Lessons From Charlottesville In Power Dynamics And Strategy

By now, you’ve seen the chaos that unfolded in Charlottesville on August 12 and the resulting unprecedented crackdown on virtually anything publicly right-wing. This provides a good opportunity to reiterate some of our theoretical points about power and political strategy. Here’s a rough recap of the relevant events:

Friday: The alt-right held an aesthetic torchlight rally. Leftists freaked out and had meltdowns. Everything stayed largely peaceful. The alt-right projected a decent and respectable image. Those attending the event were energized and had a good time building comradery and logistics. Serious onlookers were presented with a crack in the matrix: alt-righters peacefully and aesthetically saying “you will not replace us,” and everyone else calling them evil Nazis. One could imagine serious, open minded people saying: “Now wait a minute, maybe I should look closer,” though granted the chant “Jews will not replace us” likely didn’t help the event.

Saturday: Anarchist and communist thugs showed up in some force. The police declared a state of emergency and shut down the rally. The planned event devolved quickly into total chaos with rioting and street fighting. A rogue alt-righter plowed his car into a crowd of leftists, seriously injuring many, with one associated death. A helicopter crashed, killing two police. Charlottesville got trashed. Even without the chaos, the image was more dominated by unsavory characters: ill-shapen schlubby goons with Nazi flags and makeshift weapons, in addition to infamous old-school white nationalist movement figures with mile-long records of scamming, degenerate behavior, and dishonesty.

Since Then: Many organizations associated in any way with the alt-right (and a few with no apparent connection) have had parts of their infrastructure unplugged from major internet service providers, in an utterly unprecedented crackdown. All major news outlets had wall-to-wall coverage against “white supremacists” for weeks. Historic statues in other cities were vandalized and removed. VICE proposed blowing up Mount Rushmore. Chinese social media is abuzz about Americans undergoing a Cultural Revolution. President Donald Trump is under increased pressure. Many libertarian-leaning conservatives a week prior to Charlottesville suddenly find nothing objectionable about communist revolutionaries tearing down any American iconography they can get their hands on and proclaiming that America is about anything but “ourselves and our posterity.” They compare the leftist thugs to our grandfathers who fought in the Second World War.

The Saturday Charlottesville chaos gave the media all the material they needed to paint a picture of alt-right = idiot Nazis = violence and terror = bad. It doesn’t matter who started it, how two-sided the fighting was, how evil the leftists are, how reasonable the “you will not replace us” demand was, or how small, in the scheme of things, the death of one protester is. The establishment took Charlottesville as a game-changing moment, where former rules and truces no longer apply.

How did this happen? How did a protest that started strong go so badly and kick off such a strong counter-reaction? A few factors:

  1. A rally is a big target that requires serious alignment to go well. It’s not difficult for the police, provocateurs, and counter-protesters to make a big chaotic mess of it. Given a big chaotic mess, it’s not hard for the Cathedral to put whatever spin they like on it and find plenty of heart-wrenching details to promote. We see the result.
  2. The rally coalition in question was a big tent. There was no control over who was there representing the alt-right, so plenty of unsavory characters showed up to embarass the rest. The chaos tended to involve these fringe members of the coalition. We can see that it was these edge-cases that the media is exploiting the most in their narrative about “Nazis and KKK.”
  3. Contrary to popular belief, America is not a free country. It is ruled by a very powerful elite network loosely organized around progressive ideology, which will do whatever it needs to to crush or neutralize political opponents. You have effectively no political rights, no free speech, no right to assemble. There is no undiscriminating “public” infrastructure; your right to participate in America is contingent on your acquiescence to the progressive ideological consensus that controls all infrastructure. You might even say that America is a communist country, or if we want to be pedantic, a “progressive” country, meant in exactly the same way.
  4. This central progressive coalition is good at, and has no qualms about, using the police and antifa to start riots that can be spun in a direction favorable to them and exploiting a news cycle to push their agenda in a semi-coordinated way behind the scenes. This is why the protest went horribly wrong, and how a lot of the subsequent reaction was coordinated; they made it happen because it was within their power. And it benefited them.
  5. The alt-right bought civics class lies about free political expression, about peaceful protest being possible, let alone effective, and about it being possible for an underdog to take on the agenda of power and win, just by being dedicated and right. A movement constituted on these untruths will always lose, unless it has very powerful elite patrons operating on some other principle, who cover for it and use it to their advantage. But the alt-right has no serious elite patrons, because it has gotten itself into a fight with power and doubled down, a fight which no sane person and especially no powerful patron, even one who supports the ideals, wants a part of.

We have made arguments before against street-fights, borderless movements, picking fights with powerful enemies, attempting power without elite allies, trying to play the democratic politics game directly or indirectly, fighting instead of building, believing in the democratic republican civil society model, and other such counterproductive beliefs and methods. These things only cause you to lose and create chaos, harming your cause and your society, and embarrassing your allies. Where they sometimes appear to work, it’s either some related tactic working in spite of these anti-tactics, or it’s part of the usual charade involving elite cover.

This event in particular provides a much starker illustration of the nature of political power in modern America, bringing us to the true core of good strategy, which unlike civics-class activism, might actually work: understanding the power calculus and the dynamics of elite patronage.

Underneath all the lies about a democratic civil society, civil rights, free speech, rule of law, self-determination, protest mythology, and so on, here’s what’s actually going on: political power is the ability to make events unfold in society according to your will. Most people have no power, because they don’t control anything. Most power is held by very few people, who control key institutions and are allied into key networks.

