Blog Archive

Saturday, December 13, 2008

A 'Big Tent' or a 'Fanatical Few'

Among white nationalists, the longest and most never-ending debate is whether we should be a "Big Tent" party or a "Fanatical Few" party. The reason why the debate continues is it is unresolvable. We have no worked examples of either strategy working. We can make arguments for the likelihood of one being more successful than the other, but so long as it stays in the realm of pure theory it is doubtful anyone will be convinced by the other side. No one can say with complete assurance their side is correct, since none of us can predict the future, much less the various parallel futures that each modification to our philosophy/agenda would entail. It is all murky and beset with unanswerable questions. The hidden springs of psyche and will are impossible to fathom, at least with current day technology. In a single individual or a great mass of millions, the question "what made you do that?" or "why did you feel that way?" are psychological questions constantly asked and rarely answered, simply because people are such complex, multifaceted, self-contradictory beings. So when someone makes a prediction like, "people will respond in X manner if we do Y." Or "Z more people will join the cause if we uphold W." We are all just speculating. We have no idea what will really happen, in the end history tends to make itself without anyone's help pushing it along. A trigger point will occur and people will 'snap,' at which point all their beliefs and ideals will be abolished and they will become capable of thinking or doing anything. Or this trigger point will not occur and we will all simply fade away and die. This is also unknown, but since there's no point considering a hopeless future, as all choices become moot down that trajectory, we must base our assumptions on the hopeful one. Nevertheless, if we do not have worked examples of the future, we do have worked examples of the past. If past events do not perfectly correlate to today's, we can still estimate that events will play out at least similarly to what happened last time. History is better Psychology than Psychology. It's the largest case study on humanity ever made.

I have studied history practically as thoroughly as it is possible to study. I find it one of the most rewarding mental pursuits known to man, and the best basis for any politics or philosophy is one deeply rooted in a sense of history. The most sublime thoughts are those that interweave past, present, and future into one four dimensional object. Ignoring ancestors and offspring is the most common banality, the dumbest and most common error, of the popular mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5h4PFBuzvw

I like this song, not so much for its lyrics, as just the chorus: 'branch, stem, shoots, we need roots.' It's beautiful. No matter how many times I listen to it, the power of its message is just electric. We should never forget how every tree, every flower, every stalk of grain, is supported by an invisible foundation. For a civilization, that is our history. For a people, their ancestry.

By 'big tent' I will define a strategy that says we should be willing to compromise as many issues as necessary to gain the approval of the majority so that a peaceful transition can occur by persuasion alone.

By 'fanatical few' I will define a strategy that says we should never compromise a single issue such that every single member is absolutely loyal to the Program which we will then kill and die for against all enemies.

Or more simply as Gohan says: It is all or nothing, there is no inbetween!

So the question is, from a historical perspective, have revolutions traditionally come about from a 'big tent' or a 'fanatical few?' Readers should already know the answer to this question. It has always, always been a fanatical few. The Nazi party started with like 10 people. The bolsheviks were hardly any larger. Muhammed declared war on the world with around 100 followers, most of his life he only had 10 or so, just his own family. Jesus also was never popular, nor Joseph Smith's mormonism. Persecuted and eventually killed, the Prophet barely had a village of followers. And yet every time, these tiny minorities who eschewed size and popularity for an unswerving dedication to their extreme radical revolutionary beliefs, overcame. This isn't to say that many other fanatical revolutionaries tried to succeed and failed, but that is meaningless when you compare it to the fact that no 'big tent' revolution has ever occurred. For those of us uninterested in theory and just hoping for results, what can I say. Look at the evidence. 300 spartans stopped the Persian Empire (yes yes I know thousands more helped but let's not get bogged down in distracting details). 300(? again don't care about the details) Texans at the Alamo won themselves a whole new country against overwhelming odds. Heroes and martyrs are powerful. Dying for your beliefs is powerful. Fighting, violently, for your beliefs is powerful. Numbers, pile them up in the millions, tens of millions, are all meaningless. Life is always a clash of Wills. Those who desire victory the most, will win it. Will is the most powerful force on earth. Relying on numbers of half-hearted, bickering, disunited pacisfist moderates, is like multiplying 100 trillion by 0. Sure it looks strong at first, but when the actual calculation is performed, all you end up with is nothing. Zero. In Mumbai, 10 terrorists killed 300 Indians and held a nation of 1 billion hostage for days. Those ten people had what the one billion lacked, the will to fight and die for their beliefs. 19 hijackers, with the aid of willpower, killed 3,000 americans and destroyed one trillion dollars of our economy. The life work of millions of people was negated by just 19. The difference was will. I propose in the capital of Vinland we build a statue, like the roman gods of old that adorned the Capitol of Rome, of our new goddess Will. She should have one knee lifted and be leaning slightly forward, with widespread wings, a sword lifted high diagonally pointing up and forward, and a head tilted to the sky, with the apparent wish to conquer it all. Everything above her, where she's looking. The entire cosmos. Our cause will go nowhere without will. The secret ingredient all other successful revolutions had was not popularity, it was not inclusiveness, it was not money or smarts or majority approval or good publicity---it was nothing the big tenters tout as so important and it was nothing big tenters promise they can deliver if we follow their lead.

