Category: fisking

Turning on the Gaslight

Greg at it again.

Read this, emphasis added:

The Alt Right is dead.

Not a moment too soon.  And who predicted that? 

But the Alt Right was so useful…

As an example of what NOT to do.

…and so much fun…

Sure, that’s what it was all about, no?  Let’s obsess about a cartoon frog, scream about “Kek” (and I still don’t know what the hell that was all about, nor do I want to know), and act like juvenile jackasses.  Fun, fun, fun!

…that we need to create a replacement for it, the sooner the better. 

Don’t worry Greg.  You and the rest of your fellows will come up with another tragicomic failure in short order.

By the Alt Right, I mean the online movement of White Nationalist podcasters, bloggers, and social media trolls that emerged in 2014, coalesced around the Trump candidacy in 2015

2015…when EGI Notes was already warning you all that Trump was a vulgar ignorant buffoon and a fraud.

…then began to change the parameters of political debate with stinging memes like the “cuckservative” barb…

The only useful thing they did.

…becoming an international media phenomenon in 2016.

At which time I was a voice in the wilderness, preaching against the stupidity of the Alt Right, and predicting its downfall.

As I argue in my essay “What is the Alternative Right?” (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4) this new Alt Right was quite different from the original Alt Right that took its name from the Alternative Right webzine which Richard Spencer founded in 2010 and edited until 2012. The two Alt Rights differed in terms of ethos, intellectual influences, and preferred platforms and media, although they did come to share an ideology and a name. By the beginning of 2015, the new Alt Right was increasingly comfortable with White Nationalism as an ideology and the Alt Right as a brand.

Aside from the fact that #AltRight made a good hashtag, the main utility of the term was its vagueness. It allowed people to signal their dissent from mainstream Republicanism without embracing such stigmatized labels as National Socialism and White Nationalism. The Alt Right was thus an ideal “discursive space” in which White Nationalists could interact with, influence, and convert people who were closer to the political mainstream.

What an outrageous hypocrite. It was Johnson who was publishing pieces telling us that “the Alt Right is White nationalism or it is nothing at all.”  Gaslighting alert!

White Nationalists should always remember how we came to our views.

From Pepe and Kek?  Or from Savitri Devi and The Men Who Can’t Tell Time?

We should never lose sight of the fact that it takes an inner struggle, ended by an act of courage, to seriously consider heretical and highly stigmatized ideas, even online, in the privacy of one’s own home. 

But if you disagree with the Der Movement, Greg and others will stigmatize you.

Thus we need safe spaces for trying on new ideas and building new relationships. 

As long as you don’t criticize Greg and Counter-Currents.

The Alt Right provided that. It allowed people to experiment with being radical and edgy without being one of “those people” or burning one’s bridges to the mainstream.

Pepe!  Kek!

The result was a grassroots online insurgency mobilizing a vast network of highly creative individuals and injecting their memes and talking points into the mainstream, where they began shifting popular consciousness and political debates.

But, as I also argued in “What Is the Alternative Right?” (Part 2), the Alt Right’s success in attracting people led to a crisis. Both versions of the Alt Right were always, at core, White Nationalist outreach projects. But there was a perennial battle in the Alt Right between the people who advocated a “big tent” movement and the “purity spiralers” and Right-wing sectarians who wanted to enforce one ideological orthodoxy or another.

You mean the orthodoxy of the Alt Right being White nationalism, and the orthodoxy that the entire “movement” had to be subsumed into Alt Right “youth culture?”

I was in the big tent camp. I argued that outreach projects by their nature attract people who do not (yet) agree with us. But you can only convert people who don’t already agree with you. The whole point of the movement was to convert rather than repel people who disagreed with us.

No, the whole point of the Alt Right was to convert the entire “movement” into the Alt Right; that is, into a mash-up of Pepe, Kek, drunken podcasts, Arthur Kemp, and “shitposting.”

But the new Alt Right was such a successful outreach project that it was being flooded with large numbers of Trumpian civic nationalists, including non-whites, who rejected White Nationalism. I thought this was a good problem to have, and that we needed to take a deep breath, remind ourselves that truth is on our side, and then get back to the battle of ideas. Others, however, became concerned that the Alt Right brand would be hijacked or coopted by civic nationalists like Milo Yiannopoulos. This was the Alt Right “brand war” of the fall of 2016.

And some of us were concerned that the entire racial nationalist project would be “hijacked or co-opted” by the Alt Right, and that the Alt Right’s inevitable degeneration and/or collapse would ruin the “movement” that had become dependent on the Alt Right “brand.”  Which is exactly what happened.

The brand war came to an end with the Hailgate incident of November 21, 2016, when, before the cameras of the enemy media, Richard Spencer raised his glass with the words “Hail Trump, Hail our People, Hail Victory!” and people in the audience responded with Nazi salutes. This stunt indelibly identified the Alt Right not just with White Nationalism but with neo-Nazism in the minds of the whole world.

Johnson’s obsession with Spencer on display again. 

This led to a split between White Nationalists and civic nationalists, who came to be called the Alt Lite. To differentiate itself from the Alt Right, the Alt Lite dug in its heels on the one issue that White Nationalists most urgently need to destroy: the moral taboo against white identity politics. The great big beautiful tent, where civic nationalism and ethnonationalism could be debated—an argument that White Nationalists always win….

Notice how Johnson equates White nationalism with ethnonationalism, which is, if you think about it, an oxymoron.  

…was replaced by a great big ugly wall, over which only venomous tweet barrages were exchanged.

I thought walls were good? MAGA!

The expanding discursive space….

We’re all impressed by your big words there, Greg.  We defer to your intellectual brilliance.  You own that discursive space!

… in which White Nationalists could influence the mainstream was replaced by a self-marginalizing political sect which in 2017 began to focus on street activism…

Or on Kali Yuga and “traditionalism.”

…even though they were vastly outnumbered and outgunned by the Left, which could count on collaborators in the media and all levels of government, as well as armies of lawyers and effectively unlimited funds. White Nationalists have none of these advantages. Thus, a movement that had grown by attacking the system’s moral and intellectual weaknesses from a position of strength was replaced by a movement that attacked the system’s institutional power centers from a position of weakness. Catastrophic failure was inevitable.

And Sallis predicted all of this, while Johnson, Taylor, and MacDonald were happily jumping on the Alt Right bandwagon.

By the end of 2017, much of the American White Nationalist movement was simply exhausted from the wave of doxings, deplatforming, and lawfare that followed the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville…

Yes, as I predicted, tying White nationalism to the Alt Right turned out to be a disaster.

…Virginia, on August 12, 2017. In the days following Unite the Right, more than one hundred people disappeared from my social media sphere alone. They obviously did not change their political convictions, but they clearly believed that the movement was going in the wrong direction. 

For the last 50 years.

Nevertheless, the rallies and college speaking events continued, hemorrhaging people and money—which were in short supply to begin with—until they finally bled out.

The post-mortem of the activist phase of the Alt Right led to a healthy debate about “optics” and whether it is better for American White Nationalists to embrace American political traditions and symbols or imported ones. There was also a growing consensus that the movement needed to return to our strengths, namely the war of ideas. Even activist events needed to be reconfigured along the lines of the European Identitarian movement, which does not battle antifa but engages in low-risk, high-reward publicity stunts, i.e., “propaganda of the deed.”

Let us not forget the “extreme vetted” private meetings. “Are you Swedish?”

But for many in the American movement, 2018 has simply been a year of watching and waiting. People hunkered down to let the storm pass. Now that it is dying down, they are surveying the damage and wondering what comes next.

More failure.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have a common cause to rally around again? Wouldn’t it be nice to have a new discursive space in which we could again interface with and perhaps influence the political mainstream?

Some people are hoping that Trump’s re-election campaign might provide a rallying point, but most of us have lost our enthusiasm for Trump. Thankfully, there’s something bigger and better than Trump. While there will always be a place for defending Trump’s National Populist policies from critics and detractors, we can’t lose sight of the big picture. We need to look beyond Trump to the forces that made Trump possible.

You mean the forces that created opportunities that were squandered by Quota Queen Ineptitude?

These are the same forces behind the Brexit victory; behind the rise of politicians like Viktor Orbán, Matteo Salvini, and Sebastian Kurz; behind the success of parties like Alternative for Germany, Poland’s Law and Justice, and the Sweden Democrats; and behind the Yellow Vests insurgency in France.

Yellow Vests!  Fuel taxes!  Poland bringing in those Filipino immigrants! Based, Based, Based!

All of these are manifestations of what is called National Populism or the New Nationalism. We need to understand the forces driving the rise of the New Nationalism. Then we need to add our impetus to these forces and try to steer them toward White Nationalism. The New Nationalism should be our new rallying point, our new discursive space in which we can inject our ideas into mainstream discussions.

A new record for the number of times the word “discursive” has been used in a Far Right essay – congratulations!

For starters, I urge every White Nationalist to read National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin,[1] two British political scientists specializing in populism and political extremism.

Eatwell and Goodwin are evidently men of the Left, but they do not seem to be liberals or globalists. Indeed, they relish demolishing liberal and globalist illusions about National Populism, arguing that it cannot be dismissed as mere fascism or racism; nor can it be dismissed as a mere flash in the pan, the product of ephemeral events like the 2008 recession or the migrant crisis; nor is it the last hurrah of “old white males” who will simply die off and be replaced by tolerant millennials; nor, finally, is it merely the product of charismatic politicians.

Instead, Eatwell and Goodwin argue that National Populism is the product of deep social and political trends which they call the four Ds: Distrust, Destruction, Deprivation, and De-Alignment. 

All four D’s also are relevant for Der Movement.

Distrust refers to the breakdown of popular trust in political elites. 

Or the hoped-for breakdown in activist trust for failed “movement” “elites.”

Destruction primarily means destruction of identity, i.e., the destruction of peoples and cultures by immigration and multiculturalism. 

The destruction of racial nationalist identity by Alt Right memetic hegemony.

National Populism is, therefore, a form of white identity politics. 

Except when it becomes Trumpian civic nationalism, or Gallic obsessions about fuel taxes.

Deprivation means the erosion of First World middle-class and working-class living standards due to globalization and neoliberalism. 

Or the erosion of racialist rational thought by both fossilized dogma and by esoteric traditionalism.

De-Alignment is the breakdown of voter identification with dominant political parties.

Or the breakdown of traditional “movement” organizations.

Eatwell and Goodwin marshal impressive empirical studies that indicate that these trends are pervasive in white countries. These trends are deep-seated rather than ephemeral. Not only are they going to continue on into the future, they are likely to grow stronger before they abate.

And no doubt that the “movement” will flounder around helplessly, wasting this opportunity, and let this populism abate without achieving anything of lasting value.

Thus, National Populism is here to stay. 

Until it abates.

National Populism is the wave of the future, not just a ripple in the news cycle, hence the great wave on the cover of their book. 

More victory psychosis. We’ve moved from The Man on White Horse Syndrome to The National Populist on Movement Delusion Syndrome.

Eatwell and Goodwin are so confident of this that in their final chapter, “Towards Post-Populism,” the only post-populist scenario they can imagine is the political establishment adopting National Populist policies. In other words, they think National Populism will likely become the hegemonic political outlook. This is an astonishing concession, since it means that the hegemony of globalism is drawing to a close.

So, populism will be co-opted to serve multiracialism and multiculturalism.

I find this analysis deeply encouraging, and it puts to rest a fear that has been gnawing at me for the last two years.

The fear that Counter-Currents donations will dry up?

I believe that nothing less than White Nationalism can save our race, thus the success of our movement is the supreme moral imperative. Whites are in a state of emergency. This is serious. This is urgent. Thus in 2015 and 2016, I was thrilled to see forces in the broader political realm aligning with White Nationalist ideas and goals, specifically Brexit and the Trump phenomenon.

Brexit: Failure.  Trump: Failure.

But I also thought it likely that this historical moment would be fleeting. Thus we had to capitalize on it while it was still possible. This is why I was so horrified at Hailgate, when instead of giving a statesmanlike speech outlining how the National Policy Institute would serve as the intellectual vanguard for National Populism—a move that would have secured Spencer’s bid for movement leadership and attracted significant resources—he instead chose the path of juvenile buffoonery, pandering to the cool kids at TRS and on the chans.

