Category: law

A Method to the “Madness”

A message they do not like to hear.

Every once in a while, I like to step back and explain to the readers of this blog the underlying reason I often engage in ridicule of Der Movement and of “movement leadership,” why I continuously focus on the Trump fiasco and the “movement’s” lickspittle pro-Trumpism, why I continuously critique the “movement’s” affirmative action policy, and why I always point out the error and hypocrisy of the quota queen “leadership.”

Is it because I’m “crazy and bitter?”  “Insane” – as libelous defamers claim?  No. Just like stirring the pot for no reason?  No.  Am just, as the Alt Righters would say, a “black piller?’’ No.

Now, I’ve been involved in “this thing of ours” for more than twenty years; actually by now a full quarter-century.

Contrary to the breathless accounts of the Alt Right, and contrary to self-interested “movement leaders” who inflate their “successes” to both boost their fragile egos and to boost their bank accounts by encouraging tin cup handouts, I’ve seen very little progress (if at all) in this time-frame.  The “movement” is on a treadmill, going nowhere fast, squandering opportunity after opportunity, wasting precious time, and, worst of all, making the exact same mistakes over and over and over again: the Man on White Horse Syndrome, the selfish feuding between “movement leaders,” the cross-accusations of who is a “Jew” or a “CIA asset,” meanwhile allowing real destructive infiltrations to take place, the lack of any strategic vision or plan whatsoever, the lack of any quality control leading to taking in absolute defective dregs, the same fossilized dogmas regurgitated again and again…I can go on, but you get the picture.

If White interests are, ultimately tied to the success or failure of racial activism, then the abovementioned state of affairs must end, or Whites as a race will end. The “movement” has such a momentum of failure, the faults are such an inherent part of its character (“baked in” one can say), that I have stated, and continue to state, that the Old Movement has to go, and be replaced by a New Movement. But whether we ultimately must get a New Movement, or have radical reform of the Old, the bottom-line is the same: the Old Movement must be subjected to a relentless barrage of critique and ridicule, underlying its flaws and identifying those responsible. “Business as usual” will be the end of racial activism as an end to Whites themselves.

So, a major mission of this blog is to shine a disinfecting light on the stupidities of Der Movement, Inc. and its inept affirmative action “leadership.”  There must be identification of problems and there must be accountability for failed “leadership.”  And, when appropriate, solutions must be given.  But those solutions will never be considered if the problems are not acknowledged, and those responsible for those problems will never truly acknowledge them because that means they’ll eventually be held accountable for their responsibility in creating the problems and/or allowing those problems to fester for years or even decades.

Will rubbing the noses of Der Movement activists in the inanities and betrayals of Trump prevent another Man on White Horse fiasco?  Maybe, maybe not – but one must try.  When this blog holds the quota queens accountable for their piss-poor performance, are any of the rank-and-file listening?  Likely only very few, but a few are better than none. One does what one can.  

If you do not hold failure accountable, all you will get is more failure. How many more wasted years and decades are you willing to accept?

Of course, the ones who are criticized do not appreciate it.  Of course they object.  After all, these criticisms have the potential of undermining their status in the “movement” and, perhaps more important from their perspective, threatens the flow of supporter donations. We certainly can’t have that!  Indeed, based on self-declared fund-raising “victories” as well as publicly available databases, we observe that some of these Quota Queens are doing very well indeed. I can think of one of them who is in the top 7% of wage earners in America!  They tend to cluster in expensive coastal blue state locales (while extolling the wonders of red state flyover country to their supporters) and tend to have lifestyles beyond that of many of their supporters.  Of course they don’t want to hear criticism; of course they don’t want that gravy train threatened.  They’ll even stoop to engaging in legally actionable defamation in order to discredit their critics.  Accountability?  They don’t need no stinkin’ accountability!  Why, responsibility and accountability are for lesser mortals, for all you suckers out there sending in your hard-earned shekels.


All of you rank-and-file activists out there cannot say you haven’t been warned. The thing is that all you need to do at this point is just this…nothing.  Don’t support the Quota Queens. Don’t send them money.  Don’t write for them, don’t leave comments at their blogs, don’t defend them.  Can you do nothing?  Do you have enough sense and self-control for that?

Defamation and Evolution

A two part post.

