I have previously written about George Smiley in Le Carre books, and how it applies to my criticism of the “movement.” I may as well make a brief statement about the latest (likely, last) Smiley book, Legacy of Spies.
I would give this book, at most, three stars out of five; it is a pale and weak successor to masterpieces like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Smiley’s People. An insipid story premise, a flaccid structure and pace, and, finally, an ending that comes to no real conclusion whatsoever. Not good at all.
From a nationalist perspective, at the end of the book, Smiley (who must be over 100 years old at this point), is revealed as an anti-Brexit Europhile.
Now, one can be an anti-Brexit Europhile from the Far-Right, like Richard Spencer, but that’s not what we are talking about here. Cornwell/Le Carre is a leftist, and so Smiley’s Europhilism is that of Angela Merkel, not that of Richard Spencer or of Francis Parker Yockey.
All in all a mediocre book, and one not compatible with European EGI.
The book does tie up two loose ends from the aforementioned previous Smiley books (no spoilers): the fates of Karla and of Jim Prideaux (including a definitive statement as to whether Smiley/Guillam knew Prideaux killed Jim Haydon and their opinion of that).
Should we be surprised?
VDARE has been recently shilling for Derbyshire’s book Fire From The Sun (about, what else, China). While I have no interest in reading that trash, I was interested in reading the following comment left about it on Amazon, emphasis added:
Top critical review
See the critical review›
One person found this helpful
1.0 out of 5 starsA Good Book Ruined
ByATon June 13, 2014
Mr. Derbyshire started out writing a great book about early Communist China, and then decided to ruin it with pederasty and other perversions. A great disappointment.
I’m not surprised, given Derbyshire’s strong defense of child porn on VDARE.
From Western Destiny.
Hey, let’s not be too harsh on him
! He’s “one of the boys,” after all, and perhaps can one day become a “movement” “leader” or, perhaps, a HBD blogger, complete with Asian wife.
What does it say about Whites that they support Trump more weakly
than they do all the establishment GOP cucks? What does it say about VDARE that they cannot say exactly which
Whites are not supporting Trump?
As before, Trump’s problem is not enraged minorities, but a relative weakness among whites…
Apparently, a book
Derbyfogle would like to give “Rosie.”
Hitler would not tolerate contradiction.
Well, there’s a reason why Saint Adolf is the very archetype of a “movement” “leader.” Contradiction? Discussion? Debate? No, no, a thousand times, no! (Or should we say, Nein!). Only fossilized dogmas allowed, repeated endlessly.
Hitler on the Jews is right about this:
This race simply has a tendency toward ridiculing everything that is beautiful, and it frequently does so by way of masterful satire. But behind that there is more: there is a tendency toward undermining and ridiculing authority.
Racial science was a moderating influence on German chauvinism…
That’s ludicrous on the face of it, and what is called “racial science” here is the most pathetic type of pseudoscience, rivaling the absolute stupidity of HBD.
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.
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.
Adolf vs. Steverino: better to pursue the necessary but “impossible” than pursue a more “possible” yet useless or destructive course of action.
Hitler quote (*):
“We must not ask if it is possible to attain this goal, but whether it is necessary. If it is impossible, we will try it anyway and be destroyed. But if it is necessary and true, we must believe that it is possible just the same. And we need this faith. A thousand years look down on us, the future demands sacrifices.”
Note how that differs from the short-sighted idiocy of Steve Sailer, who rejects White nationalism because he assumes its goals are “impossible” to achieve. So instead he promotes “citizenism” that is not only almost as “impossible” as White nationalism but that is worse than useless – indeed actively destructive – even if achievable.
* Quoted in: Stolfi, R. H. S. Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny, Prometheus Books..
Reading O’ Meara’s Introduction to the latest edition of Yockey’s The Proclamation of London, one unfortunately sees the anti-biological race problem rearing its head again. The strawman argument is made that so-called biological racial materialism (the adherents of which – like myself – O’Meara doesn’t want to waste his breath on) is all about looking at humanity from the perspective of superiority/inferiority or of a strict genetic determinism. That is true of Der Movement certainly, and, from a Judeophilic and Asian-worshiping perspective, also true of the HBDers. But it is not true of a kinship-based racialism that takes the reasonable view that it is adaptive to pursue the promotion of interests of those most closely related to you (genetic kinship), modulated by the numbers involved. That is a core component of my ideology – the Salterian EGI component – of which that there can be no compromise. Race exists, it is real, population groups differ, genetic kinship differs, and adaptive behavior is tied into the relative levels of that kinship. Culture is of course extremely important – High Culture/Civilization (using the broad definition, not the strictly Spenglerian distinctions) that includes science/technics – is indeed the most important proximate interest, but genetic kinship is ultimate. I don’t care about, or care for, racial aliens who ape aspects of White Western Culture. I care about racial Europeans. When talking about a Race-Culture both aspects are important, and in the order shown: race, then culture.
O’Meara also makes the bizarre argument that racial classifications are arbitrary because Victorian Englishmen saw themselves as more racially similar to Jews than to the Irish. But here O’Meara is confused, and points the finger of blame in the wrong direction. What biological science actually says is that indeed the English and Irish are more similar, racially, than either are to Jews (or even to many other European – including NW European – groups). This belief of Victorian Englishmen was cultural – more akin to the Yockey/Evola “spiritual race” concept than to anything else. Therefore, O’Meara uses this example of cultural race stupidity to indict biological racial materialism – even though biological racial materialism gives the right answer, and cultural race gives the wrong answer. The example given is actually supportive of the importance of genetic kinship. One can also state that total Identity is composed of both biological and cultural characteristics, and that today any racially aware Englishmen would consider himself more similar to the Irish either biologically or culturally than to Jews.
To be fair, apart from this issue, O’Meara’s Introduction is quite good. This nevertheless is important and the critique, in my opinion, justified.