Category: fisking

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.

Advertisements

High-Information Moralizing

And some very important questions at the end.

Consider some of the comments here.

CounterCurrentsTV

CounterCurrentsTV

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.

 

CounterCurrentsTV

CounterCurrentsTV

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.

CounterCurrentsTV

CounterCurrentsTV

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. 

Indeed.

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. 

Perhaps.

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?

CounterCurrentsTV

CounterCurrentsTV

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?

Der Movement’s Dangerous “Minds”

SLC News.

In an otherwise fine book review and analysis by Johnson, we find two disturbing bits.

First:

This is why I don’t regard Alexander Dugin and Richard Spencer as contributing anything to White Nationalism, which is the advocacy of ethnic self-determination for all white peoples. 

That’s an incredibly misleading, actually mendacious, description of what White Nationalism is, essentially equating White Nationalism as the sum of all the various intra-White ethnonationalisms added together.  Instead, what most honest people in the “movement” consider by “White Nationalism” is exactly what the term literally implies – a form of nationalism centered on race rather than ethnicity; the ORION principle: Our Race Is Our Nation.  Thus, for White Nationalists, the ultimate form of nationhood, and the highest form of national allegiance, is to the race as a whole; individual ethnic allegiances are secondary.  In this sense, White Nationalism is the antithesis of narrow ethnonationalism.

Instead, they are simply apologists for Russian imperial revanchism. 

Dugin yes.  But Spencer?  That’s going too far.  By the way, who has it been promoting the work of Dugin over the years?  All the Type Is out there, all the “traditionalists,: certainly not me.

Spencer regards ethnonationalism as “petty”….

He’s right about that. 

…siding with the UK against Scottish independence, the EU against Brexit, and Spain against Catalan independence. 

I disagree with Spencer here and go along with Yockey: In an Imperium there can be whatever local autonomy people wish, and if Scots and Catalans (or whoever) want such autonomy, fine, as long as all these regions and micro-nations are confederated into the Imperium.

But although he opposes the UK leaving the EU, he opposes Ukraine joining it. He praises the EU as a transnational, imperial organization — but not NATO. 

Spencer can explain his UK vs. Ukraine views himself.  The EU in principle is not a bad idea; its execution is globalist and anti-White, so I oppose it.

Clearly, he is more interested in shilling for Russian geopolitical interests than in setting forth a coherent moral and political framework for white survival.

Is White survival instead advanced by setting forth coherent moral and political frameworks of White nations ethnically cleansing each other?

Then we have this:

Beiner then quotes Spencer denouncing “fucking middle class” values and proclaiming “I love empire, I love power, I love achievement.” We even learn from a Jewish female reporter that Spencer will sometimes “get a boner” from reading about Napoleon.

If any of that is true, what can I say that I haven’t said before?  All you Type I Nutzis and heavy breathing fetishists out there are responsible for that, you are the ones who enable the affirmative action program.  You made your bed so now lie in it (albeit not along with Spencer reading about Napoleon).

Fisking Derbyshire, 2/19/18

A brief fisking.

So why was opium smoking so devastating among China’s poor? Adulteration, says Midler. In the extreme, a cheap variety named Hankow Cake contained no opium at all, only sesame seeds.  Midler:

Historians are so hell-bent on blaming the West for everything that went wrong with China in the nineteenth century that they have no room for an investigation into the serious possibility that the nation may have actually poisoned itself.

I would like to see some rigorous historical research on that, but it’s not implausible, and fits very well with the tiresome Chinese bellyaching about the wrongs done to them by foreigners.

How does it differ from Chinese fraud and mendacity today?

Chinese people acknowledge that an individual fellow-countryman may be wicked, but China as a nation can do no wrong.

National self-esteem is of course not an exclusively Chinese phenomenon. We Americans—well, some of us—treasure our “exceptionalism.” Chinese propagandists take it to the extreme, though.

Midler calls it “collective narcissism”  and quotes Lucian Pye, writing fifty years ago:

Nothing can be wrong with the Chinese spirit and their inward identity. All problems must lie outside and therefore be the work of “foreigners.”

But, of course.

Leszek Kolakowski in Main Currents of Marxism described Mao Tse-tung Thought as “a naïve repetition of a few commonplaces of Leninist-Stalinist Marxism.” He allows, however, that Mao was “one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, manipulator of large masses of human beings in the twentieth century.”

So Maoism was a cheap Chinese knock-off of Marxism-Leninism.

Copy, copy, copy, steal, steal, steal…what else is new for the race of human photocopiers?

