Category: Hood

Two Items, 1/7/17

Two items.

Another excellent Hood article, summarizing the world gone mad we find ourselves in.

Why Christianity must be mercilessly destroyed.  This religion of beta race cucks (shall we rename it Cuckinsanity?), a religion of weaklings and losers, a religion of lazy free-riders who need to import those aliens they want to “mission to” (and how well is that coming along, idiots?) – this backwards desert religion foisted upon us by hook-nosed levantine migrants (but with wonderfully high IQs! – but I guess those high IQs came later) – can we be rid of this Culture Distortion burden on us?

And for those nitwits who want to distinguish today’s weakling Cuckinsanity from “Traditional Christianity” I note the following.  Even at the height of “muscular Traditional Christianity defending Europe” the idea, ultimately, was conversion and assimilation.  The problem the Crusaders had with Muslims was simply their religion.  If the NECs had converted – presto! – problem gone. Or are the mendacious pro-Christian brigade going to lie to us and tell us that Christian resistance to the Moors and Saracens and Turks was “racial?”  It was not.  The only reason why conversion and assimilation failed in that instance is that Muslims have a strong faith and they stick with their beliefs, they want to convert us, they don’t want to be converted by us (which is why all the current “Christian missioning” is a pathetic joke).

Crush the infamy!

Sallis vs. the Survey

Differing opinions.

It is interesting, but not surprising, how my opinions differ from that of the survey here.

For example, I see the videos by Taylor as by far the best feature of that site, by a large margin. Commentary finished first in the survey. “Science and genetics” is a topic that I believe should be featured not at all at Amren – not because it isn’t important, but because the manner it is presented at that site is as factually incorrect, anti-White HBD pseudoscience. A healthy portion of the readership, however, want more of that nonsense, although a fraction do want less (good sense!).  I think the best author there is Hood; the readership instead picked Taylor (Taylor’s videos are excellent, but Hood is by far the best writer).

Here’s what I want more of: Cretaceous Jones comments  Less of: Engelman.


Hood essay.

Three points:
1. The paradox Hood points out is very real and is one key to victory: the very group that is despised and targeted for genocide is the same group that holds the System together. Getting just a fraction of Whites to withdraw support would be, I think, fatally (in the long run) destabilizing to the System.
2. What other groups than the Scots-Irish are supporting Trump? The admission that dare not speak its name (in Der Movement)?
3. There’s a lot of fear-mongering in Der Movement about this election; some of it may be accurate. But if the “last chance of White America” goes down in defeat, what options to the fear-mongerers believe are still open to us?
And then we have this:

ms_anthro • 3 hours ago

An excellent piece by Mr. Hood. And how many of us will be too afraid to share it on social media under our real name? Far better to be called “racist” by communists than to be an actual coward, is it not?

Yes, indeed. What kind of (real) name is “Ms. Anthro” I wonder.

The Very Model of a Modern Major Revolution

Overthrowing the System via democratic multiculturalism.

Read here concerning the Fall of the Soviet Union.
Now, the Soviet defector “Viktor Suvorov” (Rezun) made the point in one of his books that revolutions do not take place during the period of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed. The French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the Fall of Soviet Communism are all examples of this.
From the linked “Business Insider” article is this quote that support’s Rezun’s thesis:

DELVING INTO THE causes of the French Revolution, de Tocqueville famously noted that regimes overthrown in revolutions tend to be less repressive than the ones preceding them. Why? Because, de Tocqueville surmised, though people “may suffer less,” their “sensibility is exacerbated.”

Given that, let’s take a look at the article and see how it applies to our situation.

LIKE VIRTUALLY ALL modern revolutions, the latest Russian one was started by a hesitant liberalization “from above” — and its rationale extended well beyond the necessity to correct the economy or make the international environment more benign. The core of Gorbachev’s enterprise was undeniably idealistic: He wanted to build a more moral Soviet Union.

