Category: Le Brun

Ben Raymond and Greg Johnson

Interesting podcast.

I finally was able to listen to the Ben Raymond-Greg Johnson podcast. Raymond made a very favorable impression on me and I wish him and National Action well.

I agree with 99% of what I heard.  Only two areas of disagreement.

First, the idea was put forth that we on the far-Right should not criticize our fellows on the Right; if we disagree with their approach, we should merely do better and let our success speak for itself – a “Darwinian” method of outcompeting, rather than directly critiquing, one’s opponents in the “movement.”

At one time I agreed with that.  Unfortunately, it does not seem to work. There is no accountability in the “movement,” decades of failure are excused or misdiagnosed as some sort of bizarre “success,” activists engage in personality cult followings of failed “movement” leaders, and the affirmative action policy in the “movement” protects many of these failures from being held to account for the damage they’ve done, while at the same time preventing others from actualizing their own, potentially superior, ideas as part of any so-called “Darwinian competition.”  The “game” is fixed and until that changes I see it necessary to critique the “movement” and related precincts of the Right.

Second, Raymond’s comments about the advantages American activists allegedly have in terms of “free speech” ignores the specter of social pricing in America, far more potent than in Europe.  This was discussed previously by Le Brun and Johnson and Raymond needs to understand that in certain ways America is more repressive than Europe.  For godssakes, even a billionaire political candidate, the leading candidate of the GOP, cannot hold a rally in a major American city.  Free speech?

By the way, one point of agreement is the criticism of mainstreaming in the podcast.  Cue the “pink panther” music and exit, stage left, one French mainstreamer….

Again Refuting Ethnonationalist Mendacity

Against narrow ethnic nationalism.


“But Vox did seem to be saying that most White Americans would more likely than not identify with a single national-ethnic identity rather than the broader racial identity White”

That’s the sort of nonsense that I’ve spent years refuting over and over again, apparently to no avail.
There are solid reasons for differences in the “success” (*) of ethnoracial nationalism between the USA and Europe, other than the majestic “superiority” of narrow ethnonationalism. These include but are not limited to:
1. The greater professionalism and competence of leadership and membership cadres in Europe.

2. Within Europe itself, continental Europe has always had more developed nationalist parties and movements than the UK, for reasons which are likely deeply rooted in cultural and historical phenomena. The overseas anglosphere, including the USA, have seemed to inherit the more muted propensity for nationalism of the UK.

3. As discussed by Le Brun in a podcast, social pricing is much weaker in Europe than in the USA. Yes, Europe has “hate speech laws” but I believe that social pricing is a far more potent force in stifling dissent. Even with factor #2, if you relieved social pricing in the USA, racial nationalism would flourish. But defeating social pricing would require real leadership (see #1).

4. In America, social pricing is strictly reserved for White racial activism, which is what the System fears.  You want to organize an Irish-American, German-American, Italian-American, etc, club at your school or place of business?  No problem!  Looked on benignly.  Organize a European-American club?  Oy vey, the racism!  Then Day’s SJW’s would really come out. Don’t you think people know this?  Don’t you think we need to break that barrier to have success?
*I put “success” in scare quotes because people are grossly overestimating the power of ethnonationalism in Europe where an outright invasion by young NEC and African males is being greeted with the enthusiasm of a sex starved female virgin getting screwed by a lustful alpha male.

More on Advice for Young White Men

Podcast.
This was another excellent Johnson-Le Brun podcast.  I have already critiqued many of the ideas presented here.  A few further comments, some of which overlap with my past analysis.

