Category: behold the movement

A Clarification for Der Movement

Stating things which should be obvious.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 10 Aug 2016 00:51 | #
There are two major problems with the “creative intelligences” that have come and gone here over the years:
1. While their diagnoses of what ails are often brilliant and correct their proposed cures represent a declension into lunacy that reveals a large eccentric streak.
2. They are easily butthurt pussies.
These factors paint a huge target on their backs which makes trolling all but irresistible.

Based on previous comments Mr. Chaos made about me on Majority Rights, I will assume he includes me as one of the “easily butthurt pussies” so described.
Ordinarily, I would ignore such typical “movement” nonsense, but there are some important points to be made here.

First. to be clear: I did not leave Majority Rights due to the stupid antics of low-life trash such as Silver or Desmond Jones. I left because of Guessedworker’s reaction (or lack thereof) to such antics, and there’s a world of difference between those two reasons.

Now, to be clear again: I’ve always liked Guessedworker, he provided a forum for me to discuss important topics and I am grateful for him for that, and he is no doubt a sincere activist. But, in my opinion, he failed in his leadership role in running his blog. I expected to participate in a serious forum of discussion of important issues, not an insane asylum of nutcases, obvious frauds and trolls, vulgar lunatics and the like. The problem that made me go my own way (which I am better suited for anyway, I make a poor follower, this I admit) was one of failed leadership, not of being “butthurt” over moronic comments made by laughably stupid jackasses.
“Movement” activists like to assert that we are engaged in a sort of “shadow war.” Very well Let’s take the military analogy farther. One should view their fellow activists through the prism of “is this the kind of person I would want in a foxhole with me in time of war?” “Is this the type of person I’d trust to watch my back, trust with my life in a time of deadly danger?” And with respect to the “leadership” of the “movement” (including those who lead multi-member popular blogs) – “is this the type of person I would want as my officer leading me into battle?” As regards the top “leadership” – the likes of Pierce – “is this the type of person I’d want as a general formulating the battle strategy in a war I would have to fight?”

If the answer to any of these questions is “no” then it is time to move on. This is all too serious to waste time otherwise. It has nothing to do with liking someone, or even respecting them or knowing they are sincere. It is not a question of loyalty either – as I said, I appreciate what Guessedworker did to give me a forum and I would not abandon him if he was in danger. I just cannot work with him at his forum because in my opinion it was mismanaged, and I take all of this too seriously to continue in such a situation.

Second, taking all of this seriously, I ask – what kind of degenerate assholes believe that “trolling” serious activists is “irresistibly” justified? Frauds like Silver and demented obsessive fetishists like Jones, I can understand. But anyone who is not a fraud or not a fetishist had better ask themselves whether this is all just a source of personal amusement for them, or are they trying to get something done foe their race.


At the Intersection of Mainstreaming and HBD

Madness, it’s folly and madness.

At Amren, a “White Advocate” commentator writes:

My understanding is that many AmRen supporters hold that both Jews and North Asians are more intelligent that gentile Whites. While the term Jewish supremacist won’t work for a whole boatload of reasons, let’s experiment with North Asian (or Oriental) supremacist. Imagine inviting the press to a North Asian Supremacy conference only to have them stumble in to a room full of white guys.

Paging John Derbyshire!  It’s time for some “measured groveling” to our Asiatic masters!  If I wrote the above quote as a parody, some would think that I was going too far; unfortunately, that’s a real comment and no parody. And it’s reasonably consistent; after all:

He claims to be a “yellow supremacist” because he has theorized that Asian people are the most advanced humans (in evolutionary terms), followed by white people and those of African descent.

And it’s not just that site.  A more radically WN site has recently been commandeered by an aggressively domineering East Asian female, who has got the henpecked White males there agreeing to a “Euro-Asian alliance” so as to “inflict pain on Russians” (you know, the most populous ethnic group in Europe) and to colonize the West with Asians so that Western borders can be defended by Chinese girls with guns.  Again, that’s not a parody of their position, it’s the actual position itself.

People wondering why I am so adamantly opposed to HBD can perhaps begun to discern the direction that HBD/race-realism inevitably leads us: worship of Asians, a “movement” based on “Oriental supremacism” with subaltern Whites groveling before the more “evolutionarily advanced” Asiatics.  In some cases, Whites are to grovel before Jews as well; in other cases, “movement” fears of “Jewish infiltration” never for some reason extend to the danger of infiltration by yellow and brown Asians.