Why are so many of us so forgivingly fond of this exasperating, paradoxical, unstable place?  

Pathetic White nerds have Yellow Fever, that’s why.  The “awkward squad” wants to get laid.

Paul Midler quotes from the answer given by Progressive sociologist Edward Alsworth Ross in 1911.

Chinese are extremely likable and those who have known them longest like them best. Almost invariably those who harshly disparage them are people who are coarse or narrow or bigoted. They are not a sour or sullen folk. Smile at them and back comes a look that puts you on a footing of mutual understanding. Their lively sense of humor is a bond that unites them to the foreigner.

Substitute “Chinese” with “Negroes” and Derbyshire would rightly mock this quote, rife as it is with smug moral posturing: all you Chinese haters simply don’t know them.  Excuse my language, but…bullshit.

Ross (1866-1951) is an odd person for Midler to quote in this context.  He would himself be denounced as the worst kind of bigot today. He was a race realist, nativist, and eugenicist who strongly objected to race mixing—so strongly, he was fired from his professorship at Stanford in 1900 for his views.

In 1900!  Well, anyway, what’s the surprise?  A Nordicist HBD type who liked East Asians. Who would have ever guessed?

Much as he liked the Chinese, Ross did not want them settling in the U.S.A. This is a perfectly tenable position, although intolerably shocking to present-day orthodoxies.

Yes, it’s tenable.  Can the Derbyshire family please leave then?

Ross got the likability right, though, and “those who have known them longest like them best.” (Rodney Gilbert may have been an exception.)

Right…the usual SJW song and dance about how “only Whites who don’t know Coloreds are the ones who are bigoted against them.” Derbyshire himself would scoff at that regarding Blacks, why can’t we similarly scoff about Yellows?  I know Chinese very well.  I don’t like them.

And to the further collective credit of the Chinese must be added this: Unlike the nations of the West today, they have no intention of opening up the borders of their nation to tens of millions of foreigners.  Stupidity on that scale is peculiarly Western.

Yes, but having Jews around poisoning the well of sociopolitical discourse does not help.

What’s wrong with us?

We let former illegal alien Dreamer Derbyshire stay in America, bringing in his alien wife and producing mixed-race children.

Here’s the solution to the whole problem.  People who don’t like China and the Chinese should not live in China (likewise, Munro should get the hell out of Romania).  But, please, can we remove all people who posses Chinese descent – part or full – and those married to them from America?

Thank you.

Fisking the Duped

Clueless quota queen.

The MSM has been in SHOCK! HORROR! mode over the news that one Patrik Hermansson, purporting to be graduate student Erik Hellberg (as if anyone could tell the difference!)…

The “movement” obviously could not.

…infiltrated and—arguably illegally and unethically—surreptitiously recorded a number of right wing organizations (he fashionably says “Alt Right” although they mostly predate the term) in Europe and the U.S. e.g. Undercover With the Alt-Right, by Jesse Singal, New York Times, September 19, 2017.

Counter-Currents‘ Editor-in-Chief Greg Johnson, a victim, has a characteristically sensible discussion here.

If by “characteristically sensible” you mean minimizing the outrageous incompetence of “leaders” letting an infiltrator joyride through the “movement” for a year, sitting with “leaders” to “vet” genuine activists, and giving “keynote addresses” about “anti-fascist infiltrators” (I still can’t get over that one), and then hysterically “banning” people who call for accountability, yes indeed, very sensible.

The bottom line: Hermansson/ Hellberg’s “revelations,” although written up in hyperventilating British tabloid style on Hope Not Hate, the Cultural Marxist Enforcer website that sponsored him, contain no evidence or even allegations of any illegal behavior, let alone any conspiracy to commit violence.

That’s not the point is it, you mendacious handout artist?  The point is that a nobody, an infiltrator with a flimsy cover story, was able to worm his way into the highest levels of “movement” discourse and decision making, simply because (1) he’s a Swedish Nord, and (2) he’s an effeminate homosexual. What happens in the future, when an infiltrator is sitting at the highest “movement” councils in a time of crisis?  Or this: how do we know that there  isn’t another infiltrator like Hermansson already there?

All Hermansson/ Hellberg seems to have, at most,  is Politically Incorrect talk—from people already associated with Politically Incorrect websites!

No, all he has is exposing a bunch of clowns with their red rubber noses and makeup on.

He claims “sometimes being a mole in the far right was dangerous….” But he (and his rewrite man, who tried very hard) provide absolutely no support for this.

