A hundred or so BUGSERS have already had more effect on the political scene than any hundred thousand life-long pro-whites. That is because we can stay right on target, tell the “take my toys and go home” — TMTGH crowd, to shove it and get out and do this for accomplishment rather than entertainment.
As time passes, a lot of you will make a profession out of this. Getting paid means membership organizations or fitting in, which we now scorn.
So it is stupid to scorn membership organizations.
What is important is not that you become Less Principled. The critical point is that you view this in real world terms. You must sacrifice some things you can do when you don’t need money in order to be a professional.
In the course of actually helping to bring down the entire Soviet Empire, I had to write a lot of stuff that, had I not realized it had to be done, would have given me the willies.
The old Communist Fronts continue on on both sides. That’s not because Communism works, but because Fronts work. Among most of the people I worked with in Washington in the big leagues, each had his own fund-raising organization that allowed him to be financially secure when he was appointed or removed.
I remember talking to the guy who ran a Gunowners’ Lobby and walked around with a pistol-shaped tie pin. He said up front he didn’t know a thing about guns. He did know about lobbying, which is what they paid him for.
So membership organizations have to have different standards.
The critical point I need to make here is that, when you have to make those balances, you are coldly, fully aware you are making them.
When you go in for membership and money, you go into competition with pros. David Duke and Don Black are true believers, but they also have to make sure their outfit survives in a Darwinian world. So what would offend an amateur in political power is just part of the real world to me.
#1 by Sentinel on 04/16/2013 - 2:28 pm
We are probably all experienced with this kind of compromise in our personal lives.
Most of us have had to compromise our principles in order to fit in with friends and family who are demoralized and we do this in exchange for maintaining relationships which we value, even with great frustration.
Professionally, swap the relationships for earnings and the ability to make power moves. What’s important is that we compromise professionally ONLY for the opportunity to accomplish what our true principles guide us to accomplish.
I wonder how many in power today — who are not obviously evil — are doing this, and are more normal than we will ever know.
Bob: “…when you have to make those balances, you are coldly, fully aware you are making them.”
…And how many have failed to stick to the above and drifted away from their principles forever?
#2 by Asgardian117 on 04/16/2013 - 2:35 pm
This article and and your comment sentinel about making compromises really struck a cord especially with demoralized family members…i have no education credentials outside of high school so unfortunately i wont get the oppurtunity to go pro but for those who do i will forever be dropping the hammer to assist those who “make” it you can ALWAYS count on me.
#3 by Dave on 04/16/2013 - 2:59 pm
“David Duke and Don Black are true believers, but they also have to make sure their outfit survives in a Darwinian world. So what would offend an amateur in political power is just part of the real world to me.”
This is something that is absolutely true. You have to look under the covers. Amateurs routinely disrespect successful politicians and then pick themselves off the street bloodied and bruised. They don’t know who they are dealing with.
I know a blogger who describes himself as “a center progressive”. This is hilarious to me. If he were to ask me to describe myself I would answer (facetiously): “I am a tormented and violent feral dog”.
Who wins a fight in the real world? “Center progressives” or “tormented and violent feral dogs”?
It is like the Dali Lama is fond of saying: “You have a problem if you have a false idea of who you really are”.
Somebody dumb and disconnected from reality enough to think he is a “center progressive” doesn’t deserve to live. But that is MY opinion. We must keep these dorks OUT of our organizations.
#4 by steadiness on 04/16/2013 - 5:35 pm
“Center Progressives” win, and have been winning for the past 50 years, and really the past 100 years.
A Progressive is someone who believes in Whig history about social progress. The Progressive Movement is a bunch of assholes trying to impose their sanctimonious vision of social progress on everyone.
A Center Progressive in the ’80s believes that affirmative action must be imposed by any means necessary. A Center Progressive in the ’50s believes that schools must be integrated by any means necessary. A Center Progressive in the ’20s believes that alcohol should be banned.
“Center Progressive” means that he supports what’s going to happen.
of course, if you tell him you’re a racist, you might as well tell him you’re a violent, feral dog. Progressives hate racists most of all.
It works like this: the Kingdom of God is tolerant, so anyone who opposes the Kingdom of God shows the worst kind of intolerance.
Well, more like the Progressive Society Free of Hate.
#5 by Asgardian117 on 04/16/2013 - 6:27 pm
Bob, i understand what you mean when you say that we would have to compromise our principals publicly to MAKE it to the realization as to what some many of us have put alot of time into and lost some friends over but also made some new ones 🙂 but nonetheless it will be heartbreaking to do what you are asking i fully understand why and i agree but the sting would still remain, i know we are fighting a system that does not play fair i have to remind myself of that because i believe its in most whites nature to want to play fair…thank you for the great insight as to where we are going.
