Category: free speech

Der Movement: July 9, 2019

In all cases, emphasis added.

Heddi
Replying to @RichardBSpencer
1) Richard, risk involvement reduces the influx of quality people to exactly ZERO. People who have lives/families to shatter by social ostracism or job loss will not ever involve themselves visibly, thus alt right was anonymous online phenomenon.‏

2) The condition to attract quality people – those who do not come from a “nothing to lose anyway” position – is the erasure of risk. How to do it? Marry risk erasure with incentives of heightened prospects of living conditions. Immerse immediate benefits into joining. Think.

Point number one is fairly obvious but very important, and perhaps not obvious to the grand poohbahs who represent themselves as “movement leadership.”  And this is something I’ve written about before, more than once.  

As far as point two goes, I essentially agree, except that “erasure of risk” is unrealistic. There is risk in everything, even driving a car or walking down a flight of stairs. Obviously, involvement in dissident political/metapolitical activity that is opposed by the entire System, by virtually the entire political spectrum, is going to have inherent risk.  Instead, we should talk of “risk management” and “risk minimization” – far more realistic objectives.  That is opposed to the typical “risk maximization” of Der Movement.  As an example of reasonable minimization, see the 2019 Amren meeting; while Unite the Right, the fate of Ricky Vaughn, Hermansson and Lewis infiltrations, IE Discord, and similar antics exemplify risk maximization.

And as far as incentives go – there are none.  Community building? Resistance to social pricing? Alternative infrastructures and economic viability for low-to-medium scale activists (as opposed to the “Happy Penguins” soaking up the “D’Nations”)?  Camaraderie?  Normalcy?  None of that. Instead we see sour defectiveness, bizarre freakishness, and endless failure.

A comparison between the Type I-style and Type II-style “alpha males” is shown in this short clip from Twin Peaks Season 3. Ray Monroe exemplifies the style of alpha maleness prized by the Type I defectives of “game” such as Roissy – a snide, smirking, sneering, joking, obnoxious jackass.  Mr. C, on the other hand, displays a more Type II-style sense of alpha maleness – aggressive, driven, serious, threatening, focused, with the “alphaness” focused with the “want” vs. “need” distinction.  Note how the two interact – Mr C putting Monroe in his place but the latter refusing to acknowledge it other than a begrudging slight nod and semi-grunt, followed by more of the same annoying jerkboy behavior.

This is a useful contrast because it is the Type I behavior that has led to the downfall of the Alt Right and damaged (American) racial nationalism.  All you need to do is listen to (drunken) “movement” podcasts and read “movement” blog posts and comments threads and you’ll observe Ray Monroes aplenty.  Unfortunately, Mr Cs are few and far between, so the snark to seriousness ratio approaches infinity.

The paradigm of “Sallis is always right” extends to my opinion of Durocher, whose latest inane screed can be found here.  Note the Bliss vs. Malla insanity in the comments thread, which is a direct result of Durocher’s constant shilling of an unscientific, ahistorical, cartoonish Ostara-style version of racial history.  Note then the Nutzi Germanic lunatics, the raging defectives, sweaty fetishists, and all the rest.  It’s no coincidence that such freaks come out of the woodwork with a Durocher post.  As they say – garbage in, garbage out.

Once again Sallis is right – remember this:

Some will object – what about Europe?  They have repressive speech codes and aren’t the national governments there considered legitimate by the people?  First, I can’t speak for rightist Europeans – it is very possible that the growth of populism there is indicative of a growing element that does indeed consider the System illegitimate. And, second, the USA, with its particular history of, and alleged commitment to, free speech, is expected to exhibit a much stronger association between free expression and political legitimacy than do nations that have histories of kings, dictators, strongmen, and laws against lese majeste. What about the argument that European nationalists have had success despite the speech codes there?  What success?  In some nations, there has been a temporary slowdown in the degeneration, which can be quickly reversed by any subsequent leftist government; at best, there have been victories by civic nationalists and moderate petty nationalists. The “grand success” in Europe is a figment of the Nutzi imagination. And I can turn the argument around – imagine how much more successful the European Right could be if they could actually express their real views without fear of being fined or jailed?

