By Shaun de Moray:
We live underneath an oppressive, anti-White system that is intent on the genocide of the White race; so our people, unless nationalists manage to seize total political power in our homelands, are in danger of extinction. It’s as simple as that!
What, then, can we do?
Meetings
We must start acting as a people, so it is the duty of each nationalist to form strong networks with the nationalists in their local area. Don’t listen to the Zio-media: there are loads of people who feel like we do all over the country, and the vast majority of them are smashing people, but it’s important that we reach them in the right way.
No Hollywood Nazism.
Nationalist meetings every second month is a good start. Even if you have as little as 3 people at each meeting as you begin to build your networks, it is still important that nationalists in your area have a regular place to meet where you can organize yourselves. Rather than being places where egocentric intellectuals spew out meaningless metaphysical waffle, meetings should be places where nationalists create plans of action. It’s too late for intellectual bullsh*t!
Once you’ve formed a group (no matter how small) join Western Spring, study the 6 prerequisites; and, with a fanatical level of dedication, do everything you can to put the 6 prerequisites into action. It’s as hard and as simple as that.
Team Building
Once you’ve formed a group (call it whatever you like) meet up with your comrades once every two weeks, and do something that binds you together. Please, don’t give the system any money through going to the pub but develop activities that binds your group together through hard yet appealing activities. Think with creativity; long hikes followed by a few beers by a camp fire might be one option. Saving some money, and then, every now and again, going paint-balling might be another. Do these types of things.
The most important thing to do is to develop a shared sense of identity and nothing does that better than embarking on difficult, shared experiences. If money is a problem, the human imagination is capable of finding activities that cost very little. No excuses. Do it. If we can’t organize ourselves for very basic tasks, what chance have we got of saving our race?
Develop True Resistance Communities
Have you every noticed how non-White groups can get huge amounts of people onto the streets whenever they perceive their race to be under threat? Look at the reasons for most riots; a non-White criminal suffers ‘injustice’ by the state and hordes of non-Whites become very violent, very fast. Amongst the Bourgeois section of the nationalist movement this behavior is seen as a sign of inferiority. But is it?
Whenever non-Whites riot they are sending a clear message: mess with us and there will be hell to pay. White people, however, do nothing despite the fact that the vulnerable sections of our race are subjected to Muslim pedophile gangs, black drug dealers taking over their inner-cities, and a Jewish controlled mass media that mocks our right to exist as a people. The White message is clear; do whatever you like to us, we will not defend our racial interests.
Unfortunately, the anti-White police force is against us so we won’t be able to get away with the same types of actions as non-Whites (neither should we aspire to). Nevertheless, there is nothing stopping nationalists in each area from forming self-defence groups that are trained in various martial arts; so we can, as a people, defend ourselves the next time non-Whites decide to start attacking our people. Despite the garbage spewed out by the anti-White System, we have a natural right to defend ourselves and our own people.
Once we get organised, we must train for every possible situation, and, with a small outlay, develop the communications, skill-sets, tactics and resources (like using someone’s garden as a training centre) to become effective against our enemies. You can’t trust the police: look at how they allowed the industrial rape of White children in Rotherham!
Develop Friendships With Other Nationalist Groups
Fundamentally, we are all in this struggle for the 14 words — right? Some people, however, have turned the struggle into a personal crusade to prove that their group is the best, and everyone else — including nationalists who have spent their life fighting for our people — are somehow no good. This is stupid and plays right into our enemy’s hands. Although it is healthy that there are so many organizations out there, we also need to coordinate ourselves; so that when it really matters, we are engaged in activities that increase our efficacy.
Recently, Western Spring have suggested that the various nationalist groups form a council. This would be a great start. If the various nationalist groups can share resources, experience, and expertise in a highly organized manner we will become a more formidable force. We have some very intelligent people in the struggle. It’s time we start using our brains to further the cause. Let’s get organized. Quick!
There is a paradox: the battle will be won at the local level. As we all know, the state doesn’t want us to succeed so they have planted their agents all through the movement. Local groups are much harder for the anti-White System to penetrate, so it is important that the local groups are structured in a way that they are movements all within themselves. They need to be able to act independently, and have the power to challenge central authority if they see something happening that is clearly against the interests of the long-term struggle; but a localised-centralised dualism will give us more power if we all work together, and weed out anybody who is suspect.
Summary
This essay wasn’t intended to provide the A-B-C of White survival. To achieve the end goal of securing the existence of our race and a future for White children is a long, long way off. The majority of our people have submitted to the insidious pleasures offered by the anti-White System and only a tiny portion of our people seem to care about the future of their race. Instead, it is our duty as nationalists to do what we can and be as cohesive, dedicated, and fanatical as humanly possible. Even if the odds are against us, we still need to fight. We have no other choice!
By Shaun de Moray © 2014
# # # #
Guessedworker
- Edit
You might not be interested in “metaphysical bullshit” but it is interested in you. It wants you to be free of your post-modern shackles, and not only you but every single one of our people and every European. It wants to effect a replacement not of our race but of the manifold conditions, inner and outer,which burden us and establish our destiny, and which also control the effective range of possibilities for dissent like yours. In other words, you too are a creature of postmodernity and a perfectly usual example of liberal model of Man. You cannot achieve the liberation of yourself, never mind our people and our race, if you remain thus. You don’t really understand what liberation is.