#6 by Dave on 04/16/2013 - 7:36 pm
Steadiness,
I met a man who was drafted into the Japanese Imperial Army in the early 1940s. He was a Buddhist.
On his first day of training he told the training sergeant, “Sarge, my religion forbids me to kill people. What I am going to do?”
His sergeant replied, “No problem! It is IMPOSSIBLE for you or anyone else to harm the enemy. Absolutely impossible!!!”
The Buddhist countered, “But I don’t understand? I raise my rifle, point it at the enemy, fire it and kill the enemy. How is that not killing someone?”
His sergeant answered, “No such thing happened!!! YOU had nothing to do with it! The stupid enemy just stumbled in front of your bullet, that’s all. It was ENTIRELY his responsibility AND his fault.”
I was stunned. Of course, what the Japanese sergeant said was absolutely true. The world is full of people who think they bear moral responsibility. These are “Progessives”. They wear that label to charge themselves with moral responsibility. They are true idiots. They don’t have a CLUE as to what is really going on.
They are EASY pickings. They don’t have a chance against people like us.
Our fight is to save our race. That doesn’t have a goddamned thing to do with morality or principle.
#7 by Conrad on 04/16/2013 - 7:45 pm
Political Cesspool radio program interview
A little FYI for those that might be interested.
I recently did an interview on the Political Cesspool radio program. If you would like to hear it this is the link.
Radio Show Hour 3
Posted: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:58 +0000
Guest: Author, C.C. Conrad – Jack’s War: Through the Gates of Hell
http://www.libertyroundtable.com/tpc/auto-draft-50
or
http://feeds.feedburner.com/tpc-podcast
#8 by jo3w on 04/16/2013 - 8:16 pm
I’ve always felt that being offended was ultimately the problem of the offended. So far that idea has gotten me nowhere.
#9 by Jason on 04/17/2013 - 12:49 am
Thought provoking article. As fanatic amateurs, we will also have to learn to accept that pro-White spokesmen in the future have these issues to contend with. There is value in less than perfect institutions.
The NRA is far from perfect and doesn’t even articulate a decent line, yet it seems like they have been a force for good on gun rights.
Or any future pro-White organization, we should think about what we are willing to compromise on. Or maybe, what we won’t compromise on. What are the KEY issues that must be a part of it?
Things like religion and economics are important but hardly crucial to this movement. But those are pretty obvious.
The hard part may be when various alliances have to be struck.
#10 by Harumphty Dumpty on 04/17/2013 - 3:19 am
My compromise on the petitions:
I don’t use “naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews,” or Beefcake’s wonderful extravaganza, “evil-racist-nazi-who-wants-to-clone-Hitler-and-kill-six-million-jews” (LMAO every time I write that!).
#11 by Harumphty Dumpty on 04/17/2013 - 4:11 am
Good compromise (IMO): Matthew Heimbach used the term “anti-white racism” in an interview. I thought it was a good choice for him in the context, but I never want to be in that context myself.
Bad compromise: Tom Sunic writing this in a letter to the ADL:“We believe that European-Americans have just as much right to identify as European-Americans and pursue our interests in the American multicultural landscape as do Jews or other groups such as African-Americans and Latino-Americans. One cannot create a multicultural society without legitimizing the identifications and interests of all groups in the society, including European Americans.”
If in the future some bugsters find themselves in political situations like Heimbach’s that seem to require some contamination of the Mantra to fit the overall style of their politicizing, there should be extreme clarity that a deviation is occurring.
Always there has to be a solid core of bugsters who don’t put themselves in situations where they have to compromise, and so can maintain the material in uncontaminated form as a standard. This will be so even after events may eventually outstrip the Mantra and a new Mantra or a changed one has to be introduced.
#12 by Vale on 04/17/2013 - 6:47 am
@Jason: The NRA is an imperfect organization, but a perfect swarm target: already interested in self-preservation (of some kind), mostly White and large enough to have big potential.
Just wanted to point out the obvious. Apologies for clogging the thread.
#13 by Simon on 04/17/2013 - 7:53 am
I agree that in order to build political coalitions one must make compromises on ones political beleifs, but there are somethings that one should not compromise on and for me that is mass non-white immigration + forced assimilation = white genocide.
Everything else – taxation, government spending, healthcare, welfare, drugs, law and order, foreign policy, education I have my preferences but I am emminently flexible and willing to compromise to gain the biggest coalition.
I hope this is what Bob means about compromising.
#14 by Jason on 04/17/2013 - 8:03 am
…mass non-white immigration + forced assimilation = white genocide.
That would be fantastic. And, If we add Bob’s idea for seizing the assets of Anti-Whites for generations to come, we’ve really got a social revolution that secures the future for Whites.