Category: Greg Johnson

A Question of Accountability

Another in an endless series of failures and humiliations.

 

I am sure that by now readers know about the latest unmitigated “movement” disaster, the all-too-predicable infiltration and “exposure” of the Alt Right by a heroic two-fisted Swede (“Oh, look at what a tough guy I am, I really wanted to punch those Nutzis in the face, but I didn’t want to damage my manicure on their coke-bottom spectacles”).

 

 

 

In May of this year, I went to London to speak at the London Forum and the first annual Jonathan Bowden dinner. Stead Steadman introduced me to a young Swedish man going by the name Erik Hellberg. I was told that Erik was, like so many others, a newcomer to the movement who was going to write a master’s thesis on doxing, deplatforming, and harassment directed at White Nationalists.

The day after the London Forum, Stead and I met with Erik in a quiet hotel bar for a brief interview. I talked about my own experiences of harassment in San Francisco. We also talked a bit about White Nationalism in general, as well as other people he might interview. I suggested he talk to Charles Krafft, who had much more interesting stories than mine.

Erik seemed a nice enough fellow. A bit socially awkward, a bit inarticulate, a bit effeminate, but not so outside the norm for academic types that I felt suspicious. And he came with the recommendation of Stead Steadman.

Later Erik told me he was going to the US. I told him that friends of mine were holding a Northwest Forum meeting Seattle in June, and it would be an opportunity to interview Charles. I figured that if he had passed vetting for the London Forum and the Bowden Dinner, he would be fine for the Northwest Forum as well. (Stead actually has a reputation for being too strict in his vetting procedures, which made it impossible for some of Millennial Woes’ fans to see him speak at the May Forum.)

 

 

I initially commented on that at Counter-Currents thus:

 

First, I am sorry that Greg and others had this bad experience with the low-rent piece of dishonest trash Hermansson.

Second, I’ve been involved with the “movement” since the mid-90s, and I must say that this sort of thing happens with distressing regularity.  WNs too nice? Too trusting?  Yes, but also horrifically bad security.  There needs to be a careful evaluation of this case.  How did Hermansson pass the “extreme vetting?” What went wrong?  There also needs to be accountability.  Hermansson was recommended by “Stead Steadman” (whoever that is).  Very well.  Why?  What credentials did Hermansson have that impressed Steadman to his sincerity? Without accountability and without responsibility, nothing will ever change.

And can I suggest that “newcomers to the movement” not be invited to private events?  Unfair to those who are sincere?  Yes, but too bad.  Perhaps a higher level of personal interaction needs to be earned.

 

 

And how did this nice Swedish fellow get through Steadman’s “extreme vetting” and all the other “extreme vetting” that would likely have had a Codreanu or an Evola booted out with a swift kick in the rear?  Well, I had my suspicions, but kept it to myself until the other shoe dropped (emphasis added):

 

Mr. Hermansson, who was sent undercover by the British anti-racist watchdog group Hope Not Hate, spent months insinuating himself into the alt-right, using his Swedish nationality (many neo-Nazis are obsessed with Sweden because of its “Nordic” heritage) as a way in.

 

Hermansson also notes in the video how Steadman’s interest with “Germanic paganism” (who would have ever guessed?) made Steadman and friends vulnerable to the attentions of a Scandinavian Nordic

 

Hoist on the petard of its own Nordicism, ethnic affirmative action, and ethnic fetishism – Der Movement marches on.  Can I say: I told you so?  Yes, indeed, as any reader of EGI Notes know well.  Please note how the enemy knows Der Movement well also: who they choose as an infiltrator, knowing that a Nordic Scandinavian will be given a free pass and handed the keys to the kingdom.  

 

We have a “movement” that ridiculed and killed a Joe Tommasi but that welcomes an infiltrating scumbag like Hermansson with open arms – and then any have the nerve to assert that there is no such thing as “affirmative action” in Der Movement?  Have you ever seen such a bunch of dishonest individuals with zero self-awareness?  The anti-racists know better, and use that knowledge against the “movement” and its obsessions, as we see in this case.

