The Pioneer Little Europe (PLE) Prospectus is an eighty three page document–as of 25th September 2013, it may well have been revised–produced by the American, H. Michael Barrett, which has been compiled from posts originating from www.stormfront.org. There are many individuals hosting views on the subject of PLE without first reading the particulars. I will now attempt to distill Barrett’s work in an effort to confer to the reader a sensible and concise critique.
The overriding focus of the Pioneer Little Europe prospectus is ‘white community building,’ while elaborating on the redundancy of the old order communities model and the formalised political traditions which govern these failing social conglomerations. The concentration of White Nationalists into a target area and their assertion of their own heritage and culture is, the author argues, a bicephalous enterprise; acting as a beacon to those who naturally gravitate to their own kind and customs while at the same time repelling White ‘liberals’ and other, specifically non-White, denizens of an existing community.
Were it not for the PLE prospectus then it is likely that pursuits, such as White Independent Nation, would not have discovered their guiding compass or at least would have taken a significantly longer period to find their path, at least in a practical sense. It is in this general tenor that the following was prepared.
PLE – The Introduction
I find it difficult to disregard the fact that my own disagreements with the PLE prospectus begin with the introduction. For all intents and purposes, the introduction espouses what is currently taking place in Leith, North Dakota. I am also concerned that the official PLE UK (now defunct) stance in relation to what is outlined within the prospectus introduction is completely contradictory to the tactics championed by Barrett, viz.
“The UWNC [Uncontrolled White Nationalist Culture – Ed.] starts out by drawing together the WNs who are no longer permitted to exercise the integrity of their community living space anywhere else; those who are unwanted elsewhere if they even so much as express love for their race. These are the culturally homeless, the berserkers, the greatest misfits, the especially angry, those who refuse to run any more, who refuse to bow and scrape, the doers rather than passive thinkers, wild dogs in the cellar.
“Let ’em out!”
In case of doubt emphasis is provided as to exactly the type of person Barrett is alluding to:
“Their colorful splinters and lack of uniformity means that they’ve become feral, hard, sometimes unpredictable, and a lot less forgiving. Some are visible and others are not, but all others will sense that they have arrived and will voluntarily depart from any territory these now claim, the PLE target area.”
Whereas the PLE UK forum’s administrator, “Aggro Saxon,” takes this fairly uncompromising and contradictory position:
“…very few that I’ve met through PLE are neo nazi’s and none of those heavily involved are and I’m thankful for that because the last thing we need is drama and attention! We can get right away from that idea because it is not what we’re about in the slightest…”
It must be obvious to even those with a limited imagination that the “wild dogs in the cellar” would be considered as being ‘Neo Nazis’ even by those sharing the majority of their ideas but who have as yet not physically ostracised themselves from old order communities. I will admit to leaning on the side of PLE UK in this regard, the reasons for which will become apparent in due course.
Returning then to Leith, USA. Although I am fairly sure that Craig Cobb is a man of impeccable honour and good intention, he is clearly one of Barrett’s “wild dogs” and has established himself in a tiny, isolated village of less than twenty residents. The PLE prospectus utilises the following analogy that dovetails well with the events in Leith:
“Our opponents will not be able to endure the heat, and will flee the kitchen.”
This is of course true in seclusion but in a world of boundless communications and pervasive ‘social media,’ the unfortunate fact is the enemies of such a scheme will be attracted to the scent of the cooking like a swarm of winged insects. Furthermore, not only will an overt display of resentment towards the anti-White regime of the American establishment entice the biting flies, it will also force the hand of a oppressive administration which has, within living memory, murdered men, women, and children at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho. In this regard, the System is not playing politics and does not need to concern itself with negative media attention, which is because it rarely receives any wide-spread criticism when destroying the rights of normal White citizens.
The essential naivety of the PLE prospectus introduction is alarming but, perhaps, it was penned more as an inspirational foreword as opposed to a blueprint for community building. I suspect that our “enemies” and “opponents” (the greatest of which is the the bloated establishment itself) will not “tremble and quake when they encounter it for the first time;” they (and it) are more than willing and capable of crushing such an outpost without very much commotion or inquiry. That being said, I am certain that our racial competitors will become very uneasy should a “Stormfront of the streets” materialise elsewhere in the White world as it has done in North Dakota.
And that is not all that I perceive is slightly illogical with the Leith experiment – because that is really what it is. A tiny village location could, of course, become a staging ground but it will not and for the following reasons:
- It has drawn too much attention to itself already and will quickly become unsustainable;
- Demographically Leith is completely inadequate (i.e., there just are not enough people).
In my opinion, what Leith has the potential to engineer is not a fully-fledged PLE, but–and due to its glaring characteristics–something resembling a racial separatist abattoir. It is destined to draw lambs to the slaughter. All convictions pertaining to ethnic survival have been supplanted by the petulant need to resist and no matter the cost.
The PLE introduction is also heavily militaristic, drawing comparisons between civil and martial accomplishment. Unfortunately, this stokes the fires of probable conflict with the prevailing order, something which Cobb’s Leith goads, if only subconsciously, and which is a situation that we cannot afford given our, at present, sparse numbers and limited resources. What we must engage in is not a war in the literal sense, but a compos mentis remodelling of existing communities based on our own salient vision of a new social order. There will be little or no physical confrontation with an enemy that we cannot hope to best, but a gradual process of proliferation and development while the old order becomes less and less viable and continues to decay unchecked.
This is the far-sighted and rational approach and involves careful planning and implementation over the course of several generations; it is the more challenging option but it is the only option when consideration is given to the reality of our dire predicament. A death or glory approach may well fulfill a burning ambition or desire but it does nothing to secure the survival of at least a proportion of our genetic inheritance.
I would suggest that due to the minuscule nature of Leith, it could not be considered a sound target area by the author of the PLE prospectus. However, the requisite technique of encouraging the “wild dogs” of society (those who publicly display their resentment and are no longer considered to be a part of the prevailing herd) to multiply is something which the prospectus endorses without reservation.
PLE – Purpose & Function
The prospectus sketches a convincing image of what a PLE must achieve and why cohesive racially-conscious communities are required. But this genesis is constantly dogged by the introductory passage and the undeniable fact that any PLE conceived in a conflagration of media attention and overt protestation would not be in the position to concentrate fully on the essential tasks necessary to establish an autonomous foothold deep within hostile territory.
Unfortunately, cracks begin to appear in the prospectus when correlation is made between other community endeavours and White-specific Pioneer Little Europe:
“The hippies built political stronghold communities in the sixties, the homosexuals built them in the 70s, and non-European American gangs have had them since the 80s; so there is no reason we can’t have a place to assert our own political and individuals interests”
There is indeed a reason, and a fundamentally important one, and it exists in the overarching spheres of the mass media, academe, the legislature, the government, the arts, finance, big business; it is the all pervasive anti-White, anti-Western motif that determines the veridical present and future of the Occident and re-writes its history. The ‘hippies’ were riding on the wave of a social revolution which took plac–especially in the US–during the nineteen sixties that was orchestrated by interests, mostly Jewish, which sought the reorganisation of our societies for their own ends. The same is true for homosexuals and non-Whites; their achievements would have been fruitless had not the political and cultural trends, that are killing us today, not facilitated them. There was no coup d’etat in America following the Second World War, no armed insurrection, and yet the American people have lost complete control of their country through acquiescence, complacency, and a malevolent plot to divest them of their living space and freedom.
Given favourable conditions, passive revolution is possible, but under our present circumstance, and with the “wild dogs” (self-proclaimed varieties of Neo Nazi) as our vanguard, any movement towards community building would be stemmed at the source. Nevertheless, White community building is potentially viable if attention is not immediately drawn to the intended purposes of the instigators, which is something the PLE prospectus fails to acknowledge.
An interesting theory expressed in the Barrett’s PLE prospectus is “Liberal flight”:
“The effect of WNs showing their values in concentrated numbers, and destroying the established neighborhood values, will be to encourage opponents to FREELY DECIDE that they should move from a culturally intolerant situation (Liberal flight).”
This is exceedingly important and cannot be understated but it must be pulled back into context. As we can observe from the situation in Leith, ardent liberals are far more active than the average White nationalist and are motivated to protest and generally cause a nuisance of themselves. This, no doubt, is the Sauron Factor, i.e., with the knowledge that they, anti-White liberals, have the tacit support of the state (the great eye of Mordor) they tend to act with impunity when demonstrating against what they perceive as a threat to the status quo and their eventual ethnic cleansing. An overt PLE may well have the opposite effect to that identified in the prospectus. In contrast, a cautious and systematic alteration of an existing, mostly White, community is more likely deter an ambush, as the atmosphere imperceptibly changes and general attitudes begin shift away from the fashionable norm.
Another slight oversight relates to the initial selection of a planned PLE location. Forethought should be given to the composition of the existing community and those accredited with a large liberal or ‘red’ contingent should be cautiously reconsidered.
Another noteworthy point is:
“Blanket legal attacks on communities are much harder than on organisations and individuals.”
Once one has accepted that new order communities are our only option for racial salvation, this fact can be considered a convenient byproduct. If the word “legal” is replaced with “military” however, it connotes badly for the long term prospects of Leith and any other “wild dog” based initiatives.
In relation to Barrett’s observations on how (and why) a PLE should function, the economic, political, institutional, and infrastructural realities of such an undertaking, then I feel he has imparted enough germane information for the prospective Pioneer to begin researching potential target locations.
PLE – ‘Open Community Dynamics’
I feel strongly that part two of the prospectus should be updated to take into account the ideological decline of the British National Party and the disappearance of the American Friends of the British National Party. It is also discouraging to record that neither of the aforementioned pursued community-building projects but rather set about the deceased mare in much the same manner as nearly every pro-White political organisation has done on the continent.
Of more interest is the following insight:
“Renters Blitzkrieg: This peculiar sounding term was coined in the 1970s, and refers to a so called civil rights technique that was used – ironically – to overthrow a popular Irish working class neighborhood in San Francisco. And probably few residents in most neighborhoods even realize it exists.
“It’s a kind of moving sit-in that goes unnoticed for months, but the people stay permanently. Of course, little was said about the families who fled this massive wave of homosexual renters, but the tactic was not made illegal due to the impossibility of controlling where people choose to move.”
This is exactly the kind of passive revolution that could benefit the early adopters of White community building. It is the diametric opposite of the undisguised approach advocated in the introduction of the PLE prospectus and represents, in my opinion, one of the few workable tactics currently available to us.
A further example of the overt/covert nature of the prospectus is the treatment of Jewish infiltrators:
“Jews tend to be drawn to organizations which promote hardcore antisemitism, even to the point where some actually become strangely over- stimulated and actually attempt to fan it to its logical extreme.”
By the de facto promotion of a PLE venture (the “wild dogs” and “berserkers” again) it would be insanely optimistic to presume that at least one of the pioneers was not an overzealous Khazar but, as Barrett cautions:
“…PLEs shouldn’t permit even the friendliest Jews to hold positions of leadership, as our living spaces must remain as sacred as anyone else’s.”
Which is a circumstance I see as regrettably unavoidable given the method of inauguration recommended during the introduction to the prospectus.
I can, however, wholeheartedly agree on the following:
“…too much of White nationalism has been unfairly stereotyped by conflicts about Jews rather than by its many honorable efforts to peacefully address the political and cultural injustice of ethnic stratification…”
The sooner we begin to build rather than apportion blame the quicker the odds will sway in favour of a White race on planet Earth in the centuries to come.
It is lamentable that much of what is written thereafter is marred by what I regard as a false start. But even with that in mind, the prospectus does capably address issues that many self-proclaimed nationalists would do well to assimilate. The roles of the family, women, artists, wider causes, etc., are elucidated with eloquence and a compelling perspective on cognitive psychology is offered to the reader for further consideration, for example:
“Patience: You have probably already heard that patience is a virtue, but in the case of building a new community it is especially true. Before any resident of Little Europe despairs of an unruly neighbor and foolishly resorts to expressions of returning hatred, let them consider this:
“Some times in the unconscious “White” community alongside Little Europe we’re going to encounter people who will be slow to give up sociopathic attitudes, as they are unused to living near a vital community, but if we are patient eventually we’ll win many over.
“And remember that the most stubborn personality types, if you succeed in winning them over, will be even harder for those lacking patience and forgiveness to turn around.”
I will reiterate that although the majority of what is purveyed must be considered as the staple of White community building, it is somewhat hampered by the fact that I, personally, could not image a ‘Leith’ burgeoning into the Eden the author skilfully translates. In this respect, I think Barrett has made a grave miscalculation from the outset.
The section of the prospectus dealing with all matters legal is certainly worth absorbing and cross-referencing, one seminal keynote being:
“But if a large number of conscious Whites (WNs) swamp a target area, as you are advocating, wouldn’t the driving out of opponents be illegal?
“Anyone might assume so, by the way you’re describing it, but what the process actually calls for is that this concentration of our supporters would raise up “an uncontrolled White Nationalist culture” in a portion of the Old White community. This will have the effect of destroying the local values and prompting any opponents to voluntarily and legally depart.”
