Category: democratic multiculturalism

Bowden: Never Apologize

Mostly wise words.

There’s some good material here.  First, a concise and useful contrast between Right and Left – not based on “economics” – but based on the (true) Right’s belief in inequality and hierarchy, while the Left is obsessed with a false egalitarian equality.

Bowden rightly advises to never apologize, not to “say sorry” to justify forceful action. He includes not apologizing when being called “fascist” – indeed, he tells us that there nothing is wrong with fascism, a point certain elements in the “movement” cannot accept.  True, there are activists who truly are not in any way fascist, and that should be respected; in addition, no doubt there are tactical reasons why, at specific times (and those times only), true fascists should be prudent in displaying their ardent fascism.  But in general, many people in the “movement” (whether they know it or not or accept it or not) are fascists (broadly defined) of one sort or another (including national socialists; national socialism being – dissenters to the contrary – a race-based form of fascism).  These activists should accept the label and, as Bowden suggests, never apologize.

The only discordant chord for me is the part about resentment.  After all, resentment over real victimhood can be a powerful force, and, if used tactically via democratic multiculturalism, can be utilized as an approach to increase power.  There is a difference between mobilizing resentment (and hatred) for actualizing power, and wallowing in victimhood and beseeching for pity.

Advertisements

Spencer’s Speech, 11/22/16

Brief comments.

In isolation, nothing wrong with Spencer’s speech.  It was just the wrong place at the wrong time.  At a private meeting, at some other point in history, absolutely nothing wrong with it. But at a public, press-attended meeting, right after Trump’s election, with the media screaming for Bannon’s scalp, this was a bit of poor judgment.  Better to have put something together in more political-Salterian terms: democratic multiculturalism, universal nationalism, the legitimacy of majority interests, etc. I thought the whole point – or at least one major point – of the Alt Right was to be a more moderate “gateway” to hardcore WN. I’m skeptical of the “gateway” hypothesis, but if those guys believe it, better they publicly espouse democratic multiculturalism than do cheap NSDAP imitations.  Further, if you are going to “go radical” then why have the likes of Brimelow and Taylor around? Is there any strategy here, or just – as Der Movement would say – “LARPING?”

And about the leftist thug protestors – that happens at every rightist meeting, and at very meeting it seems like the attendees – and, worse, the organizers – are completely surprised and unprepared for it.  No one ever seems to think: “hey, these things have happened every time before, let us be prepared this time.”  If Der Movement doesn’t like my talk about affirmative action and quota queens then they have no one to blame but themselves.

Then we have this idiot “Ravi” (who Silver of all people effectively answered – fair is fair, I must give credit where credit is due):

Ravi • 2 hours ago

Children of the sun!! – what a load of tripe. So does this White Master race include Slavs as well? What about the Irish, Italians, Spaniards? What is a short, slit-eyed Vietnamese harlot doing in your ranks anyway? Is she white or yellow? So many questions – Do you even understand your own identity?

Let’s fisk:

Children of the sun!! – what a load of tripe

Why?

So does this White Master race include Slavs as well?

Yes it does.  No more and no less than any other European group.  Der Movement may not believe that but I, and others, do.

What about the Irish, Italians, Spaniards?

Yes, them as well.  No more and no less than any other European group.  Der Movement may not believe that but I, and others, do.

What is a short, slit-eyed Vietnamese harlot doing in your ranks anyway? 

A representative of the HBD faction?  Where was Derbyshire?

Is she white or yellow?

Yellow.

Do you even understand your own identity?

Yes, more than you can ever imagine.

Note again (assuming “Ravi” is a South Asian brownster) how hate-filled Asians are to Whites, how desperate Asians are to divide Whites against each other.

In the long-term, it’s the Yellow and Brown Peril from the East that is the biggest racial danger.

Sallis Strategy: The Center Does Not Hold

Chaos and division.