 

More from Johnson:

 

I also suggested that Erik speak briefly at the Northwest Forum about his research project, to see if others in attendance would be interested in an interview.

It turns out that Erik Hellberg is really named Patrik Hermansson, and he was a spy for the antifa group Hope Not Hate. Not only was he recording interviews with people, he was also wearing a hidden camera and taking videos, and the results of his year-long investigations are going to be released as a documentary video.

My initial reaction to this news was a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I imagine that everyone Erik spoke to felt the same way. He certainly made the rounds, attending the Extremists Club in London, the London Forum, the Northwest Forum, and even Unite the Right in Charlottesville, insinuating his way into the good graces of Jez Turner and Stead Steadman, and interviewing not only me but also Millennial Woes, Tom Sunic, Gregory Lauder-Frost, Jason Jorjani, and Daniel Friberg, as well as chatting up countless people at various events.

It is terrible to feel that one’s trust has been violated by a rat, and it is even worse to feel that you lent your credibility to such a person, so he could violate even more people’s trust. In particular, I must apologize to the 30-odd people at the Northwest Forum who were exposed to this snitch because of me…I also have to laugh at the pretense that Hermansson was risking his life. The only person who ever harmed him was a fellow Leftist in Charlottesville. Frankly, one of the chief lessons of this fiasco is that White Nationalists are far too nice. One always regrets being too kind…I wanted to see how long it would take before a photo got out, and I wanted to see who would finally put it out there: the enemy or one of the many loathsome people in our movement. I was betting it would be movement scum, and I was right. An old photo of me was dug up and circulated in January, and other pictures were surreptitiously taken at the last AmRen conference. So Hope Not Hate is a distant third.

 

 

In his post, Greg talks about Jorjani.  Let’s take a look in that direction to see what it tells us about the “movement.” Paradoxically (or perhaps not, if one views the fundamental basis of the “movement” as hostility to Southern and Eastern [in that order] Europeans), for some “leaders” Nordicism is mixed with Judeophilia or Oriental worship or an Aryan fetishism that imagines racial comrades in Iran and India.  As an example of the latter was the bizarre Alt Right infatuation with Jorjani.  Apparently Jorjani, subject to ethnoracial insults only a fraction of that experience by the typical “movement Euro-swarthoid” has broken with the Alt Right.  Read (emphasis added):

 

I hereby resign, effective immediately, from the Alt-Right Corporation that I co-founded and from my position as the Editor-in-Chief of Arktos Media. Of course, I remain a shareholder in both companies and, upon my return home to New York, I will enter into what I hope will be a brief buyout negotiation with my partners Richard Spencer and Daniel Friberg so that the shares I hold may remain within the movement’s leadership. (I am currently in San Francisco, for a private meeting concerning research and development of exotic technology that may someday serve the Iranian Air Force.) It should be added that, from now on, former associates within the Alt-Right movement of Europe and North America ought to consider any interactions with me as diplomatic relations with a representative of the coming post-Islamic political order of Iran and the wider Persianate world. This point cannot be overemphasized. Over the next few years, we will be watching with a hawk’s eye to identify the true friends and enemies of our archeo-futurist Iran.

 

And read (emphasis added):

 

What is worse is that in the long months of the Spring of 2017, as I waited for funding to materialize, I watched the corporation that was my brainchild turn into a magnet for white trash…The comments sections of our website devolved into a cesspool filled by the most despicable pond scum, former 4-chaners who would routinely pile on in trolling attacks against me every time I published something with a bit of intellectual content. “Iranians is brown poo-poo people” kind of sums it up. I decided to stop contributing until the investment came in and I could really clean things up…In May, at a meeting in London, I was assured by the investors that the obstacles had at last been cleared and I could expect our collaboration to begin in June. When I reported this to Richard at a New York lunch at the end of the same month, he thoughtlessly and angrily dismissed a plan that the investors had shared with me for creating an economic and security corridor from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and across to the Caucasus. This “Neo-Scythian” Ukraine-based approach to the long-term revitalization and liberation of Europe – linked to a future, post-Islamic Greater Iran via the Caucasus – offended the Russophilia that has been fostered by his wife.

