EGI Notes

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Answering Criticism, 2/26/17

Answering criticism.

Ted Sallis, in full embittered, jaundiced old crank mode, comments on Alt Right. Give it a rest Ted. If you can’t say something constructive, try saying nothing at all. Take a look at the stuff from your site that I have seen fit to reprint, and use it as a model.

Greg, you may or may not approve this through moderation, but I will nevertheless point out that perhaps you should share some of my concerns about the broader Alt Right.

Wallace writes:

A ton of people who were Alt-Right or White Nationalists voted for and supported Ron Paul.

In a past interview you stated:

Yeah, they’ll have sound money for the brown people. That’s what he stands for, and I think that’s madness. It irritates me to no end, and I’ll say it right now. I’m going to write something about this someday, but I’ll just get it out there on the air now. I am going to socially shun any White Nationalist I know from now on if I find out he donates another dime to Ron Paul.

A large portion of the current Alt Right are (ex?) libertarian Ron Paul supporters, precisely the types you didn’t want anything to do with.  Your attitude about that was quite correct – support for Paul is indicative of a mental weakness, poor judgment, and an ideological vacuity that makes such people suspect.  The Alt Right was in large part constructed on a foundation of those people you rightfully rejected.

My point is, and remains, that the Paul thing is indicative of an underlying problem with the Alt Right.  I have re-read my analysis and I can’t see anything there that is unfair.  I can also point out that you have fairly recently sharply criticized Spencer’s judgement over “Hailgate” (something that I didn’t think was that big a deal, although I agree it did exhibit a bit of poor judgment).  These things in general (forget about our different perceptions of specifics like “Hailgate”) are problems.  In general, I have supported Spencer and his ideas and I think he's a sharp guy with a solid future in activism - but the Alt Right is inherently flawed.  You can only go so far on millennial snark, trolling, and the like. Unless the Alt Right matures and sharpens up, it’s going to flame out.

Better sharp criticism from someone like me from the Far Right, who is in broad agreement with the Alt Right, than having those guys go down in flames and take all of us with them.   I’m not criticizing for the sake of criticizing.  I’m criticizing because I see warning signs and I want the Alt Right to change course before they drive right off the cliff.  I’ve seen Far Right projects collapse before (e.g., the implosion of the post-Pierce NA, the hopping of Duke from one failed organization to another, the fizzling out of the EAIF, etc., etc.) and it isn’t pretty.

I’ll add something else not in my original comment: I write for my own blog. Whether it is reproduced somewhere else is something I have no control over, or, better said, something I don’t want to have control over.

My focus has changed over the years as a result of a natural evolution. Observers tracking, for example, the field of population genetics may have noticed that not many (or any) (important) papers on European or Jewish genetics have been produced recently by academia.  That’s because all of the “low hanging fruit” (available with current methods) has already been picked AND that leftist academics do not want to do assays of global genetic kinship or analyses of human genetic integration/structure (after all, the findings would undoubtedly support WN ideas).  And, as well, I’ve said all I need to say about studies that have been already conducted.  And as I’ve said as well, constant navel-gazing about genetics at this point is missing the forest for the trees.  Everyone has chosen their ingoup and we need to move into politics, broadly defined.  I’d like to point out I never really had much interest in talking about population genetics; my work there was mostly to answer stupidities written by academics, leftists, and Nutzis. 

EGI is far more important – it is fundamental (and the only political utility of population genetics is to generate the raw data to use for genetic kinship analyses) but unless critics come up with new stupid attacks I need to refute or unless Salter comes up with additional analyses, there’s not much more to add (although who knows, I may think of something). 

I can’t keep on “beating a dead horse” forever.  Contra Silver, my purpose is not to be an “EGI maven.”  I have always had real political objectives; discussion about racial science and EGI was to inform the public/”movement” about these issues in order to further those objectives.  I still want to popularize EGI, but that is a tool, not the objective.

And, let’s be honest.  Most of my work on those subjects has been a complete waste of time and effort.  Population genetics?  Even if we were to say that the subject is relevant (which I would at least partially dispute), the fact is that both the Left and the Right continue to cherry pick, distort, misrepresent, and misunderstand such studies in order to promote their particular Narratives.  It may be nice to have refutations on hand to use against such stupidity, but it doesn’t really help if no one wants to listen.

EGI?  The neglect of Salter’s important work by the “movement” has been criminal.  And to the extent that a few people have paid attention, they’ve typically cherry picked and distorted EGI as well.  So, years and years of effort have been for what?  The only satisfaction has been effectively answering mendacious critics like GNXP and Jayman (although such trash would never admit they’ve been refuted and so the satisfaction is merely personal).

The point is, it’s time for actual real-world politics (which include metapolitics).  After Trump has broken the “glass ceiling” of right-wing populism, to ignore actual real world political objectives is race treason.  Part of that is reconstructing racial nationalism to get the job done and I will continue to pursue that objective.

My summary of the Alt Right was:

The Alt Right is a callow, superficial, moderate, intellectually and ideologically shallow version of pro-White activism; lacking seriousness and depth; oriented toward millennial snark, trolling, and social media; taking breathless excitement over discovering “rightist” truths that the rest of us knew long ago and which to a large extent are nothing more than plain fact and common sense; marked weakness with respect to science and other forms of empirical thought; prizing style over substance; and prone to exhibit, often in an enhanced form, all of the fossilized dogma, bizarre fetishes, and poor judgment of the “movement” as a whole.

