withdrawal vs infiltration

[Sustacel250]

Bakunin wrote in letters to a frenchman, statism and anarchy... and maybe also elsewhere... he said that participating in unions or operating into worker orgs is not a defeat of anarchy. Instead he framed it as a temporary engaging with the political structures as they currently exist an without believing in them.

The big idea here is you enter, and do not believe what the normies around you preach. And you change things "from within". I want to explore why this can work "in theory" and why it often doesnt.

Because I heard the same idea expressed by E.M.Jones in the context of the church. E.M.Jones is famous for having an open dialog with nazis on the internet. Nazis on the internet are known for abandoning institutions they dont believe in. All nazis go out of society, they self marginalize. Nazis do not believe in immigration, equality and assorted lies from the normie world, so they abandon society and they do not participate. E.M.Jones tells them "go to church, fight for what is right, go against the multiculty churches", he seems to believe if we renounce the church our voice inside the church will be erased and the only way out of this situation is go into the church, and make our voice heard, remove niggers from the church, remove multiculturalism from within.

But we really have to question this idea, because we have few working examples around us. One working example paradoxically is feminism. Feminism does succeeds in institution infiltration, but I think we really have to notice some basic details that allow feminism to function. First one is the most obvious that everyone seems to not mention: Money and power and institutional corruption from within. Feminists were welcomed, trained and mass produced by the same institutions we now say are "infiltrated". Second objective fact is feminists got HEAVILY funded.

A second thing I want to notice is most antagonists of liberalism realized institutional approach doesnt work. It was casapound (italian right wing party) that published some political science studies around 2020s, saying they definitely were convinced entering institutions is pointless. There are reasons why they say it, and I think casapound is also funded with foreign money so there is that. These political scientists are not entirely trustworthy but I still gained some insights from them.

When you discuss entering an institution I think you need usually a monastery approach where you train the youth as if an army, you reproduce your ideas multiply your numbers, and then you enter the churches, the parliaments, the courts, the universities, the NGOs, the trade unions, the populist parties... you take them all. This is what people at london school of economics are studying, they took them all. Or when jews took control of american sociology, they did it by elevating every single jew into the rank of "university professor". You need mass approach, you need organization, and a community.

So, disperse nazis on the internet for starters lack some of the strengths that are necessary to do infiltration, they are not funded (except by CIA when they want to jail them), and they are not concentrated in a geographical location. Another thing you gotta consider is institutions are not weak, and they resisted millennia. Some "institutions" are inside your own blood believe it or not. I could expand on this topic talkin about the failures of populist movements of the 2000s. I dont think you really can be above your race or your blood, and yes there really is a "civilization destiny" and a nation can have a destiny but I would have to expand this idea further to talk about it on this forum.

Your superficial beliefs like nazism or communism do not transcend whats inside your own blood, they dont transcend rule of law and they dont make you superhuman. So when talking about topics of individual resistance vs participation (betrayal), all I can say is that institutions can be pressured but cannot be redeemed so easily.

Consider radical left movements, consider jihadi theorists, consider anti-colonial thinkers, consider populist movements post 2008. The institutions adapt and they dont capitulate just because someone is a nazi. Not even hitler was able to go against germany, if you have eyes to see you will agree with me. I mean, even an extremely powerful leader operating under the most exceptional conditions was able to go against his own blood and fully override the institutions of the state he (temporarily) ruled. Institutions bite back.

Other than this delusion, about thinking an individual is above history and above his own blood, I wanted to say that when we observe feminism "succeeding" we are misled. What looks like a movement infiltrating institutions may actually be institutions producing the movement. And individuals do not stand above history, feminism is no exception. Feminism is institutionally compatible, which is why some people say it "took over", it didnt take over the way most manuresphere thinkers assume it did.

Feminism "succeeds" because has a tendency to universalize their claims for rights, because they participate with corruption already existing (they dont step on others feet), they will translate moral demands into procedures and boring unreadable bureaucracy (women are very good at managerial roles thanks to their lesser creativity) which in turn increases bureaucracy (institutions are empowered by feminism). So feminists now enjoy "progressive" social status and the contradictory social image of "transgression vs norms". But its all an illusion, one that really leads astray many thinkers in the broad manuresphere movement.