The ante has been upped dramatically over the last ten years, and there will be a physical cataclysm. The gas pedal of demographic transformation is pressed to the floor, and although this vehicle of social change may hit headwinds and spin its wheels in the mud occasionally, it remains intact, with a full tank, and its destination coordinates locked in. Meanwhile, Bolshevik work crews are engaged, full-time, in legal terrorism and propaganda efforts, to remove obstructions and prepare the roadway to the demographic tipping point.
Beyond the actual browning of our towns, cities and nations, the omnipresent enemy propaganda is the most unnerving sign of what is taking place. As any halfway-conscious white person in the Western world knows, we are under saturation-level Orwellian perception manipulation. There is an improbably audacious push in every branch and section of the entertainment and news media to make all heroes black or brown, all villains and buffoons white, and all couples – and hence offspring – mixed race.
This propaganda may be seen as groundwork: a reconfiguring of assumptions and expectations as a prelude to reconfiguring reality. ‘Normal’ is being redefined to mean a presumption of white shame and marginalization. The backlash to the propaganda – the grumbling, eye-rolling, accusations of anti-white bigotry, etc. – from whites has already been factored in. The social engineers knew that was going to happen. The propaganda is not for us. The propaganda is to fuel the conquest fantasies of those already inclined to hate us, to teach apathy and acquiescence to white youth, and to incentivize white women to attempt to conform to media ideals.
In other words, the propaganda is a telegraphing of the plan. They are telling us, as unmistakably as if they were spelling it out in a manifesto, exactly what they will do as soon as they are able to do it. The plan is not a benign, painless browning of white societies; it is a rude, crude, animal overtaking, with whites wantonly attacked and ruthlessly punished – already seen as villains and buffoons – when it becomes clear to enough of us that we must physically defend our spaces.
And, of course, the groundwork for all of this was laid in academia, where the demons of white privilege, white supremacy, etc. were summoned from obscure theoretical netherworlds by Marxist necromancers. We should never forget that it is an array of carefully concocted anti-white theories that underlies the genocidal propaganda and policy. Ultimately, we must banish both the theories and the theorists from our official realms, but for now, before we do anything else, we must secure the existence of our people, and that means organizing in the real world, face to face, on the streets, in parks and halls, on a regular basis.
In short, the time for our activism only taking the form of pro-white – or at any rate, anti-anti-white – propaganda is passed. The period of intellectualizing, which seems to have been from some time in 2013 to some time in 2018, was necessary, but we are now reaching the outer limits of the utility of mere words. Those who can be convinced are already convinced; those who understand, but will not fully commit, have heard all the arguments; and most other people are not going to accept our harsh truths unless it becomes fashionable to do so, or dangerous not to do so.
So what am I advocating? In fact, nothing specific. I am only stating this: the plan being pursued against us is unfolding in the physical world, with direct, quantifiable, physical manifestations and consequences, and sooner or later, this is where that plan must be counteracted. If, when the time for drawing a hard line comes, we are so many scattered, anonymous keyboard warriors, the final chapter of this saga will simply be a sudden transition from our present state – holding onto the last vestiges of the First Amendment online – to a full-blown Nineteen Eighty-Four scenario. We will wake up one day not only afraid to state our convictions publicly, but afraid to state them privately, and afraid that it may be discovered that we ever engaged in our present thoughtcrime. Pro-whites will be hunted, with the full power of the state leveraged, all courts of the kangaroo variety, and punishments meted out which we thought only took place in dystopian novels and movies.
To anyone who imagines that this is far-fetched, I only ask: What exactly do you think our present situation indicates? At what point do you think our enemies plan to stop?
I don’t argue that organizing in the physical world will be easy. As we have seen, over and over, organizers and participants will be subject to ‘lawfare’ – we will be attacked by Antifa, and then charged with crimes for defending ourselves. At the very least, we will be incessantly harassed and inconvenienced, doxxing and online shaming campaigns will be undertaken, and meeting in the physical world will seem to be more trouble than it is worth.
