For my second article on Occidental Dissent I want to touch on a subject that is often implied but frequently broken in our movement: loyalty.
First of all we should come to a definition of what loyalty is and what it is not.
Wikipedia defines loyalty as “Loyalty, also called allegiance or truth, is faithfulness or a devotion to a person or cause.”
That is a good working definition that we can start with. I would like to pick away at a couple things that I don’t believe loyalty has anything to do with. For example, I don’t believe it is possible to be loyal to someone that is not among the living. To be loyal to someone, they must be alive. To be loyal to a dead person does not make any sense any more than pledging loyalty to Napoleon would make sense. One can revere or hold that person to high esteem but loyalty is not possible.
Our definition includes faithfulness to a cause, or more succinctly, an idea. The ancient Icelanders had a wonderful word to describe their religion: Ásatrú: troth or faithfulness, to the gods. In English we use the suffix -ist to describe someone who “believes in something,” such as a nationalist.
I’m sure for most of the readers of this blog merely “believing in” your nationality is not what you have in mind but rather troth or loyalty to that nationality and heritage. This idealized form of loyalty is a distinct abstraction from flesh and blood: loyalty to a person or persons.
To complete our definition of terms the opposite of loyalty needs to be described:
| Noun | 1. | disloyalty – the quality of being disloyal
infidelity, unfaithfulness – the quality of being unfaithful
|
I am spelling this out because the overwhelming pattern I have seen time and again as a community organizer: the extremely disloyal actions taken by people who claim loyalty to the same cause. I am not going to try to characterize the various causes of these infidelities but I want to characterize what loyalty looks like and why it is important to all of us.
In my opinion the basis of loyalty is the belief that two or more people share for mutually beneficial reasons. For ninety nine point nine percent of human history, human societies were organized by the loyalty tribesmen and women gave each other to protect and care for each other. In more recent times the German people expressed this with the saying “My Honor is my Loyalty.” To be disloyal in such a case would be to dishonor myself and most likely, my family.
Loyalty is like a glue that binds two or more people together. Here is loyalty in different social contexts. Men can become unusually loyal to their job. They show up each day, they do what they need to do, and the job rewards them for their contribution. A husband and wife have pledged loyalty to each other until “death do us part.” A comrade is loyal to his mates and the good faith the shared experiences they undergo in similar interests or activities. Loyalty, when it is earned, is extremely difficult to become unglued. A mere bad word would be impossible to shake loyalty between two people. Same for a bad incident or misunderstanding. As wedding vows indicate, years of frustration, anger, and outrage that until a point would still not be enough to break the loyalty of a loyal person.
If we fail to establish the loyalty of the people in our personal lives we will fail at earning the loyalty of our people across the nation.
How can a person claim racial consciousness, race loyalty even, when they cannot be loyal to any persons of this race? How can a person be considered loyal when they jump from group to group? How can someone be considered loyal when they endlessly spread rumors about others in the movement? It is not possible. To be loyal to a race- yet disloyal to the members of that race- is not loyal: it is traitorous.
The only way to trounce disloyalty is put a stop to tolerating it. You have bad thoughts about someone, you keep them to yourself. Someone gossips- you tell them to shut their mouth. Someone talks trash about someone- you tell them to shut it. Someone makes a scene in front of a group- you speak the truth of your disapproval of those actions in privacy with the person in question. This is not to say that no one is above criticism, for in order for our movement to be successful being called out for engaging in counterproductive behavior or language is critical.
I am known as a Tribalist and that means that in my hierarchy of values I place all my loyalty in the members of my “tribe” whom 1) I personally know, and 2) share my values. All other demographically categories become secondary to the Tribe and our values. That doesn’t mean I am disrespectful of other tribes, quite the contrary, I am an ambassador for my tribe at all times: being cordial is a job requirement. Sharing a personal commitment to each other is one of the most natural, and dare I say, heartwarming things a person can do. As a way of life this behavior is completely ignored in today’s consumerist society but you may notice aspects of this in certain non white groups.
The struggle for establishing loyalty to each other above and beyond the government or institution we are employed in is the first step in addressing previous egregious results.
If we are to fix any of the existential threats facing our people I believe that a lightening fast blitzkrieg to develop loyalty amongst deserving like minded flesh and blood human beings. This first essential ingredient is the basis with which all subsequent struggles will look easy in comparison. In truth I believe that once you have fifty people that are loyal to you as a tribe reverence to Napoleons will become extremely less important.
So in conclusion of this article I say this: be loyal to your comrades and never betray their trust.
Thank you.
Great post, Andrew.
Death in June — Kameradschaft
I’m a bit sceptical about the self-defined tribe thing. Real tribes are ferocious to a degree that moderns would not tolerate. Violate a taboo and be exiled, beaten or killed.
To claim that you & your 40 or so cool San Francisco anarchist buddies are a “tribe” seems the height of pretentious vanity, sorry.
I do think loyalty to friends is important, and loyalty to your community. If we were still tribal loyalty to tribe would be a complete norm, and wouldn’t even really need to be much written about.
