Category: books

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.

Advertisements

Straight From the Horse’s Mouth

A tacit admission.

Greg Johnson writes the following, emphasis added:

“I am in fact a Hobbit.”—J. R. R. Tolkien 

John Ronald Reuel Tolkien is a favorite author of New Left “hippies” and New Right nationalists, and for pretty much the same reasons. Tolkien deeply distrusted modernization and industrialization, which replace organic reciprocity between man and nature with technological dominion of man over nature, a relationship that deforms and devalues both poles. 

But philosophically and politically, Tolkien was much closer to the New Right than the New Left. Tolkien was a conservative and a race realist. His preferences ran toward non-constitutional monarchy in the capital and de facto anarchy in the provinces, but he recognized that state control can be minimized only in a society with a deep reverence for tradition and a high regard for individual honor and self-restraint. 

Many of Tolkien’s most fervent New Right admirers are neo-pagans...The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, with their many themes from Norse and Celtic mythology, resonate especially with pagans… 

…For those who need no introduction, there is no better commemoration than to spend a winter evening snug in one’s own Hobbit hole reading the works of the man himself (or watching Peter Jackson’s masterly and inspiring movies of The Lord of the Rings).

That is of course the equivalent of Johnson saying: “I am in fact a Type I activist.”  And that’s a designation I already made, did I not?

Certain Alt Right ethnonationalists mimic Hitler to the extent that they are ideologically Type I but have the “bookish” and intellect-oriented Type II character.  

It is clear who I was talking about there.  Ideologically Type I indeed, and ideology trumps “character” every time.  It’s ideology that determines the direction of the “movement.”  Personality and character set a tone, but the actual content, the actual meaning, the actual outcomes – that’s all directly derived from ideology.

Some tell-tale signs to distinguish Type I from Type II fascists:

Serious sci/fi fantasy:

Type I: Lord of the Rings

Type II: Book of the New Sun

They who control Der Movement.

The Invented Italian

Philip Jose Farmer, another ethnic fetishist.

I’ve started re-reading the Riverworld science fiction series by Philip Jose Farmer, whose background is described here.  As regards plot and writing, it’s fairly good, but from a racialist perspective, it is not good at all.

I’m mostly through book one, but have extensively flipped through the other volumes, especially book two, to get a feel for the extent Farmer’s racial perspective filter though the series. Farmer was, perhaps not surprisingly, an extreme racial liberal, vehemently pro-Jewish and anti-Nazi, as well as sympathetic to Blacks and to the “civil rights” struggle.  And, oh yes, Black male-White female miscegenation is A-OK; accepting that is a sign of progressive mental advancement, don’t you know.

It is perhaps also not surprising that there is one ethnic group that fairs quite poorly (at least so far) in Farmer’s SJW storytelling: Italians.  Surprise!  With Farmer’s background and his extreme SJW anti-racist cuckiness, I’m shocked – shocked I say! – that he expresses the typical disdain of his type for White ethnics.

This, Italians – particularly Italian males – are portrayed by Farmer as brown-skinned, beak-nosed, no-chinned skulking low-character flotsam and jetsam, negatively contrasted to, say, sturdy Israeli heroes or proud, sticking-it-to-Whitey Negroes.  And, by the way, the Italians so described are northern Italians, not even southerners. 

Farmer represents a very real mix of character traits and opinions that is not so very rare – and not rare at all in Der Movement.

Maybe there really is something to this “high trust hunter-gatherer” paradigm after all.

We can consider Farmer’s ethnic depictions to be akin to what we get from pop culture, particularly from a heavily Jewish and Leftist Hollywood, with TV shows and movies that often use non-White actors and actresses (or real-life individuals adopted into Italian families) to play ethnically Italian characters (Saving Private Ryan, The Wedding Planner, A Bronx Tale, Ugly Betty, Cheers, Jersey Shore…the list goes on).  Of course, for perpetuating certain Italian racial stereotypes, we also have Der Movement’s favorite movie, True Romance.  

