“Why do Intellectuals continue to hide behind Formality?”
This conversation has become more than just old, it is has become positively rancid.
The recent debacle (2010) of Jared Taylor’s AmRen Conference, and the aftermath of the virtual interplay between ‘opposites’, neither a true Hegelian construct nor, sadly, a positive planned aftermath, resounds with many a logical, persuasive, and democratically inspired remonstrance of ‘what went wrong’ with the trial and error of constitutional liberties, or lack thereof.
As Hunter Wallace, a young man, with a seemingly keen mind, reports his observations in his latest Occidental Dissent, as all young men do, having had little first-hand experience with the nuances and tactical implications of large-scale social events, has this to say after his trip and social interaction in the shadow of the AmRen Conference:
If, as Mr. Wallace states, the purpose and reason of attending Conferences confines itself to “…[for] networking, camaraderie, friendship, and behind the scenes action, “ then, in the near and distant future, we are worse off then I had realized.
While Hunter Wallace has showed acute racial understandings, inculcating with it, a strong sense of social understanding and, with it, its moral implications, his cavalier and remote sensibilities regarding the methodical and ‘hands on’ approach to the ‘fight’ is more symbiotic of the conservative leaders he is ofttimes at odds. Moreover, as has been advised before, certain intellectuals, with the energy requisite for future struggle should, at every opportunity, seek to map out, and strategically implement their own ‘world-view’ in conjunction with tried and true concepts, demarcating the surging racial-nationalism from that of the ‘tried and true failures’ of the past, namely, the inept, undisciplined and pathetic public displays which, without exception, have plagued white americans for many generations.
Hunter Wallace, however, is not the main thrust of this discourse, as he has many years left to give his people, and many more skirmishes to encounter.
The thrust of my intentions, as stated many times, covers in this piece, a two-fold observation:
1. The Words and Phrases by which we may take the field;2. The Unification of these words and phrases in a working and wining combination.
This sedentary approach belies the fact that, in toto, this lack of continuity brings that typical ruddiness to my upper extremities, which can only be described as maddening.
Firstly, let us address this issue of ‘words’, their consequence and continuity.
The Occidental Quarterly Online (TOQ), which highlights some very bright minds, indeed, some are incisive, lucid, and visionary; the rest, a competent ‘stable’ of writers, churning out the ‘accepted’ fare, demarcating the issues of the day, filling losses and voids with brilliant polemic and gratuities aimed at the amorphous and insubstantial will of ‘the people’, as it must needs be, as seen by these visionaries of the Pen, for they fail to fathom the insightful and commonsense presence of the Mass.
For instance, words, by definition, either increase or decrease the accepted level of energy, or hoped-for energy, by which to build a structured and politically effective machine – Jared Taylor (AR), Arthur Kemp, Bill Johnson (A3P), and Kevin McDonald1 come to mind – not for their inactivity, but in their lack of national and, in a moderate sense, the international, continuity and word usage (the use of Slogans and Phrases as a means to an end) which defines Propaganda proper to maintain and establish a justifiable position in the real and dangerous world of politics and power.
[Author’s Note: Since this essay was first penned, the years have brought, gladly, a stronger sense in just what we are doing, and what we stand for; however, the essential and tiring battle between ‘what we are, or are not’ going to be, is a maddening necessity. All in all, the players seem to be more amenable to the political stratagems, and tactics necessary to Win – not simply playing the greater sand-box which so many find tantalizing, each to his reasons and agendas, instead of embarking upon a Crusade – and only this will save our People – with all aspects and inclinations of Ego are put aside. Unity is more than idea, it is also action, ideas, and cooperation.FLS]
In the latest TOQ, author William Sheldon writes an overview of the latest AmRen Conference, the title saying reams about the discussion to come: Pro-White Conference 2.0.
It seems like a dream, no, a nightmare, to see this phrase ‘pro-white’ emblazoned across any so-called ‘political/philosophical’ magazine fighting for the rights and extension of White people; it is a weak reissue of ‘Back To The Future’, minus the known, and beloved characters, most are familiar with. After all, what is ‘pro-white’? That nomenclature has been dead some time now.
How does it go? Pro-white, racial determinism, racial-activist, and my favorite, racial realist which, supposedly, speaks loudly and lucidly to our opponents that we mean business. The tried and true, not to mention the hard-won term of White Nationalism, being addressed not at all by the four men listed above in a continuum of words and phraseology, which has such a strong mass appeal. This is the conundrum, which has stymied many an activist, aspiring or professional, in trying to deal with information which, in the main, is accepted by science and political theoreticians regarding race, social norms, tribalism, and political direction. Why do these ‘legal’ thinkers think that they will be able to by-pass the gauntlet of public outcry, of opposition slander and effective public campaigns of ‘anti-racism’ rhetoric which, to date, has maintained a winning programme in undermining our struggle to maintain Western man’s supremacy and national hegemony?