Big deal. The Hope Not Hate donors, who reportedly supported him for a year, must be very disappointed.

No, they are getting a big laugh over it all, I’m sure.  But in the last analysis, they could have done us all a big favor by exposing the affirmative action racket in the “movement” for what it is.  I say “could have” because I know the mental weaklings among the “movement “rank-and-file don’t have it in them to abandon failed “leadership.”

VDARE.com and I make a number of minor appearances on Hope Not Hate (here and here), but it’s just Search Engine Smear stuff.

Which is mildly interesting, because Hermansson/ Hellberg did contact me and Lydia and I met with him for coffee in Cipriani Dolci above New York’s Grand Central Station. 

And the other shoe drops.  Quota queen Brimelow fell for the same scam as his affirmative action colleagues.

(Note to Hope Not Hate bookkeeper: I paid!)

In other words: VDARE donors likely ultimately paid for it.

I guess I agree with Greg Johnson’s summary: “A bit socially awkward, a bit inarticulate, a bit effeminate, but not so outside the norm for academic types that I felt suspicious.” (Hope Not Hate says proudly that Hermansson/ Hellberg is a “gay, anti-racist activist”).

Two important points. First, the more I hear about Hermansson’s “effeminacy,” the more I think that Andrew Joyce is correct in his criticisms of gays in the “movement.”  If the Far Right was less tolerant of homosexuals, then Hermansson’s behavior would have been a more obvious red flag (alternatively, Hope Not Hate would just have had to dig up an attractive young blonde women to do the job, recording conversations while fending off groping and dodging marriage proposals).  Second, if Hermansson was so awkward and inarticulate, how did he end up being invited by Johnson to address a private Counter-Currents meeting?  How did he end up with the London Forum “leaders,” helping with meeting vetting?  Don’t these guys understand that the more they mock Hermansson as part of their “spin,” the worse they make themselves look for trusting Hermansson and elevating him?  Are these guys really that clueless?  So lacking in self-awareness?  Apparently so.

But I must also say that Hermansson/ Hellberg never said he was anything other than a graduate student, frankly asked if he could record me (Lydia got bored and left)…

That’s surprising. I would have expected she would have a high threshold for boredom.

…and never evinced anything other than academic interest in the movement.

Maybe that’s why his rewrite man couldn’t figure out how to smear us.

No need.  You smear yourselves, first by incompetence, and then by your pathetic “spin” to try and cover up the incompetence.

So why did Hermansson/ Hellberg (and/or his rewrite man) not realize they were undercutting the Left/ MSM Narrative? Because these Leftists are idiots. 

If they are idiots, then what about the Rightists so easily fooled for a year?

They live in an intellectual bubble and they believe their own propaganda.

Is Brimelow talking about “movement” activists here?  Or just deluded VDARE donors?

At least, the Hope Not Hate rewrite man does. But after we met, Hermansson/ Hellberg (email him) replied to my polite note:

Thank you yourself! It was really great talking to you.

Since I left I’ve actually looked into applying for universities in the US so I’m right now looking at Georgetown in DC and possibly NY as well. It’s my supervisor who pushed me to look into a phd or a research position.

Hey, Pete: did you – or any of the “characteristically sensible” members of the “good old boys network” – ever bother to check “Hellberg’s” academic bonafides?  Maybe contact his “supervisor” directly to say what a fine job he’s been doing (by supervisor I mean the alleged academic supervisor, not Hope Not Hope staff). You know, as part of the “extreme vetting” and all.  The Alt Right could have done that after drinking mead, reciting poems in Old Norse, and blowing on a Viking horn (and on anything else for that matter).

My intuition: Hermansson/ Hellberg actually is a graduate student. He really does hope to study in the U.S. (Note to VDARE.com readers: watch out!).

My intuition: Brimelow/Mophead actually is a panhandling, empty suit, quota queen.  He really does hope to continue to exploit readers to contribute to keep Happy Penguins LLC’s coffers full, so he can continue living that fine blue state lifestyle.

He’s just ripping off Hope Not Hate as well as the AltRight.

Are we talking about Hermansson here, or the editor of an “immigration restrictionist” website?

All joking inside, this is a serious matter.  What we likely have is a coordinated effort by an Alt Right-Alt Wrong alliance of affirmative action hacks to minimize the travesty that took place, distract their supporters from utter incompetence, and to get back to “business as usual” as quickly as possible, ensuring a steady stream of donation money.

Frankly, it’s more disgusting than comical.  And our EGI goes down the toilet due to failed leadership.  So much for adaptive fitness.

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.

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.