Who Can You Trust?

Who can you trust? Trust is assumed in a lot of situations, but other times the question needs to be asked directly.

I was reading some true crime book about motorcycle gangs. A meth cooker was said to work only with guys he had been in high school with or in prison with. That would assure him they weren’t a cop, but not that they hadn’t been turned later.

Outlaw motorcycle gangs in general have few security breaches. They are very difficult to join and undercover law enforcement can’t do it. An ATF guy tried to join the Hells Angels in Arizona but couldn’t go all the way. They have had snitches, some guy wrote a book about snitching on some Hispanic OMGs in California.

If you have spent a long time with some people and shared difficult experiences, you will tend to trust them. That’s the essence of the English public school experience- something whitewashed quite a bit in Harry Potter. Soldiers trust each other if they have been in combat together.

People who grow up together in the same town or are closely related trust each other. In southern Italy, people normally marry people from the same small town, so they are doubly close. This helped the Mafia organize and stay together.

A great deal if not most of the world is like this. The most extreme example is the Arabs, who prefer to marry first cousins- ideally the father’s brother’s daughter.

HBD Chick has written extensively about this, the example above, and how in western Europe the church banned cousin marriage to make people less clannish. Here “family” means the nuclear family. Elsewhere “family” is your extended family. Here you only economically depend on your nuclear family, and only see the others a couple times a year at best (or worst). Elsewhere the extended family is your means of survival, for housing, jobs, food and necessities when you are out of work, and social life.

The West is sometimes described as “high trust” because people trust the government and they trust the legal system and formal institutions. But they have weak relationships otherwise and don’t cooperate outside of formal institutions.

Even non-governmental social organizations are very weak. Church, clubs, and fraternal organizations were a staple of life for a long time, but with the government safety net of social democracy- and other forms of filling time, especially television- these are largely gone.

The church is really the last of these. Evangelical churches have lots of activities and help their members some. The Mormon church demands a lot of time from members but I think is also better at helping them.

How does the system decide who to trust? The simplest matter of trust is credit. Everybody has a credit score and that determines whether you are trusted with a checking account, a credit card, occupancy of a dwelling, and frequently a job. Everybody has a criminal record, or lack of one. This is a matter of how hard and far back the investigator wants to look, and if you have ever been arrested there is a record of it. Security clearances are based on financial reliability, any formal conduct issues, and what the investigator can determine about you from interviews with people they can find from your past.

Informally, it’s who you know. If you have somebody willing to certify your good behavior and performance that’s a big help. All desirable jobs and important positions are filled this way. Going to a prestigious school gives the person a formal credential, but also contact with people who can certify him, other students, professors and administrators.

It’s a question of the stakes involved. If you are being screened for employment at a bank, you will get a close look. If you are applying for a security clearance, you will get a very close look. (Unless you are a recent immigrant from the Middle East and they can’t verify anything, then they will just wave you through.) If you are looking for day labor, you won’t get any.

With informal actors, the same situation exists. If somebody wants to buy drugs from you, you will probably want a referral. If you want to buy drugs from somebody, you will be more inclined if a friend tells you he has good stuff. If a strange person suggests you engage in criminal activity with him, you will assume he is crazy or a cop. If he’s a fellow member of your Hells Angels chapter you have known a few years, you can probably trust him.

Can organizations with tight security be penetrated? The LAPD was penetrated by the Bloods gang. (Penetrating the police is obviously a good thing for a gang to do, but apparently the Crips thought themselves too good for this.) A young black guy from the hood with no record is a highly desired police recruit, and even if they wanted to they couldn’t track down all his junior high school friends and see what they were doing now. A similar thing happened in Boston. Some kid from South Boston grew up to be an FBI agent, and as a young boy he had admired an older kid named James Bulger and was able to help him out a lot as a fed.

The Gulenists of Turkey ran a test prep service which they used to identify bright young people and then recruit them. There was no way to observe the contact and they placed many in high places. The Gulenists were undone by a communication security breach, but that’s another story.

Anybody or any group wants to know about others, but not be known itself, other than how it wants to be know. The term counterintelligence state was coined to describe communist regimes; indeed counterintelligence was a more prestigious position in the KGB than intelligence. Maintaining your own secrets may be more important than knowing others.

Intelligence and counterintelligence are a cat and mouse game, very complicated. People who are thinking stuff the system doesn’t like have good reason to be very careful. People who want to do stuff the system doesn’t like have even more reason to be very careful.