Recently, the “movement” – including some of the pro-Asian sites mentioned above – has been harshly critiquing Roosh and the PUA stupidity.  While that criticism has been richly deserved, a question that goes unanswered is: why is being race cucked by a Chinaman any better than by a Persian?

And all talk about “alliances” is doubly ludicrous.  First, because we have all sorts of grand alliances being proposed by small groups of powerless bloggers, the sort of “fascist delusion” mocked by the likes of Roger Griffin (*).  Second, because it should be obvious that alliances should never be formed from a position of weakness.  In the mid-late 1990s, there was much chatter among the “movement” about forming “alliances” with Black nationalists.  To which more sane people queried: and what do we offer them?  Negroes under Farrakhan had just marched en masse onto the nation’s capital, while White neckbeards have continuously proved unable to march down a side street without being out-numbered by crowds of hostile protesters.  Why should anyone form an “alliance” with the losing side (Whites)?  Such an “alliance” would be nothing more or less than the terms of surrender by Whites, negotiating from a position of perfect weakness.

But, then, the “movement” always knows better.  With such fine merit-based leadership, who could ever doubt their wisdom?

*Nothing wrong with proposing ideas.  But when it “jumps the shark” into grandiose designs complete with multiple maps and empty bombastic rhetoric then we have moved from reasonable advocacy to fever-dream delusion.

Behold The Movement, 2/9/16

Another genius heard from.

Emphasis added:


Posted February 8, 2016 at 8:30 pm 

“Ethnic tensions destroyed social trust as the founding population is gradually pushed aside in the country it created.”

How many White Americans descend from the founding population? The founding population was pushed aside hundreds of years ago with the original ‘melting pot’ experiment.

Yes, sir, hundreds of years ago.  Indeed, the Jamestown colony was ruined by the influx of micks, dagoes, and hunkies.

Siege of Malta

Those no good Medish lies!

An excellent book (historical fiction) about the Siege of Malta is Angels In Ironby Nicholas C. Prata.
Some excerpts (spelling corrected for an American audience) from a website about the Siege:

 A Battle for Europe All of Europe prayed fervently realizing what was at stake. As Queen Elizabeth of England declared: “If the Turks should prevail against the Isle of Malta, it is uncertain what further peril might follow to the rest of Christendom.” The Knights of St. John…After the success of the First Crusade they became a Military Order in 1113. Young aristocrats from Spain, Portugal, England, France, Germany and Italy enthusiastically joined the Knights of St. John…The Knights of St. John were recognized as the toughest soldiers in Christendom. 

The Defenders On the Christian side, there were less than 700 Knights of St. John, 400 Spanish soldiers, 800 Italian soldiers, 200 Greek and Sicilian soldiers, approximately 3,000 soldiers drawn from the Maltese population, and along with other civilians who were given weapons, a total force of less than 9,000 men Relief The morale of the defenders of Malta was lifted when 4 galleys from Sicily managed to evade the Turkish blockade and land a small relief force of 42 knights and 700 militia.

Quite obviously, all a bunch of Medish lies!  Such fantastic inventions are not in any approved “movement” texts, so they must be – let us have no doubt whatsoever! – outrageous falsehoods!
All Hail The “Movement!”

A Breakthrough Imbecile

Absolute nonsense.

Let’s see: let’s celebrate Roissy the Race-Mixer, who promotes nihilistic hedonism, revels in his non-White sexual partners, tells White men that having sex with Negresses will increase the men’s “sexual marketplace value,” who asserts that men who care about their race, culture, and society are “chumps” – yes, alright, that’s a sign of progress no doubt!

Touchback Trump, he of the part-Jewish family, who believes that criticism of affirmative action is “very tough” on the “African-American community” – yes, indeed, Der Trumpening will ride into the White House like Ronnie Raygun.  Sure, we can all retire from racial activism with the new Trump administration – Donald Trump, who declared he wanted Oprah Winfrey (a possible girlfriend for Roissy?) as his running mate.  And Ron Paul?  Are any idiots still thinking “sound money for brown people” Ronnie is worth a damn for anything?

Red Ice Radio has had some good material, including Salter, but some of the conspiracy mongering is plain silly.