Here:
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/what_it_means_to_be_human_part_3
… is some “bullshit” I baked earlier. It is moderately difficult “bullshit”. But just in passing, and not in any analytically interesting way, it lists some of the decidedly non-metaphysical factors which generate the modern social pathologies:
You see? There are a lot of factors which stand indifferent, or in opposition, to our existence. How will you address them without taking thought? What use is it to work piece by piece, brother by brother, on the generation of comity while losing all sight of what fractures that comity in every way each and every day?
Anti-intellectualism is not a strategy for success. It is a strategy for blindness and failure.
Max Musson
- Edit
The essence of politics is the capacity to influence others and persuade them to act as one would wish. Politics therefore relies upon good communication.
.
The issue separating the ‘intellectual’ from the ‘man of action’ in this instance is the inability of the intellectual to understand what ‘good communication’ is.
.
Good communication is not our understanding of what we say, but what the recipient of our message understands of what we say, and too often existential arguments are couched in abstruse language, that is not only difficult to understand, but which relies for understanding upon the recipient’s motivation to persist in deciphering the often unnecessarily convoluted sentences, composed of unnecessarily obscure words.
.
The link that you provide, Guestworker, takes us to an article that presents the reader with three quotations: one from Heidegger; one from Paul Tillich; and a third from a writer using the online username ‘Potential Frolic’, all three of which are excellent examples of bad communication. Understanding these passages requires one to have a Mensan level intellect, but also an unusually high boredom threshold, such that one remains sufficiently interested in the subtle meaning that may potentially be gleaned that one is prepared to persist in deciphering their abstruse language. Sadly, there are few such people about — only two percent of the population have a Mensan level intellect and of them, most have a very low boredom threshold.
.
Shaun is correct in that we are not interested here in mobilising the intellectuals of this nation. If one steps on a turd, one can recognise from the sight and smell what it is, and from that decide upon the appropriate remedial action. There is no need for a discussion on the nature of ‘being’ in order to take action.
Guessedworker
- Edit
Max,
In politics, influence is already extant, because politics is sited far from the source of the ideas which it consumes. Politics’ transmits influence. Its creative action is restricted to formation of public policy and the dissemination of ideology. The ideas themselves are abstracted from the intellectual ground and carried down by water carriers – non-creatives – like the late Jonathan Bowden and Michael O-Meara in our sphere and, in the sphere of radical-left intellectualism, by very much more connected and competent actors like Slavoj Zizek. Even then, there is a layer between the water-carriers and the political world, which comprises academics attached to the political parties and the Third Sector.
So your criticism of (apparently) difficult statements needs some qualification. Are you expecting Heidegger to speak to Shaun the anti-intellectual? That isn’t the high intellectual’s function. Each layer in the communicative process speaks only to the layer immediately below it.
We nationalists need to understand how desperately badly we have performed intellectually. Not only do we have little in the way of creative thinkers and water-carriers, but our Third Sector is comprised of American websites like TOQ, OO, Counter-Currents, and MR, with an occasional offering translated from someone across the Channel or the North Sea. We have one very worthy but intellectually promiscuous forum. We don’t have an intellectual movement as such. We don’t have a single think-tank. It’s nowhere near adequate.
That kind of criticism I can accept, but not criticism of the intellectual’s duty to communicate to the masses. There is none.
Shaun
- Edit
Max, you replied to this gentleman better than I ever could. I was lost after the third sentence, and I won’t be going on the site to read some obscure German philosopher’s ideas on reality or whatever else.
I think the best advice you can give to a young nationalist is to read a few books (if he feels like it), but the most important thing for him to do is to improve his grappling, not watch TV, improve his fitness, and — most of all — develop REAL comradeship with his fellow Whites.
Once you have comradeship, once you know the members of your organization are racial brothers and sisters, why would you need to embark on these insane metaphysical rants to prove it? I’m not an anti-intellectual, but I certainly think there is too much talk in the movement. A good speech, article, book, video, and so on is of benefit, but we need to speak to the emotions and not reason.
A question for the gentleman who started this thread: has multiculturalism been ”sold” to the youth through long intellectual arguments, or has it been sold through culture, socialization, and emotion?
Guessedworker
- Edit
Shaun, without the entry of new creativity to the life that you live you are merely a creature of the liberal Weltanschauung you affect to despise. You cannot escape it, even through nihilism. The same goes for all our ground-level dissidents. The same goes for our people generally, of course. Worlds are not re-made by activism per se but by activism filled with a zeal for a great and new and vivifying idea.
This is so regardless of what you understand or feel now.
Your own role in the process of renewal is secure. You are necessary to those who see further and think more deeply than you do. Be generous in return, for without them you have no transformative power.
Guessedworker
- Edit
On the question of the “sale” of multiculturalism, that essay you are so determined not to read notes the following:
“… our suggestibility, our endless capacity for trust in the story woven out of the neurological data, has [its] point of arising in the ancient history of the human brain. This is the sleep state, from which suggestibility leaks into ordinary waking consciousness through the all-too-sympatico sharing of unsecured, passive attention. As a result, we don’t just accept the reality we are given as we do while dreaming, we are, as personality, melded with and molded by it. Every preacher, philosopher, political thinker, every culture warrior, every agenda-pusher, indeed every skilled salesman, advertiser, fashion-setter has always relied upon that peculiar flaw.”