I must admit to being naive.  I believed the polls and was wrong about Der Touchback’s chances of winning (unlike Der Movement, I have no problem admitting when I am wrong), and now I am surprised about the rapid and ferocious Left reaction to Trump’s victory.  Yes, I am naive indeed.

The last few days have been eye-opening.  Not content to wait (like I had stupidly thought) for President Trump to actually do something (e.g,, an immigration crackdown) before acting like a bunch of jackasses, the SJWs took to the streets (and Twitter) in an eruption of stupidity, violence, and chaos-inducing tantrum protesting.  And it is continuing.  All those folks who voted for Trump are watching no doubt, and they cannot be pleased.

I on the other hand am pleased, as it fits in with the Sallis Strategy.  While wrong about the details, at least I was right (as were others) that a Trump victory would unleash forces of chaos, division,and balkanization in America. And the Left’s rage that “we will never accept this” and “never normalize this” holds out hope that this disunity will continue.  The specifically anti-White aspect of the protests, the vandalism, and the violence is also being noted by White Trump supporters.

Excellent.  Excellent.  What was that Putnam wrote on diversity eroding public trust and societal solidarity?  You’re seeing it action folks.  That “America is two nations” is not idle talk.  While unfortunately not true literally, it is increasingly true demographically, culturally, politically,and spiritually.

Now, I’ve been describing the “bottom-up” reaction of the Left.  But the “top-down” reaction is just as promising.  The elites have (so far at least) learned nothing from Trump’s surprising victory.  Instead of reflecting on White anger and resentment, they instead double down on their anti-White attitudes (as I’ve written many times – Hatred of Trump is a proxy for hatred of Whites), and spew forth venom (e.g., media, Reid, celebrities, various pundits) and excuses (it was Comey, not the fact that Democrats are overtly anti-White,* which led to Clinton’s historic defeat).

These folks have learned nothing, and I doubt that they are capable of learning anything. Their racial animus toward Whites is so ingrained that any serious thought about the facts of the case becomes short-circuited – the idea that Whites have legitimate grievances are taboo.  They just can’t go there.  Instead talk about “White Privilege” and “White racism” (we wish!) and other nonsense.  In other words, the System is behaving in exactly the same manner that alienated White folks to begin with, the Left bemoans Trump’s victory and then they continue to do the same exact things which led to that victory in the first place.

And then we have the mendacious Sanders, who does utter the phrase “White working class,” but who forgets his own contemptuous dismissal of those folks during the election. Further, any economics-based “outreach” to White middle class and working class Americans is going to fail, since their alienation is not based solely, or even mainly, on economics – even those few leftists who take the election results seriously do not understand this. This is ultimately about Identity, about race and culture – White folks are not going to forget the Democratic Party’s hatred for, and abandonment of, Whites just because a few economic bones are belatedly thrown in their direction,  It’s far too late for that.

So, what we have is an unprecedented opportunity.  Der Movement, if it is any good, should be leveraging these events to promote division, chaos, despair, hatred, rage, bitterness, and balkanization throughout the land, fanning the flames of the fires started by leftist hysteria over Trump’s victory. A fraction of Trump’s supporters are ripe for recruitment – albeit recruitment by a real movement, one that is sane and that does not reject half of Trump’s White base.  The time is propitious for that, and equally propitious for other right-wing populist candidates to “strike while the iron is hot” and get into politics at the congressional, state, and local levels.  And also propitious for ordinary Whites to practise Salter’s democratic multiculturalism, which would unravel the multicultural consensus from the inside out.

The center does not hold.  It all falls apart for the System, but it will be too slow and possibly not enough in the time left if this “falling apart” is not helped along.  This will be a test for Der Movement.  This is the real “last chance for White America.”  

We’ll see if the caliper crowd is up to the challenge.

*Republican cucks are not much better (although they usually try and hide it), but in this election, the candidate was less of a cuck than normal.

October Thoughts on Der Movement and Der Trump

What next?

Overarching objective: Establishment of White ethnostates in America, Europe, etc.  I would go further and advocate for Yockey’s White Imperium, but at minimum, WN generally agrees on the ethnostate idea.

