Category: Andrew Hamilton

Return of the Turd: Another Rambling Durocher Post

The “Mr. Hyde” of Der Movement rambles on.

My colleague Andrew Hamilton…

The two worst writers in Counter-Currents history.

But, as I have written elsewhere, many (though certainly not all) of the early racial theorists’ hypotheses have actually been confirmed by later genetic studies.

And I’ve refuted Durocher’s mendacity about population genetics.

The anti-Semitic Christian-Socials proposed a vigorous affirmative action program…

Der Movement has a long history of promoting affirmative action, I see.

To be continued . . .

There’s more?  Durocher’s review will be longer than the book.

Advertisements

Time for Some Plain Speaking on Trad Vlad and Other Things

Things that need to be said.
As someone who recently criticized Strom’s pro-Putin broadcast, and has been an opponent of the “movement’s” pathetic blushing schoolgirl crush on bare-chested macho man Trad Vlad, I’ve noted the recent dust-up at Counter Currents over Greg Johnson’s more comprehensive critique of Strom and comments on the whole Russia/Ukraine mess.
I side with Johnson in this instance (*). The whole thing is becoming ludicrous, a pathological form of unrequited love.  The pro-Putin arguments are easily dismissed.  We are told that Russia has always been multiracial, and that a “White supremacist” (sic) policy would destroy Russia.  Can’t the same be said about America?  With Amerindians and Negroes around since the very beginning, is America then to be identified with multiculturalism? Are American WNs delusional? If errors were made in the past, does this mean error must continue in the future?  Does past multiracialism doom a nation and its majority population to ever-growing diversity and racial displacement? White Americans have the right to demand an ethnostate, regardless of whether this would destroy multiracial America; White Russians have that same right. Preservation of race trumps preservation of state.  This also ignores the fact that Putin’s Eurasianist policies are making the problem worse – his ideals are actively working in favor of the Asianization of Russia. Putin is therefore no different from any aracial “conservative Republican” in the USA, who could justify mass immigration by citing America’s multiracial history.  Of course, the ethnoracial core of America has always been European, with an Anglo-Saxon founding stock. Russia has always had a Slavic-Russian core, and that core is demographically endangered by Putin’s racial policies.
Then we have the argument that Johnson is unfairly critiquing Putin because Trad Vlad is not “ideologically pure” – suggesting that the bare-chested macho man is practically pro-White, it’s just that he deviates from “ideological purity” from time to time.  That’s nonsense – Putin is a dedicated anti-racist and anti-fascist (using fascism in its real historical sense, not merely as a modern-day expletive), he is an aracial conservative, a “civic nationalist” who doesn’t believe Russian ethnicity is a prerequisite for Russian nationalism.  It’s not the case that he is merely a practical-minded ethnic nationalist – his regime actively persecutes real Russian ethnic nationalists.  Putin is not on the other side of America. He’s part of the same multicultural global system.  The US vs. Russia disagreement is NOT a fundamental disagreement over differing worldviews – it is instead more like the Democrat vs. Republican squabbling here in America: two entities that share the same basic worldview and similar overarching goals, but who are merely competing for the spoils, for power and prestige.  It’s the “in-your-face” Western degenerate multiculturalism vs. the more restrained and implicit Russian multiculturalism.  It’s arguable which is worse – possibly, the Russian form is more dangerous since it is more subtle and a less obvious enemy – to the point that WNs fall for the charade.
Then we have the argument that Ukraine will never be independent, that Ukraine is a historical fiction, that we have to make a choice between an American/Jewish-dominated Ukraine and a Russian-dominated one.  I’ll let the Ukrainians themselves defend their historical legitimacy as a people; however, I will note that this technique of delegitimizing a people’s identity is an approach often used by anti-racist globalists and multiculturalists. As regards realpolitik, it is true that the Ukrainian revolution, such as it is, has been compromised. I’ve previously said that WNs really don’t have a dog in this fight (as usual). Russians vs. Ukrainians fighting among themselves for two sets of multicultural masters is a tragedy. But – unlike the schoolgirls professing their love for Trad Vlad – I’m not singing paeans of praise for the Ukrainian government, and neither is Johnson.  The issue goes beyond the immediate Russia vs. Ukraine issue – it gets to the heart of the stupidity and naivete of the “Old Movement” – the constant fixation on “the man on the white horse” (Nixon, Reagan, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Putin, etc.) who will “save us,” the constant delusions of seeing support where none exists, the poor judgment of embracing enemies as friends, and turning real friends into enemies.  The schoolgirl crush on Putin is symptomatic of deeper problems within the “movement.”  
