Category: book review

A Positive Critique

Dominique Venner.
This book has already been reviewed at Amren, so instead of just repeating what has already been done, I’d just like to cite a few relevant points from this excellent book (highly recommended) and how these points fit in to some of the opinions promoted here.
Venner begins with outlining “the flaws of the nationalist opposition” (if he did so today, he would be termed “crazy and bitter,” as “punching right” is only allowed for affirmative action panhandlers); these flaws include (today’s equivalents in parentheses): ideological confusion (of course, the entire “movement”), conformism (Der Movement’s fossilized dogma), archaism (Nutzism, Traditionalism), opportunism (all Chiefs, no Indians, and all Chiefs with the tin cup out), mythomania (conspiracy theorists), terrorism (acting out), and anarchism (lulz lulz).
The section on “Revolutionary Theory” is standard fare and all good, and a wakeup call for those who believe that no firm ideological underpinning for activism is necessary.  Basing activism on vague ideas and “acting out” leads to the sort of weak-minded, Type I activists who turn traitor as soon as they meet that “one nice Black person” they heretofore stupidly believed could not exist (when you have a childish view of reality, all people are binned into rigidly Manichean categories of all good vs. all bad).
“Young Europe” – Venner calls for pan-European cooperation, against the division of narrow ethnonationalism. “Unity is indispensable to the future of European Nations.” Indeed, and that’s a key feature of my work over the last 20+ years, as opposed to the ethnonationalists and their publicly proclaimed dystopian vision of European nations ethnically cleansing each other.
The section “For a Man or an Idea” is an attack on what I call the Man on White Horse Syndrome, and is highly relevant in this the Time of Trump.  Venner writes: “Passive herds, expect their miracle men to fix everything. Even the smallest groups have their idols. The inevitable disappearance of the great men leaves the naïve embittered and discouraged.”  Sound familiar?  And then: “The Nationalist does not need followers but militants who are defined by their doctrine, not in their relation to a man.”  Indeed.  Anyone listening?
Venner criticizes the “Theatrical Revolutionaries” who are “enemies of the revolution.”  The part about “costumes” I will address below, but in general, this criticism is relevant to all the Nutzis who ruin us all – Type I dimwits.  Venner talks about “Zero plus Zero” – in other words, grouping zeros together just gives you a bigger zero (the history of Der Movement, Inc.).
With respect to Venner’s criticism of “costumes”-  I both agree and disagree.  It depends upon context and what kind of “costume” one is talking about. Should activists dress up like Nazis?  Strut around with swastika armbands and SS uniforms?  Of course not.  Should they take the Alt Right and Alt Lite course of action, and appear at rallies like refugees from a cosplay convention, aping Captain America and Batman?  Certainly not.  Should they wear uniforms when simply interacting with normal people or going “undercover?”  Of course not.  Compare Joe Tommasi, who stopped dressing up Nazi like he did at first and “went native” as part of his guerilla war program, to the costumed Nutzis who eventually killed him.
Having said all of that, there is nothing wrong with uniforms per se, when attending certain types of meetings, or attending public rallies, or when engaged in more overt action.  There are benefits of wearing uniforms: for esprit de corps, discipline, professionalism, etc., these benefits are well known, which is why they have been used for military and paramilitary groups throughout civilized history. There is a history of uniformed paramilitary political solders in virtually every (ex)-Western nation, including America and the Silver Shirts.  Tasteful, utilitarian, culturally endogenous, and non-nutty uniforms are fine – better than the cosplay crew, better than the Nutzis, etc.
Lastly, Venner talks about “Division of Labor and Centralization” – people should do the tasks to which they are most fit, and propaganda needs to be local if possible: “…the propaganda branch should be able to rapidly supply material adapted to local groups, rather than over-generalized and locally irrelevant material.”  In relation to this, see some of my criticism of the National Alliance here.
Yes, you can have, as Venner suggests, a centralized leadership, but the actual “field work” has to be properly local and decentralized.  When activists need permission from “the National Office” to use the rest room, then nothing gets done.  The unwillingness of Pierce to allow local units to create and distribute their own propaganda specifically suited for local conditions and local current events was a terrible error, as much strategic as tactical.  All sorts of explanations were given (“quality control” and “we want to recruit people who understand the big picture and who are not merely emotionally excited about some local event”), but one suspects it was as much about maintaining tight control and the exercising of power, as well as maximizing National Office income (local units actually had to purchase the propaganda material they were to distribute!) as about anything else.  You know, it would still have been possible for the National Office to (quickly) review and approve (or suggest changes in) locally produced material – so the first objection falls flat.  As far as the second objection goes – there is nothing wrong with leveraging local conditions and current events to bring your group and its ideology to the attention of prospective recruits, one can always cull the herd once people are initially brought in, most likely only the truly dedicated will join an overtly public racialist group anyway, and by focusing on local conditions and events, you let the people in that locale know that you understand them and their problems, and that you are there to help – it’s a two-way street, not merely a bigwig somewhere trying to pad their membership rolls in order to boost monthly dues income.  So, the second objection falls flat as well.  Venner was correct: propaganda should be both general and local; if it is just extremely generalized it becomes stilted and stale, and puts too much of a distance between the prospective activist and the organization.  Idealism is great and should be paramount, but one cannot eat Idealism, and Idealism alone will not protect a community from the Colored hordes and their Levantine masters.  Idealism has to be built upon a foundation of pragmatic activity and real-world concerns.  Once you take care of the latter, then you can indulge the former.
In summary, the problem with important books like this is that they get no serious attention from the “movement.” I’ve seen this again and again.  Yes, sometimes such books are discussed and favorably reviewed.  Some people say, yes, yes, we need to follow this advice, and then with the short attention span of the Type I retards, all is forgotten, and all just falls back to “business as usual” – the default setting of “movement” dysfunction wins again.
Expect more of the same with this book.
Was Venner’s suicide at least in part motivated by a realization of the utter failure of the “movement?”  It was about 50 years from his book to his death – what had been accomplished?  Did anyone listen to what he wrote?  What has happened since his death?  We have now the Alt Right making a mockery of serious nationalism, flouting many of the suggestions Venner made.
Perhaps it is time for a Negative Critique?
Advertisements