The secret ingredient to successful revolutions is will, and the only path to that secret power that overturns all odds, kicks it to the curb and pierces the heavens--(watch Gurren Lagann if you haven't yet and you will understand, again, the power of Will and how wonderful Japanese culture is and how much we suffer from the lack of it)--is inspiring a fanatical few. Muslims told Muhammed they knew endorsing him was tantamount to a declaration of war on the entire world. They didn't mean metaphorically, for the next hundreds of years, they enacted his beliefs, attacking, always outnumbered and outarmed and outspent, in a storm of fanaticism that conquered half the world. Mormons had to trek across half the US and set up camp in a desert, they had to abandon their traditional morality and endorse plural marriage -- only the fanatics, only the extremists, were willing. The power of those fanatics and extremists delivered them an entire state and 2% of US population. The Nazis had to fight it out on the streets with the communist youth to even give a speech, there was no space for moderates here. They led a failed putsch on the government, failed, and weren't deterred. Eventually they took on the entire world as enemies kept piling up on top of them, and instead of being deterred only redoubled their efforts. They defended the streets of Berlin block by block, making the Communists pay with hundreds of thousands of more lives long after it was obvious Nazi Germany was doomed and could never win, while playing Wagner's GOTTERDAMERUNG on the public radio for God's sake. Can you IMAGINE the willpower that nation had? Is it any wonder their most famous movie is titled "Triumph of the Will?" Give people a radical, extremist viewpoint, something they can really get behind. Something that Matters. Something that does not talk about taxes or stock market prices or nihilist nothings, but cares about something real. Something you can give your life too, and be happy as the blood seeps out of your wounds. Something whose song, book, or flag can make you cry to hear. The Fanatical Few always have this, and thus always have the brave men willing to die for it. The Big Tents, dissolute and decadent and worst of all-- bougiousie--never have anything. No one has ever died for 'individualism,' 'lower taxes,' 'human rights,' ad nauseum. A Big Tent philosophy that seeks to please everyone pleases none, it can not fire its tepid citizens and lukewarm souls. Nothing is ever the 'breaking point.' There will always be a rationalization on why we must stay peaceful, democratic, christian, individualist, etc. The same old failed policies that make you popular but never change the world.

I am a 'Fanatical Few.' I like the Turner Diaries. It doesn't scare or shock me, it inspires me. I stand ready for the call, to kill and die, without mercy, so long as I could be shown some reasonable path to victory thereby. Thomas Paine was another 'Fanatical Few,' and he had this to write to his 'big tenter' colleagues:

"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated."