Then we have the “he’s against the Jews” argument.  I’m not even going to debate the extent to which Putin is anti-Jewish.  My point is that a singular fixation on Jews is not healthy.  The “enemy of my enemies” is not necessarily my friend, it can simply be just another enemy.  This reminds me of the time, some years ago, when Pierce tried to convince me that the Soviet-apologist, post-USSR Russian communist party leader Gennady Zyuganov was a great guy worthy of support, since he was more “critical of the Jews” than the “puppet” Yeltsin.  I remember thinking, “this guy Pierce is so blinded by his single-minded fixation on Jews, he can’t see the forest for the trees.”  Yes, Yeltsin was no good, but so was (and is) Zyuganov and all the rest (***).  Real Russian nationalists are worthy of our support, not apologists for Stalin’s anti-Slav genocide.  To say that “there is no chance” for the real nationalists, just like “there is no chance Ukraine will ever be independent,” is similar to saying that, well, the White American ethnostate is just a silly dream and we all need to be practical and vote Rubio-Paul in 2016.  The “lesser of two evils” delusion has been a yoke on “movement” progress since the very beginning.
I say: No.  Sometimes, practicality and compromise are just fancy euphemisms for rank surrender. One has to draw a line somewhere.  Yes, the Ukrainians are heading in the wrong direction – NATO and the EU are anti-White horrors.  But Putin’s Eurasian Union is another anti-White horror. Yeltsin may have been a stooge, but the crimes of communism are such that any decent person should recoil from any association with that lunatic creed – to support a warmed-over Soviet because he may have said some odd comment about the Jews is stupid and juvenile.  This obsession with the anti-racist, anti-fascist, multicultural authoritarian Putin is also stupid and juvenile.  Let’s face reality: there is, currently, NO leader, anywhere in the world, that supports racial nationalism for any European people, or for Europeans as a whole.  There is NO nation that is a “bulwark for Whites.”  The USA and Russia are two sides of the same coin, and both rotten. A principled view is to say “a pox on both their houses” and not waste any precious time,energy, and resources in some sort of fit of unrequited love.
Plain talk: given what we currently know, given the facts before us, a pro-Putin attitude is indicative of immaturity, piss-poor judgment, and certainly not in accordance with what we stand for. There’s no point to it.  Putin doesn’t need or want WN support, it is inconsequential to what is happening, and the support has not been, and likely will never be, reciprocated.  WN support for Putin does nothing but compromise the moral, intellectual, and ideological integrity of racial nationalism. It makes us look foolish. It makes us look pathologically fixated on Jews.  It makes us look desperate, that we latch onto whatever world figure or celebrity that we deceive ourselves is “secretly one of us.”
This Putin crush is another manifestation of the sickness, the rot, eating away at the pitiful and pathetic travesty known as the “movement” – that morass of defectives that has accomplished nothing for endless decades (don’t forget Revilo Oliver castigating the “movement” for 50 years of failure – nearly 50 years ago).
The Old Movement needs to be uprooted, discarded, eliminated, so a more sane and rational New Movement can take its place.  No more delusions and false hopes.  It’s time to see reality as it truly is, and work our way from there.
Crush the infamy!
*Here I refer to the Johnson vs. Strom disagreement on Putin.  I am at this time not going to dwell on the moral catastrophe of letting mendacious anti-racist Silver comment at that blog, following in the self-destructive footsteps of Guessedworker (**). This is why maintaining moral integrity is important: tolerating the plagiarizing moral turd Andrew Hamilton leads to a slippery slope down to even worse fundamental errors.
**One reason why Majority Rights has degenerated into a desolate wasteland (compared to the better days of, say, 2005-2008) is Guessedworker’s tolerance of truly destructive “contributors” – both bloggers and commentators.
***I can’t be too hard on Pierce, since one can critique Yockey for much of the same.