First, defamation:

Relevant to thissee this (emphasis added):

What is defamatory?
Defamation is all about reputation, and in particular about statements which damage others’ reputations. The English courts have not settled upon a single test for determining whether a statement is defamatory. Examples of the formulations used to define a “defamatory imputation” include:
an imputation which is likely to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking
people;
an imputation which injures a person’s reputation by exposing him to hatred, contempt
or ridicule;
an imputation which tends to make a person be shunned or avoided.
A statement that a person is an adulterer, a gold-digger or a drunkard may be defamatory, as may an allegation of corruption, racism, disease, insanity or insolvency

Therefore, injuring “a person’s reputation by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule” by an imputation of “insanity” can be considered defamation – assuming that the person in question is not deemed clinically insane.

Also, see footnote 149 here (emphasis added):

Social Aversion. A communication may be defamatory of another although it has no tendency to affect adversely the other’s personal or financial reputation. Thus the imputation of certain physical and mental attributes such as disease or insanity are defamatory because they tend to deter third persons from associating with the person so characterized.

By the way, calling someone “insane” is not the same as calling them “fucking crazy,” which has been deemed not to be defamation as it is an opinion expressed as “slang.” Insanity on the other hand is a legal and medical term indicating a disorder associated with diminished behavioral responsibility, and hence is not merely an opinion when expressed as a fact.  

Thus, calling me “crazy and bitter” is not defamation. Calling me “fucking crazy” or a “lunatic” or any other “slang” pejorative is also not defamation (as has been legally established by precedent), since it is understood that the accuser is not talking literally using medical or legal terms. “Insane” and “insanity” are medical and legal terms with a specific meaning.  Calling someone “insane” as a statement of fact, in the absence of supporting evidence, is therefore defamation and is legally actionable.

Based on the above, there seems to be at least some legal theory supporting the contention that Johnson’s tweet is legally actionable defamation.

Rank-and-file activists should carefully consider the judgment of a “leader” who would expose themselves to liability via reckless, defamatory tweets.

Second, evolution:

The “Majority Rightization” of Counter-Currents continues apace (perhaps it is therefore appropriate that “Silver” rears its head again). One of the characteristics of Majority Right’s rapid decline phase was the long, turgid, barely comprehensible essays of Daniel S that took thousands of words to express an opinion that could have been more effectively and efficiently summarized in one short paragraph. We are getting newer “writers” at Counter-Currents who mimic this style, hiding intellectual vacuity behind unnecessarily dense and wordy prose (good ideas are instead typically associated with clarity and elegant expression). The main point of one such pseudo-intellectual vomiting is thus (emphasis added):

The value system of this narrative seems to subordinate peoples of European descent to their technologically progressive destiny. Indeed, the main focus of attention appears to be the relentless drive to the beyond, a self-justified virtue, which just happens to be contained within a vehicle we call “white people.” Articulating this telos demonstrates the similarities between the “march of the Titans” narrative in the Dissident Right and the maligned “conservative” value set typified by American Baby Boomers. Both views of historical meaning hold technological progress, which is to say, the manipulation of natural forces, above the preservation (or at least recognizable continuity) of European descended peoples. The two views seem to differ only in their preferred time frames. This observation invites a disturbing question. What is the difference between a future in which European-descended peoples have converged and transcended themselves to the inevitable point of unrecognizability, and the new post-ethnic man at the end of the Left’s mission to converge all humanity through their ideology of cosmopolitan progress?

Let’s for the sake of argument agree that these are the two possible outcomes of an anti-traditionalist “progressive” view.  What’s the difference?  The first (consistent with Pierce’s cosmotheism, by the way) is a higher path, an upper path, European man on the road to godhood, achieving an understanding of the universe and actualizing opportunities for creative activity on a level analogous to that separating modern man from an insect.  The second path is a downward path of devolution, an end not a beginning, The Last Man, a mongrel creature capable of nothing except mere existence, with all avenues of higher evolution, of higher creative activity, of higher understanding, closed off. True enough, both outcomes would diminish current EGI and both would by necessity negatively affect the value system of strict preservationists who fetishize certain phenotypes.  

But obviously there are other paths. If we accept that populations of evolved organisms will not be static in any case (because of genetic drift if for no other reason, but there will always be selective pressures, although if undirected by racialist concerns we certainly would not like the outcome), we can use science, and our understanding of ultimate and proximate interests, to direct an upward path while at the same time preserving as much of our current fundamental essence as possible for as long as possible.  We need to understand that there is no pure static preservationism in evolution. If change is inevitable, it is incumbent upon us to direct that change in a manner that is optimized to our ultimate and proximate interests, to our culture, and to our aesthetic sensibilities.

Johnson Contra Sallis

Silver we can merely laugh at.  Johnson, in contrast, is legally libelous.

