Category: Left vs. Right

In Der News: 9/10/17

News, news, news.

Also see this.

And then we have this.

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

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


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

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

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

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

Well said.

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

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


Bowden: Never Apologize

Mostly wise words.

There’s some good material here.  First, a concise and useful contrast between Right and Left – not based on “economics” – but based on the (true) Right’s belief in inequality and hierarchy, while the Left is obsessed with a false egalitarian equality.

Bowden rightly advises to never apologize, not to “say sorry” to justify forceful action. He includes not apologizing when being called “fascist” – indeed, he tells us that there nothing is wrong with fascism, a point certain elements in the “movement” cannot accept.  True, there are activists who truly are not in any way fascist, and that should be respected; in addition, no doubt there are tactical reasons why, at specific times (and those times only), true fascists should be prudent in displaying their ardent fascism.  But in general, many people in the “movement” (whether they know it or not or accept it or not) are fascists (broadly defined) of one sort or another (including national socialists; national socialism being – dissenters to the contrary – a race-based form of fascism).  These activists should accept the label and, as Bowden suggests, never apologize.

The only discordant chord for me is the part about resentment.  After all, resentment over real victimhood can be a powerful force, and, if used tactically via democratic multiculturalism, can be utilized as an approach to increase power.  There is a difference between mobilizing resentment (and hatred) for actualizing power, and wallowing in victimhood and beseeching for pity.

A Rose By Any Other Name

Labels are not as important as that which is labeled.

A while back, I read this in pamphlet form.

Now, I don’t agree with how the author defines “Right” and “Left” (more about that shortly) and I don’t agree with some of the ideology espoused there. This latter point is – or should be – more important; ideology is more important than the labels used to describe it.  On the one hand, the author is correct in opposing activists who are so obsessed with being considered “right-wing” that they make common cause with viewpoints that are anathema to their own racialist ideology.  On the other hand, he is wrong with trying to obsessively create a similarly false “left-wing” identity for national socialism; he is equally guilty of being overly concerned with labels, with style over substance.

There is a weakness among Whites – most likely due to long being denied the right to embrace their racial and cultural identities – in being so overly emotionally invested in superficial (sometimes “implicitly White”) identities so that this emotionality blinds them to the maladaptive aspects of their behavior.  Whites obsess over sports teams full of arrogant Negro athletes (usually with White wives/girlfriends) and, more to the point, Whites engage in politics as if It was sports, with identification with “our team” and “their team” often independent of real and meaningful ideological content.  Being so concerned with labels that one supports racially destructive memes is an example of maladaptive behavior.  Even being obsessed with labels of constructive memes can be maladaptive if one spends more energy defending the labels than defending the memes.

The mendacious know how to exploit this weakness.  Thus, cuckservatives love to accuse opponents of “not being true conservatives” or “not being Ronald Reagan conservatives” or they accuse the Alt Right of being – gasp! – “leftists” – with the presumable objective of wounding the right-wing self-conception of these opponents, so those people, desperate to recapture their “rightist identity,” will recant their “blasphemy” and plead to be readmitted to the “conservative fold.”  Those accusations are likely even more targeted to third party observers, with the implicit threat of “if you support those populists-racialists-nationalists then you too will be considered as ‘leftists’ and ‘not true conservatives” – a fate worse than death for those whose existential meaning is wrapped up with identification with being “conservative” and “right-wing.”  Similarly, on a blog I was involved with 10-12 years ago, a conservative “social scientist” would try to win arguments (typically against me) by labeling opponents’ opinions as “leftist.”  My response, if I recall, was to simply state: “OK, I’m a leftist, now address the issues.”