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Guns Versus Eyes

A lot of people are obsessed with guns. These people tend to roughly be patriot types, mainstream conservatives at heart who distrust the system and see the possibility of collapse. Or they are preppers, or sometimes more extreme types.

But as Ryu constantly reminds us, the typical gunman a police officer or a soldier is just a small cog in a much larger machine. He can’t function without massive support, so the gun by itself is pretty useless.

The gunman has lots of logistical support, transportation and communication. But what he needs more than anything is eyes. He has to know where to go and who to turn his gun on, and if he doesn’t, he and his support system can defend themselves, but can’t assert control. Guerilla warfare mostly involves establishing bases in hostile areas, then defending those bases. Patrols outside the base are made, and the patrols are defended. People are accosted, rousted, and questioned, and sometimes useful information is obtained, but if the population does not want to cooperate, there is a stalemate, or a Mexican standoff.

From the other side of the fence- what can you do with guns? In modern “peacekeeping” or “stability” operations most of the occupying force wears uniforms and moves around in large, marked vehicles. In modern society, control is distributed among many people, who are not easily identified unless you are in direct contact with them.

As things get uglier, people opposed to the system may want to do something, but who is in control is the first order of business. What are their names? What position do they hold? What do they look like? Where do they live? Who are their family members? What vehicles do they own and drive? As Yogi Berra said, you can see a lot just by watching.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Why the Left Shouldn’t Attack Confederate Monuments

When I visit the South, I notice how prosperous and peaceful it seems. I’m going to the places that business travelers and tourists go to, which is not representative, but still it’s quite nice. Beyond the economic prosperity, there seems to be much less general anger and agitation, especially racial. There are fewer Hispanics, and blacks don’t seem to be wanting to cause trouble.

The Civil War was a pretty ugly conflict. Reconstruction was worse. Despite years of military occupation, the US couldn’t force the white population to treat blacks as legally equal citizens, much less social equals. Even northern liberals seem to have regarded the project as stupid, from the hostility to Grant and racial equality expressed later in the century.

In the end the US decided to leave well enough alone. The South would remain a part of the US, and would have its own racial policies. The South continued to have a lot of power in Washington- a Southern city, after all- and used this to their benefit.

The people in charge came to the conclusion that it didn’t need an internal threat that could cause it a lot of trouble. The late 19th century was a time of reconciliation, falsely called the Lost Cause, which was a qualitatively different thing, but simply taking the view that the South had honorably fought for the right as it saw it, and could be respected for it.

Another threat flared up with the populist politics of Huey Long. Long was killed- by a crazed lone gunman, of course!- but the US adopted a similar, if less radical, form of populist redistribution that pumped a lot of money into the South. The New Deal did not challenge racial segregation, South or North.

Then came the “civil rights” movement, which was a product first of communism and then of the Cold War. Communists regarded blacks as potential revolutionaries, and invented the idea of racism- irrational oppression of non-whites- as a way to motivate blacks to support communism. Once the Cold War developed, the US and the USSR came into competition for allies in the Third World. The US found formal segregation as practiced in the South to be embarrassing and moved against it.

Formal segregation was a way that the South had to cope with blacks. The majority in the South regarded it as essential, but there was a significant number did not. The South was still a traditional agrarian society, but it was also a place for manufacturing and urban business. To the business community formal segregation was an embarrassment and bad for business, and they greased the skids for Northern initiated desegregation.

Informal segregation works in the South because the truth is, blacks don’t really want to hang around whites too much. They find us a little boring and stiff, they like themselves- they like themselves a lot– they like other blacks, they like their own culture, they have their own neighborhoods, their own churches, their own barbecue places, and they don’t need to see whitey too much outside of work.

Bad black behavior is still a problem, but the South has a strong criminal justice system and it mostly affects blacks and poor whites that the business people don’t care about. Southern pride is still strong and cultivated by institutions like college football. The occasional Confederate flag on a pickup truck and Confederate statue in a park reminds white Southerners of who they are, beyond working for Coca Cola or Nissan.

The South has mostly been at an uneasy peace since the Civil War, but it remains the strongest internal potential opposition to the US. Embarrassing or humiliating people agitates them and brings them out of their normal state of passive acceptance, the state which allows most living creatures to function on a day to day basis.

The historical policy of the US towards the South since the Civil War has been to leave it alone as much as possible, and this has avoided large scale social conflict. The smart thing to do would be to keep it this way, but for better or worse the people in charge have been getting dumber and more childish for some time now.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

The Trouble With LARPing……..