If that is wrong, how so?  It may be “jaundiced” and “cranky” and a reflection of some old fart’s lack of understanding of youthful millennial energy and exuberance, but in what way is it actually wrong?  Factually wrong?

More to the point, I cite Greg Johnson here:

Second, in the battle of ideas, there is no sense in demanding that we present a united front, particularly on issues where there are real disagreements of principle. Again, our aim is the hegemony of pro-white ideas. We wish to change the whole cultural and political spectrum. Which requires that we engage the whole cultural and political spectrum. Which means that we cannot agree with each other on every issue, nor can we hide our disagreements. Indeed, declaring our disagreements is how we differentiate our approaches before the public.

It’s unclear why airing disagreement is wrong only when I do it.  It would seem that:

1. Only certain types of folks have “the right” to speak their mind, a state of affairs which would actually confirm some of my criticisms of American racial activism.

2. It is said that I criticize too much. There may be some truth to that. Although my disagreements are usually about ideas and direction, and much of the “movement” infighting I observe revolves around personality, envy, and/or squabbling over limited (financial) resources.  Note: as regards the latter, I would suggest focusing your ire toward the Alt Wrong, which has been soaking up most “movement” money these days.  As I’ve said before, the money would be better spent going to Johnson and Spencer (despite my disagreements with them [and with each other]) than to the “happy penguins” of VDARE or to the huWhite Jewish crowd.

3.  My criticisms hit too close to home, strike too deeply at the heart of “movement” dogma, and so are resented that much more.  I also understand that there is much invested in the “Alt Right brand” and there is a natural tendency to resist criticism of that brand.

By the way, I’m not personally offended by being called a bitter neurotic or a jaundiced old crank. I’ve been called far worse (another example of one-sided criticism, by the way), and I actually find it amusing.  There is some truth in these ad hominem attacks.  I don’t know about “neurotic” but I am certainly bitter (in my opinion, with justification), and my criticisms can be considered “jaundiced.” I am older than most in the Alt Right, and I am cranky.  So, why be offended about the truth?  That doesn’t change whether or not my criticisms of the Alt Right are valid or not.  The criticisms are either valid or they are not, independent of who makes them, or how old, cranky, and jaundiced such an individual is.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, February 25, 2017

What is the Alt Right?

A pseudo-zoological classification.

I have been thinking about how to define and distinguish the Alt Right from the non-Alt Right Far Right (NARFR).  It is easy enough to say about the Alt Right – “I know it when I see it” but that is not a very rigorous analysis (even if it is true).  I suppose I could make a list of those things in which my views and style differ from the Alt Right, but then that same list would apply to much of the NARFR as well.  It may be that the differences between the Alt Right and NANFR are mostly that of emphasis and of style, rather than being sharply disjunctive differences in fundamental ideology.  A few initial thoughts.

The “game” manosphere element is more or less a characteristic of the Alt Right, as is the linkages to Alt Lite civic nationalism, even if these are indirect.  The Alt Right has, in enhanced form, many “movement” weaknesses: a piss-poor understanding of science combined with an embrace of pseudoscience and gnostic traditionalism, the Man on White Horse Syndrome, all typical fossilized “movement” dogmas and fetishes, etc.

Let’s now take a look at what Hunter Wallace – now a writer for - has to say on the issue (in all cases, emphasis added).

The Alt-Right through its links to Gamergate and the Manosphere grasped the importance of memes, swarming social media, particularly Twitter, to discourse poison or push a Narrative. The Alt-Right moved and planted its flag on Twitter and learned how to roll with the news cycle. In contrast, Southern Nationalists retreated further into their own bubble and away from their audience. Southern Nationalists were becoming more militant, more open to violence, more alienated and thus more divided during this same period. The Alt-Right understood the appeal of being edgy, having fun, and smashing taboos to a younger audience. Southern Nationalists were becoming more dour, pessimistic, and angry. Overall, they were in a really sour mood, and that had a negative impact on the movement.
For the Alt-Right, the most striking development of 2016 was the rise of the Alt-Lite brands

So: An emphasis on juvenile jackassery (“being edgy, having fun, and smashing taboos to a younger audience”), social media, and a proneness to edge in the direction of moderation.   NANFR would never have become entangled with the Alt Lite (but to be fair, it did get entangled, and deeply, with the Alt Wrong).

And now, see here.

If you were “Alternative Right,” it meant you were not a George W. Bush supporting mainstream conservative. Instead, it meant you were reading a bunch of rightwing sites like Liberty Forum, VDARE, Lew,, Takimag, American Renaissance, etc. You were constructing, participating in and consuming a discourse of unorthodox rightwing ideas.
When I first discovered Richard Spencer, it seemed like everyone at Takimag was backing the Ron Paul presidential campaign. A ton of people who were Alt-Right or White Nationalists voted for and supported Ron Paul.

Ron Paul – the “sound money for brown people” candidate.  Here we see other characteristics of the Alt Right on display: ideologically shallow, moderate, prone to the same “Man on White Horse” stupidity afflicting Der Movement as whole.  In one sense, focusing on the moderating influences and lack of intellectual heft and ideological commitment in the Alt Right, one can say that the Alt Right is to NANFR what the Alt Lite is to the Alt Right.

