Category: Devlin

Der Movement in Der News, 1/12/17

It’s Der Usual.

The whole sovereign states vs. pan-Europeanism thing sounds real familiar. Where have I ever heard those types of arguments before?  Drawing a blank, am I.

It’s Ronnie Raygun, the original Man on White Horse.  Der Movement really learned their lesson with that. Hail Trump!  Hail Kushner!

Ellis Island-era immigrants to big cities like Chicago didn’t face the challenges of settling the American frontier. But the psychological costs still must have been high.

Maybe then they could have just stayed in their own dysfunctional countries?

Rules For (Far-Right) Radicals

Alinsky’s rules co-opted.

Let’s consider the thirteen rules:

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” – I have read innumerable articles in recent months from the lying press about how the GOP is full of crypto-White nationalists. Sounds good. Big if true.

As long as Der Movement is not fooled by this unhinged hysteria as well.

2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” – We’re not going to get most people to do things they have no habit of doing. We need to play to the strengths of our existing human resources.

That’s very important.  To quote Dirty Harry: “a man got to know his limitations.”  But in order to effectively utilize everyone’s skills and aptitudes we must carefully match individuals with responsibilities.  There are “leaders” who have no leadership skills or judgment whatsoever, as one example of a mismatch.

3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” – This and the above rule are standard Sun Tzu; know the enemy and know yourself or else you will be defeated. We must always stay abreast of the opposition, always be more informed, and always make them look stupid.

Making the Left look stupid really is not so difficult, IF the far-Right is clever.

4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” – There are two key forms of this: concern-trolling and malicious compliance. Doing so will stress them out by increasing their cognitive dissonance load, bleed them of resources, and generally waste their time and energy. You can also bait your opponents into producing specific outcomes if they are inflexible and dogmatic enough.

Yes, yes, yes.  And this is what Salter’s democratic multiculturalism is all about.  Use sociopolitical ju-jitsu to leverage all the Left’s talk about “inclusion” against them.  A multiculturalism that is for everyone, including and particularly the majority, conflates into a multiculturalism for no one.  The whole purpose of multiculturalism is to empower minorities while disempowering majorities; if the majority demands inclusion into multiculturalism – real inclusion that explicitly defends majority interests – then multiculturalism becomes diluted into nothingness and it falls apart.  Further, majority-friendly multiculturalism will enrage the minorities who believe that they have an innate right to exclusive ethnic mobilization, and this rage will enhance chaotic balkanization and therefore underscore the demands of the majority for inclusion = a virtuous cycle.  And all the idiots who say that democratic multiculturalism is “dishonoring our ancestors” – it is losing that dishonors our ancestors.  Winning is honorable, let’s win, and we can win by forcing the enemy to live up to its own rulebook. Let’s do it.

5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” – Most of the Alt Right’s troll ops consist of making a mockery of things. Ditto for our memes and critiques, e.g. cuckservative. It will probably go down as one of the greatest political slurs of all time: implying that your opponent gets off to watching his country be destroyed while his wife’s son votes against him. Cuckservative captures perfectly, and ridiculously, how the target serves every interest but the national.

Agreed.  And it applies to ridiculing Der Movement as well.

6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” – Trolling. Shitposting. Meme magick. It never gets old because there is always something new to provide a perspective on, or some new journalist to troll, or a comments section to raid, or a viral media campaign to be fought.

Well, we know some folks enjoy posting pictures of Pepe.

7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” – I think the only area the Alt Right sees diminishing returns on is putting out too blackpilled of a message, or being too gloom and doom. People don’t really want to hear that all the time, even when it has to be said. Things getting worse is after all part of the sales pitch as to why the Alt Right’s solutions are necessary. On the other hand, we have to have a positive and future-oriented message to put out, and that reaches a bigger audience than commiseration.

Sure, that should be the public face.  In private though, we really need to follow the Sallis Strategy: despair, disillusionment, chaos, hatred, rage, balkanization, bitterness, etc.

8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” – I tend to think this won’t be much of a problem because there is nothing the regime can offer us that would be satisfying other than its resignation.

Murray is naïve here.  We already have people saying “we won” after Trump’s electoral victory.

9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” – This certainly works in our favor given how (((neurotic))) the people we are engaged in holy memetic warfare with are. Even the implication of our presence somewhere or in something is enough to produce media hysteria and maelstroms of kvetching.

True, and this can be used to provoke the Left, see number seven.

10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” – At the moment this is our endless streams of daily content across multiple platforms, something we should continue to scale up and diversify.

See number eight.  I agree completely; now is the time to push, push, push, not to declare victory and go home.

11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” – We want to get to a point where being labeled by the establishment as a racist, sexist, or anti-Semite is a sign of having done something correct, being that bad people are saying it about you.

This is reasonable.

