Category: fisking

Fisking Ethnonationalism

Against ethnonationalism.

Greg Johnson makes what are probably the best possible arguments in favor of ethnonationalism vs. a more integrated pan-Europeanism.  I will now respond to these arguments.  It should go without saying that although I will be sharply critical, this is business, not personal; this is about ideology, not personality.

Also note that some of the difference is semantic and there is overlap between our positions; for example, I absolutely demand that distinct European peoples and cultures be preserved.  I oppose any general panmixia and I oppose the idea that all sovereignty, particularly local, should be taken over by a “super-state.”  On the other hand, apparently, real differences exist, so let’s evaluate these differences.

Why should sovereignty reside in ethnostates rather than in more inclusive orders, such as the European Union or the “Imperium” envisioned by Francis Parker Yockey? 

It is certainly curious that activists who disagree with Yockey on the single most fundamental aspect of his thought – his Imperium, the title of his most famous book – revere his memory. Certainly, one can revere someone one disagrees with, but the extreme discordance between a most fundamental – indeed existential – disagreement, and the degree of reverence, is unusual. More important, the way that Yockey’s idea is portrayed by the ethnonationalists is a strawman argument.  Yockey made it clear in a variety of his works that within his Imperium, European peoples would maintain local sovereignty and maintain their identities.  So, the implication that Yockey supported a radical panmixia of Europe’s peoples and cultures is incorrect.

Or, more grandly, the “Eurosiberia” of Jean Thiriart and Guillaume Faye? Or, grander still, the union of the whole Northern Hemisphere, the “Borean alliance” or “Septentrion” of Jean Mabire and Volchock?

The principal benefits attributed to political unification are (1) preventing whites from fighting one another, and (2) protecting whites from other racial and civilizational power blocs like China, India, and the Muslim world. 

These are only the “defensive” benefits – the “anti-negative” ones.  It ignores the positive, de novo benefits, which I’ll discuss at the end after tackling the arguments against these defensive benefits.

These goals are important, but I think that political unification is not needed to attain them. Beyond that, it entails serious risks of its own.

As I write in my essay “Grandiose Nationalism“:

The essential feature of any scheme of political unification is the transfer of sovereignty from the constituent parts to the new whole. If sovereignty remains with individual states, then one does not have political unification. Instead, one has an “alliance” between states, or a “treaty organization” like NATO, or an “intergovernmental organization” like the United Nations, or an economic “customs union” like the European Common Market, or a hybrid customs union and intergovernmental organization like the European Union.

Why does sovereignty have to be all or nothing?  If even Yockey’s Imperium and Lowelll’s Imperium Europa (not mentioned above) would entail some sort of local sovereignty, what’s the point?  Why this semantic trick of making the choice between ethnonationalism and a ruthlessly fully integrated monolithic state – unless it is just to shill for ethnonationalism? Even in the USA, individual states retain some local sovereignty – not as much as “states’ rights advocates would want, but some – does this mean the USA is not in any way politically unified?  

As I argue in “Grandiose Nationalism,” political unification is not necessary to prevent whites from fighting one another or to secure whites from external threats:

These aims can be attained through alliances and treaties between sovereign states. A European equivalent of NATO, which provides Europe with a common defense and immigration/emigration policy and mediates conflicts between sovereign member states would be sufficient, and it would have the added value of preserving the cultural and subracial distinctness of different European groups.

The sort of pan-European integration I envision would absolutely preserve “the cultural and subracial distinctness of different European groups” – indeed, that would be one of its guiding principles.  The idea that pan-Europeanists favor a destructive panmixia – certainly implied here by contrasting the allegedly preserving properties of ethnonationalism – is a strawman argument I have dissected before, including in essays on Counter-Currents. Then we have the question: how to enforce these “alliances and treaties” on the “sovereign states?”  If they can drop out, consistent with their absolute sovereignty, and go their own way – say, forming anti-European alliances with the Colored world – then “alliances and treaties” among Europeans are worthless for long-term policy.  Do we coerce them (see below)? 

The threat of non-white blocs should not be exaggerated. France, the UK, or Russia alone are militarily strong enough to prevail against anything that Africa, India, or the Muslim world can throw at us — provided, of course, that whites are again morally strong enough to take their own side in a fight. A simple alliance of European states would be able to deter any Chinese aggression. Thus a defensive alliance between European states would be sufficient to preserve Europe from all outside forces, whether they be armed powers or stateless masses of refugees and immigrants.

This is wrong on two counts.  First, it assumes that European states can form alliances against outside threats (including a China that has hundreds of millions more people than all Europeans worldwide combined) but that non-Europeans cannot.  What if the Colored world decides to form an alliance against Europe?  Doesn’t “non-white blocs” actually suggest the sort of dangerous and comprehensive pan-Colored alliance that a “simple alliance” of European states is unlikely to be able to handle long term?  What if the clash of civilizations heats up?  Is some sort of flimsy “defensive alliance” – consisting of petty nationalists all with their own conflicting agendas – going to be sufficient?  Second, this argument is inconsistent with a point made elsewhere in this essay – that if a European ethnostate begins behaving badly, the other states can wage war against it and eliminate that threat. What about “France, the UK, or Russia” – nuclear armed states each of which is strong enough to stand against, according to Greg, a nuclear armed India with its own enormous bigger-than-Europe population?  Will Europe’s “defensive alliance” then wage a nuclear war against “France, the UK, or Russia” if those states behave badly?  If those states could defeat anything that “Africa, India, or the Muslim world” can throw at them, couldn’t they also defeat – or at least cause catastrophic destruction to – the European “defensive alliance?” You can’t have it both ways.

As for white fratricide: the best way to defuse white ethnic conflicts is not to combat “petty” nationalism but to take it to its logical conclusion. If different ethnic groups yoked to the same system are growing restive, then they should be allowed to go their own ways. Through moving borders and moving peoples, homogeneous ethnostates can be created, in which each self-conscious people can speak its own language and practice its own customs free from outside interference. Such a process could be mediated by a European treaty organization, which could insure that the process is peaceful, orderly, humane, and as fair as possible to all parties.

So, the sovereignty and desires of ethnonationalists will be over-ridden by a “European treaty organization” who will make decisions that would, no doubt, offend the petty nationalist interests (taken to their logical conclusion no doubt!) of individual European peoples.  And when you are taking petty nationalism to its logical conclusion, and encouraging ever-increasing distinctions between European peoples, how will you then herd this group of hissing ethno-cats into a “European treaty organization” and force them to abide by its rulings when such rulings go against them?  Coercion?  Force? Ethnic cleansing?

International crises are by their very nature interruptions in the normal order of things, which also means that their duration is limited, so eventually everything goes back to normal. Military alliances are also shifting and temporary things, but political unification aims at permanence and is very difficult to undo. Does it really make sense to make permanent changes in the political order to deal with unusual and temporary problems? 

The clash of civilizations is not temporary.  It is existential.  The Cold War lasted nearly half a century.  NATO, cited above as a sterling example of a “shifting and temporary” alliance, has been in existence since 1949 (!) and is still very much with us.  Europeans were so dissatisfied with what NATO gave them that they formed (voluntarily, I might add) the EU. Why did they do that? Do you really believe problems of race and culture are “unusual and temporary?”  If so, that is disturbing beyond belief.

The ancient Romans appointed dictators in times of emergency, but only for a limited time, because emergencies are temporary, and a permanent dictatorship is both unnecessary and risky. 

Those same Romans who formed an empire, producing Pax Romana.

But what would happen if a sovereign European state signed a treaty to host a gigantic Chinese military base? Or if it fell into the hands of plutocrats who started importing cheap non-white labor? Clearly such policies would endanger all of Europe, therefore, it is not just the business of whatever rogue state adopts those policies. What could the rest of Europe do to stop this? Isn’t this why we need a politically unified Europe?

The answer, of course, is what all sovereign states do when they face existential conflicts of interest: they go to war. Other states would be perfectly justified in declaring war against the rogue state, deposing the offending regime, and ethnically cleansing its territory. But then they would set up a new sovereign regime and go home.

This is perhaps the weakest and most inconsistent part of the ethnonationalist argument. You see, we will respect the sovereignty and independence of European states so much that if a sovereign European state does something we do not like, we’ll go to war against them, depose their government, and ethnically cleanse them!  Even Big Europe promoters like Yockey and Mosely would blush at that!  Let’s ethnically cleanse fellow Europeans because we cannot reasonably balance the fantasy of “sovereignty” with the realities of global geopolitics!  Then we have the question of those wonderfully powerful European states like “France, the UK, and Russia,” who, we are told, could easily make hash of India. Most certainly, nuclear armed European states, steeped in the tradition of petty nationalist sovereignty, will let themselves be invaded, their governments deposed, and their territory ethnically cleansed!  No doubt – no doubt! – they would just roll over and take that, with no thermonuclear weapons going off on the European continent. And the ethnonationalists deny that their schemes could ever lead to White fratricide!