So how does an activist seek to protect his people, given their psychological passivity, against harmful elements in the discourse, the culture, and the lived life? Can you work tat out, or do you perhaps need creative thinkers after all?
Max Musson
- Edit
The fact that people conform the environment in which they live, and as a result of their suggestibility have their minds conditioned by it, does not explain why someone like Shaun , who is already a deeper thinker than most, needs to wade through pages of barely intelligible grandiloquent text in order to equip himself for the struggle of ideas.
.
If we examine that portion of my opening sentence in bold type, we can see that it restates the entire content of the first three sentences of the passage that you have quoted, and restates it in everyday language so that it is readily understandable. Philosophers would be far more appreciated and would have far greater influence if they ceased trying to sound so erudite and concentrated on presenting complex ideas in simple terms that the masses can readily understand. This is what every successful radical preacher, political revolutionary, counter-culture warrior, dissident agenda-pusher, and indeed every skilled direct salesman has always relied upon, not the pressure to conform to one’s environment.
.
“Keep It Simple, Stupid!” — represented by the mnemonic ‘KISS’, is a motto that all direct salespeople live by.
Shaun
- Edit
Guess worker: I have no doubt that a political movement has to have fresh, transcendent ideas. Symbolism, imagery and mythology speak to the parts of the human psyche that inspire men to action. All the great nationalist movements have understood this at a deep level.
At a meeting, however, a lot of the attendees are going to be your personal friends and it is disrespectful to deliver speeches that they won’t be able to understand. You need to describe the context of the struggle, explain what needs to be done, and then through unifying ideology, symbolism, imagery, and ACTION, go out and do what needs to be done.
If I stood in-front of a group of people and started saying the ”post-modern conception of self has broke the individual from tradition and created a new form of ethics that relates to the pluralistic state, so we must create a language of eternal custom that offer the mass man a tradionalist, post-modern choice away from the decadence of today’s culture” people wouldn’t understand me.
What about this: going out into the woods and training together, talking round a fire, and singing a few nationalist songs while facing flags laden with nationalist imagery. Some of the talk afterwards will be at a high level, but the most important thing is to develop a sense of racial brotherhood.
In both instances you are saying the same thing, but one will be remembered as a communion with our ancestors and a development of comradeship, and the other as a display of high educational understanding by some intellectual.
As Max says, only 2% of people have the IQ needed to understand all the types of things you’re interested in. We aren’t an intellectual movement, we are a nationalist movement (good people of all IQ levels are welcome) — there is a big difference.
PharmaPhil
- Edit
Too many big words in that lot, so not a vote winner with the general public.
Some nice simple soundbites are what is needed to help bring people over to our way of thinking.
uh
- Edit
“You might not be interested in “metaphysical bullshit” but it is interested in you.”
LOL
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
Shaun makes the excellent point that far from black rioters showing us a sign of their own inferiority they are actually asserting their superiority by demonstrating over and over again which race possess the big stick. Only when our own folk learn to respond with equal audacity will we be fighting back effectively.
No “Hollywood Nazi’s”? Let’s show our enemies the real thing by becoming their worst nightmare!
Roman Bernard
- Edit
“Rather than being places where egocentric intellectuals spew out meaningless metaphysical waffle, meetings should be places where nationalists create plans of action. It’s too late for intellectual bullsh*t!”
I’m all for getting rid of intellectual bullsh*t (any kind of bullsh*t actually; “action bullsh*t also exists…), but the other extreme, i.e. anti-intellectualism, should be avoided as well. Every successful movement began with ideas and thoughts. The hour might be late, but things won’t go faster if intellectual debates are avoided. Without those, a movement always drifts in a wrong direction. If you need a good example of that, look at France’s Front National.
Steve
- Edit
More a case of what areas you apply intellectualism to and how your message is communicated.
Economic issues are wipe for exploitation. Labour & the Conservatives have surrendered economic intervention to political bureaucrats in Brussels who’s modus operandi is akin to the Soviet Central Committee of the Communist Party. Inefficient and self serving when it does invest in an area they plaster EU stickers and logos to make it come across that the EU is so benevolent when in fact they are extremely poor.
I believe Nationalism needs to draw a new line in the sand by first and foremost pushing back against our enemies deliberately pigeon holing us as ‘far right’. In accepting this we end up feeling the need to defend the baggage of the past which holds no bearing on our future. Imperialism and traditionalism.
Reject imperalism as the empire did not benefit the working men and women of the industrial towns and mines as they worked and lived in despicable conditions while the fruits of their labour were used to expand imperalism that only benefited the few. We today are faced by reverse colinisation by Marxist Imperalists with the assistance of international capitalism.
Reject traditionalism as we know it. We recognise the differences between genders, the differing desires of Man and Woman, their strengths and weaknesses but we acknowledge they are ‘Ying and Yang’. What we know as ‘traditionalism’ is the shackles of industrialised society to keep the male from looking for political alternatives. The traditionalism that we should offer is a choice. The lady who wants a career is supported but the lady that decides to raise many children is supported even more so by the state.
