Print this post Print this post

Democratic Multiculturalism:
Strategy & Tactics

1,910 words

Norman Rockwell, Study for "Freedom of Speech"

Norman Rockwell, Study for “Freedom of Speech”

A Time to Complain

There are two basic things we need to do: we need to build a new society based upon a new movement (the theme of my Western Destiny blog), while, at the same time, undermining the System, which includes undermining the “movement” — which is actually part of that System (an inept bogeyman, playing a role similar to that of Emmanuel Goldstein in Nineteen Eighty-Four). Today, I have a few words about undermining the System as a whole, built as it is on the ideology of multiculturalism. I would like to talk about “democratic multiculturalism,” a concept endorsed by Frank Salter and Ricardo Duchesne, and one that I have previously discussed here. Why do people who believe that “the only thing worse for the majority than a multiculturalism that does not work is a multiculturalism that does work” want to promote so-called “democratic multiculturalism?” This paradox should become clear with some further explanation.

Whites need to demand a seat at the multicultural table, represented by real advocates of White interests, not groveling patsies. Given that “Western” multiculturalism is defined by majority passivity and atomization contrasted to collectivist minority mobilization, a more collectivist and mobilized majority will go a long way to undermining the foundations of the System.

How to best begin this process on the group level is something that needs to be determined. We will need Rightist elites to stand up and follow the lead of Salter and Duchesne. They need not be hypocritical or even deceptive about this, but essentially state: “It is well known that I do not approve of multiculturalism, a destructive ideology bad for my people, my culture, my nation. However, that is the dominant system we currently have and my people and my culture need to be represented within it.”

Most readers here are not, and never will be, part of that elite, but something that can be done at the individual level is to engage in some sociopolitical ju-jitsu against multiculturalism yourself. Think of this as the “bottom-up” component of the strategy, in contrast to the “top-down” approach described above. When the opportunity arises, one can assert that Whites need to be included and given a legitimate seat at the multicultural table. However, one must present the proper ticket of admission: victimization. Complain about discrimination whenever you have a legitimate case (in today’s society, you should have no shortage of opportunities). The complaints should be couched in the language of multiculturalism, but explicitly aimed at targeting discrimination on a racial (anti-White), ethnic (anti-[fill in name of White ethnic group]), gender (anti-male), sexual orientation (anti-heterosexual), religious (anti-Christian, if you are a believer or even if you are not), etc. basis – with those guilty of discriminating being “others” (e.g., coloreds, liberals, feminists, Jews, Muslims, “gay” activists, System apparatchiks, etc.).

We need to get over the idea that such complaining is “weak, beta, non-White, feminine” blah blah blah. Not only is this complaining being done for a specific political purpose, but note that in a multicultural milieu, power is in part derived from the role of “victim.” Yes, it is a “Last Man” attitude, but it is a means to an end, it is the case of Higher Men being able to stomach their sense of disgust (self-mastery, no?) to use the ressentiment of the Last Men against them.

Remember, this is a means to an end, not an end to itself. It is not mainstreaming, it is not compromise, it is not incremental progress, and it is not reforming the System. It is instead using the contradictions and weaknesses of the System against itself; it is an approach which forces the System to take its own ideology at face value, or be forced to declare its illegitimacy to the majority of the population.

Certainly, at least in the beginning, these complaints of anti-White, anti-male, anti-heterosexual discrimination will be met with derision, disbelief, snarky ridicule, sarcasm, hysterical responses, heavy breathing about “White Privilege,” and, perhaps, the claim that majority assertions of discrimination are themselves signs that the complainers are the bigots. This is where the men are separated from the boys, so to speak, where self-mastery comes in: you must ignore these responses, persevere, and push through the barrier.

If the System is going to ignore or ridicule your legitimate complaints, you need to push them into a corner in which they have to openly admit that discrimination against straight White men (Sailer’s “war against Whites”) is acceptable to them; they must be forced to admit that, to them, Whites have no rights; they must be forced to admit that “inclusion” excludes Whites; they need to admit that multiculturalism is for non-Whites only. The System depends on all of this being implicitly understood by Whites without it ever getting to the level of being explicit (although some former government officials have openly stated that “civil rights laws do not apply to [male] Whites”).

