Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Tempest in a Teapot

Where’s the beef?

I watched the end of the Red Ice video of Spencer’s speech.  Cutting through all of the anti-Spencer hysteria and all of the pro-Spencer spin, my own view can be summarized in three points:

1. I didn’t like it.
2. It was a mistake.
3. It really isn’t that big a deal.

Given all the breast-beating going on, point three needs to be stressed. Long term, I simply do not see this permanently damaging either Spencer or the Alt Right brand (such as it is). Spencer is young and potentially has decades of activism ahead of him.  Who knows what may happen in that time?  One must look at the long time horizon here, rather than obsessing over short-term damage.

Consider this: 

Any significant political success for Spencer and the Alt Right presupposes a set of conditions that would ensure that many Whites simply would not care about a few silly seconds at the end of Spencer's 2016 NPI talk.

Whites becoming more desperate as the racial conditions worsen – would those Whites care about a few “Hails” here and there?

Whites becoming more aggressively ethnocentric and willing to defend racial self-interest – would those Whites care about a bit of youthful indiscretion?

If and when the times become more propitious for a racialist far-Right in America (in contrast to today’s Trumpian cucked civic nationalism), then the real test will be if Spencer (or whoever) presents an attractive memetic product to the people.   If so, then all the film clips of the 2016 NPI conference won’t make any difference whatsoever.

And even today: the type of Whites WNs would want to recruit, those hardcore Whites not satisfied with Trumpism, those Whites are not going to be “put off” by what happened at the conference, other than being dissatisfied, as I am, by the usual piss-poor “movement” judgement.  But then, Spencer is really no worse than other “movement” leaders, so even that isn’t a major problem by “movement” standards.  Unless the individuals criticizing Spencer are willing to speak out against the even more serious and fundamental problems of Der Movement, then the whole Hailgate episode is merely sound and fury signifying nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

Punching Right and Left

Some very important points.

First, if Spencer speaks and we remain silent, people will assume that he is speaking for us. 

But that exactly is why some of us “bitter shit-stirrers” critique the failure of Der Movement. If I am a WN, and yet stay silent about “movement” lies, fossilized sci/fi fantasy dogma, juvenile silliness, and endless failure, then the assumption will be I agree with it and Der Movement speaks for me.  Tell me again why it is wrong when I do it.

Second, criticizing Spencer is not about changing his behavior. It is about social signaling: communicating our differences to the public we are trying to persuade. So obviously it cannot be confined solely to back channel whispers.

Exactly.  Lots of people who could be pro-White activists are alienated by a “movement” that despises them.  The alienated White ethnics need a voice. Those disgusted by Nutzi stupidity (and what Spencer did does NOT fit into that Nutzi category) need a voice.  Those who shake their heads at the fact that Oliver talked about 50 years of “movement” failure nearly 50 years ago need a voice.  Those who don’t buy into HBD or “March of the Titans” or “Who We Are” need a voice.  Why be so threatened by one individual trying to be that voice?

Finally, it presupposes a false unity to the movement. Literally the only thing that unifies us is common goals (and with Spencer I am not even sure about that). But if our movement is inherently pluralistic, colonizing every niche in the cultural and political ecosystem, then the only way to establish and maintain our different approaches is to criticize one another. 

Except when Sallis does it?

Of course it can go too far. 

Defined how?  Mocking ridicule goes too far?  I don’t think so.  Daring to critique “esteemed movement leaders?”  No, because their “esteemedness” allows them to do far more damage than Spencer ever has.  Being suspicious of single individuals who write posts and make podcasts (!!!) under different names - is that going too far as well?

And there are some people who spend all their time attacking movement people rather than our enemies. 

Any look at my work over the years shows that does not apply to me.

But with healthy pluralism comes healthy dissent and debate.

Except when Sallis and the non-quota crew do it?  That would seem to confirm many of my criticisms, no?

When I first met Spencer in 2008, he was dating an Asian woman (something now public because of an article in Mother Jones). 

Why should Brimelow, Derbyshire, or Taylor have a problem with that?

The only foreign regime he strongly identifies with is Putin’s Russia, which is valiantly battling against “Nazis” in Ukraine. As long as I have known him, Spencer has been chummy with Jews like Paul Gottfried. NPI, like American Renaissance, has always played patty-cake with certain Right-wing Jews. 

So, then, if we criticize Spencer about that, what about Amren?

Before Spencer came on board, NPI had published Edward Rubenstein, Byron Roth, and Michael Hart. But, unlike American Renaissance, they published Kevin MacDonald as well. Spencer has continued in that vein, publishing additional books by Roth and Hart, plus Richard Lynn’s The Chosen People

Do we now admit the destructiveness of Lynn’s Judeophilia and Asia-worshipping HBD flimflam pseudoscience?

