Category: Duke

Who’s a White Nationalist?

Not Brimelow.

An online dictionary definition of “nationalism” –

…identification with one’s own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

It’s simply this question – what does one consider their “own nation” to be? If the highest form of “own nation” is “the White race” (however defined), and if the above definition applies, then one is a “White nationalist.”  Of course, it is a bit more complex than that, since the culture and ideology of White nationalism has evolved to the point where we can say that certain ideologies, memes, and paradigms are consistent, or not consistent, with being a White nationalist.  Read this.

For “white nationalist” to be a slur, the term itself would have to be generally accepted as immoral or derogatory. It would also have to be used in a way that incorrectly labels one a white nationalist. Calling Greg Johnson, a white nationalist, for example, is not a slur. He embraces the label.

The interpretation of the term white nationalist is just one interesting aspect of the lawsuit brought by Peter Brimelow, editor of VDare. He is suing the New York Times, according to Brimelow, for falsely labeling him a white nationalist. He not only denies being a white nationalist, he claims the company deliberately labeled him as such in an effort to damage his reputation, even after he made many good faith attempts to point out the error to them. He is seeking $5 million in damages.

Another interesting bit of this is the unspoken dispute over what exactly makes someone a white nationalist. Greg Johnson, for example, has written a book describing white nationalism. He calls himself a white nationalist. Peter Brimelow, in contrast, has never used to term to describe himself and has been generally negative toward the use of it as a label. No doubt both men share similar opinions on many matters, but they have many important differences as well.

Who is the best to decide if someone is a White nationalist? How the person in question self-identifies of course is important.  Perhaps even more telling and powerful is the opinions of others who consider themselves to be White nationalists. Do they consider the person in question to be a White nationalist or not? The opinions of numbers of actual self-identified White nationalists are no doubt more accurate than that of the hacks of The New York Times.

Readers of this blog know that I – a self-identified White nationalist – am no fan of Peter “Happy Penguins” Brimelow.  However, I 100% support his action against The New York Times.  Why?  Because Brimelow is 100% correct and 100% honest in denying being a White nationalist.

Brimelow is not a White nationalist.  A true White nationalist would not give a forum to the likes of Derbyshire, never mind being friends with that “man.”  I view Brimelow, if he actually has an ideology other than being pro-Happy Penguins, as a Paleoconservative immigration restrictionist and as someone who, if they are not a HBDer themselves, is certainly sympathetic to the “race realist” view.  I see no evidence that Brimelow subscribes to ORION – Our Race Is Our Nation – no evidence that he believes that the likes of Michelle Malkin and “Rosie” Derbyshire should not be part of his nation.

Likewise, I do not view Jared Taylor as a White nationalist, and, indeed, he has self-identified as a “White advocate” and a “Yellow supremacist”  as well as a “race realist.”  Ideologically, he’s similar to Brimelow, albeit being more strongly identified to both a “White identity” and to HBD.

Greg Johnson? Well, he not only self-identifies as a White nationalist, but also writes books attempting to tell us all what White nationalism means.  On the other hand, his extreme identification with petty nationalist ethnonationalism, and his blog’s promotion of what I term “ethnoimperialism” (the ideology of Northwest Europeans colonizing other people’s nations and turning those nations into their private brothel or “crash pad”) calls into question just what kind of White nationalist he really is.  That’s a debate for another time.

Pierce, Strom, and Duke can be considered White nationalists, but for them, the question always is/was what precisely do they mean by “White” – in fact an issue for most of Der Movement.

Spencer is floating in an ideological “no man’s land” currently.  Certainly, in the past he could be considered to be a White nationalist; what he is now I do not know.

MacDonald? I do not know how he self-identifies, and his current infatuation with HBD Nordicism raises the question as to his ingroup, but I suppose he may fall in the same category as Pierce, Strom, and Duke – it depends on what you mean by “White.”  A clarification on his part with respect to self-identification would be helpful.

As far as all of the Millennial activists out there, all I hear from them is basically Beavis-and-Butthead sniggering, so who knows?

Brimelow, however, is fully justified in his action and we can only wish him well in that endeavor.

“Movement” comments:

Laurence
Posted January 14, 2020 at 10:30 am | Permalink
Just to be balanced about men going bonkers for sexual favors, some established and purportedly sane men have gone ga-ga for bum-boys, Jeremy Thorpe and Lord Brown come to mind.

Yes, and not only them.

From TOO:

In these times of true degenerate modernity we really do need figures that are wholesome and are worthy of emulation. That’s why Hitler has so many admirers in our circles, nobody (apart from the usual suspects) has yet produced any evidence of degeneracy or weirdness in his personal life.

