Why we need a vanguard.

The following deals with our current failure as a movement to achieve any meaningful successes. It is not an advocation of any particular ideology but rather an exploration of political organization that has worked in the past. I do not advocate anything illegal.


War and politics are like chess. The most important step is positioning – and then you strike. To create a legal mainstream membership organization is to allow one’s opponents to dictate one’s own freedom of movement. The British National Party has recently learned this:

“Black and Asian Britons must be allowed to join the British National Party (BNP), it was claimed yesterday, after the far-right organisation caved in to legal action and agreed to change its membership rules. The climbdown follows court proceedings brought by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which accused the BNP of having a constitution that discriminated against racial and religious groups. In an order issued at the Central London county court, the BNP agreed to use “all reasonable endeavours” to revise its constitution so it did not unlawfully discriminate against sections of British society.” 1

Another victory for the mainstream! I wonder if Mr. Griffin smiled and clapped at this decision like he did when the black woman called him an idiot on ‘Question Time’?

Here’s another example of infiltration. In Germany the government tried to ban the “far-right” NDP, but:

“The German government’s efforts to curb the neo-Nazi right were thrown into disarray yesterday when the country’s top court blocked its key initiative – an attempt to ban the skinhead-dominated National Democratic party. If the decision was an embarrassment for Gerhard Schröder’s centre-left administration, the reasons for it were doubly so. The judges ruled that the government’s case rested largely on the statements and actions of NPD members who had been shown to be agents of the German intelligence services.” 2


“It said evidence from the government showed that in recent years about 30 of the NPD’s 200 top officials were secretly paid by the government. Eight of the spies have been unmasked in the two years since the case was brought.” 3


“The NPD won only 0.4% of the vote at the last general election and does not hold any seats in the national or state legislatures. But one of the government’s reasons for pressing ahead was to bar it from access to television advertising and public funding.” 4

So, a totally marginalized political party is infiltrated by government agents and then the controversial actions by the agents are used as a basis to demand the party’s abolition!

In the United States it is more of the same:

“A paid FBI informant was the man behind a neo-Nazi march through the streets of Parramore…”


“The FBI would not comment on what it knew about the involvement of its informant, 39-year-old David Gletty of Orlando, in the neo-Nazi event. In court Wednesday, an FBI agent said the bureau has paid its informant at least $20,000 during the past two years.”


“Throughout most of the hearing, Gletty was referred to as “Mr. X” or “CW” (cooperating witness). His identity was revealed when Assistant Federal Public Defender Peter W. Kenny repeatedly slipped up and mentioned Gletty’s full name.” 5

I should point out that the National Socialist Movement, of which Gletty was a member, is by no means part of a “vanguard.” It is a public organization with a website and holds rallies around the United States. It provides no theoretical leadership within the White Nationalist movement.

Another case of government infiltration was recently revealed in the trial of Harold C. (Hal) Turner:

“Turner’s clandestine past was confirmed this past summer when he was jailed on charges that he made threats on his blog against three federal judges in Chicago. In court after his arrest, federal prosecutors acknowledged Turner’s FBI ties but downplayed his importance and even described him as “unproductive.”

“Imagine my surprise,” he wrote in one of several letters from jail to The Record, “when agents from the very FBI that trained and paid me came to my house to arrest me.”

“FBI memos indicate that the bureau had appropriated as much as $100,000 for Turner’s work as an informant.” 6

These are only a few examples, but it should become clear now that the White Nationalist movement is filled with agent provocateurs and spies. This is a reflection of its loose and disorganized manner. White Nationalism needs a vanguard organization to direct activities from the center, operating in secret to
avoid being infiltrated by government agents.


In modern times the concept of a vanguard was applied very successfully by the Communists led by Vladimir Lenin. Lenin once quipped to his fellow Communist Maxim Gorky that, “the clever Russian is almost always a Jew or has Jewish blood in him.”  Lenin, himself part Jew, would lay the theoretical basis for Communism in the 20th century.

Let us take “two steps forward and one step back.” The basis of Communist theory was laid by Karl Marx, a German Jew. Marx, author of Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto, saw the victory of Communism as inevitable.

“The development of modern industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, [capitalist] therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.” 8

Marx, prone to delusions of grandeur, would also write in 1848 that,

“Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.” 9

Of course, neither of Marx’s statements were true. In 1848 the ideological foundations of Communism had not yet been made. Marx’s Capital would not be written until 1867, nearly twenty years after he proclaimed Communism “itself a power.”

