[Bret L]

Guerrilla Economics: Stop Funding the Enemy

Alex Kurtagic

September 9, 2009

"In my previous article I discussed the respectable conservative, a populous species whose existence I consider to be one — if not our main — obstacle in the battle to inspire our constituency into oppositional action against a hostile establishment.

I stated that, as the archetypical homo oeconomicus, his status-
conscious nature causes him to prefer making small concessions to
political correctness over a long period of time, than to engage in
risky non-conforming, insurrectionary action with an uncertain
outcome. Thus, fearing loss of employment, income, or/and status, he
will agree with our analyses, but will not act in consequence, and
will even keep his views and opinions strictly private, confined (if
voiced with any degree of honesty, or at all) to a small circle of
family and friends.



While — if we make the effort to think selfishly and short-sightedly —
we can perhaps understand his motivations, the fact remains that the
respectable conservative is a craven species, ostensibly critical
(where allowed, but (where it matters) ultimately obsequious and
subservient to a class of individuals who despise him and who are
actively involved in his extinction. Because in so doing he removes
himself as an obstacle to the utopian liberal (and those who inspire,
deceive, and/or manipulate the latter), it is he that makes the
liberal dystopia possible. The utopian liberal is left to pursue his
agenda unopposed.

In my novel, I direct the thrust of my criticism against the
respectable conservative, and sadistically subject one of their number
to all manner of grotesque reverses and inconveniences. In real life,
however, I think that it is incumbent upon us to not simply complain
and criticize (which is easy enough to do), but to provide an
alternative. After all if the respectable conservative is what makes
the liberal dystopia possible, the lack of an alternative is what
makes possible the respectable conservative.

It is important to remember that respectable conservatives are not
obsequious out of choice: They are so out of necessity. The phrase
“Well, I won’t be around by the time things get that bad, so I may as
well enjoy the good life while it lasts,” is not merely a
rationalization designed to protect a coward’s self-esteem. It is also
proof that an effective counter-offensive on the information
battleground is a necessary condition for inspiring effective
resistance among respectable conservatives.

This is due to a lack of economic autonomy. Being dependent on the
toleration and munificence of a hostile elite for the acquisition of
resources, open acceptance of our data and our arguments promises no
material advantage. I contend that were there sufficient economic and
professional opportunities outside the system for our constituency,
our main problem would no longer be the respectable conservatives’
lack of backbone. The latter would be happy in the quiet pursuit of
wealth without the need to sell themselves and everyone else out.

This is important, for the ability to tap into the respectable
conservatives’ wealth to fund an inimical system is presently one of
the enemy’s principal advantages. It follows, therefore, that the
effective facilitation of moral independence through economic autonomy
would reduce the enemy’s pool of wealth, limit their ability to fund
their programs, restrict their capacity to reward conformity, diminish
their overall credibility, and thus reduce their overall authority.

Moreover, such an economic and status assault would likely generate
progressive dynamics. The visible prosperity of system-autonomous non-
conformists would likely motivate their system-dependent counterparts
to defect. In this scenario, the result would be a progressive erosion
of the ability of hostile elites to perpetuate their power, and a
concurrent progressive enhancement of our life-chances: Put plainly,
we would stop funding the enemy and start funding ourselves.

Guerrilla Warfare as a Cultural Strategy

Respectable conservatives believe in nothing except their own
impotence before an establishment that is powerful enough to appear
invincible. The success of the Left’s “long march through the
institutions” during the 20th century, however, has shown that a
culturally hegemonic incumbent can be defeated by even a tiny,
unrepresentative minority through the use of guerrilla tactics.

Guerrilla warfare makes a virtue of the guerrilla’s small size
compared to that of its military enemy: It is fast and agile, while
its enemy is slow and rigid; it is cheap and ubiquitous, while its
enemy is expensive and monolithic; it is invisible and highly mobile,
while its enemy is visible and largely stationary. It also has access
to the best and most appropriate weaponry, because it tends to steal
it from its enemy; and it is able to cause disproportionate damage to
enemy morale by focusing attacks on the enemy’s weakest point. As a
result, and as Robert Taber has pointed out, the guerrilla

fights the war of the flea, and his military enemy suffers the dog's
disadvantages: too much to defend; too small, ubiquitous, and agile an
enemy to come to grips with.

It is easy to forget that the ideas of the Left were once marginal,
criminal, and outrageous. That they have achieved the status of
orthodoxy in the face of a reluctant public that never asked for them
and never needed them owes to the fact that the radical Left in the
West concentrated their efforts on noisy campaigns over small,
winnable issues. In so doing they distracted, bogged down, and claimed
successive victories over the White majority that progressively
increased the radical Left’s prestige. In addition, because they are a
coalition of heterogeneous minority activists with ostensibly
different agendas (feminist, gay, anti-racist, pro-immigration, etc.)
and because they engaged in numerous, fleeting campaigns with
constantly moving goalposts (with one concession resulting in new
campaigns demanding more), they could not be neutralized with a
single, crushing blow.

