Soft Infiltration or Armed Revolt?

[Fraxinus Excelsior]

We could infiltrate the world's parliamentary organizations, international stock exchanges, etc. if we had educated non-criminal individuals with ambition to actually do the "taking of power".

I have noticed individuals of that caliber on this forum; give them twenty years, and we'll regain the power in our lands.

[Telperion]

Exactly my point. We could infiltrate the world's parliamentary organizations, international stock exchanges, etc. if we had educated non-criminal individuals with ambition to actually do the "taking of power".

I have noticed individuals of that caliber on this forum; give them twenty years, and we'll regain the power in our lands.

Yes, but mind you more than ambition is required for this to succeed. Strategy, tactics, organization, coordination, discipline, intelligence on and counterintelligence against enemies etc. are all crucial. Isolated individuals in government and finance who are sympathetic to our views won't be capable of changing anything, since any attempt by such individuals to subvert the status quo would be detected and crushed by those who serve it.

And, some sort of alliance with some established power, whose interests would be served by such changes, needs to be made. E.g. even the Bolsheviks would not have seized power in Russia had they not had financial and other assistance from the German high command, nor would the Nazis have come to power in Germany had they not formed a tacit alliance with German industrialists. In both cases, the established power only supported the radical group because it felt they would advance its interests. Before they made these necessary alliances, both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis were totally ineffectual groups that were easily contained by the status-quo authorities in their respective countries.

[Fraxinus Excelsior]

And, some sort of alliance with some established power, whose interests would be served by such changes, needs to be made. E.g. even the Bolsheviks would not have seized power in Russia had they not had financial and other assistance from the German high command, nor would the Nazis have come to power in Germany had they not formed a tacit alliance with German industrialists. In both cases, the established power only supported the radical group because it felt they would advance its interests. Before they made these necessary alliances, both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis were totally ineffectual groups that were easily contained by the status-quo authorities in their respective countries.

Being that these examples all occurred in different nations at different places in time, which nation(s) do you believe we could reclaim in 10, 15, or 20 years? Argentina? Australia? Canada? The Netherlands? I have NO idea in which one of these nations it would be even remotely possible to reclaim power; all I "know" is: it won't happen through any armed revolutions.

You were 100% correct in stating that it will take "more than ambition"; But, ambition is where it all begins. A journey of a thousand miles...

[Telperion]

Being that these examples all occurred in different nations at different places in time, which nation(s) do you believe we could reclaim in 10, 15, or 20 years? Argentina? Australia? Canada? The Netherlands? I have NO idea in which one of these nations it would be even remotely possible to reclaim power; all I "know" is: it won't happen through any armed revolutions.

That's a difficult question of course. I think the state of technology today is such that any attempt at armed revolution could be easily crushed by the authorities, especially since they would shape people's perceptions of what was going on through the media. People have been conditioned for decades or more to support established power, and I suspect that is what most people will do in a crisis. So armed 'revolution' is not a viable road.

At the same time, we are talking about a revolution of sorts, but it is a political revolution that must be rooted in no small part in changing people's perceptions of their identity and their interests. A critical mass of the population has to be brought to firmly believe that their country is their own, and not that of non-white immigrants. This provides the popular base for such a 'revolution' to succeed. However, I don't see how people can be brought to this view without the cooperation of a sizable portion of the media (especially TV), with some support form academia to lend respectbility to such a movement. Something to think about is what sort of established power bloc might have its interests better served by the expulsion of non-white immigrants than by their retention.

To that end, I think one thing that is clear is that Europe is really the only place were such a revolution is likely to succeed. The 'immigrant culture' is so deeply engrained in 'colonial' countries like Canada, America, Australia etc. I don't think there is the slightest chance of any such revolution there. This is not least because there are groups such as e.g. blacks in the US who have been there as long as the whites, and who simply won't accept being relegated to second class status as part of a white power 'revolution'. If such a revolution were attempted, there would be civil war, and who is to say who would win? At the very least, such countries would be torn into smaller geographical units by such an attempt. Frankly I think these countries are doomed to go down the multicultural drain.

The only exception might be Quebec, if it could separate from Canada. The french Quebecois already have a strong sense of their identity, and the need to maintain their dominance in their own territory, which is quite absent in the rest of North America.

[Fraxinus Excelsior]

That's a difficult question of course. I think the state of technology today is such that any attempt at armed revolution could be easily crushed by the authorities, especially since they would shape people's perceptions of what was going on through the media. People have been conditioned for decades or more to support established power, and I suspect that is what most people will do in a crisis. So armed 'revolution' is not a viable road.

At the same time, we are talking about a revolution of sorts, but it is a political revolution that must be rooted in no small part in changing people's perceptions of their identity and their interests. A critical mass of the population has to be brought to firmly believe that their country is their own, and not that of non-white immigrants. This provides the popular base for such a 'revolution' to succeed. However, I don't see how people can be brought to this view without the cooperation of a sizable portion of the media (especially TV), with some support form academia to lend respectbility to such a movement. Something to think about is what sort of established power bloc might have its interests better served by the expulsion of non-white immigrants than by their retention.