But, to return to theory, Marx wrote in the Manifesto that,

“The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties.” and “They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.” 10

Marx, son of a Jewish lawyer, continued writing manuscripts and articles for the rest of his life, his large family surviving only because of the charity of his friends. When Friedrich Engels, his collaborator, wrote Marx a letter informing him of the death of his lover Mary Burns, Marx complained that he needed more money and wished his own mother had died instead of Mary, because she “has had her fair share of life.” Engels, of course, was not pleased by this response. 11

Although already “a power” in 1848, by 1901 the Communists had not successfully overthrown any country on earth. Capitalism’s rough edges were being smoothed by trade-unions, wage laws, and so on.

Into this situation we thrust our clever Lenin. It was at this time that Lenin began to write his pamphlet ‘What Is To Be Done?’ Lenin argued that the Communists had failed to achieve meaningful success because they had been relying on “the importance of the spontaneous.”  By this he meant the spontaneous growth of anti-capitalist sentiment within Europe. 12

Lenin discovered that,

“The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.” 13

To clarify, most working people supported reform but not revolution. Lenin then called for “professional revolutionaries” operating in secret. This would be the vanguard party that would direct the broader actions of the Communist movement.  Lenin went on to say,

“A dozen wise men can be more easily wiped out than a hundred fools.” This wonderful truth (for which the hundred fools will always applaud you) appears obvious only because in the very midst of the argument you have skipped from one question to another.” 14

Lenin then discussed the possibility of infiltration by government spies:

“But since you raise the question of organisations being unearthed and persist in your opinion, I assert that it is far more difficult to unearth a dozen wise men than a hundred fools.” 15

Lenin formed an underground group of professional revolutionaries. Taking advantage of the chaos in Russia, in October 1917 Lenin led the Red Guards, the military wing of his party, to seize control of St. Petersburg. The result was the creation of the Soviet Union. This method has been followed in countless other countries, including Cuba. Peter Ellis writes:
“Very few revolutionaries have been presented with the ideal revolutionary siuation; the majority of times they have had to make it for themselves.  In modern history perhaps the greatest example is the Cuban Revolution. On November 25, 1956, the small yacht Granma set off for Cuba with eighty-three men commanded by Castro with the objective to liberate Cuba from the Fascist military dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista.  Batista’s army was waiting for them at Algria de Pio.  Of the eighty-three men only fifteen survived.  With these fifteen, forty-five days later, Castro started the revolution.  Looking at the situation logically, we can hardly describe Algria de Pio as a “revolutionary situation,” and yet the revolution succeeded.  Revolutionaries do not wait for “revolutionary situations” but create them themselves; a fact clearly demonstrated in Hannah Arendt’s book On Revolution.”

Hitler was a contemporary of Lenin. He watched the Soviet regime expand from Russia into the Baltic states and Poland. Hitler also experienced first-hand a revolution in Munich led by the Jew Kurt Eisner. This same Jew had also been convicted of leading a munitions strike during the war but was given amnesty after the defeat of Germany. After the war Eisner declared a “Bavarian Soviet Republic.” Chaos soon reigned in Munich. Basic services had vanished and food was scarce. Soon arriving home from the Western Front, hardened veterans like Hitler formed into a 35,000 man “Free Corps” and squashed the Communist uprising.17

Hitler began to study the Communists and their methods. He would later articulate his own methods of organization and propaganda that would lead his small party into power. Hitler wrote:

“Every movement will first have to sift the human material it wins into two large groups: supporters and members. The function of propaganda is to attract supporters, the function of organization is to win members. A supporter of a movement is one who declares himself to be in agreement with its aims, a member is one who fights for them.” 18


“The victory of an idea will be possible the sooner, the more comprehensively propaganda has prepared people as a whole and the more exclusive, rigid, and firm the organization which carries out the fight in practice. From this it results that the number of supporters cannot be too large, but that the number of members can more readily be too large than too small.” 19


“It must see to it that, from this point on, this core alone shall exlusively lead the movement, that is, determine the propaganda which should lead to its universal recognition, and, in full possession of the power, undertake the actions which are necessary for the practical realization of its ideas.” 20

Ten years after writing these words Hitler became the Chancellor of Germany and declared to his political enemies:

“You talk about persecution!” he thundered in an impromptu response to an address by the Social Democratic speaker. “I think that there are only a few of us [in our party] here who did not have to suffer persecutions in prison from your side … You seem to have totally forgotten that for years our shirts were ripped off our backs because you did not like the color … We have outgrown your persecutions!”

“In those days,” he scathingly continued, “our newspapers were banned and banned and again banned, our meetings were forbidden, and we were forbidden to speak, I was forbidden to speak, for years on end. And now you say that criticism is salutary!” 21


The White Nationalist movement suffers from many things, but most importantly a lack of serious organization. All successful modern revolutionary movements have followed the vanguard approach. Under repressive regimes vanguard movements do not parade around in ridiculous uniforms – they go underground and operate silently. They prepare propaganda and organize loyal cadres. A successful vanguard also operates according to a solid philosophy and ideology, but that is a topic for another day.