I found the last part of the talk the section for which I had the most agreement.  We need collective action, we need tribalism, we need networking, we need reliability, and we need to eschew the defectives.  The problem with all of that is no one actually wants to do it: culling the anti-racist trolls, conspiracy-theorists, Aryans from Atlantis types from being taken seriously, from being allowed to comment on blog threads – that would be a small start, a tiny step, but no one wants even to do that. And the only folks I see trying to community build are the “neckbeard” types and you are not going to have fully functional communities with the “top 20%” with that leadership, more likely you’ll get the “bottom 10%.”  Also, the “ethnic affirmative action policy” of the “movement” needs to end, but that would necessitate jettisoning the whole Gunther-Pierce-Kemp sci-fi/fantasy school of racial thought, and the “movement” seems to have too much invested in those memes to make a clean break.
Other points:
As advertised, the talk is aimed at young White men.  Older folks will not gain anything very useful from this advice.
Unlike Brun, I am no fan of Greene’s work, which I find internally inconsistent, too abstract, and not realistic for many real-life situations.  I have already written on this in detail, so I need not repeat myself. It’s real utility is to identify manipulative techniques of others (in that way it is useful in some real-life situations), but I would not use it as a primer for your own behavior.
Also, if we are to find niches to suit our strengths and personalities: some people are, by nature, introverted, highly moralistic, sarcastic, grouchy, etc.  There are indeed careers and activities well suited for such types, dismissing them as “Debbie Downers” is casually juvenile, particularly when such people can provide valuable insights and harsh truth-telling when such is required.  Rather a reliable and intelligent and productive pessimist than a cheerfully moronic and useless optimist.
Certainly, in most circumstances, one should not mix politics with work, in the sense of an offensive (in the military, not moral, sense) direct promotion of White nationalism.  But, in the name of “democratic multiculturalism,” there may be ways of “monkey wrenching” the System independent of openly declaring racialist views.  If you are being racially abused and discriminated against AND you are in a position to (relatively safely, even in some cases anonymously at first) protest against it, then do so.  You are not doing it as an open and declared opponent to multiculturalism, quite the contrary, you are basically challenging the multiculturalists to take their own rhetoric at face value and to take their ideology to its logical conclusion: everyone is obsessed with their “identity” and everyone is “discriminated against” and everyone “has a problem that needs to be solved.”  The point is: do not make yourself the problem, instead very patiently and very carefully spin your web so as to make the multiculturalists the problem.  Imagine: the high priests of diversity at “Company X” revealed as “hateful racist and sexist bigots!”  Of course, to be successful, one needs to have the “right touch,” extreme patience (it may take months or even years of slow and careful effort), one must be a clever counter-puncher, and one must have the sure instinct of how far one can go and when one should back off.  It’s not for everyone and not for every situation, but the same can be said of the Johnson-Le Brun advice. If your situation falls into the category in which “democratic multiculturalism” is possible, do so.

I wonder if some of Le Brun’s comments on strategic thinking and cunning subterfuge was meant as an endorsement of Le Pen’s mainstreaming; however, I think Le Brun would agree that the “proof the pudding” here is the outcome.  If Le Pen succeeds in genuinely advancing racial nationalism (even if indirectly) one could in part forgive (but not forget) some of her “transgressions;” however, in the absence of such success, then this “mainstreaming” would be a pragmatic failure in addition to being a moral disgrace.
In general, however, the Johnson-Le Brun advice is sound.

Advice for Young White Men

Generally sound.
In general, I approve of this essay by Le Brun.  Given that social pricing is one of the System’s most powerful weapons – at least here in America – any sort of practical advice as to how to evade its effects is helpful.  Of course, as the title suggests, this advice is targeted to younger White men who are more or else starting out, not for those who are older and for who “that ship has sailed.”  
Of course, in addition to this advice, and of use for Whites of all ages, is to build socioeconomic structures that can protect our folk in times of stress (including social pricing).  The two approaches can be complementary: Whites who use Le Brun’s advice can first make themselves more impregnable, and then link up with others to begin to form a network.
The only real issue I see with the essay is the promotion of Greene’s book.  Now, if Le Brun is, as is probable from my reading of the essay, suggesting that Greene’s book is a useful outline to learn how others may try to manipulate you, all well and good. But I would be hesitant to recommend it as any sort of serious blueprint for self-actualization, based on my reading. This has nothing at all to do with “moral” concerns.  I care not about that, as my own moral standards differ fundamentally from that of the general society. Instead, I have some practical and intellectual objections. Three basic problems:
1. A fraction of the suggestions in the book are fundamentally contradictory to other suggestions in the same book.  The lack of internal consistency turned me off to the author; the book reads like a crude first draft, one never proofed for consistency, style, etc.
2. If a person tries to follow the book’s precepts as if it were an instruction manual (essentially, the book’s tone), I think their efforts and agenda will be a bit too transparent for their more intelligent colleagues and competitors.  Fooling the rubes and masses is one thing; fooling those who are more relevant to “politics” is another.  Amusingly, I once knew a fellow who was enacting the book’s instructions (I actually discovered he was reading the book at the time; he left a copy where an observant individual could see. A paranoid person may say he did that on purpose as a form of deep manipulation; I believe he was just careless).  His transparency and rigidness left him open to counter-manipulation, which afforded to me many days of amusement.  Eventually, the situation evolved to one in which mutual self-interest was discovered (one of the book’s pieces of advice that are sound), and further “games” became superfluous. A warning: just because those in your circle seem to be ensnared in your web of “48 powers” doesn’t mean that at least one of them isn’t just “giving you enough rope” and waiting for you to slip up. Or is just “jerking you around” for their own agenda or amusement.
Which leads to a related objection: humans being humans, even a relatively successful “politician” will muck things up, and when things go off script, it can be messy.  Master politician Bill Clinton couldn’t keep his pants on. Nixon was paranoid and self-destructive.  Eschewing the path of pure sociopathy is not for “moral” purposes – it is wise as well.  Following the precepts of the book will create for its disciple dedicated enemies, waiting for the inevitable slip-up.  One needs to be able to think on their feet and have an instinctive feel for the possibilities; when the inevitable slip-up occurs, following Greene’s script may not help.
3. Some of Greene’s advice is highly context dependent.  During Stalin’s purges (to use an extreme example), drawing attention to yourself and taking credit for the actions of subordinates would likely lead to a bullet in the base of the neck, while riding out the storm in relative isolation would be more prudent (to a paranoid like Stalin, the fact that a person would have a cohort of friends/supporters would make them more, not less, likely targets of persecution, since they would be more likely competitors).  At a more mundane level, there can sometimes be advantages to crafty isolation, combined with clever counter-punching.  At times, one can fake an emotional response, in order to draw out an opponent.  Many times, creating chaos (especially if done anonymously or with plausible deniability) is useful: stir things up and sit back and watch reactions of friends and foes alike.
I’ve seen many people using Greene’s tactics (not saying they necessarily read the book like the case discussed above, but that they use some of the tactics Greene describes), have temporary success, but then it backfires for the reasons I discuss here.
I’ll refrain from going to much into the ad hominem direction, but one can ask why Greene hasn’t parlayed his knowledge of power into greater personal success, and why he finds it necessary to share the knowledge with others (for pay, as I assume he has earned money from the book), rather than rising up to high political office, CEO, etc.