The Right Stuff (which by the way terms gamesters as “pussynerds” and criticizes libertarians like Paul, but let’s not expect consistency from a website like TOO) also has some good material, but their forums are the typical dregs of absolute “movement” stupidity and imbecilic trolling, and, truth be told, snark doesn’t compensate for thoughtful analysis (which is why I restrict the former to Richard Lynn’s Pseudoscience and indulge in the latter elsewhere, particularly Western Destiny).

In summary, most of the “signs of progress” mentioned in the TOO article are signs of decadence, signs of a pathetic and embarrassingly self-unaware “movement.”  As represented by the “game” crowd, all these “signs of progress” deal with societal degeneration by joining in: sexual hedonism, race-mixing, conspiracy-mongering, HBD pseudoscience, fossilized dogmas, obsessions with White Knights who don’t give a damn about the White Race.

That’s the price of the affirmative action that Trump denounces – it puts into place people for reasons other than merit and ability. Endless decades of the “movement’s” affirmative action program has led to decadence and decay being championed as progress.

What a way to end 2015 and begin 2016: more of the same from a failed “movement.”

Behold the Movement: Civil War?

Salon shitlibs laughing.

On the one hand, excessive feuding is not good. On the other hand, this blog (as well as “Richard Lynn’s Pseudoscience”) does critique certain individuals, and thus could be seen as part of the problem. On the other hand as well, a degree of healthy disagreement is useful; one would not want the “movement” to prematurely coalesce around wrong memes.

A balance needs to be found. Nietzsche wrote that his critiques of individuals were not personal (*), but that he intended to use the person in question as a lens of sort, to focus attention on that individual’s ideas, which is what Nietzsche really wanted to attack.

So, there are memes I see as worthy of criticism, including but not limited to: HBD cognitive elitism, mainstreaming, “game” as an end and not as a means, ethnonationalism and subracialism elevated to the top of the activist priority list, economics over race, affirmative action in the “movement,” esoteric traditionalism, pseudoscience, cocksure incompetence, anti-White trolling, hypocrisy and mendacity, data cherry picking, invented racial histories, straw man attacks on Salterism, proximate interests elevated over ultimate interests, non-Whites (including Jews) and race-mixers infiltrating the “movement” and distorting it.

Individuals promoting those destructive memes I see as fair game for criticism, as long as the criticism is motivated by those ideas, and not by personal animus.  “Personal” critiques are either tongue-in-cheek and not meant to be taken seriously (**), or merely quoting the person in question (***).  Or, for example, the Sen-Vallone question is directly relevant to motivations in dividing Europeans against each other.

Purely personal criticisms should be avoided. Whether one person is (actually, not jokingly) homosexual (as long as that doesn’t significantly influence their ideology in a negative fashion), or ugly, or sickly, or merely with a personality that you may like or dislike – that should not be a relevant issue. Public feuding over personal, private disagreements accomplishes nothing except giving the Salonites grist for their mill.

*He may have been deluded about that, re: Wagner, but let us take him at his word for the moment.

**For example, obviously the heterosexual womanizer Roissy does not have a “homoerotic fixation” on Trump; that’s a joke meant to illustrate a point about the “man on white horse” syndrome.

***Derbyshire himself admitted that his relationship with his wife is characterized by his “measured groveling.”  That is a self-admission that illustrates his – in my opinion – attitudes toward White-Asian relations.

Moving the Movement Football

Decades of unending failure from both ends of the spectrum.

I am not much interested in sports, especially Negro-dominated American football, which features simian behemoths colliding on a field in front of cheering crowds of inebriated jock-sniffing White fans.  Nevertheless, football contributes certain phrases that help visualize action, such as “moving the football down field,” as an analogy for consistent progress toward a goal.

My cursory knowledge of that sport is that there are two main approaches to “moving the football” – the more aggressive and risky passing game and the more conservative and limited running game. As a “movement” analogy, passing is “vanguardism,” and running is “mainstreaming.”  Vanguardism is long on vision and long-term goals, but ignores shorter term objectives and is particularly weak on pragmatism; it is all “ends” and no “means.” Conversely, mainstreaming lacks vision, confuses means with ends, and lacks any inspiring “the outcome justifies the sacrifices” long-term goals.

