Category: mainstreaming

In Der News, 6/16/18

Some news.

Greg Johnson:

Mainstreaming is not the path to political success.

Indeed, it is not.  There’s more in the podcast attacking mainstreaming, none of which will surprise readers of this blog, since the crazed Ted Sallis has been making these same points for years, including at the time when Counter-Currents featured breathless podcasts of Johnson and Le Brun concerning Ms. Le Pen’s mainstreaming heroics and her electoral chances (and we all know how that turned out).

So, two lessons in all of this:

1. Mainstreaming is a recipe for political failure.

2. If you want to know the cutting edge of Far Right thought, read EGI Notes.  You’ll read here first what others belatedly realize weeks, months, or years later.

Rodney Martin’s good sense:

There is INSUFFICIENT Base Support (Resources) in the existing Political & Social dynamic to USE to build a Pro-White “traditional” political Movement that PARTICIPATES in the EXISTING System.
We MUST stand apart & build our own, they may mock us as the Masses mocked Noah as he built the Ark. But when the time comes, like Noah, we DON’T let them in.
We MUST understand that we will NOT build Mass Support and over take the EXISTING System.
We MUST give up on the temptation for instant gratification and embrace the virtue of patience, planning, preparing and building.
We MUST understand that NO ONE need know what we are doing.  Media whoring is a vice that has proved deadly.
We MUST ACCEPT that we will NOT take OUR Country Back, anymore than we can bring our favorite Grandfather back from the dead.
We MUST NOT be “Average Americans”
We MUST be a brotherhood without regard to perceived economic, social or  intellectual standing.   There can be NO “Classism”
We MUST ACCEPT the fact that NOT ALL “White People” are “White”.
We MUST REALIZE we CAN do MORE with LESS.
We must choose Quality OVER Quantity
WE DEFINE who we are by fully defining who we are NOT, and who we will NOT accept.
There is nothing wrong with the concept of our own “Community”, it has yet to be built.

Amren hero Seth Grossman.  He’s…HuWhyte!

Roissy whines:

Where is Jeff Sessions in all this? High treason occurs under his nose and…wtf is he doing about it? Waiting to pounce when the time is right? Jeff, the midterms are just months away; you don’t have much time left to make a move before a horde of screeching anti-American mystery meats and pussyhatters take the lower chamber.

Hey, I thought that “Sessions as Attorney General alone justifies Trump’s election?”  Don’t you know that “America’s Senator” is just doing what he does best: standing around helplessly looking dumbfounded?

It’s interesting how both Sessions and Giuliani, under Trump’s employ, represent ethnic stereotypes.  Sessions – so restrained he’s practically inert; Giuliani – bombastically undisciplined, rolling around like a loose cannon, shelling his own side as much as his opponent.

Advertisements

In Der News, 6/9/18

Der news.

Sunic foreword to Bolton’s Yockey book.

That’s the foreword to the book itself; insofar as I know, currently, I am the only one who has written an independent review of this important work.  That speaks volumes about the pathetic, low-rent “movement.”

Getting back to Sunic’s foreword, I’d like to say that Tom is one of the finest people involved in nationalist activism.  I don’t agree with everything he’s ever written of course, but people can disagree on issues but still think highly of each other, respect fine work, and note their essential decency as human beings.  Indeed, I sometimes disagree with Salter on some issues (as recently chronicled in posts here), but I cannot think of anyone whose work I respect more.  As I’ve said a number of times before – Salter deserves a Nobel Prize for his work on ethnic genetic interests; in a fair world, one not dominated by anti-White leftist politics, that Prize would be awarded.

By the way, Sunic probably doesn’t remember it, but he and I had a pleasant phone conversation many (15+) years ago.  A good man.

More evidence (if you needed any) that Sallis is right once again: the Danish left is farstreaming right.  Evidence to support mainstreaming: zero.  Evidence to support farstreaming: Trump, Orban, Denmark, etc.

Best Amren comment, in response to this article:

Jason Lewis • 10 hours ago
Right after they tell you that population numbers are concerning they’ll tell you that there aren’t enough babies being born in Western countries requiring a endless flood of immigrants.

Salter Trad Addendum

More comments.

