Lifers: Myth or silent?
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2022 8:09 pm
I've been doing a lot of thinking about outreach and Alliance-building lately (hence my somewhat ill-planned post regarding Christians). While my previous post - owing to the fact that its subjects include very close family members - was overly emotional and subjective, I do eventually hope to tinker it into a more useful form.
Its shortcomings got me thinking about the larger picture, and raised some questions for me. What is the current nature of our future recruits? From what groups would we draw upon? Are some pools deeper than others, or are we as likely to find recruits in any group in which our Folk can be found in appreciable numbers?
Mulling over these questions got me thinking about why you see the phenomenon of what Dr. Pierce called the "phone book fuhrers" decade after decade. Many of them certainly meet his descriptions of hobbyists and egoists, but not all. I recalled my own journey from a vocal Libertarian into the fringes of politics and how groups of us ended up clustered around a few individuals with their own media in place (such as Christopher Cantwell and Jared Howe). All of us had the same thought: clearly, what had been tried before wasn't working. So we formed new groups, new alliances, and new movements.
I realized that there was one common theme in these struggles for our race that demoralized me the most: the children of the leaders of before always seemed to be among our loudest enemies. From Hitler's nephew to the children of Rockwell and Pierce, it's the same story. Eager to prove they're not like their fathers, they become enemies of everything their fathers fought for. Worse still, it seems as though this phenomenon is not limited to the children of our leaders and other great men; the National Vanguard has an article that touches upon Arnold Schwarzenegger's SS father, for example. While the effects of "de-Nazification" of occupied Germany can excuse the Germans and Austrians, perhaps, we Americans have no such excuse.
Why is it that prior generations' efforts for the good of our Race are always so reviled by the children of those who fought hardest?
I have recently begun the process of exploring the political machine of my local township; I was heartened when I attended a meeting at our local fire department to see that all of the attendees were White. In some respects this gave me some hope for outreach, education and recruitment efforts. However, I quickly realized the deeply liberal sentiments that pervade my town's culture. My knee-jerk reaction as a Libertarian was to dismiss them all as fat, dumb and happy traitors. Yet this may not be the case and that brings me to my questions on recruitment pools.
I've been long-winded, though, so I'll wrap this up. Thoughts on recruitment pools in turn made me wonder: why does the Alliance even need recruits like me, Jim, or anyone else with a non-Alliance background? If building a White world beginning at the level of an intentional White community was the goal, where are the children born into this community?
This is what bothers me about the idea of the sons betraying the fathers. Are we building a community that will just be abandoned by its children? The Alliance has been around since my father was young, and I am a father of a teen and step-father to another. While I will find it very hard to undo the social programming of a teenager who I blindly helped program with the same lies I was fed in my own youth, I nevertheless try. I can understand as well as any the forces arrayed against us in that effort. Yet I can't say that I've heard from any here or on the National Vanguard commentary section who are what might be called "lifers": born and brought up in the Alliance. Are there none who are in the Alliance because their parents were and they were a part of it from birth - or, at the least, are not now among our foes?
I'm hoping that my fear is baseless. If I'm on to something, then I realize the most important pool of all not only doesn't include me, it's one with which I have no contact whatsoever: the children of the Alliance. We do all of this for the future generations of White children; is the Alliance the childless nanny of our Race, or a kernel of future forebears? Are we the fathers and mothers of tomorrow's Alliance, or must we survive only on constant new faces?
I'll close with noting I am not by any means being defeatist about this. Rather, I'm wondering if the pool we should be most desperate to draw from isn't disillusioned democrats or former republicans but lost Alliance descendants.
Its shortcomings got me thinking about the larger picture, and raised some questions for me. What is the current nature of our future recruits? From what groups would we draw upon? Are some pools deeper than others, or are we as likely to find recruits in any group in which our Folk can be found in appreciable numbers?
Mulling over these questions got me thinking about why you see the phenomenon of what Dr. Pierce called the "phone book fuhrers" decade after decade. Many of them certainly meet his descriptions of hobbyists and egoists, but not all. I recalled my own journey from a vocal Libertarian into the fringes of politics and how groups of us ended up clustered around a few individuals with their own media in place (such as Christopher Cantwell and Jared Howe). All of us had the same thought: clearly, what had been tried before wasn't working. So we formed new groups, new alliances, and new movements.
I realized that there was one common theme in these struggles for our race that demoralized me the most: the children of the leaders of before always seemed to be among our loudest enemies. From Hitler's nephew to the children of Rockwell and Pierce, it's the same story. Eager to prove they're not like their fathers, they become enemies of everything their fathers fought for. Worse still, it seems as though this phenomenon is not limited to the children of our leaders and other great men; the National Vanguard has an article that touches upon Arnold Schwarzenegger's SS father, for example. While the effects of "de-Nazification" of occupied Germany can excuse the Germans and Austrians, perhaps, we Americans have no such excuse.
Why is it that prior generations' efforts for the good of our Race are always so reviled by the children of those who fought hardest?
I have recently begun the process of exploring the political machine of my local township; I was heartened when I attended a meeting at our local fire department to see that all of the attendees were White. In some respects this gave me some hope for outreach, education and recruitment efforts. However, I quickly realized the deeply liberal sentiments that pervade my town's culture. My knee-jerk reaction as a Libertarian was to dismiss them all as fat, dumb and happy traitors. Yet this may not be the case and that brings me to my questions on recruitment pools.
I've been long-winded, though, so I'll wrap this up. Thoughts on recruitment pools in turn made me wonder: why does the Alliance even need recruits like me, Jim, or anyone else with a non-Alliance background? If building a White world beginning at the level of an intentional White community was the goal, where are the children born into this community?
This is what bothers me about the idea of the sons betraying the fathers. Are we building a community that will just be abandoned by its children? The Alliance has been around since my father was young, and I am a father of a teen and step-father to another. While I will find it very hard to undo the social programming of a teenager who I blindly helped program with the same lies I was fed in my own youth, I nevertheless try. I can understand as well as any the forces arrayed against us in that effort. Yet I can't say that I've heard from any here or on the National Vanguard commentary section who are what might be called "lifers": born and brought up in the Alliance. Are there none who are in the Alliance because their parents were and they were a part of it from birth - or, at the least, are not now among our foes?
I'm hoping that my fear is baseless. If I'm on to something, then I realize the most important pool of all not only doesn't include me, it's one with which I have no contact whatsoever: the children of the Alliance. We do all of this for the future generations of White children; is the Alliance the childless nanny of our Race, or a kernel of future forebears? Are we the fathers and mothers of tomorrow's Alliance, or must we survive only on constant new faces?
I'll close with noting I am not by any means being defeatist about this. Rather, I'm wondering if the pool we should be most desperate to draw from isn't disillusioned democrats or former republicans but lost Alliance descendants.