1. BNP may have to admit black and Asian members after court challenge
2. German court rejects attempt to ban neo-Nazi party
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Neo-Nazi rally was organized by FBI informant
6. Records show feds used ultra-right radio host for years
7. Volkogonov, Lenin: A New Biography, p. 112
8. Marx, Capital Vol. 1, Chapter 32
9. Marx, The Communist Manifesto
10. Ibid.
11. Marx, Letter dated 8 January 1863
12. Lenin, What Is To Be Done?
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Ellis, A History of the Irish Working Class, p. 222
17. Evans, The Coming of The Third Reich, p. 156
18. Hitler, Mein Kampf p. 581
19. Ibid., p. 582
20. Ibid., p. 584
21. Degrelle, Hitler’s Social Revolution


  1. A “vanguard” is the spearhead of a mass movement. I don’t think anyone objects to a vanguard of that sort. In fact, the WN movement already has such a vanguard, but it is not publicized for the reasons you describe above.

  2. “[i]White Nationalism needs a vanguard organization to direct activities from the center, operating in secret to
    avoid being infiltrated by government agents.[/i]”

    Seems doubtful that secret organizations are possible in the West today. Also, membership organizations are probably no longer viable considering the broad powers of the Department of Homeland Security. A recent example is the county jail guard who lost his job for membership in the KKK on the grounds that the KKK is a terrorist organization. Who now makes the decision what comprises a terrorist organization? The same group that makes up the yearly hate group list?

  3. I have to agree with Randy. Nobody is “operating in secret” anymore, with modern technology that era is over. Forget the FBI and NSA and the government types, one subpoena to google would be too much trouble, just go to your Facebook page. You have no privacy, get over it. That’s what our corporate lords have told us and they are right.

    Rusty is also most likely right about membership organizations, except for the most the most tame and mainstream. Remember being a White conservative veteran coming home from Iraq gets you on the potential terrorist list today.

    The Vanguard really has only one thing they can do – speak out publicly, openly, and moderately about Jewish power and the plan to genocide Whites. Many people are going to be fired from the jobs over the next decade or two, and if that’s the only suffering we do, count us very lucky.

    No uniforms, no oaths, no membership lists, that fetish is dead.

  4. Operating in “secret” might not be the best word. Another way to phrase it would be operating “privately.”

    But, if you do need to fall off the grid, facebooks and myspaces can be deleted, residences can be changed and jobs can be quit. This is what it means to “go underground.” Cadres of professional revolutionaries aren’t going to have regular jobs – being a revolutionary is their job, thus the term “professional revolutionary.”

    -Identities can be stolen. (I don’t advocate this.)
    -Fingerprints can be faked. (It was on mythbusters.)
    -People can disappear.

    Hiding from the authorities isn’t difficult. Millions of foreigners do it in the United States every day.

  5. Sam Davidson I see your point, but that is a really tall order

    “Cadres of professional revolutionaries aren’t going to have regular jobs”

    Consider the implications of this. It’s out of bounds for anyone with children.

  6. “Hiding from the authorities isn’t difficult. Millions of foreigners do it in the United States every day.”

    Well, the authorities aren’t looking for them. But the point is taken.


  7. The need for a committed, charismatic vanguard is without question. However, in modern Western society the elevation of said vanguard cannot be achieved until the parameters of discourse have been thoroughly deconstructed and exposed for the neo-Marxist sham they are (this is why internet bloggers, commentators, academics, etc. are so important at this stage in the game). A decline in the standard of living, cultural resent, and unprecedented demographic shifts throughout the U.S. will provide fertile soil for our ideas to grow and will open many an ear to our cause.

    The very idea itself reminds me of an aphorism scribbled by a Danish Existentialist some time ago:

    “Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion — and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assume its opinion… while truth again reverts to a new minority.”

  8. There is a specific reason for the ineffectuality of White Nationalism and other hard Right political tendencies: before you have an effective political movement, you do need a Vanguard, and the more public the better: public = publicity. But before you can have a Vanguard, you must have a dynamic, charismatic leader (e.g., Lenin, Trotsky, Hitler, Gandhi) to select and cement the Vanguard. Currently, there is no such leader on the American hard Right. Such a leader will, however, emerge as the ZOG’s political and economic circumstances continue to deteriorate.

  9. Seemingly the only thing keeping any one from being a Professional Revolutionary, is the faith, will, and desire to make that sacrifice for the greater good. Who will rise to the challenge and answer the call? Who will sit on the bench and wait for the outcome before loyalty is given? Have some heart in your cause nay-sayers

Comments are closed.