Salter and I agree on most (albeit not all) of the fundamentals, as readers of this blog have long known.  Focusing specifically on the Trad analysis pieces, I agree with the general pro-White, pro-Majoritarian, EGI-oriented basis.  I agree that reactive nationalism is a failure, stupid Bunkerism that is counter-productive. The recent Barr-Planet of the Apes fiasco was instructive.  Forgetting for a moment Barr’s history and ancestry, what do we see?  A crude “acting out,” spewing forth racially-charged insults lacking in any productive content (not much balkanization ensued, given Barr’s subsequent lickspittle apologetic spin), followed by the usual groveling apologies and pathology-related excuses (“it was the Ambien”).  So, “racists” are seen to be merely crude bigots, the focus of public humiliation and social pricing, followed by apologetic groveling and implications that negative comments about Coloreds must be due to medication side-effects or some other mental-medical pathology.  In summary, we would all have been better served if Barr had kept her reactive comments to herself.

One difference in our positions is that Salter seems to support liberal nationalism, at least as an option that may appeal to the largest mass of the native population, while still maintaining some degree of concern for ethnic interests.  This seems to me a sort of mainstreaming, making ethnic nationalism more palatable by moving toward the center and justifying greater ethnic homogeneity based upon an appeal to “liberal democratic values” (sort of Jobling’s argument when he was running his website).

However, just like the “Amren Gateway Hypothesis,” mainstreaming has zero empirical evidence supporting it.  Actually, it has a remarkable record of failure, most notably and recently with Ms. Le Pen.

Mainstreaming is based on the idea that the bulk of voters are toward the center, so any Far Right party that wants to win needs to move toward that center and become more palatable to those voters.

There are a number of problems with that.  First, do we know for sure that the target voters are always in the (relative) center, politically speaking?  The genius of the Trump campaign was to realize that a winnable fraction of Republican voters were significantly to the right of the GOP political establishment. In America, in the GOP, it has been the voters who have been mainstreaming toward the Establishment candidates (the Bush family, Dole, McCain, and Romney) rather than the other way around.  Trump moved toward those voters (farstreaming), rather than asking the voters to move politically to accommodate him.  Orban in Hungary is the same.  Of course, the WN position is still much farther to the right than those voters, but, still, the general principle holds.

Second, let us assume that from a Far Right perspective, most of the voters are more towards the center.  So, should the Far Right move toward them?  No, that’s a losing proposition.  Mainstream conservatives always like to feint right come election time.  If you as a Far Right candidate are moving left, toward the center, at some point your position and that of the mainstream conservatives will appear to converge.  Right-of-center voters will always prefer the “safe” and “electable” mainstream conservatives over mainstreaming Far Rightists “tainted” with a past history of “extremism.”  If there is little difference between your position and that of the right-feinting Establishment Right, why would anyone vote for you?  Even those voters skeptical of the Establishment Right’s credibility regards their right-feint won’t be tempted to look in a more radical direction if you’ve watered down your views so as to become another “conservative.”  You will lose respect and credibility, and “turn off” your own more radical base.

What about the young?  What about the need to be more moderate to gain a following among the youth?  Aren’t they all liberals anyway? What about the crowing of the likes of Matt Bai that the bigoted faction of the Trump base is disappearing?  The demographic end of the pincer, the decrease in the White population fraction and the concomitant increase in the Coloreds, well, yes, we all know that is occurring.  But, isn’t that a reason so many Whites, upset at those changes, voted for Trump in the first place?  It’s the other end of the pincer that is less convincing – that the liberalism of young Whites is an immutable characteristic that they will carry with them in the years and decades to come.

There is a stereotype, with some preliminary empirical support, that people tend to get more “conservative” with age.  Let’s say, more generally, they shift to the right.  We can only expect that trend to become even sharper as the racial situation for Whites worldwide continues to degenerate, and tribalism becomes a more dominant force in politics.  Also keep in mind that young Whites have been subjected to an unrelenting barrage of leftist propaganda, which is exponentially been made more potent via the Internet: schools, the news and entertainment media, social media, etc. At the same time, severe social pricing (and the leftist thuggery Trump and Sessions benignly enable) silences rightist voices.  No wonder then that the youth are leftist (besides typical youthful naive faux-idealism); indeed, it is a surprise that any young Whites have healthy ideas at all.  

As these young people age, and encounter the harsh realities of life, and get less dependent upon social media and snarky comedians to form their sociopolitical worldview, they will inevitably jettison, bit by bit, their leftist politics.  They will learn that regardless of their “tolerance” that they are still low-caste subaltern Whites, hated by everyone else and targeted by the System.  Heterosexual White men will find themselves the worst of all, untouchables, the Dalits of the Earth.  Will their leftist social conditioning (i.e. brainwashing) still hold under those conditions?

The likes of Bai should not get overconfident.

In the end, the Far Right needs to get the masses to farstream to us, rather than we mainstreaming to them.