 

Comment on that is superfluous, other than to note, for the edification of third party observers, that this is the fellow elevated by the Alt Right to a position high in their councils, and who was turned on by the “movement” base only because of his obsessive harping about the greater glories of “archeo-futurist Iran.”  The Alt Right is the lowest sewer of the “movement,” it is a curse on racial nationalism, and anyone who thought it a good idea to give this Jorjani any sort of “movement” forum has, in my opinion, advertised their abysmal lack of good judgement for all to see.

 

I could say: I told you so.  So I will: I told you so. Check the “Jorjani” archives at this blog for proof of that.

 

Accountability?  None.  “Movement” leadership admitting gross negligence? Don’t make me laugh. Change?  Don’t expect it. 

 

Ultimately, it is the ran-and-file of the “movement” who are responsible for this. They can change the “movement,” alter its culture and eschew its obsessions, end its affirmative action program, and force accountability for leadership.  All they need to do is “vote with their feet” (or with their computers, for the digitally inclined, which is the vast majority these days). Gravitate to different leadership, visit different blogs and websites, and donate in other directions.  Will they do so?  For the most part no, for they share these same obsessions, fetishes, and fossilized dogmas as the leadership they so slavishly follow…right off the cliff.

Advertisements

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.

A Failed Brand

Against the Alt Right.

My view is that we should abandon the Alt Right “brand” entirely. It only functioned when it was sufficiently vague to allow there to be a conversation between White Nationalists and people who were closer to the mainstream, which allowed White Nationalists to make converts and build connections. But Andrew Anglin and Richard Spencer have pursued a strategy of polarization between the Alt Right and what is now called the Alt Lite that has deprived the term of its original utility. So they can keep it.

Readers of this blog are aware that I have never been a supporter of the “big tent” approach.  Nevertheless, it must be said that the only way that approach would have worked for the “Alt Right brand” was if it was always made explicitly clear that the Alt Right was nothing more or less than an umbrella group of various disparate rightist factions: hardcore White nationalists, ethnonationalists, Identitarians, Alt Lite civic nationalists, Alt Wrong HBD “race realists,” more extreme Paleocons, Game-Manosphere types, Southern nationalists, etc. Unfortunately, that approach was incoherent from the very beginning.

At the same time the “big tent” approach was promoted, we were also being told that “the Alt Right is the movement” and “the Alt Right is White nationalism” and “the Alt Right is White nationalism or it is nothing at all.” Then came Hailgate, the continued identification of the Alt Right with its more “extreme” elements, and the fallout ensued.

Thus, hardcore White nationalists resented being lumped together with civic nationalist cucks, execrable HBD specimens like Derbyshire, homoerotic Trump fanboys and other hedonistic “game” “pussy nerd” nihilists, and all the rest.  Likewise, various non-WN Alt Right factions resisted association with “racist Nazi haters,” or anyone who dared to offend Jews or Orientals, or any “blackpiller” who dared to criticize “God Emperor” Trump.  And of course, besides these serious ideological splits, there were those who objected to having the “movement” conflated with the Alt Right’s juvenile jackassery (politely called by the euphemism “youth culture”), and so there was a generational split as well.

Predictably – and some of us, predictably, did predict it – the “shotgun marriage” of the Alt Right fell apart.  The Alt Lite tried to take the brand for themselves; failing that, they dissociated themselves from the Alt Right proper (which returned the favor), less “extreme” Alt Wrong elements “threw Spencer under the bus” after Hailgate, there were personal feuds between various racial nationalist/Identitarian/ethnonationalist factions of the Alt Right, and so there has been significant degeneration of the “brand” from its heyday of 2016.

What is the Alt Right now?  White nationalism Lite?  Racial nationalism for Millennials? Beavis-and-Butthead White nationalism?  The vanguard of the Iranian Renaissance?