If we want to start a revolution, one strong possibility – not the only one of course – is one starting from a “hesitant liberalization from above.” In the modern American context of a viciously anti-White regime of soft totalitarianism, that would mean a “liberalization” that “softens” the System’s animus toward White interests, perhaps with a scheme similar to Salter’s proposal of “democratic multiculturalism” in which the interests of the majority (or, soon-to-be plurality) are officially and formally incorporated into the multicultural consensus. Is Trump’s campaign a harbinger of this? Regardless of the outcome, will the System believe it needs to somehow co-opt growing White anger? If this is put in starkly moral terms, always the preference of both SJWs and individualistic White cucks, with they be able to resist?

To Gorbachev’s prime minister Nikolai Ryzhkov, the “moral [nravstennoe] state of the society” in 1985 was its “most terrifying” feature:
[We] stole from ourselves, took and gave bribes, lied in the reports, in newspapers, from high podiums, wallowed in our lies, hung medals on one another. And all of this — from top to bottom and from bottom to top.
Another member of Gorbachev’s very small original coterie of liberalizers, Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, was just as pained by ubiquitous lawlessness and corruption. He recalls telling Gorbachev in the winter of 1984-1985: “Everything is rotten. It has to be changed.”

Sounds a lot like 2016 America, eh?

Democratization, Gorbachev declared, was “not a slogan but the essence of perestroika.” Many years later he told interviewers:
The Soviet model was defeated not only on the economic and social levels; it was defeated on a cultural level. Our society, our people, the most educated, the most intellectual, rejected that model on the cultural level because it does not respect the man, oppresses him spiritually and politically.

Again, 2016 America oppresses the White Man “spiritually and politically” – true that most Whites do not yet reject the System, particularly the “most educated and intellectual” but perhaps the racial and cultural angst behind Trumpism may percolate upward (with the help of the far-Right) infecting those “above.”

Those who instilled this remarkable “break in consciousness” were no different from those who touched off the other classic revolutions of modern times: writers, journalists, artists. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed, such men and women “help to create that general awareness of dissatisfaction, that solidified public opinion, which … creates effective demand for revolutionary change.” Suddenly, “the entire political education” of the nation becomes the “work of its men of letters.”

Note: not neckbeards tramping through the woods, eating twigs and branches, and firing off their “semi-automatics,” but “writers, journalists, artists” who help to create a “general awareness of dissatisfaction.” Time to turn Whites against the System!

That reforms gave rise to a revolution by 1989 was due largely to another “idealistic” cause: Gorbachev’s deep and personal aversion to violence and, hence, his stubborn refusal to resort to mass coercion when the scale and depth of change began to outstrip his original intent.

That’s the hope: that the “scale and depth of change” will begin to “outstrip [the] original intent” of the System’s “hesitant” steps toward racial reform.

THE ROLE OF ideas and ideals in bringing about the Russian revolution comes into even sharper relief when we look at what was happening outside the Kremlin. A leading Soviet journalist and later a passionate herald of glasnost, Aleksandr Bovin, wrote in 1988 that the ideals of perestroika had “ripened” amid people’s increasing “irritation” at corruption, brazen thievery, lies, and the obstacles in the way of honest work.

Again, sounds like today’s America, except that Whites are not quite ready to break with the System, or at least not on an explicitly racial basis. They need help – is Der Movement up to the task?

Anticipations of “substantive changes were in the air,” another witness recalled, and they forged an appreciable constituency for radical reforms. Indeed, the expectations that greeted the coming to power of Gorbachev were so strong, and growing, that they shaped his actual policy. Suddenly, ideas themselves became a material, structural factor in the unfolding revolution.

Please re-read the last sentence of that statement immediately above. And the read it again. And ponder…

Gradually, the legitimacy of the political arrangements began to be questioned. In an instance of Robert K. Merton’s immortal “Thomas theorem” — “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequence” — the actual deterioration of the Soviet economy became consequential only after and because of a fundamental shift in how the regime’s performance was perceived and evaluated.