Getting back to the main point: I see no need for liberal nationalism or any other approach that does not give primacy of place to EGI.  Ethnoracial nationalism needs to be sane and balanced for sure, the “mixed ethic” cited by Salter in the third section of On Genetic Interests, and some fundamental, basic human rights can be included (dependent of course on how we define “human”).  Nevertheless, we should not “mainstream” and compromise in order to appeal to fickle, lemming-like masses of sheeple.

If we believe we are the future, the masses eventually must come to us.  “Must” does not imply inevitability; we will need to work for it.  “Must” does imply that this is the only way to achieve long-lasting goals.

The necessity for “culture warriors” I also agree with.  The Right has always been weak in this regard, amplified by the Right’s “declare (premature) victory and go home” pathology, unlike the ever-striving, never-satisfied, always-fighting Left.  It is no coincidence that aggressive leftist SJW political correctness is soaring now under the Presidency of Donald “Alt Right God Emperor” Trump just as it did under Ronald “KKK groups disband because we won in November 1980” Reagan.  Instead of long culture wars of attrition and the long slog through the institutions, the Right gives us the false idols of Men on White Horse frauds.

Three practical problems with “cultural warfare” – 

1. The Right (particularly in the Anglosphere) has been notoriously weak with respect to cultural warfare (I’m talking about the real nationalist Right here, not the “Religious Right”), metapolitics, and serious ideology.  I’m not sure that many on the Right even understand why any of that is important, much less that they would know how to effectively engage in such activities.

2. To the extent that “cultural warriors” exist on the Right, there is poor integration with the more explicitly political arm of the “movement.”  Now, in America, there really isn’t a political arm either (Trump is a civic nationalist cuck and fraud); so in America, in the mess over here, there really isn’t any effective political or any metapolitical/cultural activism.  However, elsewhere – in Europe and Australia for example – there is very weak integration, as the nationalist politicians (or what passes for them) engage in reactive nationalism, in mainstreaming to civic nationalism, or try and dabble in metapolitics themselves, generally with poor results (see point 3).  And in America, whatever embryonic metapolitical and even more nebulous political activism exists is either non-integrated, or you have the ineffective “jack of all trades” problem discussed next.

3. As Salter asserts, for the most part there will need to be specialization of the political and metapolitical spheres, following by cooperative integration of these activities and efforts.  A truly effective “jack of all trades” – someone skilled at politics who is also well versed in ideology and who is a metapolitical master and culture warrior – is very rare (and should be treasured if identified).

A problem therefore is when people engage in activity for which they are ill-suited.  There are people on the American scene (no names, but you can figure out who fits where) with this problem.  There are some people who would have been best suited for electoral politics – either directly as candidates themselves or indirectly as advisers and campaign managers for candidates – and these people instead ineffectively flounder as faux-intellectuals, website managers, ideologists, culture warriors, etc.  On the other hand, there are people suited for intellectual pursuits (even though I may disagree with their views) who put themselves forward in “movement” politics (not even electoral politics), and fail miserably in any leadership capacity whatsoever.

Probably we need even more sub-specialization – for example, some people may be good at organizing meetings and conferences at the level of attracting speakers and attendees, but are completely incompetent at security.  Others may be good at security, but too introverted to do the broad organizing.  Some people are skilled at the more cultural aspects of metapolitics, others at ideology, or are science experts.  We don’t have a critical mass of specialists yet, and the ones we do have can’t work together because of ideological disagreements, personality clashes, and feuding.

One omission in Salter’s work is a lack of analysis on how to defeat social pricing, and I would like to see Salter tackle that problem.

Like Salter, I support the idea of “democratic multiculturalism,” both as part of a main Plan A to defeat the System as well as a fallback Plan B position in case the System will continue going strong for the foreseeable future.  I’ve written a lot about this in the past and there is no need to rehash it now again.

In summary, Salter and I are in agreement with, say, 80% with 20% of difference (a Pareto distribution) on certain specific areas of importance.

I may have more to say on these topics in the future.

Salter Trad Analysis, II

More.

Once again, a summary and an analysis of excerpts; follow the link to read the whole thing.

(a)

Ethnic nationalism

Ethnic nationalism treats the nation as an extended family. More than other nationalisms it most directly identifies and protects ethnic interests because it seeks to establish a relatively homogeneous, cohesive and independent society.

These motives have evolutionary origins in kinship. Cultural similarity mimics kinship, especially shared religion and historical memories and belief in descent from common ancestors. In racially diverse regions, ethnic genetic kinship is typically equivalent to that between first cousins. This makes the ethnic group a large store of each member’s distinctive genes.1 Ethnic kinship facilitates the spread and maintenance of ethnic nepotism, a weak but pervasive social tie.

That is the entire ethnic genetic interests paradigm in a nutshell.