Two words: Geli Raubal.

The Johnson Conundrum

The resiliency of Greg Johnson: An analysis of a skillful political actor.

Question: How has Greg Johnson not only survived various scandals and other embarrassments but emerged stronger than ever?

After the episode of the Pilleater Chronicles and its fallout and then the revelations about Polignano, folks like Forney were telling us (and this was nearly a year ago) that “Greg Johnson is finished” etc. The whole Forney-Friberg-Spencer anti-Johnson axis (that exists even though they may have squabbles among themselves; e.g., Forney being critical of Spencer) more or less adopted the line that Johnson and Counter-Currents were in terminal decline – “finished”- and  that there was no recovery from the scandals. These types were saying the same thing after Johnson was publicly humiliated by the HopeNotHate Hermansson infiltration, and his having Hermansson give the keynote address at a Counter-Currents meeting.  Then there was the Lewis infiltration.  Any one of these scandals would have been sufficient to delegitimize, perhaps terminally sink, another, less resilient, “movement leader.”  After each of these scandals, Johnson’s leading rivals in the Alt Right loudly predicted his imminent “movement” demise.

They were of course wrong, and Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents continues to go on strongly, raising money, continuing to be “big” in Der Movement – in fact, it is the Forney-Friberg-Spencer faction that seem to be in decline. If there has been any “victor” in the feud, it has been Johnson. Forney continues doing his thing but with very limited influence, Friberg apparently the same, and Spencer is reduced to wrapping himself in the Iranian flag and tweeting about his love life. On the other hand, the destructive Frankenstein monster that is Counter-Currents keeps on lumbering along, and it was Johnson who made international news after being arrested in Norway.  Johnson stands up there with Taylor and MacDonald as among the “Elders” of the (particularly, American) “movement”- I would argue that Greg Johnson’s power and influence within the “movement” has never been greater.

So, how has this happened?  How did Johnson emerge like a phoenix rising out of the ashes from these scandals to reach a pinnacle of influence, despite the scandals, and, perhaps just as importantly, despite the fact that Counter-Currents has displayed a shocking decline in quality, with the most moronic, superficial, hypocritical, pretentious, and juvenile crop of “writers” ever assembled at any one Far Right site?  Counter-Currents should be sliding into Majority Rights-style oblivion and irrelevancy, but, so far, unfortunately, the opposite is happening.

It would be instructive to examine why all of this is so. Such an examination will shed much needed light on Der Movement, and illuminate the underlying rot within that allows someone like Johnson to prosper.  After all consider – Spencer received more criticism, attacks, and disavowals because of the nonsense of Hailgate than did Johnson for the Pilleater and Polignano scandals, which were, at least in my opinion, far worse.

I don’t recall Taylor, Brimelow, and Devlin et al. publicly distancing themselves from Johnson over issues that are far more serious than Spencer acting like an immature jackass.


Some possible reasons for all of that include:

The affirmative action program.  The “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action program is an important factor here. Johnson claims to be of English descent, of founding Old American stock, whose family has been in America since colonial days; he is also phenotypically Nordic.  Now, since Spencer himself is an Anglo-Germanic Nordic, and he has collapsed as an activist, having the proper ancestral (and phenotypic) bonafides is necessary but not sufficient.  One can have the “proper” ancestry and phenotype, but if they crash and burn completely, and are politically inept, nothing will help them. On the other hand, if Johnson was a wop or hunkie – or even possibly a “Nordish” mick – he would have not survived the scandals, regardless of anything else. Ancestry and phenotype are important factors here.

Lesson.  If you don’t have the “right” ancestry, forget about trying to have any influence in Der Movement. If you do have the “right” ancestry, then you really have to be incredibly inept and politically clumsy to fall from grace (e.g., Spencer).

Costs vs. benefits.  Let’s compare Spencer’s Hailgate to Johnson’s scandals with respect to the response (or lack thereof) of other “movement leaders.” I argue that “movement leaders” may well have had practical political reasons for disavowing Spencer while being silent about Johnson, through the weighing of costs vs. benefits.

Hailgate – although in and of itself petty nonsense – became national news because of the Alt Right-Trump connection and because of Spencer’s notoriety at the time, and because of the fact that the 2016 election results were fresh in everyone’s memory. The media leveraged Spencer’s poor judgment to attack other Alt Right leaders as “suit and tie Nazis.” This endangered the status, reputation, and money-making ability of various “leaders” and gave them a very strong motivation to publicly disavow and criticize Spencer. The benefits of disavowing Spencer were clear. What about the costs? These “leaders” probably considered Spencer an immature lightweight and judged that the costs of disavowing Spencer were minimal – Spencer would not, or could not, mount an effective counter-attack against them, and the supporters of these other “leaders” would be unlikely to withdraw support over their Hailgate criticism.