To that end, I think one thing that is clear is that Europe is really the only place were such a revolution is likely to succeed. The 'immigrant culture' is so deeply engrained in 'colonial' countries like Canada, America, Australia etc. I don't think there is the slightest chance of any such revolution there. This is not least because there are groups such as e.g. blacks in the US who have been there as long as the whites, and who simply won't accept being relegated to second class status as part of a white power 'revolution'. If such a revolution were attempted, there would be civil war, and who is to say who would win? At the very least, such countries would be torn into smaller geographical units by such an attempt. Frankly I think these countries are doomed to go down the multicultural drain.

The only exception might be Quebec, if it could separate from Canada. The french Quebecois already have a strong sense of their identity, and the need to maintain their dominance in their own territory, which is quite absent in the rest of North America.

No argument here.

The political climate in Russia seems nearly favorable to a racialist "revolution"; but, Russia's too damn cold for me.

[Telperion]

This will only ever happen if we fight for it - if we are prepared to die in pursuit of this ideal. And I mean relly fight - not play the Party political con-game.

Personally, I am doubtful that an armed revolution is a viable path to take. Two problems with it are:

- Given today's technology, I think it would be impossible for any organization dedicated to armed revolution to be formed in a Western country, without the authorities detecting and infiltrating it, thereby giving them the ability to 'pull the plug' on the organization whenever they wish. All the billions the CIA, NSA and similar organizations dedicate toward electronic eavesdropping must do them some good, after all.

-If Europe or N. America did undergo an armed revolution, they would be in a state of chaos, and very vulerable to external attack. Who is to say that e.g. China would not use this as an opportunity to wipe out its Western rivals, once and for all? The geopolitical context has to be taken into account.

There is a crying need for revolution, but as I suggested above, it must be a revolution in people's perceptions of themsleves, their identity and interests (probably more likely in Europe than elsewhere). And some sort of powerful established ally has to be found to further an attempt to change people's perceptions if that attempt is to succeed - otherwise, it will be drowned out in hostile media propaganda.

[rhadley]

Personally, I am doubtful that an armed revolution is a viable path to take. Two problems with it are:

- Given today's technology, I think it would be impossible for any organization dedicated to armed revolution to be formed in a Western country, without the authorities detecting and infiltrating it, thereby giving them the ability to 'pull the plug' on the organization whenever they wish. All the billions the CIA, NSA and similar organizations dedicate toward electronic eavesdropping must do them some good, after all.

Well, I think if we hold steadfast to our values - honor, and loyalty specially - we can get round this, and if we use our brains. We think, plan ahead. Use old fashioned methods which aren't suspectible to techo eavesdropping - like Al Qaida does. Verbal messages. Dead letter drops and so on.

Also, the main problem re infiltration is not testing individuals; not researching their background; not knowing them. That is, a problem of recruitment. If a group recruited only from those known over a long period, and if they are really dedicated, there should not be a great problem. Groups like the IRA used this.

In addition - lone wolfs re leaderless resistance come to mind here.

Yet if we get one small successful group - surely that will lead to others imitating it. We need to create a modern "myth", a modern legend, that's inspiring. Even if this is only two or so individuals - surely doing something is important.

-If Europe or N. America did undergo an armed revolution, they would be in a state of chaos, and very vulerable to external attack. Who is to say that e.g. China would not use this as an opportunity to wipe out its Western rivals, once and for all? The geopolitical context has to be taken into account.

Chaos would be start - that's one aim of such actions.

As for external attacks - I think the phrase paper tiger comes to mind. But even given such an attack, so what? From the chaos, we would have a greater chance than now. IMNSHO such things are what we need to bring us back to our roots; to make us real Aryan warriors again; to carve out our own bases, homelands. Such chaos would give us the chances we need. And maybe that's what the States needs - occupation, then resistance, then a new beginning.

It's about destroying the System - the tyranny of current governments thusd enabling us to move toward our own ethnic homelands.


Unless we do something radical an soon, we're going down the road to real slavery and extinction. That's the bottom line.

[Telperion]

Well, I think if we hold steadfast to our values - honor, and loyalty specially - we can get round this, and if we use our brains. We think, plan ahead. Use old fashioned methods which aren't suspectible to techo eavesdropping - like Al Qaida does. Verbal messages. Dead letter drops and so on.

Also, the main problem re infiltration is not testing individuals; not researching their background; not knowing them. That is, a problem of recruitment. If a group recruited only from those known over a long period, and if they are really dedicated, there should not be a great problem. Groups like the IRA used this.

In addition - lone wolfs re leaderless resistance come to mind here.