While the rhetoric may sound Marxist the solution certainly is not. Marxism subverts a people, Nationalism makes them prosper. Marxist plans are based around false pseudo science, Nationalist plans are on practicality and welfare of the people.
As the excellent David Jones says on ANN we must position ourselves as the heirs to the original Labour Movement. We need to be unashamedly economically left wing and recognise that the left does not equal Marxism.
Roman Bernard
- Edit
“Labour & the Conservatives have surrendered economic intervention to political bureaucrats in Brussels who’s modus operandi is akin to the Soviet Central Committee of the Communist Party.”
Wrong. The EU has no more power than what the governments give it, since the ruling institutions of the EU are run by the member-States. Don’t blame the EU for the policies implemented by our governments. The EU is a convenient alibi to hide their decisions:
http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/nation-states-european-union-occident-2-3
Charles
- Edit
May I first just say that we are both Nationalists and on the same side, and Steve seems to be broadly in agreement with you.
.
Your reply to Steve is WRONG (note the humorous tone in which this is said). The EU has large amounts of power that was given to it against the will of the people of Europe (France, The Netherlands and Ireland all voted against the constitution and Britain was denied the referendum we were promised). Any individual member state cannot pick and choose what laws apply to it. I’ll paraphrase a comment on that article; the EU is not a dependant bureaucracy oh so afraid of member states.
.
You correctly state in your article that sometimes member states ignore the rules. You cite economic policy as an example, that is to do with the haste of the politicians and bureaucrats over the construction of the eurozone. I believe it is David Hannan who writes at the telegraph how Continental readers cannot believe that all these dictats come from Europe as these dictats are often not enforced on the Continent. These dictats indeed originate in Brussels. Ignoring rules doesn’t mean they don’t apply, it’s just bad governance.
.
In your article you state that due to their ignorance “stato-nationalists” confuse the Council of Europe with the European Council, and that the Council of Europe(CofE) “has nothing to do with the EU” . Accusing your opponent of ignorance is the first step toward an uncivil debate.
.
The CofE does not have “nothing” to do with the European Union, it just doesn’t take any part in its government. The two institutions share the same flag and song, further:
.
“the Council of Europe and the European Union were products of the same idea, the same spirit and the same ambition. They mobilised the energy and commitment of the same founding fathers of Europe” Jean-Claude Juncker
.
Since the creation of the European Community, the forerunner of the European Union, co-operation between the two organisations has been very intense … Co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Union takes the form of both high-level political contacts and joint activities.”
.
http://www.coe.int/t/der/eu_EN.asp
.
The EU has not done an ounce of good. Indeed by trampling over the ounce it has not endeared itself to Britain, or helped our Continental friends enjoy our cultural peculiarities. The EU does not build warm ties between countries. Do you suppose we feel cold when we look at Switzerland but a warm glow of camaraderie when we turn our attention to Slovenia and (CofE member) Turkey? Nationalists of different ethnicity would have no problem achieving in one treaty what it took the EU half a century of lies to achieve.
.
You are right to point out that the EU is not the source of all evil, but that is not a good enough reason for keeping it around.
.
European cooperation to release the continent from American and Russian occupation could be viewed as a good thing but the EU does not act to that purpose. France does not have a Commonwealth, and did not dismember itself to integrate with other Continental nations. Out of mistrust of Anglo-Saxons the French denied British membership for a decade.
.
The EU is as absurd as an irredentist Unified British Commonwealth. I also find it a less romantic notion, though as I doubt you are British you may not agree with that opinion.
.
Future political states will, of necessity, be creatures of their age.
.
I hope that whatever path Nationalism follows, that “stato-nationalists” and followers of imperialism (and all the other isms) don’t fall out of minor things.
Roman Bernard
- Edit
“Any individual member state cannot pick and choose what laws apply to it.”
Yes they can. Have you really read the article? It appears you haven’t done it completely.
Britain and Ireland didn’t sign the Shengen Treaty. Britain, Denmark and Sweden didn’t adopt the euro currency. Almost all states of the Euro Zone don’t apply the Maastricht convergence criteria. I don’t think we can brush these examples as minor ones.
What can the EU do against that? Well, very little, since it is run by… the States. It doesn’t have a military or even a police force of its own, it doesn’t even have its own fiscal administration. The EU is strong because the States give it their strength. Would they withdraw it, it would fall apart in the minute. What do you think would happen if Britain decided to stop applying European legislation altogether? Well, I at least know what it could do on its own, and apart from expressing its disagreement, it couldn’t do anything.
All that the EU does that is wrong is done after decisions taken by the European Council (composed of the heads of State or government), which are then implemented by the European Commission (whose members are nominated by… the member-States).
I’m not even a supporter of the European Union, I just say we should blame “our own” governments instead of this paper tiger (a literal paper tiger, mostly made of paperwork).
Max Musson
- Edit
I think your interpretation of the European Union is a very naïve one Bernard and appears to be based upon a literal acceptance of the numerous meaningless platitudes that abound within the various European treaties in order to obscure the true nature of the power structure that has been created and which continues to evolve through bureaucratic tyranny towards a totalitarian super-state. As I have stated before, the constitution of the EU as embodied within the Consolidated European Treaty is fundamentally the same as the constitution of the Soviet Union.