On the other hand, Johnson’s scandals have not been national news and have not directly impacted other major Alt Right figures. These others may have a moral and ethical obligation to criticize Johnson, but what do any of these types care about morals and ethics?  It’s a purely utilitarian consideration for them – there are little practical benefits for disavowing Johnson.  On the other hand, there are real costs. Johnson is a much more dangerous person than is Spencer, and more likely to mount an effective counter-attack. One could imagine Counter-Currents suddenly critiquing Amren over the JQ or once again saying Amren conferences are a waste, or critiquing VDARE’s taking so much “movement” money or once again criticizing Derbyshire, etc.  The same intensity that Counter-Currents focused on the likes of Spencer and Friberg would now be aimed at these other targets.  So, there’s a cost with no practical benefit, and issues of morals and ethics and character mean nothing.  So, these folks give Johnson a “pass” for things worse than what Spencer did.

Lesson. Morals, ethics, and character count for nothing in Der Movement and among “movement leaders.” It is all practical considerations of image, status, and “movement” politics, with a focus on assuring maintenance of supporters and supporter donations.  A well-connected person whose influence is feared by others of like standing can get away with more than someone like Spencer, who is more isolated and is not considered to have the gravitas to be a “heavy player” in the “game.”

The political game.  Johnson, for all his manifest faults, is very, very good at playing the political game – or at least as good as someone who has horrifically bad judgment and who likes feuding can be. Johnson inevitably ends up on bad terms with people in the “movement,” including former allies, but you’ll note that he typically only engages in one major feud at a time.  Former allies may become enemies, and sometimes, typically briefly, vice versa, but these twists and turns occur one at a time. He never engages in any major “two-front war.” Alliances are formed and broken, one feud is engaged in and won, former allies then become foes, new allies are recruited, etc.  Jorjani was used skillfully here – and that was as much the result of Spencer’s political clumsiness and it was Johnson’s skill at using people for just as long as he needs them to undermine his main foes. All these people are used and discarded as fits the agenda, with consummate political skill. As historical analogies, consider Julius Caesar using and discarding Pompey or Augustus doing the same with Marc Antony.  Or how Catherine the Great used and discarded “court favorites” (including lovers) to achieve power. Hitler used and the discarded various people during his rise to power – Eckart, Strasser, Rohm, etc.  One can consider how various organized crime figures rose to prominence through alliances, which they later discarded when it no longer suited them (often killing the former allies).  The Kennedys used Mafia connections to reach the White House, after which Robert Kennedy moved against these former allies. Then there’s the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939.  You get the picture.

Johnson is also good at “glad-handling” and having friendships with “movement” bigwigs that – for as long as they last before falling apart – provide a cushion of support and prevent those bigwigs from calling out Johnson’s faults. Taylor as an example.  Note that Johnson won’t call out Taylor for “being in bed with the press” (as I note here), while criticizing others. Note that Johnson now supports and attends Amren conferences despite telling us several years ago that attending such meetings was a waste of time and money (money being, of  course, better used for “D’Nations” to Counter-Currents).  Thus, in summary, despite his proclivity to feud, Johnson has still maintained friendly relations with a number of “movement” bigwigs, and that no doubt helps insulate Johnson from the consequences of his manifest failures and various scandals.

Further, whatever what actually happened, the actual “technics” of each accomplishment, the end result was that – if Polignano’s correspondence with Friberg can be believed – Johnson was able to remove Polignano as having any control over Counter-Currents. And John Morgan, originally with Arktos, has ended up with Counter-Currents.  Whether all of this was the result of Machiavellian plotting or just serendipity, one cannot argue with the results. Johnson has weathered all sorts of storms, out-maneuvered rivals, and has a firm control of the Counter-Currents “empire,” such as it is. He therefore is revealed as a reasonably savvy player in the game and art of “movement” politics.  Much better than the likes of Spencer, who, by contrast, is politically clumsy and inept.

Lesson. Being right is not enough to advance your position; being wrong is not enough to retard your progress.  Humans are essentially political animals, and in any grouping that has individuals vying for status and to advance their agendas, political maneuvering will be important.  Johnson is a savvy political operator and thus has not only survived scandals that would have wrecked other prominent activists, but he has prospered while his main rivals (e.g., Spencer) have fallen by the wayside. 


Should activists involved in Der Movement concentrate on such internal politics? The benefits are clear.  What about the costs?  There are costs of time and energy.  There is the mental costs; this can be exhausting, particularly for people who are by nature introverts.  Political maneuvering can always backfire. It also compromises, to some extent, honor and integrity, and, if it is noticed by others, can stain one’s reputation as an honest broker.