So, no, the pathetically flimsy “successes” in Europe – which in any case have limited relevance to the American situation – in no way disprove the thesis put forth here.  Given the concerns of White nationalists, the situation in Europe remains dire. Demographic replacement is still “baked into the cake” there. Can European nationalists freely and frankly discuss these concerns?

So, yeah, I’m sure the vaunted Swedish ethnonationalists will go from victory to victory when it is considered a crime to merely state the desire to deport criminal migrants.  

Laugh at this.  Soporific blog posts?

After a hard day of writing inspirational articles for Counter-Currents (under various pennames)

Multiple pennames? If true, that would help explain the devastating decline of quality at that site.

…I mix myself a drink that consists of vodka, soda water, lots of lime juice, and lots of ice.

What is it with Type I Alt Right and drinking alcohol?

Advertisements

Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark

Another failure for mainstreaming.

Sallis: Mainstreaming doesn’t work, one reason for that is that the Center-Right can co-opt your lukewarm positions and scoop up your votes as the “safe” alternative.

But the situation is even worse than I had written – Denmark shows that even the Left can co-opt weakly moderate “anti-immigration” positions – and of course later betray those positions, leaving the stupid hoodwinked voters high and dry and leaving the Far Right out of power (as usual). If you cannot even distinguish yourself from Social Democrats, then isn’t that the most searing indictment of mainstreaming possible?

The riposte will be that in Europe, with their “hate speech” laws, more aggressive campaigning is not possible.  Even there, Sallis is right once again:

Some will object – what about Europe?  They have repressive speech codes and aren’t the national governments there considered legitimate by the people?  First, I can’t speak for rightist Europeans – it is very possible that the growth of populism there is indicative of a growing element that does indeed consider the System illegitimate. And, second, the USA, with its particular history of, and alleged commitment to, free speech, is expected to exhibit a much stronger association between free expression and political legitimacy than do nations that have histories of kings, dictators, strongmen, and laws against lese majeste. What about the argument that European nationalists have had success despite the speech codes there?  What success?  In some nations, there has been a temporary slowdown in the degeneration, which can be quickly reversed by any subsequent leftist government; at best, there have been victories by civic nationalists and moderate petty nationalists. The “grand success” in Europe is a figment of the Nutzi imagination. And I can turn the argument around – imagine how much more successful the European Right could be if they could actually express their real views without fear of being fined or jailed?

So, no, the pathetically flimsy “successes” in Europe – which in any case have limited relevance to the American situation – in no way disprove the thesis put forth here.  Given the concerns of White nationalists, the situation in Europe remains dire. Demographic replacement is still “baked into the cake” there. Can European nationalists freely and frankly discuss these concerns?

Der Movement argues how wonderfully the ethnonationalist heroes, with their carefully worded mainstreaming, are doing in Europe.  Sallis argues that this vaunted success is an illusion and that mainstreaming is a disaster, and that without the ability to speak freely – that for the most part European nationalists do not even have as a part of their political platforms – nothing significant can be accomplished.

Sallis – correct; Der Movement – wrong.

But that’s OK, keep on supporting the Quota Queens, those empty vessels who have all the depth of a piece of tissue cut by a microtome and all the heft of a rotifer.  Affirmative action and all that. Meanwhile, enjoy the fruits of mainstreaming in Denmark.

And then we have America:  Trump will be monitoring the situation.  Stay tuned!

I’m fair-minded, and will praise Der Movement when it is warranted.  Thus, in the midst of the horrendous pile of written garbage that now passes for Counter-Currents is a thoughtful essay that I believe has real value – see here.  This attitude, to be actualized into reality, will require community activism, focusing on real social and economic problems instead of nonsense about “Kali Yuga,” and will require an adoption of populist “lefist” economic positions instead of “conservative-libertarian” posturing about “sweet business deals” (the latter coming, perhaps not coincidentally, from the pro-Jewish HBD side of the “movement” aisle).

