Category: free speech

Der News, News, News, 3/5/18

It’s Der Movement!

First: an unannounced odyssey.  Every couple of months I search Amazon to see if Bolton’s Yockey book had been published (as well as checking Far-Right sites for an announcement).

Lo and behold!

I’ll read that Kindle when I finish the sets of books I’m tackling now (Late Western Roman Empire, and also a new Hitler biography is gathering dust here and I need to get to that at some point). But for now I ask: why hasn’t this book publication been announced and promoted at various Far-Right sites?  This is an important development and we have to search it out as if it was being hidden.

Sometimes Der Movement baffles me, it really does.

So let EGI Notes make the announcement:


Nicholas Farrell, who is not an ethnic Italian but lives in Italy, sighs loudly once again about those stupid and unruly Afrowops:

The Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, comparing himself to Michelangelo and Italians to marble—the raw material the Renaissance genius used to fashion his sculptures—once complained to German journalist Emil Ludwig: “It’s the raw material that I lack. Governing the Italians is not impossible. It is useless.”
Since the fall of Il Duce in 1945, Italy has had 65 governments, and today the Italians return to the polls to choose the 66th. Incredibly, for non-Italians at least…

Yeah Farrell, it’s all like real terrible and all.  How about leaving Italy then?

A new “movement” disease called the Farrell-Munro-Deasy Syndrome: live in, or at least visit, someone else’s nation (as an ethnic alien), complain about and insult the natives, with marrying a native woman optional (while mocking the men…an omnidominant ploy? Perhaps those “farther from human origins” are more “omnidominant?”).

So far I have no reason to include that Leonard ( fellow in this syndrome; while he lives In Italy he so far has not attacked the natives.

Read this.

This is a vehemently pacifist blog, advocating complete non-violence in the grand Gandhian tradition, a beacon of human love and compassion, unalterably opposed to the use of any force whatsoever.  Turn the other cheek!  However, on a purely theoretical basis, purely hypothetically, what if, the next time some “extreme right leader” is “violently attacked by protestors” that some identified extreme left activist thug simply disappears?  Vanished, never to be seen again. What happened to them?  A mystery it all is!  Such a course of action is of course despicable and denounced by this blog in the strongest possible terms, it must never happen, we denounce it utterly, but, hypothetically speaking, purely theoretically, it may make the thugs think twice the next time they decide to do their usual ten-on-one “sucker punch” style attacks on rightists.  But self-defense for rightists contravenes the hardcore humanist views of this blog so it must of course never ever occur. Never, never, never!  Rightists must of course be attacked with complete impunity, with the Left fearing no payback whatsoever.

After all, why should a “movement” ostensibly based upon concepts of national greatness, masculinity, virility, force, and Faustian overcoming ever defend itself?  Do nothing, meekly allow yourselves to be assaulted, and then cry for the authorities (who hate you) to step in – that’s the ticket!

By the way, that happened while a “hardcore conservative” is President of Sicily.

Sound familiar? Just like how Trump and Sessions look the other way when Antifa run wild in the streets of America, even though Der Touchback and Der Howdy have the power to declare that group a terrorist organization and fully unleash federal law enforcement on them.

In any case, isn’t it clear that “extreme right” leaders need bodyguards when venturing out in public?  It’s even obvious to an ultra-pacifist and lover of humanity as me that the “extreme right” needs to form paramilitary groups to defend their politicians, speakers, and leaders, within the scope of existing law. 

Read here. That is why we need POPA.


None Dare Call It Hypocrisy

Well, actually, I dare.

I see it as highly hypocritical that the same “movement” “leaders” – all the quota queens – endlessly complain about being “deplatformed” (and use that as part of their equally endless tin cup panhandling), while at the same time these “leaders” behave the same way with respect to racialist dissidents who honestly critique the “movement” and its “leaders” – “ban” them, essentially “deplatform” them from the central media centers of (what passes for) “movement” discourse.