Wasn’t Johnson a fan of TRS?  Didn’t Johnson eagerly jump on the Alt Right bandwagon of juvenile buffoonery?  I remember Pepe and Kek memes at Counter-Currents.

But that was just the beginning of months of sectarianism, schisms, purges, and purity spirals. In 2017, we saw the birth of toxic, self-marginalizing memes like “white Sharia” 

Johnson has stated that Anglin will be one of the voices of WN 3.0.

…and the return of the worst ideas and attitudes of White Nationalism 1.0. 


We had arrived at a moment of decision, and our “leaders” had chosen juvenility and irrelevance. 

That’s because they are all incompetent products of an affirmative action policy. Since Greg himself was on the Alt Right bandwagon, while others presciently pointed out the dangers of the Alt Right, why shouldn’t Greg be included in this cohort of leaders?

They were not ready for prime time. As I explained in my essay “Against Right-Wing Sectarianism,” this could only lead to a smaller, weaker, poorer, and dumber movement. Such a movement would be unable to halt white genocide.

By May of 2017, I started thinking that we needed a new “brand.” The term “New Nationalism” was already being used to describe National Populism. The term was broad and vague enough to encompass everyone from White Nationalists to sitting presidents and ruling parties. I even went so far as to reserve the domain name In keeping with my essay “Redefining the Mainstream,” I envisioned a discursive…

This is a very discursive use of the word discursive.  The discursive space of Counter-Currents is the most effective discursive space to analyze – in a properly discursive fashion – the precise discursive use of the word discursive.

…space that was the exact opposite of Right-wing sectarianism. Our movement must prefigure the hegemony we want to create in the broader society, encompassing the full diversity of whites…

Except for critics of Greg.  And we really don’t like all those White ethnics either.

…united only by the central principle of white identity politics and free to differ on all other matters.

You are not free to differ on Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents. 

The most important intellectual battle is over the legitimacy of white identity politics. The greatest political taboo of our times is the idea that…

Greg Johnson may be wrong about something.

…identity politics is immoral for white people—and only for white people. This taboo unites the whole political establishment against us. The political establishment knows this, but many National Populists don’t. This is why the establishment attacks National Populists as fascists, nativists, and racists.

But many National Populists don’t challenge the idea that white identity politics is immoral. Instead, they insist that they are color-blind civic nationalists, concerned only with a common culture. Then they try to turn the tables on Leftism and accusing it of being the real identity politics.

And so the National Populists are useless cucks.

But, of course, the Left is not going to drop identity politics. Why would they drop a winning strategy? Foreswearing identity politics is a losing strategy for the Right, akin to unilateral disarmament, taking a knife to a gunfight, or allowing one’s opponents a trump card but refusing to use it oneself.

The main trump card being The God Emperor himself.

Thus, the New Nationalism platform needed to be a space where one could argue about virtually anything except the moral legitimacy of white identity politics. Instead, our overriding editorial agenda would be to establish that white identity politics is inevitable, necessary, and moral—and to expose the moral illegitimacy of the system.

And the moral illegitimacy of Der Movement, Inc.

I shared this idea with a number of writers, podcasters, and video bloggers who also believed the Alt Right was spiraling into irrelevance.

But not with those who predicted that spiraling into irrelevance as far back as 2016.

They were uniformly enthusiastic. 

Of course they were.  Cherry pick a bunch of yes men, and you’ll get “uniform enthusiasm.”  If they weren’t uniformly enthusiastic, they’d be banned from Counter-Currents.

But there were things I had to take care of first, like…

Feuding with Richard Spencer.

…finishing The White Nationalist Manifesto. I also sensed that it would be some time before the Alt Right would finally exhaust itself and people would be ready for something new. 

Some of us were talking about this back in 2016?  What were you doing back then, Greg?  Pontificating that WN should be subsumed within the Alt Right?

Eventually, though, I decided that I want to stick with Counter-Currents. 

That would maximize the donations.

I still think that a New Nationalism webzine is a good idea. But somebody else needs to create it.

Richard Spencer?

Of course White Nationalists do not need a new platform to contribute to the rise of National Populism. In fact, we have been contributing to it for quite some time. Furthermore, if Eatwell and Goodwin are right, we will be contributing to it well into the future, for white nations will be receptive to National Populism for some time to come. And although nothing has greater moral urgency than stopping white genocide, we’ve got time to get our message and our strategies right. (And if we don’t have time to do it right, doing it wrong won’t save us, anyway.)

So, how can White Nationalists insert ourselves into the broader National Populist phenomenon? Let’s look at Eatwell and Goodwin’s four Ds again.

Yes, let’s.  See above.

Distrust: when people distrust their rulers, the system loses legitimacy and power. 

When will Der Movement lose its power?

White Nationalists are masterful at mocking the lies, hypocrisy, sanctimony, cowardice, and degeneracy of our rulers. 

If you do the same to “movement leaders” they become hysterical. Talk about “lies, hypocrisy, sanctimony, cowardice, and degeneracy!”

Furthermore, nothing destroys trust in the establishment quite like learning that its ultimate agenda is the genocide of the white race.

But our propaganda needs to be truthful as well, because we want people to trust us. For if distrust becomes pervasive throughout society, then the people cannot unite against the establishment. Our goal is to promote a high-trust society. We cannot accomplish that if we cynically resort to lies because “that’s what the establishment does to us.” If we want to replace the establishment, we have to be better than the establishment.

Be truthful?  If you want truth, read EGI Notes.  Lies?  Der Movement.

Destruction: White Nationalists have been raising awareness of the destruction of white nations and cultures through immigration and multiculturalism for decades. Even so, our educational efforts have awakened far fewer people than the negative consequences of immigration and multiculturalism themselves. The system is doing far more to push people toward white identity politics than we are doing to pull them. Thus, white racial consciousness will continue to rise even if our movement is completely censored.

Yes, opinion polls show this.  No, wait….

We should, of course, do everything we can to raise awareness. But I think we have a much more important role to play, namely deepening awareness.

Of your own incompetence.

First, we need to help people understand why multiculturalism is a failure—namely, racial and ethnic diversity in the same state is always a source of weakness—so people are not fobbed off with half-measures like “conservative” multicultural civic nationalism. Moreover, only White Nationalists fully understand the forces promoting mass migrations and multiculturalism and how they fit into the overall agenda of white genocide.

Forces?  You mean the group your buddy Zman defends?

Second, and most importantly, we need to defend the moral legitimacy of white identity politics. Vast numbers of whites are in thrall to the establishment because they believe there is something immoral about taking their own side in ethnic conflicts. This taboo is like a dam, holding back the floodwaters of National Populism. Once we break that dam, the wave of National Populism will sweep away the whole rotten system.

Sure it will.   Just give it another 50 years.  By then, all of our analysis of Guenon and Evola would have turned the tide.

Deprivation: basic economics predicts that globalization will lead to the collapse of middle-class and working-class living standards throughout the First World, although First World elites will benefit quite a lot. 

And “movement leaders” will continue collecting their donations.  Remember, if you contribute, it is like living in the Golden Age today!

Obviously, the masses in any First World society never consented to such policies. Genuine Leftists recognize that globalization has undermined the gains of the Left in the First World. But global socialism is not the answer to global capitalism. Only National Populists understand the natural limit of globalization: the nation-state.

De-Alignment: when voters begin to distrust the establishment, they begin to distrust establishment political parties as well. 

Rewritten – when activists begin to distrust the movement dogma, they begin to distrust movement leaders as well. 

White Nationalists are masterful at showing that electoral politics, in which voters take sides in the battles between mainstream political parties, is only a superficial distraction from real politics. Political power does not lie in voters choosing between Coke and Diet Coke. 

Likewise, choosing between WN 1.0 Kempism and WN 2.0 Kempism is a superficial distraction.

That’s an election that the Coca-Cola Corporation can’t lose. Real power lies in framing all political debates so that, no matter which party ends up in power, the establishment always wins. 

Or…the Quota Queens always win.

Heads they win; tails we lose. Real power lies in establishing the things about which political parties don’t fight and about which the voters are never given a choice. The political establishment, center-Left and center-Right, is of one mind on the goodness of globalization, immigration, and multiculturalism—the very things that National Populists oppose.

What white people want is essentially a socially conservative, interventionist state. We want National Populism. What the establishment wants is socially liberal global capitalism, what Jonathan Bowden called Left-wing oligarchy. The people are never allowed to vote for National Populism straight up. The center-Right packages social conservatism with neoliberal globalization. The center-Left packages the interventionist state with social degeneracy. When the center-Right is in power, they only give the establishment what it wants: lower taxes and freer trade for the oligarchs. When the center-Left is in power, they only give the establishment what it wants: more degeneracy. The parties blame their failures on the opposition and assure their voters that the next time their party is at the helm, the voters will finally get what they want. The people are placated with the illusion of political representation in elections where the establishment parties trade power. But no matter who is elected, the outcomes always drift father and farther from what the people want, namely National Populism—and closer to what the degenerate global elites want.

Very well. What’s the solution?  Savitri Devi?

White Nationalists are also highly aware of how the establishment works to co-opt National Populist uprisings like the Tea Party and now, sadly, Donald Trump. For Trump has fallen into the center-Right establishment pattern of giving the oligarchs what they want (tax cuts), failing to do what the people want (a border wall), and blaming his failure on his opponents (first the establishment Republicans, now the Democrats).

Hey!  I thought Trump as going to be an “American Caesar” who was going to prop up America’s White demographics!  Remember that, Greg?  How soon we all forget, eh?

In sum, White Nationalists can intensify National Populist forces and steer them toward White Nationalism by deepening the people’s Distrust of the establishment; broadening and deepening the people’s awareness of how and why globalization, immigration, and multiculturalism are leading them to Destruction and Deprivation; and creating new political possibilities by encouraging De-Alignment with the establishment’s sham political debates and contests.

That’s great.  Too bad we have no leaders to provide direction.

But to ride the National Populist wave, White Nationalists have to jettison certain incompatible ideological fixations.

Hmmm: Like what?  Traditionalism?  Pseudo-Intellectual Elitism?  Nordicism?

First and foremost, we actually have to be populists. 

And we become populists by being hyper-intellectualized “discursive” elitists, pontificating about the finer points of “traditionalism,” and behaving as if The Lord of the Rings was a blueprint for an overarching strategy.

Eatwell and Goodwin also show that National Populism is not anti-democratic. National Populists want more democracy, not less. They also argue that National Populism is not fascist in its inspirations or goals, although the establishment loves nothing more than to stigmatize National Populism with such labels. We shouldn’t help them. Thus those among us who sneer at populism and democracy, make fetishes out of elitism and hierarchy…

The lack of self-awareness here is simply staggering.

…and try to resurrect inter-war fascist movements are not helping.

Instead: Guenon and Savitri Devi.  The Age of Aluminum!

Second, National Populists really are economic interventionists. Old habits die hard, but those among us who still think in terms of “free market” economics are not helping. Eatwell and Goodwin point out that in the United States, Republican voters are significantly more interventionist than Republican legislators. Which means that all that Koch-funded free-market fundamentalism has simply produced a party headed by ideologues who are out of touch with their constituency. Don’t be one of them.

Instead, follow a “movement” that Revilo Oliver characterized as having 50 years of failure…50 years ago.

Where do we go from here? The most important thing to keep in mind is that National Populism is arising out of the breakdown of the political system. Just like shattering an atom…

Dat dere science!  Means nothing!  Traditionalism!  Back into our hobbit holes, snug as a bug!

…the breakdown of a system releases immense energies. It also creates radical new possibilities, “holes in being” where new actions can take place and new orders can emerge.

Actions such as screaming about “Kek.”

But the breakdown of systems also creates uncertainty and surprises. It is not an environment in which one can expect to unfold grand plans. Thus, the more our movement is tied to long-term plans and fixed ideas, the less adapted we are to the climate we wish to create, and the more brittle and susceptible to catastrophic failure we become. Accordingly, at the present moment, the best overall strategy is not to get ahead of ourselves. We simply need to promote chaos, but also plant the seeds of a new order. 

The Sallis Strategy.  While Counter-Currents has been gibbering about “Kali Yuga,” this blog has been outlining these approaches.  And yet who are your leaders?

Then we need to wait.

For another 50 years.