Cool Fishes and Genetic Manipulations

In der news.

Listen to this. 

First, the deplatforming.  Obviously, despite my disagreements with Counter-Currents and  other “movement” factions, I oppose their deplatforming. I don’t begrudge these types to earn a living from their activism either.  My point is, and remains, that these types should EARN their money, they should EARN their positions of leadership, and they should be held ACCOUNTABLE by their donors and the rank-and-file in general.  It is also obvious from reading my blog that I do not believe they are earning the money they get, nor do I believe that they are being held accountable.  On the other hand, if you have to give money to the tin cuppers, better to give to Counter-Currents than to give to VDARE so that Brimelow and Derbyshire can sit comfortably on lawn chairs in the leafy suburbs.

Greg is correct with his weeds analogy, the natural selection process leading to tougher far-rightists.  Of course, Counter-Currents is not the only groupuscule that has been surviving over the years. One wonders though if the System is also undergoing selection – my Red Queen analogy – and with their greater resources they may be victorious.

Lauren does good work.  Extraordinarily good work.  Laughter at my end.

Milo – who enabled him?  Who ever took him seriously? Wasn’t Milo part of the “big tent” WN 2.0 that some people promoted?  Greg, if the Alt Lite is controlled opposition and all no good, then why were you shilling for a “big tent” including the Alt Lite several years ago? You were for an alliance with the types of people you now denounce; I was against it. Who was right? Do we really need to answer that?

Greg is a “cool fish”- which is why he hysterically censors his blog and bans people when they disagree with him.  Frodi says you have to talk to people you disagree with.  Very well. Frodi, meet Greg Johnson, the cool cool fish.

The discussion about apostates was reasonable and similar to things I wrote in the past. See this about Derek Black. Note that I connect the Black case the “movement’s” affirmative action policy, the latter a topic one is not going to ever see honestly discussed at Counter-Currents.

Frodi is correct that people who are authentic WNs never really go back.  They may drop out of disgust, but they do not become apostates.  

People who live in Appalachia are “losers,” Greg?  Not everyone can live a blue state lifestyle off of “D’Nations.”  Who knows?  Maybe some of the people sending you the money you live on are types you would label as “losers.” Or does giving you money suddenly make them into “winners?’’  

I agree with Greg that those who use the term “White supremacists” to describe White nationalists should be held accountable for it.

New system for genetic manipulation.

Conventional CRISPR-Cas systems maintain genomic integrity by leveraging guide RNAs for the nuclease-dependent degradation of mobile genetic elements, including plasmids and viruses. Here we describe a remarkable inversion of this paradigm, in which bacterial Tn7-like transposons have co-opted nuclease-deficient CRISPR-Cas systems to catalyze RNA-guided integration of mobile genetic elements into the genome. Programmable transposition of Vibrio cholerae Tn6677 in E. coli requires CRISPR- and transposon-associated molecular machineries, including a novel co-complex between Cascade and the transposition protein TniQ. Donor DNA integration occurs in one of two possible orientations at a fixed distance downstream of target DNA sequences, and can accommodate variable length genetic payloads. Deep sequencing experiments reveal highly specific, genome-wide DNA integration across dozens of unique target sites. This work provides the first example of a fully programmable, RNA-guided integrase and lays the foundation for genomic manipulations that obviate the requirements for double-strand breaks and homology-directed repair.

Traditionalists can go off and hide in their snug hobbit holes, but if Whites do not partake of modern technology, others will, and use that ability to solidify their dominion over the Earth.  The Type Is can just go off into the woods, muttering over runes and eating twigs and branches, and leave the rest of us to make our way in the reality of the modern world.

But don’t worry.  Any discoveries made in America will find their way to China before they’re even published.

Of Webinars and Genetics

And other news.