The reaction to “Hailgate” has become more of a problem than the incident itself.  If I’m a “shit-stirrer” then other folks are thrashing around in a septic tank with a paddle.  Yes, Spencer made a mistake, but all the breathless indignation over it falls flat after folks have for many years ignored far worse errors in judgment from Der Movement.  The impression I am getting is that activists who have opposed Spencer for other reasons are now jumping all over this to discredit Yellow Fever Rich and his ideology.  And the Left laughs watching the Right eat its own.  What do you think is more destructive “shit-stirring” – Sallis, who is read by maybe half-a-dozen people per day, making jokes about “piano wire,” or big names in Der Movement, read by thousands per day, making an epic storm out of a trivial incident?

Spencer of course is fair game for reasonable criticism, as am I (and I’ve gotten more than my share over the years, reasonable as well as otherwise), as is Greg Johnson (who has also received criticism, some unfair, over the years), as are others.  But that must also include Der Movement as a whole, its stupid dogmas, its “rock stars” and saintly heroes, and all the rest.

Problems for mainstreaming.  Marine has moved the FN so far to the center that there is “minimal daylight) (if I may borrow that Silverian phrase) between her and the center-right. Thus, French voters may just go for the “safe” choice – unless Marine has to appeal to the Left, re: economics, which may include toning down the race/immigration rhetoric even more in order to hold onto those social welfare votes.  

Defenders of mainstreaming will say: “Hey, she wouldn’t even be in contention without mainstreaming.”  No, sorry, the whole purpose of compromising mainstreaming, according to its advocates, is to help the “Right” achieve power.  “Being in contention” doesn’t cut it. Daddy Le Pen got himself into contention as well. So what’s the point?

For those well-informed “movement” commentators who have stated that Brimelow cucks because “he’s an old man who doesn’t have to raise children in today’s America,” you apparently missed the last hundred VDARE posts where he’s either bragging about his young wife and children or posting pictures of them (on a blog for which a child porn apologist writes).  Der Movement marches on.

Question for Roissy: if “Caucasian” (in the broadest possible sense, of course) ethnic groups like lantern-jawed micks and swarthoid wops have their own “look,” then what such groups tend to have the noodle-armed, cuck, gayface look?  And who has the weasel-faced FINRA look?

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Rules For (Far-Right) Radicals

Alinsky’s rules co-opted.

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” – I have read innumerable articles in recent months from the lying press about how the GOP is full of crypto-White nationalists. Sounds good. Big if true.

As long as Der Movement is not fooled by this unhinged hysteria as well.

2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” – We’re not going to get most people to do things they have no habit of doing. We need to play to the strengths of our existing human resources.

That’s very important.  To quote Dirty Harry: “a man got to know his limitations.”  But in order to effectively utilize everyone’s skills and aptitudes we must carefully match individuals with responsibilities.  There are "leaders" who have no leadership skills or judgment whatsoever, as one example of a mismatch.

3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” – This and the above rule are standard Sun Tzu; know the enemy and know yourself or else you will be defeated. We must always stay abreast of the opposition, always be more informed, and always make them look stupid.

Making the Left look stupid really is not so difficult, IF the far-Right is clever.

4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” – There are two key forms of this: concern-trolling and malicious compliance. Doing so will stress them out by increasing their cognitive dissonance load, bleed them of resources, and generally waste their time and energy. You can also bait your opponents into producing specific outcomes if they are inflexible and dogmatic enough.

Yes, yes, yes.  And this is what Salter’s democratic multiculturalism is all about.  Use sociopolitical ju-jitsu to leverage all the Left’s talk about “inclusion” against them.  A multiculturalism that is for everyone, including and particularly the majority, conflates into a multiculturalism for no one. The whole purpose of multiculturalism is to empower minorities while disempowering majorities; if the majority demands inclusion into multiculturalism – real inclusion that explicitly defends majority interests – then multiculturalism becomes diluted into nothingness and it falls apart. Further, majority-friendly multiculturalism will enrage the minorities who believe that they have an innate right to exclusive ethnic mobilization, and this rage will enhance chaotic balkanization and therefore underscore the demands of the majority for inclusion = a virtuous cycle.  And all the idiots who say that democratic multiculturalism is “dishonoring our ancestors” – it is losing that dishonors our ancestors.  Winning is honorable, let’s win, and we can win by forcing the enemy to live up to its own rulebook. Let’s do it.

