I am not tolerant and in a world of tolerant nancy boys that must be, in intellectual terms at least, pretty sexy.
The so-called “far right” (I will exclude skinheads in this description – genuine skinheads that is, not the pathetic creatures warmed-up in the same mould as the neo-nazi fetishist Andrew Anglin) is disconcertingly permissive, tending to opt for a gurning grin when a “nationalist” non-White is thrust upon them or perform an awkward gesture of affection (a coochy coo perhaps) when presented with the mixed-race offspring of some human being or another. These scenarios tend to trigger the stalwart and omnipresent Aryan herd instinct resulting in torrents of toleration so as to avoid making a personally embarrassing scene. Having witnessed this behaviour on several occasions I now view many nationalists as posers, hobbyists, and, more importantly, a complete waste of time—not fit for any other purpose than to quietly bellyache about the state of the nation.
We, whatever it is we want to call ourselves, are not viewed as rebels with a cause, as a close cadre of intellectually radical activists existing on the fringes of mainstream thought (because that is where we want to be and that is what is good for us!), we are instead perceived as the tatty jumper, home hair-cut brigade; a rag-tag bevy of irrelevant reactionaries who chatter to themselves at private functions about Jews and other concerns over which we have become powerless. It is with some degree of despondency that I report that the latter is the case more often the former. Not only that, but the nationalist (when pluralised, and again, bearing in mind the aforementioned qualification regarding skinheads) tacitly countenances that which he professes an aversion to and which he repeatedly censures whenever it is more socially comfortable to do so.
I am not suggesting that nationalists should become more militant in their everyday lives (I would in fact advocate for the opposite and promote the adherence to a moral duality, i.e., the adoption of a superficially magnanimous stance when it is expedient, but never within our own circles and in matters which could affect our survival, proliferation, and development, and so on), but I am proposing that we stand by our principles and avoid the prompt transmutation into jellyfish just because everyone else is flapping about like a Portuguese man o’ war. In addition to stiffening our spines and consolidating our coalitions, this is simply the red-blooded approach to existence, which runs in contradiction to the effete and febrile perspective imposed upon us by our fiendish overlords. Those who continue to demean and humiliate us and undermine our ideals must be discarded by we who are living for the cause and for the eternal Idea.
Nationalists are oft to speculate why the general public, and especially women, are not attracted to the nationalist political movement, and they vindicate and placate their loose confederation with notions such as Jewish media control (viz. “ZOG”), pandemic stupidity, and the lack of an effective avenue to evangelise to the masses. What nationalists have successively failed to grasp is that the message itself is only of secondary importance—of cardinal significance is the context. For instance, a message delivered by the unfashionable, unattractive, uninspiring, and timid, is unlikely to appeal to those of the opposite calibre, even if this self-appointed social bracket exists solely in their jejune brain. Furthermore, the crusty exponents of the unpopular offer little in the way of a vision of a world in which their ideas and ideals have become pervasive. Finally, even if this insight is made available, it is more often than not bland, staid, and unambitious, substituting ignitable progression and uncontrollable aspiration, with a pedestrian and retrospective milieu that is of interest only to the terminally conservative.
Stuffy nationalists attempt an appeal to reason, when what is desperately required is an exhortation to emotion, to adventure, and the clear vision of a better world. Reason, in terms of what matters to the individual, dictates that nothing should be done so long as one is comfortable and relatively—materially—happy. Danger, even if superficial, and charisma and profundity are undeniably captivating, provocative, and alluring. Whereas danger coupled with banality and parochiality are evidently uninviting and prosaic. We must be earnest in all things, but we can continue to maintain our composure and still beguile and engage the best of our people, most importantly our youth and our women folk. That is not to say that “old men” are not of any consequence, but it is a commodity we currently enjoy in abundance. Those who doubt me need only to listen to George Lincoln Rockwell’s 1966 speech to Brown university students to discover the influence a good-looking, charismatic, and “dangerous” man can exert on young White people.
The dank intellectual cellars of the so-called “far right” cannot be classified as a movement. This sad truism is compounded by the fact there is no sense of purpose—a consolidating idea or mission—around which the disparate, squabbling groups and personalities orbit. To cut a long story short, the far right, as a definitive entity in opposition to our hostile occupation, exists only in daydreams and enemy propaganda. Those who seek to change this have my respect, whereas those who revel in or tolerate it do not. This may seem harsh but frankly I no longer care—there is too much at stake to worry about offending those who should know better.