To summarize: The Alt Right is a callow, superficial, moderate, intellectually and ideologically shallow version of pro-White activism; lacking seriousness and depth; oriented toward millennial snark, trolling, and social media; taking breathless excitement over discovering “rightist” truths that the rest of us knew long ago and which to a large extent are nothing more than plain fact and common sense; marked weakness with respect to science and other forms of empirical thought; prizing style over substance; and prone to exhibit, often in an enhanced form, all of the fossilized dogma, bizarre fetishes, and poor judgment of the “movement” as a whole.

Labels: , , , , ,

Behold the Female, 2/25/17

Some truths indeed.

Two comments from a Yahoo article about some Balkanoid athlete being berated by his wife:

Babe Truth

5 minutes ago
Females all think they have the right to berate and control men who took them from nothing to the good life. These controlling females over value their real worth just because they have breasts and a #$%$ and think men must be their whopping posts. It is no wonder men leave these monsters for peace and quiet. 

8 minutes ago
No matter how hot a woman might be...somewhere she is making some dudes life miserable.

By the way, "Babe Truth" is a hilarious moniker.  The actual Ruth was an extreme alpha male by the way.

Female sluttiness. The real sexual harassment is women prostituting themselves for promotions and pay raises.  The imaginary sexual harassment is men doing anything.  It’s all female hysterical projection.

And by the way, it doesn’t have to be all actual sex.  I’ve seen women, if they are attractive enough, get their promotions, etc. merely by flirting with older male bosses.  Now, this happens more in academia and biotech, where the older male bosses tend to be more “beta” and nerdish than in the business world where the more alpha bosses expect actual sex in exchange for the promotions and pay raises (yes, biotech can be business but let’s consider the smaller sale, more science-oriented ones here).  A few blouses with the top buttons left open, a few hair tosses and fake giggling, and watch those careers get turbo-boosted!

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, February 24, 2017

John and Stephen vs. Sir Desmond

Reality vs. Lies.

We may all remember the great and good Sir Desmond Jones saying that “the White race is a 20th century Jewish construct.”  In other words, his idea is that the White race as a Race-Culture entity of the peoples of Europe and their cultures does not exist and never existed, no one ever thought of or recognized a White race before the concept was invented by dastardly 20th century Jews to undermine Anglo-Saxons.  

Now, I have already pointed out how as far back as 1790 America a White race was (of course) recognized.  At another blog I cited John C. Calhoun, which I reproduce below:

I know further, sir, that we have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race. The greatest misfortunes of Spanish America are to be traced to the fatal error of placing these colored races on an equality with the white race. That error destroyed the social arrangement which formed the basis of society. The Portuguese and ourselves have escaped—the Portuguese at least to some extent—and we are the only people on this continent which have made revolutions without being followed by anarchy. And yet it is professed and talked about to erect these Mexicans into a Territorial Government, and place them on an equality with the people of the United States. I protest utterly against such a project.

That’s from a 19th century founding stock American, not a 20th century Jew.  Now, we can look at another such American, Stephen A. Douglas, who said:

I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity for ever; and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians and other inferior races.

Let’s take a look again, now with emphasis added:

I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity for ever; and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians and other inferior races.

Rabbi Douglas?

It’s quite clear that Jones was lying to you, another fantastic invention by crazed ethnic fetishists.  

Now, it is true that some people in the past did not consider Irish or Italians or Poles as “White” and that Ben Franklin considered only the English and Saxons as “White” – to him even Scandinavians were “tawny” coloreds.  But those opinions were outliers; the common view always was that Europeans are “White” and that a “White race” – as opposed to Coloreds – existed. Douglas talked about “men of European birth and descent” as being “white men.” Calhoun clearly included the Spaniards and Portuguese as “the free white race” as compared to Indians and mestizos.

Now, I am not perfect, sometimes I make errors of fact, of interpretation, of judgment – but I never lie to my audience.  That is where I differ from some of my ideological opponents like Jones, who invent outright fabrications and try to pass them off as “reality.”  That’s a big difference – between someone who is sometimes wrong but well-intentioned and others who are fundamentally dishonest.  

“20th century Jewish construct,” my ass.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Yet Another Alt Right Mess

Milo is the tip of the iceberg.

Milo is not doing very well these days.  See here as well. Unfortunately, as the Alt Right has so closely associated themselves with the Alt Lite (and Alt Wrong) as part of their “big tent” approach – based on a “gateway hypothesis” that has NEVER been subjected to rigorous evaluation – then the problems of Milo are also the problems of the Alt Right, since Alt Lite and Alt Right/Alt Wrong are equated in the public mind. And you have no one to blame for that but yourselves.  It’s not like non-Alt Right activists didn’t warn you, repeatedly, for months on end, about this.

Some of the arguments there are reasonable, in the sense that, yes, this is a first step in an anti-Trump attack.  Where I differ is that WNs should never have had anything to do with Milo, specifically, and the Alt Lite in general, to begin with.  Having tied your cart to tired horses like them, now you’re stuck (as is Trump/Bannon).  This is all poor judgement, for whatever you may say, in the public mind Milo=Bannon=Alt Right=WN.  They don’t make any fine distinctions and that’s in large part because of the error made in associating with these people to begin with, for the sake of expediency. Compromise on core essentials for the sake of expediency always backfires. There’s a difference between voting for a beta race cuck like Trump and supporting the Alt Lite.  Trump is a mainstream political figure who ran (an won) elected office, he was and is never an activist directly associated with dissident sociopolitical movements; the Alt Lite on the other hand are activists promoting a particular memetic structure and a particular worldview.

