Other-Essays-Danube/dp/0091531810

  8. I had been looking forward to this, but find myself disappointed. Passivism is cabalism?

    Passivism has always made sense to me as someone who grew up by the ocean. When you’re stuck in a riptide, you swim to the side not to shore. You allow yourself be dragged out a ways before turning back to land. This piece doesn’t contradict that, directly, but it weighs it down with unpersuasive detail and unfounded assertion to the point that by the end of this I was sorely tempted to think I might not personally be a passivist after all.

    There may be a place for conspiracies and cabals, but isn’t there more to get out of life than subversion, self-flattery in secret, and dreams of skulls? It’s an uncharitable interpretation, to be sure, but I can’t find motivation to be more charitable given the way this piece runs roughshod over delicate issues and objections.

    Not to say I agree with AntiDem or Reed here. I know their thinking and in my view only the weaknesses of this piece and its predecessor invite their comments. That in itself is a disappointment. These two pieces do not seem to be persuasive except to people who are already persuaded (though the comments on the previous could be more persuasive), and they’ve encouraged those who aren’t to have even more vociferous objections.

    1. In truth, there are a practically infinite number of ways to not do activism. Attempting to create a suitable umbrella for them all is a rather knotty task.

      I believe the thinking here is based on the proposition that all civilization begins as a blood oath among men. If you have that, and it is durable, then you have civilization… even if what was formerly known as it comes crashing down around you. Whether you call that a Männerbund, or a Cabal, or a Fraternity is neither here nor there. Those essential features are necessary and sufficient to create a civilization. I.e., it is inherently eucivic.

      1. Nick BS, you’re going to have to accept the fact that “passivism” is not a plan. It’s the absence of a plan. Telling people to “be good” or “join a frat” is not a plan. And many of the features of this “passivism” FreeNortherner and Yuray continue to describe are merely activism with no teeth or balls. “Passivism” is a pacifier for man-children who won’t take real action.

        You think you’re going to “convert” the globalist elite. That is just the most improbable and absurd strategy imaginable, and is not even discussed as part of his inconsistent “passivism” idea. Let me know when you’ve “converted” Soros and Frau Merkel.

        All activist strategies take two paths: 1) appeal to the people. 2) appeal to power (elites/authorities). Your “conversion” strategy is merely the second activist strategy, and that is not “passivism” it is one of the oldest activist strategies on the planet, even discussed in The Prince, etc.

        You do not know what you’re talking about.

        1. ““Passivism” is a pacifier for man-children who won’t take real action.”

          Be civil, or I’ll ban.

      2. A knotty task, but I’d thought Yuray might be up to it! I hope it’s clear I wouldn’t be disappointed with this if it had come from an inferior writer.

        1. NBS is right. There are practically infinite ways not to do activism. That’s the beauty of passivism. You can pretty much do anything, as long as it’s not a headlong charge into the barrel of a cannon while screaming — or anything on the spectrum to that. Passivism is not a plan?

          To most of you I am just an anonymous stranger on the Internet whom you have never met, nor ever will. Nor will you know anything deep, personal and true about me, nor will I ever know anything deep, personal and true about you. You will probably never even know my real name, age, location, skills, talents, profession, birthplace or history, nor will I know yours.

          So why the hell do you think I could possibly have a detailed, personalized, specific and well-thought-out plan for what you should do to win?

          So yeah, that’s right: passivism is not a plan. It’s a plan for a plan.

          The best I can do is give you a plan for a plan, which will by nature be vague, general and require some creativity, thought, imagination and agency on your part. But at least it’s less vague, general and burdensome than Moldbug and his original formulation, which was three short steps long. So that’s progress in my book.

          For those of you whom I’ve known long enough, I am getting in touch, you know I’m getting in touch, I know I’m getting in touch, and we’re working on doing more specific and more interesting things. For the rest of you, keep reading, keep commenting, join the forum, talk to people, meet people, read Moldbug, read Carlyle, follow the advice above, and wait for a phone call — or perhaps an e-mail.

          1. This appears to be a reply to Reed’s comment above, not mine, so I will not reply.

    2. So Thomas… If one group of men is activist, and another group of men is passivist, who do you think will end up being more likely to have their views become culturally dominant, and who will be more prepared to assume actual authority when the right opportunity presents itself? This ought to be common sense.