New non-elite powers in society are either allied, co-opted, contained, or crushed by the elite coalition and their political order. Thus, the elite maintains enough power to control any other power in society, including any power that could organize non-elite powers against the elite.

If you set yourself directly and loudly against the desires of the elite, who have the most power in society, you will get crushed or otherwise neutralized.

As such, it’s generally not possible to achieve controversial political results without backing from some elite power. Direct confrontation cannot work unless you have your own enormous power coalition, which puts you in the realm of war and diplomacy, not internal politics.

So, you can’t take on the elite as such and win. This is not to say that “the elite” is a unified bloc. “The elite” is an alliance, sometimes as little as a ceasefire, between many different powers with different interests, which have achieved political order through some consensus about how to use their powers. But if you’re targeting “the elite agenda” as a bloc, or ineptly trying to get them to turn on each other to your advantage, the constraints of elite political order require them to respond with hostility more or less as a bloc, and to crush you.

In this framework, the situation behind the alt-right is this: the elite consensus in our society has mostly alienated normal white people, especially traditionally-minded white men, who are thus becoming hostile to the elite consensus. This is dangerous in a democracy, so those white men must be replaced or otherwise neutralized to maintain elite power. Otherwise, the elite has to deal with consequences like Trump. It would be easier to control an assorted mass of degenerate and deracinated brown people, so that’s what elite power is generally buying these days: brown immigrants and demoralization. The ugly future produced by this dynamic is a tragic outcome for all, but such is the logic of democracy.

It is particularly tragic for those “white males” who have become politically obsolete. Naturally, they try to organize and oppose. Hence the alt-right. But that opposition, especially abrasive confrontational opposition, is itself the motivation for the crushing. As the model predicts, this Charlottesville incident is being used as further justification for the acceleration of what the alt-right calls “white genocide”.

The strategic approach the alt-right took in Charlottesville, which to be fair to them is the mainstream theory of politics advanced by modern society, is the view of politics as conflict, especially through symbolic activism. To accomplish political ends, you are supposed to go out and protest and “fight” for your marginalized group. If you “fight” well, you get some slice of favor from the system and are allowed to flourish. So, the alt-right went out and “fought”. We saw the result.

The first rule of conflict is that you don’t pick direct fights with players who are bigger than you and have more allies in the fight. The alt-right directly challenged the system, which by definition has the most allies, and predictably lost.

The modern mind is schooled in a liberal adversarial politics of protest, privilege theories, political conflict, and class war. This mindset results in futile political fights, depression, and people dropping out. The liberal conflict theory says that if you have a political problem, you have to fight. If fighting won’t work, you’re screwed. So, we see the alt-right dominated by two related sentiments: a foolhardy “we have to fight” sentiment, and a pessimistic “black pill” depression that recognizes that this won’t work. This is because the alt-right is stuck in a conflict theory of politics.

There are options besides either direct, loud pot-banging in the streets or giving up.

Fortunately, a realistic model of power dynamics provides guidance for a better strategic approach, a politics of trade, building strength, making alliances, being useful, becoming worthy, and class collaboration: the problem is that the current elite consensus is destructive to society; it is crashing our civilization. Some elite factions do directly benefit from this weakening of society and are best modeled as outright enemies of civilization. But most, I am convinced, go along with it because there are no viable alternatives that work for them, or even work at all. The problem is the destructive nature of the progressive liberal-democratic elite consensus, but that consensus cannot be lightly and incrementally challenged, because it is very deeply ingrained. So no elite faction, even a patriotic majority of elite powers, can act together to change the system, because there is no obvious or ready alternative.

Our alternative political program must be focused on the construction of a viable alternative, which avoids falling into the failure modes of conflict politics. A viable alternative program must meet a few constraints:

  • It proposes an alternate way that the elite consensus could be constructed that meets all the basic constraints of an elite consensus, like maintaining political order, mostly controlling elite conflict, and actually being possible.
  • The proposed way is actually substantially better, in terms of how it manages society and controls conflict, especially in that it actually solves the problems you want to solve.
  • The coalition of the plan’s natural allies, those it benefits, has greater total power than the coalition of its natural enemies, those it harms. The best way to ensure this is to ensure that it’s a positive sum improvement.
  • The way the plan presents itself makes it possible to get its natural allies to recognize it as good and avoid non-enemies thinking it’s bad.
  • The team behind the alternative is savvy enough to pull off the build-up strategy and the sell without getting tripped up in premature conflicts. This involves building novel ideas, building the institutions, assembling the men, building the networks, selling to allies, and so on.

If these constraints are met, then you have a real political strategy that might actually work. Otherwise, you’re beset with a lot of whining and misguided hostility.

Note that a huge part of the above is the requirement to get a coalition of elite allies to back the plan. The elite backing of successful movements is like a political version of a venture-capital investment deal: the patrons loan political capital to a movement in expectation of some political return. If the movement is going to blow up in the backers’ faces, or is otherwise not able to deliver the goods, for example by getting into unwinnable fights, then the backers should not and will not invest their support into the movement.

Successful movements, especially those further into the opposition, tend to have this important feature: they do a lot of quiet and peaceful institution building, so that they have their own power, more effective capabilities to trade with elite allies, and enough coherence to manage a long-term strategy. It is very difficult to be anything but a bought pawn or quickly neutralized unless you are building something new to negotiate with. This is reflected in the above constraints, but bears repeating.

And this is the foundation of our alternative politics of collaboration instead of conflict: power is a business like any other, with investors and entrepreneurs and deals, just a bit more dangerous and messy. Potential allies and serious people are looking for key fundamentals in a movement, which are necessary to make it actually work. It is important to have this awareness, so that those key fundamentals can be targeted, instead of engaging in misguided activist spectacle.