12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” – In other words, to win you actually need an answer to the issue. It can’t just be about opposition. We must be more than reactionary.

We need a Futurist visionary objective.  Criticism must be constructive criticism.  When I criticize Der Movement, I also present an alternative at the Western Destiny blog.

13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” – This is my favorite and I think Alt Right troll ops have done this quite well. First you get ahold of a luegenpresse journalist’s attention. Then you apply the other above tactics to him or her. Finally you get some sort of overdone reaction from them AND their supporters against you, which helps reinforce your own battle lines by showing that the issue you are up against is supported by x and x-plus, all of whom are against you. Many journalists noted during the 2016 presidential campaign that if one were of a Semitic surname (or known to follow a cult of volcanic demonology) and said something critical of Donald Trump, that he or she would be targeted and harassed on their social media or in the comments section. They began to reach out to one another about this and write about the responses they were getting, many going as far as labeling themselves with the triple parentheses symbol in solidarity. So what had basically happened was that our argument all along that overseas Israelis were uniquely opposed to nationalism in the United States was proven—by getting them to band together and admit that they were, and that they were proud about it too. See, all those people who hate Trump have (((something in common)))!

This is somewhat similar to something Nietzsche wrote: that he would focus on particular people in order to criticize ideas that those people represented, not criticizing the people as an end to itself.  

Similarly, I criticize individuals – or more often, types of individuals, without focusing so much on single individuals – to focus attention on their stupidities, including and especially in Der Movement. And why not?  I’ve learned well.  After all, for years, I’ve been the target of this personalized polarization, particularly by elements of Der Movement (e.g., those hostile to pan-Europeanism, those who oppose White ethnics in Der Movement).  And what is fascinating is that some of the same people who are upset with me for being a “shit stirrer” today were completely silent back then when the thoughtful and analytical Rienzi/Holliday/Sallis was being polarized by other shit-stirrers – a fascinating contrast that confirms the validity of my criticisms of Der Movement.

And – other than tone – how is my criticism of Der Movement really any different than this? Why is my criticism wrong and those other criticisms legitimate?  And some of the “esteemed movement leaders” quoted there, should we care what they think?  Brimelow? Taylor?  Spencer should wear their criticism as a badge of honor.  On the other hand, Greg Johnson and Devlin are serious and intelligent activists and their critique of the NPI follies need to be considered.  But the critique doesn’t go far enough.  If a rather silly episode is worthy of an obituary, what about endless decades of “movement” failure?  What about all the fossilized dogma, the silly “movement” narratives, the fact that Der Movement alienates a significant portion of America’s White population – the White ethnics who supported Trump?  And how about all these “movement” feuds, which go on and on – the specific personalities change, but the atmosphere stays the same.  In the past, it was Pierce vs. Covington or Pierce vs. Carto and today it is – what? – Johnson vs. Spencer?  So now we have a series of articles and podcasts at Radix putting their “spin” on “Hailgate” and we have articles at VDARE and Counter-Currents taking the opposite tack.  The more things change the more they stay the same.  Aren’t there more important things to polarize over?

In any case, Alinsky’s  “rules” are as good for the gander as for the goose.

Thanksgiving Trumpism

Cucks and others.

Exactly the opposite of what we need.  Donny Amnesty is getting more cuckified with each passing moment.  His slavish supporters on the right will say this is all “squid ink” as is, of course, his public disavowal of his own supporters, his unwillingness to investigate Clinton, his constant backpedaling, his appointment of arrogant Desi (redundancy) Haley (you now, the brownsteress who attacked Don Fats during the campaign) and his hob-nobbing with Romney, who also attacked Trumpcuck during the campaign.

No wonder Der Movement loves Trump so much.  Look at all they have in common – including a tendency to embrace and reward their enemies while kicking to the curb their friends, allies, and supporters.  Note to Trump: in general, South Asian aliens and Mormon cucks did NOT support you this electoral season.  You do understand that, don’t you?

Here’s an outrageous piece of filth who says that Trump needs to “go after” WNs, even though we’re all just a bunch of sad carnival clowns (albeit the dastardly Richard Spencer may be more dangerous!).  As this cuck (hey, Matt, confused about the meaning of that term?  Look in the mirror) laments that Trump isn’t doing enough to satisfy the complaints of those who didn’t vote for him, didn’t support him, and relentlessly attacked him in the most personal terms during the electoral season, we, at the same time, read that some in the Alt Right are “dismayed” that Der Touchback publicly disavowed his own supporters (and indeed wants to “look into” why they are “energized”).

This is a generally good analysis.

The correct formula for promoting an unpopular or widely misunderstood cause is the old Roman adage suaviter in modo, fortiter in re, meaning roughly: “gently in style, firmly in substance.” The scholars and thinkers at the heart of the Alt Right generally try to offer well-grounded analysis in calm prose in order to convince those able to consider matters rationally (while largely ignoring those who cannot).

