Category: Andrew Joyce

It’s the Tropical Alliance

The reality of racial alliances – Asians with other Colored against Whites…since 1905. In all cases, emphasis added.

Remember this?

In contrast, Sallis has talked about a “Tropical Alliance” or a “South-South Alliance” or a “pan-Colored Alliance.”

So, read this.

Appreciation of the Russo-Japanese War’s racial significance was not limited to the actual combatants. Lothrop Stoddard writes that the war inspired “an understanding between Asiatic and African races and creeds . . . a ‘Pan-Colored’ alliance against white domination.” He wrote that Japan’s victory “produced intensely exciting effects all over the Dark Continent [and] sent a feverish tremor throughout Islam.”

Chinese statesman Sun Yat-sen was sailing through the Suez Canal in 1905 when the news of Japan’s victory broke. The locals, mistaking him for a Japanese, enthusiastically congratulated him on his people’s great victory, calling it a triumph for all colored people. Muslim leaders called for political alliances and commercial relations with the Japanese — even for the reorganization of Oriental armies under Japanese direction. A few dreamed of converting them to Islam.

At the same time, as Stoddard noted, white solidarity seemed to be eroding; the Asiatic cause was finding “zealous white sponsors and abettors.” Among the most dangerous symptoms was an expansion of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1905, in the immediate aftermath of Japan’s victory.

Anglo-Japanese.  Of course. Proto-Derbyshires, perhaps? Hey, if the “wogs begin at Calais,” then what does White solidarity matter?  Ethnonationalism!

Laurence Whelksays:
January 16, 2020 at 7:29 am
“Above all, however, there is no comparison with spending time researching the lives of one’s own co-ethnic heroes and one’s own culture. As Europeans, we are so spoiled for choice we needn’t waste time with the rejected, outcast, and badly damaged members of other groups.“
This pretty much sums up my stance on regaling vs. reviling Mishima. There are plenty of our own people to study and hold up as exemplars – no need to go fishing for mentally ill, sexually deviant outsiders to worship.
There seems to be a misplaced expectation among racially aware right whites of a potential kinship with East Asians because they are – like us – one of the smart races. It’s the smart races we should be most wary of…

Indeed.  But in some cases the “misplaced expectation” is intentional – Yellow Supremacists and other HBDers, the Silk Roaders and their masochistic sexual fantasies about black-booted Chinese girls with guns, Derbyshire and his self-admitted “measured groveling” to his Chinese wife and the interests he has in normalizing his mixed-race family.  There’s an agenda there.

Listen to this.  You have a duty to fight HBD, the Arctic Alliance, and Der Movement.  Note the part about getting involved in politics.  Sound familiar?

Sallis: Always,always right.

An effeminate SJW soyboy talks sports.

Andrew Joyce:

Andrew Joycesays:
January 16, 2020 at 12:09 pm
Greg Johnson declares a piece with 50 references (covering biographies, psycholical papers, sociological studies, mental health research etc) unscholarly, while promoting pro-Mishima pieces on his website with barely a reference and packed with vague and sweeping claims. Just one of the reasons I’ve long regarded Johnson as an intellectual fraud who should stick to film reviews, some of which are actually enjoyable to read, if a little on the sissy side for my taste. He’s now written about 1000 words in comments, rather than provide, or point to, a single piece of worthwhile (and for us, necessary) piece of political literature. Instead, Johnson has obfuscated matters, mischaracterised the essay, avoided its core argument, denied being influenced by his own homosexuality, and otherwise simply thrown a hissy fit. All in sharp contrast to the majority of readers at both this site and Unz. It would be laughable but for the desperation and strange sincerity of his effort.

Note the reference to Unz.  I have a difficult time taking Joyce seriously – particularly with respect to his views on Jews – if he’s in support of having his work on Unz.

In his latest podcast, with some incoherent, mumbling “racial traditionalist” Millennial, Johnson specifically promotes Taylor, Brimelow,and MacDonald (by name) – supporting my contention of the ethnonationalist-HBD-Nordicist alliance.  Of course, that’ll be labelled as “the paranoid style”- after all, noticing things is “paranoid.” and “crazy and bitter” too, lest we forget.

Mishima, Joyce, and Johnson

And another tidbit.

First, the other tidbit:

Comment:

abprosper
White does not Equal Posterity. The Irish and the Italians and the countless others of European extraction inflicted their own ruin on our posterity and founding state.

Quite right. Imagine if we didn’t have micks and wops like John Lindsay and Hubert Humphrey mucking things up, what a more racially healthy nation America could have been.

Now, to the main course.