Guys like Taylor and Spencer would like to give speeches at colleges and universities, but the problem is violent Antifa protests (protected not only by the academic institutions themselves but also by the radically far-left and anti-White Trump administration) and the reluctance of the institutions to provide security.

Have these (and other) gentlemen considered the option of webinars as a stop-gap until such time that live speeches can again grace the halls of American academia?

Assuming they can get someone at the institution to make the invitation and arrange the webinar, this would seem to be a reasonable option.  Although there are of course drawbacks of webinars compared to a live appearance, there are some advantages as well, particularly in the current climate of repression.

1. It saves the cost, time, and inconvenience of traveling to the venue.

2. In case of a cancellation, less is lost.

3. There is no problem of physical security for the speaker, while the focus of security for the institution is shifted from that of an outside speaker to the institution’s own students (and employees) and their own property.  Let’s consider this last point in more detail.

For a live speech, the major focus of physical protection is the speaker, who is an outside presence, with the intended audience being secondary.  For a webinar, the focus of physical security is the audience, who are likely to be students and employees of the institution, as well as the property (e.g., computers, audiovisual, etc.) of the institution. The obligation of the institution to protect their own students and employees, as well as protect their valuable equipment and other property, is not something they can reasonably (or legally) evade. They could in theory ban the webinar, which would reach levels of absurdity and legal ramifications significantly beyond that of banning a live speech event.  If the institution would go to the embarrassing extreme of cancelling a webinar – a webinar! – then that’s a choice they should be forced into making. Think of the implications. It’s one thing for a college or university to claim that the costs and trouble for providing security for a live visit by an outside speaker is prohibitive – and even there they come up against the legal problem of the heckler’s veto – but to actually tell their own students and employees that they cannot even just gather in a room to communicate electronically with someone in a webinar format is another thing entirely.  They are going to tell tuition-paying students that they cannot listen to a webinar?  I’m sure they would like to tell the students that, but what they would like to do, and what they can do with impunity, are two different things entirely.

Sieg Heil!  Those high-IQ, racially superior, Inner Hajnal German purebloods make history once again!  Sieg Heil!

Complete ignorance of subject matter doesn’t stop Amren speakers from making fools of themselves. Neolithic farmer ancestry?  According to this retard, it never happened.  A few “Neolithic hunter gatherers” (sic!) were hanging around, not Mesolithic or anything like that, no sir!  We’re all from the steppes!  The smallest part of the European genepool is now the major part. Nothing else to report, except of course for some pesky sub-Saharan contaminants – but he seems to have forgotten some other examples.  Well, I suppose that weasel words like “practically absent” covers the omissions. I presume it’s “practically absent” from Portugal as well, hmmm?  Mongols in Russia – but evidence of Northeast Asian admixture in Northern Europe is mysteriously also missed in this ever-so-cogent analysis.  

We got to get this moron together with Durocher and Duchesne to give a presentation on European racial history – it can be sponsored by Ostara. These guys just make things up as they go along.  The fact that there is a rich literature of population genetics studies doesn’t prevent liars like this Amren speaker from literally inventing a history absolutely and definitively proven to be wrong.

Do you trust Der Movement?  Are you that naïve?

Ah yes…dem dere modern Greeks are dumb, but we need to better “robustify” the results. Very well.  But, if the Minoan and Mycenaean samples were the brainiest, more than the Neolithics and the moderns, perhaps we can look at Reich’s work and make some conclusions about those big-brained ancients?

Like, you know, certain things that the fundamentally dishonest “movement” likes to omit, such as that those ancients were dark-haired, dark-eyed “Mediterraneans,” genetically closest to modern Southern Europeans (e.g., from Southern Italy and Greece); they were not “Nordics.”

Good luck finding any “movement” YouTube videos stressing those aspects of “archaeogenetics.”  Good luck finding any breathless Mr. Caliper Unz Review essays or Amren articles about that either.  After all, Der Movement is all about “uncovering the truth about race” – up until the moment that “truth” conflicts with established dogma, at which point “truth” is conveniently ignored.

