Many ask themselves, What will it take for White people to finally react and take decisive and effective action to change the status quo? How much worse does it need to get before they finally decide that they have had enough of this politically correct anti-White nonsense?
It is a good question.
And sadly, my answers will induce deep depression.
In my dystopian novel, Mister, I make an excruciatingly grim and detailed exploration of a future where the White race is inexorably sinking, overwhelmed by the uncontrolled growth of a chaotic, multicultural West, riddled with labyrinthine and corrupt bureaucracies, crushed by debt and predatory taxation, choked by regulation and incomprehensible legislation, impoverished by scarcity and hyperinflation, and brutalized by inter-racial hostility and ruthless competition for ever-shrinking space and resources. The world of Mister is a hot, overcrowded world where nothing works, and where the only signs of resistance come from a radical underground of hardcore fanatics (the Esoteric Hitlerists).
While I mock the end product of the liberals’ virtually unopposed pursuit of their utopia, my main target of criticism in the novel is the respectable conservative. Liberals will be liberals, after all, and, because their sensibilities are probably largely inborn, they are beyond persuasion. The respectable conservatives, however, have no excuse: they know better, yet they choose to remain silent out of fear of being called names; they could act for the long-term good of all, but choose to insulate themselves out of fear of experiencing short-term discomfort. It is they who make the liberal dystopia possible.
The main character in the novel is one such respectable conservative: a highly gifted, middle class, middle-aged, White IT consultant, who decided long ago that he, as a mere individual, was powerless to change the course of history. Because he is Everyman and spiritually an empty vessel, the character remains nameless: but readers call him Mister. As a result of his policy of crypsis and avoidance, he eventually gets what he deserves: he is arrested and detained for reasons that are nebulous and spurious, but which are professionally convenient and adaptive to his non-White inquisitors. While in detention, Mister, has an epiphany and realizes that it was his efforts to not rock the boat that led him to share a cell with common criminals. Unfortunately, however, when bureaucratic intrigues result in his being freed, he quickly reverts back to his old self. There is no lasting transformation.
In his recent review, Edmund Connelly expressed disappointment at the fact that Mister failed to extend his prison-cell insights into revolutionary action. But this was precisely the point: The White revolution that has been fantasized about in consciously pro-White fiction is highly unlikely to occur; and, certainly, we cannot rely on the respectable conservative to speak up or contribute to any kind of effective oppositional action anytime soon. When the respectable conservative’s life is directly threatened, and when it is obvious beyond doubt that his only immediate options are victory or death, he might consider doing something then. Otherwise: he is too scared. The problem, of course, is that when the establishment — the power clique that dispenses the rewards and the punishments — is liberal and anti-White in character, the respectable conservative needs the respect of the very faction that hates him. Emasculation becomes then the price for social status and personal advancement.
“Respectable” — but never admirable — conservatives
The incrementalist strategy that has been pursued by the liberals, and which remains informed by the insights of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci, means that a respectable conservative can gain enormous material advantages at the price of occasionally making small concessions to political correctness. Material advantage is a sure winner in a consumer society, while the philosophy of rational self-interest that is part of its ideological structure makes it seem not worthwhile to subject oneself to what seems a great deal of hassle and social discomfort in order to oppose a concession on an overly-noisy but otherwise superficially trivial issue. Non-conformity, insurrectionary efforts, and revolutionary activity demand risks and sacrifices, and offer no guarantee of success — a situation that is unacceptable to the archetypical Homo Oeconomicus.
If one considers, in addition, that European-descended peoples tend, more than perhaps their counterparts (except South East Asians), to understand actions in the context of long-term consequences, and (unlike Asians) to be among the least ethnocentric and endogamous of human populations, one fears that, under most circumstances, a White revolution is not only highly unlikely, but well-nigh impossible.
When it comes to important and difficult decisions, the human tendency is to dither and procrastinate, to ignore or rationalize known problems, until faced with a major emergency. And even when faced with such an emergency, the human tendency is to treat the symptoms and not the causes, which usually compounds the original problem. Often, the treatment is too little too late, and humans are eventually forced, or finally choose, as best they can to adapt to changes that were once avoidable but which have since grown too costly to reverse.
The only circumstances I envision where the European-descended constituency is likely to re-discover its collective identity, to summon its courage, and to actively seek to regain the social, cultural, political, economic, and demographic initiative in pursuit of its long-term interests, are ones where living conditions have become intolerable. And the only circumstances I envision where the effort is likely to succeed, are ones where the culprits — the current political, media, and academic establishment — are correctly identified; and where it is obvious that victory or death — us or them — are the only options.
Our leadership is incompetent, and, as its members are replaced by progressively less able indigenous and imported personnel, living conditions will eventually become intolerable for the remaining White minority — being a minority that is not part of a ruling elite, and being a minority resented by a hostile majority, has historically been an unhappy situation. Maintaining the status quo makes this simply a matter of time, and, therefore, relatively easy.
More difficult will be for the bulk of the European-descended constituency to correctly identify the culprits. The task of identification is incumbent on us. However, the fact that our establishment is, on many levels, heterogeneous and includes many who look and sound like us, poses a significant difficulty, as humans are more easily persuaded by graphic indicators (e.g., physiognomy, style of dress, body language, iconography) than by conceptual ones (e.g., subscription to a series of abstract principles). Moreover, our establishment consciously and subconsciously engages in verbal and visual crypsis, deception, and self-deception, so the lines of demarcation, separating friend from foe, truth from lie, reality from fiction, are far from clear, and nearly impossible to identify, let alone conclusively prove. For this to be possible, the enemy would have to constitute a visually distinct, homogeneous, endogenous, and highly visible minority.
