I’ve seen an old article by Bronze Age Pervert being passed around Twitter once again, likely due to recent happenings in the Middle East. In it, BAP denies the assertion that anons should sign up in the military to fight in Ukraine or in any other place. He rejects the assertion for a simple and clear reason: it is not in our interest. Frogs should not volunteer for far-off foreign conflicts which have very little to do with their own people. Nor should they fight for national governments which are overtly hostile to kin and kind. One should only fight for the Mannerbund. However, I wanted to outline briefly some of the tactics which we have seen used before to contain nationalist sentiments and divert them to regime purposes. I will attempt to outline the aesthetics of these tactics, since I have not yet seen anyone do so in writing. Maybe someone has, but we have so many Frens, and so much content to engage with, that sometimes very basic information gets lost in the cacophony of social media.
What can describe these tactics structurally is that they will always appeal to hyper-masculinity whilst never really allowing any display of ethnic/racial preferences. Also, it’s the concurrent usage of shame as an enforcement mechanism. Carrot, meet stick. Both of these are emotional tricks to get individual persons to perform tasking which is against their personal and/or ethnic interests. It’s the very same tactic used during the First World War: women would give white feathers to men who had not already volunteered for the Army as a visible display denoting cowardice. “You don’t want to die for Israel, Anon? Aren’t you a real man? Don’t you know they’re our greatest ally?”
I call the current iteration of this manipulation tactic “BRCC Nationalism,” after the Black Rifle Coffee Company. As everyone knows, BRCC itself was outed as not truly pro-gun when it openly refused to support Kyle Rittenhouse during the “Summer of Floyd.” So, BRCC is using a similar marketing technique. What is the point of owning firearms if those guns cannot be used in self-defense? If they cannot be used as a hedge against, and in defiance of, anarcho-tyranny? At that point, it’s just an expensive hobby. Hence, the name of the article. You will find the aesthetics of BRCC’s advertisements almost a 1:1 fit for regime media’s aesthetics to get normie conservatives on side with The Current Thing. Similar aesthetic tastes might also be displayed by so called “hicklib,” red-state Democrats.
The aesthetics in question:
Gun/pro-military aesthetics.
Hyper-masculine, muscle-bound guys.
Big breasted, scantily clad bimbos (sex appeal).
Cowboy hats & boots or hunting garb. This is a form of ethnic dress for rural, red-state Americans. The Yellowstone TV show is a prime example. It’s very easily coopted because anyone can visit Boot Barn. Beards, flannel, leather jackets are a variation on this theme.
Oh, don’t forget about anything stereotypically blue-collar, such as trucks, as well.
Of course, the same aesthetics can be further refined depending on the target audience. The regime could easily adopt any form of ethnic dress unique to any region, place, or people, and coopt it for regime ends. Perhaps this is why the regime feared the red MAGA hat in the Trump era. It was a political uniform, a way of socially signaling loyalty to a cause and policy positions not in line with regime priorities, and which could not be coopted. The direction in which to refine our aesthetics must therefore be twofold. First, we must have clandestine aesthetics which do not engage regime tripwires and can be used for identifying friends in regime-controlled spaces. Second, we must have overt aesthetics which can be displayed openly when it is appropriate to do so, typically when we wish for open confrontation with the regime. Both of these must essentially mean the same thing and move in the same direction policy-wise — but must not be perceived as such by anyone who is regime-affiliated.
This is a major problem with government/intelligence/military/police mid-level careerists; they aren't all impotent POZ bug-people. Some have T and are Crenshaw-esque, camo-wearing, Jiu-jitsu practicing, hunting enthusiast types who are regime lapdogs. They work out and know how to target shoot but are self-interested careerists who will thoughtlessly and ruthlessly enforce the latest diversity and trans-acceptance initiatives from POZ commissars.