Live action role playing, or LARPing, is a form of game play where participants act out the actions of characters in the game. “LARPing” has come to mean any use of archaic right-wing political symbols, specifically Nazi or NSDAP symbols.

Now, I’m the last person to tell you not to be a Nazi, or not carry a Nazi flag for reasons of “optics” or scaring normies or being a loser dork. However, that does not mean there is not a problem with using archaic symbols in current political activity.

The same problem applies to the left as well, to the use of revolutionary communist and anarchist symbols like red flags and the hammer and sickle. The problem is this- the conditions that created the organizations that created these symbols are not the same now as they were then.

The National Socialist German Workers’ Party came into existence in the collapse of German society after WWI. The German army and people thought they were participating in a negotiated truce, not an abject, unconditional surrender. The army, or at least its soldiers, did not lose credibility in the collapse. The veterans still trusted each other and when they decided to band together to put an end to communist, Jewish subversion and destruction of German society, the people trusted them and followed them.

The Communist Party in Russia was composed primarily of Jews. Jews trust each other and cooperate with each other against their host societies. It’s what they do, and the communist revolution was just one example of this. Many communists were not Jews; a critical majority were. Jews trust and cooperate with some non-Jews, as long as Jews are clearly in charge of the enterprise. This is also what they do.

The NSDAP was not, as the alt lite and associated nitwits will tell you, a left-wing organization. It did however use tactics that have historically worked only for left-wing organizations and that can now probably only work for left-wing organizations. They were a public, urban mass political movement with tacit governmental support. The dissident right does not have tacit government support and can’t operate in the same way.

The NSDAP- and the CPSU- formed under certain specific circumstances with certain specific leaders and members, and chose symbols to represent themselves. You can’t create a national socialist political movement with an NSDAP flag or other imagery, because that’s not how symbols work.

If you want a national socialist political program, you have to get like-minded people who trust each other to come together. Having done so, they will create symbols. I don’t think those symbols or aesthetics will resemble too much those of the NSDAP.

Aesthetics matter to the members of the organization and to outsiders. Any serious nationalist movement will probably be formed by Southern military veterans. American military veterans are much less likely to form an anti-system alliance than the German veterans of WWI. American veterans are very conformist and submissive to authority. Still these are the only people who will possibly take action. If they do band together, they will use symbols that they feel represent them. The League of the South uses a black St. Andrew’s cross on a white field. Other Southern nationalists use the Bonnie Blue flag.

Black is a traditional fascist color as a color of formal authority. In America dark blue is the color of formal authority and seriousness and a more likely color to be adopted.

Symbols and images are tools. Tools change over time and what people used generations ago probably isn’t appropriate today.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Leadership Is Social Dominance

Leaders are born, not made. Not being a leader I thought for a long time that wasn’t true, that a smart, capable person with proper training could be a leader but that’s clearly not true.

Social dominance is a personality trait. If you drop five people off on a deserted island, pretty soon one person will be in charge and telling the others what to do. There may be some friction, some resistance, some jostling for position, but it will happen. If you drop twenty five people off, one will be in charge of all and some other will be in charge of sub-groups.

This person or these people won’t necessarily be the smartest, or most conscientious. This bothers smart, conscientious people to no end but it’s the truth.

In more complex situations there will be different types of leaders, with their own ranking. Howard Bloom describes this as leader, bully, joker, nerd. The dissident right has no shortage of “nerds”, or intellectuals. But these people are the lowest level of leadership. With the advent of the memesters, it now has some jokers, and jokers have breathed life into the movement that was intellectually strong but dry before.

Nothing is going to happen though until some enforcers and most importantly, charismatic leaders emerge. Who? From where? I don’t know. No one knows, probably not even the men themselves who take on these roles.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Kai Murros and National Revolution

Kai Murros is probably for most people a curiosity, known best by this image and quote that you see on Twitter occasionally-

img_9789

So I decided to read a little more about him, and I was astonished. He has the most profound insights of any nationalist thinker I have read, has expressed clearly ideas only dimly seen by me, and proposed solutions to several problems plaguing nationalists.

For a nationalist, he’s pretty off the wall. He comes from a communist or Marxist philosophical background, while rejecting communism and Marxism. In particular he uses the revolutionary ideas of Mao and applies them to nationalism.

He is definitely a socialist and definitely an advocate of the white working class. Laying aside what “socialism” actually means- I don’t want to upset Vox Day!- and considering that all modern political systems have a social aspect, I think this is entirely appropriate.