Vanguard View of Counter Currents Radio, 1/31/15

Brief reply.
Johnson and Le Brun create interesting content (at least so far), and even when I disagree with their assessments, these podcasts have been useful.
Comments on this one:
Le Pen.  I do not agree with the Le Pen cheerleading, and as one of the “vanguardists” who have been critical of her (calling her a “piece of shit” can reasonably be seen as critical), I have a few words to say. Let’s take the Golden Dawn issue. Look, I don’t expect that Marine Le Pen, dressed in a SS uniform, will stride into a press conference, yell “Hail Golden Dawn,” and gave a Nazi salute.  But there seems to me to be a middle ground between that and endorsing the pro-immigrant, anti-Greek, anti-European far-Left.  What if Le Pen said the following:
“Unfortunately, there is no one in the upcoming Greek election I can endorse. I certainly can never support the Greek Left, who stand for mass migration and the destruction of Greek and European identity. But the Greek Right also does not share our values and is completely different from us in the FN.*  So, I don’t endorse or support anyone there. I am French, and not Greek, and it is not my place to tell the Greek people how to vote. However, I do hope that someday a FN-like party will arise in Greece with whom we can work.”

*Note: This has the additional benefit of actually being true.

If she had said that, I would not be thrilled, but neither would I have labelled her a “piece of shit.” The statement above would I believe be sufficient to satisfy mainstreaming needs, without having the dishonor (and the raised eyebrows on the international Right) of actually supporting Greek Marxists (while at the same time denying any solidarity with the Greek Right). If you can’t take the right side, then don’t take any side.
What happens if after all this mainstreaming, she never comes to power?  What benefit then the evisceration of a legitimate French far-Right?  Or what if she comes to power and governs from the middle?  The danger in depending on mainstreaming to get into power is that you depend on it to remain in power. If she’s afraid of offending mainstream voters, the Jews, the European intelligentsia, and all the rest, what guarantee is there that if elected she isn’t going to jettison function for expediency?  
Entryism. The whole idea that moderate racialism, like Amren, serves as an entry point for more hardcore activism is not backed up by any hard data.  This would seem to be a topic that mainstream anti-fascist scholars like Griffin should take a look at. He does the running and we slipstream behind him, and use his findings for our benefit.
WNs teaching their children.  Greg Johnson asserts that older WNs intentionally avoid passing their ideology to their children. That be true in some cases, but in other cases, people may do in fact try to pass on their ideology but fail since they cannot compete with the concentrated propaganda of the educational system, the media, pop culture, and peer pressure. It would be helpful if the “movement” could produce materials useful for the education of modern youth. Of course, such material should not include such “movement” staples as:  Aryans from Atlantis, King Tut as Dolph Lundgren, any mention at all of Savitri Devi or Julius Evola, “Meds” and Slavs as cringing subhumans, anyone as a “man above time” or “man beyond time,” obsessions about cephalic indices or admixture coefficients, Hyperborea and Madame Blavatsky, bizarre conspiracy theories – in other words, 99% of “movement” material would be inappropriate.