This is absolutely essential. Whites are still spell-bound by the American myth, that somehow this is a “White man’s system” – we need to redefine for them the realty, to cause a “fundamental shift” in how the System’s racial policies are “perceived and evaluated.” Gregory Hood’s writings are good for this.

…a moral resurrection was essential. This meant not merely an overhaul of the Soviet political and economic systems, not merely an upending of social norms, but a revolution on the individual level: a change in the personal character of the Russian subject. As Mikhail Antonov declared in a seminal 1987 essay, “So What Is Happening to Us?” in the magazine Oktyabr, the people had to be “saved” — not from external dangers but “most of all from themselves, from the consequences of those demoralizing processes that kill the noblest human qualities.”

Saved how? By making the nascent liberalization fateful, irreversible — not Khrushchev’s short-lived “thaw,” but a climate change. And what would guarantee this irreversibility? Above all, the appearance of a free man who would be “immune to the recurrences of spiritual slavery.” The weekly magazine Ogoniok, a key publication of glasnost, wrote in February 1989 that only “man incapable of being a police informer, of betraying, and of lies, no matter in whose or what name, can save us from the re-emergence of a totalitarian state.”

Imagine this liberalization that becomes “fateful” and “irreversible” is one of a pro-White racial nature, forced upon the System by insistent pressure from far-Right agitation and growing White dissatisfaction.

The circuitous nature of this reasoning — to save the people one had to save perestroika, but perestroika could be saved only if it was capable of changing man “from within” — did not seem to trouble anyone. Those who thought out loud about these matters seemed to assume that the country’s salvation through perestroika and the extrication of its people from the spiritual morass were tightly — perhaps, inextricably — interwoven, and left it at that. What mattered was reclaiming the people to citizenship from “serfdom” and “slavery.”