The Betas Karamazov

Psychosexual insights from a Russian classic.

“The Battle of the Sexes” is fundamentally important for racial activism, particularly since we have White Knighting activists who expend their political capital on ditzy female airheads.

Now, before someone accuses me of hypocrisy by using “game” analyses here, let me remind you that I’ve always maintained that, as regards sex, “game” is essentially correct in the descriptive sense.  By opposition to “game” is prescriptive. In other words, I see the gamesters as correct in their description of women and of the sexual marketplace, but I disagree with their prescriptive suggestions on how men should behave based on these realities.

Thus, we can analyze a few characters of The Brothers Karamazov through the lens of sexual realism.

A “game” evaluation of the major female characters has already been done by someone else, and I see this analysis as sound.

The Wikipedia description of those characters are as follows (emphasis added):

Agrafena Alexandrovna Svetlova (a.k.a. Grushenka, Grusha, Grushka), a beautiful 22-year-old, is the local Jezebel and has an uncanny charm for men. In her youth she was jilted by a Polish officer and subsequently came under the protection of a tyrannical miser. The episode leaves Grushenka with an urge for independence and control of her life. Grushenka inspires complete admiration and lust in both Fyodor and Dmitri Karamazov. Their rivalry for her affection is one of the most damaging factors in their relationship. Grushenka seeks to torment and then deride both Dmitri and Fyodor as a wicked amusement, a way to inflict upon others the pain she has felt at the hands of her “former and indisputable one”. However, after she begins a friendship with Alyosha, and as the book progresses, she begins to tread a path of spiritual redemption through which emerges hidden qualities of gentleness and generosity, though her fiery temper and pride are ever present. 

Katerina Ivanovna Verkhovtseva (a.k.a. Katya, Katka, Katenka) is Dmitri’s beautiful fiancée, despite his open forays with Grushenka. Her engagement to Dmitri is chiefly a matter of pride on both their parts, Dmitri having bailed her father out of a debt. Katerina is extremely proud and seeks to act as a noble martyr, suffering as a stark reminder of everyone’s guilt. Because of this, she cannot bring herself to act on her love for Ivan, and constantly creates moral barriers between him and herself. By the end of the novel, she too, begins a real and sincere spiritual redemption, as seen in the epilogue, when she asks Mitya and Grushenka to forgive her.