The Yellow Vests insurgency is a genuine grassroots National Populist movement. But it was nobody’s grand design. It emerged spontaneously, and it surprised everyone. But spontaneous movements of large numbers of people are only possible because the participants share common views and values. Such movements also propagate through existing social networks. Thus, if we want more National Populist insurgencies, we need to promote chaos in the system…

The Sallis Strategy, outlined here years ago.

…seed people’s minds with models of genuine National Populist alternatives, and build real-world social networks through which we can propagate ideas and influence. Beyond that, we simply need to adopt an attitude of maximum openness and flexibility in the face of new possibilities so we can react with fresh provocations.

“…maximum openness and flexibility?”  Gee…maybe you should stop pathologizing honest criticism, and stop obsessing over fossilized dogma?

In short, we need more New Right metapolitics. But this is second-nature to us. We’ve been doing it for years now. 

And failing endlessly.

We have the best ideas, the best memes, and the best people.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. 

But we need a new focus.

And a new leadership.

If Eatwell and Goodwin are right, though, we now know that we have a vast audience, strong historical winds at our back, and time enough to turn the world around. Let’s make 2019 the year of the New Nationalism.

Sure.  More realistically: 2019, another year of utter failure.


Fisking the Epistles

Ripostes to Zman.

I will very briefly comment on the anti-Semitism epistle, before looking at the Alt Right issue in more detail

This is grossly disappointing, but not surprising from these HBD-oriented types.  Most of the arguments are similar to those of Cofnas, and have been, in that context, addressed by others.  Here I concentrate on the ending:

Obviously, my resistance to antisemitism is not based in ignorance of the material or fear of the morality police. The real issue for me is that anti-Semites taste Jews in their sandwich. They are like a man who has only mastered how to use a hammer. He sees every problem as a nail. In the case of anti-Semites, everything is blamed on the Jews to the point of absurdity. It seems to me that in order to be an anti-Semite, one has to commit their life to it, like joining the priesthood or a religious cult. It must define one’s life.

This is not only wrong, but so obviously wrong it is almost ludicrous.  By mainstream standards, an anti-Semite is simply someone reasonably critical of Jews, someone who knows the answer to the Jewish Question, someone who essentially agrees with MacDonald’s position on the Jews.  While it is true that some “anti-Semites taste Jews in their sandwich” and are obsessive in their single-mindedness, that is not a prerequisite to being an “anti-Semite.”  Being “Jew aware” is simply one component of a well-balanced and informed activist life, it need not “define one’s life.”  I may well be labelled an anti-Semite by most (*), but readers of this blog know I take a nuanced and complex view of the race issue, and certain do not blame everything on “the Jews.”  Zman basically is knocking down a strawman here; it is dishonest.  If anti-Semitism is the hammer in the activist toolkit, it is quite possible to also know how to master the use of screwdrivers and wrenches.  This argument by Zman is just plain stupid.

While I bear no ill will to those of you who have become anti-Semites, I just don’t think it is the place for me. My group evolutionary strategy, as it were, is to enjoy the fullness of life, even the parts that are not so good. Obsessing over Jews all the time seems like a waste of time. If there comes a time when I have to obsess over Jews all the time, then I’ll do what I must, but for now, I have lots of other things that interest me. No hard feelings and I wish you luck in your business, as long as it does not interfere with my business.

This is even more stupid.  How does “enjoying the fullness of life” have to do with being aware of, and honest about, the character and influence of the Jewish people, and their effect on White racial interests? He makes it sound like facing facts about Jews is going to spoil his fun, so he would rather be willfully ignorant (contrary to his assertion that ignorance of the material is not part of his attitude) than have a stray dark cloud obscure, even for a moment, the sunny bliss of his life’s enjoyment.  And again, he conflates, in a dishonest fashion, being an “anti-Semite” with “obsessing over Jews all the time.”  What is it about these HBD types that they are so obstinate?

By all accounts, the alt-right is at a crossroads. The movement that started as an internet phenomenon and blossomed into a full-blown political force in the 2016 election….

Full-blown political force?  Nonsense.  Fantasy.

…has stumbled in the past year. Most people peg the start of the trouble at the Charlottesville riots, which were used to paint the alt-right as a bunch of torch wielding Nazis. Others put the blame on the personalities and their endless bickering. Of course, the troubles are exaggerated, but there’s no doubt that the movement is in a difficult patch.

Exaggerated?  Merely a “difficult patch?”  It’s much worse than that.  And deservedly so.  A full-blown collapse is more like it.

In order for the alt-right to get out of the ditch and become an effective political voice, the leaders of the various groups within the alt-right have to stop screwing up. The number of unforced errors over the last year, by big names in the alt-right, leave people with the impression the movement is not serious. 

Err…the reason that people have that “impression” is because it is true.  Come on now. Pepe?  Kek?  People attacking the idea of uniforms and then going to a rally dressed as if it were a cosplay comic convention?  Half-drunk podcasts?  Juvenile sniggering?  Mindless Trump worship?  When was any of that serious?

Leaders need to be something more than gags on-line. They have to be a respectable face to a skeptical public. That means being careful and prudent in their public actions. That’s not what has happened over the last year.

Because we have failed leaders, chosen by their misfit Type I followers according to strict affirmative action rules.  Garbage in, garbage out.

The first thing the alt-right needs to do is figure out how it got tangled up with people who turned out to be unstable or unreliable. 

Your answer. [Since originally writing this essay, the video in question has been deleted by the System.  And that is in essence the point – all the sound and fury of the Alt Right, and we are worse off than we were two years ago]

Starting with Charlottesville, that has been the thread running through all of the stumbles. There’s always a wacko involved. Whether it was a “crying Nazi” at Charlottesville or a tubby cuckold at Michigan, the source of trouble has been people who should never have been given a place at the table. You cannot make up with enthusiasm what you lack in prudence, maturity and intelligence.

“…you lack in prudence, maturity and intelligence.”  That lack is the defining characteristic of “movement” leadership.  Indeed, possessing prudence, maturity and intelligence would be disqualifying, right?

Fringe politics can be a lonely place, so it is tempting to welcome everyone, but this is why the Libertarian Party is full of goofballs. The trick is to avoid the temptation to embrace all comers and be skeptical of converts. 

Some are sincere and full of enthusiasm. These are the foot soldiers that add energy to a movement. Some are attention whores, looking for a cheap stage. Others are unstable loudmouths who like turmoil. A little skepticism about the new converts allows the movement leaders to avoid getting mixed up with nutjobs.

What happens when the “leaders” are nutjobs themselves?  

Another way of not inviting the troubles of others into your movement is to not get too close to the other movements. Quiet alliances can be quietly dissolved when they become inconvenient. The alt-right, which largely appeals to college educated suburban males, had no business locking shields with groups like the Traditional Workers Party at public events. Their thing is not your thing and the best way to avoid conflict is to keep a healthy distance. That way, you don’t pay for their mistakes, as has been the case with the TWP.

No kidding.

That’s the other thing that has to be front and center. The groups that have been operating on the fringe for generations have been on the fringe because they are either doing something wrong or they like the fringe. It’s always wise to be cautious of the older groups trying to hitch their wagon to your star. Charlottesville was not about “uniting the right”. It was crabs in the bucket pulling you back down into the bucket with them. A successful mass movement, in this age, will be one that is free of those of the prior age.

I call “BS” on this.  While I am 100% in support of deconstructing the Old Movement and building a New Movement, the above paragraph implies that the Alt Right itself is something new and fresh, instead of merely the same old crap dressed up with “youth culture” and sprinkled with Bevis-and-Butthead sniggering.  The raises an important point.  Was the relatively greater success of the Alt Right (short-lived as it was) compared to “WN 1.0” due to better ideals and exaction or just finding itself in more propitious times?  More of the latter, I think.  Whites are mewling cowards, but even cowards will begin to fight back when their back is up against the wall and they are left with no other choice.  The rapidly degenerating racial situation is creating opportunities – opportunities for the most part wasted by Alt Right dimwits.  And the rise of Trump helped them – rather than saying the Alt Right helped elect Trump (a fantasy on par with Roissy’s caravans of Amish horse and buggies converging on voting centers), the truth is that Trump boosted the Alt Right.  If Trump hadn’t run, if we had a Jeb-Hillary election, likely no one outside of Der Movement, Antifa, and the “watchdog groups,” would have had the faintest idea of what the Alt Right is.  So stop making it seem like the wonderful Alt Right juggernaut was stopped by inferring “WN 1.0 Boomers.”  The “younger groups” ruined themselves.  And what’s left of the Alt Right today are people like Taylor who calls himself Alt Right even though he was a major “movement” figure when Spencer was still in high school, and groups like Identity Evropa, who have more in common with NA-style groups than with the Pepe/Kek crowd.

Dissident politics, like revolutionary politics, depends upon reliable communication and operational security. 

Operational security: “Are you Swedish?”  

In all ages, especially this age, these can come into conflict. Making yourself available to speak to the people, make you vulnerable, and not just physically vulnerable. It makes your message vulnerable to corruption by others beyond your control. Effective communications means controlling the message, which is why the people in charge invest so heavily in monopolizing the media platforms.

And as with all monopolies, the “customers” suffer.

Building your own media and supporting the media that supports you is the key. Here is a lesson that can be learned from the New Left. They avoided the mainstream press and instead relied on independent media. They would charge reporters for access to their events. In our age, it means never going on mainstream shows unless they are live, and never agreeing to print interviews. It also means not getting into fights with people on social media. You are the message. Your movement will judged by how you are judged.

Judged as failures.

This has the added benefit of not inviting attacks from the Left. The last year, from the perspective of an outsider, has looked like the alt-right picking a fight with the people in charge, only to be squashed like a bug. That’s bad optics. When you can’t even hold a luncheon for your people, without being harassed by the Left, it’s time to accept reality and become less public. The alt-right needs to be like an iceberg with a small public face above the water line and large rank and file underneath the water line.

Reality and Der Movement is like oil and water.  What else to expect from people who take seriously ramblings about “the Pyramids of Atlantis were built by psychokinesis.” 

Another thing the alt-right needs to understand is this is not 1920’s Germany or 1960’s America. The people in charge are not weak like the Weimar Republic and they are not complacent like the post-war American ruling class. The Nazis filled the vacuum left from the collapse of German ruling class after the war. The New Left was able to roll to victory because the people in charge at the time, were largely sympathetic and even a bit envious. Today, the people in charge are not weak and they are not sympathetic. 

Those movements are not good models for today’s fight. Brawling with state sponsored goons like Antifa is a fool’s errand. Antifa has the backing of the Left and all the money from the billionaires they need. Similarly, demanding to go on campus, on free speech grounds, hoping to shame the Left with their hypocrisy, does nothing but display a fundamental misunderstanding of the opponent. The people running the college campus know that game backward and forward. There’s no beating them at a game they designed.


A better model is something like Irish nationalism. Ultimately, they were effective when they combined a guerrilla movement that operated in the shadows and a political movement that kept its distance from the fighters. We’re not in a world of car bombings and targeted assassinations, but we are in an age when an energetic social media troll can wreak havoc on the prevailing narrative. A guy putting up “It’s OK To Be White” signs around a Progressive hive is the modern version of the car bomb. It does real damage.


That gets to the heart of why the alt-right has stumbled of late. The alt-right had momentum when one wing stuck to making sensible arguments about the demographic reality of our age and what it means for the future. Meanwhile, the other wing took these ideas and used them in the meme war and comment sections of web sites. The reason the people in charge are dumping comment sections and purging social media of anyone with a whiff of heresy is they fear this more than anything. The alt-right needs to get back to what works.

Problem: Did it ever really “work?”

This is a big subject that requires a lot more debate, but effective activism focuses on the effective, not on helping e-celebs get mentioned by Lefty. For dissidents, effective activism makes the strong side look weak and makes the dissidents look smart. If the organizers at Charlottesville had stopped at the Friday night event, and backed out of the rally on Saturday citing safety concerns, the ensuing riot would have been blamed on the other side. You would have effectively used their size against them by being clever.

You cannot expect half-drunk dimwits to be clever.

Of course, the alt-right could only have pulled off such a move at Charlottesville if it was better organized. The overall lack of organization is killing the alt-right. There has to be small local groups of people who trust one another and will cooperate with other local groups, as long as leadership trusts them. This is a basic organizing technique. There should be alt-right clubs all over the country. They should be social clubs that focus on the politics of our age. The alt-right leaders need to focus on this rather than making noise. 