Strategies: These should be multi-variant; in other words, don’t put “all your eggs in one basket.” Further, different contexts, and changing, fluid current events will demand variable approaches.

In general, two things are required: eliminating the current System and constructing a New Order to replace it.  The beginning of construction of the New Order need not wait for the full elimination of the System but can begin in embryonic form now; indeed, activities in constructing this New Order can have the additional benefit of helping to destabilize the existing System.

The positive approaches of New Order construction can be analyzed another day; what about the negative aspect of tearing down the existing System, an objective which should be the predominant (albeit as just indicated, not sole) focus of effort now?

There is of course “direct action” (a euphemism) – not something to be discussed in any public forum, not my specialty by any means, and no doubt premature without a base of support among a reasonable fraction of the White population.

Building that base of support?  Some of it will come from the positive constructive efforts alluded to above.  People who support what which they have a stake in, and will not support that they do not have a stake in.  We must make Whites stakeholders in a New Order, by demonstrating to them, via concrete constructive action, what their place will be within it; at the same time, by delegitimizing the present System, we present to Whites the clear indication that they are not, and can never be, stakeholders in that System.

How to delegitimize the System?  Leveraging Trump is a start (see more on Trump below); more fundamentally, I’m a strong supporter of Salter’s idea of “democratic multiculturalism” and have explained, in the linked posts, what that is and how that can be used to weaken and undermine the System.

Indeed, anything that contributes to increasing the System’s inherent tendency to balkanizing disintegration and “bowling alone” atomization of disaffected individuals, should be encouraged.

Getting back to Trump, I recently speculated on options for Der Movement in case of a Trump loss or win.  What about Trump’s own possible plans and how that ay intersect with “movement” interests?

If Trump loses, he may start a “media empire,” according to reports, an empire that would promote the sort of right-wing populism espoused by Trump in this campaign cycle.  That would present opportunities, but things are not so clear-cut.  On the one hand, Trump is a Negro-loving civic nationalist with Jewish family connections.  On the other hand, he’s run a right-wing populist campaign with only a very thin membrane separating it from the more moderate elements of the Alt Right, and one could expect a defeated Trump to be very bitter against a System that overtly conspired against him.  A key point here is that Trump is more or less an intellectual empty vessel, so one must take care as to what is poured into him.  It would seem that some of Coulter’s work infiltrated into what passes for Fat Don’s “brain” and led him rightward on immigration; what will filter into that empty vessel after an election defeat?  Can Der Movement put down its calipers and be ready for this window of opportunity?  Or will the quota queens mess it all up again?  It would be great – it would be “YUGE” – if the work of Salter could be brought to Trump’s attention.  No, I don’t expect Trump to read On Genetic Interests (unless someone makes a graphic novel or porno version of the book), but maybe someone else (like Trump’s sons*) could read it, or at least read some of my summaries of it (here or at Amren), and explain it to Dear Old Dad. The fact that the book is NOT in any way “anti-Semitic” or “anti-Negro” would I think make it more palatable to the Trump clan.

One could hope that a defeated Trump would be a “moneybags” for at least the more moderate elements of the “far-Right” but I wouldn’t pin too many hopes on that; someone stingy in spending their money on their own political campaign would hardly be expected to be generous to others.  And if he did give money, would Der Movement be in a position to take advantage?  Or would it all go, for example, to the Milo-ites?

*Not Ivanka, who I suspect would have been a Clinton supporter had she not been Trump’s daughter. I can’t help notice that Ivanka is the only member of the Trump clan praised by the Establishment; this may partly be due to the System’s man-hating feminism, and partly out of the sense that she’s really a closet liberal.

The Very Model of a Modern Major Revolution

Overthrowing the System via democratic multiculturalism.