Anti-Zionist parties in France.  Regardless of the utility of that approach, if the Jews and their fellow travellers continue restricting speech in Europe, that approach would be off the table, Even the Le Penite mainstreamers should beware that even their moderate platforms become criminalized. Therefore, I will continue speaking out on the free speech issue, snide remarks from Counter Currents commentators notwithstanding.

Other issues. I agree with Johnson about right-wing populism and freedom of speech. Unfortunately, no one in America seems interested in the former, and no one in Europe with the latter.

The System vs. Democratic Multiculturalism

Further analysis.
I would like to further explore some aspects and implications of the idea of “democratic multiculturalism” – the idea supported by Salter and Duchesne that Whites need to play the multicultural game by demanding a “seat at the table” while resolutely demanding that White identity and interests be taken seriously by the regime.  My contribution to the debate was advocating that Whites become as loud and obnoxious in this regard as are the Others, constantly pushing memes of anti-White discrimination and forcing the diversity-mongers to take their ideals at face value instead of as a thinly disguised grab for Other-Power.
This has of course prompted the usual outcry from the peanut gallery of the pathetic “movement” – this strategy is “weak” and it “dishonors our ancestors.”  As if the current “movement,” with its decades of unending failure, tragicomic buffoonery, complete infiltration by System operatives, and unrelenting stupidity, is something that “our ancestors” would be very proud of. Those complaints demonstrate that the complainer is too stupid to discern that the strategy outlined is “means” not “ends” – it is, simply put, a form of sociopolitical ju-jitsu to undermine the multiculturalist system by forcing that system to live up to is own ideals down the slippery slope to chaos, or be exposed as hollow and hypocritical.  Stating this openly is not a problem, since the System will know it anyway; the point is to press the issue in such a way as to create a “heads we win, tails they lose” scenario so that the System fails regardless of how they attempt to address the issue.
Consider that multiculturalism is based on the “ideal” of minority collectivist mobilization and majority atomization and passivity. Minorities will continue to be mobilized; that is the first principle of multiculturalism, even more fundamental than majority passivity.  Minority mobilization is a given (and we would wish it so, since minority passivity would lead to full assimilation and miscegenation even faster than currently, and would lull Whites to sleep even more than now). Therefore, the key to destabilize the System is majority mobilization. To mobilize Whites, one needs to give them something to get mobilized about. Like it or not, in today’s Last Man society, the White masses will not get mobilized to “honor their ancestors” or to “actualize a High Culture.”  The far-Right pro-White elites may be so motivated today, and, in a future state run according to our principles, the masses would follow the path of honor and greatness.  But today? Today, Whites need to be mobilized through grievance, through racial self-interest, through anger, through exposure of anti-White discrimination, through the entire immersion of Whites in a self-discovery of identity through the same paths followed by other groups in the morass of multiculturalism.
At this point, we need to consider some of the possible ways the System may attempt to derail the strategy of democratic multiculturalism. The following is in no way a comprehensive analysis, but a brief survey, to stimulate further thought, analysis, and refinement.  Please note this applies mostly to the American situation, the situation in Europe is quite different. Europe has rigid speech control laws (which activists there need to overturn), while, at the same time, having relatively weak social pricing.  In America, we have the opposite:  de jure free speech, coupled with de facto control due to intense social pricing.
The System would either Refuse or Accept the place of Whites as full partners at the multicultural table. Refusal is more likely than acceptance, at least at the early stage.  Both refusal or acceptance can be turned to our benefit.  However, at the same time, the System would attempt to manipulate both refusal or acceptance in ways beneficial to their side.  How could they do so and what could be our response?
With respect to Refusal, there could be: Ignoring, Ridicule, Argumentation, Social Pricing.
Ignoring is the easiest to deal with in the long run, although it may seem daunting in the short run. If we are to believe our own propaganda, then the situation for Whites will become more dire, more unpleasant, with the passing of time. We must persevere in our attempts to speak out, to ask Whites why their legitimate concerns are ignored.  We should look at “ignoring” as an opportunity: an empty niche to fill with our own voice.  Granted, that voice has to be reasonable, and not full of “movement” Nutzis ranting about cephalic indices, 0.15% “admixtures,” Evola and Savitri Devi, Atlantis, Hitler as the man above time, or other crackpot stupidities.
