Rallies vs. Conferences

When should the protection of the System be reasonably expected?

There is a fundamental difference between a private activist conference and an activist rally (a category that includes [public] mass meetings), a difference which informs my opinion why police protection, etc. is appropriate for the former but not (in most cases, although there can be exceptions) for the latter.

A conference is a private affair, involving (often academic-style) discussion, that typically has no direct immediate impact on public spaces or on anyone not involved. The types of people attending conferences can include intellectuals, the middle-aged and elderly, and others who cannot reasonably be expected to get involved in “street fighting,” nor should such violence be reasonably expected at any sort of private meeting. Hence, it is quite reasonable to expect protection by the police or other authorities against crazed thugs who wish to break up your private meeting, although such conferences and various other types of private meetings may consider providing their own security to supplement that of the authorities (Type Is – make yourselves useful).

On the other hand, a rally is a public event, meant to occupy a public space, and which therefore does impact public spaces and affect people present in those public spaces. While this does not justify attacks against the rally, it nevertheless separates a public rally, and its expectations, from a private conference.  I’m not talking about legality here – from a strictly legal standpoint, a lawful rally (e.g., with a permit) should have the same protections as a private conference. However, from a practical, political, moral, social, and “public image” standpoint – a realistic standpoint – there is an expectation that attempts of a controversial (rightist) group to occupy a public space may well be met with opposition from those who wish to contest that occupation. From this realistic standpoint, activists who want to occupy public spaces should be prepared to defend themselves and their occupation, and not hide behind police or other authorities (who are in many cases hostile to the rally to begin with). A public rally is not the same as a private speech in, e.g., a hotel meeting room.  Of course, the authorities should not interfere with your legally convened rally – which they often do – but on the other hand, expecting the System to provide caring support for a rally dedicated, ultimately, to overthrowing that System is (even if legally reasonable) a bit much.

The Far Right does have one legitimate claim for police protection at public rallies and similar events: fear of selective prosecution and lawfare if they do in fact defend themselves.  This is the idea, based on some experiences (e.g., Unite the Right I), that if the Left attacks, and the Right defends itself, it will be the Right (only) that is selectively prosecuted (and possibly subject to civil suits as well), while the Left gets off scot-free. While this does not occur in every case, it does occur often enough to be a concern.  This, however, does not justify a long-term dependence on the police, not only for reasons of politics and image, but, practically, because in some cases the police and other authorities conspire with the Left to “set up” the Right to be attacked (e.g., Unite the Right I).

The ultimate solution to the problem of selective prosecution and lawfare consist of two components:

1. Rallies for which the Right plan to defend themselves need to be in jurisdictions in which there is a reasonable chance of some degree of legal fairness.  In contrast, if you enter the belly of the beast, expect to be digested. In SJW enclaves, selective prosecution, at minimum, is almost certain.

2. As I’ve said over and over again, the Far Right needs to march through the institutions, it needs followers and fellow travelers in positions of influence, in elected office, in areas that can affect public opinion and public policy.  It needs an infrastructure of dependable legal help, a committed legal team, and it needs articulate spokesmen and “connections” to get a fair hearing.  Before you say “easier said than done,” consider the endless decades of failure, the wasted millions of dollars, all of the lost opportunities.  It is not my fault that the “movement” and its “leadership” has lacked the vision and the ability to do the things that needed to be done, and that still need to be done.  You need new leadership.

A Tradition of Success

It is lacking in racial nationalism.

The “movement” lacks a Tradition of Success.  This problem cannot be over-stated.  Success breeds success. Yes, it is true that you can learn from failure – although the “movement” seems incapable of doing so – but an excess of failure is poison to the growth of a dissident movement.

In contrast, success brings confidence, success brings followers (people love a winner), success brings resources, success provides a margin of error that allows the successful to take calculated risks (which is not the same as foolhardy risks) – the sort of high-risk/high-reward approaches that yield further success.  It is important, absolutely crucial, to nurture success.  When the “movement” “plans” things stupidly, when they set themselves up for failure, when they do things that you know in advance are going to fail, this leads to disillusionment, loss of morale, despair, a culture of failure.  Just as success breeds success, failure breeds failure.  Sometimes it seems like racialist activists are just going through the motions, doing things that they – and everyone else – know is going to end in failure, because they don’t know what else to do and despair of actually winning at anything.  And the failure has been endless.