Confrontational rallies and other civics-class activism don’t work. They are just picking fights with powerful enemies, and putting yourself in a vulnerable situation, asking to be crushed. Getting targeted for crushing by the most powerful coalition in society makes it hard for anyone else, even powerful, to ally with and support you. A focus on confrontation, which produces chaos, drives away and distracts the intellectuals and networkers and strategists and organizers needed to put together a real value proposition, sell it to potential allies, and keep the movement out of fights and on track towards victory.

Only a politics of building, networking, alliance-making, collaboration, and real alternatives will actually work, not a politics of protest.

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

63 Comments

  1. Fine words. Not in any way actionable, but fine words nevertheless.

    Blackpilled here. Basically giving up.

    1. Michael Perilloux September 14, 2017 at 2:44 pm

      Oh come on, man. My whole point is that we can break out of the activism/blackpill cycle by realizing that there is a way forward that doesn’t involve going up against a world superpower.

      If we want a golden age, we just have to build the machinery of a golden age. Strong men, better ideas, tight organization, networks of allies, useful skills, good families, key missing institutions of civilization. Build it, and it will win.

      And building stuff, while hard, is not so hard as watching our civilization die.

      1. A big problem is what’s been called the “toady economy.” If you have a job, you’re a toady for someone like Faceberg.

      2. Another big problem is all of our institution are beginning to buckle under the strain of all the foolishness, lies and contradictions. You can’t even go to church without hearing Pope Francis’s latest nonsense. The sand is slipping through the hourglass…

        1. Go to Latin Mass and stop whining about the Red Pope.

      3. “If we want a golden age, we just have to build the machinery of a golden age.”

        Can’t be done.

        “Strong men,”

        Will be identified and crushed

        “better ideas”

        will not be heard, thanks to speech controls, crimestop, and the Megaphone

        “tight organization”

        cannot be “tight” enough to evade the panopticon of modern surveillance technologies.

        “networks of allies”

        will be infiltrated, subverted, or crushed, because they cannot become invisible enough to avoid detection.

        “good families”

        will be made ever more difficult to form and maintain.

        Face it, it’s over. There is no hope.

        1. Then kill yourself already and stop blackpilling in our comments section while we do the only thing that will prove you right or wrong: try.

  2. The left didnt gain its power overnight. It took 100 years of activism and organising, making mistakes and learning by doing. Did they have they backing of a superpower? yes. The base skills of the modern left were taught to them by the communists who were in turn taught by the KGB.

    Our model must be the 3 phase insurgency model as laid out by Mao. That doesnt mean we are Maoists…it means we adapt his model as our base. Charlottesville failed because it was a premature attempt to move to phase 2, and the counterattack wiped out several safe bases and much organisation. Now we are in the Long March situation.

    Our focus must be one building a proper phase 1 base

    1) Building a robust and resilient organizing capacity that cannot be decapitated. That means a diffuse and cellular network of informal groups that employ a diversity of tactics to disrupt and infiltrate. They should be organised like a web, not a hierarchy to maximise their resilience.

    2) creating safebases online. We need alt tech.

    3) culture jamming and lawfare. We cannot take on the Empire. But we can change the culture so much that mainstream organisation begin to adopt our ideas.

    If we get beaten, we go to ground, wait for the heat to die down, then come back.

    1. We don’t have 100 years.

      1. Once you have power, time is just a number.

    2. Immediate lawfare would be something like a lawsuit against a public, pro “diversity is our strength” institution on the grounds that progressive idealism is a religion and this violates the first amendment.

      Just a thought, however half baked

      1. This is an excellent idea that would do a lot of good, but it’s not going to happen without elite funding and elite lawyers, neither of whom are going to put their asses on the line for David Duke.

      2. The courts are monopolized by the state and presided over by judges on a state payroll. It is in the rational self-interest of judges to make rulings that favor the Cathedral. In short, the right will not get a fair hearing. I suppose there is value in demonstrating this for all to see, but that is about all that will be accomplished through lawfare.

        1. With elite backing and elite lawyers, you can force a fair hearing, or some kind of victory. But again, not gonna happen if you’re yuckin’ it up with David Duke for whatever reason.

          1. Yet you have no way of securing elite backing and elite lawyers to even get to that point. All avenues are closed and there’s no way to make these people benefit more than they do now by fucking the white everyman over for personal gain.

            It may very well be that the future for whites is closed lawless communities that we refuse to cooperate with authorities in any way i.e. similar to how Islam is carving off sections of our countries right now but with higher competence, and engaging in random acts of murder against political or other enemies again with higher competence levels. I don’t see anything else occurring if the traditional routes are closed or were only ever initially possible with zog and zogbux backing.

            The system is already buckling under the weight of so many of these shitty people in our countries that they can’t keep up and more and more terror attacks keep getting through.

  3. The one thing that unifies the elites is that they benefit from the status quo. Anything that threatens to disrupt the status quo therefore threatens their power, and so must be crushed.

    They are also aided, ironically, by the conservative nature of most people. People are generally afraid of change, even if the status quo does not benefit them. Change may make things worse.

    If the elite want change, they get it, because they own the institutions and push it through, the stubborn masses be damned. If the Right wants change, they don’t get it because they don’t control any institutions. And they cannot motivate the masses to rise up and push for change because the masses are generally cautious and afraid of change. The elites can then turn the masses against the Right by capitilizing on this fear of change.

    One thing the elites can’t control is the cycles of history. Socially, the west is degenerate, economically it based on ever swelling credit bubbles, politically it is being exposed as a fraud. The Left is spent. Sooner or later, the whole thing is going to come crashing down.