Ridicule is a potent weapon, since we live in “the age of snark.” We should expect the System to mobilize its celebrities, comedy routines, quick-witted levantines, smug politicians, etc. to mock the idea that “privileged Whites” could possibly have any problems. They would prey upon right-wing insecurities about “looking weak,” “being beta,” or “dishonoring our ancestors,” as if a stoic “stiff upper lip” while your race and civilization is being destroyed, as if “sitting poolside,” as if doing nothing – as if all of that is somehow “strong and honorable.”  Winning honors our ancestors; losing disgraces them.  Do what you have to do to win.  Persevere through the ridicule.  Again: if we believe our own propaganda, the situation for Whites will deteriorate to a point that I guarantee that, eventually, they will not find anti-White ridicule funny at all. We can ask why is the System mocking your legitimate suffering?  Why are your legitimate interests ridiculed?  Why is your identity a joke? And, most important: we absolutely must use the weapon of ridicule against our opponents. They are far more vulnerable in that regard, objectively speaking. It’s just that they have the “megaphone” and we do not.  Getting our message out will be a challenge.
Argumentation will be used, the standard leftist boilerplate about “White privilege” and the usual sociological nonsense.  In a “fair fight,” we could easily defeat our opponents in any such debate (provided we keep the Nutzis gibbering among themselves in a corner, where they belong). The problem is inherent in the other components of Refusal: having the power and the “megaphone,” the System could Ignore or Ridicule our Argumentation, or subject our representatives to Social Pricing. So, we can win Argumentation only to the extent that we can solve these other issues and create a more level playing field.  In any sort of “fair fight,” intelligent and rational racialists would wipe the floor with their opponents; the System knows this, which is why such a “fair fight” is not allowed. We must struggle to obtain it.
Social Pricing is in the long run the most difficult problem we face. Le Brun stated as much in a podcast, talking to Greg Johnson. In Europe, the social system does a better job of protecting folks from social pricing, while in “free market” America, such protection does not exist. Ultimately, we need to build an infrastructure of sufficient breadth and depth so as to make social pricing a weaker weapon of the System. Unfortunately, the pathetic “movement,” with its incompetent affirmative action leadership, shows no signs of doing so or even of acknowledging that such is necessary. Decades of time, money, and support have been wasted by “movement” trash and their “Der Tag” apocalyptic fantasies.  The truth is far more mundane and less “heroic.”  The “movement” won’t want to hear it. I’ll say it anyway. In my opinion, the real “turning point” will NOT be when “Whites storm the ramparts” or whatever other doomsday scenario whets the onanistic fantasies of the “movement” – instead, the turning point will be when overt pro-White activists can safely and securely live a comfortable middle-class existence while simultaneously being public far-Right representatives of White interests.  I can only imagine the “movement” reaction to that.  All the keyboard warriors will get lathered up into a frenzy over the “dishonor” and “pettiness” of such a statement.  By golly, we need to “head for the mountains” and “smash the System,” while playing “Rambo” and eating twigs and branches.  That’ll show ’em!  I hope sane and rational minds will consider my proposed “turning point” and realize I’m right about that. 
What about Acceptance?  What if the System says, yes, White Identity and Interests can be part of multiculturalism?  What then?  If they do so, it will be for the purpose of co-opting our strategy, from putting forth bogus “White leaders,” masters of the “implicit Whiteness” game, to lead Whites into a sterile cul-de-sac in which mild complaining will be allowed, System representatives  will pretend to listen, and all else goes on as before.  Thus, Co-Opting/Selling Out is the major System ploy I expect in the event they at same point choose the Acceptance option. They would try to defuse White anger by faux concessions, transparent ploys that would be accepted by the fake leaders and thus also accepted by the not-too-bright masses (the same masses routinely hoodwinked by the GOP).  The answer here is to have disciplined, sincere, vetted, visionary leaders who know how to expose the phony leaders, who would demand that only genuine pro-White leadership be representatives of Whites at the multicultural table, leaders who understand the difference between means and ends, and who have their eyes fixed on the endgame – destabilization of the multicultural system.
For White mobilization under genuine leadership will be the death knell for multiculturalism, the harbinger of chaos.  Minorities, nurtured in an atmosphere of self-righteous racial-moral posturing, who believe they have a birthright monopoly on racial mobilization, these folks would never accept White mobilization. Whites standing up for themselves as Whites is the ultimate blasphemy for Coloreds and White Leftists, the Original Sin (which is why the System would, I think, prefer Refusal if they could get away with it).  And the more angry the Coloreds/Leftists get, the more White Identity will become hardened, the more the societal divisions will fossilize into balkanization, the more untenable the whole situation will be.
Chaos!  Our ancestors would be honored by that; the conflict would inflame their blood.  Let’s do it.