Revilo Oliver talking about 50 years of “movement” failure… 50 years ago.  Consider David Duke leading and abandoning one organization after another – KKK, NAAWP, EURO (originally NOFEAR, which had its name legally challenged, which is another typical “movement” defeat paradigm – remember the Church of the Creator lawsuit name defeat); Duke’s legal problems (and that of Strom); Richard Spencer jumping from one failed project to another; Spencer forced to cancel his college speaking tour; cancelled conferences (Amren, VDARE, NPI, etc.); Spencer and others being physically attacked in public with impunity; Spencer’s Budapest meeting fiasco; public rallies in which the rightists are typically outnumbered, attacked, and ritually humiliated; Johnson deciding to focus on YouTube just as YouTube is censoring the Right; all the feuds and fall-outs; the outrageous embarrassment of the “extreme vetting” infiltrations – including having a (transparent) infiltrator invited to give a speech on the “dangers of infiltrators” and being allowed to participate in the vetting process; the destructive stupidities of Kessler; the Heimbach-Parrot comedy; the Man on White Horse Syndrome error repeated again and again; the failures of overt neo-Nazis like Rockwell and Pierce, defeats, losses, back-tracks, and social pricing; Derek Black turning on the “movement” and against his father’s ideals; the deplatforming; the failed gamble on mainstreaming in Europe. When is the last time the “movement” – particularly in America - had a clear success?  I suppose that Amren occasionally holds successful conferences – as long as the police do their job and as long as judges don’t impose conditions inimical to the conference (e.g., allowing violent leftist thugs direct access to the venue).  But that small-scale sporadic success – which has not been consistently reproducible – is not enough, not by a long shot.  And no, the election of the fraud Trump is not a “success” of the “movement”- and even if Trump is sincere, his election was due to forces independent of the Pepe/Kek crowd.

Now, I understand that sometimes calculated (not foolhardy) risks need to be taken.  I understand that sometimes a dissident movement can benefit from a “glorious failure” - a practical defeat that serves as a rallying cry, as a moral victory to galvanize support.  Pierce spoke of Mathews and the failed crusade of The Order as such an example.  Yockey’s own personal crusade ended in jailhouse suicide.  And there is the end of WWII, with remnants of the SS – including the French Charlemagne division – making a last stand in the ruins of Berlin.  That’s true.  But, first, one cannot build a successful movement on endless failure, even “glorious failure,” and, second, most examples of “movement” failure are not inspiring moral victories. Unite the Right (I or II) was not a heroic defense of the Fuhrerbunker; Patrik Hermannson’s infiltration was not Francis Parker Yockey’s lonely last decision; Spencer getting elbowed in the face was not Mathews’ last stand on Whidbey Island.  So let’s get real here.  There comes a time when success needs to be “baked into” the plans, to pursue prudent courses of action that directly channel activity in successful directions.

Three tenets:

1. Most activity, particularly at early stages of development (where racial activism is still stuck at, due to decades of endless failure), needs to be designed so it has a very high probability of success.  While low risk/high reward is of course optimal, such scenarios are rare (short-term).  I would suggest frequent low risk/low reward activities to build up a tradition of success and a “habit of winning” (with as many low risk/moderate reward activities as are possible).  All those “low rewards” can build up into something substantial; constant small (net) gains are helpful. With such success achieved, consistently and reproducibly, moderate risk/moderate reward approaches can then be advanced.

I’d like to point out that while low risk/high reward activities are rare in the short-term, the ability to leverage risk to reward increases with a long-term time horizon.  Community-building and infrastructure-building activities can in the long run be high reward, but can be achieved with relatively low risk (or at least low-to-moderate risk) when performed slowly over time.  One needs to be patient.  Rome was not built in a day.  Not everything needs to be immediate gratification.

2. Avoid foolhardy activities; avoid like a plague those activities with a high probability of failure.  Most of all, avoid activities in which the reward is always lower than the risk – e.g., low to moderate rewards coupled to moderate to high risk. Unite the Right is a perfect example of a negative imbalance of risk to reward.

3. Eventually, when one builds up a sufficient “store-house” of success, one can spend some of that capital on calculated (not foolhardy) risks – activities with a high reward that may have moderate to high risk.  But these must be planned very carefully, and never should be “all or nothing.”

In all cases, risk mitigation should always be practiced and all reasonably conceivable contingencies planned for.

Postscript

Perhaps not surprisingly, Greg Johnson believes the embarrassing Unite the Right II fiasco was a “triumph”

To summarize his “argument” - Kessler and his merry little band “triggered” the dastardly Left into exposing their distorted selves to all the “normies.”  Sorry, I don’t buy it, Greg, and here is why.

Healthy-minded people already know the Left are hateful freaks.  That’s not the major issue.  The major issue is that normal people have either lost hope or they think that “voting Republican” solves the problem.  What the Far Right needs to do is:

1. Show that the Left is not invincible; they can be defeated.  Victory is possible, so the healthy masses should not give in to apathy or despair.

2. Demonstrate that the Far Right, and only the Far Right, is capable of defeating the Left.  The GOP, Trump, cuckservatives, civic nationalists, etc. cannot do so.  Only the Racial Right can provide victory.

What Quota Queen Kessler achieved with Unite the Right II is to strengthen the appearance of the power, inevitability, and invincibility of the Left, and the pathetic powerlessness, isolation, and “representing the dead past” sad aura of the Far Right.  Unite the Right II may have emphasized leftist freakishness, but that only serves to increase White despair, as the freaks emerged dominant and triumphant, while the Right scurried away, tail between their legs, protected by the police.