5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” – Most of the Alt Right’s troll ops consist of making a mockery of things. Ditto for our memes and critiques, e.g. cuckservative. It will probably go down as one of the greatest political slurs of all time: implying that your opponent gets off to watching his country be destroyed while his wife’s son votes against him. Cuckservative captures perfectly, and ridiculously, how the target serves every interest but the national.

Agreed.  And it applies to ridiculing Der Movement as well.

6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” – Trolling. Shitposting. Meme magick. It never gets old because there is always something new to provide a perspective on, or some new journalist to troll, or a comments section to raid, or a viral media campaign to be fought.

Well, we know some folks enjoy posting pictures of Pepe.

7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” – I think the only area the Alt Right sees diminishing returns on is putting out too blackpilled of a message, or being too gloom and doom. People don’t really want to hear that all the time, even when it has to be said. Things getting worse is after all part of the sales pitch as to why the Alt Right’s solutions are necessary. On the other hand, we have to have a positive and future-oriented message to put out, and that reaches a bigger audience than commiseration.

Sure, that should be the public face.  In private though, we really need to follow the Sallis Strategy: despair, disillusionment, chaos, hatred, rage, balkanization, bitterness, etc.

8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” – I tend to think this won’t be much of a problem because there is nothing the regime can offer us that would be satisfying other than its resignation.

Murray is na├»ve here.  We already have people saying “we won” after Trump’s electoral victory.

9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” – This certainly works in our favor given how (((neurotic))) the people we are engaged in holy memetic warfare with are. Even the implication of our presence somewhere or in something is enough to produce media hysteria and maelstroms of kvetching.

True, and this can be used to provoke the Left, see number seven.

10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” – At the moment this is our endless streams of daily content across multiple platforms, something we should continue to scale up and diversify.

See number eight.  I agree completely; now is the time to push, push, push, not to declare victory and go home.

11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” – We want to get to a point where being labeled by the establishment as a racist, sexist, or anti-Semite is a sign of having done something correct, being that bad people are saying it about you.

This is reasonable.

12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” – In other words, to win you actually need an answer to the issue. It can’t just be about opposition. We must be more than reactionary.

We need a Futurist visionary objective.  Criticism must be constructive criticism.  When I criticize Der Movement, I also present an alternative at the Western Destiny blog.

13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” – This is my favorite and I think Alt Right troll ops have done this quite well. First you get ahold of a luegenpresse journalist’s attention. Then you apply the other above tactics to him or her. Finally you get some sort of overdone reaction from them AND their supporters against you, which helps reinforce your own battle lines by showing that the issue you are up against is supported by x and x-plus, all of whom are against you. Many journalists noted during the 2016 presidential campaign that if one were of a Semitic surname (or known to follow a cult of volcanic demonology) and said something critical of Donald Trump, that he or she would be targeted and harassed on their social media or in the comments section. They began to reach out to one another about this and write about the responses they were getting, many going as far as labeling themselves with the triple parentheses symbol in solidarity. So what had basically happened was that our argument all along that overseas Israelis were uniquely opposed to nationalism in the United States was proven—by getting them to band together and admit that they were, and that they were proud about it too. See, all those people who hate Trump have (((something in common)))!

This is somewhat similar to something Nietzsche wrote: that he would focus on particular people in order to criticize ideas that those people represented, not criticizing the people as an end to itself.  

Similarly, I criticize individuals – or more often, types of individuals, without focusing so much on single individuals – to focus attention on their stupidities, including and especially in Der Movement. And why not?  I’ve learned well.  After all, for years, I’ve been the target of this personalized polarization, particularly by elements of Der Movement (e.g., those hostile to pan-Europeanism, those who oppose White ethnics in Der Movement).  And what is fascinating is that some of the same people who are upset with me for being a “shit stirrer” today were completely silent back then when the thoughtful and analytical Rienzi/Holliday/Sallis was being polarized by other shit-stirrers - a fascinating contrast that confirms the validity of my criticisms of Der Movement.

And – other than tone - how is my criticism of Der Movement really any different than this? Why is my criticism wrong and those other criticisms legitimate?  And some of the “esteemed movement leaders” quoted there, should we care what they think?  Brimelow? Taylor?  Spencer should wear their criticism as a badge of honor.  On the other hand, Greg Johnson and Devlin are serious and intelligent activists and their critique of the NPI follies need to be considered.  But the critique doesn’t go far enough.  If a rather silly episode is worthy of an obituary, what about endless decades of “movement” failure?  What about all the fossilized dogma, the silly “movement” narratives, the fact that Der Movement alienates a significant portion of America’s White population – the White ethnics who supported Trump?  And how about all these “movement” feuds, which go on and on – the specific personalities change, but the atmosphere stays the same.  In the past, it was Pierce vs. Covington or Pierce vs. Carto and today it is – what? – Johnson vs. Spencer?  So now we have a series of articles and podcasts at Radix putting their “spin” on “Hailgate” and we have articles at VDARE and Counter-Currents taking the opposite tack.  The more things change the more they stay the same.  Aren’t there more important things to polarize over?

