Breaking the Liberal Shell
Contrary to popular belief, the natural world provides several parallels for the behaviour of decadent humans. One of the most dramatic of these is found in the behaviour of a caterpillar after being stung by a parasitoid wasp, which injects its larvae directly into the caterpillar’s body. As the wasp larvae feed on its insides and grow to maturity, the parasitised caterpillar goes on munching away on vegetation as if nothing had happened — until the larvae finally chew their way out of its body. Whereupon the caterpillar spins a protective coccoon around them and ferociously defends them from predators as if they were its own young, until the wasps are ready to fly away and the exhausted caterpillar helpfully starves to death.
This quite disgusting example of insect behaviour is echoed in an even more repulsive human specimen, the cuckservative. As the liberal political form of Western countries is gnawed away from the inside by leftist subversives, he too looks the other way and applies himself to eating his fill, ignoring the fact that all of his industry goes into strengthening the destroyers of his civilisation. Just as the caterpillar treats the wasp larvae eating it alive as its own flesh-and-blood, a bit of jiggery-pokery with citizenship paperwork persuades the cuckservative to accept the replacement of his people by non-whites. And, just like the caterpillar, this limp pacifist only gets tough in the face of perceived threats to this foreign body (“racism”, “neo-Nazism” and so on).
If neuroscientists ever figure out how to translate the thoughts of animals, and apply their method to the miniscule brains of parasitised caterpillars, cuckservative journalists and commentators will surely be put out of work all over the West by their low-maintenance vegetarian competitors. Like the good free-marketeers they are, the cucks are evidently upping their own game — which must be the reason why, after United States security authorities finally classified antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation, one of Buckley’s boys at National Review piped up to tell us why this is a “terrible idea”:
The designation of foreign terrorist organizations exploits the fact that their operatives do not have the same degree of constitutional protection as American citizens. Much as we revile domestic terrorists, we do not want Americans — citizens, presumed innocent, fully protected by the Constitution — treated the same way, particularly when they are easily investigated, infiltrated, prosecuted, and imprisoned under domestic law, primarily state law.
The most socially-destructive political faction in America is openly using a paramilitary movement to terrify its opposition into silence, but God forbid that this should become an excuse for deviating from the established procedures that are doing such a good job of preserving everybody’s rights! The fair solution is, of course, to leave things to the local police – and never mind the fact that cops in leftist-controlled jurisdictions have repeatedly stood down and allowed antifa thugs to attack people under their noses. After all, wouldn’t want to hand future Democrat administrations any precedents for Orwellian behaviour, as if they have ever needed any such thing!
These people will always be utterly deaf to what we see as basic common sense, because they are not really interested in defending any such organic entity as a particular nation or people. They are, instead, concerned with upholding a set of “universally valid” social and political rules — individual rights, private enterprise, democracy, equality under the law and so on — that can generally be grouped under the heading of liberalism.
The Left, like the parasitoid wasp, busies itself with ‘hacking’ these rules and hollowing out the substance of liberal society in order to replace it with its own ideals: social revolution, inverted hierarchy, the way of the guillotine and the gulag. This poisonous essence of the Left, inserted into the equitable and reasoned forms of liberal society, succeeds more and more every day in turning its political climate into something more resembling the Cultural Revolution. Obliged to blend into its surroundings, parasitoid leftism justifies its own illiberal nature with all sorts of cheap sophistries: “intolerance of intolerance is the only tolerable intolerance”, “hate speech is not free speech”, “you don’t take the chains off a man and bring him right up to the starting line”, etc. (Nothing could better attest to the success of this bait-and-switch than the fact that the word liberal, as used in North America, has come to denote socialist, ‘collectivist’ and repressive ideas far removed from its original meaning; take note that I am using the word here in its original and correct sense.)
Once cuckservatives are forced to retreat from any serious defence of the ethnic, religious and cultural essence of the West, their pettifogging obsession with preserving the external shell of liberal rules actually works to the advantage of the Left. It redirects nativist opposition into the defence of universal abstractions, guards the very political system most incapable of purging leftist infiltration against stronger alternatives from the Right, and generally keeps the whole parasitoid arrangment as stable as possible (the National Review article above is a prime example of this).
But note the word “parasitoid”: this process is destined to end, sooner or later, with the death of the host and the advance to maturity of its murderer. In order to gauge how and when this might happen, we should ask why the Left adopted this strategy of hollowing out Western liberalism in the first place. After all, the original ideal of the Left – notwithstanding purely strategic arguments over whether and how to participate in liberal democratic politics – was a violent lower-class revolution that would overthrow liberalism in an instant.
Surely the shift from open to covert aggression had much to do with the transferring of the role of “proletariat” (i.e. the primary class chosen for political agitation so as to bring leftist elites to power) from the native working classes of the West to non-white ethnic minorities. One cannot hope to carry out a society-transforming revolution on the basis of small, fragmented and alien minority groups, but must first reinforce their numbers from the Third World while integrating them into a common political identity; and a sapless abstract liberalism, divorced from racial and cultural prudence, is a wide and open gate for such a Trojan Horse. This would certainly explain why the forecasts of white demographic eclipse, commonly focused on the year 2050, seem to have emboldened the Left to lift the lid on a smug and triumphalist anti-white racism as well as a host of “intersectional” fringe positions.