It is important to clear up some matters lest I be accused of hypocrisy or inconsistency.  First, I do agree with the argument – made, for example, by Bowery at Majority Rights when he and I were both participating at that blog – that freedom of association trumps freedom of speech.  I further made the argument at my own blogs that freedom of speech does not obligate anyone to host any specific type of speech at their own forum; again, freedom of association is above freedom of speech, as long as that speech has somewhere else to go. So, yes, I agree that a blog owner can “ban” anyone they want from their site, and that “banned” person can go and set up their own blog and do their own thing elsewhere on the Internet.  After all, that’s ultimately why this blog exists (and, if I remember correctly, for example, Majority Rights was established after its founders were essentially declared persona non grata at Gene Expression).  I have also argued, in like sense, that a blog can be viewed as a form of political warfare, and so why should political soldiers benefit their enemies by facilitating those enemies’ dissemination of their ideas?  There is no obligation to host your enemy.  Very good, but is a fellow racial activist really an “enemy” because they criticize some of your ideas and actions?  Because they state that you should be held accountable for mistakes (according to your own declared standards of behavior)?  Are fellow activists the functional equivalent of SJW leftists?

It is also true that there is a difference between being banned from a blog (or a set of blogs) and having a major (albeit privately owned) company, which is functionally equivalent to a public utility, banning its use by an entire class of people based on, for example, their political views.  However, the “why should you assist the enemy?” argument cuts both ways here.  The owners of Amazon, Twitter, PayPal, etc. can argue – why should they be obligated to support their enemies?  Oh, you say that they are so successful that they are equivalent to public utilities and so they must be obligated to serve everyone.  Very well.  Imagine the same principle is turned inward to the “movement” – some “movement” blogs, sites, groups, and organizations are so successful (within the “movement” itself) that they are equivalent to “movement” “public utilities” and so they must be obligated to serve all racial activists, even those they disagree with.  I’m sure that violation of freedom of association would be rejected, even though in principle the argument is the same (adjusted for scale between society-at-large and the “movement”).

I’m not making a legalistic argument in this post; instead, I’m making a moral one, based on principles, and based on character and integrity (or the lack therefore in Der Movement).  The basic truth is that these “leaders” are endlessly whining about being deplatformed by private companies, and they behave the same way to racial activist dissidents they do not like.  The scale is different, but the basic principle is the same, and most of the arguments as to why private companies should be obligated to interface with, and serve, the “movement” as a whole can be made to argue that the “movement” as a whole needs to interface with the dissidents within its ranks.

Basically, I see the behavior of the “leaders” as being one of cowardice – fear of engaging with dissident critics and those critics’ ideas – as well as the prima donna sense of entitlement that derives from being products of the “movement’s” affirmative action program – how dare anyone criticize them!  Why should they stoop to answering critics?.  Low character hypocrites: behold the Type I Quota Queen “Leadership” of Der Movement: fearfully hiding from those who would critique their flawed ideas and those who would hold them accountable for their failures.

Note: Someone may point out that my own blogs have traditionally never had comments sections.  That is true.  First, I’m not a fan of such sections, the signal-to-noise ratio is poor; most “movement” comments threads of full of asinine Type I activists, trolls, fetishists, defectives, and “antis.”  Second, and even more importantly, unlike our “fearless leaders,” I am not a full time professional activist (living off of supporters’ donations). I’m merely a part-time amateur; I simply do not have the time to deal with comments; to my mind, it is more important, and more prudent, to invest my limited time in producing new content.  However, our heroic leaders are indeed full time activists with free time aplenty, they are people who believe that comments sections have value, so there is obviously a difference between my blog and theirs in that regard.

Against the Twitter Purge

A brief statement of principle.

I’m going to postpone the post I had planned for today; instead, I want to make a statement about the ongoing Alt Right deplatforming, now manifested in a Twitter Purge of some on the Far-Right, including Taylor and Amren (as well as others, and one can expect the list to expand in coming days).

Readers of this blog know I have my differences with American Renaissance, and with some of the other “movement” precincts that have been, or will be, banned from social media.  That’s not relevant here.  Regardless of what I think of these individuals, organizations, and their work, I fully, and without reservation, support their rights of free speech, of free expression, and I unalterably oppose what has happened, what is happening.