Even more can be learned from what follows however, what a close historical parrallel we find! :

"Why is it that the enemy have left the New England provinces, and made these middle ones the seat of war? The answer is easy: New England is not infested with Tories, and we are. I have been tender in raising the cry against these men, and used numberless arguments to show them their danger, but it will not do to sacrifice a world either to their folly or their baseness. The period is now arrived, in which either they or we must change our sentiments, or one or both must fall. And what is a Tory? Good God! What is he? I should not be afraid to go with a hundred Whigs against a thousand Tories, were they to attempt to get into arms. Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave."

Go through that paragraph and substitute 'why has the third world left their lands and come to our white shores? The answer is easy: China is not infested with Liberals, and we are.'

'I should not be afraid to go with a hundred Racists against a thousand Liberals--every liberal is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested whining is the foundation of Liberalism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.'

"I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel, against the mean principles that are held by the Tories: a noted one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, "Well! give me peace in my day." Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty."

Need I even translate? If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty. What has changed?

"Quitting this class of men, I turn with the warm ardor of a friend to those who have nobly stood, and are yet determined to stand the matter out: I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state: up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake."

Better too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake. Is there any greater object at stake than the survival of your race? Of, more specifically, the white race, the greatest and most blessed race of all? Can there be any higher stakes? If so, should we err on the side of too little force and not actually prevail or secure our land, leaving it to degenerate under the same perversion and decadence that polluted it in the first place due to an insufficient rooting out of the basic seeds of our destruction, or on the side of too much force and let the remainder of suffering fall upon our aggressors, our dispossesers, our invaders rapists thieves slanderers and murderers? Paine knew the answer!

"There are cases which cannot be overdone by language, and this is one. There are persons, too, who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them; they solace themselves with hopes that the enemy, if he succeed, will be merciful. It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf, and we ought to guard equally against both."

So true! You foolish, foolish liberals. You swedish foreign minister, may you rot in hell forever, with your "We must be nice to the muslims so that when they are the majority they will be nice to us." Do not expect mercy from the BEAST. Did the blacks show us mercy in Zimbabwe, in South Africa? Did the Jews show the Russians, the Ukrainians, anyone mercy in the USSR? Did the Allies show Germany mercy after the war was already over, when they went on to slaughter and rape millions of Germans all across Europe regardless? Do the muslims show any land they conquer mercy? Fools, fools! We know the hearts of our minorities already. If they are willing to prosecute hate crimes on only white people, give affirmative action to everyone but white people, tax white people to spend on themselves, engage in endless crime on white people, demonize white people with lies about stuff like the holocaust to every child 5 and up--in short if they are so willing to be unjust to us now, why do you think they will treat us better as the majority? Already life is intolerable, insufferable, chokingly infuriating due to these diversities. What possible relief do you expect 50 years from now?

"By perseverance and fortitude we have the prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice and submission, the sad choice of a variety of evils — a ravaged country — a depopulated city — habitations without safety, and slavery without hope — our homes turned into barracks and bawdy-houses for Hessians, and a future race to provide for, whose fathers we shall doubt of. Look on this picture and weep over it! and if there yet remains one thoughtless wretch who believes it not, let him suffer it unlamented."

Is this really 1776? This is 2008! Substitute Hessians for Negroes and the formula is complete--a new race to provide for, whose fathers we shall doubt of! Our country will be ravaged, the white flight from all our major cities has already begun, none of us have any safety in the diverse new world, and all of us live in slavery without hope to a system that robs us of everything, even our right to life, even our pride and self respect, to hand all over to the new preferred invader!

And so it goes. History is the same story over and over. A fanatical few, wielding their force of will and appealing to the force of reason, to the timid, cowardly, teeming masses of the big tent many, in a desperate attempt to forestall Satan's victory. As Edmund Burke said:

"For evil to prevail all that is necessary is for good men to do nothing."