Another important factor is the consolidation of managerial rule in the West, which brings government, corporation and media under the control of a single managerial ruling class (as explained in Sam Francis’s Leviathan and Its Enemies), eliminating much of the conventional opposition between ‘socialist’ and ‘bourgeois’ spheres. All leftist social-engineering ideologies are justifications for managerial power, which means that the rise of managerialism favours the Left by default and removes the need for revolution against the state. (The cuckservative “useful idiot” role here is played by the sub-species known as libertarians: not only do they defend socially-leftist and Stasi-like corporate megaliths using economic theories designed for small traders, but they also keep their gun collections trained on rival ideologies from the Right that can incorporate managerial interests into a defence of the Western essence.)
These trends, as well as the strong public legitimacy of liberal norms in the West, have conspired over decades to steer leftist energies away from the revolutionary strategy and into the parasitoid strategy. But this does not mean that the Left ever rationally decided upon this strategy, still less that anyone in the movement possesses the means of commanding his/her/zhit’s fellow-parasitoids to stick to it. It does not mean that leftists actually enjoy this charade (witness the self-loathing of the leftist “sellout”), or that they have ever dismounted from their fantasies of violent revolution, which have soared forth in occasional bouts of terrorism and dived low in the murky academic gibberish of Althussers and Žižeks. And if the Left were to jump the gun and break up the ‘liberal shell’ of Western society ahead of time, our caterpillar-wasp analogy would have to break down as well: for the peoples of the West, unlike the internal organs under a creature’s skin, have lived outside the liberal shell before and can live outside it again.
Reflecting on this, we can discern the silver lining in the dark cloud of post-Charlottesville repression: the Left, backed up by the managerial triad of government, corporations and media, is in fact beginning to destroy the liberal shell without having fully consumed its substance. They have adopted a viciously anti-white ideology and allowed minority dimwits and hotheads to run with it, yet whites remain a demographic majority in the West; they have dropped the charade of free speech and prevailed upon corporate power to ban Alt-Right websites from the internet, but they do not possess the cold and thorough repressive apparatus that could scour our discourse from view while insulating the public narrative against liberal protests. After successfully starting a riot in Charlottesville and allowing the Fake News to blame it on the Alt-Right, the antifa promptly whipped up a show of domestic terrorism that couldn’t be spun in their favour, and stepped up its divisive attack on America’s heritage statues – suggesting that the people to whom our Cosmopolitan elites outsource the important job of political repression simply do not have the discipline to lie low, curry public favour, or do anything other than double down and indulge their violent sociopathy.
To offer some material for comparison: the Chinese Communist regime that discredited the Falun Gong movement with a fake group suicide, and then turned the public against it with a media propaganda blitz, would not have dropped the ball in this fashion even against a far less blunder-prone opponent. And this comparison is a fruitful one, for under Cosmopolitanism it is the West that must look to the Third World for a glimpse of its probable future; and the ChiCom plans for a no-anonymity internet and social credit system look very much like advance snapshots of a Zuckerbergian dystopia.
This in turn raises a question for us: in opposing the Left, do we want to restore formal liberalism to the West, and allow our enemies to grow a stronger repressive apparatus under its protection? Or do we want to lure out the parasitoid entity and destroy it?
Most of the present-day anti-SJW crowd, who trumpet the Horseshit Theory and oppose both the Left and the Alt-Right for threatening ” the primacy of the individual”, would like nothing more than to restore a liberal society in which the Left is pushed back from its forward positions and compelled to play by the rules. And surely this attitude is closer than ours to that of most ordinary white people in the West, who have ignored decades of ominous demographic predictions, but are now being stirred into a sort of awakening by the sight of smug and triumphalist leftists committing illiberal acts with impunity.
But as we have seen, the broad trends of Third World immigration and managerial consolidation favour the Left in the long term. A liberal restoration – which would slow immigration without stopping it, and further marginalise all Rightist ideologies not quixotically opposed to managerialism – would not resolve this situation. Although the strategy of the Left might alter itself in response to opposition, its inner essence cannot, as the desire to gain power from social conflict is as relentless as the profit motive of capitalism; and even if we returned tomorrow to the “colour-blind” ideal, put the SJWs and BLMers to bed, and gave all new immigrants a course in individualist dogma, the fault-lines of future ethnic conflict would no more disappear from our society than they did from Tito’s Yugoslavia. Demoralised as it might be, the Left could comfortably bide its time in possession of the universities and mass media; on our side, however, the fledgling parallel institutions of the true Right would die of neglect, while the human carrion of cuckservatism jerked into a spurious and sinister life. Finally, once the Cosmopolitan elite and the Left were good and ready to start the Western Cultural Revolution all over again, we would possess neither the demographic clout nor the freedom from managerial control to seriously oppose them.