In any case, Alinsky’s  “rules” are as good for the gander as for the goose.

Der Movement in the News, 11/29/16

Several items.

Wow!   I didn’t know so many Amish lived in Staten Island!  Der Movement is right once again!

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Trump vs. White Nationalism?

Here is an excerpt from a comment someone left at MPC, emphasis added:

Trump Will Dash the Hopes of White Nationalists 
Despite what little Richard Spencer says, you're not getting a white ethnostate, at least not with Trump, and probably not within our lifetimes. This shouldn't have to be repeated, but Trump is a nationalist, not a white nationalist. While his vision of America does not include the 50 million beaners and the several million towelheads and skinnies currently here, it most emphatically includes blacks. 
And why shouldn't an American nationalist movement include blacks? Blacks are Americans. They've been here longer than the overwhelming majority of Italians, Irish Catholics, Polacks and Jews. They're dysfunctional, stupid, violent, shitty Americans, but they're still Americans, and as such, Trump has vowed to Make America Great Again for them, too. 
Moreover, Trump seems to genuinely like blacks in much the same way he seems to genuinely like ordinary Americans. He gets a kick out of blacks, likes hanging around with them, and is a good friend to them even when they've disgraced themselves.

That’s pure Sailerian citizenism, and that is what the beta race cuck civic nationalist Trump is all about.  I supported Trump’s candidacy, and voted for him, for long-term strategic reasons outlined here ad nauseam.  I have also made quite clear my low opinion of Trump the man, and my equally low opinion of the Trump fanboys and Alt Wrong HBDers, quota queens, etc., and their raging stupidity of “Trump is the last chance for White America” and “we’ve won.”  Morons and imbeciles.

Trump’s victory has expanded the range of possibilities, it has brought us some breathing room, it has emboldened some people, and it has heightened the contradictions.  If managed corrected by the far-Right, Trump’s victory can be a net gain.  But that will be in spite of Trump, not because of him. From this point on, the long-term objectives of Trump and of WNs diverge, as the pro-Trump MPC comment makes clear.  Trump wants to stabilize and strengthen multiracial America; WNs – true WNs – want that version of American destroyed.  Trump wants to bring “all American citizens together,” while the true and just objective for White survival is to set “Americans” of different races against each other, to promote a balkanizing chaos.  Trump wants to foster hope for a brighter America; in contrast, WNs must foster hatred, bitterness, division, despair, rage, disillusionment, and disgust – with true hope being actualized only when the current rotten System collapses.

Anyone who considers Trump a “great man,” a “savior,” the “last chance for White America,” or anything similar is an unmitigated idiot.  At best, Trump is a tool for our side, at worst, an enemy to us and a tool for the opposition.  

Note to Der Movement: Stop the hero worship and get to work.

Race in the News, 11/27/16

Various items.

"Game" commentator states:

Curveless, pancake-bottomed, flatchested Asians are preferred by latent pedos. Spencer can do better

Remember what HBD blogger is a child porn apologist and it all makes sense.

The ethnic origins of most of the individuals mentioned here would be a HBD Jeurasian wet dream.

This book, which was reviewed here, is one I have recently read and it is recommended, particularly for White youth.

An interesting comment on "movement" meeting security.

"Looks the part?"  Trump really is an imbecilic moron.  That isn't any sort of promotion of the pro-Jewish Neocon Giuliani, but, still, Romney of all people?

Saturday, November 26, 2016

Alt Right Forever?

Analysis of Spencer video.

Basically I agree with most of what Spencer says here.

A few points:

1. I’m no fan of the Alt Right, for reasons outlined numerous times on this blog, and the “branding” arguments and semantic debates about naming this precinct of Der Movement leave me cold.  That said, Spencer makes reasonable points in this brief video.

2. On the one hand, what happened at the conference was not optimal, and I’ve written as much.  But some folks are getting carried away with their reaction, being a bit hysterical.  It was regrettable, but not fatal.  It really isn’t that big of a deal.  Acknowledge error (no need for “apology”) and more forward.  Hopefully something was learned here.  But the idea that the “Alt Right brand” (such as it is) has been “damaged beyond repair” is simply ridiculous. If people are so easily discouraged by that, then they are useless for any serious sort of political activism.  A more important issue is having security for the meetings, doing so with the reality of the open hostility of the System and its police forces (e.g., leftist thugs can attack with impunity; rightest self-defense would likely be criminalized).