Read here concerning the Fall of the Soviet Union.
Now, the Soviet defector “Viktor Suvorov” (Rezun) made the point in one of his books that revolutions do not take place during the period of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed. The French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the Fall of Soviet Communism are all examples of this.
From the linked “Business Insider” article is this quote that support’s Rezun’s thesis:

DELVING INTO THE causes of the French Revolution, de Tocqueville famously noted that regimes overthrown in revolutions tend to be less repressive than the ones preceding them. Why? Because, de Tocqueville surmised, though people “may suffer less,” their “sensibility is exacerbated.”

Given that, let’s take a look at the article and see how it applies to our situation.

LIKE VIRTUALLY ALL modern revolutions, the latest Russian one was started by a hesitant liberalization “from above” — and its rationale extended well beyond the necessity to correct the economy or make the international environment more benign. The core of Gorbachev’s enterprise was undeniably idealistic: He wanted to build a more moral Soviet Union.

If we want to start a revolution, one strong possibility – not the only one of course – is one starting from a “hesitant liberalization from above.” In the modern American context of a viciously anti-White regime of soft totalitarianism, that would mean a “liberalization” that “softens” the System’s animus toward White interests, perhaps with a scheme similar to Salter’s proposal of “democratic multiculturalism” in which the interests of the majority (or, soon-to-be plurality) are officially and formally incorporated into the multicultural consensus. Is Trump’s campaign a harbinger of this? Regardless of the outcome, will the System believe it needs to somehow co-opt growing White anger? If this is put in starkly moral terms, always the preference of both SJWs and individualistic White cucks, with they be able to resist?


To Gorbachev’s prime minister Nikolai Ryzhkov, the “moral [nravstennoe] state of the society” in 1985 was its “most terrifying” feature:
[We] stole from ourselves, took and gave bribes, lied in the reports, in newspapers, from high podiums, wallowed in our lies, hung medals on one another. And all of this — from top to bottom and from bottom to top.
Another member of Gorbachev’s very small original coterie of liberalizers, Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, was just as pained by ubiquitous lawlessness and corruption. He recalls telling Gorbachev in the winter of 1984-1985: “Everything is rotten. It has to be changed.”

Sounds a lot like 2016 America, eh?


Democratization, Gorbachev declared, was “not a slogan but the essence of perestroika.” Many years later he told interviewers:
The Soviet model was defeated not only on the economic and social levels; it was defeated on a cultural level. Our society, our people, the most educated, the most intellectual, rejected that model on the cultural level because it does not respect the man, oppresses him spiritually and politically.

Again, 2016 America oppresses the White Man “spiritually and politically” – true that most Whites do not yet reject the System, particularly the “most educated and intellectual” but perhaps the racial and cultural angst behind Trumpism may percolate upward (with the help of the far-Right) infecting those “above.”


Those who instilled this remarkable “break in consciousness” were no different from those who touched off the other classic revolutions of modern times: writers, journalists, artists. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed, such men and women “help to create that general awareness of dissatisfaction, that solidified public opinion, which … creates effective demand for revolutionary change.” Suddenly, “the entire political education” of the nation becomes the “work of its men of letters.”

Note: not neckbeards tramping through the woods, eating twigs and branches, and firing off their “semi-automatics,” but “writers, journalists, artists” who help to create a “general awareness of dissatisfaction.” Time to turn Whites against the System!


That reforms gave rise to a revolution by 1989 was due largely to another “idealistic” cause: Gorbachev’s deep and personal aversion to violence and, hence, his stubborn refusal to resort to mass coercion when the scale and depth of change began to outstrip his original intent.

That’s the hope: that the “scale and depth of change” will begin to “outstrip [the] original intent” of the System’s “hesitant” steps toward racial reform.


THE ROLE OF ideas and ideals in bringing about the Russian revolution comes into even sharper relief when we look at what was happening outside the Kremlin. A leading Soviet journalist and later a passionate herald of glasnost, Aleksandr Bovin, wrote in 1988 that the ideals of perestroika had “ripened” amid people’s increasing “irritation” at corruption, brazen thievery, lies, and the obstacles in the way of honest work.