To clarify my position so there is no misunderstanding:

1. I have repeatedly written that it is a mistake to so closely associate (American) White racial activism with the Alt Right.

2. I have also repeatedly written that is a mistake to in any way have the Alt Right proper associated with either the Alt Lite or the Alt Wrong.

3. Having made (typically) both of the aforementioned mistakes, the American “movement” now finds itself affected by the trials and tribulations of Milo.  Attacks on Milo are not only (and perceived as such) attacks on the Alt Lite (as well as on Bannon/Trump) but on the Alt Right (Alt Right proper and Alt Wrong) as well.  Worse, since in the public mind American WN is tied into the Alt Right, then non-Alt Right WNs (such as myself, for example) are indirectly affected by this whole mess (hence, our understandable resentment toward the Alt Right and Alt Right pretensions to “movement” supremacy).

Given all of this, I have to agree with Greg Johnson’s basic conclusion that while I wish Milo would go away I do not want it to happen like this. Preferable that he simply be ignored by a Right that has grown away from him.  Where I disagree with Johnson is that there should never have been any connection, direct or indirect, between Milo and the (more hardcore) “movement.”  Errors 1 and 2 above should have been avoided.

More evidence of the deep inherent flaws in the Alt Right can be found in this “hit job” article.

This article well represents why I distrust the Alt Right and have zero confidence in their judgement and long-term potential.  Why talk to a scumbag like this?  To make it easier to write hit pieces about you?  To satisfy your ego?  Or do you think you’re going to get lots of new recruits from Huffington Post articles like this?  The Alt Right is more “same old, same old – the same types of quota queens repackaging the tired old nonsense in millennial snarl undercut packages, making mistake after mistake.  Further, I am frankly mystified that someone who wishes to maintain pseudonymity would agree to a public face-to-face meeting with a hostile reporter.  The mind boggles.  What was he thinking?  Assuming this is a sincere and serious activist, and not a LARPER doing it for “shits and giggles,” then this displays a quite advanced state of extreme naiveté and absolute bad judgment.  These are not the type of folks you want in the trenches or foxhole with you, not the fellows you want leading you into battle.

To compare the mindset activists should have to that which unfortunately exists today, I suggest that you read the book Angels in Iron and then read the comments thread on atypical blog post at Chateau Heartiste,, the various The Right Stuff shows, etc.  Then reflect upon which of these comparisons is the appropriate mindset for political soldiers fighting a battle against overwhelming odds.

Is this just criticism for the sake of criticism?  No it is not.  There is a definitive purpose.   

Let’s consider the “Pareto Principle.”  A small fraction of activists are the ones producing the majority of the good work. For the sake of argument, we can say 20% of activists produce 80% of all of “good stuff.”  That 20% is buried under the 80% nitwit morass that makes up the bulk of the “movement.”  If a healthy portion of that 20% can be convinced to free themselves from the fever swamp of Der Movement, and coalesce with each other in a New Movement (which itself of course can be ideologically diverse to a point and be composed of several groups/groupuscules), then efficiency would be thereby augmented.  If that New Movement would be committed to quality over quantity, and be stringent about weeding out defectives, then it could quickly supplant the moribund remains of the 80% left-over detritus of the Old Movement.  My objective is to stimulate such a scenario.  Do I believe it has a good chance of happening?  No, I do not.  Most likely, the attempt will fail, but it needs to be attempted nevertheless, because it is the only hope for moving forward.  A quixotic attempt, a long shot, is better than no attempt at all.

With respect to the Alt Right, let’s be fair – there is still time for them to “right the ship” and correct their major problems.  They can streamline their operation, have all their best people coalesce around sane policies, and be more serious and professional.  However, I do not believe they have it in them; I do not believe they have the critical mass of quality human material to do the right thing; in fact, I doubt they know what the right thing is, or even if they understand what their problems are or if they acknowledge they even have problems.

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, February 20, 2017

Movement Madness, 2/20/17

More “movement” cluelessness.

Someone at Amren asks why it’s considered bad to say “I’m proud to be White.”  There’s a number of reasons for that, some touched upon in that essay and some not.  One thing’s for sure: Der Movement’s enthusiastic embrace of freakishness and hypocrisy of all kinds is not helping.

Speaking of hypocrites and Amren, here’s someone embraced by the Amren crowd.

Derbyfogle has the nerve to ask:

Well, all that is a problem for Chinese people. But why is it any problem for us?

And answers it:

I’ve been living among Chinese people for forty-five years. I’ve been married to one for thirty years.

Yeah, Derb, it is a “problem for us” because we have Chinese living in this country.  You’ve contributed to the problem by bringing “Rosie” – who you yourself have admitted is an ethnocentric Chinese – to the USA.  This guy’s mindnumbingly clueless hypocrisy is simply astounding.

But I love my country…

If you’re talking about England, then go back (sans “Rosie” and the kids, who can go to China or Taiwan) and try to help.  As for America, you’re a former illegal alien who has contributed to the Chinese problem you are posting about, so “my country” should not apply for the USA.