3. Alt Right a household name?  Perhaps that’s going too far, but I was recently surprised when a female of my acquaintance asked me: “What’s the Alt Right?  Can you explain it to me?”  Now, that was in response, I later learned, to an article about Bannon and not Spencer, but still….

4. Spencer’s critique of Ramzpaul was spot-on.  I listened to RZP’s own video, there was the implication of the same attitude that greeted Ronnie Raygun’s 1980 election – ‘we won, so no need for any more radical activism.”  Sigh.  That’s the wages of “mainstreaming.”  And RZP’s statements about The Daily Stormer being an ADL False Flag – what can one say? That’s typical “movement” drama, and that applies regardless of whether or not the accusation is true.  Constant “movement” freakishness.

5. Spencer’s comments about the self-determination of small nations was a very effective riposte to the ethnonationalist faction.  The “Velvet Divorce” of the Czechs and Slovaks worked out with NATO and the EU in the background, and Big Daddy America and its nuclear arsenal and superpower status backing ostensible small nation sovereignty (but are any of these nations truly sovereign?).  In the absence of these larger unit power structures, why would anyone take small nations with populations in the low millions seriously?  Why would anyone take any single European nation seriously (apart from the nuclear arsenals of the UK and France, and only the French force is truly independent; putting aside whether or not you want to consider Russia as “European” as well).  Why should the Chinese take the Czechs and Czech sovereignty seriously apart from Czech membership in supra-national organizations?  This is NOT a call for any sort of rigid empire or Euro-panmixia, nor a call for any nation to give up its uniqueness or internal rule.  But facts are facts: in a world of a clash of civilizations, smaller nations alone have no viability on the world stage whatsoever.  They may delude themselves that they do, but they really do not, and eventually that reality will catch up to them.

"Respected" Alt Right Chutzpah

It’s Der Movement!

On a Radix thread, the following series of comments were made (emphasis added):

Laguna Beach Fogey • a day ago

FYI: I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here, but it has been brought to my attention that Richard has been privately approached by respected Alt-Right figures about the increasingly erratic, destructive behaviour of a certain Alt-Right writer (on display in this comment thread below), and has been urged to distance himself and the brand from him.
4  • Reply•Share ›
Alek  Laguna Beach Fogey • a day ago
Jonah Goldberg or Colin Liddell?
6  • Reply•Share ›
Alek  Alek • a day ago
Ben Shapiro or Colin Liddell?
6  • Reply•Share ›
Alek  Alek • a day ago
George Will or Colin Liddell?
6  • Reply•Share ›
Laguna Beach Fogey  Alek • a day ago
lol that fucking cracked me up
5  • Reply•Share ›

Assume for the moment that the initial comment reflects reality. Now, let us consider the various ways this informs us about Der Movement.

1. Who are “respected Alt-Right figures” who can afford to talk about “erratic” or “destructive” behavior of anyone else in their moronic “movement?”  The idea is laughable. In this circus of race-mixers and child porn apologists (*), HBDers, juvenile jackasses, incompetent quota queens, civic nationalists, individuals whose every utterance and action displays poor judgment, breathless fanboys worshiping their “God Emperor,” pseudoscientists and ethnic fetishists, anyone stupid enough to say “Donald Trump is the last chance for White America” – who among that morass of flotsam and jetsam could have the nerve – the chutzpah – to point the finger of criticism toward anyone else in their “Alt Right” cult?

2. Again assuming this is all true, note that an individual who is a commentator at various “movement” blogs apparently knows the inner business of “respected Alt-Right figures.” Good self-control and security there among the lip-flapping womanly gossips of Der Movement.

3. Being privy to this private information, said individual then blabs it on a public forum (Radix, being a well known flagship of the "Alt Right," is no doubt intensely scrutinized by the opposition) that is read by anyone and everyone, including those “watchdogs” hostile to pro-White activism. Then all the various commentators make a joke about it.

4. Finally, assuming it is Liddell, I’ve been commenting on his flaws and ethnic fetishism for some time.  All that was ignored by Der Movement, which embraced Liddell, hosted his writings, made podcasts with him, etc. Then of course when the comedy descends to depths such as this, then the alarm bells ring.

And these are the “respected” figures and leaders of the “Alt Right,” which will bring us our salvation. Basically, “movement” freakishness, lack of self-control and security, absence of dignity and prudence, and embarrassing feuds and stupidities exemplified by one moronic episode.

The wages of affirmative action go on and on….

*For some inexplicable reason, my response to this nonsense was rejected in moderation, and so is reproduced below:

Before you make your snarky remarks, you probably need to first read what Derbyshire actually wrote.