    That’s the way it has happened throughout history, old spent empires and dynasties decaying and then falling. Something new will be built on the ashes.

    1. Why wait until the ashes are there to start building?

  4. I stand by my opinion that the altright’s misdirected efforts are the result of reaction’s failure to provide more specific actionable directions and organiztion for the wider right. Theorizing is vital, but taking the lead and channeling the energy of the altright to something – anything – more productive than this is going to be important for the foreseeable future.

    I have seen reaction’s ideas spreading well in altright circles and I hope they continue to spread so that that energy isn’t wasted.

    I hope that Hestia’s recent expansion will be effective for furthering it’s aims.

    1. >I stand by my opinion that the altright’s misdirected efforts are the result of reaction’s failure to provide more specific actionable directions and organiztion for the wider right.

      They are, which is also an indictment of the alt-right.

  5. The coalition members need to be found. And we all need to learn to write shorter missives. (myself included)

    The left built a coalition of minority interest groups. That’s how all politics is done. It already had industrial workers and african americans, but its elite sponsors were white women and gay white men in culture industries, who joined to receive protected and privileged status, in exchange for both propaganda, and for support of policies of wealth redistribution and national debt slavery.

    Who will make up the nrxn coalition? There are minority interests across the right who will get on any passing bandwagon, but elite sponsors above all must a) maintain their elite status, b) get credible commitments of a better deal if you win, and c) be shielded from your possible loss.

    The way we used to do it was promise land and irrevocable family titles to men who worked our crusades. It was practically a shot at immortality. “Join us, and your kids and grandkids will be nobles.”

    If anything, we need to get over historic grudges and look at who the real allies in preserving western traditions are: former colonial powers like Spain and Portugal, emerging powers like (yes) Israel, traditional socieities like Japan and Singapore, hierarchical societies like Chile, Uruguay, Brazil, etc.

    An assembled rabble of poor white trash does not win this. A coalition of people who can organize themselves in coordinated hierarchies based principles, rules and laws, with the shared objective of ennobling the people who support them, does.

  6. >Cracking down on the Alt-Right

    We’ll rebuild. It’s incorrect to pretend that the crackdowns on right-wing platforms aren’t mendable. We’re using the opportunity to build our own infrastructure in the form of “Alt-Tech”.

    A temporary setback is all – one that many, if not all, Alt-Right organizations have already recovered from, so there’s not need to act as if this was some HUGE DEFEAT for the Alt-Right.

    >Historic statues in other cities were vandalized and removed. VICE proposed blowing up Mount Rushmore.

    Further radicalizes the Right.

    >All major news outlets had wall-to-wall coverage against “white supremacists” for weeks.

    Who trusts the MSM anymore?

    >There was no control over who was there representing the alt-right, so plenty of unsavory characters showed up to embarrass the rest.

    A fair point. Private events like Charlottesville 1.0 are probably the better route, as far as optics are concerned. (Interestingly, the Friday night event, which the author concedes wasn’t a complete optics failure, was planned privately as well.)

    However, I find it curious that the author fails to cite Trump defending the Alt-Right’s Friday event – and raising attention to the issue of Confederate monument removal while citing the slippery slope talking point – as wins. Seriously, when was the last time a US president came out in support of Identitarians/White Nationalists? And you chose to just ignore this?

    It seems like a very one-sided take to me, frankly, but I’m not terribly surprised given that the Alt-Right doesn’t share NRx’s blog-born, untested-yet-perfect “restoration” approach.

    1. >Further radicalizes the Right.

      So what? Being more radical doesn’t help save Western civilization or the white race. It also looks like an alt-righter ODs on blackpills for every one who gets more “radicalized”.

      Consider:

      Some Tibetans protest Tibetan genocide in Tibet by the Chinese. The Chinese respond by cracking down on the Tibetans and blowing up some Tibetan monasteries and monuments to punish and humiliate them. The Tibetans claim that this is a victory, because this further radicalizes Tibetans against the Chinese. Logically then, the next step is to stage an even bigger protest that will result in an even bigger crackdown and more blown-up monuments, to even further radicalize Tibetans against the Chinese. If you keep following this logic, eventually you have no more Tibetans or Tibetan monuments around thanks to the Chinese state, but damn those Tibetans were mad as hell before the Chinese got rid of them.

      Does this make any sense at all? No, it doesn’t, it’s retarded.

      >Who trusts the MSM anymore?

      Charlottesville PD and city government, Virginia governor, the entire permanent bureaucracy — legal, criminal or otherwise — plus all the people who are in charge of making sure money ends up in your pocket so that you can feed yourself and your family. Seems notable to me.

      >Seriously, when was the last time a US president came out in support of Identitarians/White Nationalists?

      He didn’t come out in support, he equivocated between ANTIFA and the alt-right and labeled both hateful, violent groups, then signed a congressional declaration denouncing white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and the KKK.

      >It seems like a very one-sided take to me, frankly, but I’m not terribly surprised given that the Alt-Right doesn’t share NRx’s blog-born, untested-yet-perfect “restoration” approach.

      Step one to winning is having a gameplan. The alt-right hasn’t even reached this milestone and it’s painfully, bleedingly obvious — though NRx has, which is also obvious in the butthurt aspersions cast against NRx for the doctrine of passivism.

      1. Yes, it’s quite obvious that your unproven blog theorizing is 100% going to save us.

      2. Besides, your “gameplan” amounts to little more than “just take over the institutions bro!”

        If anyone does accomplish passivism, though, it won’t be neoreactionaries.

