web analytics
James Mason

Siege, 31

Longest sought after

A winning, successful course of action not dependent upon a central organization or a major leader figure. Between alpha and omega, not existing at extreme ends of the spectrum, will be found the answer. What does amount to suicide is going straight from doing nothing to taking on the entire System in direct, violent confrontation. There does not exist, and we cannot stand around and hope for, either the organization or the leader to “tell us what to do”.
That outfit or that man would be pounced upon and destroyed in an instant by the System. We have to think for ourselves first, and then we can go on to direct our own actions. The first step has got to be giving up all stupid and false notions. Those who are basic cowards or who are otherwise hopelessly inadequate to the task cannot and will not part with these notions, ever.
False ideas are any which stray from the ground zero reality that all evil springs from the System; the System will never correct itself; it will never permit anyone or anything to correct it; it will never tolerate or allow the development of any true, alternate system to compete legally against it; nothing of a positive or partial nature can be accomplished while the System stands; those who embark upon a course which runs contrary to that which the System has determined must understand that they embark on a life and death struggle. It is the one duty and one goal of the revolutionary to struggle for the death of the System.
So much is bound up in just realizing the totality of the situation that little else can be added to that except to say that once it has been comprehended, the person then at once begins to see everything, every situation, in a different light. Things are clearer. The course of action becomes obvious.
In the old revolutionary axiom, “Educate, Agitate, and Organize”, the term “education” is basic. Not the type of education as thought of by reactionaries, but the kind of information which provides years of revolutionary experience in a week or a month, without the necessity of having to live it over painful, dangerous, useless decades such as we have had to endure. To impart knowledge and expertise to our next wave, our next generation, in precisely the same manner and for precisely the same reasons as our former “institutes of higher learning” used to teach their students: to build upon a solid foundation, to increase the chances of and to hasten ever-greater achievements. It is a science, not a diversion or a money-making racket.
Next, to agitate. The problem becomes more complex as it leads out of the confines of home or hideaway and from the safety of the typewriter and the postal service. You are not out to sell a product, a gimmick, or a certain approach. You are not out to re-fight the Civil or the Second World War. You are not out to blow minds. Neither are you out to idly grumble or complain.
You are out to CLARIFY, to POLARIZE, and to INTENSIFY that which faces all of us, everyday. And it is to be directed, in every case, against the System itself, the ultimate culprit, never toward simply Blacks or Jews or liberals or anything else which skirts or evades the issue and which sounds like (and IS) reactionary and for which not even a fool nowadays will respond favorably or positively. A revolutionary comrade is one who leads. You lead by taking people over barriers of time and understanding toward ultimate confrontation with reality. And that reality is the best, most irritative source of agitation possible. Such is the rightness of our cause.
You do not “agitate” by placing yourself in the center of brawls. Lesser still by aiding the System in making people despise you. You do it anonymously, by making people know and hate the System.
Finally, to organize. That in which the Movement has consistently failed the worst. An organization does not exist for its own sake. Nothing ever starts out that way. The System, as have all such systems in the past, is ending up that way. To promote the “club”, the “leader”, the “name”, the “symbol” or the “approach” soon becomes everything.
In-fighting takes over. Petty competitions take care of the rest. Nothing is served. So it has always gone. To truly organize effectively means having someplace to hide on the other side of the country, anytime, for any reason. It means secrets being kept. It means material help when it is needed. It means a unified line and a unified response in the face of crises. It means respect and cooperation. It means loyalty. It means to multiply ourselves in a coordinated way to give the effect of a giant, a unit.
Organization—as opposed to “organizations”—does not give the effect of a lot of “duplicates” ignoring each other and getting into each other’s way. It means to effect hands and feet, arms and legs, eyes and ears everywhere, simultaneously. Acting in one common cause and one common interest, in iron discipline, ultimately to lead to one organism with a common intelligence, instinct, voice, and, above all, a common WILL!
How little does any of the above description resemble what has passed heretofore as these very things: Education, Agitation, and Organization.

Vol. XIV, #11 – November, 1985

15 replies on “Siege, 31”

If Mason had hated the System as much as I hate it, he would have made a prank in his country and now he would be working as an incognito in my town.

Let’s note that here Mason means by the term “System” something quite different than what Kaczynski means, or Ellul means. For Mason the System is the evil half of a Manichaean dyad, locked in revolutionary struggle with the Movement, which is the good half. Thus, in Mason’s meaning, the System incorporates not just the technical apparatus of the status quo, which is the means of white racial destruction, but the intentions of those in charge of its operation, especially those who are nowadays called by some “hostile elites”. For Mason, the object of the revolution is to seize control of the technical apparatus of state, and turn the tables on the “hostile elites”. Unlike Kaczynski and Ellul, he doesn’t want to destroy the technological system, he just wants to take it over and point it in a different direction; to eliminate those selfsame “hostile elites”. There are very good reasons to think that this is impossible, though. In previous remarks, I’ve already explained why. The technological system can be destroyed, but not taken over.
Also in Siege, Mason puts forward the idea that the technical apparatus of oppression, which he refers to collectively as Big Brother, is something that has been deliberately constructed for that purpose. Yet, it becomes obvious, especially when we consider the haphazard nature of all of the technical developments that happened after his writing, that nothing could be farther from the truth. Take the modern surveillance state in 2018, for example, which has grown orders of magnitude stronger than when Mason was writing back in the 80s. Such developments as the internet, GPS tracking, orbital satellite tracking (such as the type used to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki and his son), drone missiles, AI-guided face recognition, and DNA profiling have made it much more difficult to successfully do something criminal to oppose the state. These developments weren’t the result of a coordinated effort by a cabal or conspiracy of “hostile elites”. They occurred independently of each other, and they are the chains by which white people are now held prisoner, or more accurately, by which they hold themselves prisoner. Even if we suppose they could break them, why would they? They voluntarily put them on. It was all “Progress”, you see. Every step they advanced toward their technological utopia has only enslaved them more deeply. Revolt against the System to take it over is thus a constantly receding goal, getting smaller and smaller on the horizon every day; every day less and less capable of being carried out; already far more difficult than in 1939 for Hitler and all his divisions, or in 1985 for Mason, Pierce, and the rest of the Movement. With much more “Progress”, soon it won’t even be a dream.