German madness – Germany is “not a Western nation.”  What stupidity is this?  Some sort of “Red Fascism/National Bolshevik” nonsense to identity Germany to the East as a “young, non-Western” nation?  As sane people are aware, Germany is one cornerstone of the West (along with the other major Western European nations identified by Yockey); indeed, Germans may have contributed more to Western culture (as defined by Spengler/Yockey) more than any other people.

I really do think Germans had a mass national nervous breakdown after losing WWI and the subsequent period of revolution, instability and inflation, and Weimer degeneration, and have been more or less crazy for the last 100 years or so, veering off from ultra-narrow hegemonic ethnonationalism to ultra-universal pathological altruism, with random nutcases in-between reinventing Western history.  Der Movement had better get over its extreme Teutonophilia until such time that Germany recovers the mental equilibrium it had before November 1918.

Yeah, the Alt Right can “distance themselves” from Milo all they want, but it’s too late.  Milo and the Alt Right are one in the mind of the public, and the Alt Right can blame themselves for that, with all their talk about “a big tent” and “the usefulness of Milo and the Alt Lite” and “let’s not turn people away from us.”  Net result: more people will end up being turned away than being attracted.

Then we have Roissy:

As a White man, I sense that war has been declared on me and my kind. When my enemies bring war to my doorstep, what am I to do? 

Well, he has previously answered that for himself:

damn, i’m torn. do i want a thriving society or easier access to sex? yeeeeah… i’ll take the latter and leave the self-sacrifice required of the former for the anti-poolside chumps

Milo and Roissy are two sides of the same coin, one homo and the other hetero (with the exception of Roissy’s comically homoerotic fixation on Donald Trump).  Both are sexual hedonists, snarky and juvenile “shock jock” types, on the periphery of Der Movement, generating self-aggrandizing controversy by flirting with Far Right ideas, but ultimately standing for values anathema to any sane ordering of White society.  Both have influence because of the “big tent” stupidity of Der Movement, which sacrifices standards on the altar of expediency.

Then we have the Silk Roaders, who are becoming increasingly unhinged with their anti-Trumpism. They’ll be addressed in future posts – the only thing to say now for those of you who haven’t been paying attention is that their anti-Trumpism is ALL about Russia.  The Jew/Israeli card is being played to try to appeal to Der Movement’s knee-jerk anti-Semitism. It is hypocrisy, because it we are to criticize everyone groveling to the Jews and Israel, this must include China, India, and all the other lands of the Asian gods.  

I for one long ago identified Trump as a Negrophilic ignorant vulgar buffoon with strong Jewish family connections.  But, he’s not part of Der Movement, is a public mainstream figure, so in this non-"movement" case expediency actually is justification.  What effect does Trump have on White racial interests?  He can be a useful tool.  I’m certainly not going to be anti-Trump solely because Asian nationalists covet the Russian Far East.

The solution to “movement” madness?  How about starting here?

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, February 19, 2017

From Germany to the Silk Road

More stupidity.

Flipping through a new issue of Military Heritage magazine, which I decided to purchase, I came across this quote:

The Teutonic Order did not help itself in the 15th century by allowing bickering between northern and southern Germans.  Northern Germans seemed to believe that they were more worthy than those from the Rhineland, Bavaria, or Swabia, and this further eroded support at a time when every financial contribution or new recruit counted.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?  

Speaking of Germany, I can’t say I’m surprised by this, the anomaly of Europe. Der Movement weeps.

Amusingly, we now have different groupuscules – including this one – positioning themselves as “the alternative” when and if the Alt Right falls flat on its face.  More amusingly, the Silk Road White nationalism crowd think they can be such an alternative. Don’t they know that “Yellow Supremacy” is already part of the Alt Wrong ideology, and the Alt Wrong is a faction of the Alt Right?

Speaking of which, we read this.

The reasons include some Derbyshire mention: some in the System yearn for a continuation of the old Cold War, others see Putin as a Russian Trump, an anti-globalist civic nationalist with a soft spot for real European nationalists.  Of course, there’s another reason that Derbyshire dares not mention: the Jews.  

And here is one reason I see the Silk Roaders as absolutely and fundamentally dishonest: they completely invert reality to promote their anti-White, pro-Asian agenda.  Contra the Silkers, the reality is that Jews, especially the Neocons, hate Russia and the Russian people, while their attitude toward China, India, etc. ranges from benevolent neutrality to outright sycophancy.  The dishonest Silkers can post random articles showing Trump/Putin with Netanyahu/Israel, but the same can be done with China, India, etc., such as here and here and also here.  The Asiatic Jews, having ruined the West, now look with longing to their fellow Asiatics in China and India; together they can finally destroy the hated White man.

Meanwhile, the Silkers try to rile up dumb WNs with the Jew/Israel card; like waving a red flag in front of a bull - let’s use Jews to distract Whites from the Yellow Fist of Hatred.  Fact is, both Jews and Asians are enemies, a pox on both their houses.