He doesn't see what's the problem with folks possessing and enjoying child porn.  Oh yes, it is "creepy" (much like, in my opinion,  a White male, not man, having an East Asian wife), but he does not see any legal or moral problem with it.

Of course, it is the demand for child porn that creates the supply, so that if Derbyshire has his way, and child porn is legalized, demand will increase, causing more children to be viciously sexually abused, raped, sodomized, even murdered, so that freaks can legally enjoy their "creepy" fun.

Derbyshire is a moral turd, a monster.  If you cannot understand that, let us know when you are back on Earth.

That Derbyshire is a child porn apologist is an indisputable fact.  In his own words, emphasis added:

…there is an anarcho-tyranny angle here that is sufficiently deplorable in itself.  Why should it be a crime to have child porn on your computer?  (Note that the item on the charge sheet about Bukovsky “making” child-porn images is bogus.  As Claire Berlinski explains, under U.K. law just downloading images counts as “making” them.)
Enjoying child porn is weird and creepy to be sure.  I cleave, however, to the old principle that you can’t go to jail for what you’re thinking.  In the Western world of today, as the waters of totalitarian conformity rise all around us, that point of view seems positively quaint.
From one member of the Awkward Squad to another, I offer Vladimir Bukovsky my best wishes.

Thursday, November 24, 2016

Spencer's Statement

Spencer and NPI give their side of the story:

A point to be stressed: if I criticize Spencer, it is meant to be constructive criticism from someone who is 95% or more in agreement with him, including (mostly, but not completely) about the “Big Europe” idea.

In the “friend/enemy” distinction I consider Spencer in the “friend” category (regardless of what he may think of me), and while I may get frustrated at “movement” stupidity, I clearly distinguish who is “on the side of the angels” and who is not.

I believe that some of what occurred at the meeting was a mistake, including and especially the lack of security and foresight (the Budapest fiasco is another example of poor planning). But if I have to choose between Spencer and “oh, how offended am I” Brimelow, I choose the former and reject the latter.

I do wish though that these Alt Right guys get over their Trump fetish, ironic or not.  Der Touchback should be following us WNs, not the other way around.

If there is anyone most deserving of criticism the last few days it is the “God Emperor” himself – but, alas, “gods” are beyond criticism, eh?

The meeting security issue though really needs to be addressed.  Who knows?  When the "God Emperor" ascends to his throne, he may actually approve of, and encourage, leftist thug attacks. There will be no help from that quarter, that's for sure.

Thanksgiving Trumpism

Cucks and others.

Exactly the opposite of what we need.  Donny Amnesty is getting more cuckified with each passing moment.  His slavish supporters on the right will say this is all “squid ink” as is, of course, his public disavowal of his own supporters, his unwillingness to investigate Clinton, his constant backpedaling, his appointment of arrogant Desi (redundancy) Haley (you now, the brownsteress who attacked Don Fats during the campaign) and his hob-nobbing with Romney, who also attacked Trumpcuck during the campaign.

No wonder Der Movement loves Trump so much.  Look at all they have in common – including a tendency to embrace and reward their enemies while kicking to the curb their friends, allies, and supporters.  Note to Trump: in general, South Asian aliens and Mormon cucks did NOT support you this electoral season.  You do understand that, don’t you?

Here’s an outrageous piece of filth who says that Trump needs to “go after” WNs, even though we’re all just a bunch of sad carnival clowns (albeit the dastardly Richard Spencer may be more dangerous!).  As this cuck (hey, Matt, confused about the meaning of that term?  Look in the mirror) laments that Trump isn’t doing enough to satisfy the complaints of those who didn’t vote for him, didn’t support him, and relentlessly attacked him in the most personal terms during the electoral season, we, at the same time, read that some in the Alt Right are “dismayed” that Der Touchback publicly disavowed his own supporters (and indeed wants to “look into” why they are “energized”).

The correct formula for promoting an unpopular or widely misunderstood cause is the old Roman adage suaviter in modo, fortiter in re, meaning roughly: “gently in style, firmly in substance.” The scholars and thinkers at the heart of the Alt Right generally try to offer well-grounded analysis in calm prose in order to convince those able to consider matters rationally (while largely ignoring those who cannot).

I agree wholeheartedly, and I have been saying for years that mainstreaming is wrong – it is not the content that needs to be made more radical, it is just the way it is expressed.

Now, my many critics will turn around and accuse me of hypocrisy, saying that my own tone is far from “gentle in style.”  Indeed, they will assert, I engage in bitter invective, insults, radical pontificating and, yes, I suggest that some folks should be strung up with piano wire (after legally convened tribunals, of course).