It is the do-nothing big tent crowd that has never and will never prevail against evil. It is the active, ferocious, violent fanatical few who have won revolution after revolution and triumphed again and again. Sometimes on the side of evil, sometimes on the side of good, depending on whether the fanaticsm was based on truth or lies. But fanaticism at all times was the only currency of any value. Fanatics make history, everyone else is simply the parchment upon which history is written. Fanatics at least have a chance to be both right and victorious. Moderates can never be either, first because this world is Naturally violent and fanatical, evolution is Naturally extreme, and thus moderation has no place in our universe, and second because they never have the guts to fight anyway. What does it matter if 80% of Americans oppose illegal immigration? I have even seen polls of 30% that directly say they don't like blacks. This 80%, this 30%, is doing nothing and will do nothing to stop the death of their race. Meanwhile .0001%, a group of 20 people or so, are able to change the world.

10 comments:

Rollory said...

When you're wrong, you're very wrong - but when you're right, as here, you're inspiring.

Diamed said...

Well, thanks for your attenuated support, though I sort of consider all my beliefs to be connected. ;)

Observing Hermit said...

This is brilliant and inspiring. But, what I want to know is, when and how do we actually start doing something? Is it because we have not reached the "trigger point" you wrote about that we are still sitting around doing nothing except writing about the downfall of our people? What do you think the trigger point would be? How bad can it get before we whites (even the fanatical few) are roused to action? I am beginning to think there is nothing bad enough that can happen to awaken us. Look at South Africa. With all that is happening there, why is that not a trigger point for them? Since you seem to have a better grasp of history than I probably do, please tell me: what can you speculate that the trigger event will be?

I too am part of the 'fanatical few' you wrote about. But what are we waiting for? I tend to think part of it is that we are lacking a leader. What do you think?

Rollory said...

I strongly believe that society in general has not reached the point where action would be successful. Doing something now would be similar to John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry - he was convinced he'd ignite a slave uprising and trigger the North vs South conflict people were seeing coming, but as it was he moved too early to take advantage of the social dynamics that were at work. I think that's about where we are right now. Too many people are willing to lend support to existing authority structures. Doing anything right now would trigger blowback, not snowballing support.

What needs to happen is that everyday life needs to get somewhat disrupted - which the oncoming Greater Depression may well accomplish - so that people start seriously thinking about things and actually looking around them rather than at American Idol; and second, the basics of our ideas need to get into the popular consciousness. I consider that song in the youtube link to be a critical development in this regard - in England, one of the places most strongly under liberal tyranny, to start having ideas of heritage and ethnic us vs. them getting defined and sung about in a visibly popular song - that's big. The problem with music that tries to be explicitly pro-white is that it's mostly not very good; it achieves exposure because it's pro-white, not because of exceptional quality, which then leaves it open to ridicule.

A fanatical few _can_ make a huge difference in the right place and time, but the ground has to be prepared first. Ideas have to be boiled down to their essence so as to be easily grasped, and then spread widely. Young people have to be exposed to things that would cause them to take pride in themselves, to realize that they _have_ power. Churches do this to a certain extent but channel it in a largely useless direction.

I think opportunity is definitely on its way, but there are preliminaries to go through first.

Diamed said...

'what can you speculate that the trigger event will be?'

Simple: we must lose a war. Hitler rose to power in the chaos and unhappiness with the loss after WWI, the same with Lenin after Russia lost to the Germans. The easiest way to overthrow your current government is for it to first be defeated in war, its army smashed, its legitimacy questioned, and the populace suffering grievously from the occupation, the bad peace terms, the sting of lost pride, or the ravages of the opposing forces on their homeland.

Losing a war is a good objective 'wake up sign' to people that everything is not right in their country, that they are weaker than they should be, and vulnerable.

At the same time it makes people dislike their government and start looking for alternatives.

Also it makes life so desperate that more desperate solutions are listened to.