And the Silk Roaders’ hatred of Putin is particularly ludicrous, as Putin is a pro-Asian civic nationalist who raises Siberians high in his councils and who does nothing to stop the Chinese infiltration into the Russian Far East. Indeed, Putin himself has tried to develop closer ties to China.  The problem, you see, is that Putin, being a civic nationalist, wants to maintain the territorial (but not ethnic) integrity of Russia, and the Asian nationalist irredentists of the Silk Road covet Russia’s Far East.  Not content to wait for the fruits of slow infiltration, they want it all and they want it fast.  Also, of course, Asian Silk Roaders – sharing their race’s existential hatred of Whites - also want to derail WN and foment internal divisions among Whites.  Why some Whites go along is a mystery, and raises the question as to whether the mocking suggestions I made at another blog are in fact true, rather than being just joking ridicule.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Of Boycotts and Snubbing

Consider the implications.

With all the talk about anti-Trump boycotts, companies dropping the products of his daughter Ivanka, and his other daughter Tiffany being “snubbed.” I was planning to put together an essay about those issues from a Far Right perspective.  And then this article came out, which touches on subjects of a related nature.  Let’s look at some points from the article (in italics) with my comments interspersed (plain font).  Then, I will discuss the boycott/snubbing issue from the rightist perspective, as the issue is much bigger than merely the current attacks against the beta race cuck Trump.

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

And the Left is not susceptible to ridicule?  Merkel taking selfies with NECs while German women are molested in Cologne?  Antifa thugs who style themselves as Marxist anarchist champions against “the man” while they are openly working for, and sometimes funded by, “the man?”  Anarchists working hand-in-glove with the Big Government Deep State, Marxists working hand-in-glove with billionaires and Big Business?  That’s some low-hanging fruit indeed.  Blue hair fatties, freaks of every shape and form, cucks, etc. as your opponents?  Ridicule?  You bet, unless of course you’re stuck with a “movement” more interested in debating how many times Savitri Devi passed gas per day, or Julius Caesar’s cephalic index, or some breathless fantasizing about “high trust hunter gatherers.”

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

I’ll give credit to Roissy and the other gamesters for their ability to personalize – or should I say Scalzize – the opposition, and make targets of them for intense ridicule.  Actual WNs can learn something from the oil-drilling hedonists.

“Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”

This is one very large difference between Left and Right, and one that I’ve often mentioned before. The Left has stamina, discipline, and a long-term focus.  The Right has none of these things; the Right looks for any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to declare victory and go home.  The Left wins real victories, changes and dominates the entire culture, imposes genocidal demographic changes on White populations, and they are never satisfied. They keep on pushing, keep on fighting, always pressuring, never letting up, always keeping the Right on the defensive.  And given how craven, defensive, and cowardly the Mainstream Cuckservative Right has been, this pressure has worked. The Far Right can learn a thing or two from the Left – if they are capable of learning (which is currently doubtful).

“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

That all should be self-evident.

“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”

Thus, Left success over the past half-century.

Now, in theory, the Right could benefit from applying those same principles (if they weren’t the inept losers, unable to effectively organize, as pointed out by Pleasureman at MPC). How about the issue of boycotts and snubbing, the original impetus for my post?

Why can’t the Right – including and especially the Far Right – effectively utilize such tactics? I know the response from the Left (in a snarky arrogant tone) and from the Right (in a defeatist, depressed tone): The Far Right is tiny, powerless, ostracized, and useless. They’re all trailer trash anyway – who cares what they boycott?  It’s laughable!  The Left welcomes any Far Right boycotts!  The Left welcomes rightist snubbing – who cares about being snubbed by an ostracized, powerless nobody?  You get the idea. 

To which I respond in three ways:

1. As the saying goes, every journey starts with the first step.  The Far Right may not now have the numbers and power to engage in economically relevant boycott and socially relevant snubbing.  But you have to start somewhere; if you do nothing, failure is guaranteed.

2. There are benefits to be conferred by conducting rightist economic boycotts and social snubbing, even if the immediate effects are not substantial.  One must practice organizing, one must practice trying to herd the cats of the Far Right – and associated more moderate masses (see point # 3) – in a useful direction.  Such an endeavor builds collegiality among a Right sorely lacking that trait (and, yes, I know the finger can be pointed at me – even for the end of this essay itself), and, more importantly, can build discipline and a sense of purpose, and of community.  Exclusion (boycotts, snubbing) by its very nature presupposes a contravening inclusion among those doing the boycotting and snubbing.  

Isn’t that a constructive suggestion that my critics say I never make?  

Let’s start community building by marshalling whatever economic and social power we do have in a constructive direction.  The more we flex and use that “muscle” then the stronger it will become.  And, in the event, especially if we can mobilize the groups in comment # 3, the boycotts and snubbing eventually have some positive effect – well, isn’t winning grand? Success breeds confidence and more success – and confidence and success are much needed in the failure swamp of the “movement.”  If we want to be a force to be reckoned with, can we at least organize sufficiently to engage in economic and social pressuring of the other side?

3. If this project expands to not only include the Far Right but more broadly Paleocons and, more broadly still, general Red State and White ethnic Blue State Trump supporters, then we are no longer talking about a tiny and powerless group.  The problem is to get that inert mass of atomized individuals, who think that since “we won” nothing more needs be done, off the couch and into the realm of activism.  The Far Right can be the vanguard, if they act sanely, reasonably, and intelligently (in other words, completely out of character).  We’re talking about, potentially, millions – tens of millions - of people here. If the Right eschews use of economic weapons – as they eschew the use of doing virtually anything and everything – the Left winds by default.