Ted Sallis News

And other news.

Given recent events and trends, followers and general readers of my blogs should bookmark or otherwise make note of Ted Sallis News:

https://tedsallisnews.blogspot.com/

Thus, if EGI Notes and/or Western Destiny were to suddenly vanish, then the situation and contingency plans would be discussed at the Ted Sallis News site. In the unlikely event that anything happens to the completely innocuous Ted Sallis News site, then try tedsallisnews2, etc., following the general pattern.

The whole situation is ludicrous, but that is the state of America 2019. And for the morons and the mendacious who argue that “private property rights” mean that service can be denied for political reasons (does that apply for food, electricity, heat, etc. as well?), we can explore the issue of “the sanctity of private property.”

If a person’s “private property” includes real estate, then can a home owner refuse to rent or sell to Blacks or Muslims?  No. Somehow, the “sanctity of private property” dissipates in that instance. What happens if a wealthy person wants to leave their estate to, say, the National Alliance in their will? What if the will instead includes using the estate to set up a college scholarship available only to White students? You can use Google and look up the results of such attempts.

So, it seems like “private property rights” can be abrogated in favor of a perception of “the public good.”  And guess who decides what “the public good” is (and is not) – members of the Jerry NadlerRuth Bader GinsburgAnthony Weiner physical beauty crowd.

Freedom!  Democracy!  The Rights of Man!  The Sanctity of Private Property!  Leering Levantines Laughing in Your Face!

Another horrifically bad Counter-Currents essay, this time by the juvenile retard Jef Costello. Victory!  Victory!  Send in those “D’Nations!” Victory!  What the William Blake-Great Red Dragon-Francis Dolarhyde imagery has to do with any of it is anyone’s guess.

Looks like prime Antifa recruitment material right here.

Michael Polignano’s name is currently (as of today) not up as the webzine editor (or any other major player) at the Counter-Currents site.

White Nationalism, Free Speech, and Legitimacy

Defending White nationalism.

Recent events paint a dark picture for White nationalism.  Censorship.  Deplatforming. The Left-Corporate Alliance.  Government persecution.  Congressional hearings attempting to label White nationalism as akin to domestic terrorism, part of a global terror threat. The ability of leftist thugs – supporting by Big Business and by the Political Establishment – to attack rightists with impunity.

Now, the paradigm equating White nationalism with terrorism is absurd, and others have cogently pointed out that the “data” supporting that paradigm is, at best, flawed, and, more likely, intentionally mendacious.

And, of course, this is all highly hypocritical, since the real violence mostly comes from the Left. Thus, while leftists assert that “words are literally violence,” they ignore the actual global leftist terror network that attacks rightists – even political candidates – and they are careful not to apply the same standards of guilt by association to Islam or to Black activists. 

Indeed, if the government wants to investigate a global terror threat, they’d be better off concentrating on Burger King – an international corporation that encouraged the use of its products for political violence in the UK – rather than on a small handful of relatively powerless and underfunded White racialists.

But we have to understand that this is all about criminalizing an ideology. All else is merely an excuse. That is why an insulting letter to an alien congresswoman is considered “terrorism,” while Richard Spencer being physically attacked in the street because of his political views is not.  Who?  Whom?

Yes, there have been some isolated instances of White nationalist violence. However, White nationalist terrorism – to the extent it actually exists – is due to White nationalists not being allowed to participate in the political process (politics broadly defined). The repression censorship, deplatforming, leftist attacks, etc., are the cause of Far Right violence, not its consequences.  Any objective and sane understanding of cause and effect and an honest appraisal of the order of events clearly demonstrates that manifold instances of political repression and social pricing, over decades, have left some White nationalists desperate and with no confidence whatsoever that their concerns can be effectively addressed via legal political processes.  Thus, some engage in foolish acts.