Unite the Right I was a disaster, but at least there the Far Right was represented by the System as a dangerously powerful – albeit sinister – force.  Unite the Right II just made pro-White racial activism look weak and pathetic. To paraphrase Saint Adolf: the masses are like women, they respect and crave (male) strength, and despise (male) weakness.

In summary: exposing the Left as deranged freaks does not weaken them.  They and their supporters – which includes the System apparatus – revel in the freakishness, which they consider “being on the right side of history.”  As stated above, healthy-minded “normies” already know what the Left is about, and are tired of seeing the Left always win and the Right always lose.  Standing up to the freaks with a show of strength, determination, numbers, and vigor would have been a success for the Far Right, breaking the Left’s aura of inevitability.  Even a “glorious defeat” – going down fighting – would have been something positive. But this?  This?  A tiny hapless group shepherded by police?  It was just another typical failed “movement” rally, no different from the endless parade of failure that has made American Nutzis into a laughingstock, a punching bag for the Left.  

And by the way Kessler and Johnson, the “Gandhian non-violent” movement in India engaged in mass passive resistance and civil disobedience, and they were not afraid to suffer attack by their opponents. They did not hide behind the police; they did not beg for help from the same System they wanted to overthrow.  If you want to be “Gandhian” then act “Gandhian” – not Rockwellian, which is more the truth of the matter.  I do not support the Gandhian approach, but if that’s your “grand new idea,” then at least be honest about it; be authentic.

Finally, I can’t help but think that if Kessler was a Spencer ally – or, even “worse,” if Spencer himself was involved in the action – then Johnson would be denouncing Unite the Right II as a failure.  But, alas, Kessler and Spencer had a falling out, so Kessler is “good” – blah, blah, blah.  Plus, there’s some solidarity among the quota crew (excepting the cases of major feuds) – it does no good if activists recognize Kessler as an affirmative action product – after all, if they recognize that, maybe others would be also recognized as such as well?  And we can’t have that!

Jason Kessler: Quota Queen Failure

These affirmative action bastards are killing our race.  They have got to go.

In all cases, emphasis added.

Another pathetic humiliation: the Tradition of Failure continues.

A white nationalist rally in the heart of Washington drew around 20 demonstrators and hundreds of chanting counterprotesters on Sunday, the one-year anniversary of racially charged violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Dan Haught, a 54-year-old computer programmer from Washington, was attending his first protest at the White House holding a sign that said “Back under your rocks you Nazi clowns.” 

“We wanted to send a message to the world that we vastly outnumber them,” Haught said.

Gee, what a surprise!  It’s not like, you know, that’s ever happened before, right?  Seriously though, Der Movement really has this scenario worked out to perfection: rallies in which the racialists are greatly outnumbered by protesters and require police protection from the mass of protesters – exhibiting weakness and a hypocritical dependence on the System, and a comical lack of foresight and self-awareness.  EVERYONE knew – or had to know – that the “rally” would turn out like this.  Then why do it?

You know what?  Kessler is more the enemy than is Haught.  Much, much more.  It are guys like Kessler who are killing what could be a real movement and making it into a pathetic joke.  As long as The Quota Queens Inc. are the “leadership” of Der Movement Inc. (a money-making enterprise for the Tin Cuppers) nothing – absolutely nothing – will ever be achieved.

Let’s read more.

A handful of members of right wing, white supremacist and neo Nazi groups holding a Sunday rally near the White House were vastly outnumbered by massive crowds of counter protesters. 

Dubbed “Unite the Right 2,” the white supremacist rally was organized by Jason Kessler…But Sunday’s rally did not draw the turnout Kessler might have envisioned, with only approximately 20 of his allies joining him. They traveled to the event on the Metro train from suburban Vienna, Va. Kessler’s group arrived in downtown D.C. at about 2:30 p.m. They were flanked by police as they walked a few blocks through downtown D.C. to the park, which is across the street from the White House. 

Large crowds of counter protesters encircled the group and tossed objects at them as they marched from the train. At the Lafayette Park, police kept Kessler and his followers far from the protesters, who had them surrounded. 

The counter protesters included members of a wide variety of groups including socialists and Black Lives Matter organizations. Maurice Cook, the co-founder of March For Racial Justice, which helped plan the count-protests, told Yahoo News turnout was “more than we expected.”

Greg Johnson: Jason Kessler is a likeable, sincere, and intelligent guy.

Ted Sallis: Jason Kessler is a moronic stupid bastard, an embarrassment whose all-too-easy-too-predict failures are killing American racial activism.

Who is right?  Who is wrong?

Consider that Johnson wrote:

The people at Unite the Right who were doxxed, injured, arrested, harassed, fired from their jobs, shunned by their families, and in one case driven to suicide had a lot of illusions stripped away from them. A lot of them are understandably bitter. 

A huge number of people who attended and who watched the disaster from a distance simply disappeared from the movement.