Indeed, in response to “A Day Without Immigrants” how about “A Day Without (White) Americans?”  If the other side is so intent on dispossessing us, how about giving them a taste on how things would be like without us around to support them?  Even if a small fraction of rightist White Americans participated, the economic impact would be considerable.

Now for a bit more anti-collegiality.  I must ask why the Far Right doesn’t already  have the infrastructure to be a force to be reckoned with.  I have already discussed that in detail at this blog.  The cry of “we haven’t had the support, where’s the money” falls flat, given the millions of dollars shunted into the “movement” and especially into the Soft Right Alt Wrong of the CT “happy penguins” and other assorted flotsam and jetsam making a living off of do nothing.  And let us not forget the more hardcore group, involving such useful investments as living on the mountaintop with serial monogamy with a series of Eastern European women, or gambling away the proceeds in casinos. It’s been shortage of mature, intelligent leadership more than a shortage of cash and support.

One definition of insanity – keep on repeating failed activity and expect a different outcome. Also, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.  It is obvious that current “leadership” – and that of the last half-century – have failed over and over again and are likely incapable of organizing anything I’ve described.  Hence my criticism is warranted and completely justified, regardless of whether it strikes a nerve within Der Movement or not.

This criticism is justified.  You know – as well as I know (how I know!) – that my current post will fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes).  Even if someone mumbles “that’s right” no one will actually do anything.  The “happy penguins” will continue to collect their millions, the Alt Wrong will continue to rhapsodize about Asian IQ superiority, the WNs will continue to breathlessly discuss Kali Yuga, cephalic indices, subfractional admixture percentages, the alleged “Jewishness” of their “movement” adversaries, the racial provenance of Julius Caesar, Julius Evola’s bathroom habits, “high trust hunter gatherers” and all the rest.  How can anyone in Der Movement accuse anyone else of “LARPING?”  The entire “movement” is one big LARP. Am I wrong?  I hope so.  Prove me wrong.  Let’s organize the boycotts, the social disgrace of the Left, let’s actualize ideas into real world realities.  I won’t hold my breath for anything to actually be put in motion by “leadership” though.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

It's All One

The Asian menace.

We can ask why this execrable and ugly Filipina turd is even doing infesting America, like a flea on a dog.  But how is that hate-filled Asiatrix any different from those infesting White (sic) nationalism?  In response to Sunic’s fine essay at TOO, that Chinese Nationalist Maiden creature, who keeps on turning up like a bad penny, pops up to lecture Europeans on our ethnic differences.  Excuse me, but we do not need some Cantonese slut pontificating to Europeans about our business, thank you very much. Likewise, we do not need hate-filled Japotrices lecturing us about how we need to “inflict harm” on Russians in order to serve Asian interests.

Inflict harm on Russians?  I for one would love to see Russians inflict some harm on Asians, particularly on those mangy yellow dogs infiltrating into Russia’s Far East.  Let’s have some brawny Slavs go there and grab those diseased Chinamen by their scruffy necks and toss them back over the Amur. If Russia had a real nationalist leader, the Asian contagion would have been cleaned out of Russian territory long ago.

So, in the end, how do these infiltrators of WN differ from Felarca?  Answer: they do not. Unfortunately, WN is infested with the same sort of mewling yellow fever faggots that characterize White males (not men) these days, who will, in a breathless and sweaty fashion, say or do anything to keep estrogen-deficient Asian females around.  Further: how do these infiltrators of WN differ from the Chinamen oozing into the Russian Far East like raw sewage leaking through a home’s cracked foundation?  Answer: they do not.

It’s all one.  All one and the same.  The yellow fist of hatred manifests itself in many ways, but in all cases, represents an existential denial of the West and blinding hatred of the White race.  From the Asian perspective, that denial and hatred might be normal, but Whites are under no obligation to accept it, much less facilitate it.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, February 13, 2017

Sunic's Reasonableness vs. Ethnonationalist Dishonesty

Good sense vs. stupidity.

Tom Sunic makes good points about the need for pan-European cooperation and against narrow and divisive ethnonationalism.

Here are Sunic’s main points:

My main point is that various European national identities should from now on play a secondary role. I argue that our first priority should be to what is sometimes conveniently referred to as our common biocultural identity, or to put it in different words, the salvaging of our common and collective heredity as represented by the broader family of interrelated European peoples...
…it is outdated for the Croats and Serbs, or for the Poles and Germans to wage war with each other or to dwell endlessly on their mutually exclusive historical grievances...
...European small-time nationalisms, with a flurry of national identities of sorts, inherited from the 20th century, must no longer play a crucial role in our new identity building process…This can best be observed in Ukraine and Croatia for instance, where a Croatian or Ukrainian nationalist often continues to frame his national identity on his anti-Serbian or anti-Russian sentiments respectively. Such obsolete and often conflict- prone “negative” identities are no longer acceptable in today’s Europe.

Please note that Sunic accepts the reality of narrow identities and states that such identities should be accepted:

For example a Flemish national cannot be a Walloon national – just as a South Tyrolean nationalist must not be denied freedom to show his German roots to his Italian nationalist colleague.