Effective organizing means not airing your laundry on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram. One reason competent people are not going to want to help the cause is the ridiculous habit of drama queens from the alt-right making grand announcements on social media. When Evan McLaren wants to move on to other things, he should tender his resignation in private like a man, not post it on Twitter like he is Milo promoting some new media scheme. High quality people do not want any part of this. It has to stop.

Drama queens are derived from quota queens. Want quality leadership?  Put an end to Der Movement’s ethnic affirmative action program.  Anyone who doesn’t address that elephant in the room is being fundamentally dishonest (and will soon find that room full of elephant dung).

Finally, the leaders of the alt-right need to understand that in an information war, the message has to be effective against the target. When Mike Enoch says, “no one has a right to be around white people,” that is highly effective, because it states a simple truth in a way that gets the target audience to think of themselves as white. It speaks to people at a personal level. The whole point of the alt-right, allegedly, is to get white people to think of themselves as white. Anything that distracts from that must be avoided.

If that is the point of the Alt Right, then I’d advise them to behave in a way that also appeals to people over age 30.

Way back in the olden thymes, Buckley Conservatism got going because it spoke to the masses of people revolted by what they saw going on with the Left. Bill Buckley never would have amounted to anything if there was not a willing audience, waiting for someone to provide intellectual leadership. Whatever that brand of conservatism became in the long run, it started as a group of smart guys, who took their task seriously. Most important, they exploited an eager market looking for an alternative to what was emerging on the Left. 

The alt-right is in a very similar position. There are millions of white people looking around at what is happening in America, wondering why they are doing this to us. Fundamentally, and most importantly, the message of the alt-right is sound. It offers whites a reason to fight for their interests and cheer for their team. What must come next is a class of respectable spokesman and leaders who add weight to this message and organize people as a political force. It’s time for the alt-right leaders to take the next step or step aside.

They need to step aside and take their failed Alt Right brand with them.  These “leaders” and their brand were handed a golden opportunity with Trump, Trump’s election, and its aftermath.  They blew it. Big time.  While I realize that affirmative action and accountability are more or less orthogonal to each other, at some point accountability must be forced onto the quota queens.  They cannot be allowed to endlessly fail with impunity for time without end. Enough is enough.  It’s time for a change.

*Of course, according to the Silkers, I am a philosemitic Jew-lover, a tool of the Jews, someone who – in their own exact words – “sucks Jewish cock.”  That is because I reject their (wet) dream of Asians colonizing Whites nations with the borders of the West guarded by black-booted Chinese girls with guns.  Putting aside that Jews favor Asian immigration to the West, and that Israel is building close ties with both China and India, the demented nature of Silker lunacy should be apparent. To their “minds” anyone (White) who doesn’t pitifully grovel to Asians must, by some law of nature known only to them, pitifully grovel to Jews.  That it is possible to not pitifully grovel to anyone is not part of their ideology, it seems.

Where We Stand, 11/11/18


Counter-Current commentator:

Posted November 8, 2018 at 10:27 pm | Permalink
“We became weaker when we decided prematurely that it was time to follow leaders into street confrontations with antifa and the political system that coddles them.”

That system includes Trump and included the execrable Asian-nurturer Sessions.

A third of US billionaires are Jews (see surnames in the Forbes list) and I estimate a quarter of the one percent is Jewish. They and their leftist goy allies have infinite supplies of money to pay infinite numbers of SJWs, brown people, and desperate drug addicts to attack and harass us. Taking their minions head on makes no sense because we are small and they are an infinite mass if evil.

I assume “of evil.”  This is true, but as I’ve written before, it would be useful to understand WHY this is. Yes, there are a lot of Jewish billionaires.  But why are so many White billionaires either leftists, or, at east, indifferent to White racial interests? One can hypothesize that the “money-first” mentality, the greed, the self-centered avarice, that allows the accumulation of such wealth characterizes people who are narcissistic, hyper-individualist hedonists, and are thus unconcerned about group interests.  Note that applies, it seems, only to Whites, as the wealthy of other groups, including and especially the Jews, are ever-so-much concerned with group interests.  So, it is, at least in part, a combination of the White propensity to individualism amplified by the selfish mindset of the wealthy.  Then, the wealthy are “different from you and me” as the saying goes, even besides their mentality; they live in a different world, well-insulated from the racial stress faced by the rest of us.  Finally, truth be told, pro-White activists and advocates are, for the most part, a pitiful bunch, who make a horrid impression, spout irrational dogma, and who would not impress those successful in life.  The last part we can change, so as to reach the White Wealthy to the maximal extent that they can be reached (with all the behavioral caveats above).

However, we have an advantage in debates because we tell the truth and our views are scarce whereas they lie and their lies are ubiquitous. They try to shut us down because they know we’ll win those debates. 

Yes and no.  Compared to the System, Der Movement does tell the truth; compared to Reality, Der Movement lies and is irrational as well. “Truth” would have a greater impact perhaps if it was in more accord with Reality.  After all, if you claim the major advantage of your side is that “we tell the truth,” shouldn’t that be true in the absolute, and not only relative, sense?

They can only rule through psychologically paralyzing and intimidating whites while keeping whites away from the truth. They don’t care about justifying themselves before us in a debate. Only a schmendrick would care about being fair. They just care about winning. The ends justify the means after all, goy.

Agreed.  But, you know, you can have all the truth on your side, and the best memes, but if the other side has the power, you will be silenced. How to get the power if you are silenced? Ah, that’s the conundrum – a problem Der Movement has put us in by squandering opportunity after opportunity, failing to take advantage of times of System weakness, and failing to capitalize on times when the System was not as powerful as it is today.  There are no easy answers, although I have made suggestions on this blog.  The first step would be for Der Movement to acknowledge its own culpability for the situation we are all in today.

I thought Spencer et al gave up too soon. They could have pioneered strategies to outmaneuver ANTIFA and lawfare. They could have not let Jews and and [sic] their allies drag them down to their level, and even when they did, they could have come up with a new strategy, but they failed.

Spencer it seems is busy these days with more important matters, such as posting a “New Profile Pic.”

The cause of racial survival and progress marches ever forward!

Those are your “leaders” Mr. Starlight.  Enjoy.

Another take on the issue here.

A Mix of Good Sense and Cluelessness

A quick look at a relatively interesting essay.

Read here.

The Left has set in motion events that cannot be reversed. 

This is true.  Unfortunately, there is no one around to effectively take advantage of this opportunity.  We have the greatest outburst of political chaos and political violence since the 1965-1975 period, and the “movement” has (predictably) shown itself to be incapable of working with the sociopolitical material at hand.  Future activists will look back with shock and disgust at the lost opportunity of today.

The Left’s lack of control is pushing the Overton Window in the direction of the Alt Right.

In theory.

Every time Antifa attacks some guy who only wants to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and say a prayer in a public park there are many Normies who begin to make the journey to the Alt Right. Every time a politician of the Left makes an anti-White utterance the beliefs of the Alt Right are normalized a thousand-fold. And every time the Left makes excuses for the bad behavior of aspiring rappers, third-world miscreants, and European-style socialists, the closer we get to having the 14 Words enshrined as the First Amendment of a New Bill of Rights.

This is typical “movement” – to be more specific, Type I activist – bombastic certitude.  Is there any evidence – any evidence whatsoever – that any of the above is correct?  I’m not saying it is not correct, but I see no clear evidence that it is.  This is borderline Lathe of Heaven Syndrome – a common malady of Der Movement – assuming something is true because you believe it to be true.

First of all, if you cannot organize a conference and bring it to a successful conclusion, you are not going to be able to bring about a political revolution. The logistical incompetence of the Alt Right is staggering, to put it bluntly.

Two words: Hermansson.  Lewis.

Secondly, for a movement driven in large part by young people who were born during the computer age, it is more than mildly amusing at how many of them continue to ignore the inherent security risks of internet-based communications and fund-raising.

That’s true.  Is there any of them who do not fall into this description?

Thirdly, Boomers are not the enemy. The idea that all Boomers are squandering their children’s inheritances and living it up in their second and third vacation homes is a canard. Many Boomers have been fighting the battle against the Left and degeneracy in general since the 1960s when this nonsense first started. More than a few prominent young members of the Alt-Right seem to be afflicted with “Daddy” issues and have transferred their parental animus to their fathers’ generation.

Well said.  This “Boomer” nonsense is part and parcel of typical Alt Right Beavis-and-Butthead sniggering.

And finally, the Alt Right is in desperate need of political leadership. 

If I say that, I’m crazy and bitter.

On the intellectual and metapolitical fronts, the Alt Right has an abundance of well-read, articulate, and extremely intelligent individuals doing amazing work. 

Translation: the author means Greg Johnson.

The intellectual leadership of the Alt Right is second to none…

Literally, second to none.  I suppose that the only thing less effective than “movement leadership” would be, literally, nothing.  So, ranking degrees of uselessness, we would have (1) nothing/none, and (2) “movement leadership.”  It’s second to none!

…but it is ironic in a movement in which hierarchy and traditionalism are so important …

Traditionalism.  It’s the Kali Yuga!  The Men Who Can’t Tell Time!

…that political leadership has gone wanting. 

Here’s some advice.  Want real and effective leadership?  Ditch the “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action program.  What is really ironic in a “movement” in which hierarchy is important and affirmative action is so criticized is that “leaders” are accepted based on the same fundamental principle as the elevation of some clueless Negro to a position of importance.

The Alt Right desperately needs a serious political leadership that can match the seriousness of its intellectual leaders.

Translation: Greg Johnson (intellectual leader) good, Richard Spencer (political leader) bad.  That’s the implication, isn’t it?

Meme-making is important in any revolution, but meme-makers do not a revolution make. I seriously doubt that we would remember Betsy Ross today if George Washington had decided to remain a loyal British subject. For the Alt Right to succeed it needs political leadership and it needs structure.

For the Far Right to succeed it needs to forget about the stupid Alt Right brand (still being promoted at Counter-Currents, I see) and to end the affirmative action program.  Also stop favoring incompetent Type Is over more competent Type IIs (although the Type I preference may be at least in part a quota queen issue already discussed, but it is also independent of ethnicity – a memetic affirmative action policy).

Fisking the State of the Right

The state of the dishonest Right.

Commenting on this essay. In all cases, emphasis added.

This is a very important essay. Please read, comment, and share. — Greg Johnson

Yes, Greg, I’ll read it and comment on it, as follows. And since I’ve been ‘banned” from your blog for having the temerity to criticize you (lese majeste!) I’ll comment here.

There’s no sense in mincing words anymore: The Alt Right has hit a wall and is presently faced with the hard task of pulling back and searching for a new course. The enemy media are (prematurely) claiming victory. Many progressives are hastening to vindicate the “antifa” domestic terrorist movement,[1] discarding the pretense that liberal misgivings about organized political violence hinge on anything more than crass utilitarianism.

The domestic terrorist group supported by Antifa Jeff Sessions.

My purpose here is to offer some thoughts on what has happened and how our side can hope to recover its ground. I do not wish to exaggerate the present difficulties, nor blame people in the Alt Right…

…except for Richard Spencer, of course. After all, this is Counter-Currents.

…for suffering what is essentially a form of state repression outsourced to volunteer paramilitary groups and powerful corporations. However, repression by those in power is a constant for us; what has changed is the effectiveness of this repression, which used to meet with a fluid, agile and durable target, and now increasingly enjoys a sluggish, clumsy and brittle one. One major reason for this is that prominent figures in the Alt Right, protected by a widespread culture of hooting down internal dissent, took strategic and aesthetic decisions that ended up turning an antifragile movement into a highly destructible one.

When was the “movement” ever “antifragile?”  This is an absurdity.

Where the Alt Right was once proudly decentralized…

But with a unified fossilized dogma, criticism of which is considered blasphemy, and a good old boys network of affirmative action quota queen leadership.  How “decentralized” was that?  How were – and are – dissidents to “movement” dogma treated?  On the other hand, there are varied permutations of “movement” dogma and all these groups fight among themselves, and, in addition, there are even more battles that are about personality rather than ideology.  So, there is a practical decentralization – one can call it fragmentation – but for the most part the fragments revolve around the same failed ideas.