The idea that we need European unification to prevent such wars is absurd. 

Actually, Greg’s own comment about ethnic cleansing among Europeans – which is in my opinion absurd – is a reasonably good justification for European integration (not absolute unification).  If ethnonationalism could possibly lead to intra-European war and ethnic cleansing, I’m all for Imperium.

Again, it makes no sense to make permanent changes to solve temporary problems, and it makes no sense to in effect declare war on all sovereign states today because we might have to declare war on one of them tomorrow.

The problems faced are not temporary (are you serious?) and having Europeans come together voluntarily (the EU was not formed by war, was it?) is not “declaring war on all sovereign states.” The only argument talking about war, deposing governments, and ethnically cleansing Europeans is the ethnonationalist argument I’m responding to.  Indeed, that is the petty nationalist mindset behind WWI and WWII.

Political unification is not only unnecessary, it is dangerous, simply because if it fails, it would fail catastrophically. It is not wise to put all one’s eggs in one basket, or to grow only one crop, or to breed a “homogeneous European man,” for when the basket breaks — or blight strikes the potato crop — or a new Spanish flu pandemic breaks out, one is liable to lose everything.

The “eggs in one basket” argument is probably the best one made here against integration, but the same can be said of the nation state.  An alliance – even temporary – can be subverted as well.  A European Imperium in which the member states meet in a Senate to make decisions would require subversion of the majority of the member states in order for the “basket” to destroy the “eggs.”  I’ve never argued for a narrow leadership caste making all decisions for the White world; rather an integrated system of European peoples deciding together.

A politically unified Europe would necessarily be ruled by a small, polyglot elite that is remote from and unresponsive to the provinces and their petty concerns, which they take great pride in denigrating for the greater good. 

Necessarily? Unlike those grand ethnonationalists like Churchill and de Gaulle, responsive to their citizens, who moved heaven and earth to prevent their homelands from being flooded with aliens? No, wait…

If that elite became infected by an anti-European memetic virus — or corrupted by alien elites — it would have the power to destroy Europe, and since there would be no sovereign states to say no, nothing short of a revolution could stop them.

See above.

Indeed, the leadership of the present-day European Union is infected by just such a memetic virus, and it is doing all it can to flood Europe with non-whites. The only thing stopping them is the fact that the European Union does not have sovereign power, and stubborn sovereign ethnostates like Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia are saying no.

The EU as not formed on a racial nationalist basis.  The idea that individual sovereign European states would not have flooded themselves with non-Whites is disproved by the 20th century history of France and the UK.  Why not cite Western Europe instead of the nations of Central and Eastern Europe?  Indeed, nation states can be subverted as well, the ethnonationalist solution to which I assume is invasion, deposing governments, and ethnic cleansing.

And again, in my scheme, major decisions would have to be agreed on by the majority of nation states.  If a majority of European states can be subverted, them what’s the benefit of sovereignty? The result is the same each way.

Even if a European Union were the only way to stop another Europe-wide war, the terrible truth is that, despite all the losses, Europe managed to recover from the two World Wars. 

And set itself on the road to overall racial-culture dispossession and destruction.  And what about the terrible dysgenic effects of those wars? Indeed, the entire White world was shattered by the fratricidal conflicts brought to us by petty nationalism.

But it would not recover from race-replacement immigration promoted by a sovereign European Union.

As opposed to the nation-level race-replacement immigration that France and the UK instituted independent of the EU?

Moreover, at a certain point, the EU is going to face a choice. If Poland or Hungary vetoes non-white immigration once and for all, the EU will either have to accept its dissolution or use coercion to hold itself together. In short, the EU may very well cause rather than prevent the next European “brothers’ war.”

The EU is anti-European.  And would the EU’s coercion be any different from that which Greg himself advocates above?  He himself proposes “brothers’ wars” including ethnic cleansing in order to maintain an unworkable conglomeration of squabbling ethnostates. 

A politically unified Europe would eliminate the principle of the equality of sovereign nations under international law. But it would not eliminate the existence of nations. 

Hey!  I thought we’d all lose our ethnic and cultural distinctiveness.  Now we won’t?

And in a common market and political system, certain national groups — principally the Germans — would have systematic advantages and end up on top. This means that a unified Europe would end up being a de facto German empire, since Germany has the largest population and the strongest economy. Does anyone really think that the French or the Poles would relish living under the hegemony of priggish self-loathing German technocrats? 

This is wrong on many levels. First, the knee-jerk appeal to crude anti-German sentiment doesn’t bode well for the “love and harmony” that ethonationalism would allegedly bring. Second, why would we expect that a future racial nationalist Europe would have “self-loathing German technocrats?”  Isn’t getting rid of such people the whole point, even under ethonationalism? Third, schemes could be put in place to prevent individual nations from dominating the whole. Fourth, what stops a priggish petty nationalist Germany from bullying other ethnonationalist European states? Shall we ethnically cleanse the Germans, then?

Finally, if proponents of European unification hold that it is not really a problem for Greeks and Swedes, Poles and Portuguese to live under a single sovereign state, on what grounds, exactly, are we complaining about multiculturalism and diversity? If the EU can encompass the differences between the Irish and the Greeks, why can’t it encompass the differences between Greeks and Turks, or Greeks and Syrians, etc.?

So now ethnonationalists make anti-racist (or Nordicist) arguments that differences between European groups are at the same level as that between Europeans and non-Europeans. Having those nasty Greeks in the same general polity as you means you must also have Turks and Syrians.  After all, what’s the difference, right?

The ethnonationalist vision is of a Europe — and a worldwide European diaspora — of a hundred flags, in which every self-conscious nation has at least one sovereign homeland, each of which will strive for the highest degree of homogeneity, allowing the greatest diversity of cultures, languages, dialects, and institutions to flourish. 

And if they misbehave, they will be ethnically cleansed.

Wherever a citizen turns, he will encounter his own flesh and blood, people who speak his language, people whose minds he can understand. Social life will be warm and welcoming, not alienating and unsettling as in multicultural societies. 

After all, those Greeks are so alien, that dealing with them is as multicultural as dealing with Syrians! Or Nigerians!

Because citizens will have a strong sense of identity, they will know the difference between their own people and foreigners. 

Like the French and British did on their own?

Because they will control their own borders and destinies, they can afford to be hospitable to diplomats, businessmen, tourists, students, and even a few expatriates, who will behave like grateful guests. These ethnostates will be good neighbors to one another, because they have good fences between them and homes to return to when commerce with outsiders becomes tiring.

And depose each other’s governments and cleanse their populations if they exercise their sovereignty too vigorously.

The citizens of these states will be deeply steeped in their mother tongues and local cultures, but they will also be educated in the broader tradition of European high culture. They will all strive for fluency in at least one foreign language. They will appreciate that all Europeans have common roots, common enemies, and a common destiny.

The leadership caste of each ethnostate will be selected to be both deeply rooted in its own homeland but also to have the broadest possible sense of European solidarity. This ethos will allow political cooperation between all European peoples through intergovernmental and treaty organizations, as well as ad hoc alliances. There will be special emphasis in promoting collective ventures in science, technology, national defense, ecological initiatives, and space exploration.

I don’t know – that sounds a lot like the sort of pan-Europeanism, and pan-European integration, I favor.  Let the common people preserve their local identities and enjoy local sovereignty, while representatives of the European elite come together in some sort of pan-European Senate, of an Imperium of confederated European-derived states, to deal with the issues at hand.

Thus, I conclude, as promised above, with the positive aspects of integration. First, to promote the idea that “all Europeans have common roots, common enemies, and a common destiny” – an idea that is frankly not very compatible with a mindset that celebrates and promotes ever-increasing levels of micro-distinctiveness among Europeans. Yes, people should be allowed to sort themselves out at the micro-level, and yes, homogeneous regions are best, and yes, local sovereignty will be respected. But there’s a subtle yet crucially important difference between letting people sort themselves out naturally, while promoting the pan-European ideal, as opposed to the scheme in which the highest principle, the raison d’être, of the system is petty nationalist atomization.  I instead propose a raison d’être of European unity and cooperation, with local sovereignty being secondary, while Johnson’s essay makes atomization primary and some sort of loose cooperation secondary.

Space exploration and other advanced science/technics, coordination of racial policies/eugenics, promoting the creation of novel and inspiring cultural artifacts, grand construction, and other things of which we may not even yet conceived, would be the positive outcome of a reasonable level of integration, things perhaps not achievable in an ethnonationalist scenario in which the fundamental guiding principle is how different we all are from each other.

Further, if Yockey (he of sainted memory) was right that the organic evolution of the West involves the greater integration of Europe, then those who oppose this integration are guilty of Culture Retardation.