While my reasons differ from those of Greg, I mirror his call for the rest of you folks to abandon the Alt Right brand.  Indeed, with analogy to the “only Nixon could go to China” meme, it would be optimal if Spencer himself would abandon the Alt Right brand, allowing for a “re-set” that hopefully would include lessons learned from errors made by the Alt Right.

In Der News: 9/10/17

News, news, news.

Also see this.

And then we have this.

The pivot could also be reflective of the new environment Trump created in the West Wing after dismissing divisive, nationalist figures like former chief strategist Steve Bannon. With Bannon gone, the more moderate faction of the West Wing, consisting of New Yorkers like economic adviser Gary Cohn and senior adviser Jared Kushner, will likely hold more sway over the president’s decisions. 

Jewish liberalism in control.  “4-D chess,” indeed!

 

First, I was warning about “Vox Day” on my blog long ago.  Right again.

If opposition to the mixed economy and the welfare state is not an essential trait of the Right, then what is? On this matter, I follow Jonathan Bowden, who argued that the essence of the Right is the rejection of egalitarianism as the highest political value.

Agreed.  That’s good sense and any reasonable interpretation of political history.

I also think there is something slightly absurd about debating whether a world-historical phenomenon like National Socialism merits being included in a contrived, ephemeral, marginal, and increasingly ridiculous category like the Alt Right. It is like debating whether King Lear merits being classed among Saturday morning cartoons.

Well said.

My view is that we should abandon the Alt Right “brand” entirely.

Of course, I agree, but for different reasons than Greg, and this is something often discussed here and need not be gotten into with this post.

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.

Ragnarok II

More.

Read this. 

We demand legislation forbidding all US companies from adopting politically correct terms of service and employment. All private companies must be forced by law to respect freedom of speech and thought.

That is essential, but expect the System to fight that tooth-and-nail.  In the absence (yet) of overt “speech laws” due to the First Amendment, social pricing is the number one method to keep White folks in line.  Antifa violence and all the rest is nothing by comparison, a firecracker compared to a thermonuclear device.

Once people are free to express dissident opinions without fear of workplace punishment, the System’s biggest stick collapses, and they simply no longer have sufficient carrots for all the disaffected Whites.  So, yes, we need a “political opinion protection act.” 

The current administration could have been the best hope for that, but with Trump/Sessions trying to out-virtue signal the worst of the GOP cucks, it seems unlikely.

We should not give up though.  Extended First Amendment protections to the private sphere is probably the single most important idea of this post.  With that, the dam cracks and eventually collapses.

On Trump.

I feel like vomiting after watching this video.
The Alt-Right attempted to hold a peaceful rally in Charlottesville, VA. We had to get a federal court order to be able to exercise our First Amendment rights. After arriving in Lee Park, we were attacked by violent Antifa while the police stood down and watched. Gov. Terry McAuliffe declared a “state of emergency” and riot police pushed us into hordes of violent leftists who attacked dozens of people.
In response to this outrage, Donald Trump has condemned us, praised the Virginia State Police and said nothing about the actions of violent Antifa groups who will only be further emboldened to attack his supporters all over the country. While Donald Trump talks about restoring “law and order,” the reality of the matter is that police departments in leftwing cities are standing down and ceding the state’s monopoly on violence to lynch mobs. We saw this happen in Portland and Charlottesville the last two weekends.
Everything I have said was captured on video. For two years now, Donald Trump has said nothing while violent lynch mobs have attacked his supporters all over the country, not only in Charlottesville, but also in Washington, DC during the inauguration and Berkeley and many other places. A disabled man who supported Donald Trump was even kidnapped and tortured on Facebook Live in Chicago and he said nothing. President Trump talks about “equal rights,” but the truth of the matter is that White Americans in his country are routinely subjected to censorship, physical violence, employment discrimination, intimidation and massive civil rights violations while the Trump administration looks the other way. It does so because it is afraid of the power of the mainstream media.
The Alt-Right will stand with White Americans who are under siege in Trump’s America who have been deserted by their president. The Trump administration showed today that it is more interested in moving forward with its agenda of massive tax cuts for the wealthy than in defending our most basic constitutional rights. Sadly, President Trump’s chilling message will only stoke the flames of the violent Left and will strike fear into all those who dare to speak out against it who know they will inevitably be attacked now and portrayed as wicked racists by a vicious and hostile media cartel.
Donald Trump has given a green light to Antifa. He has sided with a group of people who attack us on sight and attempt to kill us and for that the Alt-Right can no longer support him. What Donald Trump has done today is an unforgivable betrayal of his supporters.