A cost-benefit analysis can be done. It depends on context.  An overt and public activist like Johnson has more to gain from politics than someone pseudonymous; however, pseudonymous activists can still benefit. Extroverts have it easier than introverts, but as long as they are not extreme and semi-autistic, introverts can still benefit from politics. The main thing is the affirmative action program.  An activist of Northwest European ancestry – particularly those of British/German/Scandinavian ancestry – can derive great benefit from engaging in “movement” politics since they have great potential for advancement and a rapid rise to leadership. On the other hand, activists of Southern (especially) or Eastern European ancestry  have little or nothing to gain since, regardless of how skilled they may be at the political game, their ancestry bars them from rising to the extent of those from more favored groups. Years of effort can be quickly wiped out by comments about “Moops and Mongols” and other manifestations of “movement” ethnic fetishism. So the relative costs and benefits in this case primarily vary based on their potential benefits, and that varies based on the ancestry of the activist in question. Now, in a truly pan-European movement, this factor would be eliminated, but perhaps there political maneuvering would be somewhat less important than it is in Der Movement.

The cabal and the alliances. Political connections go beyond just one-on-one relationships and include group alliances. There has been talk about a “homosexual cabal” in the “movement” – one that I was warned about as far back as the early 2000s.  There is also the HBD-ethnonationalist-Nordicist alliance. All these groupings, working behind the scenes, can provide crucial support for “movement leaders” who are well-connected.  On the other hand, people like Spencer, more isolated, and whose support is out-in-the –open and very shallow, have no deep support network that can provide a cushion in times of crisis.

Lesson. What goes on behind the curtain is often more important than what goes on in front of it.

The personal revelations. The personal revelations on the Pilleater tape did not have the effects that Forney, Friberg, and company thought, because it was basically an “open secret” in the “movement” for anyone who had a triple digit IQ, and anyone demanding “proof” was basically just engaging in obstructionism or were low-level idiots without any standing in the “movement.” Other aspects of that tape didn’t have much of an impression because things – such as bad behavior at meetings – have been rumored for a long time.  As far as Polignano goes and the revelations in that discussion with Friberg, who in the “movement” really cares about someone with a name like “Polignano” anyway?  Someone named “Johnson” screwing over someone named “Polignano” is a positive in Der Movement, not a negative.

Lesson. What people think is going to have a profound effect upon revelation may not do so, if the revelations are already suspected and/or known, or if the people hearing the revelation actually don’t think what they are hearing is really a bad thing at all.

Ideological flexibility.  Johnson maximizes support with remarkable ideological flexibility – what some would call inconsistency or even hypocrisy.  Johnson is a leading proponent of petty nationalist ethnonationalism – yet Counter-Currents publishes and promotes the work of Francis Parker Yockey and previously hosted some of my own essays promoting pan-Europeanism.  Counter-Currents has both promoted and criticized HBD, has both promoted and criticized Nordicism, has both promoted and criticized racial purity, has both promoted and criticized Amren conferences, has promoted both Traditionalism and Futurism, has White-Knighted as well as run the work of Devlin, Johnson has harshly criticized Derbyshire and then shared the stage with him at Amren – you get the picture.  This maximizes support and lets Johnson have a foot in different “movement” factions.

Lesson. Being two-faced has its advantages.


Practical consistency.  The ideological inconsistency doesn’t bother the Type I retards that constituent the majority of Der Movement, since their own “ideology” is simply a mash-up of Kempian Nordicism, chugging gallons of milk, screaming “Kek!,” etc. Indeed, as stated, the inconsistency is an advantage to maintain appeal among “activists” who are a cut above the dimwit majority and actually do care about ideas, but themselves are still too dim too realize that Counter-Currents has been all over the board on a number of important issues.


More important perhaps is consistency in the practical realm.  Successful activists tend to be ones that consistently are associated with a particular project or group or organization of project.  Taylor with American Renaissance.  Johnson with Counter-Currents.  MacDonald with The Occidental Observer and his various books.  Pierce (and Strom, who has survived controversy of his own) with the National Alliance. On the other hand, the more unsuccessful activists, whose careers are less than the sum of their parts – Spencer and Duke for example – have a history of jumping from one failed project to another.  At some point, I lost track of all of the various groups that Duke formed, led for a few years, and then abandoned. There was the White version of the NAACP (NAAWP), then wasn’t there something called NOFEAR, then EURO, etc?  And that was after his Klan days and his foray into electoral politics.  Spencer has had his varied Alt Right websites sites and the Alt Right corporation, and all sorts of other podcasts and projects, jumping from one to another. All of this failure and inconsistency  does not inspire confidence. On the other hand, stability such as Johnson with Counter-Currents gives him an air of “competence” and is another reason he survives scandal better than Spencer.