Frequently we are subjected to a familiar call to arms: “What we need to do is…” and, apart from electioneering of course, we are typically treated to similar decrees at some future point in time when both reformer and pioneer have conspicuously failed to do whatever it was they had previously championed. This is therefore not a Movement, it is a Static. In fact it is a Regression because the world, administrated by traitors and enemies, lumbers forward without us, continuing to destroy, torment, and undermine our basic values. Nationalists must be satisfied with this lamentable diegesis because they do not pick up a stick, take aim, and thrust it into in the spokes.
Allow me to fire a bullet into the skull of the so-called Nationalist Movement and drag it off and bury it in a quiet copse off the motorway. It is already mostly dead so clearly this is the most responsible and compassionate course of action.
Now that has been taken care of, “what we need to do is…” assemble something that is fit for purpose. And this is how I believe we do it:
1. The New Movement is to be underpinned by the Idea:
We, as Stewards of the Race, must ensure the Survival, Proliferation, and Development of our kind, no matter the cost;
2. All meetings that are to be conducted in the form of forums or think-tanks must produce something of worth: a concise synopsis of what has been gleaned or discussed for dissemination and for implementation in the real world. If this does not happen then these gatherings serve no other purpose than to inflict upon the minds of those so associated a false sense of accomplishment. The New Movement is not a hobby or merely a talking shop for drop-outs and misfits. Such assemblies should form the ideological power plants for the New Movement, furnishing activists with theoretical guidance and political strategies, which are things we must now come to expect from our veterans, scholars, and self-appointed leaders;
3. The six post-nationalist concepts proposed and promoted by the group Western Spring must be scrutinised, a final draft agreed upon, before being duly executed. To start the ball rolling:
1) We need a body of one-thousand local activist leaders spread across the country trained and ready to lead the people in uncertain times.
I see no need to put a cap on the quantity here. I would suggest the following revision:
We shall train local activist leaders, spread across the country, to act as the leadership stratum of our movement.
2) We need to have a network of nationalist enclaves spread across Britain to act as strongholds.
We shall establish a network of racially-conscious strongholds across Britain.
This is of course happening with White Independent Nation acting as the fountainhead of this most vital endeavour.
3) We need a fifth column of sleepers that have ‘burrowed their way into the political establishment and who will be ready to ‘open doors’ for us when the moment of truth arrives.
I see no reason for this prerequisite – there is too much risk involved for both the New Movement as well as for the individuals mentioned. A compromised ‘fifth columnist’ is likely to divulge vital information to his interrogators if his livelihood is threatened. Moreover, the fact remains that as we grow stronger, members of the mainstream will be begin to understand our truth and/or will look to purchase or negotiate insurance against the collapse of the existing order.
4) We need a nationalist mass media to broadcast our message far and wide.
There is no doubt that we have to educate those members of our race who wish to be enlightened, or are on the cusp of revelatory thoughts, but a “mass media” is beyond our grasp at the present time and would be wasted on the majority, representing a poor investment in light of the excessive procurement and maintenance costs. I believe that a political party, the sole purpose of which should be to educate our folk, is a better option in this regard. Having said that, an internet TV channel, podcasts, websites, etc., are invaluable (until the web is censored) and perhaps introductory DVDs will serve a purpose. In addition, our think-tanks and forums, no longer considered as an end in themselves, can complement this crucial undertaking.
We shall educate those who seek us out and want to better understand their plight and aid us in the Idea.
5) We need a disciplined body of street activists to act as Pravy Sektor acted in securing control of key buildings and key locations during a period of crisis.
Although I agree with the sentiment, I am not convinced by the frame of reference.
We shall train a discipled body of men for the purposes of the Idea.
6) We need a ‘war chest’ of in excess of £100 million to buy the ‘influence’ we will need.
I see no need to mention a sum or allude to its primary purpose.
We shall secure the necessary funding to implement the aforementioned prerequisites.
These are my own initial suggestions and a consensus should be reached no matter how long and laborious might be the process. Following that, we will finally understand “what we need to do…” and there are to be no more excuses why we cannot achieve our objectives; no more grumbling, futile action, and compromise. Let us become the embodiment of the things to come, of the new era, and not a jaded spectre of the past.
How was the West won (over)? It was because brave White men were deceived and defeated in two world wars while consecutive generations became complicit democrats – many of whom were, and still are, cowards; some of whom were, and still are, stupid; and a small proportion of whom were, and still are, starkly misguided. It is inevitable that the remainder, no matter how tiny in number, are destined to change the world.
Long Live the New Tribe!