Reclaiming Whites from “serfdom” and “slavery.”
What we need to do is present to the System a “lose-lose” situation, in which:
1) The System believes that it absolutely has to reform in a more pro-White direction in order to survive, but
2) If the System reforms in such a direction it will initiate a series of event leading to its eventual downfall; the first relaxation of anti-White suppression will initiate an irreversible series of events in the direction of balkanizing chaos and racial nationalism.
Salter’s conception of “democratic multiculturalism” helps here. What the “movement” peanut gallery and its previous criticism of my writings in this regard (“it dishonors our ancestors” – in other words, let’s just keep on reading The Turner Diaries and measuring each other’s cephalic indices with calipers) didn’t quite get is the idea this is merely means and not ends. The whole point is to force a “lose-lose” situation on the System in which they will have no choice but to initiate liberalization – “hesitant” or otherwise – in order to keep the White Man (who after all is the one who keeps the System running) engaged in the multicultural consensus. The System wants Whites to continue slaving away to support a System that is destroying those same Whites. We want Whites to “wake up.” Given that most revolutions seem to follow a pattern of “first fissures appear in the dam and then the floodwaters rush through” we need to get to the point of generating those fissures, the initial liberalization, the initial relaxation of oppression, the initial signs of weakness and appeasement from the System that will make Whites “smell blood” and realize more is possible.
That is why the chaotic racial energy unleashed by the Trump campaign is so important, why Trump’s right-wing populism is like a punch to the solar plexus of the System. The System is a bit stunned, but can recover if they are allowed to. We must not allow them the time to recover.
Instead of the breathless rounds of self-congratulations for their fifteen minutes of fame, the Alt-Right should be leveraging the Trump phenomenon to enhance the awareness of White dissatisfaction; indeed, to actually contribute to growing the dissatisfaction to levels sufficient to threaten the System and force concessions.
Now, of course, the System will hope that an initial round of concessions will be sufficient to satisfy Whites, to co-opt Whites, to ensure that Whites will accept a new anti-White race replacement status quo just a little bit less onerous than what we have now.
This is why the Right must resist its natural tendency to “declare victory and go home” and instead emulate the Left, who go from real victory to real victory by: never admitting any final victory, always striving for more, always demanding more, never being satisfied, always pushing the envelope, always taking each victory as merely a step toward the next one. Indeed, the Left treats each concession to their agenda as “blood in the water” that drives them and their followers to a “feeding frenzy” of further demands and agitation. 
Thus, similarly, whatever concessions the System is forced – repeat, forced – to make will merely be a stepping stone toward the next phase of agitation, dissatisfaction, and further concessions and further weakening of the System’s position. Each concession, each relaxation of oppression, will further awaken the sensibilities of the White population to the extent of their racial dispossession and the extent to which they have been racially and culturally defrauded. This will be a “feed forward” positively reinforcing feedback loop in which every System concession leads to a further set of demands and dissatisfaction, leading to even more concessions, leading to yet more agitation and chaos.
It is imperative therefore that the first set of concessions include the admission that White interests, and the group pursuit of those interests, are legitimate, that Whites have real grievances, and that Whites must have a seat at the “multicultural table.”
Now, of course the System is not stupid (although not as clever as they – and some of us – believe) and they will likely understand our strategy and try to derail it. They may try to get puppets, White “Uncle Toms,” to fill those “seats,” and try to use their propaganda megaphone to convince Whites that the initial concessions are enough.
This is why we need to be planning and organizing now, and be steadfast in our demands – demands that MUST include that only genuine activists fill those seats and the demand that WE, not the System, decide in what manner the concessions will be implemented.
In order to have such leverage, and to get the ball rolling to induce the original concessions to begin with, there must be sufficient agitation to FORCE the System to go against their every inclination. That must be increasing racial chaos and balkanization that threatens to undermine the very existence of the multicultural consensus, an unsettling force of dissension and unrest that creates a situation so untenable that the System is forced – no matter how hesitant they may initially be – to come to the bargaining table and deal with real pro-White activists and make concessions that will integrate those activists into positions that can be leveraged to strong-arm the System even more. Thus, the legitimization of White interests, and of White activists, will damage the social pricing mechanism, and allow for more overt pro-White activism, and establishment of integrated structures of White propaganda and empowerment. Once those are established, it is only a matter of time…
But again, this is not going to happen on its own. Only steady balkanizing pressure, only a steady increase in racial dissension and unrest, in which Whites, for the first time in a long time, take an active role in defending their own racial interests, will force the System’s hand in the manner.
Is Der Movement up to this challenge? Or will they let the Trump phenomenon fade away, once again demonstrating incredible uselessness and incompetence?

Der Movement in the News, 8/29/16

Der Movement marches on.

Coming from Derbyshire of all people, here is a note (emphasis added) of interest to the good and great Sir Desmond Jones, who asserts with complete confidence that Italy is, and shall remain, 100% racially (and ethnically) homogeneous to the ends of time, forever and ever, amen:

The current focus of attention for the ongoing invasion of Europe is Italy. In the month of July twenty-five thousand illegals arrived in Italy from Africa. Twenty-five thousand in one month. And that was a twelve percent increase on July last year.

Put it another way, that would be 300,000 a year, although the numbers are actually smaller in the winter months. Let’s say to expect 200,000 this year. For comparison, the last year I can find numbers for, the year 2014, the number of live births in Italy was just over 500,000.

So the numbers coming in, almost all of them young men, are of the same order of magnitude as the number of new Italians being born.

Most of those July numbers came from Nigeria and Eritrea. Not many of them actually want to stay in Italy. They are aiming for the nations of northwest Europe, with their higher levels of prosperity and lusher welfare systems. That accords with the wishes of the Italians, who would prefer to just shunt them northwards.

Unfortunately the countries to the immediate north of Italy—Switzerland, France, and Austria—don’t want these invaders in their countries, even if they’re just passing through. Those countries have been fortifying their borders. So Italy is now experiencing what your plumber would call a nasty backup.