But our enemies’ efforts to stifle our public organizing is irrefutable proof of my thesis in two respects. First, it proves that we are already very, very far down the Orwellian path. Who imagines that, in a country whose founders restricted citizenship to ‘free white persons of good character’, it is in any way normal that, after scuffles between pro-whites and anti-whites, pro-whites wind up rotting for years or even lifetimes jail, while again and again, anti-whites prove to be legally immune? For proof of the latter (and this is just one case among many) consider the Berkeley professor, Eric Clanton, caught on film donning a mask and smashing right-wing skulls with a heavy bike lock, subsequently identified and arrested, but suddenly, magically, cleared of all felony assault charges.
Make no mistake, our impartial Western legal systems have already been hollowed out. Violence and intimidation are already the order of the day. If the drift into anti-white neo-Bolshevism is not stopped, this will unquestionably reach the point of open terrorism of whites, in our homes, without provocation, for mere suspicion that we value our own people.
The second respect in which my thesis is proven is that, clearly, the enemy is desperately afraid of the prospect of right-wing organizing. Antifa is not sustained for the idle amusement of Soros and Company. There is a great lesson in the fact that an army of the lowest and most dysfunctional people is fed, trained, and on standby, ready to be deployed, by the busload, to any area where right-wingers imagine that they may publicly show strength and invite others to join their cause. If marches and rallies are empty and pointless displays, then why are so many resources dedicated to preventing right-wingers from staging such events? Obviously, there is a dimension to this that the enemy understands, and we do not – at least not fully.
That dimension is, to borrow from a certain philosophical axiom, ‘We are what we do.’ Actually being pro-white (or at least anti-anti-white) in public, without shame – normalizing pro-white attitudes – is the foundation of true resistance, the prerequisite for resolute, widespread non-acceptance of white genocide. For the enemy’s plan to work it is essential that those who can meaningfully oppose them are paranoid, isolated and ostracized. Again, if this was not so, then so many resources would not be dedicated to driving us, and keeping us, underground.
What the enemy knows, and what we have not quite grasped, is that real life fraternization – the synergy and contagiousness of shamelessly expressed and heartily reinforced sentiment – is the crucial factor of resistance. The possibilities for planning and growing, and for pursuing meaningful actions, multiply exponentially when ideals are not sneaked onto Facebook or Twitter by faceless outlaws, but stated frankly by normal, free citizens who can look each other, and potential converts, in the eye.
Like it or not, the counter-revolution is not going to take place on social media, and it is not going to be a merely intellectual exercise. The counter-revolution is going to be built upon camaraderie, swelling confidence, well-placed trust, and popular appeal. And these things only grow out of genuine, in-person bonding and the power of numbers.
How do we get to where we need to be from our present situation, with the black cloud of Charlottesville hanging over us, with violent anti-whites given a free pass by the courts, and with the Bolshevik media completely unrestrained?
I don’t pretend to know.
I am only here to inform you of the fact that, above all else, an answer to that question must be worked out. At some point our struggle must shift from defence to offence, and that shift won’t be possible if our struggle consists only of tweets, podcasts, YouTube videos, and articles like this.