Today’s question is “are we loyal to our race”, where the race is defined upward to be “white”. This a a very high level of abstraction that people are asked to commit to. I suspect that my great grandfather would have said his race was Polish or perhaps Slavic, not White. The recent Hitler birthday thread points out that there are still many deep differences between Germans, Slavs, the Rus and Nordics — and these are the most closely related of White peoples. (Think of the larger differences between the Greeks, Armenians or Sicilians.) In the 20th century Nationality tried (and often succeeded) in becoming a proxy for Tribe.
The WN movement would like to get a higher level of abstraction. For America, at least, this seems like a good idea and perhaps possible.
The NA movement seeks to have us define our own tribes, and have primary loyalty to them. Won’t most of the other tribes in San Francisco be full of homosexual circle-jerk groups, poly-racial modern dance teams, and eco-fanatic lesbian families? Why is one self selected tribe any better than any other? Can something so synthetic really be the foundation of a restoration of our culture?
I don’t see it.
“Why is one self selected tribe any better than any other?”
They don’t have to be “better,” they have to be our own.
“Can something so synthetic really be the foundation of a restoration of our culture?”
–> “Neotribalism is the ideology that human beings have evolved to live in tribal society, as opposed to mass society, and thus will naturally form social networks constituting “tribes.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neotribalism
“Real tribes are ferocious to a degree that moderns would not tolerate. Violate a taboo and be exiled, beaten or killed.”
We still have serious consequences for violating taboos in our culture. My goal is to take that authority, or monopoly of violence, out of the hands of the State and into the people.
Jackson,
Having a tribe is the most natural thing in the world. You don’t have to paint your face and put a bone in your nose to be a tribe! But I understand how you had a bit of cognitive dissonance with the word “tribe” to describe a group of modern urban friends. You can believe it, though. Modern tribalism is the way for the White race to go.
I too have a tribe of loyal comrades, numbering about a dozen. Unfortunately, most of them are spread out geographically. But their loyalty is absolute, we are in regular contact, and I have known them for years. The only unusual thing about my tribe is that they mostly only know me, they don’t know each other.
I have been able to build up this tribe because I am a faithful friend and always optimistic and full of energy.
Andrew Y.,
This reminds me of that recent episode in New Jersey where the Orthodox Jewish son snitched on the dad for truly heinous crimes and the dad disowned him – as per tribal policy. The heartburn I have here is with your nascent tribe’s apparent lack of a mythology, vision, and sense of true identity. It feels as if your theory is solidly grounded in human nature but is little more than a concrete foundation for a home – not a true home.
Freemasonry, Orthodox Jewry, and MS13 all more or less implement your vision of a cohesive and loyal tribal collective which exists independently of “the state”, but they also do more. They have their own founding myths and their own subculture. I can more or less tell these three tribes apart pretty quickly after engaging an individual. Is BANA subcultural? Is it a single tribe? Would my hearty band of Midwestern National Anarchistss (MWNA) be loyal to BANA and vice-versa?
I’m probably missing something, but this strikes me as sort of like deciding with a group of atheist friends to start a Religion Club where we all agree to be religious. We would then go to our “church” and declare things like “Adherents of RC will be loyal to one another”.
You can glean a lot about a person by how they interact with their own family. If they can’t be loyal to their own blood they aren’t likely to be loyal to anyone else.
Tribe implies kinship, very close kinship. White in its modern context is very broad and inclusive, thus I would say you are bringing together people who probably have very different backgrounds and genetic predispositions, albeit they are European. In that sense it is a bit of a contradiction and it’s little wonder you have a lot of trouble with participants.
Matt,
You are overlooking that this article is about Loyalty, not my tribe.
Andrew,
Any thoughts on conflicting loyalties? Which should come first? Loyalty to a personal friend or organization?
I agree with your sentiments, Andrew.
In the course of my life I have come to believe that traits such as honesty, loyalty, and kindness are mostly innate. If you don’t have the genetics for altruism, it doesn’t matter what kind of society or religion you live under. People capable of being ‘good’ are generally good to everyone and not simply to friends and family. There have been strangers who, when I was down and out, gave me more help than some ‘friends’ of mine. To me, this indicates that if someone is constantly stirring up trouble, talking ill of others, showing disloyalty etc, he needs to be exiled from the tribe. Don’t try to change him, just get rid of him.
Andrew, you have hit at the root of our problem. Many whites have no loyalty or sense of moral obligation to tribe. Tribe is a word we don’t use any more. It conjures up images like those of Obama as a witchdoctor (signs at tea parties). Perhaps it is viewed as uncivil or primitive but the truth is we are a tribe and we better start acting like one.
It’s human nature to feel good when helping someone. Take an auto accident. Many people will stop, get out of their cars, and assist in aiding the injured as much as they possibly can even if it makes them late or miss a personally-important appointment. And, they’ll feel really, really good about it. But these are the same people that wouldn’t let the guy into their lane a little earlier or they cut him off in his lane a few miles back without feeling one iota of regret. Well, we’re desensitized. And, we’re certanly desensitized to our own. We’ve all been screwed in life and what is the color of the people that have screwed us? Reason? No loyalty!