Nitwits will of course start the song and dance that “Twitter is a private company, so they can do as they please here.”  Two points.  First, Twitter, Amazon, Google, PayPal and all the rest have become, basically, akin to public utilities and should be regulated as such. While I’m sure the SJWs think that Alt Righters should be deprived of electricity, heat, water, telephone service, medical care, etc. most reasonable people would disagree.  In the digital age of global communication and commerce, the aforementioned digital entities are analogous to analog service utilities and thus the issue should not merely be one of private preference.  Second, the hypocrisy here is breathless, in that bakers – private businesses! – are being forced to service homosexual marriages, and the same progressive have no problem with freedom of association being violated in that case (or in the case of race, for example – why can’t realtors or property owners discriminate based on race with respect who they sell to or rent to?).

I may also add that Twitter’s rationale that Amren promotes “violence” against “citizens” is ludicrous.  Taylor denounced Spencer merely for Hailgate – how do a bunch of suit-and-tie HBDers threaten “violence” to anyone?  All these Alt Right types are actually the victims of leftist violence, not the perpetrators of any sort of attacks.

The whole thing is a travesty.

But, this looks like the future.  Despite my disagreements with Der Movement, I oppose it being censored.  After all, from the broad perspective, I’m involved as well.  At times like this, all the “heroes” of the “movement” need to put aside their petty feuds and figure out approaches to bypass dependence upon a System that is opposed to all of us on the Far-Right.

The money and resources are available for this, as I’ve written many times, and apparently, KMacD agrees (emphasis added):

We have to hope that racially conscious Whites will eventually create an infrastructure that begins to match the multicultural, anti-White infrastructure that is already in place. The money is certainly there and the situation on the ground can only convince more and more Whites that Rep. Mo Brooks is right — that there is indeed a war against them.

More money for real projects and less money for “frilly things” for mudsharks and less money for happy penguins to live the good life, and maybe we’ll be getting somewhere.

Of Cucks and Men

Something positive about the Alt Right.

I have been critical of the Alt Right, including Spencer, when called for, and will continue to do so (something about the latest Jorjani fiasco will be out soon).  But the converse is true as well: when these guys do something right, I’ll support them.

Even though the Florida speech didn’t go down in an optimal fashion, nevertheless, giving these speeches – or attempting to – is a good idea, and I have to give Richard Spencer credit for putting himself out there, physically, taking risks, speaking truth to power, and defending his people.  

Whatever else one can say about him, Spencer is a man, contrasted to mewling pathetic cucks like John McCain or George W. Bush (whose wife, in my opinion, should be indicted for murder for what she did in high school).

As for the scum in the Florida crowd, shouting Spencer down, I say this: Like it or not, the Far Right is here to stay. I don’t like the Alt Right nor the “movement” as a whole, but I do acknowledge that we are, broadly speaking, on the same side, and I certainly fully support Spencer in his quest to get racial nationalist ideas a fair hearing.

Now, I think he’d be more successful if he’d cut ties with the juvenile jackassery of the Alt Right, and not deal with the likes of Jorjani again, but I realize that when I give advice to the “movement” it goes in one ear and out the other.

Regardless, I’ll give credit where credit is due.

The Purge Continues

The meaning of the purge.

The suppression of dissident opinion and The Purge of the Right continues.

How to interpret all of this?

It would be tempting for the Anti-Alt Right Far Right to adopt the attitude of “the Alt Right and associated groups caused all of this trouble and this whole mess is their responsibility.” However, that would be the wrong view. We cannot confuse means (online activism) with ends (promoting White interests).  If the only way to safeguard our Internet presence is to be completely ineffectual, to accomplish nothing, to stay in our little playpen, then the online presence is useless.  The whole point of online activism is to eventually transition to the real world.  The Unite the Right rally had every right to occur, the violence was the responsibility of the Left and the authorities, and the Purge is System repression and nothing else.  Thus, the Purge is ultimately the responsibility of the System, not the Alt Right.