Let’s get the most personally relevant comments out of the way first:

Silvio Silver
@silviosilver14w
@NewRightAmerica
A debate I’d love to see, but which I know will never happen, is Greg and “Ted Sallis.”  The latter is a loudmouthed lout who has never been able to civilly disagree with anyone, but if you can look past that, there is actually some substance there.

Silver terms me a “loudmouthed lout who has never been able to civilly disagree with anyone.”  The following is a direct quote from Silver writing about yours truly:

Who cares what that shiteating asshole thinks? Are you that goddam thick, Dave Johns, that you can’t understand what a pure, unadulterated asshole that vermin is? Are you that damn thick that you can’t realize the only reason he can’t fairly characterize my position is that I mock his absurd attempts to whiten himself with his“tests”? That the whole reason he’s such a grouch is that he feels vulnerable about his whiteness and feels compelled to savage and ridicule anyone and everyone even a smidgeon less white than what his exacting standards require, even though doing so is not remotely required for advancing a pro-white agenda, and is, in fact, counterproductive? Are you that damn thick? Sadly, I think the answer is yes, you are that damn thick. Try this, Davey boy: think for yourself. If you can pinpoint anything I say (now, not one year ago—which is the only thing shiteater has to go on) which you think compromises white interests, let’s have you bring it up. Otherwise, pay attention to what I actually say; not to what self-interested shiteaters claim I say. 

I don’t discuss that here because nutzi dumbfucks like Braun and Rienzi are the greater problem. I don’t care what label these assholes give themselves. They are the purest of human shit imaginable, to me.

Unfortunately, I am unable to summon the ability to match Silver’s eloquence and civility in my own writing. Silver is also the person who was participating in a discussion at the race/history/evolution notes blog that included unfounded suggestions (“evidently”) of a homosexual relationship between Johnson and Polignano (*see footnote). If the “evident” accusation is incorrect, then it was libelous, although that doesn’t stop a Counter-Currents writer from praising the race/history/evolution notes blog, nor Johnson from being online pals with “Silver.” Interesting.

See this for a summary.  Also see this.

Now for Johnson’s libelous reply:

Counter-Currents
@NewRightAmerica
He’s intelligent, but his intellect has been ruined by insanity. I regret tolerating him and people like Parrott as long as I did. Better people saw it as indecent. It harmed my reputation.

Does Johnson have evidence that I am insane?  If not, that is legally actionable libel. Note that Johnson doesn’t say that Sallis “behaves as if he’s insane” nor does he express an opinion or ask a question.  Rather he makes a blanket statement implying fact.  Libel.

Yes, I’m so “insane” that I actually interact with the real world, as opposed to Johnson who has been holed up as a full time activist for many years, feuding with and alienating one activist after another (including some of his own past writers and collaborators), while living off of the donations of the deluded fools hoodwinked by his faux-intellectual pretensions. Those by the way are facts coupled with opinions. Note no accusations of “insanity” or of any other mental illness. Johnson’s “career” as a full time “activist” is a matter of public record.  His requests for donations are also a matter of public record. My opinion of his work as “faux-intellectual pretensions” is an opinion supported by my critical analysis of his “work.”  It seems that only the “insane” understand the difference between fact, opinion, and libel.  

And given what happened to Polignano, we should all be wary when Johnson recklessly throws around libelous accusations about the mental health of others. If Friberg’s correspondence was accurate, then at least Polignano admitted having issues. I have no issues. As I’ve repeatedly stated on this blog, the “over the top” comments here are intentionally parodying the crazed nonsense of Der Movement. It is mocking satire.  Of course, I can understand where humorless pendants obsessed with their own self-importance would take everything at face value.  No names, of course.

One can compare EGI Notes, specifically designed to mix analytical material with “movement” deconstruction and mocking ridicule, with Western Destiny, which, while critical of the “movement,” eschews mocking ridicule and sticks with a completely serious tone.

Does Johnson detect “insanity” in Western Destiny as well?  Further, would an “insane” individual discreetly keep quiet about all of the “movement” “dirty laundry” they know about – and in some cases personally experienced – dating back to the mid-1990s?  That can be contrasted to the “sane” Quota Queens who constantly air “movement” “dirty laundry” in their never-ending feuds. In addition, an “insane” person would not protect the interests of a person they despise by withholding the large amount of stylometric data that yields quite interesting findings indeed.  What would one of the “sane” feuders do with that, I wonder?

Essentially, Johnson is engaging in cheap Frankfurt School-like pathologization of dissent. If you are (a) a critic of Johnson, and (b) more intelligent than the typical “movement” nitwits Johnson intellectually runs rings around, then you’re “insane” – which conveniently gives the coward an excuse not to engage with your ideas, and, most importantly, frees Johnson from the obligation of having to defend his own ideas.