These critics of course fail to point out:

1. That I’ve said repeatedly that some of the more radical material is tongue-in-cheek, openly mocking “movement” Nutzis and others, who for some reason don’t get criticized for the real thing that I get criticized for mimicking in a mocking manner.

2. When I have expressed myself “gently in style” I’ve been critiqued and attacked by (often the same) critics just as much or more than when I engage in over-the top radical rhetoric. Be honest critics - it’s the messenger you object to, and not the message.

3. If I was going to address a meeting attended by press (and normies) I would obviously use different language than I do at blogs intended for Der Movement as the main audience. And if my previous quotes were to be brought up, they can be re-interpreted, in gentle style, using Salterian rhetoric.

But no political movement can remain limited to such activity. Our very success makes it inevitable that we shall be joined by an increasing number of young hotheads with little patience for careful argument or measured statement. Movement veterans should bear in mind that these younger men have lived their entire lives under the watchful eye of petty tyrants determined to encase them forever a mental straitjacket, with the ultimate goal of demoralizing and destroying their race. Is it any wonder that when such young men are finally brought to a truer understanding of their situation, their first instinct is to turn on those whose malicious tutelage they have finally escaped? 
The behavior recorded in The Atlantic’s video clip is a figurative middle finger raised in defiance of today’s ideological enforcers—and these are, in many cases, truly contemptible people. Yet I hope the “Sieg-Heilers” will get mere defiance out of their system and go on to more constructive work. No serious activist can remain satisfied with playing the role his enemies have assigned him, which is what “Nazi LARPing” amounts to. The Alt Right needs foot soldiers, but even foot soldiers must be disciplined.

Indeed.  But can we do without bisexual Vietnamese women?

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Trump (and the "movement") in Der News


To be fair to Der Touchback, he really didn’t have a choice after the mess of the Alt Right NPI conference and the “Hail Trump” nonsense.  Promoting chaos and balkanization occurs when pro-White paradigms become normalized, not when the President Elect is forced to publicly disavow WN. Better to have keep everything vague and have the Left whining about Bannon, then to have a clear-cut condemnation and forcing Trump to cuck to those who didn’t vote for him.

But the error was not all on the radical side. To have the likes of Brimelow there, a civic nationalist who associates with scum like Derbyshire, to pontificate on who is and is not in the Alt Right is an absurdity.

Look, everyone makes mistakes, and commentator at Radix have raised legitimate points about the stress Spencer was under, for days, before the “juvenile bravado” episode.  If Spencer would acknowledge the error, understand the damage done, and take steps to rectify it and make sure it does not happen again, then one can accept error.  I make errors, everyone does. But one must admit it to move forward.

I would like to see Spencer directly address this controversy.

On the other hand, this cuckiness cannot be blamed on the Alt Right.

Disappointment was inevitable, but this soon?

Those cuckservatives really learned a lot from this electoral season, huh? And is the pink-frilled, gayfaced Graham just about the worst featherless biped on Earth?

I can only imagine how good these guys are going to be with email security…assuming any of them which end of a computer is up.

We can be critical of Spencer, but let’s also consider that he is a very public face of pro-White activism and thus has to put up with this.  And Brimelow has the nerve to be “annoyed?”

Here’s the thing, Pete, Spencer is “one of us” (by “us” I refer to a pro-White activist, not a “movement” activist since while Spencer is part of the “movement” I am not, although I am pro-White), and you are not.  When push comes to shove, I know who I side with.  It’s with Spencer and not with you. Here’s advice for the next NPI conference: Brimelow, don’t show up. Spencer, don’t invite civic nationalist cucks.  Problem solved!

And then there’s this problem.

Yeah, I know that’ll make pro-White activism all the more appealing to the likes of Derbyshire, but a “movement” that loves East Asians and hates “Meds and Slavs” perhaps does have a bit of an identity crisis, as brownster Ravi suggests.

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Spencer's Speech, 11/22/16

Brief comments.

In isolation, nothing wrong with Spencer’s speech.  It was just the wrong place at the wrong time.  At a private meeting, at some other point in history, absolutely nothing wrong with it. But at a public, press-attended meeting, right after Trump’s election, with the media screaming for Bannon’s scalp, this was a bit of poor judgment.  Better to have put something together in more political-Salterian terms: democratic multiculturalism, universal nationalism, the legitimacy of majority interests, etc. I thought the whole point – or at least one major point - of the Alt Right was to be a more moderate “gateway” to hardcore WN. I’m skeptical of the “gateway” hypothesis, but if those guys believe it, better they publicly espouse democratic multiculturalism than do cheap NSDAP imitations.  Further, if you are going to “go radical” then why have the likes of Brimelow and Taylor around? Is there any strategy here, or just – as Der Movement would say – “LARPING?”