After all of that, with Kessler planning a sequel to that (which turned out to be the tragicomedy described above), Johnson still writes “Jason Kessler is a likeable, sincere, and intelligent guy!!!!!!”  Oh, but he “can’t admit defeat” you see, that’s the problem.  No, the problem is that ALL these guys, the Kesslers and Johnsons and Spencers et al. HAVE NO ACCOUNTABILITY because their “leadership” positions are a result of a de facto affirmative action policy rather than on merit.

At the extreme end of the spectrum in having a lack of self-awareness, Greg Johnson edition:

There’s an animus in the movement against realism and honesty when it comes to our failures…

Yeah, Greg, like “banning” people from your blog when they honestly and realistically talk about your failures.  Der Movement Inc. is parody of itself.

But, hey, keep on supporting failure, all you Type I Nutzis out there.  Keep on supporting people because they have Anglo or Germanic surnames, keep on with the complete lack of accountability, keep on following “leaders” who comically make the same mistakes over and over and over again (while gibbering about “low Negro IQ” – while said Negroes are capable of organizing rallies that dwarf in size and success anything the quota queens have ever put together).

Another example of Type I retardation is here.

President Trump, who seems to have far less power over this country than do the media and technology conglomerates, must act forcefully to guarantee freedom of speech and to ensure that the objective rule of law is reestablished.

Hey, imbecile, Trump signed a document last year stating to use the resources of the federal government against the Right.  Jeff Sessions went out of his way to indict Fields on “hate crime charges” while praising Heyer.  Don’t you stupid bastards, with your pathetic lickspittle worship of the Big Mac-gobbling porn star-rawdogging turd Trump, understand yet?  HE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU AND YOUR "RIGHTS."  Trump’s daughter, who he listens to more than to losers like you:

…there is no place for white supremacy, racism and neo-nazism in our great country.

You DO know she’s a convert Jew with an ethnically Jewish husband don’t you?  

Hey, don’t you know that at Kessler’s failed DC rally, the Antifa were allowed to wear masks without fear of arrest?  Who knows?  Maybe if you stripped off one of those masks, you’d see this face staring back at you.

Remember: Donald Trump is President and Jeff Sessions is Attorney General. Wow, how lucky we are!  Imagine if Clinton had been elected – then right wingers would have been deplatformed and physically attacked in the streets with impunity.  Oh, wait…

All of this is not – as the juvenile Alt Righters would say – “blackpilling.” It is reality.  To quote one of your grand “leaders” - There’s an animus in the movement against realism and honesty when it comes to our failures…

Don’t blame the messenger for the message.  How about blaming yourselves instead?  YOU – look in the mirror now, Type I losers – keep on supporting idiots who fail time and again, YOU keep on supporting people who MAKE THE SAME GODDAMNED MISTAKES OVER AND OVER AGAIN, and YOU keep on enabling approaches that are guaranteed to fail even before they commence.  

YOU HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND IT IS YOU 

Live with it.

Welton: Absolutely Despicable

Welton the fraud.  In all cases emphasis added.

Sallis right once again: Der Movement Inc. whitewashing Rushton the Fraud.

I like how this turd makes it seem like Dutton’s book is wholly supportive of Rushton and Rushton’s “theories.”  If that is the case, why are Rushton’s hysterical fans attacking Dutton and his book on Amazon, eh Welton you despicable mendacious dishonest scum? But what do you expect from fundamentally dishonest HBD?

Here is the liar Welton again trying to make it seem that Dutton (*) was supportive of Rushton and was giving explanations to explain “anomalies”:

Dutton’s book makes sense of anomalies with the model, arguing that as a group becomes more K-selected, it becomes more evolved to an extremely specific niche.

From Devlin’s review:

Is there any way of accounting for these counterexamples to Rushton’s theory? Michael Woodley and his colleagues have argued that as a race or species adopts a slower Life History Strategy, the traits that make up that strategy will correlate less closely with one another. In Dutton’s words:

Under conditions of intense selection—of the kind experienced by Northeast Asians—you end up with a very high-K group and thus extreme specialization and a weak relationship between K traits. So, we would expect them to be less K than Europeans on some measures. It is likely that, in a very harsh ecology, a group which was highly cooperative but also hostile to outsiders (breeding with whom would only be maladaptive because the children would be less adapted to the harsh ecology) would have been more likely to survive. Foreigners also potentially undermine community trust, particularly crucial for extreme K-strategists. 

So the anomalies Dutton reports are by no means beyond the possibility of evolutionary explanation, but Rushton neglected to mention them altogether. Dutton considers this cherry-picking of the evidence on Rushton’s part, whether conscious or unconscious. 

Dutton occasionally overstates his case: e.g., when describing Rushton as a “pathological liar.” The examples of Rushton’s dishonesty he cites appear motivated either by bias in favor of his theory or a desire to conceal the less creditable aspects of his personal life or family history.

Contra Welton's indirect implication, others like Woodley tried to explain Rushton’s errors using “just so” stories and other spin; Dutton himself was generally critical, hence the hysterical attacks against Dutton by Rushton's supporters.  And as regards the arguments of “Michael Woodley and his colleagues” together with Welton’s screed – notice how Welton cherry picks dementia findings to support Rushton, but when other traits don’t fit the theory, we get hand-waving hypotheses of “intense selection” causing a “weak relationship between K traits.”  