But you are missing factors such as currency collapse, energy devolution and the potential for war among the chaos (using the nukes that non-whites have, even Muslims). The very tech that enslaved whites has produced a bubble that will explode (civil war) and implode (demographics—billions will die).
Dr Strangelove is happy with the tech: his dream about the extermination of the Neanderthals has chances of being fulfilled in this century.

Collapse of the global technological system by man-made accident or natural catastrophe is possible, but unless it’s deliberately accomplished with an eye towards preventing its regeneration, more likely is a long emergency from which the system can recover and rebuild. To continue the metaphor, if the chains still exist, or are capable of being forged again, the same logic of technological development that led whites to put them on in the first place will lead them to re-enslave themselves. If they are to be saved as a race and as free men, it most likely will have to be done against their will.

You seem to blame everything on technology, but without advanced tech the Amerinds behaved horribly in Mesoamerica—for 3,000 years!
Tech only makes things worse: a Neanderthal with Promethean fire. It is the Neanderthal that must be exterminated. If Promethean fire could be kept only for those like Hitler and the 14-wds. priests, I don’t see the problem that you see inherently with technology.
That’s why in the other thread I mentioned the 1948 sci-fi novella Against the Fall of Night (expanded in 1956 by the author in The City and the Stars): The city of Diaspar embraced tech and the city of Lys rejected it. When I read them I imagined both Diaspar and Lys as societies of only whites.

The technological system can be destroyed, but not taken over. how can a tiny tiny group such as ct readers do this? i can imagine www3 doing it or economic collapse precipitating great change through great suffering. i cannot imagine a tiny tiny group of purist thinkers achieving much more than than what we are doing now.
and mason’s remark,
There does not exist, and we cannot stand around and hope for, either the organization or the leader to “tell us what to do”…That outfit or that man would be pounced upon and destroyed in an instant by the System. the System will destroy in an instant any rogue one-man act of righteous judgment, which is all we purists can muster in this present state. (and paying the price of imprisonment for an expression of sovereignty of the individual against the group is worthy. i respect those who”ve done it. i’m too much a chickenshit.)

” how can a tiny tiny group such as ct readers do this?”
Read Bill Joy’s essay “The Future Doesn’t Need Us” for some ideas on how the collapse of civilization can be engineered by a small group or even a single individual. There must be thousands of avenues of attack. Areas of interest for anyone who wants to overthrow the technological system are laid out for you there: genetic engineering, nanotech, AI, robotics. It will take a genius, but it’s not impossible.

“…without advanced tech the Amerinds behaved horribly in Mesoamerica—for 3,000 years!”
Longer than that, I’m sure, and negroes probably were worse. But I don’t concern myself with the behavior of non-whites. How did whites behave?
“If Promethean fire could be kept only for those like Hitler and the 14-wds. priests, I don’t see the problem that you see inherently with technology.”
If a frog had wings, it wouldn’t keep bumping its ass all the time, as Humphrey Bogart used to say.
I think if you are a determinist, which is the scientific attitude, you have to concede that the way things developed technologically was necessary and unavoidable. The technological system inevitably seeks to modify and overcome Nature, since if Nature’s offerings were something human beings always deemed sufficient, no technology would be necessary. Might it be possible, in a thought experiment, to imagine a race of humans who are content with Nature and don’t seek to overmaster and change her with technology? Sure. But that race isn’t the white race, and even the idea such people could exist in our Darwinian world of constant bloodshed and struggle for survival is just an illusion.

But the point is that even in Diaspar all citizens could be white (in the books, the rest of the Earth was like the Sahara).

If everyone left were white, there’d still be struggle for power, because that’s our Darwinian reality. Hitler had white opponents within his own regime. Even in the same family, brother contends against brother, father against son. Life is always a struggle not only to survive, but to dominate others. I don’t make the rules around here. That’s just the way it is, and I daresay, always will be.

Perhaps I didn’t explain me well. Clarke’s novels presented the dilemma: either a high-tech futuristic city (Diaspar) or an Arcadia (Lys).
The question is if it’s possible to save high-tech civ in an all-white Diaspar (though personally I prefer Lys).

The logical end point of technological development is an anti-human, anti-Nature state of un-freedom. The system aims at creating an artificial reality that is “better” than Nature, and ultimately must create artificial humans to inhabit such a place; artificial humans that lack freedom and are happy about it. It might be a life of luxury and ease for the inhabitants, but they must lack freedom because it is freedom that causes problems in a technological system. Everything and everyone must be rigidly controlled to guarantee its perfect performance. Control is the essence of technology; that’s the only way for it to ensure a consistent result.
Such a society may be possible, but for someone who admires whites for their racial and cultural virtues it isn’t desirable. Aldous Huxley envisioned it in Brave New World; also, the Eloi in HG Wells’ The Time Machine is another depiction, although there there were Morlocks that kept the technological system running.

In addition to Huxley and Wells, you may also read any of the above-mentioned novels by Clarke, as he touches the problem but from a more optimistic viewpoint.

Comments are closed.