2017: The Year of No Accountability
I will now review the State of Der Movement for the year 2017. However, I am going to extend the analysis a bit beyond Jan. 1 2017 to include all events starting with the election of Donald Trump on Nov. 8, 2016. The last two months of 2016 belong with 2017; together they form a seamless whole, as far as an integrated narrative goes. After all, the last two months of 2016, including “Hailgate,” set the tone for “movement” ups and downs in 2017, so an artificial separation on 1/1/17 serves no purpose.
This analysis will be divided between (1) The American scene and (2) everywhere else.
1. American
There are many players on the American scene, but if we apply the Pareto principle here, and concentrate on the most important and influential figures, we have the triumvirate of Richard Spencer, Greg Johnson, and Jared Taylor.
Spencer is the “public face” of the American “movement,” the main organizer, the most important social media presence, the biggest “bogeyman” for the Left/System, and, given his relatively youthful age, the leading contender as the successor to, say, David Duke as the Godfather of American Racialism. Greg Johnson represents the intellectual element, the Grand Thinker of Der Movement, and represents “traditionalism” as well as being an American exponent of “ethnonationalism.” Jared Taylor plays the role of “elder statesman,” and also represents the more moderate, Jew-friendly, HBD/race realist-oriented precincts of the American scene.
There are other important figures as well, no doubt. Kevin MacDonald is an important intellectual figure, more science- and academic-oriented than Johnson. Duke is still around, as is Kevin Strom. VDARE laughably considers itself part of the Alt Right. There are of course other “movement” figures of greater or less importance, some of whom have delusions of grandeur. But, still, the Pareto ratio works; we can get 80% of “movement” importance in the 20% represented by Spencer, Johnson, and Taylor.
Let’s briefly consider each in turn, before getting to America in general, before moving on to Sallis/EGI Notes and then to the rest of the world.
Spencer: Richard Spencer is well meaning, good on camera, reasonably articulate, and has leadership potential. The basic problem here revolves around judgment (or the lack thereof) – judgment and maturity. One hopes that as he enters his 40s, more maturity will lead to more gravitas and better judgment, and an understanding that Beavis-and-Butthead White nationalism does not appeal to most people over age 30, and that the likes of Jorjani should never have been dealt with in the first place. The “Alt Right’ brand has passed its expiration date, and realizing that will perhaps be the first test that Spencer has to pass to transition to a more serious and informed racialist leader. I’ll give Spencer credit for having good instincts in his initial reaction to Brexit and for being pan-European in his attitude.
Johnson: Greg Johnson is obviously intelligent, well-educated, and well read, and has produced good intellectual material for the “movement.” No doubt about that. Unfortunately, for some reason, over the time period considered here, Counter-Currents has taken a negative turn, with Johnson becoming ever more intolerant of criticism and displaying increasing irascible irritability. Differences about ethnonationalism are one thing (however, the promotion of intra-European “ethnic cleansing” was indefensible) but the lack of accountability concerning the two infiltrations is something else entirely. Everyone makes mistakes, sometimes bad ones, but to compound bad judgment with a lack of responsibility is disturbing. Coupled with bizarre turns, such as “fired donors” and expending political capital in defense of Lauren Southern (including laughable articles analyzing the onanistic habits of her viewers) and bringing back alcohol prohibition (I don't drink myself, but, hey, I thought we were supposed to promote "West Coast White nationalism," appealing to all sorts of people?), I have to say, objectively speaking, that if Counter-Currents doesn’t change direction back to how it was several years ago, the site will slowly, but inevitably, slip into Majority Rights-style irrelevance. True, they are still finding suckers to meet their panhandling goals, but I'm looking long-term.
One basic problem with Johnson is that he wrote an article stating that is OK to “punch right” when it is deserved, and he has done it himself (including asserting, in so many words, that your humble blog host is an embittered lunatic), but he has a “glass chin” when subjected to criticism.
He wrote (emphasis added):
Operational security…you mean like having two infiltrators attending your “extremely vetted” meetings at the same time? You mean inviting an infiltrator to give a speech at your meeting about…drum roll please…the dangers of anti-fascist infiltration? You mean letting in infiltrators who come with the flimsiest of pretexts (“I’m Swedish!” “I’m a move critic!”)?