.
You are correct in your statement that the EU does not yet have the capability to force its will upon the governments of the member states, but in view of the fact that the governments of the member states no longer represent the wishes or the interests of the peoples they ostensibly represent, one can see that the wishes of the EU can indeed be imposed upon the nations of Europe against their will.
.
Currently legislation which damages the individual nations of Europe is imposed upon our peoples by both the EU and the governments of the member states, and while this legislation is currently enforced by the police forces and armed forces of the member states, the EU is currently preparing the way for the national police forces to be directed centrally by Europol and for the armed forces of the member states to be centrally directed by a European Defence agency. If current trends continue, the day will come when it will indeed be possible for the EU to bypass the governments of the member states and enforce its will upon the peoples of Europe directly.
.
One can claim that all governments are ‘paper tigers’ if one wishes to be disingenuous, but the truth is that we must oppose the growing tyranny through whichever governmental mechanism it is being imposed, via both national government and supra-national government.
Roman Bernard
- Edit
“You are correct in your statement that the EU does not yet have the capability to force its will upon the governments of the member states, but in view of the fact that the governments of the member states no longer represent the wishes or the interests of the peoples they ostensibly represent, one can see that the wishes of the EU can indeed be imposed upon the nations of Europe against their will.”
Indeed, “the governments of the member states no longer represent the wishes or the interests of the peoples they ostensibly represent”. So how could they be a safeguard?
Your countryman Sean Gabb gave an excellent talk in Slovakia on the same topic:
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/multimedia/2014-08-12-iness-gabb.mp3
Connal
- Edit
A well written article that offers some practical suggestions for young Nationalists who realize the necessity of localized networks .
As our society is further dimantled it will be vital that our youth are fit , healthy , strong and able to fight and reclaim our islands .
PharmaPhil
- Edit
Network, everyone is doing it & so should we!
Valgeir
- Edit
Very funny of Guessed worker. Just to be properly annoying he had a single sane and comprehensive argument. “We will not make it without our own intellectuals.” And we do not. Why should we strive to be a half people?
But our own intellectuals should be recognizable by the lack of bullshit, fogtalk, that discourse which is not an exercise in creating difficult language and hiding meaning, and of course not, being wrong.
Why do you even care to pull out details from existentialism, when it still remains a mess as a philosophy, worthy of it’s nickname excrementialism? It’s main head, J.P: Sartre fell flat for Marxism. So much for his thoughts integrity.
Don’t you realize that Paul Tillich (The courage to be) is just playing around his mental suicide, his fear of being present?
In the essay you wallow in sentence constructions without directions or definite meaning, prepared for the intoxication of the logically defunct, the associative minds. Yours.
Don’t you see the Shelley poem is just a personal adaption of the jew song Eloi, eloi, Lama Sabachtani. (My God why hast thou forsaken me)
Well – All Gods left the jews as they mistreated him after their art of sacrilege, and their song is no lament, but a hysterical funny triumph in hypocritical sarcasm.
All those things you bring are part of the intellectual wave which created enough darkness and confusion to let the last decades of disastrous politics happen. I sure don’t like your work.
Guessedworker
- Edit
Valgeir,
My “single sane and comprehensive argument” is not that my work must be the authorised version, but that without foundational thinking there can be no historical agency. This is, of course, a perfectly uncontroversial statement. Those here who fly in the face of it are, if not half-men exactly, creatures of that they affect to despise.
Why do you cite Sartre and not Heidegger in relation to the questions I raise? That is tantamount to citing Nolte and not Nietzsche. It isn’t really honest, but I think you know that and you don’t care.
Tillich is interesting to me for his correlative methodology, btw, not for his theology. He puts it in the place of faith, to connect the Christian answer to the existential question. There is a potential, at least, to connect the answers of sociobiology (ie, Nature) to the questions of the European existence in our time. Given the hermetic seal of propositional thinking in a scientifically explained universe I find that quite a promising approach.
Shaun
- Edit
Look man, I respect the fact that you’ve taken the time to read some real complicated material and I respect the fact that you’re a nationalist; but I haven’t got a clue what you’re going on about.
Guessedworker
- Edit
OK, so have you seen that Dulux ad on TV, the one set in prohibition America, the only where the only colour visible anywhere is grey? Buildings, skies, objects, cars, animals and vegetation, clothes, the human body … everything is grey. In such a world, the very life you lead is grey. Love is grey. Song of grey. The politics is the politics of grey. Even people’s thoughts and feelings are grey. There is absolutely nothing that is not grey.
It’s an extreme picture, of course. But just bear with me.
Let’s suppose that a small number of people in the metropolis realise they are missing something. They feel it in their grey bones. They don’t know what it is, exactly, but there’s a guy giving speeches about it – let’s call him Jonathan, or maybe Enoch if you don’t like Jonathan.