      1. This is the wrong question. The right question is which group is more likely to actually cultivate a good civilization.

        Who do I think is more likely to get laid faster, a rapist or a romantic? Sex is good but it’s not the sole goal. Same with power.

        1. Uh. That is the question.

          Your sex analogy makes no sense whatsoever. If you want to get laid or have a romantic relationship or get hitched you have to be proactive, not “passivist.” So in this analogy, the “passivist” isn’t the romantic or the rapist, he’s the dude who stays home and complains as he “waits for the right time to ‘accept’ romance/sex/love.” Then he writes blogs about his friends who may try and fail without realizing you have to first try to succeed. You don’t wait for it and get ready to “accept” it. You go and get.

          Really, I’m done arguing it. I just can’t believe how much effort SM has now put into this absurd idea. It’s embarrassingly naive and incoherent.

          1. Nah, man, that’s just you missing the plot.

            Obviously my riptide dude is still swimming, just not against the current. You’re saying my recommendation was to just float out to sea and drown. If I thought you were reading in good faith, I’d be astonished by your lack of basic comprehension. But this is in bad faith. Not impressive.

    3. “I had been looking forward to this, but find myself disappointed. Passivism is cabalism?”

      I picked a cool word to put a cool, new and — hopefully — understandable spin on passivism, since there was a lot of confusion and misunderstanding. You can also call it Mannerbundism, localism, friendism, brotherhoodism, fraternityism or whatever else you like.

      “Passivism has always made sense to me as someone who grew up by the ocean. When you’re stuck in a riptide, you swim to the side not to shore. You allow yourself be dragged out a ways before turning back to land.”

      You should not think completely in metaphors. Passivism is not about going with the progressive flow, but about avoiding an early death in order to build power for eventual victory i.e. I would not recommend you follow progressive ideas privately, or even signal hard, only that you signal the bare minimum necessary to survive and continue building at any given moment.

      “This piece doesn’t contradict that, directly, but it weighs it down with unpersuasive detail and unfounded assertion to the point that by the end of this I was sorely tempted to think I might not personally be a passivist after all.”

      You may not be, but this and the previous article are meant to help you become one and understand why. If it’s not helping, perhaps you should re-read Moldbug, or the TFP article on passivism, or FN’s article. Or just engage with me.

      The details and assertions are my attempt to illustrate what exactly passivism entails.

      “There may be a place for conspiracies and cabals, but isn’t there more to get out of life than subversion, self-flattery in secret, and dreams of skulls? It’s an uncharitable interpretation, to be sure, but I can’t find motivation to be more charitable given the way this piece runs roughshod over delicate issues and objections.”

      Yes, you are right, that is indeed an extremely uncharitable interpretation, considering I did not use the word “subversion,” nor recommend self-flattery, nor recommend secrecy (I recommend privacy, quiet and exclusion), nor recommend dreaming of skulls. If you think my piece runs roughshod over delicate issues and objections, you should raise those and I would be happy to go over them.

      “Not to say I agree with AntiDem or Reed here. I know their thinking and in my view only the weaknesses of this piece and its predecessor invite their comments. That in itself is a disappointment. These two pieces do not seem to be persuasive except to people who are already persuaded (though the comments on the previous could be more persuasive), and they’ve encouraged those who aren’t to have even more vociferous objections.”

      Go over the weaknesses. Don’t just obliquely comment that they exist. What’s the point of that?

      “These two pieces do not seem to be persuasive except to people who are already persuaded”

      FWIW, I have amazing evidence that is not the case, which is exactly why I wrote this second article after the first one.

      “And they’ve encouraged those who aren’t to have even more vociferous objections.”

      Not everyone is open to reason, which is why I again ask you go over your objections, disappointments and perceived weaknesses rather than just obliquely note that they exist and leave us guessing.

      1. I apologize if criticism without detail seemed to be a drive by and an insult. In my background it is usually considered polite to hold off on particulars at first, even while making strong criticism, to provide room for an initial back and forth establishing which particulars the writer was already willing to self-criticize and which are too sensitive to discuss.

