It has been a subject of conversation many times.
When things were younger, in terms of time and circumstance, it was relatively easy to see the future and its import, by simply looking around and seeing the present situation for what it was: Two Poles – one of mass and one of leadership. The contrast was usually remarkable, and it could be followed and observed; one simply had to emulate and consistently practice what worked. The tactics and strategy varied from region to region, from organization to organization and, more importantly, from individual to individual Leader.
The mass, those persons who comprise the enormous bulk of obligation and duty to those who have been blessed, or cursed, with a world-view or vision which they are determined to complete, are compelled to complete, are often misunderstood by the very ‘mass’ which they seek to affirm in a changing and often hostile world to their needs and interests. This cycle has repeated itself, over and over again, over the eons of time, and for reasons too numerous to even consider here; the common thread however, is the relationship between the two poles necessary for any ‘movement’ or ‘political revolution’ to take place: Mass and Leadership.
One will be able to find numerous writings and philosophical constructs on War, politics, and strategy which will define and underscore the relationships between these two, but I feel it necessary to point out my own observations on the matter and, hopefully, add to the literature on the present-day developments and our future courses.
I find it interesting and depressing at the same time, when I see and hear from our brothers and sisters that there “just isn’t anything we can do”, and this works in conjunction with those individuals, driven all, who cannot, or will not, give up, thereby creating the same dichotomy which all movements have faced again and again: with time: those who ‘follow’ in a movement or cause, are usually the first ones to ‘give up’, while the driven and focused individuals seem to be left holding nothing but air. Moreover, I have been very critical of so-called Leaders in the past, and will be just as critical in the future, as we are seeing more and more of a ‘new’ generation’ coming to the fore, and making the same mistakes as their predecessors, albeit with a more composed and, to me, self-centered approach to the past.
Leadership is very important, obviously, since the mass must needs be led in directions best suited for their and our success; here is the eternal rub, since those who are either drawn or end up as ‘leaders’ are as varied as there are personalities and agendas – so how does one ascertain who is worthy of a following, and who is not? This simple mechanism is, in truth, a most complex and disheartening practice, and is like finding a needle in a hay-stack – precisely why so many good men are passed by the fickle and mostly spontaneous mass of individuals who care not for the person they may happen to look up too, but only for the dramatic effects which can be provided by this person. We have had great men in the past, complete with Organs of political or social/spiritual networks, the personal zeal and power requisite to establish a viable and working polity or institution to aid themselves and their people in the struggle for a future for ourselves and our children, was poised to enter the fray and show some measure of success.
What happened to all these efforts?
In many cases, as we can clearly see today, there is always a jockeying for power amongst 1) the ‘working-class’ zealots, those who experience change, or hardship, first-hand; 2) the intelligentsia, those who sympathize with their fellows, but generally lacking in any direct or potentially dangerous action which might bring this momentum to a culmination; 3) lastly, you have, if your are lucky, the pastoral segment who, as they claim, are ready to succor and protect their flock against the coming catastrophe of ‘worldly strife’ with the salve of compassion and instruction – many of these types are those who have commanded men, and raised some form of political access in the public eye but, with time, have generally accepted retirement with long mailing lists and a standard income, for the continual risk of their lives and fortunes for a generally mundane and forgetful mass whom they were willing to sacrifice everything for, is now unacceptable. This is has been the basic elements and life-cycle of our present-day movement leaders and followers.
I have been fortunate to have been exposed to many different types of Leaders, most of whom were honest, dedicated, unselfish, and moderately confined to the status of ‘true leaders’, covering a broad and relatively complex world-view, as some were theological in nature, political, or revolutionary. All these men, personally, got along very well, were not remiss in supporting or publishing articles about each other, and generally maintained a polite attitude for the efforts of the other; this was a true ‘gentleman’s agreement’ which stood the test of time, some 40 plus years. This group of Leaders, which I am talking about, were not in the majority of those ‘leaders’ who comprised the majority, those who were mostly behind the scenes, brought finance and traditional structure, like publishing houses, newspapers, periodicals and the like, as there was no ‘internet’ at this time, and ‘word-of-mouth’ was essentially the ‘world-wide web’. As one could imagine, however, this was problematic, and by the time general information would come back, it was entirely dissimilar to what had gone before – but not, generally, for those in the minority, as they relied on a small, dedicated, and trusted group who would, for the most part, carry out instruction, or provide for intelligence within the community or region. In other words, those leaders who were most successful, tactically, were the small organizers, or regional leaders whose influence would, on occasion, spread throughout the nation. These were, and are, the un-sung heroes of our folk-community.