So one day you turn up at some out-of-the-way, very grey venue to hear Jonathan, or Enoch, speak. Let’s say you fall into conversation with a guy called Max, and you discover that he feels exactly as you do. Encouraged, the two of you take your grey seats as Jonathan, or Enoch, mounts the grey podium. He tells his grey audience, with not-at-all-grey words of quite unexpected, indeed, stunning clarity and vividness, that the world is not meant to be a dull, drab, featureless, unending grey, that something is very wrong indeed. Your natural instincts … the workings of your retinas, the very architecture of your brains tell you this, he says. Trust them, he says. He talks about the philosophy of grey and its universalising, massifying, homogenising power. He says it is the real source of all the greyness about you. He is quite the revolutionary. He says you must dissent from greyness in every way. Grey must be torn down. The advocates of grey who sit in political office must be thrown out on their grey backsides. The apostles of grey who hold the academic seats must be swept aside. The grey media, the grey Establishment, grey business interests … everything must be changed. A tidal wave of not-grey – the colour of the people, he says – must wash over everything, and return it all to its true appearance. A new age, a new world must begin.
Very fired up, in a grey sort of way, you and Max leave the meeting place and vow not just to keep in touch, but to work together for however long it takes to make this great revolution happen. You set up grey websites and attract some very committed but still grey acolytes to your cause. Protests against grey are held. A political party for not-greyness is initiated. Books on not-greyness are written.
And so forth.
But the world remains stubbornly, depressingly grey. Finally, when everything else has failed, Max has the idea of setting up small communities of grey people dedicated to not-greyness. “If”, he argues, “we can just make a start with the genuine colour of the people on a micro-scale … if we can just get started somewhere … we can progress to building real, fully-functioning not-grey communities, not-grey economies, a real not-grey alternative. In time, greyness can be defeated everywhere.”
You like this idea very much, and tell everybody you meet that this has to be the way forward. But then one day someone comes along and says something you know nothing about and don’t want to hear. It’s a semi-technical term, a condition of the mind – colour-blindness. This guy isn’t talking about something wholly permanent – a condition of the brain like achromatopsia. He is talking about something that has a mutually formative relationship with the grey world all about us. He introduces you to the slippery and unfamiliar idea that grey in the world is the parent of grey in the mind, but grey in the mind is also the parent of grey in the world. This inter-dependence is the secret of grey’s universality and longevity, he says. We don’t just live in a world of grey. We are it. All of us. And, ordinarily, we have no control over this. We cannot will it to change. Greyness in the outside world cannot be overpowered by anti-grey activism alone. Grey is too psychological, too subtle to be amenable to such a crude, externalist approach. To break the cycle of grey, the unwelcome guy says, we have to disable its formative power by rediscovering colour inside us; and that is a much deeper and more intractable and complex problem than Jonathan (or Enoch) or you or Max have appreciated, or are willing to appreciate.
And that’s where we are in this discussion right now.
Hope that helps.
Max Musson
- Edit
Hi Guessedworker, firstly, I applaud your persistence, and you do offer us an amusing analogy which does illustrate what you are trying to say. Unfortunately, your analogy does not demonstrate how this subtle and deeply psychological ‘greyness’ can be overcome, and how this new approach can succeed where ‘grey’ activism alone has failed, and therefore your analogy falls short. This final facet to your analogy has been the ‘missing link’ in your argument all along, so perhaps you would develop your analogy some more, so that we can all finally see, that which currently only you can see?
Shaun
- Edit
I sort of … understand! Natonlalists need to have some sort of inner fire, some inner message. What about Odinism? What about the 14 words? What about good old fashioned team building? What about nationalist symbolosm?
If you can offer the movement some practical ideas to get ”rid of the greyness”, everyone would like to hear it. Thanks for your input. It all helps.
Corky341
- Edit
For some time now I’ve been thinking our ONLY way forward is some sort of mass rebellion. Look at how the establishment have reacted to the threat of Scottish independence! I believe that’s a minor reaction to their reaction should enough Nationalist MP’s get elected. Consequently our only realistic hope is that enough ‘grass roots’ people support our aims and understand why we do what we do.
Jane
- Edit
Where is the practical strategy that would solve our problems most efficiently and most pleasurably – ie stop going extinct and have a lot of White babies?
This message goes out primarily to women because men do not give birth, women do. Women seem to have got a bit confused about that fact. Also women are forgetting that they cannot wait til they are in their 30s to start. Ideally you should start between 18 and 22 and have one every couple of years.
You can’t afford NOT to have children and no other strategies can help without this number one imperative act to prove you have one ounce of kin loyalty.
Max Musson
- Edit
Hi Jane, I’ve been waiting for you to submit an article on this very topic. I’ve also posted a picture of your superb banner and I hope that goes some way towards consoling you. 😉
DanielS
- Edit
Shaun, you’ve fleshed out a interesting bit here, that “multiculturalism” has been promoted as a new ethic to relate to a pluralistic state:
“If I stood in-front of a group of people and started saying the ”post-modern conception of self has broke the individual from tradition and created a new form of ethics that relates to the pluralistic state, so we must create a language of eternal custom that offer the mass man a tradionalist, post-modern choice away from the decadence of today’s culture” people wouldn’t understand me.”
And there is bit of intellectualism at work there to carry further: as creatures of the post modern predicament we need ways to negotiate our own cultures, traditions and advances (proper changes) in relation to non-natives of European nations, not so that we can accept them as a part of our own nation and state, but so that we can separate from them by not repeating the modernist mistake of treating them as if they are quite the same as us down underneath the burka, the yarmulke, the daishiki, the dot, the incessantly clicking camera..