Ethnonationalism wrecked the White world with their world wars and even today, ethnonationalists in Europe obsess over borders, get humiliated in elections, and in the UK, we have a Brexit that despises “Polish plumbers” while embracing Zionists and “Commonwealth” Pakis, West Indians, and Nigerians.  

In a phrase: I veto your dream.

Advertisements

Unite the Facts: Refuting the System Narrative

A semi-comprehensive analysis.

In light of the unprecedented sociopolitical, memetic, physical, social pricing, and economic/ corporate attacks against the American Far Fight, let’s briefly take a look at and refute some of the more common System arguments.

Let’s first consider that tried-and-true leftist meme that “racists” are stupid and uneducated.

Actually, higher cognitive ability is linked to a greater propensity for “social stereotyping.”

“Stereotypes are generalizations about the traits of social groups that are applied to individual members of those groups,” the authors note. “To make such generalizations, people must first detect a pattern among members of a particular group and then categorize an individual as belonging to that group.
“Because pattern detection is a core component of human intelligence, people with superior cognitive abilities may be equipped to efficiently learn and use stereotypes about social groups.”

Further, many White racial activists are highly educated.  Most of the leaders have at least a college degree.  William Pierce had a PhD in physics.  From what I know of today’s activists, the following have PhDs: Kevin MacDonald, Greg Johnson, David Duke, and Ted Sallis. Note I do not consider HBDers to be racial activists, but for those of you who do so consider them there’s Lynn and Rushton.  Jared Taylor is an educated man, multilingual, and cultured. Spencer is intelligent and articulate.  A number of activists are lawyers.

Racial nationalists in general are not stupid nor are they ignorant.  At the level of the more active activists, IQ and educational attainment is likely greater than that of the White American average, and almost certainly significantly higher than the general “American” average.

Another meme: racial nationalists are seething with “hate” toward members of other races. There may well be some for whom this description fits, just as there are many Blacks who hate Whites, Jews who hate Gentiles. Asians who hate all non-Asians (particularly Whites) – to say nothing of inter-religious hatred (I consider Jews an ethnic group, not a religion). However, being a racial nationalist has more to do with a desire to preserve one’s own people, and look out for their interests, than any sort of “irrational hatred” toward others. Diversity fatigue?  Yes.  Exasperation with the behavior of non-Whites and the White liberals and cucks who love them?  Yes.  Hatred for those who actively harm our people?  Certainly. But if you really want to see hatred, look at the opponents of racial nationalists.  Or, look at the hatred non-Whites have for Whites.

Another very tired meme: racial nationalists are against diversity because they have no experience with it, they dislike non-Whites because they don’t know any.  Actually, the opposite is the case: see the work of Putnam and Salter on diversity – two academics approaching the problem from very different directions but who come to very similar conclusions about the corrosive effects of diversity.  And didn’t Trump get a higher fraction of White votes in the primaries in more diverse areas? Trump’s popularity in the primaries – where most of the folks voting were White – was concentrated in the South (large numbers of Negroes) and in the Northeast/Rust Belt (large numbers of non-Whites of all kinds, particularly Blacks and Hispanics).  The more truthful stereotype is of the tolerant White liberal who lives in a mostly White neighborhood or state.

In my case, having experienced peak diversity growing up, that exposure to different peoples heightened racial views and distinctions.  The more you know them, the less you like them.

Individuals who have dropped out of the “movement” and who now shill for the System promote the meme that White nationalists suffer from personal pathologies; thus, they get involved with racial nationalism because they are “frustrated, feeling hopeless, needing guidance, with a longing to belong” not because of any deeply held beliefs and realistic interpretation of facts (of course, similar accusations are never made against the thuggish left).  This is of course pure projection; these individuals are talking about themselves. Indeed, selection bias rears its head: it are those individuals who join the “movement” because they are “frustrated, feeling hopeless, needing guidance, with a longing to belong” who are exactly those who will leave the “movement” once the System gives them a better deal (of whatever sort).  All the other activists – those with deep beliefs and who do not become turncoats – are not heard from; instead, we only hear from those traitors justifying their own inadequacies. Looking at this objectively: if you have ideological convictions based on reality, then how can you suddenly decide that objectively factual demographic and cultural trends do not exist?  Or if they do exist, go from being an existential threat to no threat at all (or even something to be welcomed)?  It seems to me that the real pathology – bordering on some sort of sociopathy – is to parrot dissident views without really believing them and then turn 180 degrees in the other direction as if the preceding memetic reality never really existed.  That, my friends, is truly sick.

The white supremacists marching in Charlottesville, Virginia, this past weekend were not ashamed when they shouted, “Jews will not replace us.” They were not ashamed to wear Nazi symbols, to carry torches, to harass and beat counterprotesters. They wanted their beliefs on display.

How about the counter protestors there, carrying clubs and flamethrowers, actively harassing and beating rally goers?  The epitome of mental health and love, no doubt!

It’s easy to treat people like them as straw men: one-dimensional, backward beings fueled by hatred and ignorance. 

See above.


But if we want to prevent the spread of extremist, supremacist views, we need to understand how these views form and why they stick in the minds of some people.
Recently, psychologists Patrick Forscher and Nour Kteily recruited members of the alt-right (a.k.a. the “alternative right,” the catchall political identity of white nationalists) to participate in a study to build the first psychological profile of their movement. The results, which were released on August 9, are just in working paper form, and have yet to be peer-reviewed or published in an academic journal.

Why should any White nationalists participate in a study designed to delegitimize their beliefs?  Do you need more evidence of the immaturity of the Alt Right?

A lot of the findings align with what we intuit about the alt-right: This group is supportive of social hierarchies that favor whites at the top. 

Really?  It seems like most White nationalists do NOT want a social hierarchy with “whites at the top” – they want a society that consists of Whites only and no other group. Separation, not supremacy.


It’s distrustful of mainstream media and strongly opposed to Black Lives Matter. Respondents were highly supportive of statements like, “There are good reasons to have organizations that look out for the interests of white people.” 

Shocking!  White folks have interests!  There should be organizations that look after the interests of Whites, the same as all other groups have! Horrors! Whites shouldn’t be subaltern kulaks!  We are all shocked!  Shocked!

And when they look at other groups — like black Americans, Muslims, feminists, and journalists — they’re willing to admit they see these people as “less evolved”… ….The alt-right scores high on dehumanization measuresOne of the starkest, darkest findings in the survey comes from a simple question: How evolved do you think other people are?
Kteily, the co-author on this paper, pioneered this new and disturbing way to measure dehumanization — the tendency to see others as being less than human. He simply shows study participants the following (scientifically inaccurate) image of a human ancestor slowly learning how to stand on two legs and become fully human.
Participants are asked to rate where certain groups fall on this scale from 0 to 100. Zero is not human at all; 100 is fully human.
On average, alt-righters saw other groups as hunched-over proto-humans.

Don’t non-Whites dehumanize Whites?  Don’t Jews refer to Gentiles as “supernal refuse?” And what if there is scientific evidence that some groups actually are less evolved?

Dehumanization is scary. It’s the psychological trick we engage in that allows us to harm other people (because it’s easier to inflict pain on people who are not people). Historically it’s been the fuel of mass atrocities and genocide.

Yes, indeed.  You mean how the entire System dehumanizes the Far Right? Do you mean how the System dehumanizes Whites as a race by denying us the same rights of self-interest and self-preservation accorded to every other group?

The alt-right has high support for groups that support and work for the benefit of white peopleThis is — unsurprisingly — the largest difference Forscher and Kteily found in the survey. They asked participants how much they agreed with the following statement: “I think there are good reasons to have organizations that look out for the interests of whites.”

Whites are not allowed to organize to defend their own interests?  


The alt-right wants and supports organizations that look out for the rights and well-being of white people. Historically, such groups have done so by striking fear in the hearts of immigrants, Jews, and minorities.

How about “immigrants, Jews, and minorities” striking fear in the hearts of Whites?  Ever hear of White flight?  And if Whites can defend their own interests only by “striking fear in the hearts” of non-Whites, then that proves that the races are incompatible and that separation is the only solution.  Or should Whites continue to indulge in masochistic self-abnegation so as to avoid “striking fear” in anyone?

The alt-right is more willing to express prejudice toward black peopleThese survey questions ask respondents the degree to which they agree with statements like, “I avoid interactions with black people,” “My beliefs motivate me to express negative feelings about black people,” and, “I minimize my contact with black people.”

Given Negro behavior, minimizing contact is quite prudent.

Alt-righters are willing to report their own aggressive behavior

The Alt Right are grossly naive.  Again, why cooperate with your enemies? Why cooperate with anti-White academics?