Ethnic sentiment was hinted at and stated outright in early decisions to ban non-European immigration to Australia. Arthur Phillip, the first governor of the Sydney colony, refused the British Home Secretary’s proposal to obtain wives for the convicts by taking women from South Pacific islands. Instead he requested more female convicts be sent from England. Other early governors such as Sir Richard Bourke and Sir George Gipps took a similar stand against the importation of cheap Indian labour. This time the proposal came from squatters facing labour shortages. The Colonial Office concurred with the governors, citing the adverse effect on the wages of white labourers of introducing migrants of “an inferior and servile description”. Notice the concern with the working conditions of people of European descent in particular, not citizens in general. The first is an ethnic category, the second a civic.

Very good, No Asians.  As opposed to Silk Road White nationalism that wants to see the West colonized by Asians and Whites as an enslaved subaltern caste.

…references to the blood of patriots, security of the homeland, portraying the nation as a family (“fatherland”, “motherland”), and so on. As already discussed, “nation” connotes ethnicity and as such is a biological, tribal concept. Such rhetoric has been shown to release patriotic motivation.3 The effect is so pronounced politicians use releaser ideas in order to gain legitimacy. They use terms such as “nation” and “community” and “sovereignty” and “borders” and “homeland defence” incessantly. But the rhetoric is out of kilter with their policies, and the discrepancy is becoming evident to a growingly cynical, distrustful electorate. A competent media or an aroused citizenry would make it difficult for mainstream politicians to use this rhetoric.

Because releaser ideas fit naturally with people’s evolved predispositions, they have greater effect with less effort. They are efficient. Ideas that fit less naturally do not release instinctive fixed action patterns but must be inculcated through repetition, which is costly. Unnatural ideas rely more on power, on monopoly of the media and education curricula. Perhaps that explains the globalist left’s intolerance – they do not tolerate any opposition because their ideas are unpalatable.

The question is how the globalist left obtained all that power to begin with. If their ideas are so unpalatable that they have to be maintained by force, but these ideas did not come into power by force…it is obvious we need some sort of explanatory analysis here.

Ethnic nationalism – and we can place racial nationalism here – is the purest of the forms of nationalism Salter discusses.  It is explicit.  It has as its ends the well-being of the ethny.  This can be contrasted to liberal nationalism:

 (b)

Liberal Nationalism

The notion of liberal nationalism might seem oxymoronic, especially to Americans, in an age when ‘liberal’ has come to mean leftist or socialist. Here the term’s original meaning is adopted, namely rational approaches to policy that emphasise individual rights and individual conscience.

Liberal philosophers inherited cultural leadership from traditionalists. Philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were reformers and patriots at the same time. They did not question the continuity of their people or civilisation. They were not afflicted with group guilt. Despite being reformers, by modern standards they were conservative in outlook. They represented continuity with traditional patriotism.

Mill posited a connection between national identity, homogeneity and democratic values. He concluded:

Where the sentiment of nationality exists in any force, there is a prima facie case for uniting all the members of the nationality under the same government, and a government to themselves apart […] One hardly knows what any division of the human race should be free to do if not to determine with which of the various collective bodies they choose to associate themselves.6

In Considerations Mill argued that representative institutions are “next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities”. Democracy depends on society being educated and cohesive. As Mill thought that ethnic diversity reduced social cohesion, he concluded that diversity should be minimised. His argument concerned ethnicity, of which race is only one component. “The sympathies available for the purpose are those of race, language, religion, and, above all, of political institutions, as conducing most to a feeling of identity of political interest.”7

So, in liberal nationalism defense of the ethny is means , not ends.  It is the means toward constructing a polity in which “liberal” values, such as individual rights, can be most effectively actualized.  However:

Strictly speaking, liberal nationalism need contain no national sentiment at all, only policies for making society cohere within the frame of representative democracy and individual liberty. Policy might be ethnically selective but not necessarily the motives for advancing those policies. The starting point of Mill’s analysis of nationality (immigration, domestic affairs) is not loyalty to a particular tribe but universals of social behaviour, conflict avoidance, and civil liberties, especially freedom of speech and association. 

Thus, we see the seeds of a problem in relying on liberal nationalism: it van be subverted toward policies hostile to the ethny in such policies can be formulated so as to ostensibly preserve the universal values prized by traditional liberal thinkers.