True, I typically label my views as “Far-Right” and I do so for two reasons. First, it is for the sake of clarity and convenience when summarizing these views – national socialist, fascist, racial nationalist – in a “political shorthand” that is commonly accepted by most people on the both the “Right” and the “Left.”  This is analogous to using “White” as shorthand for “peoples of European descent.”  Second, and in contrast to the author of the work linked above, I do not define “Right/Left” in terms of reactionary vs. revolutionary, nor do I accept purely economic or political definitions.  A more metapolitical definition that I support – and that is more economical with facts and aligned with how the terms are actualized in reality – is to associate the Right with hierarchy and difference and inequality and the Left with egalitarianism and obsessive equality at any cost and a leveling universalism.  Hence, my ideology is at the far extreme of the “Right” despite the fact that some of my views – on economics for example – are more “leftist.”  But, and this is the key point, I have no emotional investment in my labeling of my views.  It is merely a tool, merely shorthand, merely a consequence of the definitions I use, and if others want to label my views as “leftist” then, fine, I’m a “leftist.” There is a difference between labeling as a tool and labeling as an identity.  The former is a normal part of everyday life; the latter is foolish and childish. In the end, I care about the actual ideology and its consequences with respect to my biocentric view of racial life, not about the labels used to identify the ideology.

I also realize that in the end my definition of “Right/Left” is as subjective as all the others.  I believe my definition is more reflective of reality, but there is no hardcore objectivity in political labels.  More important, it shouldn’t really matter.  There are those who – perhaps because of their Asiaphilia – are likely more familiar with Confucius than with Shakespeare and who are not in tune with the attitude behind “a rose by any other name….”   To observe individuals spill gallons of “digital ink” analyzing the use of “Right” vs. “Left” labels, to see ideologically similar individuals engage in acrimonious debate over such labels, to read rambling theses about “White Leftism” – this reflects ideological immaturity.  If one is brought down to the level of endlessly debating the labels to be given to views, it is high time to put the labels aside and concentrate on actual differences in views, ideologies, and proposals – and not in highly abstract theoretical terms but in how these views would be, or should be, actualized into reality.

These people like labels?  Let’s use labels – by wasting time with labels and with academic abstractions, those on the “Right” (a label as defined by me) are constantly outcompeted by those on the “Left” (another label as defined by me), the latter group being more concerned with winning and achieving their objectives than with a juvenile concern with how others label them.  You can label a rose as a sewer and label a sewer as a rose, but that is not going to change how each smells.  There is of course a need for clarity of definition and a need to avoid dangerous mislabeling – if one wants a rose then they don’t want a sewer – but defining terms should be a direct and efficient process for reasonable people.  If there is a need to spend months – or years! – debating definitions and labels then something is wrong.  The people involved are being stupid, stubborn, mendacious, maladaptive, or are engaging in avoidance behavior – engaging in fruitless and sterile argument over abstractions because of an inability or unwillingness to come to grips with harsh reality. When leading troops into battle, one needs to make sure there is agreement over the meaning of labels and definitions, and then one does what they need to do.  Soldiers who endlessly debate the meaning of a “flanking movement” will quickly find themselves outflanked by an enemy who ended their debate long before.  In the end, actualized reality trumps abstract defining and labeling every time, without fail.

Race in the News, 9/13/16

Germans and Negroes.

I assume there will not be any breathless VDARE posts about that.

Right vs Left: after the most minuscule of “wins” the Right declares victory and goes home, to celebrate among a plethora of “we’ve arrived!” and Pepe cartoons; the Left posts real WINS and then they roll up their sleeves and grimly march forward, never satisfied and always demanding more.

Guess who is advancing and who is declining?

EGI Notes prediction: Merkel will be easily re-elected.  Germans will joyfully flock to the streets in celebration over a mass increase in the refugee/migrant influx, with German women cheerfully submitting to being sexually assaulted by marauding gangs of NEC savages.  Any German who refuses to join in the celebration will be arrested and charged with a hate crime.

Yeah, Adam Jones, you retarded turd: those poor “people of color” don’t have the same free speech rights as their Whitey overlords.  That’s why the great scientist Watson has been reduced to an “unperson” trying to peddle off his Nobel Prize for cash, merely for having the temerity to discuss race and IQ, while Al Sharpton, of Tawana Brawly and Freddy’s Fashion Mart fame, is a respected political commentator, friend of the President, and has spoken at a previous DNC.