Oh yes, indeed.
Yet when I called for accountability, Johnson banned me from commenting at his blog.
Tell that to that Curwen fellow, who disagreed with Johnson about Lauren Southern and was essentially air-brushed off of Counter-Currents comments. And when I disagree with “movement” dogma, I’m labeled “crazy” and “bitter.”
Taylor: Jared Taylor has, obviously, done good work over the years. Like Johnson, he’s intelligent, well educated, and well read. He’s articulate and good on camera. Like Johnson, he’s run some of my work at his site. But Amren has been doubling down on all the negatives it has been exhibiting ever since I stopped writing for them. Thus, Taylor throws Spencer under the bus after Hailgate, because some Jews – huWhite Men of the West, we are told – might get offended, meanwhile White ethnics keep on getting bashed, the latest being Munro’s asinine hit-piece against Romanians (no “Men of the West” they). If the “Alt Right” brand has passed its shelf life, then the tired “HBD/race-realist praise the Jews and worship the Orientals Alt Wrong” brand has long been giving off the odor of decay. And as for the “gateway hypothesis” – that Amren is the moderate entry point for people to enter the “movement” after which they become more radicalized – I’ll say it again: there is no empirical evidence to support that hypothesis. It is all conjecture, hypothesis, anecdotal “evidence” – it sounds reasonable so people assume it is true. Arguing that there is no evidence that it is not true does not impress: it is part of Western logic and Western law that it is the party making the assertion who needs to provide the evidence. If people assert that Amren is of value because it is a gateway, then actually show quantitative data to back it up. Otherwise, all I see is a site that tells us that Jews are “huWhite Men of the West,” that asserts that Orientals are high-IQ supermen, and that White ethnics are cringing, low-IQ subhuman (and non-Western!) mongrels. More of a cul-de-sac rather than any sort of legitimate gateway. Don’t believe me? Read not only the Munro article but many of the comments to it, seething with contemptuous racial disdain for Romanians and other Eastern Europeans (with the occasional shot at Italians, what would any self-respecting Amren comments thread be without that?).
Summary: Please note, as I've said in the past (and ignored by the hysterical), that any criticisms of leading activists is business, not personal. I'm sufficiently self-aware to understand that I am (including IRL) a cold and unfriendly person by nature; my interest is in ideas, not people. I, quite frankly, could care less about any "movement personality" at the level of them as individual people, my concerns are on their ideas, actions, effects on racial nationalism, and what they do and do not represent. Even when I comment on qualities such as personal character, loyalty, moral fiber. etc. that is also business and not personal, since such comments are made solely looking through the lens of evaluating the person's fitness for "movement" leadership. This point must be stressed because there are people - mostly Type I activists (and perhaps some individuals discussed above) - who really are concerned with "movement" gossip and with personalities as personalities.
If any of the abovementioned individuals were to correct what I see as deficiencies, I would be among the first to praise them for it. I don't see much of a probability of that occurring in 2018; and I believe only Spencer is young enough, and mentally flexible enough, to change course, eventually.
One basic problem with Johnson is that he wrote an article stating that is OK to “punch right” when it is deserved, and he has done it himself (including asserting, in so many words, that your humble blog host is an embittered lunatic), but he has a “glass chin” when subjected to criticism.
He wrote (emphasis added):
…our resources are limited and our cause serious. We cannot, therefore, be held hostage to the most reckless and selfish among us, people who commit crimes or flout basic principles of operational security.
Operational security…you mean like having two infiltrators attending your “extremely vetted” meetings at the same time? You mean inviting an infiltrator to give a speech at your meeting about…drum roll please…the dangers of anti-fascist infiltration? You mean letting in infiltrators who come with the flimsiest of pretexts (“I’m Swedish!” “I’m a move critic!”)?
Showing solidarity to such people rewards vice and penalizes virtue.
Oh yes, indeed.
Intelligence agencies regularly disavow spies who go rogue or allow themselves to be captured. We should take ourselves just as seriously and be equally ruthless with failure.
Yet when I called for accountability, Johnson banned me from commenting at his blog.
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.