…it now seeks unification (and is, of course, more divided than ever). Where it once contained a constellation of anti-progressive elements, it is now reduced to an isolated ethnonationalist core spitting fire at everything else around it. Where it once employed intellectual quality and transgressive trolling to equally great effect, these polar opposites have lately been merged into a dull and stagnant rehash of Rockwellian neo-Nazism.

Question: What blog was pushing the meme that “the Alt Right Means White Nationalism…or nothing at all?”  Think hard now.

As many of these changes were made precisely so that certain individuals could enjoy leadership..

Indeed.  And “certain individuals” goes beyond just Richard Spencer. Look a bit closer to home as well.

Who wrote:

So someone will eventually endow the Alternative Right with a positive content. So it might as well be me.

This content will, to a great extent, be socially constructed. Meaning that people can try to offer any definition they want, but unless it is widely accepted by others, it does not matter. Thus, for a proposed meaning to stick, it must either come from someone relatively authoritative, or it must be immediately compelling, or both. 

My definition meets both criteria, so here goes: the Alternative Right means White Nationalism — or it means nothing at all.

That was Greg Johnson.

…it would be perverse to allow them to shirk responsibility for the results. 

Are you calling for accountability?  Crazy and bitter!

That said, I am not accusing anyone of deliberate sabotage: those who employed these methods certainly believed that they would work. This is why a true analysis of the present state of affairs must look beyond mere personalities and decisions…

Except when Richard Spencer is involved, then we’ll mention his name at every opportunity.

…and identify the deeper fault lines in the ideological fundament of our movement.

Look beyond mere personalities but be sure to bash Richard Spencer by name at every chance.

Your Brain on Liberalism

Your Brain on Der Movement

To understand why the Alt Right is failing, we can start by asking a simple question: how do most people in it envisage the victory of the movement? I would anticipate receiving three basic answers: 1) a mass white awakening provoked by anti-white depredations; 2) the rise of a reactionary post-Millennial youth wave; and 3) a collapse of modern Western civilization that will destroy the ruling power structure at a stroke.

Typical “movement” fantasies.

None of these scenarios correspond to reality. Anti-white depredations that would have seemed unimaginable a few decades ago have not provoked ordinary people into rebellion. 

Whites are a cowardly race of adaptively unfit, objectively inferior people.

“Generation Zyklon” …

Does not exist.  Stop parroting juvenile Roissyite stupidity.

…might be fairly conservative…


…but they have little social and political power, and many cradles in the West have already been filled by the children of the imported neo-proletariat loyal to the Left. As for a civilizational collapse: even assuming that such a thing could happen, it would likely favor those who already possess disproportionate resources and entrenched power structures. The big winners of the Western Roman collapse were the barbarian invaders, the Christian Church, and (sometimes) the late Roman landholding elites who got to merge with the invaders; the bagaudae rebel groups in the provinces were simply suppressed by old and new rulers alike.

This is true and a valuable observation.

All of these Alt Right victory fantasies bear a common stamp of origin: they are liberal fantasies. This fact that should not surprise us in the least, given that liberalism enjoys near-complete intellectual hegemony in the West, and forms the common ideological bedrock of progressivism and post-1945 conservatism.

One of the fundamental pillars of liberalism is what we might call a democentric view of things. In this view, men are born free, then choose to enter into a “social contract” and set up a ruling authority in order to secure their interests. This implies not only that the ruling authority is the servant of the people, but that the initiative to drive history is in the hands of the people; those in power can only choose to fulfil or deny the popular will. Although the ruling elites may disregard their obligations and repress popular demands, this can only prove ineffective in the long run, as the will of the people “inevitably” takes the course of insurrection and restores the original social contract.

Contrast this with the anti-liberal view, which we can call cratocentric or “rule-centered.” In this view, all men are born into subjection (i.e., as children under the sway of parents); society arises from the expansion and agglomeration of families, as the cities of antiquity arose according to Fustel de Coulanges; and the authority of the ruler is no more dependent on popular consent than is the rule of a father over his children. The masses can assent to the commands of the ruling authority, or else negate them, but they do not and cannot take the initiative to change society. Repression by authority usually works as advertised, and where successful insurrections do take place, they do not spring from a spontaneous popular will but from the power schemes of a rival authority.

Actually neither view is always correct.  Sometimes it is one or the other. Granted, it’s never only “the masses” per se, there are driving forces.  But those driving forces may be helping to express actual mass discontent.  The French Revolution was from what “rival authority?”  Enlightenment radicals?  Who?

Although democentric ideas may possess ideological hegemony over the modern West, cratocentric ones still possess their ancient hegemony over human nature. And when we critique democentrism from a cratocentric viewpoint, we understand that it is not really an expression of “anti-elitism,” but an ideological weapon to serve the long struggle of liberal elites against the traditional elites of the West. Democentrism is toxic to the legitimacy of an aristocracy, and hazardous to that of a monarchy; but it is a useful smokescreen for anonymous plutocrats, and a positive elixir of health for the managerial elites whose business it is to control society in the name of the people.

The sort of faux-sophisticated cynicism that the intellectually lazy like to offer in place of a nuanced analysis.  Sometimes democentric ideas are genuine.

What does all of this have to do with the present state of the Alt Right? Well, let’s come to the point: the liberal managerial class ruling the West preserves its own legitimacy by using manipulation and patronage to construct a democratic facade for its own exercise of power. When it wants to destabilize a foreign government, it funds a color revolution, or encourages an internal rebellion. When it wants to impeach a renegade US President, and anticipates the need to disarm his conservative supporters, it comes up with a media-constructed assault on public opinion masquerading as a spontaneous protest by school shooting survivors. When it wants to strengthen that impeachment effort by getting hold of some juicy photos of brown children being shot dead by border guards, it whips up a caravan of illegal migrants to storm the US border. And so on.

“And so on” – a perfect descriptive phrase for the treadmill of failure of Der Movement.

As these examples suggest, this manipulation does not always succeed, at least not directly. But it has created a strong illusion of unlimited popular agency that infects even the self-described enemies of liberalism, fooling them into a false view of how power is achieved and exercised. The tactics pursued by the Alt Right since Heilgate can be compared to a cargo cult, in the sense that they rely on recreating the democentric facade of liberal movements. Protest marchers chanting racialist slogans are our Black Lives Matter, street brawlers are our antifa, and neo-Nazis are our trannies and homosexuals demanding public acceptance for their shocking private fetishes.

Heilgate – it’s all Spencer’s fault.  In contrast, those who rant about the “Kali Yuga” and “the men who can’t tell time” are non-fetishistic normies.

Everything is in place—except, alas, for the decisive factor, which is the patronage and toleration of those in power. And needless to say, when these tactics fail, the defeated upstarts start to get depressed about the inability of their people to spontaneously defend their own interests. Liberalism is a potent drug indeed!

“Movement” dogma is a more potent drug for some people.

The Fascist Path to Power

In light of this, it is worth taking a brief look at the ways in which the fascist movements of the early twentieth century achieved power. Many of those pushing liberal cargo-cult tactics in the Alt Right believe that they are imitating fascism, and they hold out hope for a “white awakening” because they know that Hitler and Mussolini rose to power on the back of popular movements. However, a closer look at the history of these movements refutes the popular myth of a fascist rise to power by pure mass revolution.

Robert O. Paxton’s Anatomy of Fascism is of great use here. It discusses not only the successful fascist movements in Italy and Germany, but also the unsuccessful ones elsewhere, and distinguishes all of these from conservative authoritarian regimes that did not rely on the same radical and populist methods. It also separates out the stages through which a fascist movement must cycle in order to assume power. The aid of established power is needed at several points on the way.

An obvious logical flaw is to assume that conditions inherent in past rightist movements would necessarily obtain today.

The first stage begins long before the fascist movement is founded, and consists of the social, intellectual and political developments that contribute to making it a possibility. As everyone knows, the Great War and the rise of Communism in Russia were the most important preconditions for the original fascist movements. Less often appreciated is the role of what we would now call “metapolitics”: a longer process of mental preparation going back decades, in which the failings of liberalism and democracy were exposed and the decline of Western civilization was discussed. This smoothed the way for the creation of fascist movements in the wake of the Great War, but it did not guarantee their success (for example, fascism did not take power in France, although the French had experienced the longest period of mental preparation for it).

OK, fair enough.

The next stage begins once the fascist movement is founded and consists of a process by which it roots itself in the social and political system—or, alternatively, fails to do so. Initially, the fascist movement seeks to maximize its popular appeal by creating a loose and amorphous “antiparty,” which serves to attract all sorts of people who possess wildly divergent interests but are united by a vague discontent. Later, although the movement continues to rally the people, many of these early followers end up being pruned off as alliances are made with existing social and political interests. In Mussolini’s case, this was achieved when the squadristi in rural Italy made themselves an indispensable ally of the big landowners, who were being squeezed between the laissez-faire liberal state and the socialists agitating their workforce. In Germany, Hitler managed to attract small businessmen and a few large ones to his cause, although most of these stuck with traditional conservatives (and certainly did not bankroll the NSDAP to the extent claimed by the Left). It is important to emphasize the toleration of both of these fascisms by elements of the power structure in their countries. Local police forces often sided with Mussolini’s squadristi, and Hitler’s Brownshirt toughs enjoyed lenient treatment by the conservative Weimar judiciary.

There is not much relevance to today’s situation.

The third stage, and the final one as far as we are concerned, involves the “seizure of power” by which the fascist movement achieves unrestrained rule. But in order to achieve this, the fascist leaders must first be appointed into government by conservative elites, who typically wish to make use of their popular following in order to bolster their own legitimacy. 


The 1922 March on Rome was nearly thwarted by the Italian government—trains carrying the majority of Blackshirts were stopped by police, and the government possessed the military force to repulse the nine thousand who turned up at the gates of the city—but King Victor Emmanuel III, fearing the consequences of open bloodshed, declined to impose martial law and instead offered the prime ministry to Mussolini. After trying and failing to imitate this gambit in 1923, Hitler sought power through the political system instead, and was eventually appointed to the chancellorship by a conservative elite that had been ruling without a parliamentary majority and wished to return to popular rule. Had the intention been to lock him out at all costs, this could have been done, as the NSDAP’s large electoral support was beginning to drop off at the time.

This is all true, but representative of the times; there is no inherent reason why the same must obtain now.

In summary, successful fascist movements must cultivate not only the masses but also the vested interests of society. 

“Must?”  Nonsense.  This is not the 1920s and 1930s.  The principles of that time may apply to today, or they may not.  We cannot just blithely assume that they will.

They must be encouraged, or at least tolerated, by an established ruling elite focused on the greater threat from leftist revolution. Eventually, they must make a bid for power, and find conservative patrons who are both willing to cooperate with them and obliged by their own crisis of legitimacy to do so. Where no such opportunities existed in the 1920s and 1930s, fascism got nowhere; and where it directly confronted conservative authoritarian regimes, it typically ended up being repressed as one more phenomenon of public disorder.

Again, this does not necessarily mean that the same situation would obtain today.  

The fascist experience can teach us many things. It illustrates the importance, yet also the limitations, of metapolitical action. It tells us that anyone attempting to follow the route to power walked by the fascists must appeal to a vast array of classes and interests and must work with national sentiment instead of offending it, which rules out anyone who chooses to marginalize himself by waving the flag of a defeated foreign enemy. It also reminds intellectuals that the angry young men attracted to the Right, who often egg each other on into unwise patterns of behavior, are in fact indispensable to the cause—what matters is to put them to good use defending the people being bullied by the Left, instead of wasting them in pointless street parading or noxious infighting.

Again the “must.”  Inevitability may be relevant for such things as human death or the fate of the universe, but not for human-political-social affairs.  To assume that the situation today “must” follow along the same lines as nearly a century ago is irrational.  It may follow, or it may not – there is no “mist” about it.  The author has to make better arguments in favor of his assertions rather than just an appeal to past historical (few in number) precedents.

However, the most important thing that fascism teaches us is that it cannot be recreated in the present era. 

No, instead we need idiots screaming about Pepe and Kek, Trump worship, babbling about psychokinesis and the Pyramids of Atlantis, and “metapolitical” meetings infiltrated by Swedish homosexual anti-racists and by snarky journal writers posing as movie critics.

The ruling power structure was founded on fascism’s defeat and is watching out for its revival at every turn. 