Perhaps, although I wouldn't underestimate the power of the authorities to effectively manipulate, or at least constrain such groups, and shape how the public perceives them. Consider these examples:

- The IRA 'uprising' (or whatever it's called) has been going on in its modern form for about 34 years. What has it accomplished? Is Northern Ireland separate from Britain yet? No. Is there any realistic prospect it will be? Doubtful, as long as the British people refuse to reliqunish control of the territory. Indeed, the authorities have used the IRA attacks to galvanize British (English) pride, and promote the retention of Northern Ireland under British sovereignty.

- Al Queda; without getting into the 'What did Bush know?' issue, it is clear that Al Queda's attacks throughout the 1990's, culminating in 9/11, only succeeded because the US turned a blind eye to them. Since then, there have been no successful attacks in any Western country, with the sole exception of the Madrid train bombings; most of AQ's leadership have been caught or killed; and their communications and financial infrastructure significantly distrupted. And again, the authorities have used these attacks to create public support not merely for massive military intervention abroad, but also for domestic repression at home - i.e. Patriot Acts I and II and the Homeland Security Act.

- Timothy McVeigh thought of himself as a 'lone wolf' of this stripe. Obviously he was rightly condemned for targeting innocents (children and such). But look at how the authorities shaped perceptions of his actions - he was used to discredit the militia movement generally, and it is unquestionably weaker today than it was a decade ago.

So in all these cases, attempts at armed resistence have resulted in the reinforcement of state power and the system.

And, consider the example of how the Nazis came to power in Germany. This involved three phases. In the first phase, they engaged in a sort of violent resistence, culminating the the Munich Beer Hall Putsch fiasco, when they were crushed by the authorities. In the second phase, they spent the rest of the 1920's exiled to the political wilderness, an ineffectual group discredited at home and abroad. Only in the third phase, where they entered into the political arena through making alliances with some powerful vested interests (who sought to use them to ward off the threat of Communism) did their attempt to take power succeed.

Chaos would be start - that's one aim of such actions.

As for external attacks - I think the phrase paper tiger comes to mind. But even given such an attack, so what? From the chaos, we would have a greater chance than now. IMNSHO such things are what we need to bring us back to our roots; to make us real Aryan warriors again; to carve out our own bases, homelands. Such chaos would give us the chances we need. And maybe that's what the States needs - occupation, then resistance, then a new beginning.

This might have made sense up until a few decades ago, but I think you're underestimating how the existence of nuclear and bioweapons totally changes the nature of warfare where developed countries are fighting for their survivial ( as opposed to the sort of limited warfare we have seen in Vietnam or Iraq, where a powerful developed country uses conventional means against a weaker, undeveloped country). If a major power possessing such WMD's feels its survival is at stake, or power could be massively increased by the use of such weapons, than all bets are off. The Aryan warrior culture won't get very far if, during a civil war where the domestic military is losing control of the country, a hostile foreign power starts dousing its weakened rival with massive quantities of nuclear missiles, genetically engineered bioweapons, etc. If you're talking about real, open warfare, then these sorts of factors and risks have to be taken into consideration.

[rhadley]

Perhaps, although I wouldn't underestimate the power of the authorities to effectively manipulate, or at least constrain such groups, and shape how the public perceives them. Consider these examples:

All good examples, but such examples can also be learnt from. The main area of learning? Avoid civilian casualities - target infrastructure and specific individuals who are enemies, like public figures - politicians and so on.


BTW many would say the IRA have achieved a lot of their objectives on the ground.

- Timothy McVeigh thought of himself as a 'lone wolf' of this stripe. Obviously he was rightly condemned for targeting innocents (children and such). But look at how the authorities shaped perceptions of his actions - he was used to discredit the militia movement generally, and it is unquestionably weaker today than it was a decade ago.

Again civilian casualties are mostly to blame. We feel this is wrong; it's not Aryan.


Right idea; wrong target. But you've got to admire McVeigh's toughness in facing death like an Aryan.

So in all these cases, attempts at armed resistence have resulted in the reinforcement of state power and the system.

True but this has directly led to more people seeing The System for what it is.

For example, go to the Muslim world and most people know who controls America...

The repression is getting more overt, and more see this. We just need to take it a step further.


Main point seems to be to for covert groups, lone-wolfs to act in an Aryan way - to act and through action inspire others of our folk, as Myatt says in his Return of the Warrior essay - create a new Aryan legend, a new warrior archetype.

[Telperion]

If there were a role for such actions (limited in the specific ways you describe) to wake people from their slumber - to see the system for what it is, as you put it - what do you see happening next? Are you saying that if enough people understand the repressive nature of the current system, that alone would be enough to lead to its overthrow?

I still think the example of the Nazis in Germany is instructive; it is not clear (to me at least) how they could ever have attained power without holding their noses and aligning themselves with elements amongst the industrialists and military. As a counterfactual question, do you think they could have attained power through the strategy you've set out, and if so how?