Personality traits that frequently show up among alt-righters: authoritarianism and MachiavellianismAlt-righters in the survey scored higher on social dominance orientation (the preference that society maintains social order), right-wing authoritarianism (a preference for strong rulers), and somewhat higher levels of the “dark triad” of personality traits (psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism.)

Pathologizing dissent. Back to the USSR!

Alt-righters aren’t particularly socially isolated or worried about the economyAmong the measures where the alt-right and comparison groups don’t look much different in the survey results is closeness and relationships with other people. The alt-righters reported having about equal levels of close friends, which means these aren’t necessarily isolated, lonely people. 

Hey!  I thought people get involved in”hate” because they are frustrated, isolated freaks?

It goes to show: The alt-right is motivated by racial issues, not economic anxiety.

Wow, what a discovery!


But it goes deeper than that. The survey revealed that the alt-righters were much more concerned that their groups were at a disadvantage compared with the control sample. The alt-right (and white nationalists) is afraid of being displaced by increasing numbers of immigrants and outsiders in this country. And, yes, they see themselves as potential victims.

It seems like they are victims if the System is interested in leveraging psychological technics against perfectly legal, and biologically adaptive, viewpoints.

Knowing the psychology of the alt-right may be the key to stop white supremacist views from spreadingThis is the quixotic hope behind a lot of social science research: The first step to solving a problem is defining the nature of that problem.

I see.  So “social science research” is all about promoting anti-White viewpoints and delegitimizing White racial self-defense?


Once we understand the psychological motivations behind the alt-right worldview, maybe we can learn to stop it.

Is the purpose of psychology to impose ideological repression on dissident viewpoints?  Isn’t that similar to the abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union?


In their preliminary analysis, Forscher and Kteily found that willingness to express prejudice against black people was correlated with harassing behavior. “If we can change the motivation to express prejudice, maybe that gives us a way to prevent aggression,” they say.

Given how Blacks harass Whites, there must be a huge amount of anti-White prejudice among Negroes.


Again, this is all early work. Forscher hopes to track some of these survey participants over the coming months and years, and see if they remain adhered to the alt-right. Or if not, he hopes to learn what caused them to ditch the worldview.

We need to understand how to get people interested in the racial nationalist worldview.  We need to reverse engineer this psychological abuse.

Another issue, and one of particular interest to me, is the System’s focus on White nationalists and genetic ancestry testing.  Apparently, the Establishment is studying White nationalists (they really are obsessed with us, aren’t they?) and the reaction of these nationalists (e.g., on Stormfront) to the testing results of themselves and others.  The System can hardly contain its glee over the fact that there have been some disturbance and controversy over the fact that many racial activists do not test as “100% pure” (as any reasonably informed person – and anyone who has read my work – could have predicted). Indeed, Establishment operatives chuckle that they wish they could pay for genetic testing for all White nationalists, who would abandon their “hateful” beliefs as soon as they find out that they have 1% of this or 0.5% of that.  And the Cobb case is also joyfully described in these articles.

Now, you can’t say you haven’t been warned about this.  I have written, repeatedly, that the “movement’s” obsession with (a mythical) absolute racial purity will come back and haunt it, since basing racial identity on absolute purity means that this identity will be delegitimized by the System once data are obtained that confirm a lack of purity.  I have also pointed out how such purity is unrealistic and has nothing to do with scientific descriptions of group populations (i.e., ethnies, races, etc.).  While some listened to, and agreed with, my arguments, others – adherents of the Old Movement Pierce-Kemp absolute purity school of thought – labeled my (scientifically valid) arguments as “sophistry” (even while admitting they didn’t fully understand the arguments they dismissed).  Once again, I have been proven correct, as the System is making a concerted effort to use genetic ancestry testing results to ridicule White nationalists and to delegitimize their beliefs.

However, all is not well in System-land.  While some White nationalists take a typical lunatic Old Movement view toward (possibly spurious) sub-fractional “admixture” (“don’t breed”), others take a saner and more nuanced view, which distresses the Establishment.  Some activists interpret the data as meaning that Europeans have sufficient genetic diversity and therefore do not need any non-Whites; thus, European peoples as a whole encompass all the diversity that we could ever want or need (good work here, using the System’s own rhetoric against it).  Other activists make use of “more scientific” arguments against some of the tests and/or over-interpretation of the data.  Thus:

But some took a more scientific angle in their critiques, calling into doubt the method by which these companies determine ancestry — specifically how companies pick those people whose genetic material will be considered the reference for a particular geographical group.

While none of these arguments are specifically cited in System articles, no doubt some of these arguments derive from my own writings on this subject (e.g., I’ve seen my Counter-Currents article about racial purity on Stormfront).

So, in the end, Establishment joy dissipates and they acknowledge that maybe genetic testing won’t save them against “hatred and bigotry” after all.  

Two major take-home points from the genetic ancestry testing paradigm. First, the System is so desperate to delegitimize White nationalism that they will indulge in the most outrageous hypocritical inconsistencies – e.g., saying that race has no biological basis and so cannot be determined by genetic testing, and then saying that hopefully we can use genetic testing to show White nationalists that they are not racially pure.  Second, if I may “toot my own horn,” the “movement” needs to get over its “hate the messenger” attitude and sometimes listen to what I have to say.  In the end, I often turn out to be correct, and it would save a lot of time, energy, effort, and avoided failure if people who know what they are talking about are actually listened to and accepted, rather than being ignored or summarily dismissed. This is one example – those White nationalists who accept the scientifically valid definitions of race as involving genetic kinship and genetic distance (and who view Identity as having both biological and non-biological components) are impervious to these sorts of ancestry testing-based System attacks, and those who think March of the Titans in the “word of god” are going to continue to find themselves vulnerable to the System’s memetic-genetic attacks. Your choice – scientific validity and strength or racial pseudoscience and weakness.

Read this nonsense. Better title: “What the Left Gets Wrong About Antifa…and the Alt Right.”  The ludicrousness of all the Establishment heavy breathing is beyond measure, but I’ll make a few brief points about this leftist effort.  First, whatever violence is now coming from the Right is a pale imitation of many years’ worth of extreme violent thuggery and outright domestic terrorism coming from Antifa and other flotsam and jetsam of the “Alt Left.” The Right has endured endless years of street attacks (championed by the Establishment – e.g., “punch a Nazi” and note that the unprovoked punch of Spencer was met with glee while Damigo’s self-defense punch was met with unbridled horror), cancelled meetings, break-up of lawful public assembly, leading up to the recent Unite the Right event where a legal rally was met with the usual vicious violence. Second, attempts to justify leftist violence because it is, in the opinion of deranged leftists, in the service of more palatable ideologies, is self-serving nonsense; particularly since some of these leftists are Marxists, representing an ideology that has murdered more human beings than any other, and anarchists themselves have built up their own body count over the years.  Third, the idea that the Alt Right “has more power” than Antifa is the height of leftist madness. Curiously, apart from perhaps the ignorant buffoon sitting in the White House (who himself denounced “racists” and “White supremacists”), the entire Establishment of the entire Western world, from Mitt Romney to Angela Merkel, from movie stars to professional athletes, from Senators and Congressmen of “both” parties to major corporations and CEOs, ALL speak in one voice: against the Alt Right and in favor of the “protestors” (Antifa/Alt Left).  Even Bannon called the Alt Right “clowns.” That’s a fascinating juxtaposition, as is the fact that while Unite the Right attendees are losing jobs just from being photographed attending the rally, none  of the club-wielding, brick-throwing, chemical-spraying, and flamethrower-shooting leftist thugs have suffered a similar fate, much less being arrested or otherwise harassed by the police (who, mysteriously, sided with the “powerless” Antifa against the “powerful” Alt Right, possibly at the instigation of local authorities who, also mysteriously, sided with the poor, powerless waifs of Antifa against the big, bad bullies of the Alt Right).  Fourth, talk of a history of “White Christian Supremacy” in America reminds me of Sailer’s point that the Left ignores the last 50 years of American history.  Hey, leftists: you guys have been in charge for the last half-century, and you are so entrenched in all of the institutions of power that you are effectively blocking Trump’s initiatives. So, who are these guys kidding?  They have the power, they are the System, and Antifa is the Establishment. 

Corporations, Internet entities, and others who have no problem with child porn or terrorism have a problem with White nationalism or “race realism.”  In other words, according to the System, a Jared Fogle is better than a Jared Taylor, and an Osama Bin Laden is better than, say, a Richard Spencer.  Tell me again: who has the power?