Since they label everything from Trump farting to Greg Johnson working out at a gym as “fascist” that apparently would seem to considerably constrain the scope for action.

The modern avatar of leftist revolution is not a military threat from beyond the frontier, but a political enemy ensconced in every official institution, and it is now the “antifa” and “SJWs” who enjoy judicial leniency and elite patronage. 

Meet Jeff Sessions!  And what has the Right been doing all these decades while the Left has infiltrated the institutions?  Answer: Pepe!  Kek!  The Men Who Can’t Tell Time!  True Romance!  March of the Titans!  Living on the mountaintop indulging in serial monogamy with a series of Eastern European mail order brides living off the donations of followers you deride as “soft city-dwelling Whites!”

The managerial revolution in industry, and the abandonment of white proletarian interests in favor of foreign immigrants by the Left, has neutralized a great deal of the old opposition between Bolshevism and big business. Perhaps most importantly in the long run, the West is no longer made up of sovereign states based on the rights of a fighting citizenry but consists of the territories of a de facto US Empire that pursues its expansionist goals through manipulation and subversion. And while there are still “conservatives” in office, these are no longer the anti-liberal traditionalists who used that name before 1945, but right-liberal “loyal opposition” who pride themselves on keeping the real Right out of power.

The latter sounds a lot like Trump, the grand “patron” of the Alt Right.

Of the three stages of fascist pathbreaking, the only one available to us right now is metapolitics. 

In other words, Counter-Currents is our salvation.  Give generously!  After all, the Golden Age exists wherever anyone lives it today, and you live it by tossing shekels in the direction of panhandling “leaders.”

Thanks to the internet, a true “free press,” the savagery and hypocrisy of the liberal oligarchy can be communicated every day to ever-increasing masses of people outside the official media structure. This can never induce the masses to rise up and replace that oligarchy of their own accord, but it can ensure that they become convinced of its illegitimacy and unwilling to react strongly against threats to its power. That is the first step from which all others must follow.

How’s that been going?

From Fourth to Second Generation Warfare

As regards political action, in a situation where previous roads to power have been closed to us, there is only one model that can offer any hope for success. This is the guerrilla war—or, more precisely, the Fourth Generation War (4GW) described by William S. Lind in his works On War and Fourth Generation War Handbook.

It goes without saying that I am not suggesting a physical war with the managerial state, and anyone who does so is either a fool or an enemy shill.

Or a Type I activist.  Off to the woods with your rifle to chew on some twigs and branches! Or snug in your hobbit hole, eh?

But it should be clear to us by now that politics is war by other means, and that we are in the strategic position of “non-state actors,” prevented from fighting in the open against enemies who enjoy official backing. Non-state actors are no exception to everything that I have said about power and patronage, and the most effective ones are aided and financed by sympathetic states. However, we know that patronage is not required for the creation of a political guerrilla movement, as we ourselves have witnessed the creation of just such a movement out of absolutely nothing.

I thought Trump as an “informal” patron?

I am referring, of course, to the Alt Right, which in its original form showed a promising application of guerrilla methods to political warfare. As a diverse collection of autonomous Rightist groups operating under a loose brand name, it presented no single target for the enemy to attack. The movement had no single leader who could be vilified, co-opted, hyped up as the ‘big bad guy’ indispensable to all Hollywood narratives, or harassed and made to look stupid in public. In the absence of such a hate figure, it was Hillary Clinton and her official media backers who made themselves look ridiculous by declaring war on Pepe the Frog.

How about people looking ridiculous by making a cartoon frog the symbol of racial activism?

Online trolls associated with the Alt Right used Nazi imagery to publicly flout the speech restrictions imposed by the Left and transform the “Brown Menace”—the justification for every foreign imperial war and domestic repression campaign, treated with due reverence by Leftists and fake conservatives—into a big stupid joke. It is impossible to say whether the majority of those using this imagery were consciously doing so as a means to these ends, although expressions such as “Great Meme Wars” imply that this was actually the case. The point is that it was done by rank-and-filers sniping from the undergrowth of anonymity, and when the shrieking volunteer commissars wanted to hit back at Alt Right public figures, they found none who were foolish enough to present themselves as targets by endorsing Nazi imagery.

Unlike Counter-Currents, which as we know never runs articles favorable towards Hitler.

By extending its branding to milder strains of conservatism as well as ethnonationalists and reactionaries, the original Alt Right conformed to the 4GW principle of “hugging the civilians,” forcing the enemy to infuriate ordinary people by attacking them in order to get to the guerrillas. 

Yes, and let’s publicly discuss setting up “ordinary people” to being attacked by leftist thugs in order to promote “4GW.”   I’m sure all those “ordinary people” will thank you from their hospital beds.

In the physical 4GWs of Iraq and Afghanistan, American forces sowed dragon’s teeth among the local populations every time they shot at a guerrilla fighter and hit an innocent bystander. In the political 4GW against the Left, the same effect was achieved when Clinton dismissed half the American electorate as “deplorables” in response to the rise of the Alt Right. When this sort of thing happens, and the guerrillas (Alt Right) shoot back while the client-rulers (cuckservatives) wring their hands, the loyalties of the people begin to shift in a new direction.

This is an interesting and useful observation, and I admit I haven’t fully considered the “big tent” approach in that light.  How then do I square my opposition to “big tent” with the realization that the approach has some strategic value?  I will explain and please pay attention to what is a very simple argument, but one which is ignored, or misunderstood, by the simpletons of the “movement” – this in essence explains the major problem I have had with the Alt Right.  Now, the Alt Right style is not for me, and the “big tent” approach is not for me either.  But, that’s me; others have different views, and in principle I have no problem with the Alt Right and the Big Tent as specific components of an integrated strategic approach.  Indeed, I’ve always advocated multiple approaches, geared to the interests, skills, and personalities of different activists, tackling the problem from different directions.  But that’s the point, you see.  My basic problem with the Alt Right, including its Big Tenters, is with its arrogant presumption to represent the totality of racial activism.  The Alt Right IS the Movement, the Alt Right IS White nationalism, the Alt Right IS racial activism, the Alt Right MEANS White nationalism or nothing at all – that’s the hegemonic view that was promoted, and which I vehemently opposed and will continue to oppose.  They wanted ONE direction – the Alt Right way.  They wanted ONE brand, ONE identity, ONE approach – those crying for decentralization today were the ruthless memetic centralizers of yesterday.  And contrary to Orwellian memory hole historical revisionism, Alt Right hegemony was being preached by Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents as much as it was by Richard Spencer and all the rest.  In contrast, and consistent with my promotion of the groupuscule idea, I wanted more decentralization. There were, and are, diverse activists, such as Ted Sallis, Kevin Strom, Rodney Martin and others who want nothing to do with the Alt Right or with Big Tent mainstreaming.  If others want to do it, great, go ahead, but don’t you dare try to subsume the entirety of racial activism under the banner of sniggering Beavis-and-Butthead Millennialism, Big Tent dilution,, mainstreaming, and the “jump on the bandwagon” attitude that we all have to buy into the Alt Right brand, whether we want to or not.

Today, “decentralization” is a handy concept to use to hammer away at Richard Spencer’s alleged deficiencies, but a couple of years ago, when I objected to Alt Right hegemony, and championed real decentralization, I was a crazy and bitter shitstirrer with nothing to contribute, right?  The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

So, yes: a “hug the citizens” strategy can justify some factions of racial activism taking a Big Tent approach.  But it is not for everyone, and you will need to maintain separate factions that represent undiluted ideological and analytical rigor, so that the essence of what is being fought for is not diluted away in the name of pragmatism.

After finding an informal patron in Donald Trump, the Alt Right acquired the ability to go on the offensive.

Informal is an understatement.  The man is an absolute fraud. Remember that just a few paragrphs above we were told there was no patron.

The election of Trump, which offered the chance to substitute a real conservative political class for the professional losers of the loyal opposition, should have been understood as the first step towards reopening a road to patronage that has been closed to the radical Right ever since the defeat of fascism. However, many Alt Righters in the US—who had been happy to castigate democracy as a rigged game during the years of Obama’s rule—treated this event not as the capture of a bridgehead but as the crowning victory of a war. They had Cast Their Votes, Thrown the Bastards Out, and Put Their Man into Office, and some of them really started to say things like “we are the establishment now.” They forgot the prudence learned by everybody who lives under a totalitarian regime, and blissfully reverted to the liberal faith of their hearts, discarding hard-won knowledge under the pretext of taking action.

That’s true, the phony victory psychosis the Right always has.  But that mental aberration is closely tied to the Man on White Horse Syndrome, which this author promotes.  Trump is no “patron” – informal or otherwise.  At best, he’s an icebreaker, but the loser “movement,” full as it is with inept quota queens could not take advantage of the opportunity, and now the window of opportunity may be closing.

This set the stage for the regression of the Alt Right into conventional tactics, or Second Generation War (2GW), the tactics of the state forces that tend to lose Fourth Generation wars despite massive superiority in money and muscle. This began with rank-and-filers shaming people for exercising basic prudence, but it was formalized by Richard Spencer’s Heilgate stunt in November 2016. Spencer, who had created the original Alternative Right website in 2010 and shut it down three years later,[2] almost certainly regretted publicly discarding the Alt Right brand just before it exploded in popularity. In the old Rockwellian tradition, he decided to raise his name by using Nazi symbolism to play the enemy media, forgetting that this strategy always entails being played right back. 

Always Spencer’s fault.

By sparking a media outcry and winning over the large audiences flocking to the increasingly Nazi-themed outlets of Andrew Anglin and Mike Enoch, Heilgate succeeded in its covert goal of presenting Spencer as the leader of the Alt Right.

Earlier, this author claims he’s not criticizing anyone and he believes everyone – even when wrong – were acting in good faith.  Now, he ascribes “covert” motives to Heilgate.  To Counter-Currents, Spencer is some sort of Bond villain, petting a cat while plotting doom and destruction.

However, the wider effect of the stunt upon the Alt Right was disastrous. It drove a wedge into the loose alliance between radicals and populists, negating the 4GW strategy of “hugging the citizens” and allowing the core of the movement to be isolated as a target. The Alt Right quickly reformed into a small alliance of edgy white nationalist groups revolving around Spencer…

If they had instead revolved around Greg Johnson, it all would have turned out OK.  Dat right! 

…and promptly isolated itself further by declaring war on the “Alt-Liters” who had broken off to form the New Right. 

Ignoring that the Alt Lite had been constantly attacking those to their Right, and that there really was little in common between the two “Alt” factions.

At the same time, a plan was unveiled to redefine the new Alt Right as a centralized coalition…

Later on, this author supports the idea of one group with “momentum” absorbing the others.  Well, that’s what Spencer did.  It failed?  Great – then let’s have true decentralization, not covert calls for Counter-Currents to be the new hub of resistance.

…commanded by an eponymous corporate entity under Spencer’s leadership. 

Which I for one criticized from the start.  Indeed, I criticized the entire Alt Right project from the start, while Johnson and other Counter-Currents writers were enthusiastically all on board.  I was right and they were wrong.  Again.

And if centralization is bad, what about:

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go forth into battle and make this concept of the Alternative Right the dominant one. That is all.

That’s Greg Johnson again.

This threatened the organic unity of the original Alt Right, by making it harder for diverse groups to coexist within the same movement—and sure enough, ever since the change from “rhizome” to “tree” was made, the result has been a bitter fruit of obnoxious internal crusades against homosexuals, women, insufficiently edgy people, and other targets.

Can’t criticize those homosexuals, that’s for sure!  That’s a red line for some, no doubt.  As for the “wimmin” make sure to send in your donations so female Alt Lite podcasters can, in Greg’s words, buy all sorts of “frilly” things.

If the methods of the decentralized Alt Right can be compared to guerrilla warfare, centralization was equivalent to crawling out from the undergrowth and forming up as conventional battalions in the open field. And at Charlottesville, the Alt Right marched directly into one of the strongpoints of the enemy, with no plan other than to triumph by muscle and will. Although the men present showed great bravery against the antifa scum and politicized police sent against them, how could they have hoped to win against the weight of media, judicial, corporate and political power stacked against them? Needless to say, it is the failure of the Alt Right to keep up these costly frontal attacks has brought us to the present state of affairs, in which the enemy media demoralizes our people by gloating over the humiliation of the Spencers and Heimbachs they themselves elevated into place.