Conclusion. This is by no means a comprehensive analysis, but touches upon what I see as some of the main reasons why Johnson has survived and prospered, while Spencer has imploded.  Of course, some of it is just better judgment – Johnson had the good sense not to be involved in Unite the Right.  But, still, comparing the flak that Spencer got for Hailgate compared to Johnson thriving after scandal begs for an explanation – that I have tried to supply.  As further events unfold, more such analysis may be forthcoming.


The underlying lessons here demonstrate the importance of political networking, and various non-merit attributes, in elevating and sustaining individuals in positions of prominence in Der Movement. They provide a blueprint for “activists” with the proper affirmative action-approved ancestral backgrounds to follow to effectively play the political game, and allow others to better understand how they are being “played” by the “leaders” they so blindly support.


Johnson is not going anywhere; he is seemingly here to stay. Although there are some in the “movement” who will never accept him, enough others will so as to ensure that he will be a force within Der Movement for years to come, barring any unforeseen circumstances. And it is difficult to imagine what such circumstances could occur that would dethrone Johnson from his “leadership” position. Given the previous incidents and scandals that have proven unable to do so. As we can see, Amren continues to peddle Johnson’s work. One can expect that Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents will continue to have a significant impact on racial activism and prove the predictions of Forney false.


In any case, we can hope this analysis provokes more discussion and debate and, perhaps, soul-searching among “movement” “activists” with respect to their “leadership.”

Der Movement Makes You Stupid

And HBD is particularly bad.

Following up on this, let us not forget this.

Sweden’s population is highly individualistic, but operates with a societal consensus, while Sicily has strong families but little cooperation at the societal level.

Now, contrast that with MacDonald’s shallow assertion that Southern Italy is collectivist. Now, the Counter-Currents review is of the same work of MacDonald that MacDonald himself was discussing. Thus, if we try to merge both viewpoints of the same work, then we can conclude that a people that exhibit “little cooperation at the societal level” are “collectivist.”  That’s obviously an oxymoron.  These guys, lost in their sea of lies and hand-waving spin, simply can’t keep their stories straight.  Also note that peoples who are “highly individualistic” also operate “with a societal consensus” – which is almost as inconsistent as stating that folks who can’t cooperate at a level higher than the family are somehow “collectivist.”  Amoral familism is not collectivism, quite the opposite, and the “highly individualistic” Germanic populations cannot be that “highly individualistic” as they are prone to “societal consensus” of a mind-numbing conformity (see the SJW hysteria currently infecting the West).

So, in summary, Der Movement believes that people that operate with a societal consensus, easily invest in collective social goods, and who effectively work together are “highly individualistic;” while people who do not cooperate at the societal level, resist investing in collective social goods, and are composed of squabbling atomized families who don’t pull together are “collectivist.”  If that sounds absolutely crazy to you, that’s because it is.

It’s ludicrous.  If Italy – at least the south – was “collectivist” then they’d band together to at least stop the “migrant” invasion of their nation.  What’s the reality? The anti-immigration Salvini (a “Germanic” “individualist” Northern Italian, by the way) is gone, and the influx (aided and abetted by Northern Europeans) continues. The Italian mafia actually enables human trafficking of illegal immigrants into Italy in order to make money. They are destroying their own people and culture for individual and family self-aggrandizement. Collectivist?  Is corruption and organized crime collectivist? If you really want to see collectivism as a national trait look at the Jews and the Chinese, the HBD favorites. Collectivism?  How about German National Socialism?  That seems to be a lot more “collectivist” than a bunch of Afrowops scurrying around, all wrecking their own nation and people to make a buck.

HBD makes people stupid.  Der Movement’s fetishistic dogmas make people stupid. Always having to shove a square peg of dogma into a round hole of reality should cause severe cognitive dissonance in all of our “movement” “rock stars.”

So, this is a good Taylor video, but it demonstrates a lack of self-awareness.

“Say yes to your friends and no to your enemies.”

So – maybe stop slamming White ethnics and praising Jews?  Who’s been trying to shut down Amren?  Jewish organizations and/or organizations with strong Jewish support.  Who, on the other hand, used to be Amren supporters, even writers? Who do you attack?  Who do you praise?  Indeed, stop taking orders from people who hate you.

 

And, getting back to the main point of the video – what does this say about that “sincere man of genuine greatness” Donald Trump?  Any comments about that Greg?