Of course, there are grounds to criticize the Alt Right and the other rally organizers.  We can ask whether the benefits of the rally was worth the costs. We can point out the lack of online security allowing the planning to be infiltrated, the relative lack of organization, the participation of Nutzi types, the silly costumes, and the point that if the Alt Right pushes its hegemony over racial nationalism, then they should include major racial nationalist stakeholders in the planning, and in the overall strategic direction, of big events and other activities.

That said, as much as I dislike the Alt Right, they cannot be blamed as the fundamental cause of the Purge (which would have happened eventually, sooner or later).

If we want to point fingers on the Right, we can look toward the “movement” as a whole, the Old Movement that never created the infrastructures required to survive System persecution and to move forward.  The Old Movement for the last half-century has been invested in the Piercian Der Tag mentality that the System is about to collapse any minute and “the revolution” is just around the corner.  After all, why organize in depth, for the long haul, with a decades-long strategic vision, if you are always thinking that “the System is definitely going to collapse in five years?”  If you believe, and proselytize, the view that a Turner Diaries scenario is going to occur within the next half decade, why bother with long term planning?

And so, when we find ourselves in the current situation, we find we have no community presence, no community support, no integration into the community, we have no cadre of lawyers ready to come to our defense, we have no print journals or other analog media ready to pick up the slack of online censorship, we have no elected officials sympathetic to our cause (the retarded buffoon in the White House, who denounced “hate,” definitely does not count), we have no professionalized security or intelligence operations, we have no businesses outside of direct “movement” activity to employ activists and to generate income, we have no (insofar as I know) “reptile fund” to support required covert operational activities – we have none of it. We are woefully unprepared for the contingencies that come from dissident activism and we are paying the price for that unpreparedness.  Instead of taking rhetoric about how “the System is anti-White and doesn’t care about our people” at face value, we have ignored opportunities to reach out to the declining White middle class, we have neglected practical community-based activities to help those Red State White Americans with increasing mortality rates and existential despair, we have turned our back on the real world and have rolled around in our isolated playpens.  And now when we need White support, they are not there for us like we were not there for them.

The “movement” made three significant errors:

1. Not organizing in depth in the real world.  See the two preceding paragraphs. This has been the largest error.  Decades of time, enormous efforts, and a lot of money, all have been completely wasted.  An absolute disgrace.

2. An over-reliance on digital activism.  This ties in to point #1 above.  We have become addicted to the Internet, at the expense of real world tangible activity.  We have reached a point where the “movement” is a foundation of digital bytes (easily erased by the System) coupled to a more recent superstructure of rallies full of mostly well-meaning people many of whom nonetheless look like they’ve just left a cosplay convention.  That’s not going to work out.  We need to take stock, and while we rebuild our online presence, we should consider this a “wake-up call” to invest more in analog activism – deep and meaningful community outreach, practical politics, System infiltration, and building of new alternative communities – and perhaps invest less in talking among ourselves online about “Pepe” and “Kek” and the older “movement” memes as well.

3. A too-narrow leadership cadre.  It has been the same people – the same types of people – and the same ideas, over and over again. There is no accountability, years and decades of failure have no consequences.  Other people with different ideas are ignored and scorned, because they are of the “wrong” ethnicity and/or do not kowtow to “movement” leaders and dare to criticize the “rock stars” and/or refuse to drink the “movement” Kool-Aid of outdated fossilized dogma.  It is high time to consider other perspectives. You are not obligated to agree with those perspectives, much less actualize them, but at least give them a fair hearing.  

Having said all of this, a case can be made that the Purge may in the long run be for the best.  It would have had to happen sooner or later – and worse may yet be to come if racial nationalism becomes more successful – so the faster the “movement” adapts to the way things are, the stronger it will become having weathered the crisis.  The System will adapt as well – a Red Queen scenario is likely – but this process is necessary for any real dissident movement.  The status quo had to be broken.  Perhaps it could have been broken in a more productive manner, but what has happened has happened, and reality needs to be dealt with as it exists.

Defending POPA

Defending the Political Opinion Protection Act (POPA).