Reproduced below, at the end of this post, is more of the animus-driven back-and-forth between Joyce and Johnson on the Mishima issue from TOO. I’d at this point just like to summarize my views on this in outline form:

1. I agree more with Joyce than Johnson on Mishima, not because I wholly agree with Joyce nor because of my personal distaste for Johnson, but simply because I view Mishima as a greatly over-rated figure on the Far Right, and Joyce’s piece is a long overdue and necessary corrective.  Mishima can be viewed as an “intersectional” figure who has recently enjoyed an “uptick” in interest from the Far Right (back in the WN 1.0 days, I can assure you that none of we Nutzis cared a fig about this Oriental) since he appeals to a number of “movement” factions – Traditionalists, the Gay Cabal, the HBDers and Silkers who grovel before The Altar of Asia, as well as Millennials who want to be both “based” but have a cover for their “racism” (but, but, but…I like this Japanese guy too…).  

2. Having said that, I’ll agree that Joyce’s piece can be viewed, objectively speaking, as a bit too harsh and one-sided. But that’s fine. I consider Joyce’s essay to be akin to Yockey’s Imperium in the sense that it is supposed to be a polemic and not a work of purely objective scholarship – so Johnson’s whining about Joyce’s alleged failings in that regard are, for me, irrelevant. Joyce is essentially making a political argument – that White Far Rightists should stop wasting their time with this bizarre, homosexual, inauthentic, organically unsound, over-rated, Japanese writer, and look to their own people for their heroes and role models. If that is its purpose, and I believe it is, then Joyce’s essay is effective.

3. Joyce can have focused more on the idea that Far Rightists admire Mishima not necessarily because of the objective things the man did, but because they view him as a symbol of rightist defiance against globalism, universalism, liberalism, democracy, consumerism, etc.  So, in that sense, one can argue that the points brought up by Joyce about Mishima the man are irrelevant with respect to that motivation for Mishima worship. The problem though with this interpretation is that there are White historical figures who could serve the same role as inspiring symbols – and in those cases the historical figures are not only more racially relevant, but more authentic and have the advantage of actually having achieved things of value to the White race. This goes back to point one – why Mishma himself specifically has been chosen as this symbol rather than others who are more deserving (Codreanu for one).

4. Joyce’s “gay-baiting” accusations against Johnson are probably unfair as well.  Although, as stated above, Mishima’s homosexuality likely plays at least a partial role in his appeal to some on the Far Right, I believe that Johnson’s interest in Mishima is more likely centered on Johnson’s interest in “traditionalism” and the idea that this “traditionalism” is embodied by the life, work, and symbolism of Mishima. If Joyce had critiqued Savitri Devi, Johnson may well have responded in like manner. All of this does not excuse Johnson’s snide (and as stated above ultimately irrelevant) remarks about Joyce’s commitment (or lack thereof) to quality scholarship.

5. Dr. Joyce – what the hell is your essay doing on the Unz site?  Say it ain’t so!   Are you an Unzian?  If not, tell them to take your essay off that damn site.  If so, why the hell why?

More of the cat fight:

Greg Johnsonsays:
January 16, 2020 at 2:06 am
I disagree.
First, there are many things to admire about Mishima as an individual, despite the fact that he was a very weird character: his literary genius, his immense productivity (34 novels, more than 50 plays, countless essays, all before his death at 45), his willingness to spend his prominence in society to buck the liberal democratic trend in favor of the Right, and, yes, his exemplary suicide — because if enough of our people overcame the Christian-bourgeois ethos and were willing to truly prefer death to dishonor, they would make short work of this system.
Second, it is simply wrong to say that Mishima does not offer “arguments.” I suggest you read Andrew Rankin’s Mishima, Aesthetic Terrorist, which is an admirably clear overview of Mishima’s cultural and political worldview. You may disagree with this views, in whole or in part, but it is simply inaccurate to dismiss them as lacking any sort of coherence or argument.
Third, I’ve already pointed out that despite claiming to have spent a year researching this matter, Joyce makes no reference to Rankin or a number of essays at Counter-Currents that actually present a pretty good explanation for why Mishima is a widely read figure in the New Right. I should also mention that there is an entire book on Mishima by the eminent Dominique Venner, Un samouraï d’Occident: Le Bréviaire des insoumis (Paris: Pierre-Guillaume de Roux, 2013) that might have thrown some light on this matter. But, again, there is no sign that Joyce has read it, although it was reviewed at TOO.
I am not going to speculate about Joyce’s motives for such lapses of scholarship.
Fourth, instead of actually reading and citing the relevant sources for understanding Mishima’s status in the New Right, Joyce simply offers what he calls the Mishima Myth. This myth purports to be a summation of New Right discourse on Mishima, but it is nothing of the kind. It is simply an attempt to make this discourse seem maximally vapid, which makes his demolition work much easier. In short, it is what scholars call a “straw man.”
Refuting straw men rather than real arguments is a blot on any scholar’s reputation.
I have read very little of Dr. Joyce’s work, so I don’t know if the lapses of scholarly probity that vitiate this essay are a pattern in his writing. I hope TOO’s and TOQ’s promotion of his work does not turn out to be a bad investment.
Andrew Joyce
Andrew Joycesays:
January 14, 2020 at 11:08 pm
I read Rankin’s book a few weeks ago, and found it lacking. What does emerge in his discussion of Mishima’s politics, such as they can be ascertained, is the same confusion and incoherency indicated by the other scholars named above. Again, I think your opinion is clouded by being a homosexual, and you’ve invested time and effort in promoting an ethnically alien and profoundly unhealthy individual simply because he is a homosexual icon.
Reply
Greg Johnson
Greg Johnsonsays:
January 16, 2020 at 2:29 am
This is a list of artists and intellectuals of the Right whose birthdays Counter-Currents more or less regularly commemorates:
January 3: Pierre Drieu La Rochelle
January 3: J. R. R. Tolkien
January 6: Alan Watts
January 8: Anthony M. Ludovici
January 10: Robinson Jeffers
January 12: Jack London
January 14: Yukio Mishima
February 6: A. R. D. “Rex” Fairburn
March 12: Gabriele d’Annunzio
March 29: Ernst Jünger
March 31: Robert Brasillach
April 12: Jonathan Bowden
April 16: Wilmot Robertson
April 16: Dominique Venner
May 13: Julius Evola
May 22: Richard Wagner
May 27: Louis-Ferdinand Céline
May 29: Oswald Spengler
June 13: William Butler Yeats
June 16: Enoch Powell
June 29: Lothrop Stoddard
July 7: Revilo Oliver
July 11: Carl Schmitt
August 4: Knut Hamsun
August 20: H. P. Lovecraft
August 22: Leni Riefenstahl
September 11: D. H. Lawrence
September 18: Francis Parker Yockey
September 26: T. S. Eliot
September 26: Martin Heidegger
September 30: Savitri Devi
October 1: Maurice Bardèche
October 2: Louis de Bonald
October 2: Roy Campbell
October 12: Aleister Crowley
October 15: Friedrich Nietzsche
October 30: Ezra Pound
October 30: Leo Yankevich
November 7: Guillaume Faye
November 15: René Guénon
November 18: Wyndham Lewis
November 19: Madison Grant
November 20: P. R. Stephensen
December 1: Henry Williamson
December 3: J. Philippe Rushton
December 7: Pentti Linkola
December 22: Filippo Marinetti
December 30: Rudyard Kipling
What all these people have in common is not that they were gay icons but that they were eminent intellectuals or artists who were also Rightists. That alone makes them worth commemorating in a culture dominated by the pretense that the Left is intellectual and the Right is not.
If Andrew Joyce were to publish unscholarly hatchet jobs on any of these figures, I would feel duty bound to defend them. So enough about my motives.
Readers are free to speculate about my motives all they want. But the same is true of Joyce’s motives.

Joyce vs. Johnson, 1/15/20

More news.


Joyce:

Andrew Joycesays:
January 14, 2020 at 2:13 am
Queer coping is when a known homosexual gets triggered when a homosexual idol is systematically critiqued and, unable to moderate the emotional response, but also unable to write a full length rebuttal, resorts to long-winded by ultimately meaningless comments designed to claim intellectual victory (and psychological relief) where none exists. When it comes to queers, they’re a lot like wasps or hornets. Just rattle the nest and watch them come out. They can’t help themselves.

I was warned about the cabal in the early 2000s.


Johnson:

Greg Johnsonsays:
January 14, 2020 at 5:40 am
Ryuji Tsukazaki’s remarks are devastating because Joyce’s essay leans so heavily on arguing that “Mishima was a profoundly unhealthy and inorganic individual,” and Tsukazaki argues that such remarks are rather beside the point, because such people are often quite insightful and can make true statements. Joyce admits that his argument is ad hominem. But the argumentum ad hominem is one of the informal logical fallacies.

Yes, argumentum ad hominemjust like calling Sallis “crazy and bitter” instead of responding to the comments left on your blog, never mind “banning” people who critique your ideas and your behavior.

Tsukazaki also points out that, contra Joyce, Mishima wrote plenty about politics. Indeed, about one-fourth of Mishima’s 43-volume collected works consists of non-fiction, including political statements, and even his writings on literature, art, and culture have political import. 

That doesn’t invalidate Joyce’s thesis.