Thus, typical young women: cruel, capricious unpleasant, arrogant, shit-testing, and we see that  Dostoevsky falters in his story-telling when he has both characters show “redemption” toward the end of the book.  In reality, both would have continued their behavior until their looks failed, at which time they’d find some beta male to parasitize off of (“marriage”) complete with nagging and general nastiness (“married life”).

Let’s now consider the main male characters, along with their Wikipedia descriptions (emphasis added).

Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov is the father, a 55-year-old “sponger” and buffoon who sires three sons during his two marriages. He is rumored to have fathered an illegitimate son, Pavel Fyodorovich Smerdyakov, whom he employs as his servant. Fyodor takes no interest in any of his sons, who are, as a result, raised apart from each other and their father. The relationship between Fyodor and his adult sons drives much of the plot in the novel. 

Dmitri Karamazov

Dmitri Fyodorovich Karamazov (a.k.a. Mitya, Mitka, Mitenka, Mitri) is Fyodor Karamazov’s eldest son and the only offspring of his first marriage, with Adelaida Ivanovna Miusov. Dmitri is considered to be a sensualist, much like his father, spending large amounts of money on nights filled with champagne, women, and whatever entertainment and stimulation money can buy. Dmitri is brought into contact with his family when he finds himself in need of his inheritance, which he believes is being withheld by his father. He was engaged to be married to Katerina Ivanovna, but breaks that off after falling in love with Grushenka. Dmitri’s relationship with his father is the most volatile of the brothers, escalating to violence as he and his father begin fighting over the same woman, Grushenka. While he maintains a good relationship with Ivan, he is closest to his younger brother Alyosha, referring to him as his “cherub”.

Fyodor the father and Dmitri the eldest son, the rivals for the “affections” (sic) of Grushenka, are both complicated characters.  Although they both – particularly the father – have some of the “dark triad” traits so believed by the gamesters, ultimately both  men are hardcore Betas – pussy pedestalizing obsessives, with infinite fucks given (IFG) – contrary to the assumed zero fucks given (ZFG) attitude of the Alpha – with a case (particularly for Dmitri) of “oneitis.”  Thus, both men are easy prey for the malevolent Grushenka, playing with them in the same manner that a spiteful (female) cat would torment a mouse.  Thus: Fyodor and Dmitri: Beta Males.   They are both classic Roissyite Gamesters as well: IFG pussy pedestalizers, making their entire lives revolving around women.

Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov (a.k.a. Vanya, Vanka, Vanechka) is the 24-year-old middle son and first from Fyodor’s second marriage to Sofia Ivanovna. He is disturbed especially by the apparently senseless suffering in the world. He says to Alyosha in the chapter “Rebellion” (Bk. 5, Ch. 4), “It’s not God that I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket.” From an early age, Ivan is sullen and isolated. His father tells Alyosha that he fears Ivan more than Dmitri. Some of the most memorable and acclaimed passages of the novel involve Ivan, including the chapter “Rebellion”, his “poem” “The Grand Inquisitor” immediately following, and his nightmare of the devil (Bk. 11, Ch. 9). Ivan’s relationship with his father and brothers are rather superficial in the beginning. He is almost repulsed by his father, and had no positive affection towards Dmitri. While he doesn’t dislike Alexei, he didn’t have any deep affection for him either. But towards the end of the novel, his relationship with his siblings gets more complicated. Ivan falls in love with Katerina Ivanovna, who was Dmitri’s betrothed. But she doesn’t start to return his feelings until the end.

Ivan – rebellious, intellectually dissident, cold – is closest to being an alpha in the book, but his “oneitis” for Katerina Ivanovna and his “brain fever” – a sign of weakness – classify him as a Beta, a high Beta, but a Beta nevertheless.

Alexei Fyodorovich Karamazov (a.k.a. Alyosha, Alyoshka, Alyoshenka, Alyoshechka, Alexeichik, Lyosha, Lyoshenka) at age 20 is the youngest of the Karamazov brothers, the youngest child by Karamazov’s second wife and thus Ivan’s full brother. The narrator identifies him as the hero of the novel in the opening chapter, as does the author in the preface. He is described as immensely likable. At the outset of the events, Alyosha is a novice in the local Russian Orthodox monastery. His faith is in contrast to his brother Ivan’s atheism. His Elder, Father Zosima, sends him into the world, where he becomes involved in the sordid details of his family. In a secondary plotline, Alyosha befriends a group of school boys, whose fate adds a hopeful message to the conclusion of the novel.