Err, Greg, you would lose any honest debate with me, which is why I’m “banned” from your blog.  Open it up there. Have you and your hypocritical writers defend their positions.  But, no, you coward, you do not do so.  Just like you ran from Friberg when the latter invited you (or so he says, do you deny it?) to a “sit down.” I’m calling you out as a coward who runs from those who can call you out on your bullshit. I openly challenge you to open your blog comments up for debate.

As far as your “reputation” goes, you harmed it yourself (the Pilleater call was itself enough; the infiltrations were another laughable episode, and your chronic bad judgment is pathetic), although, as outlined below, you have so far survived the damage because Der Movement judges by criteria independent of merit. By the way, this is Johnson’s editorial comment on one of my “indecent” contributions to Counter-Currents:

The following essay is one of the most important pieces published at Counter-Currents so far. I heartily endorse its analysis and invite discussion.

A more likely reality is that Johnson was upset that I didn’t blindly defend him, re: Hermansson, and that I stayed neutral in his feuds with the Spencer-Friberg-Forney faction. If I was a lickspittle supporter like the rest, then the “indecency” and “insanity” would be no problem.

And who were the “better people” who saw it as “indecent?”  Given the relatively small number of “movement” “activists” that Johnson gets along with and of are sufficient status, this is a relatively small set of suspects. Quota Queens and grifters eager to protect themselves from honest criticism, no doubt. They’ll all be analyzed here in due course. Some of their not-for-profit financials are also matters of public record.

These are the original comments by Johnson that preceded the libel above.

Ho, ho!

Counter-Currents
@NewRightAmerica
I’d be happy to debate serious challengers on such current hot topics as nationalism vs. imperialism, #coronavirus, Zionism & the Palestinians, “racist liberalism,” & the relevance of Trump, Marxism, Duginism, China, & Holocaust revisionism to White Identity Politics. 50/50 split

I have years of criticisms of Johnson’s positions on this blog, focusing on his hypocrisy and logical inconsistencies (and errors of judgment). All ignored.  By the way, when are you going to denounce John Morgan and Full Moon Ancestry for violating the ethnic rights of Eastern Europeans?

Ho, ho!

Counter-Currents
@NewRightAmerica
Serious = someone established with a platform, positions, and an audience

Greggy gets to define who is “serious.”  Very convenient. Limit the field to semi-retarded Alt Right Millennial droolcups best represented by this.  Positions?  Everyone has those. What’s considered a “platform?”  An “audience?”

Of course, if Johnson was really serious (no pun intended), he’d allow all “banned” folks to challenge him and his amen corner on his blog.  He can start with the “serious” people first. In addition, I’m sure Forney would love to have Johnson on his program – how about a Johnson-Forney-Friberg podcast?  Greg can call in Hermansson to balance it out.  After all, Pat has an “audience” as well.

The unfortunate thing is that, thinking about all of this, it is likely that Johnson is currently the top “leader” in the American “movement” today.  Let us consider together.

First, we can ignore the Alt Lite, who are not part of the “movement,” and we can also disregard all of the Millennial jackasses and other no account idiots with zero gravitas. Let’s consider the real players.

Spencer – has completely “shot his bolt” and is in terminal decline; he is not called “The Master of Disaster” for nothing.

Strom – he has the intellect to challenge Johnson, but has flaws:

1. Even if he is completely innocent of his past legal issues (which may well be the case), it remains a black cloud casting a negative shadow.

2. He lacks personal force; he is more of an ideologue.  He doesn’t have the “stomach” to denounce HBD and other perversions of activism.

3. He’s tied himself to the corpse of the National Alliance and the dead WN 1.0 legacy of Pierce.

Williams – is no doubt a well-meaning fellow, but who has also tied himself to the corpse of the National Alliance and the dead WN 1.0 legacy of Pierce, and it is clear that it is Strom who is the intellectual center of the group.

Duke – has had his own past legal issues, mirrors Spencer in jumping from one failed project to another – lacking solidity of character, is old and past his prime and out of the main thrust of “movement” activism, is too focused on Zionism, has a hardcore WN 1.0 legacy of fossilized dogma, and the whole Tulsi thing was an absolute embarrassment demonstrating poor judgment. I give him credit for his New Orleans Protocol idea, but unfortunately it was too forward-thinking for the retarded “movement.”

MacDonald – also has the intellect but has gone into a strange tailspin, with TOO now being focused on HBD-Nordicism, flubro and other conspiracy theories, and other nonsense. Like Strom, more of an ideologue than a leader.