Tell that to that Curwen fellow, who disagreed with Johnson about Lauren Southern and was essentially air-brushed off of Counter-Currents comments. And when I disagree with “movement” dogma, I’m labeled “crazy” and “bitter.”
Taylor: Jared Taylor has, obviously, done good work over the years. Like Johnson, he’s intelligent, well educated, and well read. He’s articulate and good on camera. Like Johnson, he’s run some of my work at his site. But Amren has been doubling down on all the negatives it has been exhibiting ever since I stopped writing for them. Thus, Taylor throws Spencer under the bus after Hailgate, because some Jews – huWhite Men of the West, we are told – might get offended, meanwhile White ethnics keep on getting bashed, the latest being Munro’s asinine hit-piece against Romanians (no “Men of the West” they). If the “Alt Right” brand has passed its shelf life, then the tired “HBD/race-realist praise the Jews and worship the Orientals Alt Wrong” brand has long been giving off the odor of decay. And as for the “gateway hypothesis” – that Amren is the moderate entry point for people to enter the “movement” after which they become more radicalized – I’ll say it again: there is no empirical evidence to support that hypothesis. It is all conjecture, hypothesis, anecdotal “evidence” – it sounds reasonable so people assume it is true. Arguing that there is no evidence that it is not true does not impress: it is part of Western logic and Western law that it is the party making the assertion who needs to provide the evidence. If people assert that Amren is of value because it is a gateway, then actually show quantitative data to back it up. Otherwise, all I see is a site that tells us that Jews are “huWhite Men of the West,” that asserts that Orientals are high-IQ supermen, and that White ethnics are cringing, low-IQ subhuman (and non-Western!) mongrels. More of a cul-de-sac rather than any sort of legitimate gateway. Don’t believe me? Read not only the Munro article but many of the comments to it, seething with contemptuous racial disdain for Romanians and other Eastern Europeans (with the occasional shot at Italians, what would any self-respecting Amren comments thread be without that?).
Summary: Please note, as I've said in the past (and ignored by the hysterical), that any criticisms of leading activists is business, not personal. I'm sufficiently self-aware to understand that I am (including IRL) a cold and unfriendly person by nature; my interest is in ideas, not people. I, quite frankly, could care less about any "movement personality" at the level of them as individual people, my concerns are on their ideas, actions, effects on racial nationalism, and what they do and do not represent. Even when I comment on qualities such as personal character, loyalty, moral fiber. etc. that is also business and not personal, since such comments are made solely looking through the lens of evaluating the person's fitness for "movement" leadership. This point must be stressed because there are people - mostly Type I activists (and perhaps some individuals discussed above) - who really are concerned with "movement" gossip and with personalities as personalities.
If any of the abovementioned individuals were to correct what I see as deficiencies, I would be among the first to praise them for it. I don't see much of a probability of that occurring in 2018; and I believe only Spencer is young enough, and mentally flexible enough, to change course, eventually.
Der Movement (America) in general: Wasted opportunities galore in 2017. Trump’s election, the rise of right-wing populism, and the vast increase in sociopolitical chaos and racial balkanization left in its wake endless opportunity that was squandered in feuding, stupid antics, Charlottesville Ragnarok, infiltrations, panhandling Tin Cup White nationalism, and zero accountability. Trump’s cucking exposed the “movement’s” obsessive “man on white horse syndrome” fetishism once again, and the year is ending with the absolute stupidity of feuding over stupid female YouTube celebrities, and Munro’s vicious attack against Romanians – the people who gave us Corneliu Codreanu and Ion Mota (as opposed to those huWhite Jews giving us Sigmund Freud and Noel Ignatiev).
Sallis: I made one large error - I dismissed the possibility of a Trump victory, naively believing the mainstream media and its polling. I’ve admitted being wrong about this before; I will do so again. This was a significant error of judgment on my part. I was also a bit too optimistic about the meaning of Brexit; Spencer’s initial reaction was more on the mark. On the other hand, I have been right about virtually everything else: that Trump is a vulgar, ignorant buffoon who will betray the “movement’s” “man on white horse syndrome” fantasies through continued cucking; the unwillingness of the “movement” and its leaders to admit being wrong about Trump (or anything else for that matter – no accountability); the costs of affirmative action and ethic fetish, culminating in the Hermansson humiliation; that the “movement’s” unscientific obsession with “racial purity” and its misinterpretation of genetic tests will lead to System mocking of how “you are not pure so racial nationalism is illegitimate” – 2017 being the year in which activists were roundly ridiculed by the System for getting “impure” 23andme results; that White ethnics would support a Presidential candidate deemed “racist” (as opposed to Bush/Romney/McCain overt cucks); and the fact that a Trump victory – his betrayals notwithstanding – would “trigger” the Left and promote chaos and balkanization.