From cursory study, Mao’s big idea was the concept of the “base area”- an area controlled by revolutionaries where they establish control and gain strength. Everyone else- left and right- seems to have always regarded politics as an urban thing, because that’s where formal politics happen, and that’s where the money and power are. Political events happen in the city, and the result is imposed on the country.

As we saw in Charlottesville, however, leftists control the city. They control the police and the courts. Nationalist activity is aggressively suppressed in the city.

One question for nationalists is, do we have a service organization or a military organization? Golden Dawn is both. Some nationalists- Mindweapon for a long time, Ryan Landry recently- propose a service organization. Ryu advocates direct action.

Murros says it must be both, and this organization must start in the base area or areas. Another problem is, are the police our enemies or our friends? To Ryu, they are the enemy. To VXXC, they can’t be our friends, but they can be neutral.

City police are firmly in the control of leftists and have been for decades. Rural police- particularly in the South- are more likely to turn a blind eye to armed political action, partly because of sympathy and partly because they are few in number.

Rural areas are the best places to start nationalist action. The people are more likely to be traditionalist, feel hostile toward the city power structure, and feel abandoned by it.

The best example is drugs. Legal opioid addiction and associated heroin use are the worst in rural areas. Everybody knows who the pill mill doctors are, and who the drug dealers are, but nobody does anything. White people look to the police, but the police don’t really care. Narcotics enforcement is a tedious business and harder to do where anonymity is difficult. However, if these people get notice they need to leave town, and when they don’t they wind up dead- well homicide investigation is tedious also, and maybe the sheriff is likely to shrug and say “We need the public to come forward.”

In rural areas nationalists can provide social services and also take military action. Nationalists then become the de facto government. Americans are allergic to political violence, but they are fairly comfortable with vigilantism.

Murros puts violence in three categories- state violence, revolutionary violence, and direct action. Revolutionary violence protects the people- to start with, vigilante action against drug dealers, gangs and other criminals. Direct action is what is commonly called terrorism. Murros despises direct action as the lashing out of bourgeois revolutionaries with no connection to the working class- the leftist terrorists of the late 60’s and early 70’s fit well this definition.

I have difficulty condemning any person taking direct action they believe is necessary. I don’t condemn Dylann Roof. Better he stalked and killed black pimps and drug dealers, but the nice church ladies at FAME hate white people just as much. I don’t condemn Anders Breivik. How effective his attack was is up for debate, but the people he killed hated Norwegians and wanted them crushed by African and Moslem invaders.

Violence however is a rough tool, and must be used carefully. Terrorism doesn’t really work because it just frightens and upsets people, and makes them support the system more.

There have been urban revolutions and rural revolutions. The French and Russian urban revolutions succeeded; the Spanish urban revolution failed, because it did not control enough territory. The Chinese and Cuban rural revolutions succeeded, the Vietnamese partially, until massive military power could be applied, and most other rural revolutions have not been successful. Colombia is wrapping up a stalemate on a rural revolution.

In Colombia, the communists had support of landless farm laborers but to the city people they were just kidnappers and extortionists. City people have different interests and perspectives than country people and will not see violence the same way.

This is a very shallow introduction to the topic and I will write more about these ideas in the future.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Charlottesville III- You Win, You Lose

A simple message to the system- you got what you wanted in Charlottesville. And you also laid the charade bare for the whole world.

We played by your rules. Formally permitted political rally, affirmed in its constitutionality by a federal judge. Free speech. The First Amendment, by God! Everybody gets free speech. Voltaire and all that cheap horseshit.

And it’s shut down. Normally judges rule, but even judges get overruled when the system wants something. Antifa attack the UTR crowd as the police watch. A frightened schizophrenic accelerates into a threatening crowd and is charged with murder. The media spins, spins and spins. The entire Republican establishments sides with the communists.

The alt lites and NRx describe it as an awful failure. The antifa double down on the next few “free speech” events and attack “Nazis” who are just regular Trump supporters. It gets so bad that some Democrats actually back off them.

Trump goes with amnesty, and millions of his supporters are humiliated.

If you think in terms of “optics” it looks like a defeat. But it’s really more of a clarifying moment. Millions of people can now see the system hates them, wants them to shut up and die, and will not pay them the least phony courtesy or lip service. There is a huge population of angry people who hoped some kind of democratic change and have been formally told no, not even a dry bone.

I’m not a civic nationalist, but really civic nationalism would be best for America. It permits groups to live and deal with each other in some kind of civilized context- that’s why it’s called “civil”.  But that can’t happen. And if it can’t happen, worse is better, until enough people clearly see what the deal is.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments