The recent “Freedom for Gary Yarbrough” demonstration in London has brought to the surface a latent issue in the nationalist movement that is so entrenched it is barely perceptible to most that are actively involved.
Gary Yarbrough was a member of The Order (or Brüder Schweigen), founded by Robert Jay Matthews in 1983. The Order undertook a series of audacious robberies and bombings, as well as a significant counterfeiting operation and the murder of the Jewish Radio talk show host, Alan Berg. Although Bob Matthews died in a fire-fight with the Federal Government, the remaining members of The Order were eventually captured and sentenced to lengthy prison sentences*.
Given the feverish political landscape of 2015, were these events to transpire tomorrow, The Order would unequivocally be condemned as a terrorist organisation; a threat to national security, our ‘values’ and ‘way of life,’ and other comparably meaningless verbal issuances. Because of the impudence of the Silent Brotherhood, the blanket reporting of their crimes would be so sensationalised, so overbearing, that an uncontrolled media frenzy would ensue, bathing a nation of passive television viewers in a bubbling cauldron of loathing for the individuals involved, their alleged objectives, and any White man or woman who might express sympathy with either.
The word “terrorist,” as expertly deployed by our modern masters whenever and wherever the status quo is challenged, is a phrase imbued with special powers and a singular potency, in a similar fashion to the words “racist” and “Nazi,” which rarely fail to send shivers up and down the spinal columns of those poor souls so accused, and who are involuntarily dragooned into gibbering about a mysterious, frequently hallucinatory or historic, Black acquaintance.
Mr Yarbrough must have understood the consequences of his actions and he is now paying the heavy price. That is not to say that he deserves what appears to be an indefinite sabbatical at one of America’s many barbaric gulags, but it is the equally as brutal truth of the matter. And while we still exist beneath enemy occupation, each and every one of us can expect no more tender treatment should we fail to conform and begin impolitely tearing at the fabric of the prevailing social order.
Gary Yarbrough no doubt felt the compunction to act as a responsible Aryan man in the face of an enemy force that is mercilessly destroying our race physically, mentally, and spiritually, but in breaking the law of the land he accepted the unavoidable conclusions, which are, let’s make no bones about it, a protracted period of incarceration and/or a likely death at the hands of our most inimical foe (as Rudolf Hess duly discovered).
Those demonstrating on behalf of Gary in London (although I know not if they had his explicit consent) appear to be fully aware of this logical principle, as the message of their banners imply. The protestors did not appear to assert that a travesty of justice had been committed, but simply that a White man had been denied parole after a date in 2014 had been officially sanctioned. The reason for the public display was, one can confidently assume, to draw national attention to the situation as it stands.
This is precisely where the “latent issue” I referred to in the opening paragraph begins to rear its curious head. In the very first instance, society at large has no clue as to who Gary Yarbrough is – they would need to defer to a search engine in order to discover the identity of the man. By doing this, Britain’s democratic consumers will be treated to a plethora of egregious terminology: “White Supremacist,” “nationalist militant,” “murderer.” In short, and to the casual observer, Gary Yarbrough is a convicted terrorist. Worse still, he is a Jew-killing, racist, Nazi terrorist; the worse kind of depraved human (sub-human perchance?) imaginable! The good intentions of the demonstrators have therefore been entirely abrogated chiefly because the general population does not exist on the same emotional, intellectual, and ideological plane as those shrewd folk who comprehend exactly why Gary did what he did.
If the demonstrators sincerely believed that they could somehow convince the American state apparatus to revise the parole conditions it thought so appropriate to amend, then they clearly have little to no appreciation of what enemy occupation actually involves or why Gary did what he did…
If public perception (and persuasion) was unimportant to the demonstrators then the event must have carried some other significance, which I, in my limited faculties, have crudely failed to decipher. If, as I suspect is the case, the entire raison d’être of the event was to solicit widespread sympathy for a man who has been denied his freedom for thirty years, then it – I am sorry to say – fell on its belly at the first hurdle, and for the reasons mentioned above.
I am not casting dispersions on the organisers or the concerned members of our race who attended the demonstration in good faith, in fact I commend them on their enthusiasm, courage, and compassion; I am instead attempting to convey the inherent futility of overt spectacles of sensitivity on the streets of enemy-occupied Europe and for the benefit of a human herd animal that will hate us for doing so – for being vile racist terrorists.
I can envisage a tabloid headline: “Far-Right Extremists in Violent Clashes Outside American Embassy – Demand Release of White Supremacist Terrorist Leader”
Where exactly are we going with this? We are certainly not making friends and influencing people, that much is certain.
In the same vein, I find the emergence of a group calling itself the (new) British Union of Fascists beyond normal, rational comprehension. The fact that these people have simply adopted the symbols and regalia of a defunct political entity – one that was effectively abolished following the passing of an as yet unrepealed public order act – and are calling for nationalist “unity,” should send alarm bells clamouring through hired function rooms and public houses across the length and breadth of the land!
I do not believe there exists a formal branch of science or provable psychological method capable of influencing sentient beings by dependably replicable, measurable, and predictable techniques, but I am aware of the black art of persuasion, which is a sophisticated form of mental seduction whereby an audience is induced into believing that what is offered to them is actually a scenario, object, or state of mind they have been craving without consciously knowing it. But this hinges on a full and dispassionate understanding of one’s living environment – of which our allies, enemies, and a broad spectrum of neutral parties are significant elements – and the acceptance of glaring, albeit uncomfortable, truths as incontrovertible facts of life. We need to calculate which scenarios, objects, and states of mind our folk will tolerate and which they recgonise as abhorrent, at least during this poisonous epoch in Western civilisation.
Only by effectively employing this tactic will we acquire the skills necessary to successfully wrestling with the monumental issues facing us as a distinct tribe of people. Anything less than a clinically honest appraisal of our present reality will inevitably result in small but regular victories on behalf of our enemy. This is valid whether you are a member of a political group, such as the National Front, a street protest organisation, or a popular internet blog-site. It is about time for the laboratory mice to learn how to read the exit sign and start planning their escape.
If we are to appeal to the public, we must engage with them on a level that they can understand and accept. If we are not, then we should finally put to bed our tendency towards exhibition and get on with the critical task of creating racially-conscious communities and painstakingly building a truly White and independent nation.
*Apart, that is, from (Frazier) Glenn Miller, who traded the lives of his comrades for a lesser sentence for himself.