PLE – Q&A
Much of the remainder of the prospectus follows a frequently asked questions methodology. How many of these are genuine questions is difficult to evaluate but they are wide-ranging and sometimes only partially relevant to an aspiring pioneer. That notwithstanding, it is priority reading for the uninitiated or for those new to the PLE concept.
Following this, the prospectus meanders through the history of National Socialism and the Ku Klux Klan before once again focusing on PLE proper, revisiting much of what already has been examined or briefly touched on in previous chapters.
The final sections of the prospectus deal with the author himself and his associations with various movement groups, including the National Alliance and Stormfront.org.
By far the most engaging volume of the closing to the PLE prospectus is titled “A supplement to the Law Enforcement Personnel section on employment classifications:”
“A political/cultural/lifestyle community, including one for Whites, does not tend to announce itself as being ready for settlers (“pioneers” in PLE terms) until as many shops as possible are on signed leases or have been purchased.
“When the signal is given for pioneers to come, mostly through advertisements in the White Nationalist media, there will likely be an increased number of ‘independent militants”‘drawn there as well.
“Ideally most will use a responsible restraint in their militancy to keep community support, but the building society should expend no resources to obstruct those who won’t listen.
“In fact, within a PLE, as with any similar kind of unpopular political/cultural/ lifestyle community, it is advantageous that the general public never see anything more than part of the iceberg.
“A very small PLE must resort to this anyway…”
This revelation undeniably challenges the “wild dogs” modus operandi of the initial chapters and one wonders whether it signals a positive development in the PLE construct. This is proposal is, in my view, exactly the correct direction for racial intentional communities. It avoids the damaging publicity that an overt ‘take-over’ is bound to tempt while at the same time opens the possibility of recruitment and social aggrandisement.
The proceeding paragraphs, dealing with the percolation of White nationalism into local law enforcement agencies is astute and brought to mind a quotation from a famous Hollywood gangster film, Goodfellas:
“That’s what the FBI could never understand. That what Paulie and the organization does is offer protection for people who can’t go to the cops. That’s it. That’s all it is. They’re like the police department for wiseguys.”
PLE – Conclusion
I am not a critic of White community building, in fact I am engaged in just such a project in England. But, as is glaringly obvious, I feel that the PLE prospectus has missed – or is in the process of redressing – the central truth of our plight: that, although we are at war, we have no army and no means of physically defending ourselves. We also exist in enemy occupied territory and we must press into service our much lauded intellect merely to exist. Blundering in with flags and fanfare will result in our immediate liquidation. In this regard, we must actually scrutinise the actions of our enemies and racial competitors rather than citing their examples and ignoring the unmistakable conclusions.
Stealth and deception have now become our allies and our traditional Aryan Morality of fair play, honesty, and wide-eyed heroism will not secure our living space nor a future for White children. The days of performing on the battlefield are over, now we must devise new strategies and contemplate forever rather than rely on the short term; the next election or the expanse of our own lifetimes.
White community building is most certainly the correct vehicle for our salvation but the pitch of the PLE prospectus misses the mark from the outset. From then, and in my estimation, it struggles to bring its many well founded proposals in line with the nostalgic notion of the “wild dogs.” Unquestionably those who have without compromise raised their banner high should be included within racial intentional communities, but to position these shock troops where they are likely to do the most damage via unfavourable notoriety is folly.
I must point out that Pioneer Little Europe is an American-focused hypothesis and conceivably that is the reasoning behind Barrett’s opening, but with a basic understanding of the murderous nature of the US government it is puzzling to me why the substructure of PLE would be endowed with what can only be described as unstable foundations.
Events in Leith will either confirm or dismiss my reservations about “wild dogs,” etc., and I sincerely hope that Mr Cobb’s campaign is eminently successful and becomes the incarnation of the rejuvenation of the American branch of the White race. But, if my fears are realised, that tiny power base of White nationalism in North Dakota may well become just another example of how not to skirmish with our enemies and will do yet more damage to an already fragmented and demoralised movement.
But before one passes judgement on PLE or its concomitant prospectus, please read it for yourself. If nothing else it will introduce to the consciousness of the reader a rare germ that will, incontrovertibly, bloom. It will convulse the drab concrete playground that is political nationalism and great, yawning chasms will appear across that desolate vista. It will reshape the very notion of nationalism and impel the reader to reconsider what palpable gift they might feasibly bestow upon their posterity post-mortem.
Originally published 28/09/13: The PLE Prospectus: a critical appraisal