Well, if there is a “weak relationship” between the very traits that define Rushton’s theory, then what is the point of the theory to begin with?  Any and all anomalies can be explained away in this fashion.  Therefore, Rushton’s hypothesis is not falsifiable and therefore it is no longer science – in other words, when data fit the theory, then the theory is supported, and when data contradict the theory, that also supports the theory because of, in this case, “intense selection” causing “weak relationships.”  That’s the essence of HBD – a pseudoscience that refuses to even acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, a pseudoscience impossible of falsification because even contradictory data – when not overtly ignored – is “spun away” as more support of the very hypotheses the data actually refute.

HBD is merely politics supporting Whites being enslaved by Jews and Asians. And Rushton was, according to Dutton, a race-mixer, a cuckolder, an adulterer, and a cherry picker (at best; and a "pathological liar" at worst) of data.  To Welton to excuse that by saying “that’s what geniuses do” and then, in the grand HBD fashion, cherry picking data to cite a few examples (Rushton – the HBD Einstein), is laughably stupid and morally obtuse.

*Technically, yes, "Dutton's book" makes the case by citing the opinions of Rushtonite spin doctors, but let us be honest: casual readers pf Welton's article will assume that Dutton himself was supportive, rather than just quoting those others.  Welton's whole piece is misleading.

This is What a Monopoly Looks Like

Saturday Movement Roundup.  In all cases, emphasis added.

There are various forms of rent-seeking behavior that revolve around suppressing competition, such as raising barriers to entry, monopolization, etc.  These tactics of course lead to inefficiency, stagnation, and eventual ineffectiveness, as accountability for poor performance is removed from the equation, and as the adaptive process of selection is thwarted and failure is institutionalized.  Thus - the “movement” “leadership.”

Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents unveils a bold new direction:

In May, I had dinner with several movement colleagues, and I asked how I could improve Counter-Currents’ reach and effectiveness. Everyone at the table told me to invest more time in our YouTube channel, CounterCurrentsTV, because it has the most potential to amplify out message and reach new audiences. They were quite emphatic, actually, and the whole discussion took on the air of an intervention. I was convinced, though, and began planning to take Counter-Currents in a new direction.

That’s the ticket!  Refocus Counter-Currents in the direction of YouTube, and similar social media platforms!  What could go wrong with that?  Well, readers likely know that Johnson’s grand announcement was not only made right after Alex Jones was censored from YouTube, but after yet another example of Jared Taylor – who is significantly less radical than Counter-Currents – being censored as well.  This is all a continuation of the censorship and deplatforming of Taylor and other so-called “Far-Right” figures.  If and when Counter-Currents’ YouTube presence becomes more popular and influential, why wouldn’t the plug will be pulled on that as well?

The grand solution to that problem?

Greg Johnson

Posted August 11, 2018 at 12:39 am | Permalink

Then we move somewhere else.

Where?  If there is a safer place available now, why not use it?  If it is because such a place is virtually unknown compared to YouTube, then being kicked off YouTube is functionally equivalent to being deplatformed and censored.

To declare an intention to focus on a strategy that has already failed is daylight madness. It’s at the level of parody.  Then, in response to the obvious objection brought up by Counter-Currents readers, the answer essentially is: “if our obviously flawed strategy eventually – and inevitably – fails, we’ll think of something else.”  If I had accused Counter-Currents of planning a YouTube-public exposure-based strategy I would be accused of being an “unfair bitter blackpiller.”  But that's what it is.

Likewise, after the fiasco of the Unite the Right and its aftermath – violence, death, doxing, lawsuits, hate crimes indictment, collapse of the “Alt Right brand,” people dropping out of the “movement,” Jeff Sessions supporting Antifa, etc. – if I were to sarcastically joke that “Der Movement is probably going to plan Unite the Right II,” I would also be accused of being “crazy and bitter” with “nothing to contribute.”  But, alas, the joke’s on you, dear reader, since Unite the Right II is a reality, not a Sallis parody (hard to tell the difference these days).

Once again: ultimately, I blame the “movement” rank-and-file for this. They enable it.  They support it.  They can end it, but choose not to.

And what about those “movement colleagues” of Johnson whose “intervention” consisted of “put videos on a forum from which you are almost certainly going to be tossed off from?”  The blind leading the blind.

I know that one riposte from the fundamentally dishonest “movement” will be “the crazy and bitter ‘blackpilling’ Sallis is always complaining, but never offers solutions.”  Long time readers of this blog know that this is a shameless lie, but for newer readers, I’ll just point out five – of many – instances in which I have outlined, in greater or lesser detail, things that I believe need to be done:

Number one.

Number two.

Number three.

Number four.

Number five.