Thus, it is obvious that suppressing the non-violent expression of Far Right ideas will only cause more (not less) violence coming from that direction. Now, unintelligent Arab congresswomen and moronic Puerto Rican congresswomen are likely too stupid to understand this, but the Jews behind the scenes surely must.  The latter are callously setting the stage for more violence and more victims in order to justify further repression. The brown puppets blathering in public are just for show.

One can argue that Suvorov’s Law of History – the observation that revolutions do not occur during the period of greatest repression but when that repression is suddenly relaxed – is one reason why the System dares not let up on its repression of the Far Right (see more below).  Be that as it may, the point still holds that the sporadic outbursts of Far Right violence are due to the pre-existing repression. Relaxing the repression may cause “revolution” but that “revolution” can be social and political; it does not have to include violent terrorism.  If the concern is with terrorism rather than simply the success of Far Right ideas, then more repression will cause more terrorism (likely leading to more repression, etc.).  If the Left was sincere about avoiding violence and terrorism from the Right, then they’d lessen the repression. That they want to increase the repression reveals their true motives – at least the true motives of the wirepullers behind the scenes.

And we must also consider the association between legitimacy and political participation, a participation that requires free speech and free assembly, both of which are incompatible with the criminalization of any ideology. Even some mainstream and/or leftist commentators understand that free speech and open political participation are tied to System legitimacy.  If you want people to accept the legitimacy of the outcome of the political and social process, then you must allow them free and unfettered participation in that process. That includes them expressing their views, organizing (meetings, conferences, activist groups, political parties), engaging in the electoral process as candidates, and not having their views labeled as “terrorism.”  Let’s consider what a legal scholar with a Jewish surname has to say on the issue of free speech and legitimacy, emphasis added:

Ironically, however, hate speech restrictions can undermine the legitimacy of antidiscrimination laws, both in terms of their popular acceptance but even more crucially with respect to the morality of their enforcement. For instance, laws forbidding people from expressing the view, as is the case in several European jurisdictions, that homosexuality is immoral or disordered, can destroy the moral justification of enforcing laws against sexual orientation…Conversely, the ability of Americans to freely oppose antidiscrimination laws by publicly expressing bigoted ideas about groups protected by these laws strengthens the legitimacy of enforcing these provisions even when doing so infringes upon deeply held religious convictions….I have argued that by impairing the opportunity for dissenters to participate as equals in the public debate about such matters as race, ethnicity, immigration, and sexual orientation, hate speech laws and public order provisions in force in many liberal democracies have significantly diminished political legitimacy, in both the descriptive and normative sense. Specifically, for those inhibited by these laws from expressing their opposition to antidiscrimination measures, these upstream speech restrictions have diminished, and in some instances may have destroyed, their political obligation to obey these downstream laws. Even more troubling, these inhibitions on equal political participation may have in some cases rendered immoral what would have otherwise been a moral use of force to make these dissenters comply with these antidiscrimination laws.

Let me again remind you that the people talking about “domestic terrorism” have the real objective of criminalizing an ideology. They are not really concerned about “acts of violence,” such acts coming to a significant degree from their side of the political divide and of which they say nothing.  In the end, and as shown by the censorship and deplatforming, it is really an issue of free speech, public assembly, and the right to organize on the basis of White racial interests. Thus, what Weinstein writes is wholly appropriate – the issue has always been whether someone like Taylor, Spencer, or Johnson can have a public forum; whether or not shooting up a synagogue is “domestic terrorism” is merely a smokescreen. After all, let us follow this logic to its natural conclusion.  Mr. Inner Hajnal Nutzi shoots up a synagogue, claiming White nationalism as a reason.  Domestic terrorism!  Then anyone who supports White nationalism, writes or speaks in favor of it, donates to it, etc. is a supporter of domestic terrorism and, hence, a criminal.  An ideology criminalized.  QED. Of course, no one would apply the same standards to Islam or the Left, but we understand it is all about power and not about fairness or the rule of law.