Again, sounds like today’s America, except that Whites are not quite ready to break with the System, or at least not on an explicitly racial basis. They need help – is Der Movement up to the task?

Anticipations of “substantive changes were in the air,” another witness recalled, and they forged an appreciable constituency for radical reforms. Indeed, the expectations that greeted the coming to power of Gorbachev were so strong, and growing, that they shaped his actual policy. Suddenly, ideas themselves became a material, structural factor in the unfolding revolution.

Please re-read the last sentence of that statement immediately above. And the read it again. And ponder…

Gradually, the legitimacy of the political arrangements began to be questioned. In an instance of Robert K. Merton’s immortal “Thomas theorem” — “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequence” — the actual deterioration of the Soviet economy became consequential only after and because of a fundamental shift in how the regime’s performance was perceived and evaluated.

This is absolutely essential. Whites are still spell-bound by the American myth, that somehow this is a “White man’s system” – we need to redefine for them the realty, to cause a “fundamental shift” in how the System’s racial policies are “perceived and evaluated.” Gregory Hood’s writings are good for this.

…a moral resurrection was essential. This meant not merely an overhaul of the Soviet political and economic systems, not merely an upending of social norms, but a revolution on the individual level: a change in the personal character of the Russian subject. As Mikhail Antonov declared in a seminal 1987 essay, “So What Is Happening to Us?” in the magazine Oktyabr, the people had to be “saved” — not from external dangers but “most of all from themselves, from the consequences of those demoralizing processes that kill the noblest human qualities.”

Saved how? By making the nascent liberalization fateful, irreversible — not Khrushchev’s short-lived “thaw,” but a climate change. And what would guarantee this irreversibility? Above all, the appearance of a free man who would be “immune to the recurrences of spiritual slavery.” The weekly magazine Ogoniok, a key publication of glasnost, wrote in February 1989 that only “man incapable of being a police informer, of betraying, and of lies, no matter in whose or what name, can save us from the re-emergence of a totalitarian state.”

Imagine this liberalization that becomes “fateful” and “irreversible” is one of a pro-White racial nature, forced upon the System by insistent pressure from far-Right agitation and growing White dissatisfaction.

The circuitous nature of this reasoning — to save the people one had to save perestroika, but perestroika could be saved only if it was capable of changing man “from within” — did not seem to trouble anyone. Those who thought out loud about these matters seemed to assume that the country’s salvation through perestroika and the extrication of its people from the spiritual morass were tightly — perhaps, inextricably — interwoven, and left it at that. What mattered was reclaiming the people to citizenship from “serfdom” and “slavery.”