We can call this phenomenon: The Invented Italian. People with an ethnic axe to grind invent an image of Italians for public consumption that is at best misleading and at worst intentionally mendacious and racially destructive.  The Invented Italian: a cringing, brown-skinned, non-European, non-White, Arabo-Latino-Mulatto-Afrowop.  If Jesse Jackson and Rudy Giuliani were cast by Hollywood – a la Saving Private Ryan – Jackson would be cast to play an Italian, and Giuliani cast as some non-Italian White character.  After all, Spielberg specifically chose mixed-race Vin Diesel (he of ambiguous but “colored” paternal parentage) to play a wop after seeing him in the semi-autobiographical Multifacial, concerning the struggles of a multiracial actor.  Remind me again what character Dennis Farina played in that movie…oh, that’s right, surname Anderson.  Amazing. Or, more simply: Jewmazing.

Now, I can imagine some arguing: “hey, there really are genuine Italians who are very dark-complexioned, who look strange, etc.”  These people may cite certain celebrities or people they personally know, or whatever.  While that statement is technically true, it is also true that there are outlier phenotypes in every ethnic group and it is usually not the practice to substitute outliers for the norm.  When extreme outliers are misrepresented as the norm, intentionally reinforced by using members of other, racially alien, groups to represent the false norm in question, then we have a case of an “invented” ethny.  Ethnies should be judged – for better or worse – on their actual reality, not judged based on bizarre Hollywood casting choices or effete cuck sci/fi writers’ stylistic descriptions.

As to why this occurs – that can be an analysis for another day.  Suffice to say when it applies to Jewish/Leftist Hollywood, they probably have an agenda – conscious or subconscious – to divide Whites against each other by utilizing misleading characterizations of certain European ethnies so as to exaggerate distinctiveness and abrogate racial solidarity among European-Americans.

A reasonable assumption is that the Etruscan art portrayals reflected how they actually looked (similar to the ancient Greeks, whose portrayals were similar).  While Type I activists may look at the fresco and see Dolph Lundgren, I see swart, dark-eyed individuals with black curly hair, if anything darker than the average modern Italian.  And yet, Der Movement tells us the original pre-Roman population of Italy were akin to modern Swedes, subsequently darkened by the “racial morass” of Rome.  Sure they were.  Hope the eye doctor visit turns out well.

Fascist Typology

Bardeche’s Type I and Type II

Coogan’s Dreamer of the Day includes a quote from Bardeche’s Suzanne et le Tandis (Suzanne and the Slums), in the chapter: “Le Fascisme International” that seems more complete and accurate (and free from spelling and grammar errors) than the version popping up on the Alt Right.  This quote includes:

I have known, after Clarence, very many “fascists,” for the race is not dead. Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors. The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches. All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.

The precise translation is less important than the general point being made; an important distinction between different fascist archetypes, even though it is made in a bemused fashion, in jest, and even though I’m sure Bardeche didn’t mean to focus on that distinction in his  quote.  Nevertheless, regardless of intention and style, there is food for thought here.

Thus, Bardeche correct identifies two archetypes of fascists; thus:

Type I: Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors.

Type II: The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches.

To translate into a context more familiar to the racial nationalist “movement” of today: Type I would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: ethnonationalists, Nordicists, Traditionalists, ethnic fetishists, and Hitler worshippers; while Type II would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: pan-Europeanists, Futurists, and Imperium-oriented Yockeyites.

Type I, in its purest representation, would tend to be an extroverted, action-oriented mesomorph; Type II would be an introverted, intellect-oriented ectomorph (not sure where endomorphs would fit in, as so many of them tend to be leftists to begin with).

That is not to say that Type I activists are never intellectual, nor that Type II activists are devoid of action, simply that on a spectrum, Type I are relatively action > intellect and Type II are relatively intellect > action.