        1. You’re really making your case look bad with these non-arguments and strawmen, friendo.

          I nor any NRxer has ever advocated taking over institutions, although I’ve heard 500 alt-righters say that while quoting Gramsci approvingly (and cluelessly).

  7. Also, have you ever considered that activism has benefits other than influencing policy, such as increasing name-recognition, numbers, and funding?

    1. Activism also gives you practice, and allows people to have a ‘hard core’ experience. When there is energy, you use it. Endless scribbling does nothing. I recommend everyone read David Hines’ Hradzka twitter. He analyses left wing organising tactics. He believes (quite rightly) that the right wont win a street war, but we can learn to organise effectively if we study what the left has done and adapt it to our own circumstances.

      1. >Activism also gives you practice, and allows people to have a ‘hard core’ experience. When there is energy, you use it. Endless scribbling does nothing.

        Activism is the physical version of endless scribbling.

        1. Mark, come downstairs. Dinner is ready.

          1. >I don’t like what you say, therefore you must be indolent and/or still living at home with the parents.

            This is leftist-tier shit.

    2. The benefits of activism-as-advertisement have to outweigh the negatives of activism-as-painting-a-big-red-middle-finger-shaped-target-on-your-own-back-then-stepping-into-the-matador-arena. The only way for this to happen is for someone to be in charge of an organization pursuing a passivist strategy with controlled public-facing interruptions for discrete and measurable goals, that can be judged successful or failed on predetermined conditions, then appropriately moderated by leadership to properly steer the organization towards its goal.

      Let’s not pretend the alt-right is capable or willing to do this.

      1. The Identitarians are building immense behind-the-scenes infrastructure, networks, buying properties, etc. all while doing activism.

        Sorry, but outside of blogging I don’t think you guys have real experience with this stuff. But I suppose within the realm of endless theorizing, anything is possible.

        1. You do understand that just because you haven’t seen something on the Internet, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist?

  8. Consider that for many the division is done and that in fact public activism now serves as a way to solidify PRIMARY LOYALTY. Even the alt-lite ProudBoys consider fighting anti-fa as part of their initiation. Strong bonds formed in battle/adversity. Fighting with commies on streets accelerates this beyond a camping trip or Church group hike…

    Depends a bit on perspective can we “save” as author thinks we can. Our civilization is already dead (demographically certainty in Europe). We approach a new Dark Ages and how people align prior to entering it is really not going to change that reality.

    This is not defeatist. In total agreement there is no saving due to activism (see DACA) but that it might serve other goals as the dark storm clouds approach should be considered.

    “power is a business like any other, with investors and entrepreneurs and deals, just a bit more dangerous and messy.”

    Do not care for this rhetorical approach towards painting power in this manner. Seems to clean and lacking in presence of chaos.

    1. >Strong bonds formed in battle/adversity.

      I don’t understand how alt-righters are on this many levels of blind devotion to the progressive notion of activism.

      Protesting and once-in-a-while-maybe hitting an ANTIFA transfaggot in the face while six hundred people stand around with cameraphones is the peak of battle/adversity that you can think of to build strong bonds?

      1. Still try to argue in bad faith Mark? Sad.

        1. If you try to be Codreanu, you will end up murdered in jail.

    2. You need to recognize that Antifa is a goon-squad employed by the same set of systems, formulating what people often think of as The System, that will be used to undermine and cajole individuals and groups into very, very stupid actions.

      This is not the Spanish Civil War. Fighting Antifa on the streets of C-Ville has cost countless numbers of employment, status, reputation, social capital, etc. Many have been doxed and some have been forced by circumstance to become public leaders of a movement that just received massive institutional pushback from DC. There is no national struggle between the Alt-Right and Antifa/Communists with shifting battle lines defined by victories in the key urban locations. There is a highly complex game being played by our cultural elites and events like C-Ville will be used as traps, set by them, going forward.

      Training together, sharing and critiquing ideas, pooled research, podcasting, sparring matches, skills teaching/imparting, etc. are all better than showing up in the streets to put whatever accumulated capital you have at complete risk.

  9. Trouble is, antifa on the streets isn’t the problem. It’s their supporters with production access to tech giants data, their leaders ensconced in institutions, and their beneficiaries in left wing political parties. Antifa themselves are the “provos,” and they are a disposable distraction.

    The right should focus on building new networks using traditional methods. Book clubs, religious groups, fraternal organizations, freethinker/illuminati/ “secret societies,” rural/country sports, etc. It must develop and provide a coherent identity for people as stewards of a civilization, and not the arbitrary occupants of undifferentiated heaps of dirt, which globalism promotes.

    There are specific ways forward, and they mean defining a mission and being ruthless about cutting groups who lose sight of the plot. It won’t be through a critical mass of disenfranchised people, but through a coordinated elite building a base from which the power to preserve western civilization can come.

    1. “It must develop and provide a coherent identity for people as stewards of a civilization, and not the arbitrary occupants of undifferentiated heaps of dirt, which globalism promotes.”

      And how will that “coherent identity” protect you from bullets fired out left-wing guns? How can you “steward” a civilization when you are forbidden to have and raise children? Would “Book clubs, religious groups, fraternal organizations, freethinker/illuminati/ “secret societies,”” let German Jews survive the death camps? So what good would it do us when it’s our turn to be rounded up and exterminated?

      “but through a coordinated elite building a base from which the power to preserve western civilization can come.”

      Building such a base is impossible for us, and there is no path by which we can produce any sort of “elite”. Western civilization is totally doomed, and there is no way to save it. The white race is doomed, and our extinction is inevitable. And there is absolutely nothing, nothing, nothing that anyone can do to change this.