Reclaiming Whites from “serfdom” and “slavery.”
What we need to do is present to the System a “lose-lose” situation, in which:
1) The System believes that it absolutely has to reform in a more pro-White direction in order to survive, but
2) If the System reforms in such a direction it will initiate a series of event leading to its eventual downfall; the first relaxation of anti-White suppression will initiate an irreversible series of events in the direction of balkanizing chaos and racial nationalism.
Salter’s conception of “democratic multiculturalism” helps here. What the “movement” peanut gallery and its previous criticism of my writings in this regard (“it dishonors our ancestors” – in other words, let’s just keep on reading The Turner Diaries and measuring each other’s cephalic indices with calipers) didn’t quite get is the idea this is merely means and not ends. The whole point is to force a “lose-lose” situation on the System in which they will have no choice but to initiate liberalization – “hesitant” or otherwise – in order to keep the White Man (who after all is the one who keeps the System running) engaged in the multicultural consensus. The System wants Whites to continue slaving away to support a System that is destroying those same Whites. We want Whites to “wake up.” Given that most revolutions seem to follow a pattern of “first fissures appear in the dam and then the floodwaters rush through” we need to get to the point of generating those fissures, the initial liberalization, the initial relaxation of oppression, the initial signs of weakness and appeasement from the System that will make Whites “smell blood” and realize more is possible.
That is why the chaotic racial energy unleashed by the Trump campaign is so important, why Trump’s right-wing populism is like a punch to the solar plexus of the System. The System is a bit stunned, but can recover if they are allowed to. We must not allow them the time to recover.
Instead of the breathless rounds of self-congratulations for their fifteen minutes of fame, the Alt-Right should be leveraging the Trump phenomenon to enhance the awareness of White dissatisfaction; indeed, to actually contribute to growing the dissatisfaction to levels sufficient to threaten the System and force concessions.
Now, of course, the System will hope that an initial round of concessions will be sufficient to satisfy Whites, to co-opt Whites, to ensure that Whites will accept a new anti-White race replacement status quo just a little bit less onerous than what we have now.
This is why the Right must resist its natural tendency to “declare victory and go home” and instead emulate the Left, who go from real victory to real victory by: never admitting any final victory, always striving for more, always demanding more, never being satisfied, always pushing the envelope, always taking each victory as merely a step toward the next one. Indeed, the Left treats each concession to their agenda as “blood in the water” that drives them and their followers to a “feeding frenzy” of further demands and agitation. 
Thus, similarly, whatever concessions the System is forced – repeat, forced – to make will merely be a stepping stone toward the next phase of agitation, dissatisfaction, and further concessions and further weakening of the System’s position. Each concession, each relaxation of oppression, will further awaken the sensibilities of the White population to the extent of their racial dispossession and the extent to which they have been racially and culturally defrauded. This will be a “feed forward” positively reinforcing feedback loop in which every System concession leads to a further set of demands and dissatisfaction, leading to even more concessions, leading to yet more agitation and chaos.
It is imperative therefore that the first set of concessions include the admission that White interests, and the group pursuit of those interests, are legitimate, that Whites have real grievances, and that Whites must have a seat at the “multicultural table.”
Now, of course the System is not stupid (although not as clever as they – and some of us – believe) and they will likely understand our strategy and try to derail it. They may try to get puppets, White “Uncle Toms,” to fill those “seats,” and try to use their propaganda megaphone to convince Whites that the initial concessions are enough.
This is why we need to be planning and organizing now, and be steadfast in our demands – demands that MUST include that only genuine activists fill those seats and the demand that WE, not the System, decide in what manner the concessions will be implemented.
In order to have such leverage, and to get the ball rolling to induce the original concessions to begin with, there must be sufficient agitation to FORCE the System to go against their every inclination. That must be increasing racial chaos and balkanization that threatens to undermine the very existence of the multicultural consensus, an unsettling force of dissension and unrest that creates a situation so untenable that the System is forced – no matter how hesitant they may initially be – to come to the bargaining table and deal with real pro-White activists and make concessions that will integrate those activists into positions that can be leveraged to strong-arm the System even more. Thus, the legitimization of White interests, and of White activists, will damage the social pricing mechanism, and allow for more overt pro-White activism, and establishment of integrated structures of White propaganda and empowerment. Once those are established, it is only a matter of time…
But again, this is not going to happen on its own. Only steady balkanizing pressure, only a steady increase in racial dissension and unrest, in which Whites, for the first time in a long time, take an active role in defending their own racial interests, will force the System’s hand in the manner.
Is Der Movement up to this challenge? Or will they let the Trump phenomenon fade away, once again demonstrating incredible uselessness and incompetence?

Bullied Into Submission

White male pansies.

According to the gamesters, your response should be:
damn, i’m torn. do i want a thriving society or easier access to sex? yeeeeah… i’ll take the latter and leave the self-sacrifice required of the former for the anti-poolside chumps
According to real men, the proper response is: SMASH THE SYSTEM.
Baby steps first: democratic multiculturalism.  First, weaken and undermine the system, be the termites eating away at the foundation, be the moles burrowing deep inside, be the biting pests always tormenting and then flying away.
Once suitably weakened, all the rotten edifice needs is a strong enough push, and it all comes crumbling down.