Andrew Yeoman

Recently Keith Preston, one of my favorite contributors to AltRight, wrote an article entitled "Why We Will Win." Keith makes the compelling case that, though it may not appear to be so, both liberalism and Communism have utterly failed in their world-changing agenda and the unstable hybrid it created will collapse due to its own contradictions. As a former member of those circles myself, I don't see any weakness in his argument, though it's perhaps overly optimistic to think that the Left will disintegrate anytime soon.

Keith's timing was fortuitous, as I have been brooding over "Why We Will Lose," due to various events I have observed.

This article will be different from my others. No one likes harping on the negative, and I'm no exception.  So, don't go shooting the messenger -- these "8 Reasons" are being discussed to get these issues out in the open so that we can reverse these trends. (To keep things brief, I'm going to avoid discussing deeper psychological explanations as to why these eight things might happen.)

Perhaps surprising to some, none of the issues I raise have anything to do with money. Although we certainly have a financial shortfall that is a symptom of a deeper problem, money is not the real issue. Similarly, none of my complaints have to do with the painstaking task of getting new recruits; that's important, of course, but not directly involved with why we will lose. (Many movements that attract thousands of dedicated followers will, despite this fact, lose.) This article addresses the human material already present in "Alternative Right communities," as they are.  I'm also not going to mention keyboard warriors for the same reason -- they're a symptom of a larger problem.

8. Demographics -- We simply don't have the length of time required for a political movement to galvanize across all fronts.  The cultural organism is in its twilight years and there is little evidence to suggest that things will turn around anytime soon. Cities and regions long considered epicenters of Western civilization -- especially in Europe -- appear to be nearly irretrievably lost.  Many of the people that share our values are not bucking the cultural trend by having families, and it looks like the recent experience the Serbians went through over Kosovo is what we are witnessing across a civilization.

7. Lack of Experienced Activists -- We have a few visible leaders within our movement.  Leaders are important, not so much as "Great Hopes" but as brand names people can identify with. Pat Buchanan comes to mind.  But we need the middle people: the organizers, planners, networkers, and facilitators that make events happen. There is a learning curve on how to do this, and its no surprise people don't know how to take their involvement to the next level.

6. Kryptonite to Women -- Okay, maybe what we're doing isn't kryptonite to all women, but many women won't associate with our ideas. Why is this important?  Because it leaves half our people out of the struggle. The women that do stick around have to deal with a constant litany of abuse and frequent courtship invitations from unwanted suitors.  Beyond the often-restated tropes about crime against woman, nothing says "you are not important to us" than sexualizing women in the movement. Don't tell me that's not an issue.  I've seen it happen in all kinds of radical circles, and ours is the worst for it. With our woman folk that contribute to the cause, be encouraging and helpful and not discouraging and unhelpful.  We need women's help, now more than ever.

5. Ageism -- I know most of you weren't expecting that one, so after you finish laughing, hear me out. There are major cultural differences between the younger generation of activists and those over 40. These conflicts between age groups cause frustration and distrust. Older activsts don't like having "kids" showing up and possibly suggesting new ways of doing things.  The young kids don't like the old people, who, they view, do nothing but complain.  The ideal interaction should be based on older members sharing their experiences and lessons from the past and mentoring the youth to grow and learn how to be decent, outstanding adults in our community.  With few exceptions, I don't see that happening.  Instead we see clashes and unspoken animosity.  What does a 40-year-old intellectual have to offer a 19-year-old upstart? They would appear to be polar opposites, right?  But actually they have quite a lot to talk about.

4. People that show up -- We all know who the "reliables" are.  They're there at almost every meeting, every social event, every pub crawl. But that's all they do. They don't write about their views. They don't bring friends to meetings.  They might say they are going to do something, but it doesn't happen. But otherwise they are the most reliable comrades one could hope to have.  This may be a trait of a "typical person in a political movement," but our problem is that we don't have sufficient numbers of typical people. Thus, everyone needs to pull their weight to make the movement grow, or we will lose.

3. Our opposition knows how to appear attractive -- From media, film, graphics, writing, no one can blame our opposition for not trying to make the best propaganda they can.  Our side can't really say that. Our side prefers vitriol to humor and sarcasm to analysis.  As Alex Kurtagic recently wrote, "pro-White campaigners [need] to provide their target audience with better incentives than the apocalyptic warnings about economic collapse, race wars, and extinction." Pessimism is infectious --  but so is optimism.