        This is apparently not your background, which seems to emphasize transparent assertion over hedged, back and forth listening. That’s cool; I’m not an internet regular so I’m probably the odd one here.

        Still, I don’t think people are entitled to request that others make their criticisms clear. In my opinion that’s a norm that underincentives perceptivity by putting the burden on perceptive people to explain too much to the less perceptive. ‘Communism of insight.’ I avoid communities and people with this norm.

        Since I’ve antagonized you I’ll make an exception. However, I’ll do it in a private channel because I don’t want to encourage any others to feel similarly entitled. I prefer not saying anything to being required to explain myself fully if I make a comment.

  9. Takeaway from all this: the hard truth that the formation of large upright families and tight interpersonal networks are the only meaningful actions towards rightist change is bitter pill to swallow for middle-class internet types, who are by nature romantic and still weaning off leftist mythology.

    It’s hard to understand the surprise and (minor) controversy that this article seems to have elicited. It’s not asserting anything original, just restating what I had assumed to have been the main NRx position all along.

    1. “The hard truth that the formation of large upright families and tight interpersonal networks are the only meaningful actions towards rightist change is bitter pill to swallow for middle-class internet types, who are by nature romantic and still weaning off leftist mythology.”

      Yes. You have the right idea.

      The good news is that there is a spectrum of intensity when it comes to passivism.

      On the one end of the spectrum is what I call the Amish strategy: start your own weird religion, begin recruiting friends, family and crazies, buy a compound, reproduce like crazy, wait 1000 years — BAM, power.

      I don’t see why we have to be THAT stringent, however. The Amish do it inadvertently by being super-religious and being Luddites. We can be super-religious, but we are not Luddites, nor do we have to be. Scientologists got to BAM, power without waiting 1000 years.

      So we can live in cities, use cell phones, use the Internet, use airplanes, etc. That should cut down ETR (estimated time to Restoration) to less than 100 years if we’re lucky. This is a massive exercise in social coordination, after all, and not much more.

  10. @NBS
    We’re quite far from the only ones talking about brotherhoods of various sorts as an integral part of the solution. –

    There’s been quite a few people who have pulled back from alt-right style mass mobs to focus on brotherhoods/fraternal organizations.

    I’ve suggested numerous times that the most succesful protagonists in shaping Western Civ for a thousand years have been in the form of Masons/Templars/Jesuits etc but obviously that doesn’t go down well with “fund-raising based” movements; i.e. promise the world, deliver nothing, then leave you dejected.

    “Self-improvement” may have been debased as a concept by the likes of Oprah and new-Age style authors but it remains a crucial step in a society where most Men have experienced maladaptive formations.

    1. Indeed, the subject keeps coming up practically everywhere I go. The guys over at TRS Radio Rebel Yell were just talking about entry into the old men’s civic clubs (Oddfellows, Elks, etc.). This was the main prescription of former professional religious rightist Eric Heubeck’s Integration of Theory and Practice in 2001.

  11. Two things required for reboot: Alternative Structure and Preference Cascade.

    Become worthy = making your preference attractive to those around you, aligning their preference with yours.

    Alternative Structure building? Is this my department? No. I am a reasonably intelligent young man in the rural midwest with a young family. I can grasp Menciian criticisms of the current system; I can see the rot; I can read Carlyle and De Jouvenel; I can formulate and express these criticisms and these arguments to other reasonably intelligent young rural midwesterners. I am capable of building worth within my sphere (family, community, church) based on the same guiding principles or traditional knowledge that men have formed bonds over for thousands of years. Will I contribute anything to alternative structure building beyond my sphere of capability? I’d like to think so, but probably not — not beyond integrating my own sphere of responsibility and capability into whatever new hierarchical order arrives.

    Surely this discussion could be enlightened by further emphasis on individual capabilities and spheres of influence. Passivism for the “mass”ivism. I leave it to the Hestia Society to prepare for the arrival of conquering Caesar Erik Prince. Such arrangements are beyond me, above me, and would probably be screwed up if me and my local cabal started deploying dangerous right-wing memes at the wrong time.

    But pursuing a relatively traditional path of virtue and encouraging others to that goes along way toward destroying the modern mind-viruses of equalism and democracy. And one or two men CONSCIOUSLY working toward the mind-virus destruction will take the whole group of men even further along.