With respect to being an Orthodox novice, and his spending more time with young boys (maybe he should have become a Roman Catholic priest?) than young women, Alexei is MGTOW.  However, when he does interact with women, he typically does so in a bashful, clumsy, hand-twisting manner.  Hence, Alyosha = Beta.

Pavel Fyodorovich Smerdyakov, widely rumored to be the illegitimate son of Fyodor Karamazov, is the son of “Reeking Lizaveta”, a mute woman of the street who died in childbirth. His name, Smerdyakov, means “son of the ‘reeking one'”. He was brought up by Fyodor Karamazov’s trusted servant Grigory Vasilievich Kutuzov and his wife Marfa. Smerdyakov grows up in the Karamazov house as a servant, working as Fyodor’s lackey and cook. He is morose and sullen, and, like Dostoyevsky, suffers from epilepsy. The narrator notes that as a child, Smerdyakov collected stray cats to hang and bury them. Generally aloof, Smerdyakov admires Ivan and shares his atheism.

Pavel is a MGTOW Omega male.  At his best, he’s a low Beta.

Father Zosima, the Elder Father Zosima is an Elder and spiritual advisor (starets) in the town monastery and Alyosha’s teacher. He is something of a celebrity among the townspeople for his reputed prophetic and healing abilities. His popularity inspires both admiration and jealousy amidst his fellow monks. Zosima provides a refutation to Ivan’s atheistic arguments and helps to explain Alyosha’s character. Zosima’s teachings shape the way Alyosha deals with the young boys he meets in the Ilyusha storyline.

The character of Father Zosima was to some extent inspired by that of Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk.

Father Zosima as an Elder monk is obviously MGTOW.  Before entering the monastery, as a young man, he was somewhat similar to Ivan Karamazov, a high Beta with some Alpha traits. More importantly, the “all responsible for one another” philosophy of Father Zosima, as well as the outlook of Alyosha (the author-proclaimed “hero” of the novel), is that if Dostoevsky himself.  This is a form of Russian (The Third Rome) messianic Christianity, reflecting the aspects of the Russian soul discussed by Spengler in The Decline of the West.  Thus, Father Zosima asserts a form of collectivist Brotherhood, mutual care and love horizontally across society, in a leveling egalitarian manner, independent of social rank – the expansive horizon, the horizontal plane, as discussed by Spengler. While this is not our Nietzschean “cup of tea” so to speak, it does reflect a type of “will to power” = the idea of the inevitable victory of this worldview, the memetic conquest of humanity (Russian Bolshevism – a secularized version of Father Zosima’s philosophy?).

Ilyusha, Ilyushechka, or simply Ilusha in some translations, is one of the local schoolboys, and the central figure of a crucial subplot in the novel. His father, Captain Snegiryov, is an impoverished officer who is insulted by Dmitri after Fyodor Karamazov hires him to threaten the latter over his debts, and the Snegiryov family is brought to shame as a result. The reader is led to believe that it is partly because of this that Ilyusha falls ill, possibly to illustrate the theme that even minor actions can touch heavily on the lives of others, and that we are “all responsible for one another”.

If this child did not die and became a man, he’d most likely be a Beta or an Omega.

In summary, the Karamazovs were a bunch of Beta males who were manipulated, and ruined, by horrific nasty females. The only Karamazov who ended the story not badly ruined was Alyosha, not coincidentally the MGTOW Karamazov.  There’s a lesson there, I think.

Consider that young men typically have very strong sex drives.  Then further consider that increasing numbers of young heterosexual men are going MGTOW.  How terrible must today’s young women be to trigger such a reaction, to make men go against their most powerful biological drives.  This is something that women would do well to reflect upon.


Men in the “movement” themselves should reflect upon The Nature of Woman, and not waste their time and energy, and expend their political capital, defending what is not worth defending.  Although none of the male characters in The Brothers Karamazov are admirable from my perspective, some are worse than others.  Let’s not have “movement leaders” channeling Fyodor and Dmitri (hopefully, no Pavels are among us), turning themselves inside out for sly, malicious females.

Legacy of Spies

Book review.

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).

Pederasty and Other Perversions

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.

Der Movement in the News, 6/21/16

Several items.


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.”
Mr. Hyde’s longer-than-the-book book review continues.

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.


Hyde again:

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.

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.