The System loves the status quo; they want multiculturalism do work smoothly. They want the low-caste subaltern Whites to quietly accept their lowly status without complaint, without forcing the System to crudely reveal its agenda. Don’t let them off easy. If they want to exclude Whites, then the exclusion needs to be open and overt, as a slap in the face to the complacent White masses. Therefore, if you have a legitimate complaint, go for it.

After all – and this is crucially important – our complaints of discrimination, as opposed to those of the Others, have the added power of actually being true (note my caveat above: make sure your complaints are based on some sort of legitimate issue). This is an “the emperor has no clothes” situation – some Whites do know what the score is, but each alone is afraid of saying anything. In a multicultural regime, complaining about discrimination is a socially acceptable means of protest. In theory, socially acceptable for everyone; in practice, not acceptable for White men.

But, following the implicit/explicit argument I made above — it is “not acceptable” only in an implicit sense. Implicit attitudes are the downfall of a White race unable to articulate or defend its racial interests. Implicit Whiteness. The acceptance of an implicit lower-caste status for Whites. An implicit understanding that White men are “not allowed” to complain about race/sex/ethnic animus directed toward them. This implicit bluff needs to be called.

If multiculturalism makes whining victimology socially acceptable, then the real victims of multiculturalism have to force the issue. If a few Whites so complain, that might embolden others to follow suit. With sufficient White complaints, that seat on the multicultural table just might open up, as the System strives to placate Whites by assimilating them into multiculturalism. At first, they may try and get System agents to pose as White representatives, to defuse the pressure: this must be opposed and such individuals replaced by real advocates.

First steps first. Discriminated against? Complain. Persevere. Use the multiculturalists’ own language of “inclusion” and “fairness” against them. If “White Privilege” comes up, make arguments against it – one can find plenty online. One can slip in subtle “movement” memes at this point; the idea that a people being demographically displaced as a result of official policy are “privileged” is ludicrous, as one example. Keep on pushing, but within the System framework. Use common sense; become familiar with the vernacular of victimology. Play the game well. The System is based upon a house of cards and they know it. You should know it too.

Success here is predicated on the assumption that “breaking the ice” will embolden other Whites to speak up as well. Of course, this assumption may be wrong, given the pitiful passivity of the subaltern White race. But one never knows, one must try. If you wait for the “beer and football crowd” to be the first ones to voice their simmering complaints and resentment you will be waiting forever.

One concern at this point would be that this essay, along with the statements of Salter and Duchesne, will lead the Others to conclude that the demand for a seat at the multicultural table is for the purpose of undermining their multicultural project, leading to a refusal of that demand. After all, you can argue that these folks can simply point to essays such as this one that openly state what the strategy is. That is true. But it is irrelevant. One should not deny the obvious. One can say:

It’s true. I don’t like multiculturalism. I want to see it end. I have an overt pro-White agenda. Others who are demanding a “seat at the table” share these views. But that is not relevant. The multicultural system exists, it is YOUR system, and any system that disenfranchises that majority of the population will be viewed as illegitimate by that majority. This being YOUR system, it is up to YOU to find a way to include Whites and LEGITIMATE White interests (defined by us, not by you) in multiculturalism. If you believe multiculturalism can work, it is up to YOU to show it can work for everyone. Inclusion cannot be exclusive, as much as you would like it to be, as much as you have practiced it as such for decades. Whites are no longer going to be passive while others are mobilized.

This of course, once again, depends upon other Whites doing their part – Rightist elites applying pressure from above, and a fraction of the White masses applying pressure from below. Obviously, if they fail to do so, there will be no incentive to the System to compromise (note: they compromise, not us) in the manner described here. The “top” and “bottom” pressure must exist, it must be consistent, and it must weaken the legitimacy of the multiculturalist regime. The System may realize that including Whites in that regime may have the same long-term result that “glasnost” had for the USSR – but, like Gorbachev, they must feel like that have no choice but to take the chance on reform.