Agree or disagree, but do not pretend such input was never given.  The problem is that so-called “metapolitics” is not enough.  If not backed up and supported by community, infrastructure, and, above all, “friends in high places,” your metapolitical agitation can be suppressed when it becomes too successful.  There’s a reason why the deplatforming is occurring now: Trump’s victory, the Alt Right getting too “uppity,” the fear that too many Whites are being exposed to too many “hateful” ideas.  Politics is required in addition to metapolitics – you need people in positions of influence who, if not explicitly on your side, will at least “provide cover” for you on the pretext of “protecting free speech” or some other rationale.  Over time, if you are successful with such implicit protection, it can become more explicit later on (of course, if explicit support can be given early in the game, so much the better).  In turn, the metapolitical activism can assist the political, which in turn provides ever more explicit protection for the metapolitical – a positive, self-reinforcing “feed forward” mechanism.

And as to why these supportive infrastructures are not already in place – blame the previous generation of quota queens.  The preeminence of Pierce in the American “movement” was a disaster, because his viewpoint was that reflected in his Turner Diaries, and actualized in abortive form by Mathews and company – revolutionary cells “acting out” with violence for a Der Tag scenario.  The idea of a slow “march through the System,” of infiltration, of patience, of a multi-tier approach including electoral politics, all this was rejected because “the System will collapse in the next five years” – a prediction repeated for at least for the last 50 years or so.

Next: It appears that the EGI Notes tin cup paradigm is somehow filtering out to the “movement” - in this podcast, when soliciting donations, Taylor mentions that he does not want to appear to be “rattling the tin cup.”

I find it hard to believe that any of the “movement” leadership reads this humble blog, particularly since acceptance of criticism is not a strong point; this may just be an amusing coincidence, or perhaps some third party mentioned that criticism of tin cupism takes place here.

My view on this issue is clear: I have no problem whatsoever with full time activists living off donations IF such activists are earning their “salary.”  If they do important things to advance the cause – things that “amateurs” cannot do for “free” – then certainly they should and must be supported by the rank-and-file.

I for one would like to see Salter get supported; writing books like On Genetic Interests is a full time job and support for possible future works of that nature would be money well donated.

On the other hand, I’ve criticized VDARE because, according to past tax records published by the media and discussed here, they’ve been absorbing a very large fraction of “movement” donations, and for what?  Running a blog?  

As regards the podcast itself, apparently, Taylor believed the NY Times would dump Jeong once its (not “her”*) comments came to light.  Taylor has been at this several years longer than I have – doesn’t he know by now that Jeong’s comments were a reason to hire, not fire, it?  Hatred of Whites is the bedrock foundation of the System, and isn’t the NY Times – classified at this blog as an overt hate organization – a leading mouthpiece of that same System?  The NY Times is likely to hire Eric Clanton for their editorial board.  If not them, someone else will give him a mouthpiece. I mean, if he had actually killed someone, he would be more marketable, but still, assault and battery is sufficient for his System bonafides.

In summary: the quota queens and their “movement” use their affirmative action policy to restrict entry to leadership positions, forming a monopoly for the Pierces, Spencers, Johnsons, Taylors, and Kesslers – leading to inefficiency, error, stagnation, endlessly repeated mistakes, and tragically lost opportunities.

*Looking at the various photographs of Jeong accompanying the articles about it, it is not clear to me how the physical appearance differs from that of, say, a 12-year old male Korean.  Secondary sexual characteristics are not, at least to me, readily apparent.  Therefore, in the absence of a karyotype demonstrating two X chromosomes, the word “it” seems a more prudent descriptor of that anti-White racist fanatic.

Related gamester comment:

Space Viking

Not sure how you can tell the difference between the g00k and -ette either. Very low sexual dimorphism.

In Bed with the Press

A bit of inconsistency.  In all cases, emphasis added.

Remember when Johnson was criticizing activists for “giving time and access to journalists?”

What is the point of giving time and access to journalists — whom we should regard as enemy combatants — just so they can decorate the same old boilerplate about “hate” with a few fresh facts to make their mental poison more palatable?

But when the journalist is named Patrik Jonsson (no, I’m not making this up) and when the chance comes to critique Richard Spencer, the time you will give!

More than a few blame Kessler – and the Charlottesville protests.

“The people at Unite The Right who were doxxed, injured, arrested, harassed, fired from their jobs, shunned by their families, and in one case driven to suicide had a lot of illusions stripped away from them. A lot of them are understandably bitter,”…

They’re bitter, but it’s understandable, unlike Sallis, whose bitterness – after more than twenty years of dealing with “movement” failure – is “crazy.”

…says Greg Johnson, editor-in-chief of the alt-right website Counter-Currents, who says the movement has dramatically contracted due to poor leadership…

I agree on that.

…and strategically unsound activism like the Charlottesville rally. “A huge number of people who attended and who watched the disaster from a distance simply disappeared from the movement.... But most of them will be back when the movement offers them a new way forward.”

A new way?

Here, Johnson provides the entire interview.  Let’s take a look.

How would you describe the size and strength of the Alt Right movement now versus a year ago at Charlottesville?