Taylor – is the only real challenger to Johnson’s status. He is, however, older now and past his prime, Amren is more of just a news and opinion outlet rather than a focus of activism (conferences notwithstanding), the Jew/Asian/HBD thing is a problem, and he’s never seemed eager for the mantle of leadership.

That leaves Johnson by default, despite his serious flaws – the whole gay controversy, his feuds and fixations, his inane ideology, his prickly personality, poor judgment, decline of the quality of his blog, etc.  He somehow overcame serious issues – Pilleater, infiltrations, the Alt Right feuds, etc. – and is prospering. I chalk that up to a lack of serious competition, mendacity and hypocrisy, being good at “movement” politics despite the aforementioned flaws, and the guru-like ability to attract new sets of writers as soon as he alienates and/or feuds with the previous set (although quality is in decline). Being an “intellectual” in a “movement” that has no intellectual rigor helps, especially when coupled with ambition and a complete lack of character.

God help us all.  

Footnote:

*From race/history/evolution notes –

Silver said…
Without the Pole Irish Greek Slavs , urban whites, Jewish ascendancy could never have been acheived in America.
We should have put a chain fence on Ellis Island and kept the Oreillys and hannitys from ever arriving.
They killed America, not Jews.
I don’t like to think of my kind as having killed America (or Canada or Australia etc), but if you consider the chain of “racial events” — the cultural conflict, the miscegenation, the racial self-doubt and so on — that it set off I think you’d have to agree the logic is hard to resist.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say it could not have happened without us PIGS, since plenty of WASPs were already bending over backwards for nigs even before we arrived and if that process continued to play out it’s quite possible (though less likely) the racial predicament in the early 21st century would have been much the same.
Ted Sallis used to be the guy that ran “Western Biopolitics” or whatever it was called back in the day. He went by the initials “JWH”. He closed that particular blog because of Silver’s harassment (although he was a bit thin-skinned himself).
He used to also post as Michael Rienzi. I wouldn’t say I harassed him. His blog didn’t permit comments and I rarely addressed him directly elsewhere, mostly just dropping his name as an exponent of a racialism I found highly disturbing. This annoyed him but I doubt it was the reason he closed his blog. I used to think he and Polignano were one and the same person but now I’m not so sure.
Also, as you might notice, I’m back online. Feel free to read, participate, needle, mock or ignore.
October 8, 2012 at 6:49 PM
n/a said…
“I used to think he and Polignano were one and the same person but now I’m not so sure.”
I’m confident they’re not the same person. Rienzi writes under pseudonyms, describes himself as a “biological scientist”, and I believe has mentioned being married (to a woman). Polignano has written under his own name since he was a college student over a decade ago, describes himself as “a writer, publisher, activist, and IT Consultant based in San Francisco”, and is evidently in a homosexual relationship with Greg Johnson.

Who’s a White Nationalist?

Not Brimelow.

An online dictionary definition of “nationalism” –

…identification with one’s own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

It’s simply this question – what does one consider their “own nation” to be? If the highest form of “own nation” is “the White race” (however defined), and if the above definition applies, then one is a “White nationalist.”  Of course, it is a bit more complex than that, since the culture and ideology of White nationalism has evolved to the point where we can say that certain ideologies, memes, and paradigms are consistent, or not consistent, with being a White nationalist.  Read this.

For “white nationalist” to be a slur, the term itself would have to be generally accepted as immoral or derogatory. It would also have to be used in a way that incorrectly labels one a white nationalist. Calling Greg Johnson, a white nationalist, for example, is not a slur. He embraces the label.

The interpretation of the term white nationalist is just one interesting aspect of the lawsuit brought by Peter Brimelow, editor of VDare. He is suing the New York Times, according to Brimelow, for falsely labeling him a white nationalist. He not only denies being a white nationalist, he claims the company deliberately labeled him as such in an effort to damage his reputation, even after he made many good faith attempts to point out the error to them. He is seeking $5 million in damages.

Another interesting bit of this is the unspoken dispute over what exactly makes someone a white nationalist. Greg Johnson, for example, has written a book describing white nationalism. He calls himself a white nationalist. Peter Brimelow, in contrast, has never used to term to describe himself and has been generally negative toward the use of it as a label. No doubt both men share similar opinions on many matters, but they have many important differences as well.

Who is the best to decide if someone is a White nationalist? How the person in question self-identifies of course is important.  Perhaps even more telling and powerful is the opinions of others who consider themselves to be White nationalists. Do they consider the person in question to be a White nationalist or not? The opinions of numbers of actual self-identified White nationalists are no doubt more accurate than that of the hacks of The New York Times.