For Twenty-five years, the term White Nationalist has been associated with an evolutionary process, by which conservatives and ‘mainstreamers’ were offered an opportunity to change their old ways, their old nomenclature, and their old ways of losing what was hard-won by a generation of heroes; while their efforts and blood poured into the drain of forgetfulness, their bold intentions willed away by intransigence and apathy, it nevertheless rose, refreshed with new words and phrases by which to launch a new and emboldened flight. Yet, to this day, only within a few mass racialist venues, does this call go forth.
The Fourteen Words, likewise, suffers the same fate, as if the intention and implications are to subtle, or worse, too juvenile for ‘public figures’ to embrace. Not only is this an ultimate act of stupidity, but is also the ultimate act of effrontery to the mass of like-minded white people who, in the main, are common, routine, and simple folk who, unlike those whose mission it is to lead or challenge others to think, are simply lead by direction and inference, that is, by words and phrases which, in turn, are intentions which become action.
The lessons which have not been learned, by AmRen believers, or fledgling political parties, is that propaganda and political astuteness cannot exist without the incumbent street theatre; this is a fact, and is not limited to virtual reality. Street activism should not be shunned, rather, as the past has shown us, no article of faith or intent was ever won without some boldness or pro-active public sentiment.
Mr. Sheldon, in the same article, offers these thoughts and ideas for, one would assume, the subscribers and supporters of The Occidental Quarterly, a collective, if you will, of the minds and movers of the ‘pro-white’, if not White Nationalist strategists and leaders:
(a) Do not change, keep trying to hold the event in private facilities.
(b) Buy up land somewhere and hold an event on private land.
(c) Hold the event in a public venue.
This is the best of the three, because it puts government into the picture as a mediator. However, it does not address how to deal with terrorism from groups like the One People’s Project, ADL, SPLC, or any dozen other ‘pro-ethnic’ groups. It is also vulnerable to government hostility towards the organizers.
Mr. Sheldon then offers a more concise and directed personal approach:
I would like to offer another scenario. Before describing it I need to define the various components of an academic conference.Speakers: Good speakers motivate people to pay a registration fee and travel.
Lecture facilities: Conferences provide a place for those attending to gather in one place and listen and ask questions in real time.
Comfortable lodging: People attending like to stay in an attractive, comfortable location, close to the lectures.
Face to face networking: It is often said that the real activity at conferences is between sessions. Conferences give people who share a profession, academic discipline, or interest an opportunity to meet and talk in person.
Not bad. Now let’s start the process and get on with it. We have at least 40 years in which we should already be there and more.
I recently listened to Jared Taylor’s interview on Russia Today (RT), and to his credit, did fairly well; however, I heard nothing of a larger, comprehensive, Political effort, its phraseology, nor its implications of mass momentum – White Nationalism would have done that. ‘pro-white’, you have got to be kidding. The female reporter showed a complete disconnect with that one. No one fears you, and no one knows you, how then can being ‘pro’ anything aid your political calling?
A good modern example, to make my point, is Lech Walesa, the Leader of the Solidarity Movement in Poland:
Notice, if you will, the words ‘activists’ and ‘organize’ within the context of our discussion. Leadership evolved after going up against a Communist regime, with absolutely NO first amendment right to ‘freedom speech and assembly’, and committed himself alongside his fellows, before the long road brought his party to some semblance of victory.
The point, here, is the dichotomy, as is always the case, between the ‘need of a thing’ and the activities which bring them to fruition. We had the same chance thirty years ago, but lack of vision and fear of ostracization kept us all from a successful mission.
I submit, as well, that yet another issue needs to be addressed, and that is the fact that, while we have (even though it is a fait accompli) individuals who ‘speak’ to us but, do they, in fact, speak ‘for us’? This question seems to rest on the simple fact that, to date, there is no mass reaction on the streets, nor in the manifestations of inter-group support, while in the real world, the left has, and will continue to maintain their hegemony, in defending their interests ‘against the man’, the singularly most instructive aspect of revolution, change, and tactical supremacy: a vivid Point of Attack. Staying above the field, not using your head, nor being a little spontaneous is, without a doubt, a losing contest.
So, continuity and uniformity in all things, especially in what we present the Public, needs to be utilized, now, without any more reorganization, analysis, or delay. If not, these attempts at exercising freedom of speech and assembly will continue to fall flat, and waste valuable time and efforts.
This particular essay was written several years ago, and has been updated by the Author for this installment ~ The Staff
1. Dr. MacDonald, unlike the larger part of the racialist milieu is not lacking in specific qualities and disciplines which afford his world-view with a stronger sense of the ‘unified concept’ of white nationalism – whether he uses this word contemporaneously with his public positions is a small matter, as his message is wholeheartedly in line with the tenets of White Nationalism.