    So what better way to direct my energies than “becoming worthy”, building resilient networks, a resilient family structure, a resilient career or skillset, and awaiting for whatever Nrx formalist King Under the Mountain to come around?

    When he does, I’ll bend a knee, swear fealty, and don the blockchain mantle or whatever else is cooked up by then.

    Until that point, it’s Latin Mass, old books, detached interest in the effects of Trump, and perfectly legal non-revolution oriented hoarding of ammunition and related supplies.

    1. The right idea here too.

      “…not beyond integrating my own sphere of responsibility and capability into whatever new hierarchical order arrives.”

      Which is very important. Which is why I recommend building a cabal of like-minded men, and why I recommend staying in touch with others from NRx, etc.

  12. > “You don’t believe virtue leads to power? And you’re Catholic?!!”

    To power at the right hand of God almighty on the Day of Judgment? Absolutely. To temporal power in the here and now? Nope.

    Look, it was the Jews who wanted Christ to overthrow Caesar and build them an empire, and the Jews who rejected Christ as the Messiah when He made it clear that that’s not what He was here to do. Just like Christ never promised His followers wealth in the here and now in this world, Christ never promised His followers power in the here and now in this world, either. He may indeed choose to guide a particular individual to temporal power in furtherance of His purposes (“In hoc signo vinces”) – but that’s not part of the contract He’s offering to those who sign up with Him, and you’re not entitled to it for doing so. He may just as well choose to lead you to martyrdom. Or He may just as well choose to lead you to slavery.

    So no, it’s not part of the deal that God’s offering us that virtue leads to temporal power. In fact, very often the people who God gives temporal power to really aren’t all that virtuous – they’re just the right guy for the job. Ask Uriah the Hittite about that one. (How unfortunate that King David never got around to reading the “Rules for Brotherhood”!)

    1. All unvirtuous temporal leaders are God’s punishment for being insufficiently virtuous.

        1. Specifically, Luke 13: 1-8

          1. Luke 13:1-8 is not an excuse not to try.

    2. Actually the Church seems like an argument par excellence for passivist strategy.

      The Jews wanted Christ to rally the troops and start the war against Rome. Like all Jewish rebellions, it would have ended slaughter and depopulation of the region.

      Instead the Church said “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” and built networks and thus power and defied Caesar only when he demanded what was God’s, and then went to their martyrdoms when they did so.

      Just over three centuries later, the Emperor himself was worshipping the God of Israel. A few more decades and the faith of the Church was the faith of the Empire. The Jews could have never dreamed of such a thing even in the best case scenarios of their wars.

  13. Passivism is a product of the era I hated most about neoreaction, times when people would just come up with random shit like “no enemies to the right” w/ no backing && no substance and we would just repeat the same mantras over and over, and a lot of us were forced to begrudgingly accept these things because the “older members” irrationally decided this was good and refuse to acknowledge any grounds for legitimate disagreement.

    in a way the extreme fights and reactions we’ve had over people even sort of questioning stuff like “passivism”/no enemies to the right.(essentially made up B.S.)

    a lot of people act in this thread like the people who oppose passivism have no grounds for for their positions(activism i guess) but the passivism thing just lacks authenticity and we can feel the fakeness and tacked on justification and it’s just obvious.

    the truth is passivism was just made up randomly because we thought it was funny and there’s no reason to defend it. i’ve never, seen a legitimate defense put over it.

    stuff like this used to be ok cause i had my corner with NIO and we would just laugh at stuff like this, but now, he changed too.

    i would rather we just said “we’re afraid of the stupidity our members would cause trying to grab power, and we veto decisions like that for the medium term” instead of us trying to use some counterfeit theory to back up what we want. (just like “no enemies to the right”) . it just feels off, and i think a lot of us who fight this passivism thing feel that we’re arguing against something obviously inauthentic and expending too much energy fighting over that.

    will go into more detail upon response

    1. The problem with a lot of the stuff you mention is not that it isn’t true, but that, kind of like a horoscope, it’s so vague that it can’t *not* be true, which also makes it completely useless. “No enemies on the right” is sensible enough… but what does “on the right” mean? As the recent dustup over the Radix abortion article showed, this is not an unimportant question. If someone is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-socialism, and anti-Christian, are they really “on the right”, even if they don’t like Jews and black people? Same thing with 1) Become worthy, 2) Accept power, 3) Rule. What does “worthy” mean? How does someone become it? How does becoming worthy actually lead to accepting power? What if two worthy people both want to rule? Did anybody think of any of this stuff before they wrote an article about it? The attitude seems to be “We’ll figure it out as we go along”, but that’s something you’d say about a weekend camping trip, not about a grand strategy to destroy leftism and restore the West to its former glory.