Readers of this blog know that I – a self-identified White nationalist – am no fan of Peter “Happy Penguins” Brimelow.  However, I 100% support his action against The New York Times.  Why?  Because Brimelow is 100% correct and 100% honest in denying being a White nationalist.

Brimelow is not a White nationalist.  A true White nationalist would not give a forum to the likes of Derbyshire, never mind being friends with that “man.”  I view Brimelow, if he actually has an ideology other than being pro-Happy Penguins, as a Paleoconservative immigration restrictionist and as someone who, if they are not a HBDer themselves, is certainly sympathetic to the “race realist” view.  I see no evidence that Brimelow subscribes to ORION – Our Race Is Our Nation – no evidence that he believes that the likes of Michelle Malkin and “Rosie” Derbyshire should not be part of his nation.

Likewise, I do not view Jared Taylor as a White nationalist, and, indeed, he has self-identified as a “White advocate” and a “Yellow supremacist”  as well as a “race realist.”  Ideologically, he’s similar to Brimelow, albeit being more strongly identified to both a “White identity” and to HBD.

Greg Johnson? Well, he not only self-identifies as a White nationalist, but also writes books attempting to tell us all what White nationalism means.  On the other hand, his extreme identification with petty nationalist ethnonationalism, and his blog’s promotion of what I term “ethnoimperialism” (the ideology of Northwest Europeans colonizing other people’s nations and turning those nations into their private brothel or “crash pad”) calls into question just what kind of White nationalist he really is.  That’s a debate for another time.

Pierce, Strom, and Duke can be considered White nationalists, but for them, the question always is/was what precisely do they mean by “White” – in fact an issue for most of Der Movement.

Spencer is floating in an ideological “no man’s land” currently.  Certainly, in the past he could be considered to be a White nationalist; what he is now I do not know.

MacDonald? I do not know how he self-identifies, and his current infatuation with HBD Nordicism raises the question as to his ingroup, but I suppose he may fall in the same category as Pierce, Strom, and Duke – it depends on what you mean by “White.”  A clarification on his part with respect to self-identification would be helpful.

As far as all of the Millennial activists out there, all I hear from them is basically Beavis-and-Butthead sniggering, so who knows?

Brimelow, however, is fully justified in his action and we can only wish him well in that endeavor.

“Movement” comments:

Laurence
Posted January 14, 2020 at 10:30 am | Permalink
Just to be balanced about men going bonkers for sexual favors, some established and purportedly sane men have gone ga-ga for bum-boys, Jeremy Thorpe and Lord Brown come to mind.

Yes, and not only them.

From TOO:

In these times of true degenerate modernity we really do need figures that are wholesome and are worthy of emulation. That’s why Hitler has so many admirers in our circles, nobody (apart from the usual suspects) has yet produced any evidence of degeneracy or weirdness in his personal life.

Two words: Geli Raubal.

Scandza Fiasco

Surprise! 

Greg Johnson arrested in Norway, re: the Scandza conference. Despite my differences with Greg Johnson, obviously I oppose this and denounce it in the strongest terms possible. I do not want my ideological opponents silenced and censored; instead I want to engage them (something Johnson should consider with respect to his “banning” of people from his blog – what goes around comes around, I suppose).

The optimal thing from my perspective would be for Johnson to speak and for the transcript of the talk to be published at Counter-Currents, after which I can perform a thorough fisking of it.  One hopes that Johnson will publish the text of what he was going to say when he gets back. Since the conference was, I believe, promoting the anti-White, pro-Jewish, treasonous, yellow supremacist HBD cult, no doubt there would be plenty to criticize. Again, even though I consider the conference to have been a genocidal attack against White interests, we should respect free speech and let the yellow supremacists speak. Let them expose themselves, after which they can be criticized.

Thus, the action of the Norwegian authorities is despicable, and EGI Notes supports, 100%, Johnson’s right to attend and speak at Scandza, despite that I expect I would disagree with what he would say.  But that’s what free speech is all about, and if EGI Notes supports free speech, it has to be for everyone…even Johnson.

Perhaps at this point Johnson will realize that I (and Hood) are correct and that metapolitics without politics is a dead end.  Let us assume for the moment (and I know that this is a stretch) that Johnson’s speech would have been unvarnished truth, something of the highest utility.  It doesn’t matter. The System in Norway has the monopoly of force and there is no one there, no real opposition with any political power whatsoever, who is able to effectively intervene on his behalf.

Metapolitics and politics must be synergistic.  You have to have both. The metapolitics assists in the success in the political realm, and success in the political realm creates the environment in which metapolitical work can be more effective. The cycle has to begin at some point however, and gibbering about Yogi Bear and the Men Who Can’t Tell Time is not the way to do it.