Andrew Rankin’s recent book Mishima, Aesthetic Terrorist, is the first book in English to discuss much of this material with an eye to its political and philosophical content. No genuinely scholarly discussion of Mishima’s political import should omit mention of it. Rankin’s book was published in 2018, so Joyce had no excuse not to cover it.

True, Joyce’s essay could have been more complete.  He should write a follow-up, with a focus on answering Johnson.

This essay rather blots Joyce’s reputation as a scholar.

No, it doesn’t.


Zman commentator:

Epaminondas
None of this will prevent a future, more determined version of Trump to turn over the political table. He walks among us now. In fact, the new, more fanatic morality will make Trump 2.0 stand out even more sharply from the rest. If you think you’re seeing the elites panic now, just wait.

Sounds familiar.


Consider this Mexican-looking greasy Afrowop.  Just like Der Movement is full of insincere grifters, so is the gaggle of “anti-racists.”

Ethnoimperialist Filth Exposed

Counter-Currents: The home of ethnoimperialist hypocrisy.

Read this, emphasis added:

As a person of proud Danish ancestry

Please compare that to this (emphasis added)

Being in Eastern Europe for the past two years, I’ve spent a lot of time at various European airports. In regards to my personal life, I’ve found myself in a revolving cycle of meeting Eastern European women on Tinder, taking them on dates to the local IKEA, and then breaking up and saying goodbye to them at the airport. Would I recommend any of this to my fellow white men? Let’s find out!

Would we recommend that you spend two years in Denmark, finding yourself in a revolving cycle of meeting Danish women on Tinder, taking them on dates to the local IKEA, and then breaking up and saying goodbye to them at the airport?  Let’s find out!

Wouldn’t that be the “ethnonationalist” thing to do?

Once again, Sallis is proven to be 100% correct – all of these “ethnonationalists” are thinly disguised ethnoimperialists, who consider themselves to be racial aristocrats who go where they want, exercising their droit du seigneur with native women.

Watch this.

Comments:

Nick Adams
Immigrants that don’t speak the language and refuse to integrate – where have we heard that one before?
Maarten van dam
Not expats. Immigrants. These people are immigrants. Nothing wrong with that, they’re welcome here. But it’s typical of the British that they call people that come live in their country immigrants, but when they move abroad they’re expats. British, or perhaps more accurately , English exceptionalism in one word. Expats. Ha!
williemacdonald72
Stop calling them expats, they are immigrants in their country of residence.
Manuel Castillo
hahaha Funny how they want free medical care in other countries but complain the NSH is full of immigrants!

You’ll always find folks in Der Movement complaining about Poles and Romanians, etc. living in the UK, but nary a word about British neo-colonialism in Southern and Eastern Europe.  After all, the racial aristocrats go where they damn please!

Joyce answers Johnson thus:

Andrew Joyce says:
January 11, 2020 at 11:01 pm
“Devastating” remarks that agree with an essay, and say it was necessary.
The rest of your comment is just queer coping.

I would like to see Joyce write a more comprehensive riposte to Johnson than merely a couple of brief throw-away lines. Interesting though that MacDonald allowed this personal attack against Johnson in the comments section.  

He’s a sincere man of genuine greatness!  There absolutely must be calls, from throughout the “movement,” for Greg Johnson to resign from activism.

Anti-Mishima

Joyce essay.

Given my own take on the Yukio Mishima fetishism on the Far Right, I was intrigued to read Andrew Joyce’s own excellent “take down” of the Mishima myth.

I very strongly urge you to read the whole thing.  A few excerpts (emphasis added) and my own comments to these:

According to Henry Scott Stokes, in my opinion Mishima’s best biographer as well as being the only Westerner invited to his funeral, almost as soon as Mishima was born his grandmother (Natsuko) “resolved to take personal responsibility for his upbringing and virtually kidnapped the little boy from his mother,” raising the child almost entirely in her sickroom. Natsuko brought up Mishima “as a little girl, not as a boy,” and he was forced to stay inside, was prohibited with playing with most of his environment, and was told to be almost completely silent due to his grandmother’s complaints of constant head pain. After some years, his mother was permitted to take him outside, but only when there was no wind.There is some suggestion that he was beaten, or otherwise severely psychologically abused, with the result that he suffered a sequence of psychosomatic illnesses involving the retention of urine. There is also some suggestion of sexual abuse or “obscene” treatment at the hands of his grandmother’s nurse. Quasi-incestuous closeness in indicated by his later description of his grandmother as a “true-love sweetheart”, and on his death his mother described him as her “lover.” Mishima was generally regarded by those around him as “an unusually delicate child.”