      There is no hope, there is no hope, there is no hope.

      1. It’s possible you’re trolling, but I’ll take the bait.

        You’re “gas all white people” take is highly unlikely, not because the left isn’t capable of reaching that point ideologically, but because civilization would collapse long before it actually came to fruition. Whites will still form a far more integral part of 2050 America, than Jews did in 1938 Germany, just based on simple population figures. No state can suddenly lose 40% of its population–and its most productive 40% at that–and continue to function. The worst case scenario as far as actual deaths is some kind of civil war, and I find even that unlikely based on the lack of homogeneity within US regions.

        >Building such a base is impossible for us, and there is no path by which we can produce any sort of “elite”.

        Since you offer no evidence as to ‘why’ this should be the case, I’ll take it as pointless bloviating. Even in the worst-possible situation of a complete collapse, there are numerous historical examples of “Imperium in Imperio” organizations taking shape and preserving vital aspects of the disintegrating state. The Church and monasteries performed this function after the fall of Rome, for instance. A more recent example is the “soldiers councils” of 1918 Germany, which distributed food and kept order as the government disintegrated. Many of these networks later evolved into the “Freikorps” which helped prevent Germany from becoming a Communist state.

    2. “antifa on the streets isn’t the problem”

      They’re a problem if you don’t want to be physically attacked and perhaps badly injured just because you want to hear someone speak — the apparent lack of self-imposed moral constraint among individual ‘antifa’ is also a problem.

  10. SecretForumLurker September 15, 2017 at 9:05 am

    So how do you take this idea and present it to potential elites for help? Do you just say, “We have 1,000 really good men just waiting for help”? The alternative to this current mess seems to be a benevolent dictatorship that is federalism as it distributes the control of immediate zones to the local competent men.

    1. Good question. What does a reaction have to offer groups who would support western values? I’d say it’s more like, “we have a new banking technology and a means for capital protection and mobility that you can use to hedge political instability in your country.” Templars or blockchain, same thing different era.

      Depends on the potential sponsor. It’s a question of who needs what. Some groups need legitimacy, others security, still others, freedom, or privacy. Identity, market access, political support etc. The people who only cost money are cheap. The ones who need violence are best to avoid. Being able to sincerely and solemnly promise and swear an oath of mutual aid goes a long way.

  11. Wait until the elites hear what we have in mind is the return of the king? They will shit the bed . . .

    I’m with Mark Citadel and P.T. Carlo. There is no chance of real change until something very bad happens. Regimes usually change when they lose a big war. Until then, you just have to do what you can to be ready.

    The most likely result is Bonapartism. I haven’t met our Bonaparte yet and I have no idea who he is, other than not being Trump.

    1. I don’t think Michael’s proposal and the idea that a crisis will be necessary in order to take power are mutually exclusive ideas.

      I may disagree with him on certain peripheral issues, but overall the plan is not a bad one and you would be wise to heed many of his words

    2. “There is no chance of real change until something very bad happens. Regimes usually change when they lose a big war. Until then, you just have to do what you can to be ready.”

      First, what if we die out before the day comes that we’re supposed to be “ready” for?

      Second, the most likely “something very bad” — bad enough to displace the Cathedral — in our future is the total, irreversible collapse of industrial civilization. Irreversible because the industrial revolution is a once-per-planet event; all the “low-hanging fruit” of vital resources accesible, with positive ROI, with 1700s tech have been depleted.

  12. A whole page of what we did wrong, one sentence of what to do right. Basically, critical theory uselessness.

  13. There are many first generation Italians and Greeks in Latin America who are darker-skinned than many American negroes, so I miss the point when I read about “brown” folks. After a long lifetime on the road, I’m “brown.”

    American negroes in Liberia are “white” folks to the locals. What does it mean? It means that color is skin; that culture is primary. White is culture.

    Since you all probably don’t know me, let me refer to Clausewitz to make my point about organizing: that the first and most important aspect of fighting is to have a place, a base. Where is our culure’s physical place? No, it’s not Hayden Lake, Idaho. In fact, there is no base, no place. There is no place in which people can meet and live and exercise. No base, hence, no hope of organizing effectively. No patrons, no backers, no shining place on the hill like Russia was for Communists, Germany was for Nazis, no Cuba for American hippies, no Afghanistan for Muslims. No place to be as part of a greater whole, no exampe for others to show and believe in. No place to hide. No place to have powerful backers slipping a few bucks on the sly. Nowhere to stash stuff. No national backers like the maggot people have from Iran. No place to heal after a battle. No place to come from under cover. No place to run back to. No place to be triumphant and hopeful. No model place.

    There is a nation. Few go there. It’s easy enough to get to. But almost no one goes. I don’t get that part either.

    For long and too long I have read and heard nonsense and excuses. “We are defeated already.” “If we act like that, we’ll be as bad as they are.” “If we do X, they will hate us.”

    With a base, one is already in the right by virtue of being a majority person among a community of like-minded people who give strength, if not cash. One learns, lives positively, lives without constant fear. One is “there” as if one has almost won at the homefront. From there, one might almost know what home will be like later. “There” one will have a sense of what the struggle is about and why it’s worth waging. One will see others in person, learn to trust, will learn one’s own self in action where no failure is hidden from one’s own. One proves and one learns. But only “there.” Much of the rest is chatter and clatter. Here, yes, we seem to be defeated. It tells us we should go to X to form a model in which to exercise ourselves in public. Doing is knowing.