What would be a better way?

At the moment, we are therefore looking at the possibility of taking legal action against Filter Nyheter.

Actually, that is something I would actually support all you guys giving “D’Nations” for – the only thing in fact.  That is at least practical political action, politics in its broadest sense as activity in relation to power.  Filter Nyheter engaged in politics in getting Johnson barred from the conference, arrested, and presumably deported.  Johnson should therefore engage in politics in taking action against Filter Nyheter.  That’s politics.  If Filter Nyheter merely criticized Johnson’s views, and, for example, challenged him to a debate, that would be metapolitics; on the other hand, utilizing the power of the state to silence Johnson is politics.  A response of legal action would also be politics.  Truth and facts are insufficient if the other side is willing, and able, to use force to silence that truth and censor those facts.

See this.

Scandza triple vets its attendees…

1. Are you Nordic?

2. Are you Swedish?

3. Are you Northwest European?

Extra bonus question: Can you fog a mirror held up to your nose?

Seriously though, something is wrong there.  The “triple vetting” is a failure or you got a mole or Antifa is so entrenched in society that they have the venue or other third party actors tipping them off.  The first two probabilities are more likely.

…to ensure that the venue is kept confidential but both in Copenhagen and in Oslo, the word appears to have got out.

You think?

As I have recently written, there is a time-honored method for identifying leaks.  It’s no secret. There’s a Wikipedia page on the method.  I’m sure all you big-brained societal consensus guys can figure it out. Unless some of those guys themselves are also infiltrators – how high up is the rot?  Start reading or watching (the miniseries not the move) Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy.  Either the “triple vetting” is majestically flawed or you got a mole, guys. Or both.

SINCERITY.net
I did not feel safe to enter the Copenhagen Scandza meeting. I could have gotten a police escort to get in. I was, though, concerned about how to get back out of the conference, and about being recognized, photographed, and targeted. Antifa is known to beat up people on their way back home, on railway stations etc. I lost time and expenses of a 3 day trip to Copenhagen, plus conference fees, without joining. I can imagine that Oslo could become worse.
It is shocking that Antifa is organized enough to get their spies among the highly vetted people and arrive in force before the actually invited people can make it. In spite of precautions like secret service spy meeting, with several intermediate stops and last moment further email messages.
If there are reports and videos out from last meeting, please send me the info here. We are also mirroring Colin Flaherty videos to vk DOT com/colinflaherty and to bitchute. We hope Scandza also will not put all their stakes into youtube.

Note: “It is shocking that Antifa is organized enough to get their spies among the highly vetted people and arrive in force before the actually invited people can make it.”

Note how the Left infiltrates the Far Right with ease…the “extreme triple vetting” means nothing – it is as if there is no vetting at all. This tells me that A) the vetting is flawed (from the analog and/or digital perspective) and/or B) the infiltration goes way up the ladder, perhaps including people doing the vetting and organizing. There are leaks somewhere, there is an error in the operational security somewhere.  I would suggest that dealing with this is the first priority.  Also note that the Right is not only helpless in preventing its own infiltration, but is helpless when it comes to infiltrating the Left (a seeming impossibility for the Right to achieve).  Further note that Frodi’s assurances that the Copenhagen fiasco was a special case because a Danish political figure was invited, and that we should not assume Antifa would show the same interest elsewhere, seems to be, not surprisingly, completely wrong.

Accountability?  Or are we so used to these guys being wrong all the time – always, always wrong, about virtually everything – that we just give it a pass?

Race, Primer, and Der Movement

Welcome to July.

Primer movie – with subtitles that will get the HBDers and the Silkers all hot and bothered.

How the movie was made; note budget and crew size.

Filming

Principal photography took place over five weeks, on the outskirts of Dallas, Texas. The film was produced on a budget of only USD$7,000, and a skeleton crew of five. Carruth acted as writer, director, producer, cinematographer, editor, and music composer. He also stars in the film as Aaron, and many of the other characters are played by his friends and family. The small budget required conservative use of the Super 16mm filmstock: the carefully limited number of takes resulted in an extremely low shooting ratio of 2:1. Every shot in the film was meticulously storyboarded on 35mm stills. Carruth created a distinctive flat, overexposed look for the film by using fluorescent lighting, non-neutral color temperatures, high-speed film stock, and filters

Director/actor commentary on how the film was made.