Another concern is that the System will attempt to co-opt White multiculturalist involvement by promoting compliant anti-White White traitors to positions of representing Whites. We must absolutely refuse to let the System dictate the terms of our own participation. Only those who represent the interests of Whites, defined by those Whites who have historically been defending and prompting White interests in an explicitly racial manner, will be acceptable. Puppets will be rejected.

This is a long, hard road, and there will be additional objections, problems, and criticisms, but here at least is a broad statement in favor of “democratic multiculturalism” and an outline of sorts of what should be done.

Start complaining! Do your best imitation of an aggrieved member of the Tribe, or some whining colored activist. It may be hard at first, and out of character, but remember, it’s for a good cause. Disruption, chaos, heightening the contradictions. Probe the System to expose the anti-White animus of multiculturalism. It’s win-win. If they refuse that seat at the table, use that refusal to expose the animus and the hypocrisy; if they allow the seat, then undermine the very essence of multiculturalism by forcing majority interests to be accepted as a legitimate topic of discussion and policy objective. Above all else, shake up the status quo. Chaos, chaos, and more chaos.

Source: http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2014/11/tactics-and-strategy-for-democratic.html

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

15 Comments

  1. WWWM
    Posted November 21, 2014 at 1:23 am | Permalink

    I was about ready to reject this strategy outright. Mainly because I thought our enemies would just laugh and that would be as far as it would go. However, there is one area of focus where whites are victims in the truest sense: crime.

    For those familiar with the Christian/Newsome double murder in Knoxville TN, you might remember that Alex Linder held a protest about the case. The usual gaggle of nitwits came to counter them, but because the media has to report on “racists,” CNN even made it down there and covered the story. The end result was national recognition for a case that would have remained virtually unknown (as many similar cases have). It was a kind of ju-jitsu move on Linder’s part where, I believe, we came out ahead. If they are going to have hate-crime laws, it is our own people’s victimization which will be the most likely implementation. Laws against “hate speech” (which I personally loathe) would also be used as points in our favor. It is just that we hate to play this game. But I think we will have to play, like it or not, in this modern era of our dispossession.

  2. Terry
    Posted November 20, 2014 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    This strategy might be useful in instructing our own folk in regard to illustrating the double standards and the hypocrisy that “screams to high heaven”, but I don’t think it will make a dent in the thinking of our enemies. Remember they are the masters of hypocrisy and can say with a straight face that Israel is a democracy and doesn’t have a system of Apartheid. If we say to them that it is racism to discriminate against us be cause we’re White, they will just say ” No it’s not.” Sort of like quoting the Constitution to the Supreme Court… It means what they say it means.

  3. Michael Woodbridge
    Posted November 20, 2014 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    Posing as victims might be quite fun as long as we remember it’s a game we play and should never be taken seriously.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted November 20, 2014 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

      Exactly

  4. Mike
    Posted November 20, 2014 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    If you doubt this can work just look at GamerGate. They turned the rules of leftists and SJW’s against them with impressive results. Many of the journalists/SJW activists admitted it’s okay to discriminate against white males. At the very least they are challenging the narrative and showing the true intentions of the elite and their minions. Small victories can lead to bigger ones.

  5. rhondda
    Posted November 20, 2014 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    Brilliant! If everyone is a victim, then no one is and the ‘natural’ intelligence of white men will take its rightful position in the hierarchy.

  6. Podsnap
    Posted November 20, 2014 at 6:58 am | Permalink

    I have heard Frank Salter propound this strategy. Obviously it has flaws, for one it implicitly accepts multi culti. But at least it has the advantage of being able to be advocated openly.

    There are many strategies we can use. These do not have to be exclusionary. We think too often in abstract theoretical terms where use of one approach precludes the use of others – like a virgin who thinks his first line with a girl needs to be perfect and any miscue will be held against him forever. The real world doesn’t work like that.