I have read about male-to-female transgenders who regretted their choices (in one case leading to reversal of sex-assignment surgery), and a common theme is their childhood feminization by female relatives or female friends of the family. Those people were White; Mishima was Japanese. Thus, the female urge to ruin and destroy masculinity – even at the maladaptive cost of ruining their own male relatives – seems to be a cross-racial characteristic. Hail MGTOW!

By contrast, as a homosexual, Mishima nurtured fantasies of himself as a member of an elitist minority.

We can think of a number of “movement” “leaders” and “activists” for whom that description fits as well.

One could add speculations that Mishima’s military fantasies were an extension of his sexual fixations, including a possible attempt to simply gain power over a large number of athletic young men. But this would be laboring an all-too-obvious point.

The Mannerbund awaits!

Fuse explains that suicide in Japan essentially originates from a servile position within a highly anxious and neurotic society.

After the Schettino incident, HBDers like Brand and Ray pinned the blame on “anxiety” and “neuroticism” among Italians.  Of course, being HBDers (and Brand married to his own “Rosie”), the extreme anxiety and neuroticism among East Asians is ignored.

Durocher comments “You’re either the kind of boy who is challenged, energized, and inspired by this sort of film, or perhaps you’re not a boy,” which I can only regard as laden with irony given that the film’s subject was raised as a girl and once remarked, on being expected to act like a boy: “the reluctant masquerade had begun.”

Durocher attempts to normalize his own Asiaphilic HBD fetishism and pathologize those who refuse to kowtow before the Altar of Asia.

We come back to the central questions of how and why Yukio Mishima should be relevant to us. No answers can be found in the life, politics and actions of a figure not only non-European and profoundly un-fascistic, but who was also strangely un-Japanese. I contend that there is simply nothing genuine to learn from him, and few people who have written in support of Mishima can point to anything tangible beyond the amorphous outlines of the Mishima Myth and a film heavy on style and low on authenticity. There is no single piece of text, no treatise, and no piece of authenticity beyond a final, radically un-European and sadomasochistically-inspired act of self-destruction and death-embracing nihilism. Mishima’s monarchism was servile and parodic, his militarism homoerotic, disingenuous and ludicrous, and his death-as-political-statement was psychosexual and ultimately lacking in logic. Otomo is probably correct in viewing the coup attempt more as a sexually inspired method of “politicising art rather than expressing a belief in ultra-nationalism.”

The question thus arises as to whether associating ourselves with such a figure, surely a clownish homoerotic wignat in today’s vernacular, brings more positives or negatives, both within the Dissident Right and within broader considerations of “optics” or public image. In particular, we should question whether we want to place our politics in a nexus that involves, to borrow the terminology of the Japan scholar Susan Napier, “the interrelationship between homosexuality, politics, and the peculiar form of violence-prone psychosexual nihilism from which Mishima suffered.” I’d argue in the negative.

Very good. 

Two brief criticisms of Joyce’s piece.  First, as these guys always do, Joyce is careful not to offend a “movement” figure that he had no prior “beef” with; thus, he grovels a bit to Durocher:

I rate Durocher’s work very highly…Much as I was intrigued by Durocher’s piece… (which is suitably measured in the assessment of Mishima’s fiction)…In the following essay, I offer not necessarily a rebuttal or rebuke of Durocher…

As my forthcoming essay on Greg Johnson will make clear, “movement” “activists” who have a “standing” or the possibility of a “standing” in Der Movement – that is, people, who, like Joyce, are of “acceptable” Northwest European ancestry – need to be skilled at the political game if they are to advance their interests and maintain their status of “leadership.”  Despite that the HBD-Nordicist Durocher is an incompetent and obsessive hack, a gaslighting liar, and a writer for a Jew site, Joyce states differently.  Of course, Joyce may actually differ from me in his opinion of Durocher (after all, they both have Nordicist tendencies, even if Joyce seems less enthused by Jew-loving and Asian-loving HBD), but, no doubt, Joyce sees no advantage in taking Le Grand Frog to task for his many deficiencies.

The second criticism is that Joyce concentrates on Mishima’s homosexual sadomasochism, but ignores themes of heterosexual sadomasochism, such as Kyoko’s House.  As the latter is a key toward understand the White embrace of both HBD and of Silk Road White nationalism, any comprehensive analysis of Mishima’s work must understand it. It also sheds light on Mishima himself, given the details of his childhood as outlined by Joyce.

Gaslighting Greg:

Greg Johnson

Posted January 7, 2020 at 10:12 am | Permalink

I think that if Iran were nuked, Jews would be lynched from the lampposts of New York City. Their power is ocean wide but very shallow. The smart ones know that. But it would not be the first time they overreached. But such a course as you describe would not be a carefully calculated one but a gamble or a blunder.