Bardeche classified both types as: All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.  That may be true, although I think the “they detested lying and injustice” part applies mostly to Type II.  It are the Type II activists who would tend to be more of the Moralpath type.  Type I activists would tend to be more pragmatists, being as they are more action-oriented in any case.  While both types include Vangaurdists, Mainstreamers are almost exclusively Type I.  Type II activists, with their severe affect and furious speeches (or, today, blog posts – “crazed and bitter,” eh?), are hardly the Mainstreamer type.

While most activists would tend to have some traits of both types, they would be skewed in one direction or another.  

Some more or less “pure” types exist.  Your host, Ted Sallis, is a more or less a pure Type II. Francis Parker Yockey himself was a Type II.  Most Anglosphere activists in Der Movement are definitely Type I, certainly in the USA. The Alt Right, with all its intellectual pretensions, is actually heavily represented by Type I activists, at least among the rank-and-file.  In general, Type I’s will outnumber Type IIs, the latter being a distinct minority.

Leaders are a mixed bag, and historical fascist leaders have shown mixed characteristics of both types.  Most interesting is when there is a distinct mismatch between ideology and personality; the person has the ideology of one fascist type, but the personality of another.  This is a crucially important point.  While Bardeche’s quote delves mostly into personality, it bleeds into ideology: those boot-wearing activists obsessed with runes, ancestral songs, and the solstice (as well as Viking horns and mead, eh?) would tend to gravitate toward ethnonationalist and/or Nordicist ideologies, and be enamored of “traditionalism,” while those idealists with their skinny severe reformer heads, furious speeches, glasses and other introvert tendencies (card-collecting being a metaphor for introverted intellectualism) would tend to gravitate toward pan-Europeanism, Futurism and other manifestations of avant-garde politics, and visions of Imperium.  

Personality and ideology are often linked, but when the linkage breaks down, all sorts of strange fascistic hybrids are observed.  For example, Hitler politically was Type I, but his personality was more Type II.  Certain Alt Right ethnonationalists mimic Hitler to the extent that they are ideologically Type I but have the “bookish” and Intellect-oriented Type II character.  Conversely, some pan-European Alt Righters are the opposite: politically Type II but with Type I personalities. 

On the other hand, when personality and ideology more or less perfectly coincide, then from that synergy you get the “impossible” extreme Moralpath types – a Ted Sallis or a Francis Parker Yockey.

There is no doubt more to analyze on this topic but this is a useful beginning.

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).

George Smiley, Ted Sallis, and Der Movement

Sallis as Smiley.

If one was too look at some of Le Carre’s George Smiley works, and here I am talking about the books and BBC miniseries (which can be found at YouTube) of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (TTSS) and Smiley’s People (SP) – let’s forget about the TTSS movie – there are of course many interesting themes there.

To my mind the one major theme, and the one that has the most relevance to my work at this blog, is this: that of all the major players who are sincerely on the side of British Intelligence, Smiley is the only one who behaves in a rational, far-sighted, clear, and realistic manner, unafraid to face harsh facts whatever their implications and where they may lead him.

The other major players on the pro-British side all have similar flaws: self-deception, irrationality, wrong assumptions based on ignorance or wishful thinking, an inability to face harsh truths – to summarize: all these people engage in the moralistic fallacy.  That is, if “X” would have negative implications then “X” must be false, and if “X” would have positive implications, then “X” must be true; this is fact-free wishful thinking and self-deception to an exponential power.

Thus, in TTSS, the idea that there is a real mole in the Circus (British Intelligence) is initially dismissed by Lacon and the Minister, and continuously dismissed by the top Circus agents, because the implications of that – including that their own advancement based on fraudulent “Witchcraft” intelligence would be rendered meaningless – would be so negative, so unthinkable, that they refuse to accept the possibility.  Indeed, they let Karla invert the entire situation so the Circus bigwigs actually believe that the idea of a mole is an invention of theirs to service what they think is a Russian they’ve recruited, while that Russian is actually a Karla agent servicing the real mole.

