An Army of Eeyores

[From The Struggle That Dare Not Speak Its' Name, circa 1994]

SUCH AS IT IS, the Aryan racial nationalist movement throughout theworld since 1945 has been distinguished by one remarkable characteristicwhich separates it from every other revolutionary movement ever known: areluctance verging on the racially suicidal to engage in armed military struggle against genocidal tyranny.

Genuine politics is about one thing: the acquisition and exercise of power. All else is political hobbyism, a luxury which the wealthy landed gentry of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who created liberal democracy could afford, but which a race on the verge of extinction cannot.

Power, all power without exception, is in the final analysis founded on one basis: armed force. Religion, constitutions, civil laws, custom and all the various social institutions for reinforcing acceptable behavior (i.e. submission to authority) all have their place in a state's power structure, but without the ultimate sanction of the bayonet they are meaningless.

All power, without exception, is initially acquired through armed force or through the imminent threat of armed force. Some revolutions are bloodier than others; the Bolsheviks slaughtered millions, while the National Socialist German Workers' Party came to power in Germany after somewhat less than a thousand deaths in fourteen years of street fighting between the Party's paramilitary formations and the Communists. But all modern states, without exception, were originally brought into existence by men who fought for power with weapons in their hands.

Power becomes accessible to revolutionaries when the existing order loses two vital assets upon which the maintenance of any government depends. The first element is the at least passive and tacit consent of the governed, and the second is the credible monopoly of armed force. When the revolutionary movement has both the will and the capacity to commit acts of armed insurrection against the state, and to do so with impunity, i.e., the perpetrators are not caught and punished, then the state has lost the credible monopoly of force which is the foundation of all power.

Persons other than those sanctioned by the state exercise power over the lives and destinies of others; the revolutionary movement begins to displace the state's apparatus by armed compulsion as well as by transferring the consent of the governed to itself through persuasion and propaganda.

Both persuasion and coercion are neessary to carry out a successful revolution. Neither element alone can succeed without the other. All the propaganda, all the popular support and all the legal activity in the world are useless if the state can fall back on armed force to maintain itself and destroy opposition. A revolutionary movement without an effective armed wing is doomed to perpetual futility and eventual defeat.

The formulations stated above are by no means original with me; they are as old as statecraft itself. I simply happen to be the only American White nationalist who is willing to discuss them in public. These truths are obvious from even the most cursory examination of human history. They are also obvious from reading today's headlines. It is a demonstrable historical fact: pursued with sufficient persistence, ruthlessness, military expertise and fearless disregard for the consequences, armed struggle eventually works.

Why, then, do the White males of the late twentieth century persistently refuse to utilize the gun, the basic tool of power which is understood and applied without hesitation by the most savage African tribal leader and the most corrupt and uncouth Latin American despot? As a side issue of some interest, why does our present Aryan leadership (again, such as it is) consistently refuse even to address this question, instead expending a good deal of time and effort orchestrating extensive campaigns of slander and vilification against those who do?

There are several immediately apparent reasons. As discreditable as it is, a good part of it is simple garden-variety physical cowardice, as well as fear on the part of the "leaders" that any boat-rocking militancy will draw heat and frighten the racist couch potatoes who provide the bulk of the present constellation of grouplets' mail-order funding, sending them scuttling for cover, their precious checkbooks snapped shut like oysters.

There is also the incredible lack of practical political education and knowledge among what passes for Aryan leadership, the bulk of whom are politically and historically illiterate. Your average Ku Klux Klan "leader" has never cracked a proper history book in his life and probably thinks Machiavelli is a foreign sports car.

To be sure, some prominent Movement figures, especially those involved in Revisionism, do have a high degree of specialized knowledge within certain very narrow fields, such as Constitutional esoterica or the Third Reich period in Germany. But while they may be able to wax abstruse on obscure points of common law which the Federal judiciary of today simply ignores or rattle off the name of every SS division and every Jew who was ever involved in Marxism, by and large any in-depth historical scholarship is almost entirely lacking within the Movement.

But our reluctance to face up to the reality of armed struggle's pivotal role in social and political change goes beyond these immediately apparent causes. It reaches into the deep-rooted psychological malaise which has pervaded the entire White racial resistance movement thoughout the Western world since 1945. This psychological and spiritual condition is difficult to quantify.

The late Dr. Revilo Oliver once posed the famous question: "Have we, the men of the West, lost the will to live?" Down through the years I have often observed that the White man in America seems to be in the grip of a kind of collective death wish, a mysterious and inexplicable will to failure.

I am by no means the first to notice this phenomenon. One of the best articles the late Bob Miles ever wrote was in the aftermath of the Fort Smith sedition trials of 1988, when he pointed out in his "From the Mountain" newsletter that the acquittals in that despicable charade, instead of heartening us and encouraging more activism, resulted in an avalanche of sullen defeatism, smears, carping and dog-in-the-manger petty bickering throughout the Movement.

Bob pointed out something which is crucial to understanding why we have gotten virtually nowhere for the past two generations. Over and above the preponderance of outright fraudulent leadership who are in it for the money, the Movement has been controlled for years by elements who are deeply pessimistic, defeatist, lazy, lethargic and mired in profound depression over Aryan man's terrible present situation and our more terrible prospects for the future. We are an army of Eeyores.