And, speaking as a (law abiding) White nationalist myself, I can assure one and all that, yes, I consider the System and its edicts as completely illegitimate, and that I follow those edicts only under coercion.  I assume many Whites – including civic nationalist types and other on the Right – believe and act the same. There is a widespread legitimacy problem for the System and it will only grow as the repression continues.  In the short term, the System can simply use coercion to enforce its edits and ignore the issue of legitimacy.  That’s likely not sustainable in the long run. Keep in mind that by saying this I am not saying “victory is inevitable,” I’m not one of the grifters trying to “white pill” supporters in order to ensure that the “D’Nations” continue.  I’m predicting eventual chaos and collapse, not victory.  As the USSR demonstrated, a System that has lost legitimacy is headed for collapse, even with coercion.  As a last resort, they loosen the chains of repression to salvage what they can, and, according to Suvorov’s Law of History, that sudden relaxation of repression heralds the final disintegration.  Alternatively, an illegitimate System can try and maintain the repression, and find that significant fractions of the population adopt passive aggressive disinterest in response, undermining social cohesion and political effectiveness. In the case of the USA, it will be precisely the most productive elements of the population that will begin to exhibit a tacit withdrawal and subtle subversion, making eventual decline and possible collapse even more likely.

Some will object – what about Europe?  They have repressive speech codes and aren’t the national governments there considered legitimate by the people?  First, I can’t speak for rightist Europeans – it is very possible that the growth of populism there is indicative of a growing element that does indeed consider the System illegitimate. And, second, the USA, with its particular history of, and alleged commitment to, free speech, is expected to exhibit a much stronger association between free expression and political legitimacy than do nations that have histories of kings, dictators, strongmen, and laws against lese majeste. What about the argument that European nationalists have had success despite the speech codes there?  What success?  In some nations, there has been a temporary slowdown in the degeneration, which can be quickly reversed by any subsequent leftist government; at best, there have been victories by civic nationalists and moderate petty nationalists.  The “grand success” in Europe is a figment of the Nutzi imagination.  And I can turn the argument around – imagine how much more successful the European Right could be if they could actually express their real views without fear of being fined or jailed?

So, no, the pathetically flimsy “successes” in Europe – which in any case have limited relevance to the American situation – in no way disprove the thesis put forth here.  Given the concerns of White nationalists, the situation in Europe remains dire. Demographic replacement is still “baked into the cake” there. Can European nationalists freely and frankly discuss these concerns?

And we must remember that the concerns of White nationalists are real; in fact, not only are they real, but they are the most important concerns of all, dealing as they do with the ultimate interests of national existence and genetic continuity.  Whites are in demographic and cultural eclipse, and will become minorities even in their historic European homelands. The United Nations openly advocates “replacement migration” targeting White nations (while Whites are told, at the same time, that any mention of that is “conspiracy theories”).  Whites are the only people on Earth not allowed to organize on the basis of racial self-interest; indeed, in majority White nations this expression of racial self-interest is either already criminalized or subject to social pricing (that is not good enough, it seems for the American Left, as they are now pushing for criminalization).  How is this repression consistent with legitimacy?  Obvious, it is not.  The System simply has no effective argument against the basic premises of White nationalism; therefore, it must use coercion.  However, as argued above, political coercion in the context of “democracy” is illegitimate and will erode the basis for peoples’ willingness to invest in the collective good.

Finally, I have to note that one major reason why White nationalism has reached such a sorry state of powerlessness and repression is the utter failure of its leadership.  The inept affirmative action leadership coupled to defective followers have squandered endless opportunities, and smeared White nationalism with the stench of failure – made more laughable by the endless cries of some of them that we are “moving to victory,”

And some of the leadership have no sensible understanding of the animating mindset of the censors.  For example, it is hard for me to express in words how absolutely foolish Richard Spencer is being here.