It isn’t just HBD that makes people stupid.  Der Movement itself makes people stupid. Look what’s happened to people who’ve marinated in the “movement” milieu for years. MacDonald went from being a courageous and thoughtful scholar to a sweaty Kempian, spouting nonsense that isn’t even internally consistent or even superficially logical, never mind historically accurate. Johnson went from being a reasonably useful metapolitical contributor to a gaslighting grifter concerned about spiting Richard Spencer and garnering as much “D’Nations” as possible. David Duke, maniacally focused on “Zionism” to the exclusion of everything else, has been reduced to endorsing an anti-White half-Samoan leftist who supports reparations for Negroes. The National Alliance has become a pathetic caricature of what it was under Pierce (which itself wasn’t so hot). Whatever promise Spencer had as an activist before he took over NPI has been flushed down the toilet, and he’s become basically a meme for both the Left (elbowing in the face videos) and the Right (the face of Beavis-and-Butthead White nationalism). Taylor is an intelligent and well-educated man, and articulate enough to have been a viable political candidate (in the proper context), but he doesn’t realize when his video criticisms of others apply equally to the direction Amren has taken (HBD is also a problem there). And if guys like Johnson label me as “crazy and bitter,” then chalk that up to my experiences in the “movement” as well.  If Ted Sallis is now unbalanced and defective, as my detractors claim, then that’s from 25 years exposure to the madness of the “movement.”

Food for thought, isn’t it?

They’re Lying to You

Can’t get their stories straight.

From a previous post, we remember this nonsense.

Now, here’s a key part:

There is a right-sizing to assimilating and naturalizing other peoples. Rome did well with assimilating Europeans with Indo-European/Early Farmer genetic stock, had more problems when it came to Indo-European/Western Hunter Gatherers from the north, and they didn’t assimilate Jews at all.

The implications of that is that the Romans (and other European peoples they assimilated well; for example, the other peoples that were located in what today is Italy, as well as the Greeks) were predominantly “Early European Farmer,” and these peoples were distinct from the more problematical northerners who were predominantly “Western Hunter Gatherer” (with low levels of “Indo-European” in both). This is consistent with the idea of the HBD-Nordicists of a North-South European difference in place dating back thousands of years, since the Neolithic.

Ahh…but the mainstream Nordicists of Der Movement, the Kempian Nordicists, have long told us that the ancient peoples of the Mediterranean – Romans, Greeks, etc. – were Nordic.  The original Roman stock were akin to Dolph Lundgren in a toga.  Except, now, the HBD-Nordicists say, well, that’s not the case, the folks in the togas were “Early Farmers” and the Dolph Lundgrens were “Western Hunter Gatherers.”  No, no, a thousand times, no!  What would Arthur Kemp, David Duke, and Ash Donaldson say?  Blasphemy!  March of the Titans!  Pierce weeps!  Who We Are!  

Taking all of these fetishists as a whole – and they should be taken as a whole since they post on the same blogs and are in fundamental agreement on most things and won’t even openly acknowledge the contradiction outlined above – we can see that they cannot get their story straight.  And when folks cannot get their story straight, what does that tell you? That they are LYING to you. Der Movement has been openly lying to you about race for many decades.  Lie after lie after lie and now they cannot keep their lies straight, so they practice cognitive dissonance and pretend that their views are not internally inconsistent. Assuming that they are not so stupid (or deluded by blind fanatical dogmatic faith in their fetishistic belief systems) that they cannot realize the contradiction, then they must hold you in utter contempt, assuming that you won’t notice it (to be fair to them, most “activists” actually do not notice it).

Also note how this guy uses the term “Early Farmer” while the correct term used in the literature is “Early European Farmer” – have to delegitimize the “European bonafides” of that group, eh?  Wipe that sweat off your forehead, fetishist.

Sweden’s native population contains the most Western Hunter Gatherer DNA, and Sicily’s people have the most Early Farmer genetic material. Sweden’s population is highly individualistic, but operates with a societal consensus, while Sicily has strong families but little cooperation at the societal level.

Gee, you think that the long history of invasion and foreign domination in Sicily may have something to do with it as well?  Also, there is my theory of genetic heterogeneity, which builds upon the observation that diversity decreases the willingness to invest in collective social goods. This may hold true even in certain mono-ethnic societies, if the ethnies in question possess significant genetic heterogeneity, which is processed by members of that society through the proxy of phenotypic heterogeneity. The more different members of an ethny seem to each other, the less their willingness to invest in the broader society, and the greater the urge to invest in more “safe” concentrations of genetic interest, such as the family. Southern Europe has greater genetic heterogeneity than the North. Of course, ethnocentrism may play a role as well; although the North is more homogeneous, there are still some Bromstad/Bjork types there, who apparently do not trigger any anti-collective urges.  It is no doubt complex.