  14. By the way, what the hell does this even mean, anyhow?:

    1) Become worthy
    2) Accept power
    3) Rule

    Great plan. Nice and simple. Reminds me of my own plan to become the most successful ladies’ man ever:

    1) Become a chick magnet
    2) Pick up babes
    3) Score

    Anybody see any flaws in that plan? Seems perfectly straightforward to me. Let me just get going on this, and I’ll be pulling tail like you wouldn’t believe.

    1. Nothing wrong with that plan. It’s perfectly logical and obvious. Perhaps we need it because the default plan in 2016 is, and aside from passivism is:

      1) Loudly demand chicks sleep with you
      2) Pick up babes
      3) Score

      1. You don’t find my plan to be so vague and lacking in concrete details as to be completely useless as a working blueprint to actually get any real goals accomplished?

        Because I kinda do.

        1. I do too, but at least it’s not completely backwards, wrong and liable to lead to suicide.

          1. Okay, but the path to power I laid out above still meets all of your conditions:

            1) Eat a hotdog
            2) Accept power
            3) Rule

            There’s nothing backwards about eating a hotdog. There’s nothing wrong with eating a hotdog. There’s nothing suicidal about eating a hotdog. The only flaw in my plan it is that I have no idea how 1) is going to lead to 2).

            Let me state plainly that there’s nothing wrong with “becoming worthy” (except that it’s so vague a term that it has no actual discernible meaning). The problem is that you’re selling it as being able to do something that you have no idea how it’s actually going to do, and thus whether it can actually do that thing at all. That’s fraud; it’s what a snake-oil salesman in a traveling medicine show does when he sells someone a bottle filled with ten-cent hooch for ten dollars after telling them it’s a miracle medicine that’ll cure everything from arthritis to cancer. There’s nothing wrong with cheap whiskey – I’ve had my share in my day. But there is something wrong with selling it to people when you can’t actually prove that it does what you told them it can do.

          2. Lack of detail is the problem with the three-step formula, which is precisely why I recommend reading Moldbug’s original posts, why I recommend reading Carlyle, why I link to past articles on here, TFP and elsewhere, why I wrote this article (and the last one), and why I’ve written probably another 4-5 posts’ worth just of comments in both explaining the position.

            If you can read all that and your eyes still totally glaze over and you go back to “lol but where’s the detail” then I don’t know what to tell you. You have not even proven adept at engaging with the arguments written here or elsewhere, just at repeatedly disproving a strawman of passivism based on an out-of-context five-word summary written by Moldbug.

  15. > “Luke 13:1-8 is not an excuse not to try.”

    To try what, exactly?

  16. > “Lack of detail is the problem with the three-step formula, which is precisely why I recommend reading Moldbug’s original posts, why I recommend reading Carlyle, why I link to past articles on here, TFP and elsewhere, why I wrote this article (and the last one), and why I’ve written probably another 4-5 posts’ worth just of comments in both explaining the position.”

    Yes, I’ve read Moldbug. He consistently makes a lot of sense. He’s frequently absolutely brilliant. But sometimes he isn’t. No biggie – I don’t have Curtis Yarvin confused with Jesus of Nazareth.

    This debate is starting to get religious, in that we’ve gotten to the point were the argument is that anyone who doesn’t believe in the plan just hasn’t had it explained to them enough times. So, it’s at this juncture that I’ll say that I’ve made the points I came to make, and bow out of the discussion.

    1. Ok, fair enough. You know where to find us.

  17. I’m still not comprehending the opposition to “passivism”.

    It’s an entirely rational first step or first phase of development.

    As I understand it:

    1. Even the best of us are chock full of mind-rot democratic propaganda. Reading lots of Moldbug cannot in itself remove the rot. Reading lots of Moldbug is an excellent way to understand that the rot exists, and to start to remove the rot ourselves.