Counter-Currents has been booted by PayPal and our Facebook page has been deleted.
Both Red Ice servers were hacked, as were the site owners’ Twitter accounts, and still have not recovered.
VDare, AltRight.com, and AmRen were bounced from PayPal.
VDare’s conference next April has been shut down by the venue.
TRS was taken down by their webhosting company, but got a new host and were back online in 3 hours.
Mike Enoch was banned for the fourth time from Twitter.
KickStarter, GoFundMe, and IndieGoGo have all vowed to shut down campaigns related to White Nationalist concerns.
Pax Dickinson’s Twitter has been shut down.
Hatreon is offline.
PolNewsForever’s Twitter has been shut down.
The Daily Stormer has been targeted with massive DDOS attacks.
The Daily Stormer domain registration was dropped by GoDaddy, transferred to Google, and then seized by Google.
The Daily Stormer discord server has been shut down.
The Altright.com discord server has been shut down.
Vanguard America’s WordPress and Facebook accounts have been shut down.
Spotify has removed 27 “hate” bands as defined by the SPLC.
GoFundMe has taken down campaigns to help James Fields.
RootBocks has been taken down by its hosting company, but is back online.
Xurious has been removed from Bandcamp and Soundcloud.
Daniel Friberg and Christopher Dulny, both Swedes, have been barred from entering the United States because of their presence at Unite the Right.
Lauren Southern’s Patreon account has been taken down.
Lauren Southern’s Instagram has been taken down, but is now back up.
NPI’s Paypal account has been shut down.
Two upcoming speeches by Richard Spencer have been canceled.
Identity Europa’s PayPal has been shut down.
Christopher Cantwell’s Facebook, PayPal, and website are gone.
Weev’s LinkedIn account has been shut down.
The Paranormies and other podcasts have been kicked off of Soundcloud.
YouTube had demonitized controversial videos, making it impossible for dissident video bloggers to make a living from their work.
Airbnb combed through the social media of people with Charlottesville-area registrations on Unite the Right weekend, and canceled the reservations and accounts of Unite the Right attendees
Uber has cancelled Baked Alaska’s and James Allsup’s accounts.
Squarespace is dropping multiple Right-wing sites.
A Toronto free speech event with Faith Goldy, Jordan Peterson, and Gad Saad has been cancelled.

Is that power?

That’s great.  I say: bring it on, GOP.  Try and win elections, especially at the national level, without the long-time core supporters that you despise and, truth be told, have always despised. Forget about the “Alt Right” – without the “Bunker vote” the GOP is toast.

Let’s get those Bunkers to abandon the GOP, and the cucks can try and get Antifa votes 


As the “Unite the Right” crowd was dispersing, they were forced by the police into the path of the peace-loving, rock-throwing, fire-spraying antifa. A far-left reporter for The New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, tweeted live from the event: “The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding ‘antifa’ beating white nationalists being led out of the park.”


MARK STEYN: Absolutely. Freedom of speech enables you to argue for other freedoms, and that is the point of it. So if you don’t have freedom of speech, all you can do is, as they do in unfree societies, is blow things up and shoot people. And it is interesting to me that the less freedom of speech we have, the more we have what we saw over the weekend. We have guys rampaging through the street.
It doesn’t really matter what side they’re on, the minute you say that you can’t book a conference room and hold a debate, you can’t have a YouTube channel, you can’t go on Facebook, then the logic of that tends towards smashing stuff in the street…

The System and the Left (really the same thing) in their outrageous hypocrisy first want to deny the “Far Right” the right to peacefully assemble, to hold conferences, to express dissident opinions, to have dissident websites, to be activists without being subjected to social pricing, to attend rallies without being confronted with flying bricks and flamethrowers – and then they criticize when the Right, with its back against the wall, fights back and uses “violence.”   If you do not allow people to lawfully engage in the political process, if you deny them access to the marketplace of ideas, if you stifle debate and free inquiry, then all that pent up dissident energy is going to go somewhere.  Repressing the non-violent activism of the Right increases, not decreases, the probability of rightist violence (is this the intention?). If Unite the Right would have been allowed to have their rally without the tag-team repression of Establishment politicians/law enforcement and the Antifa who work closely with the politicians and police they pretend to oppose, then the car ramming and the helicopter crash would not have happened.  To deny this fact then leads to the logic that any manifestation of the pursuit of White interests is so forbidden than pro-White activists are always morally responsible for the violence committed by their opponents.  That “logic” by the way does nothing except reinforce Far Right memes about the anti-White System and White genocide.  Who has “the power” again?  One has to be borderline insane to argue that the beleaguered (to use Trump’s word) Far Right has any amount of real power whatsoever.

This all deals with the social pricing problem.  I have written about this issue extensively over the years (as has, e.g., Dr. MacDonald and others), and I wholeheartedly agree with Greg Johnson’s latest proposals for making political opinions a protected category in the private workplace and for treating Internet companies as public utilities that cannot discriminate based on dissident views.  The problem is that the System, deriving enormous power from social pricing, will be especially loathe to give that power up. Indeed, I have been reading many Establishment articles crowing about the success in imposing social pricing hardships on Unite the Right attendees, on the principle that it is “society acting to impose standards of acceptable belief and behavior.”  Of course, these are the same people who scream and cry about the “horrors of McCarthyism” – apparently being supporters of genocidal Marxism and being traitors during the Cold War is admirable, but defending the interests of your race is not.  The fight against social pricing in America mirrors the fight against hate speech laws in Europe: absolutely essential, but one that faces an uphill battle due to the vested interests of the System in maintaining the status quo.  We need to do a better job of formulating memes to support these legal/political initiatives, and we will need allies along other areas of the political spectrum to drum up support. Of course, with the current “CharlotteGate” hysteria, it doesn’t look likely that such allies will be forthcoming right now.  Maybe later.  But we need to prepare now. We need people with legal training, with knowledge of law drafting, to start looking at approaches for formulating these anti-social pricing initiatives.  It will need to be done in a way that balances free speech and free association – for example, Planned Parenthood should not be forced to employ a rabid antiabortion activist; on the other hand, what one’s politics are shouldn’t affect employment at a pizza restaurant or what have you. On the other, other hand, we need to be wary of places of employment making grasping arguments about how diversity is somehow fundamental to their mission (“we serve people of all races, so therefore….).  That’s why we need careful thought in drafting initiatives that cover various contingencies and legal tricks, so a document exists that can later be peddled to others when the current furor dies down.

While we can criticize the Left, the Right – and here I mean the Far Right – can be criticized as well. But that can be a subject for another day.

Fisking Costello

Analyzing Costello.

I cannot disagree with Costello on some of this…but he makes some errors, dependent on his meaning.

They will see that some of the most visible members of our movement, our self-described “leaders” are, in some cases, entitled, college-educated children of affluence. Vain, grandiose, egomaniacal, and attention-hungry.

Meet the Alt Right!

They will see that some in the Alt Right have not yet emerged, or only recently emerged, from living in their parent’s basement.

Some?

They will see that many exist as members of our movement only in a virtual sense, as internet trolls who hit and run. Vying with each other to prove who is the most “edgy” and “hardcore,” while usually backing up this posturing with absolutely nothing tangible and real.

True, but who does different?

They will encounter “purity spirallers” who seem less concerned with the real plight of their race than with ferreting out who in the movement might be “gay” — or with speculating that everyone in the movement is gay, except them.

I’ve already written about how “gay baiting” in Der Movement is clearly politically motivated, since there are some long-time “movement activists” rumored to be gay but no one ever mentions those people. The “gay baiters” usually fall into particular factions of Der Movement and they will turn a blind eye to the gays in their own faction.  On the other hand, there are some who push normalization of homosexuality too far.

They will see many childless, unmarried men who have turned necessity into virtue by “going their own way.” 

What happens when married fathers get so disgusted with women that they MGTOW?

Or worse, cultivating the cynical, misogynistic game of the pickup artist.

I agree with criticism of the gamesters. However. Not because of “misogyny” – in many cases richly deserved.  No, it is because the gamesters are hypocritical, illogical, juvenile, amoral hedonistic nihilists who typically ape the worst aspects of Der Movement (the Alt Wrong, for example); Roissy’s ardor for Trump borders on homoerotic mania and is frankly embarrassing,

They will see that others have the luxury of responding to the plight of the white working class, and the perils that face our civilization, by casting runes, or brewing mead.

Mead and runes?  Isn’t that all part of Der Dogma?  No blasphemy, please!

And within that group they will encounter large numbers of folks defending dead, despised dictators that, rightly or wrongly, hundreds of thousands of mostly working class Americans sacrificed their lives in order to depose. Those Americans being their grandfathers and great grandfathers.

Yes, we shouldn’t obsess over Hitler, etc.  We shouldn’t lie about WWII either to satisfy “boomers.” And doesn’t Counter-Currents run pro-Hitler essays and celebrates Saint Adolf’s birthday with posts?

They will see high flown intellectual discussions, usually presupposing the equivalent of a doctoral degree, of authors they have never heard of, and have no time or energy to read after getting home at night from eight solid hours of labor.