Today, and this is being presented as fact, we now have ‘institutions’ existing on the Web, for they sell books, and are getting better with ‘podcasts’ and computer generated radio; this is, indeed, remarkable, yet allows for a false sense of security and advancement when, just as in the past, we lack any true Public figures who we 1) know – who have sacrificed and continue to serve; 2) trust – those who have neither backed down, nor have changed their essential faith; 3) who have a hard and dedicated sense of what is required to win; 4) and the most important, those who are able to Fund these programs. Once again, here is the dichotomy between leaders and followers – a true leader will do what is innate within him to do; followers seem to come and go, generally lacking in that dedication which will deprive them of family, home, and all those things necessary to a normal life – this seems to not be the lot for those individuals who are leaders, both in a natural and developmental sense – and without the generous or token support from the ‘mass’ will not have a chance unless supplemented by existing Institutional support, those with the means necessary to help implement those issues dear to the folk-community, and which stand the best chance in accumulating public support on a larger scale.
Today, as well as in days past, one may readily see a movement forward, supported and led by individuals who are making a name for themselves, and in most cases I do not see a failing attempt in developing corporate or institutional settings like we have not seen before; this will succeed, as long as there are those who, on their own, seek to maintain truth and excellence in what they propose, as well as receiving the natural acclaim of our folk-community. This is not as easy as it sounds, and add to this, those who exist in a public form who, as it happens, are not what they appear – this is the dual nature of friend and foe – of honest and dishonest, of provocateur and true-beliver. Do not think, for a second, that our opposition does not see the changing tide, and has been quick to fill the voids which occur sporadically and continually, with members of their own. The degree to which this may be accomplished may be small, but it does, and will exist. A professional acceptance of danger and ‘security’ was a problem for leaders in the past, and it will behoove those who really want to play in the game, to develop, or hire, those agents necessary to protect their interests, always careful to not ‘isolate’ themselves from their friends and reality.
There are many who know of the creeping malaise, the perversion of our tenets and articles of faith, by the immature, the naive’, the gossip-mongers, the myopic, and the ego-driven straw-men who always seem to ferret out those gullible enough to follow them, thereby driving a wedge between those individuals and groups who stand to make a difference. As I see it, there will soon not be room enough for hangers-on and sycophants, but only for those truly wiling to sacrifice for the general good, and to those who realize that this is not a short struggle, but one which will last – once one commits themselves, it then becomes a matter of honour to continue. Those that fade from view are many, those who truly believe and continue to hold the torch of struggle are few – but this has always been the case.
Our Existing Struggle
The 21st Century is, of its nature and essence, revolutionary.
This aspect is not to be looked for in the scenes of the barricades, or occupy movements, which are mere incidents , but in the fact that it places the average man – the great social mass – in conditions of life radically opposed to those by which he had always been surrounded, It has turned our public existence upside down. Revolution, then, is not the uprising against pre-existing order, but the setting up of a new order contradictory to the traditional one. Hence there is no exaggeration in saying that the man who is the product of the 21st Century is, for the effects of public life, a man apart from all other men. These are some of tenets and faith of white nationalism, and conservatism, that is, the ‘saving of tradition and order’ will not bear out in our present condition. This reasoning, this knowing, is what defines leadership in the near and distant future.
Everyone has a part to play, the ‘mass’ no less than those who extrapolate, devise, or develop the ways and means of our success; this time, however, both parts must accept only those who will finish, not simply start, the race. Everyone has a family, women and children whom they love, but the rhetoric and hope in a future for all these and more, is without merit if the duty and obligation each part holds to the other, is not met with consistent and long-enduring support. This battle is, in no small part, a battle of attrition, and our forces have little to bring to the table. Moreover, the need for funding and social-structure – such is ownership of speaking venues, the ability to finance efforts by individuals and groups to better reach the folk-community – are more essential now than ever, and each part must keep a wary eye out for those who would willingly mis-handle this duty.
Our struggle will continue for as long as there is a need for it; for as long as our men and women are devoid of consistent work, family, national sovereignty, complete land ownership (in perpetuity), and a definitive geographical place in which we may call our own. If your present leaders refuse to publicly announce these (as well as many others) issues for open and public discussion, then they are neither leaders nor comrades in this struggle.
As David Lane has said: : [Precept 71.]
The judgments of the guardians, the leaders, must be true to Natural Law and tempered by reason.