How naive can you be to actually believe the System will ever definitively and carefully – much less permanently – clearly state speech codes that can then be worked around.  Let me tell you the obvious – the only speech they want from WNs is silence.  No matter how you try and get around their speech codes, they’ll just keep on changing them to justify censoring you. They will forbid more and more words, and once that becomes untenable, they’ll just forbid “tones” and “implications” – all decided upon arbitrarily to achieve their political goals. It’ll be the race of the Red Queen and you can never win – it’s the gatekeepers of access who will have the power to determine what is acceptable or not. Once there are speech codes that are accepted as a part of society, nothing stops those codes from being constantly fine-tuned to silence opposition.

The only speech code that you can “work around” is NO speech code. You need either a platform that cannot be or will not be censored and/or an extension of “protected class” to include sociopolitical beliefs – with the former being more realistic than the latter.  The idea that the System is going to finalize a set of speech codes that would enable anything other than mild civic nationalism (if even that) is absurd.  Of course, Spencer may claim he is only talking in theory, but advocating for speech codes in theory (however unrealistic) is not anything anyone on our side should be doing.

The future looks grim and I have no easy answers. But I do know that asking for a more snug fit for our memetic straightjacket is not the answer. This is not an athletic contest between gentlemen, with both sides playing by the rules.  The System will continue trying to change the rules in the middle of the game in order to win. The only weakness they have is that the game has spectators, the White masses, and while these are mostly inert, they are not all completely inert. The System’s ability to “cheat” is constrained by their need to appear to be playing fair, to trick the rubes into believing the “free democratic America” still exists.  Thus gives our side some room to maneuver. Begging for better defined constraints is not the direction our maneuver should be going.

Strom on the new wave of censorship.

And what has happened to Mr. Moderation, the wonderfully pureblood Common Sense Counselor?

This account has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube’s policy prohibiting hate speech.

Chastising extremists over how they talk about the Jews didn’t really help you, did it?

The Creativity Gambit

Religion.

Sociopolitical opinion and ideology does not define a “protected class” in America, leaving White nationalists and others on the Right vulnerable to social pricing and other forms of persecution.

This, of course, needs to be remedied by law, and I have previously proposed such a law. However, no such protections currently exist.

Religion, however, is a protected class.  Could WNs utilize religion as a vehicle to shield their beliefs from official persecution?  Creativity, for example – and there are other race-based and race-aware fringe religions (for Whites or some subsection of Whites) as well.

The System of course may simply refuse acknowledge the validity of such religions, and attempts have been made for such invalidation.  The legal findings have been a mixed bag but the favorable rulings suggest the religion gambit may be worth trying, but of course activist judges and the System in general may still continuously attempt to define religion in a manner so as to exempt anything pro-White.

One can argue that religions such as Christian Identity, Asatru, and Cosmotheism may reflect a concern for the “imponderables” more so than Creativity and therefore may be better for challenging System refusal to accept the validity of such beliefs as protected.  New religions (EGI-based? The Church of the Holy Salter?) can also be developed that would be fully compatible with White nationalism while dealing with so-called “imponderables.”  This might be best as all existing racial religions are seriously flawed and it is embarrassing to be openly affiliated with them; however, it is worth considering all options.  

Of course, the definition of utility of “imponderables” to define religion should itself by challenged.  Who decides what an “imponderable issue” is?  Are kosher and halal dietary laws “imponderables?”  They sound very secular and practical to me. Is the Muslim dislike of dogs an “imponderable?”  What about the Hindu caste system?  How is that related to deep moral and ethical issues?  The reality is that religion is for the most part a technic for controlling human behavior, dressed up (in some cases) with a lot of supernatural mumbo jumbo and in most cases with hypocritical cant and in virtually all cases with arbitrary dictums. Creativity (and other race based religions) are certainly no worse and in some cases clearly better. Any religion that helps preserve EGI would seem to be on a higher ethical plane than, say, a ban on eating pork.

I am not recommending this for everyone – for example, I am not a religious person and I have very serious problems with all of the aforementioned extant racial religions.  However, I cam imagine that Type I activists would find much of that very congenial.  If so, why not attempt to take advantage of possible religious protections?

If all else fails, there is always the Church of the Almighty Bomb and the Holy Fallout.