Mr. Shaw. That was a very good article indeed. I did notice your reticence in recommending paths forward. But I do indeed commend you for so boldly helping to put armchair theorizing to bed in the sense of being THE answer. We are no doubt in agreement that theorizing is critical. One must gain control of the language. One must identify the problem. One must realize how the cultural Marxists and anti-Whites secured the framework of language, not just the clever words. And that task does not end! It is part of the immune function of our movement as I pointed out in response to Mr. Leonard’s article and in in particular in response to Mr. King. Furthermore, analogously speaking, historical and cultural scholarship is part of the “bone-building” half of the “skeletal physiology” that maintains the frame of civilization. This is critical, of course. But as I will say many more times: the key is the proper integration of theory and action. I have a illustration on my website, ten years old now, making that point. I have suffered greatly Mr. Shaw–I have my very real stripes and shipwrecks. These do not deter me. And I understand organizing and rallying. In the year 2000, the outlines of this struggle were not as clear to us, or at least to many of us like me. We thought it was a battle for Conservatism, the Constitution, Christianity. Indeed, all of those things were being instrumentally attacked. When Al Gore challenged the election results, I organized rally in the Civic Center Plaza in the heart of San Francisco right under Mayor Willie Brown’s window and across from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Immediately prior to the rally, the police became alarmed because death threats against me had been called into a radio station. They upped their presence from their original promise of “a couple units” to massive. During my introductory talk, the SFPD’s finest leapt into action and tackled a character who charged out of the crowd towards me. The crowd of hundreds reformed the next day and had swelled to over a thousand and marched from one Media office to another with the additional complaint that initial news coverage of our rally had been squelched. Mayor Brown penned an opinion piece that appeared the next day advising Gore to desist in his attempt. Did we have an influence? One thing is for sure, this is perhaps the first “conservative” rally in the United States that I know of. News of it certainly made its way despite the local attempt to black us out. By the following week, rallies were occurring across the nation. Now, in retrospect, how do I feel about perhaps getting Bush put in office? I hadn’t voted for him. I campaigned and voted for Pat Buchanan right through the grim end. But I think the election slowed down the progress to where we are going. Okay, it is debatable. But I learned and I worked on other initiatives and group organizing since, not unrelated to topics here. Regarding the Civic Center Rally, one commenter stated: “This was the forerunner to the Tea Party Rallies, years later.” More on these and the travails that are guaranteed–get that guaranteed–in another setting. There are many honorable, legitimate, legal things that we can and must begin to do. The answer I do not think is to have a conference. Not that conferences cannot play a role in the future or concurrently. Here is a problem with conferences. They require people to come. Well, not everyone who you need at the conference can afford or arrange to be there. A lot of men in this loosely referred to “movement” are very selectionist in their temperament and attitude. They talk big and tough talk about who they want to be part of their movement. It is just so much locker-room bravado. Sure, we do not need unstable characters, troublemakers and agent-provocateur infiltrators. We have a legitimate cause and we will succeed by legitimate means–but as you point out this does not mean that we will not be punished as criminals by means of false accusations and corrupt bureaucracies, courts and The Medium. One problem are our false allies. They are motivated by their needs for approval, belonging and the fruits of obsequious compliance. We also suffer from too many judging matters and men by superficialities. Great! I am glad that a growing numbers of European-White men are rediscovering the value of physical training. Yes, yes, yes, look good, attract a female and be ready for whatever. But as I hinted at earlier, there are many useless divergent paths here that ruin and destroy Our Cause. To refocus on convening, I would suggest that we need the exact opposite. It will take a little bit of funding, but I would suggest, rather than us coming to hear leaders speak at conferences, that leaders should come and visit men who display the appropriate abilities and workable perspectives–or summon them to visit one by one. This is a difficult step, but it is needed for an initial phase of this initiative. It is needed because of the peculiarities you cite in your article. It is needed because the tools of control of our opponents are now very efficient: the technotyranny is here. I would be happy to discuss my practical ideas on real organizing. This is not to abandon blogging, video and podcasting, conferences and interviews. I thrive on that stuff and I learn a tremendous amount every day. This is the contemplative and ruminating “brain” stuff of the movement, The Cause. And some people are so good at it that that is precisely what they should do almost exclusively. But our brains, by the corporal analogy, also have motor planning and executing centers. It is time to use them. Arktos has my contact information. Mr. Leonard, now is an auspicious time to start with a visit. Look, listen, study, contemplate, pray, plan, and–most importantly–act.
Sorry folks, I was in too much of a hurry to move on to some pressing tasks, I forgot to proofread…many typos.
Slow drip leads to a strong brew.
Our newer generations are generally weakened by living in the system.
Any early victory is almost guaranteed to be a Pyrrhic one.
You are on on obviously correct, in that solutions have to be multilateral.
We have to begin at the beginning. Small groups of men, rethinking the rules of social engagement. That means creating, by volition, a cultural consensus.
That makes a bulwark against our media overlords who have made the civil discourse a question of cynicism or stagnation.
