what are we actually fighting for?

There are several reasons why the opponents of the globalist/social justice order always lose. One, which I have alluded to in other posts, is that we are simply not very good at choosing effective tactics. Another is that we are insufficiently ruthless. There is however another factor that may be even more important – we just don’t have a cause to which people are going to rally.

What we have is a miscellaneous assortment of dissidents who agree on very little, who have no coherent program, and worst of all seem to have no clear vision of the future that they want. They are often quite good at explaining what they are against but not so strong when it comes to articulating a positive vision.

Communism up to around the 1960s could always rely on having an endless supply of dedicated ideological warriors, both leaders and loyal foot-soldiers. I’m talking here not just about communism in actual communist societies but also communism in the West, where it gained a very substantial foothold (and it’s worth remembering that a very large number of western communists were not actual party members).

Communism gained such support because it was a cause in which people could believe, and believe passionately. Whether communism was ever likely to be workable in practice is not the point. It sounded reasonably plausible and it sounded very attractive. It sounded like the kind of cause for which it would be worthwhile accepting hardship, suffering or even martyrdom.

One of the reasons communism was so successful in gaining converts is that it appealed to both men and women. Men liked it because it sounded practical and scientific. Women liked it because it was emotionally satisfying – it was all about fairness and justice and therefore produced lots of good feelings.

Communism also had a theoretical underpinning. That doesn’t mean that the theories of people like Lenin and Mao were correct but they sounded impressive and they gave the movement intellectual respectability and discipline.

Communism therefore attracted a high calibre of both leaders and followers. And they had a plan. They were not reacting defensively. They were seizing the initiative. You can do that when you have a plan.

You could, incidentally, make almost exactly the same argument about the spectacular success of Christianity in the Roman Empire which culminated it its becoming the state religion. The early Christians had a coherent program, they agreed on essentials even if they differed on details, they were well-organised and well-disciplined, they had a clear vision of what they were trying to achieve and they came across as having a positive rather than a negative vision. It’s not surprising that early Christianity attracted formidable leaders, and loyal and dedicated followers willing to accept even martyrdom to achieve their aims. They were able to carry out what was in effect a very successful revolution. They were able to do so because their pagan opponents did not have a coherent program, were not organised or disciplined and had lost the kind of clear and positive vision of the future that they had once had. Pagans no longer had a cause for which they were prepared to fight or even die.

So how do we transform a motley assortment of vague and often contradictory dissatisfactions into a program that will unify opposition to the established order, capture people’s imaginations and give them a cause worth fighting for? It has to be a cause that is both attractive and that offers the opportunity to take the moral high ground, and it has to have genuine emotional appeal. I didn’t say it was going to be easy.

Advertisements

3 comments on “what are we actually fighting for?

  1. Have to begin with basics and not fool ourselves in any way. It must be naturalistic and eugenic, which means assertion of traditional gender roles, patriarchy, primacy of family, and by extension communities built on racial and tribal lines. (Absolute heights of bigotry according to the dysgenic Leftist)! The goal should be big families: at least 3, but ideally 4 or more. A big family should be a status symbol, rather a fancy car. Any stigma surrounding women staying home and looking after kids should be ferociously attacked. When you have a big family and family is the goal, you are less prone to consumerism and the degeneracy that surrounds us. Home schooling or schooling shared amongst local communities should be an aim too, to protect kids from degeneracy and raise them with communal interests, rather than as derascinated consumers. The Church certainly can have a big role, so long as the liberal degeneracy is rooted out. It may be necessary to start a new Church movement rather than try to reform one of the corrupted Protestant sects. Catholicism could work, although the latest Pope is a disgrace.

    Nationalism and conservatism will naturally come from a renewed emphasis on family and community. However, it would be beneficial for such like-minded people to become less open to outsiders and develop enclaves, much like Muslims do. A form of 'white Sharia' would actually be helpful. It is a larpy idea, but some tighter forms of community control and social shaming, like we had before the 60s, are feasible and shouldn't be dismissed. White people need to rediscover tribal thinking and nepotism if they are to thrive and not become the greatest victims of our increasingly multicultural societies – Jews are an example in this regard. The less white a country becomes the less liberal it will be, and we need to adapt to survive, which simply means acting like every other self-promoting ethnic group does.

    Near term goals should be meeting up with like-minded traditionalists, mostly within the Church, though there is a growing number of more secular Traditionalists. Online meetups, e.g. Skype, are perfectly fine and ideal for such currently dispersed and disconnected people. Also start pumping out the babies. And cut immigration.

    To answer the title in short: we're fighting for our family and tribe, which is our only future. We have these drives naturally, they are only repressed by indoctrination. Any other answer is just high-minded, politically-correct nonsense imo.

  2. *rather than a fancy car.
    Sidenote: A quick google reveals how the status of large families has changed over time: once seen as a sign of poverty, but nowadays seen as a sign of wealth, in some cases at least

  3. James Higham says:

    Brittany Pettibone has called for us to outbreed them. Getting a bit long in the tooth for that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s