I agree wholeheartedly, and I have been saying for years that mainstreaming is wrong – it is not the content that needs to be made more radical, it is just the way it is expressed.

Now, my many critics will turn around and accuse me of hypocrisy, saying that my own tone is far from “gentle in style.”  Indeed, they will assert, I engage in bitter invective, insults, radical pontificating and, yes, I suggest that some folks should be strung up with piano wire (after legally convened tribunals, of course).

These critics of course fail to point out:

1. That I’ve said repeatedly that some of the more radical material is tongue-in-cheek, openly mocking “movement” Nutzis and others, who for some reason don’t get criticized for the real thing that I get criticized for mimicking in a mocking manner.

2. When I have expressed myself “gently in style” I’ve been critiqued and attacked by (often the same) critics just as much or more than when I engage in over-the top radical rhetoric. Be honest critics – it’s the messenger you object to, and not the message.

3. If I was going to address a meeting attended by press (and normies) I would obviously use different language than I do at blogs intended for Der Movement as the main audience. And if my previous quotes were to be brought up, they can be re-interpreted, in gentle style, using Salterian rhetoric.

But no political movement can remain limited to such activity. Our very success makes it inevitable that we shall be joined by an increasing number of young hotheads with little patience for careful argument or measured statement. Movement veterans should bear in mind that these younger men have lived their entire lives under the watchful eye of petty tyrants determined to encase them forever a mental straitjacket, with the ultimate goal of demoralizing and destroying their race. Is it any wonder that when such young men are finally brought to a truer understanding of their situation, their first instinct is to turn on those whose malicious tutelage they have finally escaped? 

The behavior recorded in The Atlantic’s video clip is a figurative middle finger raised in defiance of today’s ideological enforcers—and these are, in many cases, truly contemptible people. Yet I hope the “Sieg-Heilers” will get mere defiance out of their system and go on to more constructive work. No serious activist can remain satisfied with playing the role his enemies have assigned him, which is what “Nazi LARPing” amounts to. The Alt Right needs foot soldiers, but even foot soldiers must be disciplined.

Indeed.  But can we do without bisexual Vietnamese women?

HBD, Pseudoscience, and Sports

More HBD stupidity.

It is unfortunate that a commentator like Devlin, who usually produces intelligent pieces, takes Lynnian HBD flim flam seriously.


Besides Lynn’s usual stupidities* – using achievement tests to “estimate” IQ while ignoring real IQ data for the relevant regions (e.g., Italy**), “estimating” IQ by averaging (!) the results of two different IQ tests given to completely different age groups of a given population (e.g., Ireland), and making gross errors in assigning IQ scores (e.g., from Wikipedia: The datum that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was taken from a group of children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain) – HBD seems to breed the sort of moronic “just so” stories that cross over into the realm of pseudoscience. 
What to make of this nonsense:

Certain sports even seem to favor clinal subgroups or crossings over any of the four fundamental racial groups. Cape Coloreds and South Asians are well-represented among successful cricket players, and this may be due to their middling physiques, in which neither ectomorphy not endomorphy nor mesomorphy predominate.

Well, let’s see how someone who is not a HBD cultist would evaluate this.


First, cricket is a sport of interest only to British Empire/Commonwealth peoples. If groups like Cape Coloreds and South Asians are “well-represented among successful cricket players” this is more likely due to default (not many other ethnies are interested in this sport) and due to the large population base of South Asians (of those teeming hordes, someone must be good at cricket), rather than to assume that “middling physiques” make groups better at a competitive sport.
Second, many of the skills required for cricket would be reasonably expected to be similarly required for American baseball, a sport mostly dominated (the few East Asian, Jewish, and mestizo outliers notwithstanding) by European-derived Whites, Negroes, and mulatto Hispanics (per capita vast over-representation by Cubans and Dominicans). 
Third, building on point two, we find that West Indians, who are racially West African, are also “well-represented among successful cricket players” despite deriving from a population base ~ two orders of magnitude smaller than that of South Asians.

From the mid-1970s to the early 1990s, the West Indies team was one of the strongest in the world in both Test and One Day International cricket. A number of cricketers considered among the best in the world have hailed from the West Indies: Sir Garfield Sobers, Lance Gibbs, Gordon Greenidge, George Headley, Brian Lara, Clive Lloyd, Malcolm Marshall, Sir Andy Roberts, Alvin Kallicharran, Rohan Kanhai, Sir Frank Worrell, Sir Clyde Walcott, Sir Everton Weekes, Sir Curtly Ambrose, Michael Holding, Courtney Walsh, Joel Garner and Sir Viv Richards have all been inducted into the ICC Hall of Fame.