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_pejorative_side_of_modernity_or_civilization_competing_theories_or_alli
Lines between theory and practice are being drawn too stark in the arguments of this thread. There is a place to emphasize both and in that regard, I believe GW has a significant point – as he has stated in conversation with the highly pragmatic TT Metzger: GW asserted that those who are devising practice need a correct assessment of the terms or else the default (which has been so destructive – liberalism) is most liable to reassert itself. With that, I do wish GW would not cop to the (Jewish) abused version of post modernity since, again, it – post modernity proper – is a necessary concept with the alternative of going back to modernity being wholly unacceptable.
Shaun
- Edit
OK, ok, ok, — I don’t consider myself an intellectual. People like Kai Murros know a lot more than me about these types of things. But I’ll give it a try.
Yes … we need to use the ”freedom” of nation-wrecking postmodernism and all that type of bullshit to create a new perspective. Simple as that really.
DanielS
- Edit
Moreover, a post modern self (properly understood) would propose that one might well reconnect with tradition and time immemorial forms without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity; while having the capacity to treat outsiders as outsiders. That is unlike the detached, modernist self, which is compelled to assert its difference from tradition lest its “competence” be looked-upon as highly suspect and rather reflecting a reliance upon outmoded customs – incited rather as demonstrating incapacity for innovative adaptation, it must bravely, objectively risk even its most precious resources to other peoples as if they are quite the same in essence – for that is the price of foundational, objective truth that is still promised by the “intellectual” powers that be, who take advantage of this loophole – of modernity – in European thinking that existed prior to the post modern turn.
That is not to say that there are not firm criteria of what is English and what is not, but the fact is that the YKW can take advantage of the fact that English people can deviate from that objective criteria unless called to account culturally, by people with established rules – the absence and the non-understanding of which will be taken advantage of by the YKW and others. Clarification thus renders a significant task for intellectualism.
DJ
- Edit
IMO, it’s best to ignore DanielS and Guessedworker. Both are pseudo-intellectuals/sciolists. They have a long history of idiocracy carefully disguised as intellectualism. Their tactic may very well work with the illiterate prison yard gangs, but that’s about the extent of it.
Guessedworker
- Edit
So in which direction does our freedom to exist as ourselves lie, DJ? Can you answer that question for us, please? Or is it something you don’t need to know and so don’t have to think about?
Max Musson
- Edit
Allow me to interject here, Guessedworker. You ask: “In which direction does our freedom to exist as ourselves lie, … ?” which is a somewhat ambiguous question and possibly deliberately so.
.
Several contributors to this website, myself included, have explained to you that your style of argument is ineffective because it is so grandiloquent and replete with esoteric language that 99% of our target audience cannot understand what you are talking about, nor understand the necessity to talk about it in the way that you do. Despite this you have failed to take this feedback on board and seem to think that by bullishly asking ambiguous questions our cause will somehow be served by intimidating others into silence.
.
DJ isn’t going to suddenly be able to understand what you write simply because you intimidate him into silence, and nor will anyone else. What you need to do, is the learn how to couch your arguments in language that the average person can understand. Ideas are spread not by using language that barely anyone can understand, but by simplifying the message so that it is able to be readily understood by one’s target audience, provided of course that essential meaning is not lost through that process of simplification.
.
‘KISS’ is an acronym explaining the First Law of Persuasion: Keep It Simple, Stupid!
.
The more complex and esoteric you make the phraseology and terminology of your argument, the more you use jargon and obscure words, the less likely you are to persuade people and attract them to your way of thinking.
Guessedworker
- Edit
Max,
I am not addressing your activist base. My preoccupation is with truth, not with argument or with ideology. I have already stated that the latter are at the end of a chain of interpretation which is, by its nature, increasingly opaque at one step above one’s own native link. For example, let us suppose that the average IQ for “leading nationalists” is roughly equivalent to the entry level to a degree course in an engineering subject. Would you say that is fair? Well, that would be about IQ 112 to 115. Now, the gateway to abstract thought … to the capacity to process abstract conceptions … is IQ 124. So any entrant to, say, a philosophy course will require at least that just to understand the basis premises. It follows that it takes someone of at least IQ 124 to make them relevant for someone of IQ 112.
But it doesn’t stop there. The capacity for critical thinking – for not just processing abstractions but for evaluating and ordering them – is a few points higher again. The capacity to teach philosophical abstractions is higher again (I believe the average IQ for philosophy lecturers is 130). However, we are still not at the level where real originative thinking is possible. My estimate is that IQ 138 or thereabouts puts us in that ball-park; and, of course, the purity and originality of abstraction advances with very high intelligence (say IQ 150+).
I am reminded of Alain de Benoist’s interesting piece from 2010 at Counter-Currents about a long exchange of correspondence between the revolutionary conservative Ernst Jüenger and Martin Heidegger on the subject of nihilism:
http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/07/junger-heidegger-nihilism/
I don’t think ADB would be too offended if I said that here are representatives of the three highest links in the chain. Below de Benoist we could put Jonathan Bowden as a teacher and classic “water-carrier” – IQ probably in the low to mid- 130s. But we are still dealing in quite pure abstraction. Discourse native to this level is not yet intelligible to the political activist, and while Bowden, in his brief role as Cultural Officer of the BNP, made great efforts to bridge the gap, he did so by excising much of what truly interested him and getting down and dirty with the political knockabout (which always went down a storm with his audiences).