And about the leftist thug protestors – that happens at every rightist meeting, and at very meeting it seems like the attendees - and, worse, the organizers – are completely surprised and unprepared for it.  No one ever seems to think: “hey, these things have happened every time before, let us be prepared this time.”  If Der Movement doesn’t like my talk about affirmative action and quota queens then they have no one to blame but themselves.

Then we have this idiot "Ravi” (who Silver of all people effectively answered – fair is fair, I must give credit where credit is due):

Ravi • 2 hours ago

Children of the sun!! - what a load of tripe. So does this White Master race include Slavs as well? What about the Irish, Italians, Spaniards? What is a short, slit-eyed Vietnamese harlot doing in your ranks anyway? Is she white or yellow? So many questions - Do you even understand your own identity?

Let's fisk:

Children of the sun!! - what a load of tripe


So does this White Master race include Slavs as well?

Yes it does.  No more and no less than any other European group.  Der Movement may not believe that but I, and others, do.

What about the Irish, Italians, Spaniards?

Yes, them as well.  No more and no less than any other European group.  Der Movement may not believe that but I, and others, do.

What is a short, slit-eyed Vietnamese harlot doing in your ranks anyway? 

A representative of the HBD faction?  Where was Derbyshire?

Is she white or yellow?


Do you even understand your own identity?

Yes, more than you can ever imagine.

Note again (assuming “Ravi” is a South Asian brownster) how hate-filled Asians are to Whites, how desperate Asians are to divide Whites against each other.

In the long-term, it’s the Yellow and Brown Peril from the East that is the biggest racial danger.

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Reality vs. Mr. Derbyshire, 11/20/16

More HBD lies.

After 4,000 years of absorbing border tribes and enduring long partial or total conquest and occupation by Turks, Tibetans, Mongols, Manchus, Iranians, etc., any match between the self-identifying Han population of China and the concept of biological race is problematic.

Not problematic at all. Despite some degree of genetic differentiation among the Han Chinese (primarily along a north/south axis, which seems to be a common theme among large population pools, including Europeans), on a global racial basis, as you can see here, there’s no doubt that the Han are East Asian, akin to Japanese and Koreans.

As to why Derbyshire constantly spouts and/or implies falsehoods:

1) He’s an HBDer and HBD is pseudoscientific fraud, lies incompatible with real racial science.
2) It probably also has to do with his pro-miscegenation attitudes, and his constant attempts to normalize his racially mixed family.

Despite our conflicts and disagreements on other issues, Europeans and East Asians can agree that Derbyshire’s lies and agendas need to be rejected and opposed.

Trump From the European View

Interesting podcast.

Europa Terra Nostra podcast: pan-European cooperation in action.

Making the "Impossible" Possible

Food for thought.

Maybe I’m just too “Faustian” but I’ve always been extremely annoyed when people – and this applies for both science/technics as well as politics – say something is “impossible.” Not “implausible” and not “highly unlikely” and not “impossible for the foreseeable future” but absolutely and categorically “impossible.”

Keep in mind that at one time the idea that any useful work could be extracted from atomic/radioactive processes was deemed “impossible.”  The idea that anything could be done to prevent, say, an asteroid strike was deemed “impossible” but it is quite possible today to take action given current technology.  The EmDrive Thruster was considered “impossible” and “violating the laws of physics” yet it seems to work.  The idea of “warp drives” for interstellar travel was laughed away as sci-fi, but there is now serious theoretical work being done on that possibility.  And then there was the “impossibility” of the election of Donald J. Trump.

Today, we are told that, for example, extracting useful work from zero point energy is “impossible” and “violating the laws of physics.”  Preventing a supervolcano eruption is “impossible.”  I guess the White nationalist dream is “impossible” as well.

The proper riposte I think when someone says that “X” is “impossible” is to reply: Just assume that “X” is indeed (at least theoretically) possible; if so, how would you approach achieving “X?”

It may turn out that “X” is truly impossible, but one never knows until one exhausts all possibilities. An unexpected discovery, idea, or invention may make the “impossible” possible in science/technics. Of course, that breakthrough would never have occurred if all work on the problem was dismissed because of its “impossibility.”  And even if the truly impossible remains unachievable, the thought processes engaged in trying to understand how to achieve the impossible may bear fruit for other related problems and in those cases make the “impossible” possible.  And the same holds for politics. Always ask: If it were possible, how to achieve it? 

In that way, dreams may become actualized into reality.