2. Infighting -- Someone doesn't like an off-color joke someone made and decides that's going to be the reason to make them a sworn enemy of truth, justice, and the American way. Another person doesn't like how a person sends text messages. Another person is convinced that all we need is the Constitution and anything contrary to that idea is a Communist conspiracy.  It's a fundamental goal of our opposition for our side to break the links between us, create fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and pursue faulty lines of reasoning. This effectively fractures our efforts.  By and large our side does not need enemies -- we are our own best enemies and we defeat ourselves every time!  The enemy doesn't need to fight; they just have to scoff.

1. No one shows up -- Of all the reasons, this is the most serious.  Millions of people support a given idea and none show up to express it. Thus no critical mass is built. Politicians go with what appears to majority opinion -- or the most passionate, active minority. (The Tea Parties have used this to their advantage.) The regulars will show up and think they are all alone. The ability to win a conflict is dependent on a movement converging at the critical moment of a systempunkt and having its agenda carried through. Showing up usually means a small investment in time and energy.  It can be as simple as showing up at a meeting about illegal immigration or coming at a speaker's events.  Or it can mean making it to a meeting that your friends are hosting (because you have friends that live near you in the movement, right?).

This is my Top 8 reasons why we will lose.  It is up to you to make sure this doesn't happen.

Restrictions on the movement of people through territories -- whether they are owned by states, tribes, or individuals -- have always existed and will always exist. Try crossing through a farmer's land -- expect to be asked by a shotgun-wielding farmer what the hell you're doing there. Try going through Sioux country without permission -- you might lose your scalp.

In traditional societies, it is the duty of the tribal warriors to enforce protection. In postmodern societies, immigration is increasingly used as a tool, often by the state itself, to suppress, divide, and weaken the working class by stirring up resentments (of immigrants and natives) and intensifying the competition for scarce resources (from material objects to sexual partners). The state creates these antagonisms and then benefits when the resulting instability leads to popular calls for more state control! Moreover, whenever the state decides a native population has become too expensive or too troublesome, it can create a vast alternative pool of surplus labor through immigration.

This is the second in a series of articles on the question, raised most publicly by Patrick Buchanan, whether the Tea Party movement nurtures white consciousness and unity and will become the political basis for whites as a people.

I am mostly an observer of Tea Party events, but have participated in a few in the past, since the movement corresponds well enough with my libertarian values. Whether they will lead to the rise of a "new tribe," as Pat Buchanan argues, remains to be seen. In many ways, his intriguing column reveals more about what Buchanan wishes the Tea Parties to be than about what they actually are. 

As a Tribal Nationalist, I sympathize with the efforts of tribes, old and established or new and in formation, to create autonomy for their own people. The Tea Party crowd is definitely a collection of like-minded tribes that share the same cultural background and economic self-interest. But the question is whether the Tea Party will evolve into anything other than a voting bloc. Buchanan's hope is that the movement will become an agent of revolutionary (for lack of a better word) neo-Americanism.

What's most surprised me about the Tea Party phenomenon is the vitriolic manner in which prominent social commentators have attacked the protestors. Noam Chomsky, for instance, recently dismissed the Tea Party as a "fascist" movement. Though unlike the current President in office, the Tea Party isn't demanding more government control over healthcare, the economy, and our daily lives.

Politically speaking, it would be far wiser for libertarian-minded and antiwar people to get behind the Tea Party. Same for left-wing anarchists who -- despite what they call themselves -- are against the Tea Party's call for less taxes and less government.

At any rate, the best thing the Tea Party has done has been to provoke the "culture warriors" of the Establishment to show their true partisan colors. Eventually, Tea Party activists will notice who is consistently on their side and who is against them.

They might also stop denying the fundamentally ethnic character of their movement and begin to analyze who is in control of the media and why the media makes such spiteful accusations against European Americans exercising their democratic rights.  

And that's a good thing.

I disagree with Buchanan that the "charge of racism" is not working to intimidate the Tea Partiers. For the leadership seems to expend quite a bit of energy parading black conservatives at rallies and announcing that Tea Partiers reject of forms of ethnic solidarity. Again, Buchanan writes about the traits he'd like the Tea Party to have.

This said, the Tea Party movement's ultimate ideology is yet to be determined. I, for one, hope that Tea Partiers, and other mainstream conservative leaders, might step forward and endorse a new Tribal America that rolls back Federal mandates and supports states rights as an absolute necessity to our constitutional republic.  Were this to happen, the Tea Party could go on to become a history-making agent for the good of all Americans.  Sadly, there's little about the current leadership that leads me to believe that they're capable of this.