As I said earlier, The London Forum is doing a great but lonely and somewhat unselective job in communicating thinking more or less around the lower levels of the chain. My commentary on this thread has been to bewail, first, the lack of a really original, foundational thinking that can serve to ground the European life in exactly the same way that liberalism, as a system, grounds modernity and all its works today; and, second, to point out the weakness of the chain of transmission. To confirm my thesis, these observations are met here with total mystification. For heavens sake, we are seeking … you, specifically are seeking … the freedom for our people to exist as themselves. That freedom is the foundation of David Lane’s incomparable formulation. A la Heidegger, such freedom is not a quality pertaining to the individual but a condition prior to being itself, without which we cannot re-make the world, we cannot do what we must to remain who we are.
On a personal note, I used to work as an advertising copywriter. I understand the necessity for simplicity. But I am not trying communicate philosophy in this place. I am trying to challenge the received wisdom that our revolution requires none.
Max Musson
- Edit
Hi Guessedworker,
Your conceptual model of understanding cascading down through the various levels of intellect capacity is a fairly simple one and one that was not in need of explanation. The reason why your observations are met with total mystification is because you have yet to explain in what way our current understanding of what we must do to ‘remain who we are’ is deficient.
.
I don’t believe there is any significant lack of such understanding and the main constraint acting upon our progress lies not in ‘foundational thinking’ but in motivating the masses to follow our lead. Now, I could be wrong, but I don’t believe that we will find a solution to that constraint by reading what Alain de Benoist once had to say about a long exchange of correspondence between Ernst Jünger and Martin Heidegger on the subject of nihilism. Having met both Jonathan Bowden and Alain de Benoist, I have no hesitation in asserting that Jonathan had the keener mind and was the one with the clearer understanding of our predicament and the way forward.
.
The freedom for our people ‘to exist as themselves’ will not come from introspective navel gazing, or meta-political rumination, but from a realisation that ‘freedoms’, just like ‘rights’ only exist if we are prepared to fight to assert them. Our immediate concern therefore lies in mobilising sufficient numbers of our people and inspiring them to fight for what we believe in.
Shaun
- Edit
GW, if there are only a few people out there who can understand people like Neitzche, Hegal, and the greatest White thinker of all time: PLATO! Why would we wish to communicate in these terms to people? Why? Ego? Haven’t you got friends who are less intelligent than you, but you still value them becuase what they’re like as people?
No one really cares about what Alan de Beniot thinks — not even in the nationalist movement. I admit, I learnt something about the nature of liberal idea of progress from an article I read in Counter Current a while back, but I wouldn’t expect my fellow nationalists to give a shit. These writers write for an elite; and, due to the nature of the cause, we aren’t looking for the geeky university types — we are looking for Men of Action and Men of Honour.
High intelligence is a bonus; but we are more interested in pratical, pragmatic types of intelligence. That includes the abilty to communicate to the everyday person, and the abilty to understand this essential aspect of revoltionary politics: WE AREN’T AIMING TO APPEAL TO OUR PEOPLE’S REASON, WE ARE AIMING TO APPEAL TO OUR PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE UNCONCIOUS.
DanielS
- Edit
Hey, come and see for yourself, anybody, if we are faking things and trying to obscure matters. I sure wouldn’t advise DJ’s opinion.
DJ
- Edit
Guessedworker wrote: “On a personal note, I used to work as an advertising copywriter. I understand the necessity for simplicity.”
Chuckle! Scoff! Chuckle!
Talk about a profession that doesn’t suit your writing style or creative abilities! That takes the cake.
http://www.prospects.ac.uk/advertising_copywriter_job_description.htm
Guessedworker, if you want to teach white people a new way of thinking, i.e., a reason for them to assert their unique identity, why not just press home the point white peoples’ right to their own racial identify isn’t granted by the government, or the liberal ruling class, it is granted by God. That’s the same premise the USA’s Constitution addresses man’s right to freedom/liberty.
I’m quite sure you will reject my suggestion because you are an atheist. IOWs you are limited in the realm of abstract reasoning by your own choosing. Such a pity.
Same goes for your sidekick, DanielS.
BTW, GW, what is your IQ? Judging by your impenetrable prose (common amongst intellectual wannabes, and or intellectual conmen), I estimate it somewhere between 110 and 115. Am I wrong?
Dykeward
- Edit
Guessedworker is often very interesting, but his idee fixe, that European man and the political resistance to modern anti-European life are inauthentic and therefore doomed to failure are problematic. Made more so by his refusal, indeed his stated inability, to take the lead in the formulation of a coherent ontologically based weltanschauung (or whatever we must call it) that will free us of many impediments and false paths. This is made further problematic, for me, by (perhaps a misunderstanding of his drift, but he will purposefully couch his replies in abstruse language) by the seeming assumption, that this ontology is man in some purer state (derived from Heidegger) and therefore divorced, from what seems to me the nature of man, by his sociability, the cultural accretion of millennia acting back and forth on his nature so that culturally, his world was essentially a biological creation.
Max Musson
- Edit
I do believe you are right!