This is why the Vietnam war won't do, though it helps. The USSR fell after they lost the Afghan war, so losing even an 'unimportant' war is sometimes enough to lose your whole country and a new revolutionary government to come to power. But even better would be getting in a high stakes war where our own homeland was overrun and devastated, so that no one escaped the seriousness of the situation and no one could pretend that we just weren't 'trying hard.' After the Franco-Prussian defeat, France overthrew Napoleon III and became a republic. Nationalist China which basically lost to Japan in WWII was overthrown by the communists. This is just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are hundreds of additional examples across history. There is nothing like losing a war to topple a government. The biggest problem with any revolution is the government's army--if that has already been defeated, demoralized, and discredited as a fighting force, how much easier it is to oppose them. The second is the government's popularity. This will always be at rock bottom after losing a war. Third is people's love of security and peace. There's nothing like that after a traumatic losing war, everything is destroyed and deadly anyway, so people don't lose much by supporting revolution.

Of course, it's out of our hands when or if our countries get in and then lose wars. Nor is it legitimate for us to help the opposing side so that we lose, it must be shown that their policies and their decisions led to the disaster, not ours. That we are the solution not the problem. Best of all is if we were warning from the beginning that this would lead to a losing war and show we tried to stop it. While searching around for someone to destroy us leaves a rather scanty cast, it's possible in our hubris and overreach the muslims will eventually beat us, or maybe do enough terrorist attacks we at least feel defeated. It's possible we'll get into some stupid war with say, China over taiwan and they absolutely demolish us as we realize our multicultural meritless paradise is a paper tiger. Or maybe there will be some sort of mexican/muslim uprising within our own countries and they will lick the government attempt to stop it, and then we would join in with our own revolution in another corner and the army would be hard-pressed to stop either of us. This I think would be our best 'trigger point' to seize upon.

One of the problems with the racist movement's lack of leaders is they keep getting assassinated. Another is our side, by definition, is a quarrelsome and fractious lot unwilling to accept authority, popular opinion, or the idea that anyone knows better than ourselves. That's the only way we could have arrived at these conclusions against the entire cultural stream. It's well known how true revolutions deal with this problem: The nazis killed all their dissidents in the night of the long knives, the communists purged their own ranks and killed Trotsky for instance, in the french revolution the leaders of the revolution were constantly beheading each other. I suspect therefore the problem of leadership will solve itself. Many different leaders with slightly different programs will attempt to seize power within the general movement, and we will engage in a fearful self-slaughter until only one leader and philosophy is left. A more cheerful alternative is we all agree to first tear down the government, then go our separate ways and found a plethora of independent states in the carcass of the USA/EU/Canada/Australia. They are large landmasses after all. In any event, we'll have a leader eventually. Napoleon, after all, no one had ever heard of until two years into the French Revolution and the resulting wars against the neighboring monarchies. It's all a matter of timing and events.

Rollory said...

It may not take a war.

http://market-ticker.org/archives/692-The-Idiocy-of-Bernankes-Bubbles-and-CNBS.html

This guy has been spot on for point after point in the current crisis. If he's right about 30% unemployment - and he's predicted "monetary failure followed by political failure" previously, as a result of current bankster policies - that would have the same effect as losing a war.

bongoparty5 said...

I don't know about the whole "fanatical few" thing. Sure, most movements started that way. But what about all the movements through history, must be thousands of them, that started small and failed?

For every Mohammad there's 100 others who got nowhere. I don't have a solution either, but this post is a little overzealous about our situation.

Observing Hermit said...

I want to do something now, but since we are not ready to do something physical, I'm going to try my hand at a blog.

I'm mad as hell and I want other people of my ancestry to be mad too. So, until that 'triggering event' occurs, I'll at least try a little blogging.

If you can think of anything else, please advise. How can we meet like minded folks in our area? Nothing helps the psyche more than knowing that it is not alone (that is why blogs help). But face to face meetings would be even better.

Bongoparty5

Overzealous? Maybe, but if we don't try, we are annhiliated. Perhaps you have a better plan?

But, for that triggering event, no matter how far in the future it is, have the ammo ready.

Theo said...

Good post.

Dostoevsky wrote about this "extraordinary man" theory of history in CRIME AND PUNISHMENT (especially in Chapter 5 [Part 3])....start reading through these 5-6 pages beginning with the following link if you are interested: http://www.literaturepage.com/read/crimeandpunishment-266.html

Diamed said...

Dostoevsky is my favorite author.