That could be construed as a refutation of some of my work, but of course I’ve never asserted that the details of, say, EGI should be used as propaganda to the masses; instead core concepts can be converted into “us vs. them” language of kin and tribe, and used in that manner for political purposes (as my Political EGI posts make clear).

Of course, Costello’s argument here can be used against most of the content of Counter-Currents: isn’t it too intellectual for the proles?  Is your local plumber going to care about Evola and “Savitri Devi?”  But it isn’t meant for the proles, you say.  Very well…my own work is mostly aimed at “movement” activists anyway (or may be dumber than the proles, but that’s another story).

Perhaps worst of all they are going to see chaos and disunity: character assassination, betrayal, rumor-mongering, doxing, trolling, back-biting, gaslighting, etc. 

Can Counter-Currents stop running articles on Friberg already?

They will see, in short, that the movement we offer them is, arguably, no movement at all. In a real sense, it does not exist.

When I say that, I’m “crazy” and “bitter.”  When Costello says it, it’s A-OK. Remind me why my criticisms of Der Movement’s ethnic affirmative action program is wrong.

In sum, the proles will see us as a lot of disaffected, spoiled, bratty, out-of-touch sacks of venom, who have created a little ghetto for ourselves replete with forums in which we may vent and posture without tangible results, and any real consequences. They will see that most of us have nothing in common with them, cannot understand their daily woes, and are entirely irrelevant to their lives.

Does that include posts in which the writer fantasizes about cooking breakfast for an aging mudshark?

And they are also perceptive enough to pick up on the dirty little secret of the Alt Right: namely, that many of us do not really love our race. That in fact we walk around most of the time consumed by hate for other white people, and that many of us have about as much contempt for the working class as your average liberal.

Many Whites – although not necessarily many working-class Whites – deserve to be hated.

The Alt Right has become nothing more than yet another “lifestyle choice” in the vast cornucopia of modern American lifestyles that coexist within the Great Beast, posing no fundamental threat to it. Despite our pretensions to the contrary, our dysfunction, disunity, and surfeit of bad character make us about as big a threat to the system as Wiccans. Who is the “leader” of the Wiccans? Or, who are the leaders? I don’t know, and I don’t care, and I don’t know anyone who knows because Wiccans don’t matter. I’m sure the Wiccan movement has been replete with struggles for power and internecine wars over doctrine and purity, but only Wiccans care about this. To the rest of the world they are simply irrelevant oddballs.

Again, how does any of that really differ from my own criticisms of Der Movement?  Obviously, it’s the messenger, not the message, folks.

So, forget any thoughts about riding the wave of the prole awakening and leading or guiding these folks. We are simply not worthy. Not now, anyway.

Can we become worthy? Here we can certainly be open to the possibility of becoming worthy to lead or guide, but let’s try to avoid falling into the trap of feeling superior to the proles. As a good corrective for our already swollen egos, let’s start by thinking in terms of becoming worthy of joining with them, in common cause. Now how do we do that?

Stop obsessing over a cartoon frog and screaming “Hail Kek?”

The other day a friend said something to me that was quite insightful. He said that a true movement might emerge if the internet were to be wiped away tomorrow. Now, this is not only unlikely but, most will say, undesirable since the internet can be (can be) such a useful tool. But consider it: if the internet ceased to exist the real movement would emerge from the great ocean of trolls and virtual friends. Why?

Because the real movement would consist in the people enterprising enough and committed enough to find some other ways to meet and keep in touch. The trolls and virtual friends would disappear overnight, because they were never really committed in the first place, or were “committed” for all the wrong reasons.

There would be fewer but better White Nationalists.

True enough.

Now, there are two important implications to be drawn out of this thought experiment: (1) The only really committed White Nationalists are those willing and able to form actual communities, as opposed to virtual communities; and (2) it follows from this that ultimately the movement is nothing without actual community, because actual communities are formed by, and attract, the most committed people, and a real movement is a movement of truly committed people. QED.

Fine, as far as it goes.

I submit that the most effective way to form ties with our awakening proles, and to facilitate their greater awakening is to come together with them in real communities.

In order to do this, we in what we already optimistically call “the movement” must overcome our own class snobbery and our tendency to only want to engage with others like ourselves. 

“…only want to engage with others like ourselves.”  In more ways than one, eh?

On more occasions than I can possibly remember my movement friends (virtual and otherwise) have asked, despairingly, “When are people going to wake up?” Well, now they are. But it’s not the sort of people who were always asking this question. Almost everyone I know in the movement has led a life of relative privilege and is college-educated, some with advanced degrees.

“…has led a life of relative privilege”  Speak for yourself.  You did say “almost” so I’ll give you credit for that.

But in the country as a whole, the vast majority of affluent, college educated people are sound asleep — indeed, many of them are monsters of entitlement, selfishness, and hedonism. It is the proles who are waking up — the people I’ve never even really learned to talk to. Honestly, I am just about as alienated from the proles as a limousine liberal. I too have never set foot in a factory (just like Karl Marx!).

Given that almost the entire American manufacturing sector has been outsourced to China, I doubt that many proles have set foot in a factory, either.  Is being a prole merely employment or is it to some degree culture, a lifestyle choice?  There are well-read blue collar folk, as well as the college-educated who “keep up with the Kardashians.”  It’s not so cut and dried.

The only manual labor I have ever done was whiting out errors on my college term papers, back in the old days when we were still using typewriters. My only prole friend — a high school dropout who actually has done manual labor — is really more of a prole wannabe: both his parents have master’s degrees, he’s a successful businessman, and in truth he is an intellectual with a long list of publications.

Serving breakfast to Ann Coulter – does that count as manual labor?

Many on the Alt Right profess to admire aspects of National Socialism, but very few really “get” what was arguably the central feature of that movement, and why it was so powerful at unifying the German people: true, deeply felt love of one’s own. A love that transcended class divisions, whether based on birth or wealth or education. Let us, in fact, borrow some pages from our enemies: love really is the answer; it’s just love of one’s own.

Dead dictators as role models?

And let us also celebrate diversity. The rich diversity of white people: the doctors and plumbers and stock brokers and waiters and professors and farmers and nurses and bricklayers and soldiers and programmers and Walmart greeters and actors and dentists and, yes, even lawyers.

OK, fine.  That should include people rightfully critical of Der Movement as well.  More to the point, does Costello also “celebrate” ethnic diversity among Whites?

And, to a great extent, we must also be tolerant of our people’s peculiarities, so long as they are committed to our cause. For example, it is priggish and dumb to want to run off someone genuinely committed to our cause because now and then in the evening they want to smoke a joint. Or because, through some cruel caprice of Mother Nature, they do something in private with other consenting adults that you wouldn’t do.

Er…what about the need for “good character” as explained below?  How does tolerance for character flaws square with Costello’s call for better men and women?  Inconsistency.

The only true movement is going to consist in loosely-connected, real communities that provide a safe space for white men and women and their families. For white people of all classes. These communities will provide opportunities for socializing and for protection. They will provide positive environments in which to raise children, safe spaces in which forbidden ideas can be expressed, and, at times, they will engage in advocacy and agitation.

This is necessary, but not sufficient.  That’s only one leg of the three. “Loosely-connected communities” are the gardens from which the real flowers of revolutionary activism will grow. The communities are not ends to themselves, as Costello seems to imply. “Loosely connected” of anything will not get the job done in the end.

Doing the hard work of building communities requires good character: dedication, dependability, honesty, genuineness, honor, and selflessness. Ultimately people will only follow and trust and respect those who exemplify these qualities.

Therefore the current “leadership” of the “movement” are out of the running here. Can Costello name any current (or past!) “movement” “leader” who has ever exhibited the full gamut of required character traits?

Aristotle teaches us in his Rhetoric that a necessary precondition of a man giving an effective speech — in other words, of persuading people — is that others must be convinced that he is of good character. Such men, and women, will draw others into a community. And so, the very first thing we must do to create a real movement, is to strive to become better men and women.

I’ve been promoting Codreanu’s Legion and the idea of the New Man since the early 2000s. Interest: none. Understanding: none.  Success: none.

We must disavow vanity, malice, gossip, trolling, and, above all, the suffocating pretensions of the ego. This real movement, if it is to emerge, is not a means to anyone’s ego-gratification. It demands that each of us place the good of the race above his own ego.

Please tell me – where in Der Movement such self-sacrificing idealists exist? Where is the niches where such people can develop and thrive?  Answer to both questions: nowhere. Thus, a New Movement is required.  QED.

There was a saying in Hitler’s Germany: “Du bist nichts, dein Volk ist alles” (you are nothing, your people is everything).

Quoting dem dere dead dictators?

How many do you know in our movement today who are truly living that saying? We must live it — we must live up to it — if we are to truly serve the cause we claim to be championing.

Living up to it: serving breakfast to Ann Coulter?