I think the point made here is clear, regardless of an individuals standpoint on the “tribal” issue. The one thing that crushes every attempt that the Folk have made at some sort of cohesive structure is disloyalty, in-fighting, bickering and backstabbing. We talk about things like honor, loyalty, the “aryan ideal,” and in the same breath denounce other groups, put down their leaders and bitch at one another on the internet because we don’t agree with another individual’s opinion on some minor issue. I am not saying that we all “just need to get along,” nor that many groups are not flawed to the point of being ludicrously ineffective, but certainly, the need for absolute loyalty and trust is imperative to our ongoing success.
As for the tribe aspect:
Loyalty to the tribe is an issue now, and always has been, Jackson. If you think there was ever a time when it wasn’t human nature to sacrifice the greater good for the selfish immediacy of quick profit, i think you may be a bit naive. This is why honor and loyalty are virtues; if they were easy, they wouldn’t be praiseworthy.
As for: “Real tribes are ferocious to a degree that moderns would not tolerate. Violate a taboo and be exiled, beaten or killed.”
Who says this is not still a reality? We are not here to be tolerated. We are here to live the way we choose, regardless of society’s “tolerance.” Technically, society is not “tolerant” even of opinions that many here share, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t still hold onto them, no? My tribe is geographically, ethnically and linguistically solid. We do, indeed, base our structure on the ancient mythos of our ancestors and are making new legends for our children. Tribalism is essential for real action, real progress and real community; anything else is just posturing in an atomized and hostile world.
Good article Andrew!
I’d like to add a few thoughts on “membership”.
If we look at “The Tribe”, the Judaic one, we see that in addition to genetic membership there are other requirements, at least for purposes of having “status” in the Tribe. For them, this status thing is called “yiccus”, and is determined by how much they contribute to the common pot used to sustain the Tribe. Seats in Synagogues are not cheap. The more you contribute, the more “yiccus” you have, and I’m assuming, the more say you have in tribal affairs. If you’ve given a lot, the group will support you in your personal efforts, sometimes by keeping mum when what you’re doing is “illegal”. After all, the proceeds benefit the tribe, so what’s not to like?
Carrying this thought into White Tribes, I don’t see many groups which REQUIRE a pledge of allegiance via giving significant amounts of money. Of course, there are very few such tribes even in existence, outside of certain churches which require tithes, but they are not the sort of tribe those here are discussing.
Tribes can’t exist as free-standing entities, especially if we’re talking White Tribe. They can and should be organized on a local level, and then be networked. Free-standing local groups are too “free form” to achieve power, without the networking.
Personally, I’m in the area of BANA, and know these folks, but am too far away to be considered “local”. For me to be a true “member”, it would have to be in a more local group which was well networked with others in the region. Then I would happily pay a “tithe” to the tribe. For a “Tribe Tithe” to be meaningful it must produce results beyond the level feeling good or ideological support: these funds must support CONCRETE activities and events which involve and benefit the local members. Or course, a small % would go to pay for financing the network.
Why link this idea of a tithe to a local group to “Loyalty”? Humans seem less likely to defect from an organization they’ve invested in. And if they know they will be kicked out and lose all of their investment if they’re not loyal, they will be circumspect about 1) joining under false pretenses, 2) joining as a lark, and 3) leaving their investment behind via disloyal behavior.
I’d like to hear others’ thoughts on this. Many of us “keyboard warriors” get our tribal jollies by being a “part” of what goes on here and similar sites, but does that make us part of a real Tribe? I think not. The real thing must exist locally, locally being defined as an area where you can feasibly baby-sit each others kids, or have potluck dinners w/o a lot of hassle. And there must be a serious financial aspect to joining at the local level. Maybe a possible dividend of unused funds returned annually would soften that blow, but most people won’t be serious about something that’s cost-free to get into.
Bob Whitaker addresses some issues regarding “Loyalty” here …
http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2010/04/21/random-comments-on-survival-in-superterrorism/
I thought we called this “church”? Don’t follow the Catholic model unless you want your money going to Rome, do it like the Baptists where each one is independently owned and operated, but may form federalist alliances. Like a pro-White UU or a Free Though Mormonism.
Dear Lord, we learned this lesson 500 years ago. It all worked pretty well until they invented TV.
50 families, 10% tithe of average 50k salary is 250k a year, which could support a few staff.100 families or a few rich ones donating extra and you can buy a building. It’s tax free and tax deductible, completely legitimate, doesn’t raise an eyebrow in any city in America, doesn’t scare police, you can include or exclude whom you wish, and whatever you believe is all protected under the First Amendment. I cannot thing of any superior model when it comes to local white community organizing.
You just have to be independent of any larger group or federation.
OR,
You raise many valuable points. The “common funds” of our tribes is appallingly small. I will say that BANA extremely appreciates donations from our supports from afar. However although donating to BANA is fine please don’t donate to us at the expense of what you invest into your local community. Everything that we do can be replicated in your own area. Focus on getting your own tribes loyalty straightened out (away from the State, institutions, the deceased, and into flesh and blood human beings) and your tribes activism will help BANA more than any amount of money.