    If we go to X and do what our opponents do, we will be as bad as they are. Allow me to repeat myself for the millionth time: That we can’t be as bad as they are; we must be so much worse that our opponents will be so demoralized by our actions that they will not only abandon their previous and now obviously failed realities, they will be so ashamed of the failure of the old vision and so astounded by the power of the vision that has destroyed the old that they won’t beg us to stop our campaign against them, they won’t beg to let them surrender to us, they will go so far, once they are totally destroyed and demoralized, so sick of the failure of their past visions, they will laugh at those who want to surrender: because they, the defeated, will “BE US.”

    If we act so badly, we will be pariahs, and everyone will hate us. To which I say, “So what.” Hearts and minds are fine, so long as they are ours. Why would the good opinion of our opponents matter to us? We are to destroy them. Why would they like us? If they liked us, we would be them in the first place.

    Robespierre wrote that no one loves an armed missionary. Love is overrated. Better to be feared, as Machiavelli puts it, than to be loved.

    How does one attack the opposition? Obliquely. Why try to chop off the head of a giant? Who has the reach but another giant? Why attack the strong in the hope of taking power? Obliqueness.

    Rather than attempting to decapitate Force, the opposite side, as Sorel terms it, “Violence,” might rather attack the feet. Chop at the ankles, farcloser to most of us, and watch the top tumble.

    An example? Bus drivers in metropolitan areas. Who will go to work in a day when there are no busses running?

    When the busses are filled with armed soldiers providing cover, move to grocery store clerks. And so on. In short order, the city grinds to a terrorized halt of unhappy people, and the top bites the dirt.

    But! But! But, that’s terrible.

    It’s not as bad as not having a place from which to work.

    But, all I seem to be arguing is that everything should be worse than it is now. Lenin put is nicely, in rhyme, no less: “The worse, the better.”

    But, to make it worse, or anything at all, one must have a place, a base. If all one really cares about is “brown” people shitting on the carpet, then there is no place in the world from which to begin the long process of smashing the collectivist hive.

    Well, maybe one can go to Hayden Lake and snarl about niggers and Jews. Otherwise, there is a place for serious folks. One mus tbe serious, however, or live one’s life grumbling in a miserable cloud.

    1. “American negroes in Liberia are “white” folks to the locals. What does it mean? It means that color is skin; that culture is primary. White is culture. ”

      Read the tri-racial Jamaican Jayman:
      https://jaymans.wordpress.com/

      https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/demography-is-destiny/
      “One of the key points I’ve tried to stress on this blog is that micro-scale population structure – that is, fine genetic variation across populations can have a substantial impact on societal characteristics. We aren’t just talking about continental racial variation. We aren’t even talking just about ethnic variation. Sorting within an ethnic groups can produce distinct regional differences. Founder effects are powerful, as is the converse effect, boiling off.

      This means that regional differences across countries like the United States reflect genetic differences between people. Even of those who accept that genes impact behavior, many like to blame these local variations on local “culture” (as if culture was some otherworldly force itself without cause). But our discoveries render that view untenable. These include many newer behavioral genetic studies using nationally representative U.S. samples. These studies find no shared environment influence, which would turn up if local cultural effects existed (see the following: on victimization, Boutwell et al 2013; on domestic violence, Barnes et al 2012; on criminality in adoptees, Beaver et al 2015a; on football participation and violence, Beaver et al 2013; on enlisting in the military, Beaver et al 2015b; on peers and academic performance, Barnes et al 2014; on peers and delinquency, Boisvert et al 2013; on handgun ownership, Barnes, Boutwell, and Beaver, 2014). In addition, there are large extended twin studies looking at politics, religiosity, and marriage that find nothing attributable to local environment (Hatemi et al 2010; Coventry & Keller, 2005; and Zietsch et al 2011, respectively). (These are in addition to the many population-wide Scandinavian studies that generally find an absence of neighborhood effects – future post). “

  14. Sorry, I forgot to mention above the name of the place I have in mind.

  15. Full of brown people.

  16. It may be useful to contemplate how Charlottesville could have been better if the alt-right had done their torch march on Friday night, then left town. It would have trolled Antifa and the local government while preventing the street fighting on Saturday. The helicopter crash would have been avoided because the police would have had no reason to be flying, and if James Fields still drove into people, it would have been distanced from the rest of the alt-right.

    1. The truth of that doesn’t matter. The truth is that Fields never even killed anyone, that the fat green shirt woman isn’t the one who died. It was an even fatter (morbidly obese) woman who wasn’t even hit who died of a heart attack. The megaphone holders already have their narrative and won’t allow for a correction, and so will quickly drop it now that it’s been discovered that, huh, turns out the only people who died were 2 officers who crashed their own helicopter and a morbidly obese woman of a heart attack.

      1. “It was an even fatter (morbidly obese) woman who wasn’t even hit who died of a heart attack.”

        You are 100% correct — there is even a foto of her holding a pack of cigarettes — but the media ran with the story that she died after being hit by a car driven by a ‘white supremacist’, and has yet to correct that — proving once again how irresponsible they have become generally, and that they are absolutely the enemy of any kind of rational discussion.

    2. “how Charlottesville could have been better”

      Charlottesville could have been better if the authorities and police had done their job and allowed a peaceful rally to happen, as ordered by a federal court — the aftermath could have been managed better if the organizers had forthrightly and immediately 1) said exactly the above, refusing to back down in any way, and 2) rejected any responsibility for the helicopter crash (a grossly absurd charge/intimation to begin with) — the same now applies to the story of the woman who died, since it’s now more than clear she was not struck by a car.