Movement Cherrypicking: Plagiarism and Gay-Baiting

Selective, very, very selective.
Well, so one of the complaints about the execrable South Asian NEC D’Souza is plagiarism, a charge more mainstream sources have also leveled against the even more execrable South Asian NEC Zakaria.  Very good.  But then the plagiarism of Andrew Hamilton is ignored, and his boringly repetitive essays praised by movement comment thread peanut galleries. If plagiarism is wrong, it’s wrong no matter who does it, no?
This sort of “movement” cherrypicking extends to the favorite past-time of “gay-baiting” various “movement” personages. That is 100% politically motivated (here I refer to internal “movement” politics. not real Yockeyian High Politics). After all, there are some august “movement” personages widely rumored to be gay (no names, I don’t engage in this sort of womanly gossip-mongering), but who are NEVER the target of the sort of vulgar gay-baiting that takes places on “movement” blogs and comment threads. The reason? Well, gay-baiting in the “movement” is typically done by “activists” belonging to specific “precincts” within the “movement” and they share with those august personages a similar set of beliefs. On the other hands, the targets of the baiting are memetic opponents within the “movement” to those doing the baiting, so the accusations and insinuations come out specifically in those cases  (the “movement” being so obviously successful that it can afford to be ridden with this sort of sordid public squabbling).  It’s clear that there is no principled opposition to homosexuality as such, because a distinction is made between “our guys” (let’s not mention the rumors) and “their guys” (mention the rumors at every opportunity). That says more about the character of the baiters than it does the baitees; even more so, it says much about the character of the pathetic cesspool known as the “American racialist movement.”

On Plagiarism, Principle, Morals, and the Movement

VMI better than the “movement.”

I’ve written about the issue of plagiarism before, and now I would like to cite comments on that topic made by the Virginia Military Institute.  Thus I quote this website (proper credit given!), with the following excerpts (italicized bold emphasis added):

Plagiarism is dishonorable. It involves using the words, information, insights, or ideas of another without crediting that person through proper citation. Since authorship is ownership, using the intellectual property of others without credit is theft. Passing off another person’s work as your own is lying. You can avoid plagiarism by fully and openly crediting all sources used…

 …Parallelism means paraphrasing material but keeping a source’s argumentation and paragraph structure. This is not acceptable. Not only words and phrases and sentences require footnotes. If you borrow someone else’s ideas, you must also acknowledge the fact by a footnote. Even if you cite another person’s ideas in your own words you must indicate this with a footnote or it constitutes plagiarism. Give credit where credit is due. You wouldn’t want people to steal your property – – don’t steal theirs. You will have to use other people’s discoveries and concepts to write your paper, but build on them creatively. Do not compromise your honor by failing to acknowledge clearly where your work ends and that of someone else begins.