The goodwill and harmoniousness of communities built by and for individuals with such commitment will draw in others — persuading them that what that community stands for is positive and good. This point is absolutely crucial. The vast majority of people judge ideas not based on the arguments that are presented for them, but on the basis of the character of the people who espouse those ideas. In other words, they look at the “effect” those ideas have in a person’s life. This is especially true of those who have little formal education, and little time to peruse the intricacies of philosophical argument.

Good character, something which, like good judgement, the “movement” is in very short supply of.

In short, the key to building ties with the great number of awakening proles and the key to further radicalizing them is becoming something better than we are now — and coming together with them in real communities. Communities that, needless to say, are high-functioning, welcoming, and convivial, and that have mechanisms for weeding out individuals who are bad news. 

Bad news = 99.99999% of De Movement.

This is not just the key, of course, to building ties with proles, but with others as well. And my larger point, again, is that the only real movement is going to be based in such communities. As for the trolls, let them go their own way. And if men want to vie over who gets to crown himself King of the Trolls, that is fine. It keeps them busy and keeps them out of our way.

Ultimately, the only real “leaders” in this movement are the people who have the dedication, seriousness, and selflessness to build real communities. Such communities are the future of our movement, and the future of our race.

You know I’ve been advocating for community building ever since the early 2000s.  No one listened then and no one listens – to me – now.  Will they listen to the more acceptable messenger Costello? Who knows? But advocating to the masses is only one – the lowest – level or point or leg of The Movement Tripod.  Without building the other two legs will fail – you simply cannot build viable communities with the low quality human material of the “movement.”  Concomitant with community building must be building a New Movement, and to have the New Movement you need to have a sane and rational Elite, with fresh ideas and independent of “movement” dogma, to lead the way.  No one is interested in that because it is at cross purposes with individual agendas, factional interests, empire building – and of course the money-grubbing of “donations.”  One can expect Costello’s arguments to be met with “he’s right, you know” before all those folks go back to brewing mead and scribbling runes on Pepe cartoons.

In any case, at least Costello recognizes the deficiencies of Der Movement.

A Brisk Fisking, 1/5/17

Alt Right analysis.

Greg Johnson makes some good arguments here, although I am not in agreement with the overall theme of the piece.

More to the point, there’s a glaring omission: the Alt Wrong.  That’s the “HBD race realism” school and associated precincts, represented, e.g. by Sailer-Derbyshire-Amren-Unz (and to some extent TOO).  That’s an even graver danger than the Alt Light.

As regards some other points. A very brisk fisking:

Indeed, they have to find it to be a safe and welcoming space, not a madhouse of trolling, bullying, and doxing.

How about a madhouse of ethnic fetishism, juvenile jackassery, bizarre conspiracy theorizing, and gnostic esotericism?

There’s a lot of fearful talk about the Alt Light “co-opting” or “subverting” the Alt Right, or preventing people from becoming further radicalized. Frankly, though, this would happen only if we fail at our mission. But we already know that failure is a theoretical possibility.

It’s more than just theoretical, it is actual. Revilo Oliver talked about 50 years of “movement” failure – back in 1969!  It hasn’t gotten better since then.  “Progress” has simply been the result of the historical accident of Trump’s candidacy.  Given the ineptness of Der Movement ,co-opting is a legitimate concern.

People are allies/fellow travelers to the exact extend to which our principles and interests are the same, and not beyond that point.

Indeed.  I agree.  Although why is it “shit-stirring” when some people act upon this principle, and not when others do so?

Trying to assert that the Alt Right is “nothing but” White Nationalism or National Socialism.

My basic concern is precisely the opposite: trying to assert that WN is “nothing but” the Alt Right. There is in fact more to racial nationalism than Pepe-Kek juvenile jackassery, HBD race realism that worships Jews and other Asiatics, “traditionalism,” and Alt Light figures who are Jewish, racially mixed, and/or in mixed marriages.

Fisking the Alt Wrong

Derbyfogle and Breezy.

First, self-proclaimed child porn apologist John Derbyshire:

I don’t think Britain’s foggy affairs are of much importance to the U.S.A.

Yes, of what importance are the affairs of America’s founding nation, and the beginning of the break-up of the EU, to the USA?  Is this guy Derbyshire an idiot or what?

And as a true-born Englishman, with the blood of Alfred the Great flowing in my veins…

What blood does “Rosie” have flowing in her veins?  

…did his utmost to swap out Britain’s deplorably white Anglo-Saxon population

Just like you swapped out your “true-born English, deplorably Anglo-Saxon” parental kinship for half-Chinese children?

Italy has been ferrying in illegals from sub-Saharan Africa at an ever-accelerating rate: thirteen and a half thousand just last month—that’s compared with only three thousand in November last year. [Italy Breaks Immigration Record in 2016, by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D. , Breitbart.com, December 11, 2016]
There’s beaucoup more where they came from, and no sign the Italians can muster the will to turn off the spigot.

Now, wait one minute here!  Italians are not “high trust northern hunter gatherer stock” whose “universal altruism is being manipulated” in contrast to “more ethnocentric peoples.” Being ethnocentric swarthoids from the hinterlands of humanity, it is quite obvious that this migrant influx simply cannot be happening to Italians.  But it is.  No worries, though.  Der Movement to the rescue!  It’s all because of those Nordic, Celto-Germanic, Dolph Lundgren-clone Northern Italians, who are accepting and housing all these migrants due to their innate hunter-gatherer universalism, in contrast to the more southern Negro Kebabs who have never seen, nor will ever see, even a single migrant.. Of course, most of these migrants are being brought into, and settling into, Southern Italy, but let’s not let dem dere facts interfere with Der Movement’s official script.  It’s all good!

If Italians think their government this past seventy years has been dysfunctional, wait till the lads from Lagos and Ouagadougou take over.
Italy’s a goner.

But, but, but…Sir Desmond Jones has assured us, repeatedly, that Italy is, and shall forever remain, absolutely ethnically homogeneous, to the end of time, forever and ever, amen.

Who thinks that foreign scofflaws should be awarded public goods at the expense of native taxpayers?

You mean, foreign scofflaws like the (former) illegal alien John Derbyshire?

Europe is toast.

Thanks for the dose of defeatism.  Don’t worry. The Derbyshire clan will always be welcome in the East.

Second, Breezy comes close to getting kicked out of the HBD club:

On the other hand, Protestantism wasn’t always against cousin marriage: e.g., Charles Darwin married his Wedgwood first cousin. But I don’t know how common this was. I believe that it was American eugenicists who launched the modern aversion toward cousin marriage in Protestant countries.

But, but, but…Hajnal line.  Watch it, Breezy, watch it. You may get your official HBD club membership revoked. And HBD Chick will hit you over the head with a rolling pin (still covered by matzoh ball dust).

Counterpunching Right

A response.

To this.

…we need to establish lines of influence to every white constituency…

Including White ethnics?  Now, there’s a failure we can be ruthless about.

…and shade of opinion…

Including pan-Europeanism?  It simply doesn’t exist in the “official” American “movement” – never has, although a fraction of activists promote it and there’s a strong undercurrent among some activists in Europe.

We cannot, therefore, be held hostage to the most reckless and selfish among us, people who commit crimes or flout basic principles of operational security. Showing solidarity to such people rewards vice and penalizes virtue. Intelligence agencies regularly disavow spies who go rogue or allow themselves to be captured.

So, if a well-known “WN organization” brings in a some guy with a handle like “SuperNaziSSman1488Hitlerwasgod” and gives that guy “the keys to the kingdom” and that guy walks off with organization files and hands it to a “watchdog group,” then those folks should be disavowed?  Well, that happened, and insofar as I know, I’m the only one who criticized (not even disavowed) them.  The “movement” is routinely infiltrated, security is non-existent – yet who else other than me critiques Der Movement as a whole?

We should take ourselves just as seriously and be equally ruthless with failure.

As I’ve said many times, Revilo Oliver talked about 50 years of “movement” failure nearly 50 years ago.  However, I seem to be the only one “equally ruthless with failure” to suggest the entire “movement” needs to be deconstructed and then reconstructed from the group up. That to me seems reasonably serious and ruthless with failure, but others in the “movement” fail to even acknowledge the proposal, much less engage with it, much less than that to agree with it.

The good way is to adopt a civil and charitable tone, to give the most generous possible reading of an opposed position, and then offer sound reasons (facts and valid arguments) for the superiority of one’s own view. 

Whether or not Spencer has been treated in this way recently, I’ll let the reader decide.

The bad way is to adopt a paranoid and aggressive tone, to give jaundiced readings of opposed positions, and to play fast and loose with facts and logic.

There’s a difference between that and mocking ridicule, the latter justified when endless decades of failure are not even acknowledged.

