Thoughts on Strategy

There needs to be much more thought given to coherent strategy. The dissident right thus far is an internet movement, and as such, is going to have inherent difficulty translating to physical presence. Part of this is baked into the cake of social control in the Current Year; there is a reason why every Western country is following the same program give or take ten or so years, and why every conservative party or movement has been broken in time, from Spain following Franco to Portugal to Enoch Powell and many more figures, some noteworthy and some not. Part of this is also plain to see, a result of our peculiar and disproportionately online presence. We have a unique opportunity to break the dead stranglehold the left globalist establishment holds broadly on the West, but we have to face up to the facts that there will be also peculiar hardships and losses. Glory is ours, but only if we are brave enough to take it. 

It seems as though very little thought has been given to actual strategy in the activist circles. They have been trying to repeat leftist tactics without understanding why leftists did them or if the things they thought yielded mass change did in fact. Some of them speak of realpolitik, but their consistent fallback to old methods - to things, frankly, that cannot work in our context for any number of reasons - speaks of a complete lack of realism and pragmatism and a sort of naive view of history as well as a lingering naive civics class approach to the state. Protests are victory laps and weathervanes of institutional victories when undertaken by the left. One can look back whether to Occupy Wall Street or to the Civil Rights era or various anti-war protests started by leftists to see that they're all given access to media platforms, balanced or glowing press mentions, and rarely stopped by civil authorities. Virtually all of these things are inverted for protests on the right, and we'll notice also that protests on the right are less frequent and harder to organize.

Without holding the requisite institutions on the genuine right to push our own narratives to the masses, to educate children counter to anti-civilization trash, to provide for our people over outsiders, and so forth, it means we're not only on the back foot compared to the left, but it means we cannot control the narrative of any mass protest or street action. Rightists who have the shit beat out of them during a protest will not be seen as protesters speaking their piece being unfairly beaten up by a smelly communist Antifa mob; they will be successfully painted by our enemy as vile Nazis who were spewing hate, who showed weakness and were righteously put down by the heroic Antifa. If Spencer learned nothing after getting sucker punched and after CVille, I should reprise: the only lesson our foes will take from getting away with beating up rightists (including Spencer) is wondering if they couldn't get away with knifing someone next time and maybe receive still greater laurels. To return to our essential nature as an internet movement, that is one of our strengths, along with our pseudonymity. In truth, the intelligence agencies of the US, the UK, and perhaps a few of the EU countries could crack the identities of all the rightists on the planet in a matter of a few months if that was a top priority and they knew what traffic to sift through to streamline the process. But that probably won't happen within the foreseeable future, partly because it would mean setting other intelligence projects behind which involve more immediately threatening state and non-state actors, and partly because coordinating that sort of action would be a monumental inter-agency affair. In the meantime, we should hold onto our anonymity or pseudonymity as long as we can, because the ability to shitpost and write scathing critiques of the left and to broadcast our vision of a better world and then wake up the next day and go to work and provide for our families and for the movement is part of our strength. We have neither the numbers nor assets yet to cast away the masks.

“The reaction” as I call it – the overall coalition of rightists trying to upturn the existing ‘order’ – needs an overarching and unified vision. This needs to include both a set of demands to be implemented and strategy to guide those ends. To some degree, this means getting a vast number of disparate groups together to hash out an agreement on what is acceptable and who will form the center. The coalition of the right is going to look increasingly like the Falangists in Spain did in the ‘30s after a point. For now, it might be fine to stay in a mode of ‘evangelism’ to borrow a religious phrase, but more coherent organization is necessary for the followthrough. One main group will end up as the point of the spear with everyone else as their base of support.

My point here is to get people to think about how this should look. I don’t think this will be the final form of our ’95 theses’ if you like. Yet I also think that we need to find points of agreement around our main Schelling point – the preservation and primacy of the folk. Without further ado, here’s a general list with some argument:

-         First, obviously, is the return of folkishness and the consideration of founding stock of every Western nation above all others. This means a return to supermajority status for the founding stock of all Western nations and a total loss of privilege for aliens. Exact ratios can be hashed out later, but around nine-tenths to nineteen-twentieths is a good start. (Insert ‘native folk’ for founding stock if you prefer.)

-         We require a reconsideration for how we disperse technology en masse and how we develop social technologies in response to material tech. An inability of modern man to adapt to hypermodernity has become manifest. I’ll let this comment hang without elaboration for now, but anyone wishing to read more can either read Kaczynski’s paper Industrial Society and Its Future or part of an essay I’ll put out later.

-         Man without faith is largely a waste of potential. Nihilism is a disease which must be cured with a healthy spirituality. Nietzsche was tragically wrong, and we must counter every facet of atheism and antitheism in culture and politics until they are burned out root and branch. Atheism should be relegated to a marginal movement for navel gazers once again.

-         The merchant ruling class must be humbled. This means that merchants will no longer form the brunt of the elite, and that many of them will be dispossessed of large portions of their ill-gotten assets. If we are going to have a class of men which live as by rents on the productive classes, just as 800 years ago, they could at least have some goodwill and sense of obligation toward said productive classes.

-         The worst offenders in hypermodernity must be punished as fits their particular crimes regardless of ethnicity. This doesn’t need much elaboration.

-         We require a rehabilitation of history and culture as well as religion. To this end, the detritus of hypermodernity built on all of these aspects of man – huckster churches, critical theory, ‘consumer culture’, antiwhite history, and the worst of popular unkultur – needs to be burnt away. For too long, the treasures bequeathed by our forebears have been spent on ugliness and trash.

-         A restructuring of the state at many levels and institutions attached to it like universities, schools, art and film grants, business subsidies, infrastructure, and so forth. Part of addressing hypermodernity in fullness is reducing the unnecessary urban and suburban sprawl going forward, as well as the harmful population growth of the past 40 years caused by immigration. I would propose that we highly consider undoing the welfare state if not in whole then substantially to such a degree that there are only small programs left, the sort which were around 90 or so years ago. Overreach of the administrative state is one of the means by which traditional society was dismantled.

For strategic concerns, I would like people to think about everything on the way to the proverbial throne. What are the avenues to power, and how likely is each? Do we have to worry about path dependency if we set off on some avenues more than others? What are our logistic concerns for different stages or different paths? How could we devise a network such that we have the most self-sufficiency but are also capable of rendering services to those outside? What is our place in this? How do we deal with people unwilling to submit themselves to the greater good? (We can’t all be thought leaders or leaders-in-fact…)

Our ultimate goals lie not in mere revenge fantasies but in taking us forward to a more wholesome mode of being. I don’t see any great reason to keep going and upset the cart, after all, if we lack any sort of vision of followthrough. It’s all well and good to imagine great battles – but what after? What if we were to become heralds of a new order?