It is accomplished simply, at first, using the tools you would eventually dismiss to accumulate members of potential and worth, and then through exposure to increasing our values by expanding our ability to be flexible as a thinking group we would develop a cohesive and anti fragile *understanding* and ownership of our narratives and stories.
This is done as it was in the early Christian Era, at Brothers’ homes, and eventually in small shows of tacit presence until internal strength allows for reasoned trajectory.
Culture is diffused by culture, as fire we’re told combats fire. We must begin from the ground again to actually be defendant against the imperial infrastructure we find ourselves at odds with.
We have remained weak heretofore because as a movement we have realized a problem, but not in everyway routed the daemons we’ve inherited intravenously through the dominant culture.
What the Enemy fears is a future it cannot corrupt from the inside.
(Rhymes with Seax)
Interesting comment, Seax.
“Slow drip leads to a strong brew.”
And necessarily a slow drip. We have no choice but slow action. We are hemmed in. The time for bold action has long past. People often reverse the logic of this and they say things like: “It is time for bold action!” Wrong. It is when one has the power of the institutions that direct and rapid action can occur in correcting evils and threats to civilization. But the Left hated that type of social control. They needed more sexual license coupled with draconian-political controls–both evils which in which they like to indulge their disordered passions. We who were on what was once called the Right have let ourselves be put back into the catacombs. The worst of “us” did this to us with a little help from our enemies. Every system or institution has now been captured by those who would rule us–correction–who do rule us and guide us towards our destruction. Alright, to the catacombs it is, at least as much as necessary.
In my parish this past week, I tried to informally initiate a reading group in order to foster the rediscovery of some of the foundations of our Christian civilization. Well, no–no, no, this all has to be brought in under the tent of a Diocesan program to certify one as not-a-molester. But this is about a group of men simply meeting to read great works? No children are involved. So, parishioners cannot engage in a grassroots initiative to study works that have all received the stamp of imprimatur through the centuries? The answer is apparently not. The not-a-molester program serves the dual purpose of justifying top-down control of everything by the enemies of European culture and of Christianity riding piggyback on the, perhaps now-necessary, benefits of last-resort. This is the Church’s version of the insidious Patriot Act justifying the wresting of our nation from the hands of those with whom the ultimate responsibility for the government resides. As a female student in my critical thinking class at a Catholic university (now mercifully defunct) emotionally blurted out as we discussed a philosophic paper on the nature of the nation state: “Shouldn’t we just let the government decide what is best for us?” (My internal devastation from her comment, in that setting of all settings, remains a decade later.) The good that not-a-molester programs imperfectly point to is the securing of a pledge of pursuing virtue from the ground up, albeit it limited notion of virtue. The critique of such arguably beneficial measures is that they reinforce the lesser approach of ‘code fetishism’—one of Charles Taylor’s few critiques with which I agree. I have not yet decided how to proceed with regard to a study group, possibly (a little ‘p’) pragmatism is the route in this case.
Why else a “slow drip,” as you say? Last night, at a restaurant, a fellow at a nearby table and I struck up a conversation about the topics we discuss here. He noticed me reading ‘Tragedy and Hope’. As our discussion grew deeper, he confessed that he has to limit how much he thinks about the great threats peculiar to our time because it “triggers” him. He is not alone, a number of people have told me recently that they do not like to talk about the state of the world because it either depresses them or it makes them angry. But this aversion to engaging topics is precisely from what, collectively, we must begin to turn. Please, no “safe spaces” on the Right as well! A ‘campus’ is by definition a field of conflict and exercise. I apologize, yes, I am awkwardly saying that we must turn from aversion itself–cowardly aversion. Angry explosions–certainly this is personally and socially destructive as it is a hindrance to our mission as well. The disciplined worker must orient towards our various threats, enough to philosophically entertain discussions of the diagnoses and prognoses. But like a good worker, he must exhibit controlled and well-planned action—outrageous actions like starting reading groups. Does this seem like a suggestion for a tepid, noodle-armed type of activism? I can assure you that this can get one fired from one’s job. Call me, we’ll talk. To what kind of reading was I referring? Oh—authors like Tocqueville and Macintyre. Even speaking of action leaves one vulnerable to misinterpretation by the squeamish Right and from the malevolent Left. (I hate the terms, ‘Left’ and ‘Right’, but these terms are attractors of something like common notions; they communicate something, however imperfectly.) Naïve people on the Right assume, despite the body of one’s communication, that ‘action’ involves rioting, Molotov cocktails and bombs. We live in a thuggish world of keyword semantics. “He refer to ‘bomb’; he bad man.” It does not matter that one may actually have said: “Violence is bad.” “The offense is that one referred to ‘violence’ at all, therefore [as the false association goes] one must be promoting violence.” This type of weaponized reasoning received a large practical boost with the social and political banishment of the “N—–” word regardless of the semantic context of its use.