Enemy agents say stupid things, commit crimes, start rumors, and sabotage organizations. But, unfortunately, so do a lot of sincere people.

True enough.  But if we are to be “ruthless with failure” maybe folks who act like anti-racist trolls should be treated as such, even if they are “sincere.”  I also can’t quite get my head around folks who change their memes and ideology from post to post and from blog to blog, all with the end result of maximizing chaos, or single individuals who post and do podcasts (do they think us deaf?) under different names – it sets off alarm bells.  OK, maybe they are “sincere.”  But the damage at the end of the day is the same.

“Not punching right” is an absurd principle, but calling people informants without evidence should be an absolute taboo…

I agree (is Ramzpaul now taboo?); however, I’ll note for the record that suggesting someone is trolling is not the same as suggesting they are actually an active informant.  I’ll also note I’ve never accused anyone of being an informant (without evidence); I have accused folks of trolling when they’ve behaved in the manner described above.

So the suspicion of being an enemy agent should fall back on anyone who throws around that charge without evidence. They stand convicted by their own flimsy standards of evidence.

So, to combat false accusations of being an enemy agent, we falsely accuse others of being enemy agents?

As long as we bring our respective audiences closer to white survival, then in terms of strategies and style, diversity is actually a strength.

With respect to White ethnics and pan-Europeanism, the actual “diversity” in the American “movement” is practically close to zero (at the higher levels).

Setting the Record Straight on the Alt Right

Some Sunday fisking.

Greg Johnson’s declaration that “The Alt Right Means White Nationalism . . . or Nothing at All” has now become internalized by practically every member of the Alt Right.

This comment is ludicrously, comically, laughably wrong. Let’s see: Taylor? The rest of the Amren crew? Brimelow? Derbyshire? Vox Day? Sailer? Race-mixing Roissy? They’re all charging forward under the banner of White nationalism? Well, you’ll say: “they’re not the Alt-Right.” But they and many others say they are, and have as much right to the Alt Right label as you or anyone else. If the Alt Right means White nationalism, then why can’t we just call it White nationalism and dispense with the whole Alt Right euphemistic bullshit? The problem is that Alt Right by its very nature represents a broad spectrum of right-wing thought that goes beyond White nationalism.

And there are several, high-profile, self-promoters who have a very clear understanding of the importance of branding. Which is why they’re moving heaven and earth to take the banner of “Alt Right” and co-opt it for their own various movements.

The Alt-Right has been co-opted from its very birth. Taylor, Amren, the VDARE boys, HBD…it was all over from the beginning. Look at who was at the press conference – three people representing the Alt Right. One was a White nationalist (Spencer), one was a self-declared “yellow supremacist” (Taylor), and one was a self-declared civic nationalist (Brimelow) whose website gives a forum to the likes of the anti-WN Alt Righter John Derbyshire (a miscegenationist and child porn apologist) as well as citizenist Breezy Steve Sailer. Sorry, one for three may be good in baseball but it doesn’t pass muster in political activism.

“Alt Right” has become an internationally-recognized brand that only fools would carelessly dilute or abandon.

The brand is already tainted. It was so at its beginning. Maybe only fools would carelessly jump on a bandwagon that’s heading off a cliff?

Nazi Shitlords™ know the importance of branding, terminology, and propaganda. They use these weapons every day. And the term “Alt Right” has become their most powerful weapon in attacking the enemy, and recruiting the masses into White Nationalism at an exponential rate.

The masses are being recruited into WN at an exponential rate? What are you smoking? The Alt Right’s fifteen minutes of fame are over. Maybe the debates will give it a brief resuscitation, but can we be realistic, please? Where is the evidence for this exponential mass recruitment?

Nazi Shitlords™ have worked tirelessly to build the name “Alt Right” into a powerful, universally-recognized brand of “White Nationalism.” The Alt Right has been launched into the national spotlight, not because some Alt Right intellectual finally wrote that one, magical article on Evola, but because an army of Alt Right Nazi Shitlords™, guided by The Daily Stormer, TRS, InfoStormer, Radio Aryan, and /pol/, have been mercilessly attacking our enemies on Twitter and social media.

And only on Twitter and social media. The levers of political power remain in the hands of the Left. The streets remain in the hands of the Left. The future remains in the hands of the Left. True enough, the Right has Pepe. And Kek. Hail Kek!

Without The Daily Stormer and TRS there would have been no “Alt Right” speech by Hillary. It’s that simple.

And yet the kingpins of the Alt Right presented to the public are mostly an amalgamation of HBDers, civic nationalists, and paleoconservatives.

The name “Alt Right” has become the most powerful brand of White Nationalism in over 70 years. 

That’s more of an indictment of the abject failures of Der Movement than the wonders of Alt Right stupidity and Pepian jackassery.

And it happened almost by accident. The stars aligned. 

That underscores what I’ve been saying: the Alt Right’s fifteen minutes of fame have NOT been due to its own innate character, all the “hard work,” of being right, or pursuing the right long term strategy. It has SOLELY been due to the accident of the Trump campaign (without the birther controversy and Trump’s interest in it, Trump would never have been publicly mocked by Obama, and would never have decided to run. Without the frustrations of the GOP base with cuckservatives – independent of the Alt Right – Trump would not have a natural constituency). And without the cultural degeneracy of the youth, which finds attraction with social media snark and overall jackassery, the whole Pepe stupidity would not have seen the light of day. True enough, one should take advantage of unforeseen and even accidental opportunities. But these opportunities do not represent validation of the Alt Right approach. Indeed, the Alt Right’s squandering of these opportunities suggests that its basic flaws are being exposed. Pepe does not equate to serious political activism.

It may never happen again.

Don’t worry, Der Movement will ruin their chance, and if it never happens again, well, that’s that.

By welcoming so-called potential allies, most of whom are vehemently opposed to our core tenets of White Nationalism and the JQ, to share the banner of “Alt Right,” we’re not only destroying our most powerful weapon and brand, we’re literally handing it over to possible enemies to wield against us.

Those enemies have been part of the Alt Right from its birth. They are as much the Alt Right as are the WNs.

“Oy vey! How dare those virulently anti-Semitic, White Nationalist Alt Righters criticize Jews! We Jews are the most important leaders, thinkers, and funders of the Alt Right! We demand that they be expelled from the movement! We vastly outnumber them anyway — isn’t that right, my civic-Nationalist, libertarian, goyim friends?!”
Don’t think that will happen? Look to American Renaissance as a cautionary tale.

Exactly. And this is my point: Amren has been a founding pillar of the Alt Right from its very beginning. Who was at the press conference? Greg Johnson or Jared Taylor? Oy vey, indeed.

After Loren Feldman got the Alt Right door slammed in his face, he immediately began an ongoing, Twitter melt-down revealing his true feelings about the goyim. He now constantly attacks Alt Righters as low-IQ, goyim pawns of the Jews, and much worse. And he constantly brags about Jewish supremacy and fact that Jews control the world.

And many prominent Alt Righters, of the HBD Alt Wrong faction, agree with him.

But, under the big-tent, multi-tier strategy, the Loren Feldmans are immediately designated as members of the Alt Right, despite the fact that they would love to throw all of us into gulags.

The Loren Feldmans have been there from the very beginning.

Now entryists no longer have to work at infiltrating the Alt Right — they’ve been invited in!

Invited in by the Jews, HBDers, cucks, and civic nationalists who represent a portion of the founding group of the Alt Right.

Milo is attempting to co-opt the momentum and banner of the Alt Right and turn it into his floundering, Cultural-Libertarian movement.

As opposed to Sailer’s citizenism or Amren’s yellow supremacy?

Vox Day is currently attempting his own subversive version of redefining the Alt Right to include himself, and to purge the Alt Right’s staunchly White Nationalist core.

Maybe WNs should stop promoting, interviewing, etc. that mendacious mestizo?

These hostile attempts to redefine the term “Alt Right” must be fought mercilessly — not invited.

Maybe we should mercilessly fight the attempts to redefine White nationalism as the Alt Right?

So far, the Alt Right’s success as a White Nationalist movement has not been due to the idea that it’s a “big tent” that unfurls to engulf the masses. It’s due to the fact that the Alt Right has been a powerful, unchangeable, resolute, stone fortress that attracts the masses through incessant, high-profile attacks on our ideological enemies.

Unfortunately, that is not an accurate description of the Alt Right

People are naturally attracted to strength, permanence, and unapologetic, aggressive force.

Are they thus attracted to Pepe, Kek, Derbyshire’s “measured groveling” to “Rosie,” and to HBD yellow supremacy?

The big tent is where political movements go to die in the shade.

I agree with this, and this is where Saint Adolf and Who We Are Pierce are correct. You cannot dilute your core identity just to engage in conformist bandwagon-jumping. WN is not the Alt Right.
Mistake after mistake after mistake: the mantra of Der Movement.