And here we see another “movement” advance:
This is a danger the Alt Right may face as well if it continues to grow in prominence. Already, we see attempts at co-option and a push to deny the role of race as central to the Alt Right.
I thought what is central to the Alt-Right was a combination of undercuts, Pepe the Frog, HBD race realism, “game,” and snarky juvenile comments? 

Clinton’s speech and commercial have all but coronated Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, etc. as the leaders of the New Right.

If we accept that, we’ve already lost before we’ve even begun. Can I choose my own leaders, please?  

Radix Update, 7/7/16

First inklings of the decline to come?

I note the comments section of another good Hood article spoiled by comments by Silver that even the grand fraud himself labels as “nitpicking.” Apparently, Silver has identified Hood as Radix‘ most popular and effective contributor and, hence, is developing a fetishistic obsession against Gregory.

Then we have this:

Laguna Beach Fogey 14 hours ago

Gentlemen, I think we’re going to have to fight our way out of this one

Really? I thought that the “game” view was that we should all just “sit poolside” and that men who worry too much about these things are too serious and “they get no poosy.”

Bain Capital: Hood vs. Silver

Silver exposed again.

First, Silver engages in his typically unpleasantly personal attacks against sincere racial nationalists:

silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ Marc • 7 days ago

Actually, a baseless and contrived point. But it evidently had the intended effect. Oh Hood, I just love your essays, you’re the greatest, marry me.

(I guess if I were to start critiquing Hood, Silver would suddenly find Gregory as an “indefatigable” fighter and full of “energy” and my comments indicative of “mental instability”).

And then he tries to make apologies for Bain’s “creative destruction” –

silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ teapartydoc • 6 days ago

If you, like Hood, think competent financial management doesn’t enhance the production of real goods and services then, I’m sorry, you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ Andrew • 5 days ago

who left nothing of real value

If I sell you a pizza and sate your hunger I guess I haven’t left anything “of real value” in the long-term either. So what? It’s called living. If I provide the service, I’m entitled to profit from it.

He extracted maximum profit
That’s generally evidence of efficiency, not deceit.
Just like a tapeworm, he and his company were highly successful and competent.
Tapeworms don’t enter into voluntary contracts with their victims.

A few excerpts, emphasis added:

At the time, Mitt Romney had been running Bain Capital since 1984, minting a reputation as a prince of private investment. A future prospectus by Deutsche Bank would reveal that by the time he left in 1999, Bain had averaged a shimmering 88 percent annual return on investment. Romney would use that success to launch his political career. 

His specialty was flipping companies — or what he often calls “creative destruction.” It’s the age-old theory that the new must constantly attack the old to bring efficiency to the economy, even if some are destroyed along the way. In other words, people like Romney are the wolves, culling the herd of the weak and infirm. 

His formula was simple: Bain would purchase a firm with little money down, then begin extracting huge management fees and paying Romney and his investors enormous dividends. 

The result was that previously profitable companies were now burdened with debt. But much like the Enron boys, Romney’s battery of MBAs fancied themselves the smartest guys in the room. It didn’t matter if a company manufactured bicycles or contact lenses; they were certain they could run it better than anyone else. 

Bain would slash costs, jettison workers, reposition product lines and merge its new companies with other firms. With luck, they’d be able to dump the firm in a few years for millions more than they’d paid for it.

But the beauty of Romney’s thesis was that it really didn’t matter if the company succeeded. Since he was yanking out cash early and often, he would profit even if his targets collapsed. 

Which was precisely the fate awaiting Georgetown Steel. 

When Bain purchased the mill, Sanderson says, change was immediate. Equipment upgrades stopped. Maintenance became an afterthought. Managers were replaced by people who knew nothing of steel. The union’s profit-sharing plan was sliced twice in the first year — then whacked altogether. 

Romney was charging GSI $900,000 a year in management fees to run the company. The Kansas City mill received $900,000 worth of ineptitude in return. 

Although Bain borrowed $97 million to retool the plant so it could also produce wire rods, it left the rest of the facility to rot. 