Devlin is a smart fellow and I always liked his writing, but at some point we need to stop making excuses for Trump.  Yes, his press conference wasn’t bad, but the fact is he and Sessions never cracked down on Antifa and they both denounced us all.

Trump Denounces Us All

Donald J. Trump: anti-White leftist cuck.

President Donald Trump included the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi groups in condemning violence after a white nationalist rally, the White House said on Sunday, the day after he was criticized on the left and right for not explicitly condemning white supremacists.…the White House said in a statement that Trump’s message on Saturday “condemns all forms of violence, bigotry, and hatred, and of course that includes white supremacists, KKK, neo-Nazi, and all extremist groups. He called for national unity and bringing all Americans together.”

I have one question for all the Trump fanboys, for all the heavy-breathing fantasy-mongers of “4-D chess, for Roissy and his homoerotic obsessions, and for all the rest of the so-called Alt Right: when has Trump publicly denounced Antifa?

We all know the answer to that, don’t we?

Let’s look at this: Trump has refused to denounce actual violent leftist terrorists, people who are his avowed enemies, people who attack his own supporters; on the other hand, Trump publicly denounces law-abiding individuals who simply wanted to hold a public rally, some of whom are Trump supporters.

Trump is an absolute omega male ultra-cuck, a dishonorable empty vessel bereft of any integrity whatsoever.  Donald J. Trump, with his Jewish family connections, mixed-race grandchildren, love of Negroes, and his embracing of “dreamers” – coupled to his attacks against Sessions – proves what he really is, and always has been. It also shows what the insanely obsessed Trump fanboys are also.

So, Spencer, if I and Johnson are unacceptable, get some input from Taylor.

Thoughts on this:


Do not announce in advance, wear uniforms….Yes, I agree.  Well organized. Can’t control the optics, should be smaller and more cohesive – agreed, and that’s a major point of my Ragnarok post.  I stand in solidarity with the Unite the Right, but, like Greg, believe things could have been done better.  “Mania to marginalize themselves “ – couldn’t say it better myself.


I agree – overcoming.  We need to overcome adversity.  Can Spencer and Greg Johnson overcome their feud and start working together?  That will be a real “white pill.”  Spencer and the Alt Right need some input from older, more experienced activists. Ironically enough, folks who attended, or supported, a rally called “Unite the Right” continue to criticize Counter-Currents.  Spencer should contact Greg and attempt to solve this problem.


Also, in the spirit of truth-telling, MW needs to acknowledge that perhaps one reason the Unite the Right event has been associated with the Alt Right is that the Alt Right itself has been giving that impression, see AltRight.com


Antifa declared as a terrorist organization.  Yes, indeed.  Who can do that? The “God Emperor” with nary a cross word for Antifa but who denounces “White supremacists?” “America’s Senator” who, while he is not being “beleaguered” by the “God Emperor,” is more interested in marijuana than in leftist violence?  That’s who to give your demands to. Good luck with that. Her converted majesty Ivanka says we all don’t belong in American society. That’s the Trumps.


And if Trump was really the alpha male “shiv-master” of rightist fantasy, he would now be on the rhetorical attack, instead of cowering in the White House like a bullied little fat kid, uttering platitudes to satisfy the bullies, and mulling sacrificing Bannon to appease the bullies.

“Baked Alaska” – he should sue the city of Charlottesville, and the state of Virginia, and the responsible “leadership.”  Maybe he should sue Trump and Sessions as well – we are ultimately responsible for failing to crack down on leftist violence since January.  Even when Trump’s own (elderly) supporters are attacked at mainstream Trump rallies he says or does nothing. Absolutely nothing.