I believe that this Jewish ability to hijack altruistic punishment is unstable and only temporary. It is clear to this author that the single largest ethnic conflict in American history is that between Yankees and Jews. So far, the Jews have practiced aggression against the Yankee without receiving any response, but this situation will not continue indefinitely. People will always eventually respond to attacks.

Completely insane delusion.  Actually, according to the Lind thesis of American politics, the “Yankees” have been the most important and enthusiastic allies of the Jews in the destruction of America, and the unleashing of the Black/Brown plague on middle class and working class White Americans.  No, the single largest ethnic conflict is that of the Jewish-Yankee-Negro alliance vs. the White Southerner-White ethnic alliance, precisely what Lind outlined.  “Movement” heroes like John Lindsay, Hubert Humphrey, Elizabeth Warren, and Greta Thunberg are clearly on the side of Jewish interests, and all the sweaty fetishism and padded cell delusions can’t change that fact.

Stop lying, liars.

And if these guys truly believe that these differences between Europeans are so important, and if they will be honest enough to acknowledge the failures of the WHG-enriched “movement leadership,” why don’t they consider that it may be useful to get at least some input and leadership from more EEF-enriched individuals?  Perhaps some new perspectives would be useful?  But no.  They’d rather reinforce their monopoly than let others have a hand in the endeavor.

Yeah…let’s not disguise it.  First, all these types were foaming at the mouth that Trump the “God Emperor” was “the last chance for White America” back when I was openly calling Trump a race cuck and a buffoon and when Strom was telling you not to believe Trump. Second, and infinitely worse, Greg Johnson is STILL saying that Trump was/is “sincere” and is a “man of genuine greatness.”  That’s your WHG-enriched “leadership.”  Apparently, “social cohesion” is built by being painfully naïve, being wrong all of the time, and/or gaslighting readers in an attempt to avoid accountability for your endless failures and monumental errors of judgment.

Frankennutzi

Building the ideal activist.

Imagine trying to build the ideal White racial nationalist out of the attributes of different individuals, akin to how the Frankenstein monster was built out of the body parts of different individuals. We can call this creation Frankennutzi.

We can mix the pan-Europeanism of Francis Parker Yockey, Oswald Mosley, Norman Lowell, and Ted Sallis; the futurism of Marinetti; the radicalism of William Pierce; the intelligence of Kevin Strom; the optics of Jared Taylor; the gravitas and seriousness of Revilo Oliver; the scientific understanding of Ted Sallis; the ethnological insights of Frank Salter; the prescience and judgment of Ted Sallis; the JQ attitude of MacDonald; and the sexual realism of Roger Devlin.

We can also consider the reverse.

Frankennutcase:

The humility of Richard Spencer; the tolerance of criticism, ethnonationalism, judgment, and traditionalism of Greg Johnson; the class, elegance, and sexual restraint of Donald Trump; the trustworthiness of Silver; the rampant masculinity of James O’Meara, the fiscal responsibility of David Duke; the maturity and optics of Anglin, TRS, and the cosplay crowd; the science of Greg Cochran and Richard Lynn; the Nordicism of Hans Gunther, William Pierce, and Richard McCulloch; the gravitas of Parrott and Heimbach; the racial science of Durocher; the seriousness of Roissy; the attitude toward Asians of Majority Rights; the intelligence of the current crop of Counter-Currents writers; the racial loyalty of John Derbyshire; the JQ attitude of Zman; and, well, you get the picture.

Calling Out Der Movement’s Yang Gang

And the whole Man on White Horse Syndrome.

See this.

We have to endure this mangy Oriental preaching to us how grateful we have to be that his scabrous yellow family moved to the USA and blessed us all with their high, high-IQ.

Yang supports amnesty (with citizenship!), he supports the “Dreamers,” and he wants to increase the H-1B influx of Asiatics.  Yang is the GNXP dream come true, Asian cognitive elitists displacing Whites from the professions. Yang, an anti-White Asian (is there any other kind?), wants to pay off Whitey at the cheap, cheap price of $1,000 per month so as to convince Whitey to accept dispossession and a place at the bottom of the racial hierarchy, begging for handouts from inscrutable Orientals. And the moronic “movement” just loves Yang,  joins the “Yang Gang,” praises this piece of Asiatic filth, and they endorse him.

After all, he’ll give them a paltry handout each month – assuming that White “haters” are not specifically excluded.  Deplatformed from UBI – say it ain’t so!  The Eggroll disappoints!