This is hysterical nonsense.  True, if Iran were “nuked” there would be significant social and political repercussions in America (probably only lasting until the next football game, though), but does any sane person really believe that “Jews would be lynched from the lampposts of New York City.”  Why, oh why, do all you nitwits out there support Johnson?

Greg Johnson

Posted January 7, 2020 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

Groyperism is just the flavor of the month. Fuentes’ MO is to tear down the movement to build his own cult of personality. He can do that for a while, because a huge part of the movement consists of bored online nihilists who want to join the latest sociopath’s cult of personality. But fundamentally selfish people can’t build anything that lasts. It didn’t last for Spencer and it won’t last for Fuentes. After trashing people’s lives like a tornado ripping through a trailer park, Fuentes will crash and burn, and his followers will move on.

Johnson is less a tornado than a chronic disease, like a cancer.  He’s here for the long haul, and Der Movement is being terminally sickened by him.

Comments on the Clarke Interview

Three points.

As a final note, the story of these arrests, and of Andrew’s in particular, is an important corrective and admonition to those among us who have waxed eloquently with their “disavowals” of “terrorism” because it “undermines White Nationalism.” I have always had a problem with such disavowals, and for a few simple reasons. More often than not, they are simply exercises in preaching to the converted. Most disavowals are made by people “plugged into” the “movement”, while the very rare handful of extreme acts of White violence are carried out by isolated fringe individuals who never hear such disavowals or are least likely to be moved by them. Disavowals are thus, more or less, languid and effete acts of moral self-satisfaction. Second, disavowals simply add to, and increase the volume of, discourse critiquing the dissident Right, and they are divisive and demoralising. They implicitly assume a problem within the “movement” that needs to be addressed (where none in fact exists because the movement is already overwhelmingly non-violent), a pernicious trend that conforms very strongly to opposition narratives. They are, therefore, in terms of image management or “optics” undoubtedly worse than mere silence – we can’t correct criticism and image problems by making concessions to the opposition’s vision of our cause. Third, and related to the second, “right wing terrorism” is a largely invented phenomenon, embellished by falsified statistics, media tactics, and the steady production of propaganda by dedicated anti-White groups. It is a largely fictional opposition talking point that would be foolish to adopt ourselves. Fourth, and most important, by adopting discussions and perceptions of “right wing terrorism” we are easily corralled into fear and silence when entirely innocent activists are swept up in “terrorism” arrests. We allow ourselves to be pre-programmed to disavow these individuals and abandon them to their fate. I personally find this mode of conduct to be shameful, cowardly, and highly revealing. I reject it in disgust.

This is a fascinating paragraph because when looking at it from the perspective of a point-by-point analysis, I agree with all points (more or less) and have no strong objection to anything written.  However, looking at it as a whole, I cannot fully agree with it – it is as if the whole is less than the sum of the parts.  If I had to pinpoint a specific objection to the entire narrative of that paragraph, it would focus on that I believe something needs to be said about the issue of these violent attacks by pro-White individuals and what the deeper meaning of them is.  I agree with Joyce that the disavowals are not helpful and sometimes harmful, and I am myself tired of those “movement leaders” who trot out the same tired essay over and over again when an incident occurs. However, there is a difference between such disavowals and an honest appraisal of the problem. By take on these incidents has been two-fold. First, I criticize the System for causing the problem to begin with, with its anti-White policies, its persecution of pro-White activists, and its cordone sanitaire erected to inhibit pro-White activists from fully participating in the political process, equal to all others. Second, I criticize Der Movement because its constant humiliating failures and depressing ineptness induces despair in pro-White individuals and prompts some of them to carry out foolish attacks. If the “movement” was a credible outlet for racialist feelings and activism, then perhaps these people would not believe that their only option is to shoot something up. So, point-by-point, Joyce’s critique of the disavowals is fine, but the entire paragraph fails in that it doesn’t address what should be done, what should be critiqued, and doesn’t properly point the finger at “movement” failure as one motivator for the attacks.

However, by 2017 HnH had a mole inside a group of friends who used to be members of pre-ban National Action. Robbie Mullen was this mole, and Mullen used to be the regional organiser for what was National Action in the North West. The evidence shows that Mullen was playing people off one another as late as July 2017. His efforts were not working and he himself described the group of friends, supposedly a clandestine continuation of National Action, as like “an old man’s drinking club” with “not much going for it.”

At the end of April 2017, Mullen approached Hope Not Hate via email, alleging that NA continued to exist and that he was a current member. He said in court that it (“NA”) had discarded all of the symbolism of NA and was “going it alone” as a nameless entity. HnH activist Matthew Collins has since said that they began to publish articles on their website in the hope the media would pick them up — presumably in order to generate paranoia among former members.