Put another way: compare Adam Jones to John Rocker, and the reaction to each.  Is Adam Jones going to be suspended and forced by Organized Baseball to undergo “psychological counselling?” Why not?

I hate being vulgar, but sometimes it is justified: so a hearty Fuck You to the simian Adam Jones.  If baseball is a “White man’s sport” then White Orioles fans should boycott the team until they have an all-White lineup. Better yet: drop sports altogether.  Hey White men: guess who is ultimately paying Jones’ inflated and ill-deserved salary?  You are, you jock-sniffing suckers.

The Wrong Side of History

Leftist pablum.
One of the most annoying memes coming from the Left is the oft-used statement that all of the pale stale rightist White guys are “on the wrong side of history” with respect to whatever the issue is under consideration: immigration, civil rights, whatever.
By an amazing coincidence, the people making such comments are themselves always on the “right side” of history and those they oppose are always on the “wrong side.”  Funny how that works. You’d almost imagine there was a self-interested lack of objectivity there!
When the Left makes comments like that, they betray their communist roots, as the idea that history has some sort of “end point” that we are all supposed to strive toward – that “right side” – is a purely Marxist doctrine. The true and rational Right (not Spenglerian hocus-pocus) instead believes that we make history, history is something created by the human will and by our own efforts, it is not a pre-ordained scenario we are destined to fulfill, it is not a road we are inexorably forced to follow.
You see, to the Left, the “right side of history” is the subjugation and displacement of Europeans, it is the future world of coffee-colored mongrels lorded over by hook-nosed Tribesmen.  And all the steps along the way to that end: all the humiliations of Whites, all the defeats of the West, all the degradations Whites are forced to endure – that’s part of the “right side of history.” To be enjoyed and savored by hate-filled leftists, coloreds, and their Levantine masters.
Whites overcoming this genocidal agenda, forming an Imperium, and reaching the stars, is being on “the wrong side of history.”
Analysis of the sordid Leftist mind completed.

Left vs. Right, 11/21/14

A contrast in attitude.
In light of executive amnesty, some observations can be made. Note that two weeks after a crushing electoral defeat (*), the Left wins a great moral victory, they are the ones celebrating, and the victors of election day are pouting and fuming, and impotently scheming on how to salvage some dignity after having defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. This tells us much about the difference in spirit between the (broadly defined) Left and Right.
Left: always fighting, always on the offensive, never gives up, is never satisfied, is always demanding. When they win, the ask for more. When they lose, they simply dust themselves off and get right back into the fray. They always think big, always pushing. If they are crushed electorally, they will still push their agenda as if nothing happened, and they will never disavow their base of support. They view the other side as the enemy and aim for that enemy’s total defeat.
Right: always surrendering, always on the defensive, easily gives up, is easily satisfied, tentatively asks (never demands) and shrivels in fear if denied. When they win, they declare victory, go home, and do nothing. When they lose, they wallow in despair and aim to change their entire belief system. They always think small, always looking for the easy way out.  If they are crushed electorally, they disavow their base of support (who they not-so-secretly despise) and want to re-invent themselves in imitation of the victors. They view the other side as potential friends and believe that mild debate and the outcome of an election or two can transform implacable foes into bosom buddies.
The Left: eternal winners; the Right: eternal losers. And that will continue until the Right imitates the Left in the ONE thing they should be imitating – the Leftist spirit of fervor, moral crusade, and refusal to ever surrender. For that, we need the radical, revolutionary far-Right, not timid mainstream conservatives.
*Yes, I know: the GOP is a sham opposition, and these mainstream elections are sound and fury signifying nothing (in a practical sense). But here I am talking about attitude, about spirit, about morale. Let’s step back from our Olympian “movement” (or in my case, ex-“movement” and/or Neo-Movement) perspective and look at it the same way as ordinary mainstream White Americans. What do they see?