Faced with the cultural guerrilla of the Left and the various Jewish
intellectual movements that inspired and informed Leftism in the 20th
century, the old establishment proved slow to realize the threat, slow
to react to it, and slow to adapt to, and adopt, the Left’s innovative
forms of cultural warfare. As Kevin MacDonald has argued, if the
latter proved irresistible for the Western consciousness, it is
because radical criticism of traditional Western institutions and
cognitive structures were couched in universalist, enlightened, moral
language — a language that resonated with Western moral sensibilities.
This is another way of saying that the cultural guerrilla men
identified our sensibilities, stole them, and used them as weapons
against us.

Guerrilla Economics in a Consumer Society

It is typical of commentators on the Right to condemn the consumer
culture, and to see it as weapon of mass distraction. And it is
certainly true that a society comprised of materialist hyper-
individualists who define themselves through, and derive their social
status from, the goods that they own and consume, is a society
comprised of citizens who are reluctant to rock the boat: Rocking the
boat could lead to loss of employment, which could lead to loss
income, which could lead to loss of assets, which would lead to loss
of self.

To this extent, it is perhaps the establishment’s most effective
weapon, and a reason why, despite their socialist leanings, they
obsess about economic growth (or lack thereof). Yet, whatever we may
think of it and those who sponsor it, the consumer culture is not
going away anytime soon, for our entire economy and institutional
apparatus are structured around it: There are thousands of millions of
people with a vested interest in it — as tycoons, small business
owners, or ordinary employees — and none are prepared to overthrow
what Tomislav Sunic has called “the dictatorship of well-being.” It
may be that the consumer culture is unsustainable, since it is
predicated on perpetual, linear growth that will eventually demand
resources in excess of those available on the planet before we are
able to begin colonizing others. Yet, there is no guarantee that a
sufficiently severe crisis point will be reached before social,
cultural, economic, political, and demographic trends reduce Whites to
a disenfranchised minority in their own traditional homelands.



The Quagga (extinct since 1883), Steller’s Sea Cow (extinct since
1768), the Dodo (extinct since 17th c.), the Auroch (extinct since
1627), the Great Auk (extinct since 1844), the Cave Lion (extinct
since 2000 y.a.), the Tasmanian Tiger (extinct since 1936), the Irish
Elk (extinct since 7700 y.a.), the Carolina Parakeet (extinct since
1918), white-skinned humans (projected extinction: 2200).

Rather than condemning it, and/or waiting for it to implode,
therefore, perhaps a more effective, more pro-active approach would be
to embrace the consumer culture and attack the enemy from within by
appropriating the consumer culture’s weaponry and deploying it in the
service of our collective interests and self-preservation. Doing so
effectively is necessary to enable our side to adequately fund the
creation and development of an alternative cultural, economic,
institutional, media, and political infrastructure with which we can
offer material advantages to our fellow constituents. Being presently
outmanned and outgunned, however, guerrilla economics may be the only
realistic option.

They Don’t Make Them Like They Used to

Geoffrey Miller has pointed out that since the 1950s, the consumer
economy has been predicated on a model of continuous innovation and
inbuilt obsolescence: This is because mass-producing low-quality,
technically-complex goods that people need (or feel the need) to
replace or upgrade frequently not only guarantees a steady flow of
profits, but is indeed vastly more profitable than making high-quality
goods that are durable and can be indefinitely maintained and
repaired. For someone who values quality, durability, and artistry,
this is a source of frustration, because it means that as the existing
model is pursued to its logical extreme, with companies racing against
each other to find new shortcuts and discover the cheapest labor and
the cheapest materials, it becomes ever more difficult to find high-
quality products that are new. If you want high-quality these days you
either have to buy pre-1950s antiques or spend exorbitant sums on
heavy-duty, industrial- or army-grade equipment.



Typewriters: The mighty Underwood 5 versus the modern Brother
counterpart, made out of plastic. An Underwood typewriter from the
1920s still works. Will the Brother in 2090?



The lament “they don’t make them like they used to” suggests that the
desire for an alternative approach exists beyond our constituency. I
say approach, without adding “on this front”, because I see a given
economic model as the phenotypic expression of an underlying genotype,
which in turn finds compatible expression on the values and cognitive
structures that shape the different aspects of society, culture,
politics, and demographic flows at a given point in space and time.
Thus, a culture of throwaway consumerism is organically linked to low-
wages and non-White labor (they are needed to make cheap consumer
goods), which are linked to bogus green taxes (they are needed —
allegedly — to combat the waste), which are linked to political
correctness (it is needed to protect the non-White workers), which is
linked to pro-egalitarian academic fraud (it is needed to justify
political correctness), which is linked to bloated government (it is
needed to ensure conformity to political correctness), which is linked
to predatory general taxation (it is needed to fund bloated
government), and so on.



What should our approach be?