To save costs, Bain went miserly on everything from maintenance to spare parts and earplugs. Equipment deteriorated. Since the new managers didn’t know how to repair it, “they’d want to rent a new piece of equipment out instead of maintaining what we had,” says Morrow. The waste and inefficiency was breathtaking. 

Bain’s plan all along was to streamline the company into greater profitability, then reap the rewards with a public stock offering. But the exact opposite was happening. Even Roger Regelbrugge, whom Bain installed as CEO, knew the debt was crushing GSI from within, according to Reuters. If a public offering didn’t materialize, the company would collapse. 

Steel was about to enter a periodic downturn. Countries around the world were locked in a war of tariffs and government-subsidized production, creating a glut and driving down prices. Romney’s flip strategy was never meant to endure difficult times. 

Workers saw the end coming; they were particularly worried that Bain was badly underfunding their pension plan. So they went on strike in 1997, bringing a traditional Rust Belt flair to the festivities by littering the streets with nails and gunning bottle rockets at security guards. 

When it was all over, the Steelworkers’ union agreed to wage and vacation cuts in exchange for extra health and pension safeguards should the plant close. Yet GSI was now hemorrhaging money, says David Foster, the union official who negotiated the deal. He claims that Bain cursed the company by placing its own interests above those of customers or long-term stability. 

“Like a lot of private equity firms, Bain managed the company for financial results, not production results,” says Foster. “It didn’t invest in maintenance or immediate customer needs. All that came second to meeting monthly financial goals.” 

It would take a few more years of bleeding, but GSI eventually fell to bankruptcy. The Kansas City mill closed for good; 750 people lost their jobs. Worse, Romney had shorted their pension fund by $44 million. The feds were forced to cover the difference, while workers saw their benefits slashed in bankruptcy court. 

The battered Georgetown plant and the foundries in Arizona and Minnesota ultimately were bought out of bankruptcy by new companies. Their workforces were halved.

Let’s count the ways that Silver is wrong. First, Bain Capital was not “competent financial management” and did not routinely “enhance the production of real goods and services.” Romney was flipping companies to make money, often leaving wreckage behind – not only the human wreckage of ruined lives (yes, it’s called living, Silver), but the wreckage of what used to be successful companies that were effectively providing those “goods and services” before they were subjected to leveraged buyouts. Bain was the equivalent of someone “flipping houses” to make quick profits, NOT like someone buying a home as a long term investment and making substantial improvements over time.

Second: A pizza is a real object of real value to someone desiring sustenance. A pizza is a physical object containing calories that, even when digested, are incorporated into the eater’s system. Bain’s leveraged buyouts and “creative destruction” and middleman profits added no real value, did not improve the long-term sustainability of all the companies so purchased, did not invent anything, produce anything not produced before, and, as stated above, did not even provide competent financial management. 

Third, maximum profit can very well be achieved through deceit. See: Madoff, Bernie – who lived very well before exposure. See successful con men throughout history (Silver I believe being very well acquainted with the concept of the con man). See the behavior of Jews in business (Bain being very Jewish-like in behavior, indeed – Mormons akin to Jews?).
Fourth, what Bain was doing may have been technically “voluntary” to the companies bought out, but it can still be considered akin to parasitism. A hungry and stupid person may eat poorly cooked pork. They may not have “voluntarily” accepted a tapeworm, but were infected by a parasite through their own greed, gluttony, and/or stupidity.
Fifth, and most importantly, even if Silver is right and Bain was the paragon of financial efficiency – so what? Hood is approaching this from the standpoint of a racial nationalist, not a laisses-faire predatory capitalist with a “profits uber alles” mentality. Many racial destructive activities are justified in the name of “economic efficiency” and “economic growth.” Romney’s “creative destruction” is no more justified from a strictly racial nationalist perspective as would be alien immigrant labor, for example.
As usual, Silver is unmasked as an unpleasant apologist for predatory capitalism and someone whose alleged interest in racial preservation is a complete sham.

Do the right thing. Spencer, and ban the thing.