We have to distinguish the Alt Right from the larger white Identitarian movement. The greater movement is growing, driven largely by the conflicts and alienation created by increasing diversity. The Alt Right has dramatically contracted, largely because of bad leadership and strategically unsound activism like Unite the Right and Richard Spencer’s college tour: basically any sort of event that involves announcing our plans…

Like announcing the date and city of private meetings so leftist activists can go from hotel to hotel looking for attendees.

…and presence in advance to the enemy, which makes us vulnerable to criminal antifa harassment, and that burns up large amounts of money on legal bills and travel.

The people who have left the Alt Right have not, however, gone back to the political mainstream. Once we change minds, nobody changes them back. Instead, these people are watching and waiting for a new brand or vehicle to mobilize them.

A new brand leading to another dead end.

What was the impact of the Unite the Right Rally on the Alt Right movement?

It divided the Right. The problems were predictable, and the people who predicted them (people like me) gained credibility. The people who did not predict them, or who dismissed and shouted down criticism, have lost credibility and followers.

Hmmm….so people who make sound predictions about problems and issues have credibility, but those who do not make such predictions, or who make wrong predictions (Trump as an American Caesar solidifying White demographics and stabilizing the System) lose credibility? 

Many people went into the rally with several illusions.

First, they believed that the event had far-sighted and intelligent organizers who cared enough about the marchers to anticipate problems, inform them of dangers, and have contingency plans in place in case things went wrong. That turned out to be false. It is not that the organizers were stupid…

Well…

…but they did not communicate or work well together, with predictable results.

Second, they believed that the police would do their jobs, not collaborate with criminal antifa mobs to create violence. At Unite the Right, every injury including the death of Heather Heyer, is ultimately the fault of the city government of Charlottesville for allowing violent Leftists to riot.

Third, they weren’t serious. They thought this was a game. They thought that we were on a roll, and nothing could stop them. They did not anticipate the personal consequences of participating.

The people at Unite the Right who were doxxed, injured, arrested, harassed, fired from their jobs, shunned by their families, and in one case driven to suicide had a lot of illusions stripped away from them. A lot of them are understandably bitter.

Understandably bitter.  Unlike the “crazy and bitter” Sallis.

A huge number of people who attended and who watched the disaster from a distance simply disappeared from the movement. They disappeared from social media. But most of them will be back when the movement offers them a new way forward.

Yet another failure.

Unite the Right and subsequent events of its type were a kind of crazed potlatch ceremony, in which people danced around a bonfire while the movement’s capital – social capital, money, institutions, webzines, etc. – laboriously accumulated over years, was immolated by narcissistic e-celebs who tried to transmute it into mainstream media publicity.

It will take the movement years to recover from the bad decisions of 2017. I doubt that Richard Spencer and his various operations like the National Policy Institute will recover at all.

Spencer, Spencer, Spencer…

What are the factions within the movement, and what is the dynamic between those factions?

There are too many to keep track of, really. But the most important factional difference today is Richard Spencer and his three remaining supporters versus the rest of the movement. 

Spencer, Spencer, Spencer…

Many people contributed to the disasters of 2017, but I think Spencer will end up taking all of the blame…

Spencer, Spencer, Spencer…

…since his past associates and allies – The Daily Stormer, The Right Stuff, Red Ice, Arktos Media, Identity Evropa – have backed slowly out of the room, and he is the last man left holding the Alt Right banner.

Who promoted the idea that the Alt Right is White nationalism?

Have goals and priorities changed in the last year? If so, who/what is driving that shift?

A dual consensus is building.

(1) We need to focus on what was working well for us before Unite the Right and the Spencer tour, namely metapolitics and also street actions on the European Identitarian model, which are not announced in advance and thus do not attract criminal violence from antifa.

(2) We need to get away from self-marginalizing neo-Nazi goon squad buffoonery. Adopting foreign ideologies and symbols is not a solution to rootlessness but a symptom of it. The way forward for white identitarians everywhere is to graft their movements on the political traditions and symbols of their homelands.

Traditions and symbols that have failed and led us to the current fiasco.

In the United States, we had immigration and naturalization policies that were committed to maintaining a white supermajority until 1965. We had two mass deportations of Mexicans in the 20th century, neither of which led to genocide. Every policy necessary to Make America White Again was already the law of the land at one time or another. We simply need to bring back and perfect these policies.

Bring back policies that have failed and failed again.

There has been a shift toward private versus public events. Does this new tack mean that antifa has been successful? Or is it just pushing the movement underground where it can grow more rapidly without being thwarted?

Antifa violence is merely pushing the movement underground where it can grow more rapidly without being thwarted.

I have always organized private rather than public events to protect our attendees and venues from criminal Left-wing violence. Antifa is only successful because their lawlessness is enabled by collaborators within the system who wish to crush dissent. Antifa are just the paramilitary arm of the Left-wing oligarchy. But this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. When the government does its job – as it did at the American Renaissance Conference at Montgomery Bell State Park in Tennessee in April of 2018 – political dissidents can gather in a safe, non-violent environment.