Then you have the other hero, Duke, endorsing Princess Tulsi “Reparations for Negroes” Coconut.  I don’t know guys, you think that maybe anti-White non-White liberal Democrats with an axe to grind against Euro-Americans may not be the optimal candidates to endorse for the Presidency? Think hard now. Take your time; I wouldn’t want you to strain your brain cell (singular).

And that’s after the Trump humiliation, which they’ve apparently learned nothing from.  What next?  Maybe they’ll endorse Sharpton for President; after all, the good “reverend” really stood up to those “Zionist Jews” in Crown Heights, huh?

You can take a random collection of retards from your local Special Olympics and they would have more insight and judgment than the affirmative action misfits masquerading as “movement leaders.”

Keep on enabling them, you rank-and-file.  Rally to their aid when they have that tin cup a’rattlin’ – such as:

Realistically, that means that if Counter-Currents is going to continue to grow, we must cultivate a smaller circle of high-commitment, high-dollar patrons. I know you are out there. Until now, you have been part of a much larger donor pool, and you could take that into account when calculating your support. Now, we can no longer take that for granted. So I would like to talk to you about increasing your support to make Counter-Currents less vulnerable to deplatforming.

Open dem dere checkbooks, suckers!

Ol’ Humphrey was a real hypocrite:

…Wilmot Robertson argued that “demoralization” is a dire threat to populations. “If you are not permitted to utter or hear one good word about your own people,” he wrote, “then no matter how great your capabilities, you will be hard put to overcome the mental and physical paralysis imposed by demoralization.”

How about folks like “Robertson” demoralizing Southern Europeans?  Have dem dere swarthoids ever heard “one good word” about their “people” from Der Movement?  Or are we to agonize over those five foot tall superstitious greasers scurrying around like roaches?

By the way, anyone in Der Movement who is getting all excited over Reagan’s “monkeys” comments are morons – those comments were just blustering “Bunkerism;” Reagan did nothing positive for his White voting base (sound familiar?).

Der Alt Right Marches On

The usual failures and humiliations.

What happened? Answer: David Duke is a fool. So is Spencer. So is anyone in Der Movement who endorsed or otherwise supported or promoted Princess Tulsi Coconut.  It’s not even primary season yet, and the Quota Queens are already being humiliated by their Man on White Horse Syndrome (or in this case, Woman on Samoan Surfboard Syndrome) candidates. Keep on enabling your “leaders” though, because, well, you know….

Meanwhile, Trump’s DOJ is hard at work.  Is Trump going to plan an Otto Skorzeny-style operation (a la Mussolini) to rescue A$AP Rocky?  MAGA! Pepe!  Kek!

Meanwhile, again, Trump is monitoring the situation. What is there to “consider?”  Just do it or don’t do it.  You see, this way, Trump has all the MAGA yokels excited about the “impeding action” – without having to actually do anything except producing another blustering tweet.  MAGA!  Pepe!  Kek!

A perfect inversion of reality (from Counter-Currents, of course):

Darryl Cooper: Something that you just said, definitely it’s something I’ve observed. I think maybe ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago, a lot of the time when you would think of a White Nationalist, you’re not necessarily thinking of a savory character. And I think there was probably some justice to that stereotype. But a lot of the people that I’m meeting now, who self-identify as Alt Right, like you said, are college-educated people who are well put together, who carry themselves well, who often have families that are at a young age and who take care of them. It’s definitely a different brand of people than the Venice Beach skinhead that I would have run into when I was a kid. I don’t want to leave that theme of alienation that you were talking about right now, but we’re going to get into that in a little bit. I kind of have that earmarked.

From my approximately quarter-century involvement in the American racial nationalist scene, my impression is exactly the opposite.  Well, almost exactly the opposite.  I think the most accurate analogy is with the American class system. In the past, we had a real and dynamic (White) middle class that was the backbone of the nation, with some rich and some poor above and below.  Today, that middle is evaporating, and society is starting to separate into broad categories of “haves” and “have nots.” Similarly, in the past, you had a solid “middle class” or fairly useful activists, with, obviously, some real Nutzi nutcases at the bottom and a few intellectual types at the top.  Today, that middle ground of solid activists is almost gone; instead we have a greater number of intellectuals and academic types, but a huge number of dysfunctional Nutzis, juvenile jackasses, and freaks/perverts.  And even the upper crust of intellectuals are problematic, since many them are jackasses, freaks, perverts, drug addicts, grifters, those with terminally bad judgment, or some combination thereof.  Overall, the quality of activists is lower now than in the past, and the Alt Right in particular is – or more properly was – a real cesspool of manifest inferiority.