Only Smiley – and before him Control (who is already dead by the time Smiley goes mole hunting) – is unafraid to follow the rabbit hole to its ultimate destination.

In SP, Smiley is the only major British player who takes the assassination of the old Estonian (ex-Soviet and recruited Circus agent) General Vladimir seriously, and believes it can lead him to his old foe Karla.  The Circus bigwigs dismiss the whole thing, mock the General and Smiley himself, and discourage Smiley to do anything more than “tidy things up” and put all the trouble behind them.  Pursuing this lead, and following through its implications, would be too bothersome, cause too many bureaucratic headaches – because the fact of the importance of the situation would cause what they perceive as negative complications they jump to the conclusion that the situation itself is nothing important. Again, self-deception and the moralistic fallacy at work.  Only Smiley looks at the situation with clear eyes, understands all of its implications, and is willing to pursue the facts to their ultimate conclusion.

Hopefully, the similarity of the underlying theme between TTSS and SP is abundantly clear.

We can look at those situations from the perspective of False Positive (Type I) and False Negative (Type II) errors.  Assume Smiley was wrong – let’s say there was no mole and that General Vladimir’s murder was just simply a mugging gone bad – but nonetheless he was believed and efforts were made to follow through on his error.  There would of course have been some negative consequences – the Circus would have “chased its own tail” looking for a non-existent mole and wasted time and resources pursuing non-existent intelligence links to Vladimir’s murder.  That would have been bad, no doubt, but not an existential danger to the Circus.

On the other hand, consider a Type II False Negative error here.  Smiley was right – but let us assume he was continuously ignored by everyone. In this case, the mole is never uncovered, Bill Haydon continues to do untold damage to British (and American) interests around the globe, and, if under those circumstances, the events of SP still occur, then Vladimir’s murder never results in Karla’s forced defection to the West, and he continues damaging Western interests (including running the still existing Haydon mole connection). That would be an existential danger to the Circus and a whole set of Western interests, possibly changing the direction of the Cold War.

Similarly, a False Positive cancer diagnosis can be devastating and extremely damaging, but consider the ramifications of a False Negative – someone has a cancer that is never diagnosed until it kills them.  From the “better safe than sorry” standpoint, False Negatives – Type II errors – are worse than Type I False Positives.

Let’s consider all of that from the perspective of my ongoing critique of the “movement.”

Consider that the optimal (from my point of view) realistic scenario is that some – definitely not all and not most, after all I’m not the approved type of messenger – White racial activists follow my lead and break with the Old Movement to create something new.  So, we are talking about a fraction of the total.

Now, I’m either right about Der Movement or I am wrong (even if I am only partially right, that’s sufficient to delegitimize business as usual and thus can be part of the “right” category).

Let’s assume I’m wrong. Then the worst case scenario – a False Positive Type I error – is that a fraction of activists are misled by my error and go away from the correct path of Der Movement’s glory.  That would slow down Der Movement’s march to victory, but certainly not enough to derail victory. After all, if Der Movement is correct and I’m wrong, they’ll go from strength to strength and everyone, including me, will see I’m wrong and jump back on board.

But what if I am right about Der Movement and no one listens?  This is a False Negative Type II error. What if “business as usual” continues, and more decades of “movement” failure are excused, year after year wasted, as the happy penguins and men on the mountaintop leach off money, time, and resources from racial activists, yielding no return?  If that happens, then we are all finished, since activists are proved time and time again that no degree or continuity of “movement” failure will persuade them from following the dead-end path.  If I’m right and am ignored – as I am now – the outcome will be infinitely worse than the reverse.  

Having some activists listening to me if I am wrong will inconvenience Der Movement but would not likely be any existential threat.  On the other hand, if I am correct, and Der Movement is useless as a vehicle for attaining real long-term White racial interests, then ignoring my warnings is an existential threat – if no one is building an alternative, then the totality of White racial activism will be wasted with no contingency plan in place to save the race and the “movement” fails and fails again.