Of relevance to this, I state the following.

Free speech is meaningless if expressing dissident opinions makes life in a modern society completely untenable.   In this manner, “private” social pricing attacks against dissident beliefs, opinions, and activism have a chilling effect on free speech, particularly today when “private” businesses and institutions rival governments with respect to power and influence. Outsourcing speech suppression from the public to the private spheres – transforming the “private” into a tool of public coercion – violates the First Amendment in spirit and this problem needs to be rectified through legal and political change.

The Political Opinion Protection Act

Against social pricing.

This is a very crude, initiative draft of an anti-social pricing law (and explanation) that requires significant further development and refinement. Consider it a starting point.

Political and social opinions, beliefs, and ideologies, and the adherence and promotion thereof, now define a protected class of individuals, against whom business and institutions, private or public, cannot discriminate in employment or in the provision of services.  The only exception is where the opinions, beliefs, and ideologies are directly and overtly incompatible with the core mission of the business or institution, strictly defined by analogy to the examples that follow.

Now, there will be some examples – relatively rare – where sociopolitical opinions would disqualify an individual for employment (or service).  For example, the core mission of a conservative political foundation is the creation, analysis, dissemination, and promotion of conservative political ideas and ideals; a committed anti-conservative progressive can reasonably be seen as an unacceptable employee of such a foundation (and the converse is true: a hard core right-winger would be unacceptable in a progressive/liberal political foundation).  Planned Parenthood should not have to hire anti-abortion activists; right-to-life organizations should not have to employ abortion doctors or pro-choice activists.  These are clear examples where the core missions directly deal with sociopolitical memes and thus certain beliefs would be obviously incompatible.

However, indirect factors allegedly affecting core missions are not the same as the core missions themselves.

The core mission of a restaurant is to sell food to customers.  A restaurant may claim that “diversity helps business by expanding the pool of potential customers,” but promoting diversity is not the core mission of the business, selling food is.  Thus, opposition to diversity cannot be reasonably seen as incompatible with the fundamental core mission of the business.  A restaurant may claim that “immigrant labor is important for our profits,” but promoting immigration is not the core mission and hence an anti-immigration attitude cannot be seen as being incompatible for someone to work in that business. On the other hand, a steakhouse can have a reasonable rationale for skepticism in hiring a militant animal rights activist (and, conversely, PETA can reasonably have the same attitude toward, say, a butcher).

Let us consider academia. The core mission of academia is education and research/scholarship; basically to create and disseminate knowledge and ideas.  An academic institution can make (and they do make) arguments about how (demographic) diversity assists them in their mission, and that may be true or it may just be justification for social engineering.  True or not, promoting diversity is not the core mission of academia, and therefore opposition to multiracial/multicultural diversity cannot be seen as incompatible with the core mission.  Indeed, if we expand the definition of diversity to include types of (e.g., intellectual) diversity that can have a direct impact on exposing students to a more varied set of ideas, then one can argue that it is a good thing to have individuals opposed to multicultural diversity in academia; it is important to have a diversity of beliefs and opinions (perhaps we need affirmative action for the Far Right in academia?).

It is also important to prevent businesses and institutions from redefining their core missions so as to exclude opinions they do not like.  Core missions are those that derive naturally from the existential meaning of what the business and institution is, how they have been perceived and/or are perceived and/or will be perceived by reasonable people, and which can be organically associated with the “product” of the business or institution. Thus, attempts by, say, a college to redefine its core mission so as to include “promoting diversity” should be rejected, since that is an ad hoc extension of the natural and organic real fundamental academic core mission, and therefore can be reasonably seen as an attempt to evade the spirit and letter of this new law.

Services like Internet providers or transportation companies have a core mission in providing the specific service that defines the company; the opinions, beliefs, and ideologies of current or potential customers do not affect the core mission (indeed, one would think a business, valuing their core mission, would want to maximize their customer base and not arbitrarily exclude customers) and thus cannot be used as an excuse to deny service. Ad hoc redefining of the core mission to exclude “undesirable customers” is, again, forbidden.