Once again: it is all Richard Spencer’s fault, right?  The ENTIRE Alt Right, including Counter-Currents, has to be held accountable for ineptness and failure, and for squandering the opportunities extant after Trump’s electon.

How, in retrospect, could things have been done differently? And how can things yet be done differently?

Deconstruct the failed “movement” and start over again.  And ditch the quota queens.  They are no more suitable for “movement” leadership than is any affirmative action Negro is performing their job.

We have to admit that that the pre-Heilgate structure of the movement could not have survived forever, and certainly not outside of cyberspace. 

Thank you for stating the obvious.

The fact that rank-and-filers in the Alt Right felt the need to out-edge each other in order to gain status is proof enough of the need for formal leadership and hierarchy. But if the contours of the original movement had been respected, the natural development would have been towards the creation of several real-life organizations within the overarching brand of the Alt Right, which would have tried out various approaches until one of them gained the strength and momentum to absorb the others.

That’s “decentralization” for you – one group absorbing all the others.  Is this new crop of Counter-Currents writers pathologically un-self-aware, are they trolling us, or are they merely stupid?  And while, eventually, one or more groups can become powerful and absorb others, that will require a level of competence and success at least one order of magnitude greater than has ever been seen before in this failed “movement.”  And even then serious ideological fissures would remain.

Ideally, these organizations would have carried the guerrilla tactics of the online movement into real life: harrying the enemy and luring him into overplaying his hand against ordinary people, instead of isolating ourselves from those people and courting their hatred by signaling as a threat to social order. Instead of rushing to usurp the brand name of the entire movement, the leaders—again, ideally—would have been wise enough to maintain a degree of plausible deniability between real-life activity and online discourse, making it less likely that political action will backfire on metapolitical work by inviting corporate-antifa censorship.

Does saying “The Alt Right MEANS White nationalism” count as such an error? Inquiring minds want to know.

Although spent political capital cannot be recovered, there is nothing stopping us from taking this course in the present day. Organizations like Identity Europa in the US (apparently modelled on Europe’s Generation Identity) are using political guerrilla tactics such as flash demos and leaflet bombing. Antifa, who feel vindicated by recent events, continue to push conservatives towards radicalization by violently harassing them.[3] The political bridgehead in the U.S. established by the Trump election is still intact, though much beleaguered, and the fight against impeachment may offer an issue around which the Rightist elements sundered by Heilgate can be reunited.

The dastardly Richard Spencer did it all!  Bad Dick bad!  Heilgate!  How about Infiltrategate?  Did that do any damage as well?  And here’s another reason why big tent mainstreaming is not for me: defending the cuck fraud Trump against impeachment is going to be the rallying point for the Right! The Man on White Horse rides again!

It may be that we shall have to discard the name of the original movement in order to recover its ethos. The centralized Alt Right exists mainly as an idea, which may serve to funnel donation money up to the handful of outlets that follow its rigid orthodoxy…

Like Counter-Currents.

…but exacts an intolerable price in strategic uselessness and internal friction. Distancing ourselves from the Alt Right brand name cannot make it go away—we are stuck with it for the foreseeable future—

Speak for yourself.  I was opposed to the Alt Right foolishness from the beginning, and have been proved, once again, to be correct. Let’s not whitewash history and forget that Counter-Currents was originally gung-ho in support of the Alt Right.

…but it may dispel the illusion of unification and allow the decentralized substance of the movement to reassert itself. 

Like the EGI Notes/Western Destiny groupuscule?  Does that count?  Why not?

And if we should require another catch-all name that can be used for the purpose of “hugging the civilians,” there is always the New Right brand currently being used by civic nationalists, who would be powerless to prevent its repossession by ethnonationalists and reactionaries.

Ethnonationalists and reactionaries – why are you surprised the “movement” is a failure when you count those two groups as constituting its core?  Backward-looking, divisive, moronic fossils – Yockey would call them Culture Retarders.  Or just plain Retards will suffice.

Perhaps the long-term success of our struggle will hinge upon future tectonic shifts in the Western power structure. However, at the very least, we can reject the patronage of the only power actor willing to support insane strategy and neo-Nazi stupidity: the enemy media. As Greg Johnson has observed, the media and certain Jewish organizations exert a great deal of control over the selection of leaders in the radical Right, simply by hyping up anyone who confirms their stereotypes as a serious threat and channeling credibility in his direction. 

The media and Jewish organizations consider Counter-Currents more of a threat than, say, EGI Notes.  Does the preceding paragraph apply to that situation as well? Or are we only supposed to think of Spencer and Heimbach?

It is no accident that the fifty-year-long cautionary tale of ‘WN 1.0’ began when George Rockwell thought he could manipulate the enemy media and resurrected itself for a second act when Richard Spencer fell into the same trap. The fact that both men were, in my estimation, generally sincere in their motives did not prevent the media from making use of their antics in order to discredit the wider movement.

The maxim no enemies to the Right can only hold true in the context of no alliances with the Left. This precludes courting the attention of the enemy media, just as it precludes selling our principles out to the Left and trying to win mainstream “respectability.”

We don’t want “mainstream respectability” and yet at the same time we want a “big tent” approach, eh?  Oh, that is to “hug the citizens” so as to use them as cannon fodder in “fourth generation warfare.”  Very well, that is discussed above.  But, maybe, just maybe, that’s something that shouldn’t be discussing publicly?  You really want to publicly admit that you are reaching out to John Q. Public so as to set them up to be punched in the face at some rally by Antifa Jeff’s leftist thug pets?  Do we really want this as yet another accusation against the Right by the Left: “the Alt Right tries to appeal to normal folks so as to set up those normal folks to get assaulted and then increase tensions?”  It would be better just to put it in more vague terms like “increasing balkanization” and “increasing social divisions” than to so explicitly describe a process of using “normies” in a ruthlessly instrumental fashion so as to accomplish those goals.

Those who want to lead this movement to victory have no serious choice other than to pursue steady, organic growth through meritorious action, and give the Fake News nothing but the savor of a door in the face.

We need real leaders for that, not inept affirmative action appointees.

Once again, to refute the historical revisionism at the essay being fisked: even when the Alt Right was at its peak (say, 2016), I was opposed to it and its pretensions to “movement” hegemony and I predicted its downfall, as long time readers of this blog are well aware; at the same time, Johnson was fully on board the Alt Right train, saying that the “Alt Right means white nationalism or nothing at all,” and was pushing for Alt Right dominance over racialist discourse.  Today of course Counter-Currents would have you believe something else entirely.

Alt Right Aesthetics

A brisk fisking.

1. Aesthetics matter more than optics

It Doesn’t (sic) matter what you do, it matters what you look like while you do it. They hate you, no matter what. You can save an entire school bus of children from drowning in a river in a flash flood, but the second your politics are revealed they will hate you and try to discredit and destroy you. Are we clear? Yes? Good. It doesn’t actually matter what you say, hardly anyone will remember it unless it’s exceptionally profound and you are a person of note. It matters what you look like, a well kept man is immediately notable versus a disheveled bum. How you are dressed -clean, well-fitted, matched- and what your hair looks like -effort vs no effort- your footwear -appropriate shoe for the occasion- and, if in person, how you smell. These are the things that impact people and it happens in 1/10th of a second. If you can make someone like or trust you in 1/10th of a second they will second guess everything that comes after that, you can only do that visually. First impressions are forever. If in doubt, start with the footwear and move upwards.

There is some value here; it is true that many people, a large fraction of the masses, judge almost entirely by appearance, by aesthetics.  Also, even those people who pay attention to the message also are influenced by aesthetics.  So, obviously, this is all important.  But taken literally as written, point one is absolute nonsense.  Really?  No one at all will pay attention to anything you say? Really?  So Trump won the Presidency because he was better dressed than, first, Jeb and Rubio and Ted and then, later, Clinton?  The best dressed man won?  If all that matters is aesthetics than “suit-and-tie” Jared Taylor and “metrosexual” Richard Spencer would be our Senators from Virginia already.  Yes, first impressions are forever.  But if you think that a good pair of shoes can completely substitute for a compelling message than you’re dumber than the average “movement” Nutzi.

2. Not everyone is an erudite gentleman. Nor should they be.

To the untrained eye this may seem in opposition to my previous point. It is not. 

Actually it is.

Authenticity is as much a part of aesthetics as anything else. 

Which is why you wrote: 

How you are dressed -clean, well-fitted, matched- and what your hair looks like -effort vs no effort- your footwear -appropriate shoe for the occasion- and, if in person, how you smell.

Cosmopolitan dwelling fellas, you ain’t getting a country boy in a suit and tie if he isn’t getting married or burying a relative, and that is okay. Some of the issues you have with “optics” is expecting a regionally distinct nation to follow the rules of only one region; which is exactly what the liberal coastal elites have been doing for decades! Speaking of regional conflicts…

OK, so a farmer wearing dirty boots and smelling like cow manure is A-OK.  Start with dem dere footwear and move upwards.

3. The South is for Southerners

There is no rational reason to concede ground to an enemy preceding a war, unless you have an advanced strategy to counter the push. You don’t volunteer your losses ahead of the game, and you certainly don’t reveal your hand of what you find most valuable. Alienating swaths of people by volunteering their homes as tribute to the very people who swarm their neighborhoods making them unsafe and barely habitable may seem like a funny meme or a rational concession; but it isn’t and by the by, I don’t hear an alternative where you give up your homes and flee to the South. The idea of an ethnic homeland for our people is a good one, but we need to think smarter than Balkanizing the United States of America.

Alright, I see nothing wrong with this.  I previously, it is true, wrote essays favoring this sort of racial portioning, but I see the point.  If White Southerners can seize and hold territory, more power to them.  Let’s see how it all falls out.

4. Shitposting isn’t going to save the world

These ideas have to make it into the real world where people live. Even the people you have contempt for have life experiences they can relate to our ideology. Why? Because the things that you’ve noticed aren’t unique to you just because you noticed them already for what they are. Online we live in a polarized meta-reality of extremes. Fascist or Marxist. Right or left. Genocide or victory. Those extremes simply don’t exist on the typical person’s radar. There is a season for all things and now is the season to forge real life connections with real life people. The way forward is not tiki-torches and marching, it is a quiet, responsible conversation about real affairs that matter to the man or woman in the street.

So then, basically the entire Alt Right “strategy” up until this point has been wrong.

5. Stop trying to purge people!

What kind of whacked out brain-fry drug den did you just crawl out of to think that any white person to the right of center is disposable? Identify them for what they are, and then utilize whatever it is they do or can do to benefit our immediate concerns. We have other concerns than just Zionism. We have to get legislation passed or stopped. We have to spread the word of first and second amendment breaches and violations. We have to talk about immigration. We have to talk about MS-13 and other gang activity. We have to have discussions existing on the internet that we don’t have a million hours in the day to have. I personally am very critical of basic CivNat conservatives. They are weak and ineffective at conservatism, but i never advocate for purging their huge, beautiful, rarely banned platforms. Stop being ridiculous. Immediately.

I disagree; the “big tent” approach, a form of mainstreaming, was, is, and remains a failure.  Although “purging” may be the wrong approach; ignoring in some cases can be better.  However, if someone promoting failed approaches is occupying your niche space, an ideological and memetic battle is necessary.

6. There’s no such thing as “Punching Right”

Nobody is above criticism. Nobody is above harsh criticism. Nobody. 

Including all the Quota Queens?  Now, don’t get all “crazy and bitter” on us here.

This doesn’t mean that person needs to be “purged” from the movement. We refine ourselves through defending our positions, we refine our arguments by having them more than once, and losing more often than we win. We refine our ideology through discussion; and you aren’t the gatekeeper of how that discussion is meant to be hosted. Anyone who has put their name or pseudonym forward accepts the inevitability that they will be challenged intellectually, morally and spiritually. There is surely no reason to schism between fans of this guy or that guy. That guy is not the be-all end-all, and this guy is only the guy until we find a better guy. Avoid cults of personality.

Err…the entire “movement” is based on “cults of personality” – hence all the catfights and feuding.  And does the “inevitability” of criticism apply to “milady” who has her crew of white knights ready to defend her honor (or what passes for it).