The enemy of course know this, and are willing to use every trick in the book to keep their project alive for as long as it is physically possible. For them, their project is vitally important, momentous, the defining moment for humanity, their one and only chance to build a brave new world. It is also a matter of personal survival: They know that, should their project fail, they will be blamed for the chaos that they have caused in pursuit of their utopian vision, and may well end up in prison — or worse. After all, people bred on revolutionary rhetoric know that history provides many examples proving the old adage that those who are in prison today, may well be in power tomorrow; and those who may well be in prison tomorrow, are in power today.
What Is To Be Done?
In previous articles I have argued (see here and here) that superiority of argument is a necessary but insufficient condition for inspiring a change in the status quo, and that mastery of style trumps superiority of argument every time. I believe that an effective strategy for us will need to rely more on drawing positive attention to ourselves, than on drawing negative attention to the enemy. We need to do both, of course, but, so far, the emphasis on the Right has been on analyzing, discussing, and criticizing at great length what has gone wrong in the West, without offering a clear alternative vision of society that can appeal to the average, law-abiding, family-oriented citizen, and not just wild-eyed fanatics. Moreover, the emphasis has also been on logical argument, hard facts, and scientific data, without packaging them in a visually distinct, emotionally inspiring, and psychologically appealing style. As a result, the opposition, who understood the importance of style early on and have since become consummate stylists, has been able to cast themselves in the role of young, bold, fun, dynamic, open-minded progressives, while dismissing our side as comprised of uptight, cantankerous, backward, close-minded, and frightened old men. Their successful practice perpetuates this self-serving stereotype.
Although justified in his anger, images in the mainstream British media of BNP Chairman and MEP Nick Griffin are almost invariably chosen to suggest a nasty, uptight, cantankerous, frightened, demonic, and somewhat pathetic politician — not the image of leadership a style-conscious voter would chose for himself. This contrasts with the mainstream media’s choice of images of angry liberals, even one like Bob Geldof (see below)
Is it that Nick Griffin does not photograph well, while Bob Geldof does? Is it that Nick Griffin is nasty and pathetic, while Bob Geldof is righteous and visionary? The answer depends on who is doing the shooting (see below).
The seeds for an alternative, unapologetic, self-consciously European style already exist. We can find their expression in its most highly developed form in an interlocking network of loosely related music scenes: Black Metal (particularly the Viking Metal and Folk Metal sub-scenes), Neo-Folk, and Martial Industrial. They very effectively combine the hypermodern and visionary with the archaic and the nostalgic, thus disproving the liberal myth that traditional values and cutting-edge techniques are mutually exclusive propositions. They also operate at a pre-rational level, which makes them more resistant to rational terrorism: One can refute an argument, but not a primal emotion or an immemorial spirituality. Even non-fans of this type of music would do well to closely study the graphics associated with it, and to think of ways to take whatever is relevant and/or useful from them so as to convert them and re-purpose them to work in other areas — political, cultural, and economic. The triumph of liberalism during the 20th century, particularly during the 1960s, adds weight to Jacques Attali’s theory, that the music of the present is the sound of the future. In other words, we hear the future decades before it becomes an institutional reality.
Martial Industrial: Emphasis on militarism, heroism, elitism, and strength
Pagan / Viking / Folk Metal: Emphasis on heroism, nostalgia, nature, mysticism, and indigenous European traditions.
And, in as much as institutions are resource-hungry, in a capitalist/consumer society the institutional reality can only materialize with the accretion of economic power and the establishment of economic independence. So long as we are dependent on the munificence and toleration of an inimical establishment, the latter will retain the ability to limit our scope for oppositional action, for a materially disprivileged aesthetic suggests an underlying idea with low social status. Few ever want to suffer low social status.
My conclusion, therefore, is that we would be ill advised to pin our hopes on the prospect of a future White revolution, like the one prophesized by William Pierce in The Turner Diaries. It could come to that, but I suspect that, barring a serendipitous confluence of circumstances, conditions will not deteriorate sufficiently or rapidly enough to inspire ordinary people — or even an ethnically defined movement — into attempting a drastic overthrow of the establishment before the numbers make the effort quixotic and futile. Some see opportunity in the present economic crisis, but it must be remembered that Germany was ravaged by hyperinflation during 1922–1923, and even during the final stages of economic collapse, Hitler’s attempt at a seizure of power failed. When he succeeded, it was by legal means, through a combination of distinctive style, intensive marketing, economic muscle, and skillful maneuvering against a weakened, unstable, and discredited political establishment. We will have better chances of success by consciously asserting our intellectual, emotional, and spiritual independence, and building a parallel universe — a society within a society — designed around our virtues. These virtues can prosper and strengthen and act as a beacon of superiority as the establishment weakens and falls apart by dint of its own physical corruption and moral bankruptcy.
There is, however, a finite time horizon for effective strategizing. The more time passes, the more radical the measures that will be required to achieve the same objectives. If too much time is allowed to pass, we will eventually find ourselves stranded in a brutal future where our prospects are beyond all hope.