I state three premises:

1. The “movement” has failed for decades, a complete and catastrophic failure.

2. Continuing the same approaches that have failed for so long will just perpetuate this failure, eventually leading to dire and irreversible negative racial consequences.

3. I identify key reasons for these failures. To turn things around, a New Movement is required that eschews the errors of the Old.

I would say that anyone denying premise 1 is delusional; how is the failure not obvious?  Where, pray tell, are all the glorious successes?

Premise 2 is slightly more ambiguous, but only slightly.  Someone could argue that applying the same failed approaches will eventually yield success, particularly if conditions change, but is this a prudent way of doing things?  Shouldn’t at least some people try something different rather than repeating decades of error and failure?

Premise 3 would be the most questionable and ambiguous, since even if people agree with premises 1 and 2 they may disagree with my diagnosis of the problems.  My answer here is that if the failure has been so complete, so continuous and comprehensive, that the errors are likely fundamental, getting to the core of “movement” dogma and the core of how the “movement” approaches tactics and strategy. If we trace these core memes and strategies to their foundation, then that foundation is what needs to be changed.

But, hey, why listen to me?  It’s all good!  Swallow those” white pills!”  Hail Pepe!  Hail Kek!

I Already Have Buyer’s Remorse

Dumb Trump.

Not so long ago, Donald “What’s the nuclear triad?” Trump was talking sense, and stating that the USA needed to increase and modernize its nuclear arsenal.  Of course, Donny Obesity got pushback from that from the usual suspects, and instead of sticking to his original good sense, we now read this utter stupidity:

In an interview with The Times of London, Trump said he wanted nuclear weapons arsenals of the world’s two biggest nuclear powers — the United States and Russia — to be “reduced very substantially.”

“They have sanctions on Russia – let’s see if we can make some good deals with Russia. For one thing, I think nuclear weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially, that’s part of it,” Trump was quoted by the newspaper as saying.

Even if Putin agrees to cut Russian arms, it’s a terrible, terrible idea.  Both nations, particularly the USA, have made drastic cuts in their nuclear arsenals over the last two decades, and, unlike Russia, the USA has not modernized and is getting by with weaponry rapidly becoming obsolete. The US continues to “sissify” its arsenal, planning to scrap all megaton-range bombs (Arguments about “accuracy” do not cut it, Russian weapons are also accurate and they retain megaton-range weapons.  For the proper elimination of hardened political-military targets, or very large civilian targets, the best option is a combination of accuracy and yield, especially since, insofar as I know, the USA has dispensed with MIRVed warheads on its aging Minuteman ICBM force).

Meanwhile, China – using stolen US technology – continues to upgrade its strategic arsenal, North Korea continues its development, the anti-Western nation of Israel is allowed an arsenal that “flies under the radar,” and there are of course conventional threats that can be deterred by nuclear force. Indeed, even ex-Obama administration liberal types have written books arguing that, in the light of an uncertain strategic environment, the USA needs to upgrade and modernize its nuclear forces.

But Twitter Trump knows better.

And what’s with the sudden criticism of Russia over Syria?  Oh, that’s right – stung by comments and criticism over “Trump-Putin ties” and “Russian hacking” and “Trump’s legitimacy” Fat Don has to kowtow to the same Neocons who vociferously opposed his election.

And then we have this:

Trump said that he would appoint Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, to broker a Middle East peace deal…

Sure, Fats, your Jewish son-in-law is no doubt the most qualified and unbiased person to “broker a Middle East peace deal.”  The Trump Presidency is descending into tragicomedy even before it starts.

Yes, there were sound strategic reasons to support Trump’s candidacy (but in a skeptical fashion, not in the starry-eyed, onanistic hero worship exemplified by Der Movement’s homoerotic man crush on Donny Lardgullet), but now is the time for targeted criticism. What’s next?  Reneging on key points of the whole immigration issue?