  7. Jaego
    Posted November 20, 2014 at 5:28 am | Permalink

    Good points. Inner Mastery begets the outer. And retreat is a viable strategy in some situations. Any General who rejects it out of hand is no General at all. We are still pretending (unconsciously perhaps) that we are on top when in fact we are on the bottom. We have to take stock of our situation and make strategy based on our real situation, not our fantasy.

    Point out to doubters that Whites only attain power now by rejecting their own people. They are the only ones who are allowed to move up. No other group is subjected to this in such a drastic and absolute way right from the beginning. Yes, at the highest levels some Blacks also seem to have drunk from the Traitors Cup as they support the Hispanic Amnesty that will savage their own people.

  8. Mighty
    Posted November 19, 2014 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

    Claiming strength through victimhood is a losing strategy. Further: we disparage ourselves and our ancestors with this posture of submission.

    You can do better.

    Horrible idea.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted November 19, 2014 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

      Odd that it is a winning strategy with every other group. Sallis anticipated this response, which is all too common among whites: refusing to admit victimhood because it is more important to posture as strong and invulnerable than to deal with the reality of white victimization.

    • Ted
      Posted November 20, 2014 at 7:07 am | Permalink
    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Posted November 20, 2014 at 7:34 am | Permalink

      Victimhood has been a highly succesful strategy for the Jews (think holocaust!) while other groups followed. Victimgroups have invented special terms to indicate their victim status :
      For Jews it is “anti-Semitism”, for Blacks it is “racism”, and for Muslims, the newest victimgroup, it is ” Islamophobia”. And of course homosexuals have “homophobia”, while transgenders try to sell the term “trans-phobia”. For Whites I advise the term “anti-White racism”.

      How the system can be used against itself can be seen in the Bakke case (Google : Bakke decision).

    • Ulf Larsen
      Posted November 20, 2014 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

      “Hatred and [the] spirit of sacrifice . . . are nourished by the image of enslaved ancestors rather than that of liberated grandchildren.” (Illuminations, Walter Benjamin 1968, 262)

      Our hope is to awaken moral anger among our kinsmen, and that wrath is awakened by showing them what foul crimes the Jews have committed against our people (and how naively we have treated them in return!). As Greg pointed out, victimhood works fine for everyone else – and we are among the few who could rightly claim that victimhood. MacDonald has rightly noted that (Nordic) Whites have moral, instead of tribal, ingroups. Let’s start making that work in our favor, shall we, by telling the world who the real scumbags are.

  9. Pelopidas
    Posted November 19, 2014 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    What about simply making “multiculturalism” into a more right-wing concept? Vive la difference! The view of Herodotus: the difference is what makes our world a fascinating place (after all he found plenty to admire about the Persians and without Greek defining himself against Persian for existence what would he have been?). What’s wrong with Mexicans in Mexico? Pakis in Pakistan? As Ernst Junger put it late in life, that world history is less banal than it would otherwise be we should thank the Prussians and Japanese for being faithful to their nomos…but to each people its own nomos. While I don’t wish to live in the world that the average ISIS fighter wants they do add something special to our tedious epoch. The left-wing version of multiculturalism on the other hand is just a plank in the boring worldview of neoliberal homoeconomus, which has nothing to do with multi-culture and everything to do with stale American-style Last Man conformity. Make everyone speak the same language and they are easy to sell to. If every culture takes up American garbage culture and vanishes then all the better for the bottom line (not to mention the wage-slaves who built your iPhone!)…With the forces arrayed against us it might be more timely to redirect energy rather than attempting to stop it dead.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Posted November 20, 2014 at 7:46 am | Permalink

      The whole debate is actually between territorial multiculturalism and social multiculturalism, i.e. the celebration of different cultures of different peoples in their own countries, or the same but in one (by preference White) country. The ultimate purpose of social multiculturalism is miscegenation, which will lead to a mono-culture, the exact opposite of its professed aim. That can be used as an argument against it.

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Tyr, Vol. 4

    Reuben

    The Node

    Axe

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    The Fourth Political Theory

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Metaphysics of War

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Shock of History

    The Prison Notes

    Sex and Deviance

    Standardbearers

    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    Archeofuturism

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Tyr

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above