Here is a rough outline of the informal cartel in GAE govts/militaries/agencies these days:
Middle-aged HR mammies both initiate and staff diversity boards, middle-aged BRCCs enforce compliance and intimidate switched-on junior members from speaking openly during breaks and casually signalling their regime loyalty in casual conversations with their juniors (i.e. "Trans people ain't a big deal bro, *adjusts pit-vipers*, White genocide is a Q-anon talking point bro." cue laughter and snark from brown-nosing/diversity hire juniors).
20-something female TikTok "" soldiers/sailors/aircrew/agents/officers "" do the bonobo game, play thirsty double-digit IQ males like a fiddle and weaken Esprit du Corps by fostering sexual jealousy amongst male juniors. TikTok girl reinforces regime narratives by casting herself as a victimized girl boss by complaining about perceived sexism and inculcating this view in her current male thrall. They will often take things like pararescue, marksmanship, and diving with the motivation of peacocking to their friend group. But, they are paper tigers once the stress of month-long field-ops kicks in or when they can't maintain pace with even the overweight gamer soldier in a ruck march.
Diversity hires then further prevent honest discussion between based juniors and middle managers. They can be overtly loyal to the regime, making conversations uncomfortable by signalling BLM or Palestinian solidarity. But it can also inadvertently make based members self-censor in casual settings since they're worried about who will squeal if they show their actual power level.
The Commissar-Officer, often a Poli-Sci or Sociology Major, is a typical corporate ladder climber in uniform who will parrot whatever talking point and backstab any competitor to move up the hierarchy. Or he is a broken idealist going along to get along after death-by-a-thousand-papercuts inflicted by years of dealing with Mammie committees.
The BRCC middle-aged dude-bro is the enforcer who will either casually mock vaguely RW talking points in casual conversion or will use diversity seminars to brown-nose to Commissars and Mammies simultaneously but also to use as a socially acceptable way to get the soy-rage out of their system in an estrogenic organization. This socially acceptable aspect also informs how the BRCC carries himself. His BRCC status being a socially acceptable display of hyper-masculinity also means he often abuses it since it is the one form of power he is allowed to display in his otherwise sterile and longhoused existence. He often brags about how rough it was in his day or played up how he was in Afghanistan or Iraq and maybe a tough and competent but selfish man. He'll neglect or half-ass the training of his juniors while simultaneously (Think the boomer waving his cane at "lazy" zillennials who ought to pull a $2 million mortgage payment out of their bootstraps). He spends most of his time peacocking about his glory days, flexing on untrained juniors (When he is not in meetings brown-nosing Commissars and Mammies or chatting up the TikToker) or scrolling through Facebook while coming up with new schemes to either arrive to work late or leave early.
All of these types are toxic to any organization, but the BRCCs, the loyal regime Rottweiler, are the biggest obstacle to dissenting juniors. Mammies, TikTokers, Diversity hires, and Commissars could be outmaneuvered, but the BRCC breathing down their neck prevents them from cohering or gives potential apolitical converts an avenue of controlled hyper-masculinity that allows them to throw their weight around. The other dilemma with the BRCC is that while some of them are just show-boats, some actually are reasonably competent in their craft. It's just that they're midwits who are incapable of abstract political thinking. For now, these types strangle the Security State as tightly as HR departments strangle Corporations but even despite this military and agency training, even in its degraded form, it can still provide toughness, discipline and organization that can't be found in the average POZ job. On the one hand, the military, hunting, and jiu-jitsu are worthwhile activities for cultivating toughness and competency. But, the military/police will grind you up in a forever war, and the BRCC nationalists are one of the main blocks to Mannerbund solidarity. For now, it's hard to see how to break or erode the GAE cartel's stranglehold of formal organizations, but at the same time, martial experience should not be ceded to BRCC bullies, even if they are lapdogs martial experience and conditioning is important, we cannot concede this arena to the BRCC merc but also have to thread the needle of avoiding the fate of those poor English boys who were brow-beaten by the white feather campaign.
I vote for some kind of antler-headress