For those of us who are interested in defending the civilisation of the West, and not merely postponing its murder by a few years or decades, an opposite strategy presents itself. Instead of interrupting our enemy as he makes the mistake of breaking up the liberal shell, we should allow him to do what he is doing, and even act in such a way as to magnify the scope and effect of his actions. But this requires careful explanation.
First of all, there is no question of our breaking the liberal shell ourselves. We do not hold the necessary positions of power and impunity within society; we would court the undying hatred of our people for doing it; and most importantly, most of us do not really have the heart to do it, which means that we would only break up our own side’s unity by trying. We must recognise that our position against the Left, the Fake News and the weight of public ignorance is one of overwhelming weakness, and treat exhortations to direct attacks on the liberal order with the mockery and suspicion they deserve. What we can do is to use the violent and inquisitorial fervour of our enemies to our own advantage, becoming the guerrilla who stifles his feelings and sharpens his weapons as he lures the enemy army into a doomed assault on his country.
In the Fourth Generation War Handbook, William S. Lind describes the way by which Islamist guerrillas gained converts and ignited their entire societies against foreign occupation. For example, a couple of fighters might pop up out of nowhere to take pot-shots at American soldiers riding on a Humvee, then disperse while their opponents levelled a whole street of local houses and shops in retaliation. This is what we need to do with the Left and the Fake News, and we can do it by calculated defiance of their culture-policing policy. Seizing the moral high ground by playing David to their Goliath, we can force them into overplaying their hand while garnering support for defending innocent people against them, and patiently encourage the majority white population to come around to our point of view on ridding our society of leftist subversion.
If this sounds difficult, bear in mind that our people managed to pull it off at the Berkeley free speech protests after Charlottesville, simply by not turning up – the antifa savages who descended on the crowd of peaceful liberal conservatives did all our work for us!
Admittedly this may require a change in thinking. Because we want to make use of the inherent moral power of weakness, it does us little good to project a threatening image to the public while exposing our actual numbers to the enemy (e.g. with torchlight parades and the like). We should rather strive to underplay our own power to the public, relying on the paranoia of the Left to keep them on the attack, while the Fake News sacrifices its own credibility to convince our people that we are the public threat. Needless to say, this sort of thing will require not a single unified organisation but a myriad of decentralised cells, which can use enemy paranoia to magnify their impact. In the wake of Charlottesville, some have suggested we adopt the Generation Identitaire model of “flash rallies”, and this method fits well into the course of action we are discussing: such a model can enable us to stage a high-visibility spectacle, openly defying the Left, and then disperse in time to let the antifa go on a self-discrediting rampage.
If the antifa can be hanged on their own policy of hurling violent sociopathic freaks at every public appearance by the Right, the Fake News can surely be hanged on its policy of rooting out so-called “dog whistles”. Witness their hysterical coverage of “white supremacist hand signals”, and their obscure moral panic over the word ‘Cosmopolitan’ after it was used by a Trump aide: this sort of thing can only strengthen our hand, not just because it discredits the media, but because it exposes potentially vast numbers of our people to the illiberal media defamation hitherto reserved for a dissident minority. To draw such attacks, we might do well to adopt a policy of ‘hugging’ the rest of the conservative white population – which is why it is no bad thing that some of us are proposing to dump the “Alt-Right” label and disperse into different political spaces, for the ham-fists of the enemy will surely follow them and end up igniting more opposition. (Note that the ‘Kursk Strategy’, which is believed by some to serve this purpose, in fact betrays it by isolating the Alt-Right as a target and confirming the media narrative – so remember, anyone dressed up as a Nazi anywhere near serious people is a de facto agent provocateur, whether or not he knows it.)
A related point: as gratifying as it might be to see leftist big names like Nancy Pelosi countersignal the antifa, we should remember that countersignalling is actually a useful means of preventing the hotheads and dimwits of a movement from driving it off a cliff. Ergo, if we are to drive the Left into the unwise behaviour of breaking the liberal shell, they should not be able to apply this brake with impunity; and we can put a price on it by trumpeting our visible Alt-Right support to countersignallers like Pelosi, or just rushing in to gloat about the new dawn of white privilege wherever the Left makes a strategic retreat. This is not about making the Left stronger and more united, of course; it is about making it blind, brittle and in hock to its more reckless members, a hothouse of virtue-signalling that can only be escaped by outright desertion.
If you’re still not sure how any of this helps our cause, consider this: once the liberal norms governing Western societies have been violated so many times and so widely as to render them meaningless, what will be left in the minds of our people? Only the terrifying reality of a non-liberal regime ruled by a hateful secular religion opposed to the human flourishing of the majority native population of the West. However much power the Left might arrogate to itself in the short term, such an difice can only ever have a precarious legitimacy, and would always be a tempting prospect for defectors from the elite to overthrow in conjunction with the resentful and disillusioned majority of whites.