I suggest that we can carve a niche, and develop a market, for
ourselves by emphasizing values and qualities which the present system
rejects and could not easily emulate without dismantling or
discrediting itself — by, in other words, attacking their weakest
point. Whereas the system offers giant corporations, faceless
standardization, low quality, low wages, low aesthetic value, rapid
obsolescence, superficiality, rootlessness, and cultural vacuity, we
could offer small businesses, distinctive craftsmanship, high quality,
high wages, artistry, durability, emotional depth, historical
tradition, and cultural richness.





Huntley and Palmers biscuits, then and now. Lipton Tea, then and now.
The artistry, cultural references, and durable materials of yesteryear
have given way to quick and cheap manufacture.



Specifically, those within our constituency with a good idea and an
entrepreneurial spirit could start up and grow businesses predicated
on these principles. They could offer goods and services designed to
suit the specific needs of our constituency. And they could ensure to
always trade, whenever the option exists, with similar businesses,
while selling to the wider public. By emphasizing the highest
standards of excellence and by packaging products in a highly
distinctive, culturally resonant, and aesthetically superior style,
such small businesses could prove very appealing to consumers fed up
with the tacky, ugly, flimsy, throwaway junk that they find cluttering
modern malls and supermarkets. There would also be long-term savings
of purchasing a high-quality item once rather than a low-quality item
many times.



As such businesses thrive and proliferate, they could eventually offer
sufficient opportunities to afford our constituency a healthy measure
of economic autonomy from a system configured to extinguish European-
descended populations. And as that economic autonomy grows, our
constituency would be better able to fund self-conscious ethnic
lobbying and activism, congenial legal representation, non-hostile
education programs, and cutting-edge alternative media. Jewish success
on these fronts in the West since the 19th century, despite widespread
anti-Semitism during a large part of this period, has shown that this
is technically possible. Indeed, when awarded the Jack London Literary
Prize in 2004, Kevin MacDonald proposed in his acceptance speech that
we learn from Jewish success.

There will be those who worry about politically correct legislation
designed to frustrate such efforts. But I return to a theme that has
been running through a number of my articles: examples of, and indeed
the seeds for, a parallel, anti-establishment economy already exist,
in the shape of a group of inter-related, pro-European music scenes:
Black Metal, Neo-Folk, and Martial Industrial. These scenes are
relatively insulated from political correctness because no one who is
politically correct would ever be interested in —and probably never
even heard of — that kind of music.



Of course, the t-shirts and CDs of the pro-European music scenes are
still produced by manufacturers within the wider economy. But this is
also gradually changing. As these scenes have grown and gained
momentum, record labels have entered the manufacturing, printing, and
distribution arenas.



Greater degrees of economic autonomy may be possible in other areas of
the economy, such as, for example, food production or textiles. At the
guerrilla end of the scale, some of us could, for example, grow our
own fruit, make jam, and sell it at village fairs, complete with a
culturally resonant brand name and distinctive, highly artistic
labeling, inspired on Victorian, Medieval, or Old Western aesthetics.



Everybody prefers natural, homemade food to chemical-ridden, factory-
made junk, so even a cottage enterprise like that could quickly find a
reliable market and expand, given sufficient energy, intelligence,
expertise, and determination. Far fetched? Let us remember that Tesco,
the British supermarket giant, which currently rakes in annual profits
in excess of £2,000,000,000, began as Jack Cohen standing behind a
stall in the East End of London, selling surplus groceries. Marks and
Spencer also began as a single market stall.



Marks and Spencer began as a single market stall.



Don’t Have to Go to Antarctica

The liberal dystopia I present in Mister is certainly not a foregone
conclusion. Our hostile establishment normalizes itself by presenting
current trends as modern, commonsensical, and inevitable. But this is
simply an effort to maintain its cultural hegemony. In Mister I
imagine global warming making Antarctica somewhat less frigid, and its
coastal and peripheral areas becoming the new Old West, where White
migrants, following the example of their 17th-, 18th-, and 19th-
century predecessors in North America, re-settled in order escape the
collapse of European civilization. A more detailed exploration of this
scenario — an elaboration of the Nazi UFO legend — is the topic of my
next novel, currently in the works.

The Jewish experience indicates that we do not have to emigrate to
Antarctica to build an alternative society: We can do this here and
now, from within our present society, enabling the moral independence
of ordinary White citizens by establishing economic autonomy, and then
launching our own march through the institutions. This could prove an
efficient, and certainly much more satisfying and pleasant way of
dealing with the respectable conservative and the utopian liberal
alike.

But if it is to prove a viable approach, it must be remembered that
present demographic trends in traditional White homelands have set a
finite time horizon. Should an effective economic counter-offensive
take too long to gain the required momentum, should the establishment
manage to retain their credibility long enough for us to become a tiny
disenfranchised minority, nothing short of Vril-powered UFOs will save
us."

Alex Kurtagic (email him) was born in 1970. He is the author of Mister
(published by Iron Sky Publishing, 2009) and the founder and director
of Supernal Music.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...Guerrilla.html

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 9, 10:51*pm, Bret L wrote:
Guerrilla Economics: Stop Funding the Enemy

Great point, Bratzi, but is forcibly cutting off contributions to the
republicans legal?