7. Get a thesaurus

Stop using words you know will get you banned on leftist social media platforms. The English language is the best language on the planet; and there are about 40 legitimate words that aren’t bannable for every bannable word you type. For example whore is bannable, strumpet is not. Retarded is bannable, simple is not. Understand that in one moment we talk about white excellence and in the other we show that we can’t learn, collectively, how to stop saying bad words and getting shut down. Adapt.

OK. Fine.

8. Quit pretending you don’t want women talking about politics

Yes you do. You need women to talk about politics. You may not want them in politics or to hold office, after all,who does; women are inherently terrible at it. Please though, stop with the ridiculous assertion that you want women to stop talking about current affairs or identity issues. It’s an aphrodisiac when a woman agrees with you about topics that you care deeply about. For her to understand what concerns you and why, is a comfort to you. To be able to vent your frustrations to someone who can hear you and can fathom your concern is a boon. Do you really want to come home to dinner, start moaning about Mueller, communists or the latest political compromise in direct opposition to your immediate needs and be met by a blank stare? No. We are a partnership, always. If you happen to be the very small amount of men who actually hate women, shut up and get out of the way of the men who would like to make lots of babies with the women that you despise.

See the response to #6 above.  Women can’t have it both ways – first, wanting to be involved “just like the guys” and then whining at the slightest criticism and hiding behind white knights who come charging out from behind Patrik Hermansson’s notepads.

9. Jews aren’t that powerful.

I am not suggesting you should give them a single moment of respite from pointing out each and every instance they exercise what influence they’ve been permitted to have.

I said permitted.

They are not innovative or cutthroat or fun. They merely exhibit an enviable in-group bias. This is the fundamental crux of the relationship between the West and those Jews who take advantage of systems we create for their group benefit. It is not every Jew you meet in day to day life; and therefore our attention to relations between our peoples as a whole should be fair, polite, but firm. The cry of antisemitism arises when the grand arch of Zionist influence is threatened- because it can be taken away from them in an instant, as has been done in many other civilizations throughout history. They cannot outperform us, purely based on the relative sizes of our populations; it is a logical strategy to shape a society to better suit your own interests, given this understanding. It is our role to politely refuse such machinations.

Be polite!  Always mention that they have a high, high-IQ and are HuWhyte Men of the West.

Ultimately, though the Jewish lobby has poisoned our society in many respects they will ultimately only destroy themselves with success; just as a parasite cannot live without a host, they cannot live without the protection of Western Civilization, either in our lands or in Jerusalem. We can recognize this reality in the declining Jewish population in the West, through intermarriage and emigration to Israel. This force is in a process of decline in the West- for as much as we can say demography is destiny, this is true for all peoples. It is thus far more important in this context that you rediscover your power and learn to start saying, “No, thank you. This is not in our interest. Good day.”

Can we say “No, thank you” to the poseurs, quota queens, and cosplay actors of Der Movement?

Absent of criticism we cannot take the steps necessary to accomplish our collective goals. It is what happens within our small but growing community that sets the stage for the future battles we will face; be they culturally, politically, or in some cases physically. We need to learn to turn into ourselves and each other, first to strengthen from within and only after that push forward into the mire that awaits us. If we do, then bleak prospects will become victorious battles rather than nihilistic concessions and defeat.

Alas, some people in Der Movement have skin thinner than a microtome slice and cannot take any criticism at all.  Those are the “leaders,” by the way.  Much confidence inspired!

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Good point from the Chinaman.  The Alt Right is best described by the latter.  All bluster, no preparation whatsoever.

High-Information Moralizing

And some very important questions at the end.

Consider some of the comments here.



2 days ago (edited)

You are one of the dishonorable Orc shills that I mentioned in the podcast. Shame on you.

“Orc.”  Apparently, Johnson wrote that “snug in his hobbit hole” out in the forest, where there is “de facto anarchy,” as opposed to the “centralized authority” of the capital.  Lots of maturity there.  I suppose at some point an analysis needs to be done about this whole Lord of the Rings fetish.  Is it an ethnic/subracial thing?  Or just the Type I/Type II divide?

Will to Power

Will to Power

2 days ago (edited)

@CounterCurrentsTV Good to know that you and many others prioritize putting personal vendettas and petty squabbling ahead of what’s in the best interests of the movement. Let’s be honest here, because that’s what this is. Granted I’m not privy to private conversations, but from an outsider’s perspective this looks appalling on your end. And before you go ahead accusing me of being a Spencer shill as well, I’m not. There is a nuanced position to take in this whole affair, and Millennial Woes embodies that perfectly. I don’t have any particular favoritism in this scenario and I really like the both of you two. That’s the case for many people, I’m sure, which is what makes this whole situation so regrettable. Spencer isn’t going anywhere, you’re not going anywhere, Alt-Hype isn’t going anywhere, so the sooner you all come to terms with that reality and restore relations, at least to the point where you don’t dread crossing paths at conferences, the better the movement will be for it. In other words, please pluck your fucking stubborn heads from your behinds, because this is all becoming extremely distasteful.




2 days ago

You don’t recall, huh? Perhaps you should inform yourself before you engage in this kind of low-information moralizing.

There we go again with his favorite phrase “low-information moralizing.”  In my case, I have recently attempted to increase the information content of my moralizing by reading material on, and listening to podcasts on, all the moronic “movement” feuds, scandals, and personal problems, including, but not limited to, such wonderfully moralizing things as “ghoulish” bodypart photos, “fashy” facebook groups, whether or not “movement” celebrities are or are not Jewish, etc., and I have to say that after diving into the “movement” sewer that I prefer to be “low information” thank you very much. Some types of information can’t be unseen or unlearned.  By the way, Der Movement Inc. is so utterly and despicably disgusting that anyone involved in it has no right to cast aspersion on its critics. Clean up your own house first.

Disappointed Englishman

Disappointed Englishman

1 day ago

Richard has admitted that the campus speech tour approach was a mistake — but don’t forget these speeches were at one point quite successful, so it is only since Charlottesville that they became too difficult to do. He is not vainglorious, and he is the public face of the Altright. I accept Greg in the movement, as long as he knuckles down under Richard Spencer and Greg Conte.

Disappointed Englishman

Disappointed Englishman

1 day ago

I wonder if I am the one in this thread labelled an Orc Shill by GJ (Hail, Johnson! Hail Victory!) Look I’ve acknowledged that GJ is a good white identitarian doing a lot of good stuff – I just called for him to drop the vendetta against RS. Indeed this is part of the reason why gay leaders are inadvisable — they bring personal cattiness and bitchiness with them. GJ is demonstrating, personally, the very reason why he should not be “the leader”. As a follower, GJ, welcome aboard.

Disappointed Englishman

Disappointed Englishman

1 day ago

CounterCurrentsTV edited his comment. His comment, in my inbox, read initially: “You are one of the dishonorable Orc shills that I mentioned in the podcast. Shame on you: lying and shilling for that sociopath. Spencer is cancer. “Mistakes have been made” is a nice passive way of saying that Spencer has made catastrophic errors of judgment. These errors are not flukes. They spring from a deeply flawed — narcissistic, dishonest — character. The movement would be better off if Spencer simply retired. ”

Honestly? Richard Spencer is cancer? Richard Spencer is a sociopath? This is just a handbags-at-dawn camp attack.


Corporation Camp

Corporation Camp

1 day ago

I have been following this petty beef between Greg and Spencer for years. It has always come from Greg’s side tbh.

Disappointed Englishman

Disappointed Englishman

1 day ago

Yes. Richard Spencer always avoids this stuff in his podcasts.



1 day ago

The bottom line is: I think the movement would be stronger if Spencer simply retired. He has a track record of terrible decisions, with disastrous consequences. These are not random and accidental. They flow from his bad character. He’s vain, sociopathic, impulsive, dishonest, and self-indulgent. Furthermore, he’s not even an advocate of White Nationalism. He denigrates ethnonationalism and praises the EU and the USSR. He’s simply an incoherent shill for Russian geopolitical interests. Why does Spencer support Putin’s war against “Nazis” (genuine White Nationalists) in Ukraine, but then ruin NPI with Nazi rhetoric and Hitler salutes? If there is a coherent agenda there, it is anti-white. He’s also a terrible spokesman: rambling, inarticulate, and half-baked. Beyond that, Spencer’s one enduring achievement is that he has somehow corrupted otherwise perfectly decent people into being grotesque liars and shills, like “Disappointed Englishman.”

Let’s take a closer look at this last comment.

The bottom line is: I think the movement would be stronger if Spencer simply retired.

I agree.  However I go further and say the “movement” would be even stronger if Johnson, Taylor, Brimelow, Dickson, Duke, TRSMajority Rights, Roissy, et al. all retired as well.

He has a track record of terrible decisions, with disastrous consequences.

Like letting “extremely vetted” meetings get infiltrated multiples times by ludicrously transparent infiltrators?  Like banning people who were not only long-time commentators but also writers for your website?  By getting wholesale on the Trump train, to the extent of stating that he would enact real pro-White demographic change, but never admitting your error?

These are not random and accidental. They flow from his bad character. 


He’s vain, sociopathic, impulsive, dishonest, and self-indulgent.

Indeed, again.

Furthermore, he’s not even an advocate of White Nationalism.

Neither is Johnson, who is an ethnonationalist advocating the possibility of Europeans ethnically cleansing each other.

He denigrates ethnonationalism….

Which supports, and not refutes, Spencer being a White nationalist.  WN is, by definition, nationalism primarily based on race and NOT on ethnicity.

…and praises the EU and the USSR. 

I agree with Johnson’s criticisms here.

He’s simply an incoherent shill for Russian geopolitical interests. 


Why does Spencer support Putin’s war against “Nazis” (genuine White Nationalists) in Ukraine, but then ruin NPI with Nazi rhetoric and Hitler salutes?

I supported the Ukraininan nationalists, but let’s be honest, they were used to advance a globalist agenda.  Perhaps Spencer was right about that.

If there is a coherent agenda there, it is anti-white. 

Oh, you can say that about the entirety of Der Movement, Inc.

He’s also a terrible spokesman: rambling, inarticulate, and half-baked. 

As opposed to?

Beyond that, Spencer’s one enduring achievement is that he has somehow corrupted otherwise perfectly decent people into being grotesque liars and shills, like “Disappointed Englishman.”

And they’re “crazy and bitter” too!

Disappointed Englishman

Disappointed Englishman

1 day ago

Greg, you claim Richard has bad character, but this video and your comments here provide evidence of your bad character. Honestly. Comments that Richard is cancer, etc. Please up your game! Do you accept that it is not right for a gay man to lead the identitarian right?



1 day ago

Nobody takes you seriously, orc.

The Ring!  The Ring!  De facto anarchy in the provinces!

Here are the questions alluded to above.  The primary question, and one that should have been asked of Johnson, but was not, is this:

If Richard Spencer is an incoherent, vain, sociopathic, impulsive, dishonest, and self-indulgent cancer, then how has he so quickly risen to a position of high prominence in the “movement?” 

We have to admit that he has surpassed Duke and Taylor as the most well-known Far-Right activist on the American scene, and that he has significant influence and a wide array of allies and adherents.  Doesn’t this mean that Der Movement is full of vain, impulsive, dishonest, self-indulgent sociopaths who would, naturally, accept someone embodying those traits as their leader?  You can’t have it both ways – that Spencer is such a horrible human being but at the same time the “movement” that so readily accepts him is fundamentally healthy.  Either Spencer is not that bad or Sallis is 100% correct about Der Movement, which means that your own character is suspect for your over-the-top critiques of “crazy and bitter” Ted.

Let’s ask more questions.  

If you believe that Spencer is as bad as you say, then doesn’t that mean that the “movement” in which he is a prominent leader must be broken beyond repair?  Doesn’t it mean that Sallis is correct in his characterization of Der Movement as an inept and dishonest chronic failure?  Doesn’t it mean that most American Alt Righters are feckless peabrains, easily manipulated and unable to distinguish true leadership from false?

Isn’t it true that there is an affirmative action program in the “movement” that benefits the likes of Spencer (and you as well), based on ethnic origins?

Further, what does it say about your judgment, and that of Taylor, Brimelow, Derbyshire, and the rest of “the boys” that you all were fooled by Spencer for years and you all wanted a “big tent” Alt Right including Spencer? Why should any of us trust your judgment now?