So, what is the ethnonationalist reaction to Sunic’s reasonable essay?  We get this hysterical comment, emphasis added:

Yes, European cooperation is absolutely necessary. But different ethnic groups banded together to face off predation against other more unified powers, hence England unifying against the Vikings, Germany against the French &c. German dominance of the EU, by virtue of geography, size and industry, is a proof of the continuing legacy of ethnic division of power within Europe. Why should an Englishman want to be legislated for by Albanians or Kosovans, my European ‘brothers’?
These national divisions are reinforced by language. The United States does not contain groups of different nationalities speaking their own languages. Different ethnicities came to the U.S. and formed a new ethnic group, speaking English. If an American goes to Europe, people are not going to identify him as a genericised white, but as an American.

I can’t quite see where in Sunic’s essay that he states, suggests, or implies that Englishmen should be legislated for by “Albanians or Kosovans” or anyone else. It’s pure invention; unfortunately, someone reading the comment and not the essay would think that Sunic is advocating some sort of highly centralized European super-state smothering national identifies – rather than simply advocating “European cooperation” and accepting national identities. One reason I am so hostile to ethnonationalism is my long experience with ethnonationalists and other opponents of pan-Europeanism who are typically dishonest – fundamentally dishonest.  Lies, distortion, strawmen, illogic, stupidity – the calling cards of the unrepentant ethnonationalist

And the idea that, under pan-European cooperation, Albanians or Kosovans (groups, as mostly Muslim Europeans, may not be part of the European biocultural group as defined by most WNs) are going to be browbeating Englishmen, is ludicrous.  If any group has been dictating to the English, and other Europeans, it is the Germans.  As Sunic states:

The political roots of this morbid “welcoming culture” (at the core of which is the culture of guilt) are not difficult to trace. The roots of these self-destructive policies are legally embedded in the decades following 1945. It is not difficult to imagine that the policy pursued by German Chancellor Merkel was formulated precisely to exorcise the ghosts of the nightmarish past. As a result, she may find herself compelled to shield herself by pursuing what might be called a destructive extremism going in the opposite direction.

But typical “movement” Nutzis are “not allowed” to criticize Germans, so we need to engage in fantasies about “Albanians or Kosovans.”  The idiot quoted above admits that Germans dominate the EU (their industry!  their industry!), but that’s used to justify narrow identity, while the “problem” of EU opposition to national sovereignty is from “Albanians or Kosovans.” Pathetic.

Then we have this stupidity:

The United States does not contain groups of different nationalities speaking their own languages. Different ethnicities came to the U.S. and formed a new ethnic group, speaking English. If an American goes to Europe, people are not going to identify him as a genericised white, but as an American.

What about a Negro “American” speaking English?  So, obviously race is important, the White American will be identified as a White American.   Finally, Sunic is giving a prescriptive argument, not a descriptive one, but don’t think that the ethnonationalists recognize the difference.

Until such time that ethnonationalists can conduct honest and intelligent discussions, they should be ignored and scorned.

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Right-Wing Populist Politics

The next step.

With the victory of Trump (*) the potential scope of right-wing populism in American politics has expanded.  Yes, we need metapolitics, including the creation of a community infrastructures and the production of cultural artifacts, but we need to get involved in politics as well.  It’s not that we are going to exert change by working within the system, but we can advance the cause by infiltrating the System, and turning the System against itself, and continuously push the envelope by actualizing increasingly explicit pro-White politics.  Pro-White political campaigns, even if unsuccessful, can be used for propaganda purposes, to promote our memes, to recruit, to build infrastructures, and to infiltrate the GOP and/or to create new parties.  Such campaigns would increase chaos and balkanization, creating divisions that can create even more demand for right-wing populism and even more explicitly White politics.  Perhaps, indeed, overtly pro-White candidates may be possible, eventually, given enough balkanization, starting at the lower, more local levels, and eventually working up nationally.  And if any candidates are successful?  That opens the door for yet even more pro-White candidates, pushing the envelope farther to the right, it creates more hate and balkanization, and, also importantly, it puts pro-White individuals in positions in which they can exert influence in favor of the “movement” in general, at least providing protection to allow “movement” infrastructures to flourish.  It’s analogous in a sense to the distinction between “legals” and “illegals” in The Turner Diaries, although in the scenario I’m talking about all involved are legal – it is the distinction between those working within the System and those working without, and the former can provide “cover” and assistance to the latter.

This is the time to get started.  If he have achieved nothing else, Trump has broken the “glass ceiling” for hard rightist politics.  I would advise first getting involved at the level spanning the spectrum from, at the most local level, school boards and city/town politics up to and including at the national level at the House of Representatives (we should think big and I believe that the House should be an excellent target to aim at).  If that’s successful, over time, then the Senate and seeing what can be done at the Presidential level (explicit pro-White candidates, not Trumpian implicit civic nationalism), at least at the third party level

* Trump is President with the Alt Lite Bannon high in his councils.  Sessions is Attorney General.  With respect to a crackdown on illegal immigration and a reduction of legal immigration – if not now, then when?  With respect to a crackdown on leftist thuggery, up to and including using the RICO laws against the organized leftists and labelling them, rightfully, as a terrorist group – if not now, then when?  If not by those individuals, then by who? The time for excuses are over, the civic nationalists worshiped by precincts of the “movement” are in power.  They had better get it done, and quickly, before Der Touchback is impeached for (real or imagined) Russian connections or some other scandal or invented scandal.  Let’s see what happens.

Labels: , ,