    2. This mind-rot is at the heart of all our institutions, and helps to explain their increasing dysfunction. However, while we can anticipate that dysfunction will increase, we cannot anticipate just exactly what crazy twists and turns will arise and in what specific ways dysfunction will manifest itself.

    3. Therefore, assuming the best minds of our generation put forward a specific plan for “restoration” at this point in time, it will be a plan still filled with as-yet undiscovered mind-rot which does not anticipate a broad range of specific-yet-unpredictable degeneracies and disasters that will unfold and derail the plan for restoration.

    I mean no offense to whatever unknown great minds who may be engineering a right-wing AI to enact the reboot — I am a simple man. But it would seem safe to assume that while the most red-pilled Menciian analyst (at this point in time) is several steps down the road to enlightenment beyond a budding PUA-weighlifting-Trump-supporter, he likely has many thousands of more steps to go.

    Therefore, the most prudent course for the time being — the passivist course, as I understand it — is one of building antifragility on a broad level (becoming worthy) whilst our betters (or at least MY betters!) continue to progress toward developing an alternative structure (which at this point, I must assume, is a combination of Urbit and Canon law).

    1. And additionally, if you believe in the existence or development of an organic hierarchy, in an age when all right-thinking people are in favor of policies and actions that destroy or undermine whatever traces of organic hierarchy may still remain, then you quite literally must start from the ground up to rebuild that hierarchy.

      That is, you must start rebuilding within your family and community. If you do not lead your family, yet you demand now the details of reboot and restoration so that you can begin enacting them — what kind of chaos emerge — through failure AND through success?

      You don’t build an organic hierarchy by abstractly designing the hierarchy and then plugging people or institutions into it like the roster on a fantasy sports team.

      You build the most basic unit — the family, the brotherhood, etc. — the one in which you have the most control and the most responsibility — and you scale from there. From your community, the most worthy rises to the next level — what would that be? We shall see. And so on, until we have Most Holy Seven Electors who control the proper blockchain to install the genetically perfect child of Elon Musk and Ivanka Trump to oversee the Great Dissolution. Or whatever.

      1. Interesting point. It seems many of the most vociferous critics on this subject do share a lack of family responsibility as a trait. Could be coincidence of course. But unless one has experienced—been required—to take on that sort of responsibility, the idea that virtue leads to power may remain an esoteric mystery.

      2. Two excellent comments. This is especially important:

        “Therefore, assuming the best minds of our generation put forward a specific plan for “restoration” at this point in time, it will be a plan still filled with as-yet undiscovered mind-rot which does not anticipate a broad range of specific-yet-unpredictable degeneracies and disasters that will unfold and derail the plan for restoration.”

        We are not even sure of all the things we do not know. We are not even sure of all the things we are hopelessly leftist about. That doesn’t mean the task is hopeless, but it does mean it’s hard, and we need time and concentrated effort to do it right.

  18. When you are weak and the enemy is strong but far away, it is advisable to build fortifications, recruit more men, train and improve your fighting abilities, lay down stores for a siege, and look about for allies. If you do these things, when your enemy comes closer, you will be in the best possible position to defeat him. But if you neglect this advice and either provoke a fight before you are ready or neglect your preparations, you will more likely be defeated.

  19. >tfw Nick listens to your show

    An example of Passivism in action was done by proponents of the Enlightenment.

    George Washington in the Colonies, Simon Bolivar in Gran Colombia, Bernardo O’Higgins in Chile, Miguel Hidalgo in Mexico, and Jose de San Martin in Peru were all Mason and high status individuals.

    Freemasonry pretty much broke an entire world order.

    1. Please have me on some time. I can be an honorary rebel. I did live in central/SW VA for about 13 years.

      PS. And yes, Freemasonry broke the world order. And it will take something like Freemasonry to put it back together. I have averred elsewhere that no social change (for good or (mostly) for ill) has ever occurred without the operation of a tightly knit conspiracy. Which is why I find the detractors, and their vehemence, to this concept so puzzling. It’s not like you have to look hard for examples. You have to look hard for counter-examples, and I’m not sure there are any.

Comments are closed.