Former NA member Christopher Lythgoe had, post-ban, taken out a private gym for himself in Warrington and that this, according to Mullen, was supposedly “NA” headquarters. I’d like to add that Michal Trubini, who was found not-guilty with me in April 2019, was the name on the lease for the property that the gym was situated in. There wasn’t a single shred of political literature or items found in that gym when the police searched it in September 2017.

Mullen had supposedly expressed to HnH that he wanted out of NA, but that he couldn’t leave because he was too embedded within NA and feared for his safety. HnH later said through Matthew Collins that they were slowly withdrawing him from the group. However, they contradicted this statement through Collins, their “Head of Intelligence,” stating that they persuaded Mullen to remain in the group to work as an informant for HnH, and that Collins would be his “handler.”

Third, it is interesting how the Right is always so easily infiltrated and compromised by the Left, while the opposite almost never occurs. And of course, HopeNotHate was the group that used Hermansson to leverage “movement” Nordicism so as to place him in a position of extensive infiltration. Der Movement is lucky that the Left (at least in this case) was so short-sighted and unimaginative, for they could have had this Hermansson fellow rise fairly fast and far in Der Movement (more than what he actually did) and do real long-term damage. Perhaps they already have such people already in place?  After all, many of our “leading activists” couldn’t do more damage if they were trying. Maybe they are.

The dissident ethno-nationalist Right must enter the democratic process and fight tooth and nail for every vote. 

Readers of this blog know I have been promoting the idea that electoral politics are important.  Not as the only strategy and not as the main strategy, but as one crucial component of an interlocking strategic plan, that also includes metapolitical education and community/infrastructure/organization.

Jews, the Decline of MacDonald, and Other News

Jews and other news.

An excellent Joyce piece about Jewish self-glorification.

Jews have a joke among themselves that goes something like this: A class of schoolchildren is asked to produce an essay about giraffes; little Tom Smith hands in a piece on the neck; little John Baker writes about its diet; others write about the tail, the environment, and so on. Then little Benny Cohen hands in his paper, and it is titled “The Giraffe and the Jews.”

The joke, little-known among non-Jews, conveys an important truism — that, for Jews, everything, no matter how distant or abstract, often comes back to the idea and feeling of being Jewish. In other words, it is a joke about Jewish ethnocentrism. That non-Jews aren’t very familiar with the joke speaks to the fact that Jewish ethnocentrism is something that is very frequently discussed and celebrated by Jews, but also something that is frequently downplayed, obscured, or even denied when queried by outgroups.

Indeed.

A particularly interesting aspect of the study by Brown et al. is the response to increasing rates of intermarriage among American Jews. Jewish intermarriage has been raised as evidence by some scholars objecting to analyses of Jewish ethnocentrism, most notably and recently by Nathan Cofnas.[6] However, as Brown et al. note, given more than a century of intense assimilation and acceptance by the host population and a population size of only around 3%, “an endogamy rate [among Jews] of 50% is surprisingly high.”

People familiar with my work over a long period of time may remember that I did a quantitative analysis of this, graphing various White American ethnic groups for proportion of the population (X axis) and outmarriage rate (Y axis). A linear relationship was established – the smaller the group, the greater the outmarriage rate (since the greater the chance of a partner of a different ethnicity). I then tried to place Jews (in America) on that line and saw that they didn’t fit; indeed, their outmarriage rate was depressed compared to gentile groups of similar population size (who had outmarriage rates of greater than 70%). Of course, the more ethnocentric Jews practice endogamy, and if ethnocentrism has, at least in part, a genetic component, this trend would have the effect of increasing Jewish ethnocentrism over time.

One can note that arguments about Jewish outmarriage rates, while perhaps relevant to Jewish genetic strategies, are not directly relevant to the effects of Jews in White societies. Even if Jews are destroying their ethnic integrity through outmarriage (which is questionable) that doesn’t obligate other groups to endure Jewish destructive behavior toward those other groups for the period of time that Jews are still extant.

And speaking of self-glorification, isn’t that what Jewish involvement in the HBD cult is about?  When is Joyce going to denounce that cult and denounce “pro-White activists” who seemingly care more about Jews than about European-derived peoples?  Both Joyce and Strom write good things about the general subject of the Jews, but when it comes to criticizing people on the (Far) Right who are slavishly pro-Jewish, they suddenly become reticent.