What’s the point of this for Der Movement? A critically acclaimed and thoughtful independent film was produced with $7,000 – a drop in the bucket with respect to “movement” “D’Nations” – with a small film crew and many characters played by friends and family.  It would seem that the heroic “movement” should have the resources – certainly the money – to produce low budget quality films that have race-oriented storylines. After all, with all the big-brained, high-trust, superior ubermenschen leading the way, certainly we have the visionaries and drivers in charge to accomplish such goals, right?  We have been told that “movement” organizations are “getting things done,” so certainly $7,000 films are just waiting to be released, right?  You all just need to spend a bit less on this and you’ll have all the shekels you need to produce a steady stream of quality productions.

And now more general comments on race and Der Movement:

An Asian I can support.  Note that the Dalai Lama has also previously made remarks in favor of European preservationism.  Is that yet another reason (apart from the Tibet issue) that he is opposed by China (the favorite nation of the HBDers and the Silkers)?  After all, White has to decline so Yellow can rise, correct? The Occident must wane so that the Orient can wax.  Hail HBD!  Hail Silk Road White nationalism!  Hail China!  Hail!

Quota Queen promotes a fraud.  What else is new in Der Movement?

RT, and comment, if you are tired of mendacious Quota Queens who never admit they were wrong about Trump.

Note for the Queenies: Your God Emperor, the “last chance for White America,” is the President, the head of federal law enforcement.  It is only a slight exaggeration to say he can end the reign of terror overnight; most accurate to say he can, overnight, take steps definitely leading to ending the terror.  Same difference.  He does nothing.  He either doesn’t care that his own supporters are being attacked in the streets, and sent to the hospital, with impunity; or he actually approves of it.

Can you imagine what Trump’s DOJ would do to any American “Neo-Nazis” that did anything even remotely similar to this?  Antifa Don Trump: America’s first Antifa President.  The fact that the pathetic losers who have supported Trump in lickspittle fashion for years have not been held to account proves the truth of all I’ve written about Der Movement’s affirmative action policy.

By the way, my question to Kevin Strom yesterday about Der Movement’s affirmative action program still stands.  Come on, Kevin, you were on of the few people, like me, who called out Trump as a fraud before the election.  You can now have the moral courage to call out the “movement’s” quota system – the sooner you do it, the better for the cause you have dedicated your life to.

The State of the Press

Sigh.

Read this.

I’m of two minds here.  On the one hand, my major impulse, and strong belief, is that no one broadly on “our side” should talk to the Press. I see no percentage in it and it inevitably ends badly (as it did here). On the other hand, Taylor is probably the best spokesman Der Movement has right now, so if you guys want anyone speaking for you, it would be him (*).

But this episode demonstrates, once again, that you simply cannot trust the Press, and that my major impulse was and is correct and that dealing with the Press under circumstances in which they have to be trusted is simply bad judgment.

I would advise “movement leaders” to refuse such offers unless the Press is willing to sign off on a legally binding document that constrains their ability to smear and distort – for example. forbidding them to use words like “hate” or “White Supremacy” or ‘White Supremacists,” etc. and preventing them from running the interview without the prior approval of the interviewee (so that what will be presented is an accurate reflection of reality). If they violate the pact, then sue. Taylor won against the state of Tennessee allowing his conference to go forward without ruinous security fees, so using the court system to remediate an ironclad breach of contract, with respect to an agreement with the Press, is not impossible.

The argument would be: “The Press would never agree to those conditions.”  Very well, so be it. If they refuse to agree, doesn’t that clearly indicate the strong possibility that they plan to use smears and distortions?  If they refuse a reasonably worded and not overly restrictive agreement, then you are better off not doing it.

And this underscores the need for racialists to have their own media (in all its forms) and other infrastructure, instead of relying on a hostile System.

As far as the White-hating Asian (more simply: Asian) Zakaria goes, I’ve written about him before (if memory serves, most prominently during my time at Majority Rights), and I have to say he has always reminded me of the Clement Dio character from The Camp of the Saints.  Zakaria is in my opinion one of the filthiest pieces of absolute vile scum imaginable.

And as far as Zakaria’s moronic statements on race, the “movement” would probably be better positioned to effectively argue against that if it had as allies genuine STEM people (particularly in the broad field of biology) instead of alienating such people and driving them away.  Hint: Lynn, Rushton, et al. are/were not in my opinion STEM or scientists of any kind, but politicized hacks.  Do better.

*I’ve written before how the System has been ignoring folks like Taylor in favor of more inept spokesmen. That they are turning to Taylor now suggests that they have an agenda to discredit him as the lone reasonable voice among the bunch or they’ve simply run out of alternatives with the utter collapse of the Alt Right.  Or did they try to get other people and were refused?