One can compare European nationalist groups, but for now, I will focus instead on post-WWII (actually, post-“Civil Rights era”) American activism. On the “passing game” side we have the vanguardist National Alliance founded by William Pierce, and on the mainstreaming “running game” side we have Taylor’s American Renaissance and associated groupings, such as the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC). I argue here that both extremes are sub-optimal, just as any football offense that is too heavily focused on passing or running becomes vulnerable to the defensive strategies of opponents.

Pierce had a vision (albeit one some may consider highly flawed), but zero pragmatics. The history of the National Alliance makes this clear, the lack of any progress for the ~30 years or Pierce’s leadership, and the grotesque collapse of even that small-scale “success” after Pierce’s death.  Currently, Pierce’s extreme vanguard approach has evolved into tragicomedy. A wild passing game, heaving footballs in the air with no plan (and no open receivers) is a recipe for failure.

But has mainstreaming succeeded?  Has the cost of a lack of vision been compensated by some sort of sustained practical success?  In football terms, has the running game ground out those yards, a few at a time, setting us up for the touchdown?  Or must we punt and give the ball to our opponents, time and time again?

Amren started out on C-Span, and ended up being run out of conferences to the indifference or delight of the White masses.  Currently, Amren is a website with no print journal (the ending of which is another “mainstreaming success” I presume), which holds conferences at a government facility protected by police.  The closely associated CCC, which is a “council” of “conservative citizens,” primarily a group of white-haired men who wave Confederate flags and decry “Black crime,” has had their conference reservations cancelled.

After a full generation, a full quarter-century of such “running game” mainstreaming, it can be argued that the state of the “running game” today is worse than it was in the 1990s.  Yes, the vanguardists have failed but so have the mainstreamers. To point the finger at one while making excuses for the failure of the other (“they just need more time! 25 years is not enough to show even one small success or any progress whatsoever”) is laughable special-pleading.  The other side can make the same excuses as well.

One can argue that the mainstreaming failure is even worse than the vanguard failure, because the mainstreamers have failed precisely in that arena that was supposed to be their strength – pragmatic “nuts and bolts” small scale activity and mainstream appeal. The mainstreamers cannot even hold a conference outside of an armed camp government facility, they have less mainstream access than they did during Bill Clinton’s presidency, they’ve gone backward in many aspects (conferences, print journal, quality of writers, the abysmal quality of the commentators on the website) – so what’s the payoff?   The vanguardists have their vision and goals coupled to failed pragmatics, and the mainstreamers couple their failed pragmatics with no real vision at all.  It appears that the “mainstreaming quarterback” is “getting sacked” just as often as the “vanguardist quarterback.”  If there is no payoff for the sacrifices and compromises of mainstreaming, and if the only riposte is “we need more time” (which is exactly what the vanguardists would say), then where is the empirical evidence in favor of mainstreaming – other than mere personal preference?  And this is no apologia or promotion of the pure vanguardist approach, since I’ve made clear that has failed as well.

This post is not about making suggestions about what should be done, although I’d strongly suggest the “movement” consider the Codreanu Legionary model for some clues, as well as check out certain modern European nationalist parties, which typically integrate electoral politics with real-life community activism with youth groups with solid propaganda and with useful theorizing. I have also made suggestions here and elsewhere on that blog (see “The Fundamentals” sidebar there).

All of that is just the beginning of the conversation and not “The Answer.” One thing I can definitely suggest is that the “movement” really needs leadership that thinks things through, has contingency plans, uses long-term strategic thinking, with a healthy dose of common sense. Do the CCC folks really need to be told that with all the Amren conference cancellations and the controversy of the Roof shooting, that their own meeting may not go as planned?  Do “movement” organizations really need to be told that if they give “the keys to the kingdom” to guys who call themselves on the Internet something like:
that there is a good chance that person will be a defective lunatic?  That he may shoot some place up? That he may walk out with a bunch of files and hand them over to a “watchdog” group?  Do we need to tell “movement” “leaders” that 25 years of failure is probably sufficient to at least prompt serious questions about whether the approach used is sound? 

Ironically enough, both ends of the “movement” spectrum denounce affirmative action. Talk about a lack of self-awareness – a certain biblical passage concerning motes, beams, and eyes comes to mind.  “Movement leadership” should look in the mirror on that.