And then we have this nonsense:

TOQLIVE: JAMES EDWARDS HOSTS KEVIN MACDONALD: INDIVIDUALISM AND THE WESTERN LIBERAL TRADITION

What that basically is, is MacDonald going hardcore, ultra-Nordicist. And why not?  I’ve predicted a convergence of HBD, anti-panEuropeanism, Nordicism, etc., with the net effect of alleged anti-Semites being puppets being manipulated by the likes of Hart and Unz.  And, a per the vast majority of my other predictions, I’ve been proven right.  MacDonald is so hysterical in his HBD-Nordicism that he makes ludicrous comments.  One example is the Kempian talking points about complete population replacement in Rome, which is not only factually incorrect but logically inconsistent with the idea that North/South European differences have been place since the Neolithic. Another example is the idea that Southern Italy is “collectivist” while the truth is that the amoral familism there is inherently anti-collectivist – there is no sense of civic duty or ethnic loyalty or nationalism, just loyalty to smaller family units.  I wrote about that at my old Richard Lynn’s Pseudoscience blog:

Amoral Familism is Not Ethnocentrism
This Afrowop defect is not the same as this.
That the HBDers are apparently unable or unwilling to distinguish amoral familism from ethnocentrism does not reflect well on their intelligence or their honesty.
Whether amoral familism is a step on the universalism-ethnocentrism spectrum, or represents an independent entity (in which case we would have at at least a triangle rather than a straight line representing the possibilities), is open to debate.
However, it should be clear that in many ways amoral familism is, practically speaking, as opposed to ethnocentrism as universalism is.  Universalism rejects ethnocentrism because it sees the ethnocentric view as too selfish and narrow, amoral familism rejects ethnocentrism because it is too broad and selfless.
For EGI, ethnocentrism is the “sweet spot,” and the other two options are defects.  From the standpoint of building a civil society, amoral familism is the worst, ethnocentrism is the best in a (relatively) homogeneous state but leads to problems in multiculturalism.  Universalism allows for temporary smooth functioning in a multicultural state, but long term leads to ethnic replacement of universalists by ethnocentrists.  Universalism in a homogeneous state is not stable, since it will eventually lead to alien immigration and multiculturalism.
A moderate degree of ethnocentrism in a (relatively) homogeneous state is more optimal than the alternatives.
There is also a question of the relative hereditability of these behavioral patterns.  The more genetically influenced, the more the pattern should hold with migration and existence in multicultural societies. The two extremes of universalism and ethnocentrism may be most heritable.  Contra the HBDers, aside from a dwindling number of mobsters, Afrowops in America really don’t practice amoral familism, while Jews and other Asians definitely still practice ethnocentrism. Thus, I doubt that amoral familism hereditability of these behavioral patterns.  The more genetically influenced, the more the pattern should hold with migration and existence in multicultural societies. The two extremes of universalism and ethnocentrism may be most heritable.  Contra the HBDers, aside from a dwindling number of mobsters, Afrowops in America really don’t practice amoral familism, while Jews and other Asians definitely still practice ethnocentrism. Thus, I doubt that amoral familism is strongly heritable.  It seems like a very plastic behavioral phenotype.
While it may be extremely difficult to make ethnocentrics into more disinterested civic-minded people, hopefully the more universalist and ex-familistic can be “trained” to become more ethnocentric, in competition to those with an innate sense of extreme ethnocentrism.
This isn’t the kind of analysis one would get from a HBDer, who instead would be pathetically groveling in front of the Altar of Asia, and worshiping a pile of yarmulkes.

HBD: the enemy of truth.

MacDonald is essentially trashing his legacy in his old age.  While it is sad to see, and unfortunate, it doesn’t obligate me to pull my punches when I comment on such mendacity.

Trump’s campaign antagonism toward the military and intelligence world was at best a millimeter thick. Like almost everything else he said as a candidate, it was a gimmick, designed to get votes. That he was insincere and full of it…

But, hey, according to Greg Johnson, Trump’s sincere, a man of genuine greatness, who could have won with Jeb Bush’s political views.  Even Trump himself refutes the latter, as chronicled at this site.  But Johnson continuously insists otherwise. Is that rent-seeking behavior?  Is Johnson using the Counter-Currents platform to gaslight his readers in order to safeguard his own reputation and the flow of “D’Nations?”

Not a bad Zman essay…particularly as it repeats points made here years ago.

After all, she’s of great benefit to all humanity. Why would anyone think otherwise?  How dare you!  In all seriousness, the positive attitude of Der Movement to that obviously unbalanced little Ladogan is truly tragicomic and pathetic. It is also confirmation of the validity of my criticism of Der Movement.

Hey!  Giovanni Gentile had that Ray Luca-John Gotti-Judge Napolitano puffed up hairstyle.  It’s in the blood, apparently.