As far as achieving objectives, with respect to political objectives, my efforts have been a complete and unmitigated failure. Der Movement continues to be dominated by Type I fascists, Nutzis, ethnic fetishists, and morons. The proposed New Movement fundamentals outlined at Western Destiny are ignored. My influence on the general direction of the “movement” is, currently, non-existent. Those are objective facts that cannot be evaded. Nor do I currently have any bright ideas or strategies to alter this situation in 2018. Being right most of the time (an objective, verifiable fact, not rampant egoism) doesn’t accomplish much if no one pays attention. That’s stark reality. If the irascibility of this blog is cause or effect (or, possibly, both) of that reality is a determination I’ll leave up to the reader.
On the positive side, I’ve produced some material that at least I myself think has some value, and I finally did do at least a preliminary quantitation of genetic structure using the DifferInt program. Last December, I introduced the Moralpath concept, which I believe has significant explanatory power and is a novel insight into human psychology. And I’ve combined on the blog a mix of political commentary, some science and technics articles, ruminations of culture and civilization, analysis of EGI in the practical world, as well as the typical criticisms of Der Movement. Even if few people know or care, I’m reasonably satisfied with the memes produced here.
2. Everywhere else.
There was some good news from Austria – “the first Far-Right government since WWII” – although they are hardly “Far-Right” by my standards. Well, it’s better than nothing. The news from Germany was worse than nothing: Merkel back in power. Yes, some gains for Alterative for Germany, but in the context of the “refuge” crisis (alien invasion of Germany and the rest of Europe in response to Merkel’s genocidal invitation) the response of the electorate was pathetic and disgusting. In the UK, Brexit played out as the pan-Europeanists more or less predicted: Polish plumbers bad, “Commonwealth” Desis and Jamaicans good. Pathetic once again.
However, the biggest news from Europe was the utter failure of mainstreaming, particularly in France and the Netherlands. This was a spectacular refutation of the mainstreaming meme (not that defenders of mainstreaming, in any of their online guises, had the character to come out and admit they were wrong – once again: 2017, the Year of Zero Accountability). There is no empirical evidence supporting mainstreaming, similar to the lack of data supporting the “gateway” scenario. Mainstreaming seems eminently reasonable; the problem is it does not work in real life. Instead, we see Orban’s continued success with farstreaming, a moderate rightist moving toward the extremes and becoming ever more popular. Mainstreaming fails for many reasons, not the least of which it allows the mainstream Right to shift slightly and overlap many of your positions and hence make themselves into more electable and palatable versions of yourself; while on the other hand, you disillusion your hardcore supporters and you still cannot appeal to that fraction of the electorate who are, and will always remain, unalterably opposed to you.
In summary, given the challenges Europe faces, the response from the Right and the White electorate has been pitiful. And the elites are doubling down on their treason, saying that the demographic displacement of Europeans from their homelands is “inevitable” and needs to be “properly managed.” How did such people get into power? Ultimately, if you go back far enough (that is, even those traitors appointed by other elites are the fault of the voters, because the ones who appointed them were themselves voted into office) it’s because Europeans voted them in, and won’t vote out, and won’t vote nationalists in. There’s some resistance from Eastern Europe, but unless those nations have the gumption to leave the EU – and do so for racial nationalist and not civic nationalist (Brexit) reasons – then they are just playing cards on the deck of the Titanic. Either leave the EU or seize the EU for nationalists, but the latter cannot be done without a nationalist resurgence in Western Europe.
Outside of Europe (and the USA)? Australia? New Zealand? Canada? Nothing positive to speak of.
The milksop White race continues to be the historical embodiment of cuckiness. The descent into darkness continues.