  17. “…infamous old-school white nationalist movement figures with mile-long records of scamming, degenerate behavior, and dishonesty.”

    Could you name this people please? — I ask because I am not well-versed in the history of White Nationalism; rather I’m convinced that a white ethno-state, one where Whites dominate and maintain political control, is the only way to ensure a decent social/political environment for white children in the future — one where they aren’t bombarded by quasi-irrefutable (given the current ban on discussing IQ and its effects) charges of “institutional racism” and having some kind of unearned “privilege” by underachieving non-whites.

    “ill-shapen schlubby goons with Nazi flags and makeshift weapons”

    I have zero interest in the identity of these people — the organizers are at least partly to blame for allowing their presence — but then you have people like Richard Spencer yelling “Hail victory!” at past events, which is, to say the least, unhelpful.

    1. “…infamous old-school white nationalist movement figures with mile-long records of scamming, degenerate behavior, and dishonesty.”

      A reference to David Duke.

  18. I just have to say, you can’t ask for a better, more rational, less wicked approach to how society works, and overlook death. This is just something I think is a hallmark of what you seem to hate. These disingenuous, elitist fucks do the same thing. A life being lost is a big deal. Death is not some minor detail to any type of situation in which it happens. I believe this can’t be one’s mindset if you’re asking for better days ahead. Death is a big deal… Cold hearted, sterilized, logic and human life being lost for no reason can’t exist. How sad was it that that woman’s mom immediately said her daughter didn’t die in vain because she can use to push an agenda? That is some sick shit. The daughter you raised and loved is now your talking point to push some bullshit agenda with no lasting power. So I hope we can agree on this, that any high functioning, dream society we are wishing for can’t have citizens who can warp humans dying into either an unimportant event, or even worse, a positive. It’s important…

  19. This is very good. The thing to remember is that we’ve gone off the reservation. There are definitely some costs you pay, but one of the benefits is that it hasn’t been mined out. If there are any good ideas to be found in the desert: well, at least no one else will have picked them up!

    So: Having rejected traditional solutions and taken a hard step, we may find that the correct way forward is not found in a complicated fashion, but with as simple a method as looking.

    What can we offer the various factions of elites? That is the right question, though in my estimation still secondary to the problem of setting ourselves in order. But doing real work is funny—the act of doing it makes you better, either directly or indirectly.

    What can we offer the elite? I’ll think about it.

    Good post. I’ve enjoyed your work. This is no exception.

  20. 1. We – the dissident right and all of its parts – need allies and ones with political, social, and network capital. If we can’t acquire them, we will have to go through the slow multi-generational plan of building families that produce them and individuals who will be essential to any organization they join.

    Thing is not many people like the long plan. It takes too long. We want things to change now. In many ways, we are influenced deeply by our hedonistic culture of “I want it now.”

    The black pill pessimists of many in our sphere don’t seem to want to bother to at least try to build a foundation. Yes, life and our cultural situation sucks – I get it. Doesn’t mean we should lie down like dogs and take it. If it is all going to crash, we need to start building the institutions and sowing the seeds for those of us who will rebuild.

    As the whole concept of “white” changes – just like it did 100 years ago, so will our scope of allies. Vox Day hammers on that our skin will become our identity – and to some extent he is right, but our locality will form our tribes.

    I’m already questioning the white purists on the right and whether there is anything that noble we are trying to “preserve”. Remember who sowed the seeds of the French Enlightenment. Perhaps Western Civilization – whats left of it – needs to fall and be replaced with a solid foundation. We already know the critics of Christianity won’t like the foundation we are proposing.

    2. We need to start picking our battles better. The author points out the tactical foolishness of these rallies and he is right. It serves no purpose than media attention and chaos. Yes, any PR can be good, but we know that the media attention on us will always be negative. (How many people in our sphere have been “interviewed” and savaged later when the article comes out?)

    Furthermore, can those who are doxxed, lose their jobs, and have their reputation tarnished be of aid anymore? They will have to put aside any spare time they did have to participate in the rally and any dissident right causes and devote them toward getting a sense of financial stability. (I cant lose my job while I’m supporting my wife and two sons.)

    This is even more true if any of these men have families or kids they have to provide for. Arguably their time would be better spent pouring their knowledge and wisdom into their kids. The battle for the future is multi-generational and one of demographics.

    As Napoleon said, “Leaders make Leaders”. We need to start producing them.

    3. Strong foundations have to be laid down.

    The face of Christianity is changing in who the converts and families that are having kids. Look at Africa and South America. Besides the language barrier and some cultural ones, we will have far more in common with them than any white collar elite in Seattle who spends his time tweeting about intersectional feminism while denouncing racists.

    Yes differences will always exist. It doesn’t mean we need to seclude ourselves in the forests Jack Donavan style. (Though I do like him and his work.)

    So many of the WN types forget that it matters WHO raises our kids and the kids of those around us. If they go off to the public school their identity will be shaped by Leviathan. I’ve seen adopted kids who identify as how their parents raised them. Remember how the early Christians took in the thrown away babies that the Romans and pagans didnt want and raised them as their own.

    Demographics would carry the day. They will again. We need to outbreed them, messed up family courts and feminization of women regardless. Question is, how many of us in our sphere really want to stop banging sluts and start families? Are some of us too damage to even try? Children are the future, but the effort you must invest in them is something I fear many of us cant or aren’t willing to put forth. We are too narcissistic and lazy.

    We need to do the same. We should always be infiltrating and always be “propagandizing” and indoctrinating where we can. The left and the institutions they control certainly aren’t refraining from it on their end.

    Keep up the good work.

Comments are closed.