Has the Right correspondingly banished words other than conventionally discouraging profanities from polite contexts? No one would retroactively report that so-and-so was overheard saying ‘damn’ while replacing a heavy starter motor, underneath a pickup, at midnight, in the January near-freezing cold, while having a bad case of the flu, needing to be at work in the morning, and having the apartment sprinklers turn on and sending a river of parking-lot flotsam & jetsam (lincluding a half-eaten hotdog) to soak one’s hair already greased up by an oil spot when the head could no longer be suspended by the aching neck. (I hope I provided enough details to indicate some familiarity with this scenario.) No, no one on the Left or Right would dig back in someone’s past in order to see if they had used cuss words in this situation as is happening with the purging of Western history and its language. But the prohibited words of the Left are intended to entrap, not to edify. The Left does not give a d—, oops, I almost did it, …the Left does not care about edifying people. As is well observed in Arktos articles, the Left is about sowing the seeds of conflict and turmoil. The less edification all around the better the show. The right’s mode of educating about decency would actually be more effective, without being absolutist in it punitiveness. But the weak watchmen of the Right surrendered this a very long time ago.
So the “slow drip” is the proper organic way of producing the most integrated, solid rebuilding of civilization. Much of the excellence of good intellectual work–be it theoretical, or practical, and hopefully both–is that it uses sublimated anger to power the search for the correct words, the right analogies and the cleverest strategies and tactics. This is real power. And as my real-life examples hopefully provide, as homely as they surely appear in comments to fine and erudite theoretical pieces, there is real struggle, struggle than can cost one nearly everything, if in fact not all. I very much feel like a warrior when I am confronting bureaucratic frauds, marching into a courtroom loaded up with paper, going where I have not been invited by the powerful—or when I am writing in comments like this or inviting neighbors to have a conversation. I continually pay a heavy price for speaking reason to my fellows and Truth to mere power. I do not need to get tattoos and fantasize about dystopian shoot ’em ups. -I wear a sport coat, not a muscle shirt. The anger where we all start when we courageously survey the reality of things is a laudable thing in a well-ordered society–it is not a thought crime predicting a mass murderer. To our credit we do not run from ever trying to formulate better descriptions of the civilizational maladies that are being imposed on us from the malefactors. Yes, anger follows as a healthy, self-protective response. And yes, we must marshal our virtuous powers to convert anger into reasoned action. A passionate man with neither a dictionary nor a catechism is more than a potential menace.
“What the Enemy fears is a future it cannot corrupt from the inside.”
Indeed, inside and outside we must work; theoretically and practically; reforming ourselves in virtues, natural and theological; individually responsible (the characteristically northwest-European emphasis) and cooperative (the eastern-European trait), such as gross generalizations have utility; religious and scientific in our descriptions and language of thought (hardly incompatible–I am a neuroscientist with an evolutionary perspective and a Catholic and a defender of the European identity—and my head does not explode, far from it). Virtue is exercising the opposites, not merely as an averaging towards a paint-mixed mean, but in a dynamic equilibrium about the mean as well.
Speaking of brews, it is getting late, time for my pre-bedtime coffee: active dreams, mysteries and conundrums resolved, refreshed in the morning. There is nothing like putting another ‘Arktos’ article on “Read Aloud” to seed the dreamscape.