In today’s corrupt, Judaized society, I’m sure that these principles, the invocation of honor, will be met with eye-rolling and snarky scorn.  The same will hold within the “movement,” which is as Judaized as anything else (indeed, some plagiarizing writers who are the most critical of Jews tend to be the ones who themselves display Jewish-like behavior).  In the “movement” we see the same lack of principle at work as we see in the general society – a society that the “movement” allegedly opposes: short-term convenience over long-term principle, doing what’s easy over doing what’s right, tactics always considered and strategy ignored, and a mocking attitude toward principles of behavior such as honor and loyalty that which were, at one time, essential components of White European Manhood.
There will be excuses of course.  One can imagine it: “We are in a fight for survival!  We can’t play by the rules when the Jews and Leftists do not!  We can’t sacrifice White survival on the altar of honor!”  Yes, indeed, one can imagine that very well, since we’ve all read it and heard it before.
But do codes of honor, such as what applies at military academies, really preach that behavior should be so rigid that one should choose national destruction with “honor” over survival depending upon more questionable behavior?  No.  Let’s not confuse means and ends.  For a military officer, the End, the Objective, is (or should be) winning the war, defending the nation. So, yes, when the ultimate objective is at stake, when the prize is nothing less than what one has become an officer to defend, then one does, at that point, what’s required to achieve that objective.  That’s a moment of supreme decision, a moment that you would want someone of sound character making that ultimate decision (more about that in a moment).
But, let us be honest.  All the steps toward that ultimate objective are not “life or death” decisions.  At each step, the individual will almost certainly be able to choose between two alternatives, BOTH of which would enable the individual to advance toward the goal.  One alternative would consist of doing the right thing, being honorable, and displaying sound character, even if it takes a bit more effort.  The other choice is taking the easy way out, the convenient short-cut, the more dishonorable way, sacrificing character for expediency.  And let us be honest again: the “movement” today is far from the point of making supreme decisions for White racial survival, the “movement” today is in fact at the point in which “activists” engage in the daily decisions leading toward the far-away final objective, those every day steps along the path in which choices exist between doing what’s right and doing what’s merely easy and convenient.  There’s no existential racial crisis at stake today in “movement” politics or in blog posting.  Let’s be realistic, shall we?
Putting aside then the pompous blowhard excuses of “anything is required for racial survival!” we then ask: why do military academies put such an emphasis on honor, integrity, and character?  Is that just some sort of antiquated nonsense of “dead White males?”
Actually, these academies train for, and select for, character as much as, or more, than they do for intelligence or military skill.  And here is the reason why. An officer will need to lead men, including leading men into battle.  An officer will be making life and death decisions.  An officer will often be tempted between doing what’s right, what’s best for his men and for his country, or doing what’s easy, what’s convenient, what’s personally expedient and privately useful.  An officer will need to distinguish between a brief, fleeting tactical advantage and long-term strategic goals.  An officer may be faced between winning a battle and gaining personal glory or winning the war and safeguarding the nation.  In more extreme cases, an officer will be faced with a choice between maximizing personal comfort, wealth, and security by turning traitor or sacrificing oneself for the nation.  It stands to reason that you absolutely require officers of sound character, of firm moral principle – men who can be trusted to do the right thing, even if doing the right thing is more difficult than to cut corners when it is personally convenient.  Who wants to be led into battle by the morally defective?  By the disloyal? By the dishonorable?  By the weak, who can’t be trusted to sacrifice a bit of effort to do things the right way?  And, finally, when a supreme decision needs to be made, when survival depends on a possibly “unethical” action, who is better qualified to make that decision and to live or die by its consequences – the man of honor or the morally corrupt and selfish weakling?
Military academies value honor and integrity because, all else being equal, the honorable officer is the better officer, the more trustworthy, the one who has the moral stamina to survive the crucible of war without breaking, without committing treason for expediency, the one who will do the right thing, and display clear-thinking and courage in a crisis.  The dishonorable officer, who “did what I had to do to get by,” will be the one to collapse under pressure, to turn traitor, to panic, to sacrifice long-term advantage for immediate gain and glory.

The same applies to the “movement.”  Which is why it is so troubling that the despicable moral turd Andrew Hamilton is allowed to be an active and valued participant on “movement” forums.  Well, I’m sure it’s convenient to plagiarize, and I’m sure it’s expedient to have a popular writer on staff despite continued questionable behavior.  But it’s not the right thing to do, it’s not an existential issue of racial survival – footnoting articles is an issue of personal moral character, not of racial extinction – and there’s simply no excuse for it.  And this is all relevant to “ethnic genetic interests” and racial nationalism, because it is this culture of convenience, the attitude of corner-cutting expediency, which has contributed to the failure and dysfunctional nature of the “movement” and has put our EGI in jeopardy.

Admission of Plagiarism

Surprise, surprise.
Emphasis added:
Proofreader
Posted August 2, 2014 at 12:07 am | Permalink
I’m quite sure that the first three paragraphs are from William L. Pierce’s essay, “Why National Vanguard Books?,” which was in the old National Vanguard Books catalogue. Perhaps this should be made more clear.

 

Reply
Andrew Hamilton
Posted August 2, 2014 at 1:26 am | Permalink
Proofreader,

You are correct…[excuses commence]

Invading Their Own Country

Hood essay.
I would like to congratulate Gregory Hood for this fine essay, which sums up the truth about WWII and the “greatest generation.”  It also puts the spotlight on the execrable scum Churchill, who has to rank among history’s biggest fools.  Imagine that: sacrificing your nation’s empire, shedding your people’s best blood, so that in coming decades quoting your own words will be grounds for arrest in your own nation.  Good going there, Winnie.
More Hood and less Hamilton, please.