Therefore, there is no reason to make hand-waving speculations about how certain sports like cricket are well-suited for “middling physiques.” Indeed, looking at the cricket-baseball comparison, the use of performance enhancing drugs in baseball suggests that non-middling physiques are better suited for both Anglosphere “bat and ball” sports.


*From Wikipedia: Lynn says he want to be remembered as “some loved him, some hated him, but everyone accepted that he kept the faith and told the truth as he saw it”
No, Richard, I think you are a complete fraud…unless “the truth as he saw it” means you are a doddering senile idiot. Either you are cognitively addled or mendacious.
**From Wikipedia: Other large surveys in Italy show much smaller differences in educational achievement.[63][64] Moreover, several subsequent studies based on the direct assessment of IQs failed to report significant differences among Italian regions. On the contrary, the results from the Southern half of the country are sometimes higher than those from the North Central regions.[65]

Devlin on Brandolini on Refutation

Something to consider, emphasis added:

F. Roger Devlin
Posted June 15, 2016 at 9:01 pm | Permalink
It is dispiriting to observe how many people can be taken in by disguising partisanship as neutral expertise. Nearly every so-called expert on “right wing extremism” or “white racism” is an example of this.
Your essay puts me in mind of the famous observation of computer programmer Alberto Brandolini that “The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” By the time you have produced a cogent refutation such as this piece, Timmy will have come up with five more lies or fallacious arguments.
That is why it is important to emphasize that he is demonstrably dishonest. Once you understand the well is poisoned, there is no need to examine every bucketful drawn from it.

Looking at this from another perspective, this is why I believe that blog comments (*), particularly unmoderated ones, are worse than useless – actually destructive.  It doesn’t take much effort for idiots, trolls, Nutzis, etc. to spew “bullshit” on a comments section.  After which, you have  a choice. You can either leave those comments unanswered, which third party observers can see as a tacit admission that those comments are correct or that at least you are unable to mount an effective riposte to them, or you can answer them, expending that “order of magnitude” more energy (and time) doing so.  And the time wasted could have been better spent on other things, for example, on new blog posts.  Moderation of comments helps, but also takes time and energy.

This is not a free speech issue; if the trolls, idiots, and Nutzis want to set up their own blogs and spew their “bullshit” then they have that right.  But freedom of association means that no one is obligated to host the “bullshit” on their own forums.  And all the self-described “political soldiers” out there should take their own self-description seriously and consider all of this as memetic warfare, not as a polite debating society.

But, of course, don’t listen to Brandolini – he’s not “one of the boys.” Who cares what that negroid kebab has to say, right?

*But, hey, isn’t Devlin’s comment an example of a useful blog comment? Yes it is, but, putting aside the fact that Counter-Currents has a moderated comments section, we must consider the signal-to-noise ratio.  Looking at the entire “movement” blogosphere, for every useful comment, there is a large number of stupid and destructive ones.  The best option is for a thoughtful commentator like Devlin to have his own blog.

Some Breakthrough Comments

Some good sense.

With respect to this, we read (emphasis added):

Pierre de Craon

December 30, 2015  2:56 pm | 
If the goal of Mr. Highlands was to exhibit a mind-set that out-Semites the Semites in vulgarity of carnal focus, he may be a contender for the gold. Others must decide the matter, however. I can’t help feeling that this is a field of combat whereon even to be present is to be tainted.

Bob

December 30, 2015  1:41 pm | 
With regard to the candidacy of Donald Trump, I find myself taking some comfort in the fact that I have in the past held beliefs that have been proven out to have been wrong.
I have maintained from the very beginning that the Trump candidacy was nothing more than the establishment’s attempt to direct the very real anger of American Whites into supporting a major party candidate rather than coalescing into a real political opposition movement. I continue to believe this to be the case because logic and history continue to point to this as the most likely “truth”, but I find myself more and more hoping that this too is another one of those episodes where I will be proven wrong.

How sad is it that my hopes and dreams are to be invested in something which every fiber of my being tells me is not real?

Bob

Nick Dean

December 30, 2015  1:19 pm |

We cannot and need not lie.
This is a White movement not a Right movement.

If we take the old left mantra ‘no enemies to the left’ to have been successful, and then honestly transfer it to real politics, then we say ‘no enemies more pro-White’.

This is in direct contrast to the way the Alt-Right uses the phrase, ‘no enemies to the right.’ They just want a pass from real racial nationalists for being too open to Jews and Chinese wives.
We aren’t making breakthroughs when these compromises become culture, our enemies are.


And with respect to Devlin’s comment about the importance of discussing the intersection of race and sex because we are a sexually reproducing species: I agree, and in general I have no problem with Devlin’s work. The problem is with scum like Roissy, who promotes “sitting poolside” while having casual sex with non-White women so as to “increase your sexual marketplace value.”  Not much sexual reproduction for Whites going on there.