Saturday, August 11, 2018

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-Currentsbeing 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:


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.