I do believe that the overall shift toward private meetings will foster more rapid growth, for three main reasons.

First, people who have something to lose are hesitant to attend public events. Private events can, of course, have infiltrators and cranks. 

Never fear!  There will be extreme vetting!  If you’re Swedish, a self-declared movie critic, or the girlfriend of some random guy – it’s all good, you’re in!

But they are generally safer. This means that more people will be willing to meet for fellowship, education, and collaboration. Which means our community will grow stronger and launch new initiatives.

Second, large public events which attract people from all over the country and the globe are very expensive. If only 1,000 people attended Unite the Right, the costs of travel, food, and lodging alone probably topped half-a-million dollars. I know of a number of people who came from as far away as Scandinavia to attend. Then after the event, there were the legal bills, medical bills, loss of income, etc. Unite the Right probably set the movement back a cool million dollars. 

How many millions of dollars has VDARE set the movement back?

Enough to employ 20 full-time content creators at a comfortable middle-class living standard for a year. 

Anyone in particular in mind?

All of that money went out of the movement into the system. All for a public relations catastrophe.

Where’s the VDARE money going?

How much money was spent on Richard Spencer’s college tour? Easily tens of thousands of dollars per event. Were any minds changed? At what cost? How many people got disgusted with the movement and ending up withdrawing? Those are costs as well. Online propaganda changes far more minds for far less money.

Give to Counter-Currents!  And above all, give to VDARE – living in the leafy suburbs is expensive for the happy penguins.

Movement leaders need to persuade our people to spend their money more wisely. 

Oh, indeed.

Once we do that, we will see increased effectiveness in the realm of propaganda and renewed movement growth.

Finally, there will be public protests on the European Identitarian model, in which disciplined groups with tightly honed messages and optics assemble for protests and photo-ops, without announcing their plans in advance to allow the enemy to plan counter-protests. They document their events themselves and distribute them through the world-wide web, rather than depending on the enemy media. This sort of propaganda of the deed is highly attractive and will bring large numbers of people into our movement. Identity Evropa is taking the lead on this. But they are also under legal attack for participating in Unite the Right. If worse comes to worse, however, they can simply dissolve, rebrand, and rise from the ashes of Charlottesville.

Wait a minute!  Didn’t Johnson say above that folks who did not predict the Unite the Right disaster have lost credibility?  Doesn’t that include Identity Evropa, who participated in the rally?

What do you think of Unite the Right II?

Jason Kessler is a likeable, sincere, and intelligent guy. But he has trouble accepting defeat. We don’t need Unite the Right II. Isn’t doing the same thing and expecting a different result a definition of insanity?

Come on, now!  “Kessler” like “Heimbach” is a Germanic-sounding name, and thus, obviously well-suited to join the "Anglo"  Johnsons, Spencers, and Taylors as “leadership.”  We must remember what’s important!  Definition of insanity?  The utter madness of Unite the Right II?  Who cares!

The Polar Alliance Marches On

Two members of Derbyshire’s “Polar Alliance” – aka “Arctic Alliance.”

Read this, emphasis added:

Jeong is a raging racist who has tweeted hundreds of times about her extreme hatred toward white people. In one tweet, she boasted that “it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” She also asked on Twitter whether white people are “genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”

These samples are only a fraction of the four years of unrelenting hate messages that Jeong spread on social media. She clearly is consumed by her animosity toward white people. In another example, she promoted the hashtag #CancelWhitePeople and celebrated that “White people have stopped breeding,” and will “go extinct soon” because that was her “plan all along.”

After these detestable tweets were exposed, The New York Times refused to fire Jeong and stood by their new editorial board member. In a statement released on Thursday, the newspaper claimed that Jeong was “the subject of frequent online harassment” because she is a “young Asian woman.” Thus, her online revulsion of white people was justified because she was only responding to “that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers.”

Certainly, this justification is laughable and such extreme consideration would not be extended to a white journalist with a record of tweeting hateful comments toward members of any other race. The newspaper had no qualms about firing technology columnist Quinn Norton when her anti-gay and anti-Black tweets were unearthed. Presumably, in the view of The New York Times, charges of racism are reserved for white people only, especially those who are conservatives.

To make matters worse, Jeong also has a history of tweeting hateful comments about men. In 2014, she tweeted a desire for people to “kill more men.” She said that if only “bad men” were killed that would include all men.

Also read this.

Good to see some factions of Der Movement are beginning to realize, belatedly of course, what Sallis has been telling you for years: the existential meaning of Asians is hatred of Whites.

And let us not forget as well: the NY Times is a hate organization.

Now, let’s consider another Polar Alliance type, the depigmented ultra-Nordic Shaun Weiss, whose fair complexion, finely chiseled facial features, and overall gracile phenotype quite obviously reflects origins in the far north, where the cold winds blow!

Picture one.

Picture two.

Picture three.

Picture four.

Quite clearly, he’s…HuWhite!  A Man of the West, and don’t you forget it.