An example is Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s recent enunciation of libertarianism, which overlaps classical liberalism in emphasing the need for freedom from coercion and conflict. Hoppe concludes that immigration to Western societies should mainly consist of people descended from ethnic Europeans – “Western, white candidate immigrants” – not because of any ethnic preference but in the interests of social harmony, neighbourliness, and economic equity.16 He criticised the goal of white solidarity on the ground that many globalist elites are white.17

That last part is retarded on Hoppe’s part, and indicative of the weak analysis of libertarianism.  Whites have genetic (and proximate) interests in the well-being of Whites, and hence White solidarity is useful.  Are there free riders to such solidarity?  Yes.  Are there what I termed in the past “cross riders” to such solidarity – people who not only utilize the public good of solidarity without contributing to t but actually actively harm it?  Yes, there are.  But such types can be identified and they can be punished by withholding the benefits of such solidarity from them.  White solidarity does not mean solidarity to every single White person on Earth, irrespective of their behavior.  It instead implies solidarity to the group, in general, and those defectors from group solidarity of course should not derive benefits from it.

Genuine liberal nationalism is open to the idea that nationhood is beneficial for all peoples. This is another advantage over unregulated ethnic nationalism, which is prone to chauvinism, resulting in needless conflict. Universal nationalism has the potential to facilitate cooperation among parochialists against global centrists.

It is not clear to me why universal nationalism is not ethnic nationalism.  Well, Salter uses the modifier “unregulated.”  Very well.  But regulated ethnic nationalism is not the same as liberal nationalism. One can directly and explicitly defend ethnic interests without descending into genocidal Hitlerism.

Universalism risks drifting too far from local interests. Stability of liberal nationalism as an ethnic strategy probably depends on more than perceived fairness, privacy and equality before the law. Hoppe’s rejection of ethnic solidarity misses the fact of ethnic kinship. Social divisions do not eliminate the interest we have in the welfare of our peoples. Genetically and civilisationally, class is false consciousness.

Well said.

For these reasons it is rational for ethnic nationalists to join in discussions of liberal nationalism, clarifying matters of fact and reasoning to yield outcomes more amenable to ethnic interests.

Or we can reject liberal nationalism and promote a regulated ethnoracial nationalism.

Salter then discusses the dead ends of economic, republican and civil forms of nationalism.  You can read the details in his original ext.  On civic nationalism (read: Trump), Salter states:

One problem with basing cohesion on values is that the process of political compromise inevitably reduces values to shallow slogans. As the conservative educationalist Kevin Donnelly explained, “even when there is agreement on what constitutes Australian or Western values, […] the list is so vacuous and all-embracing that it’s impossible to identify what makes such values special or unique”.26 Australians are meant to be united by such values as tolerance and inclusion and respecting different points of view. Particular religious and ethnic origins are not even named on the assumption that all cultures are equal.

The tenets of civic nationalism are not altogether new. Empires have universalised the head of state and expanded citizenship to win the loyalty of far-flung provinces. This was an innovation of the Romans, emulated by the British. In neither case did the patrician class believe that provincials were their equals but in both cases they used citizenship to gain loyalty based on equal treatment under the law. Equality included the legal right to migrate around the empire. Omnivorous citizenship in the Roman and British empires resulted in the mass migrations towards the metropolitan society.

Cynicism and shortsightedness are apparent in these imperial ideologies. Of relevance to Australia is the use of the equality doctrine by Joseph Chamberlain, Colonial Secretary in Whitehall, to block the colonies and the new Commonwealth from explicitly selecting ethnically European immigrants. The experience of Chinese immigration during the gold rushes showed that a European country situated beside the large populations of Asia could only retain its identity by systematically favouring European immigrants. But the British government wished to sign a naval agreement with Japan, for which purpose they needed to secure Japan’s favour. Chamberlain wrote to warn Australian leaders that the British government would advise the monarch to refuse the royal assent to any explicitly racial provision.

Note how the reverse is never true; for example, Japan never felt required to make racial concessions to Whites.

(f)

Reactive Nationalism

The reactive type has been influential. It will be briefly discussed, though it is not animated by a consistent ideology. Instead it is a manifestation of anxiety with rapid change and resulting frustration with and suspicion of the authorities.

Reactive nationalism carries bits and pieces of ideologies and policies propelled by emotion. Common denominators of national identity remain largely implicit and unanalyzed.

These are negative features because emotionally-driven politics tends to be inchoate, leaderless, episodic as it reacts to overreach by elites, including oppressive social controls.

In other words, Bunkerism and to a large extent some of the more lowbrow Type I “activists” one finds on ‘movement” comments threads in online forums.

The Trump and Brexit revolts were based on passionate rejection of globalist social transformation and stifling social controls. The same reactions have propelled Pauline Hanson’s electoral success.

And without analysis, without Type II activists preaching reason and rational strategizing, all of that has come to naught.

Comparing Types of Nationalism

The six types of Australian nationalism have been combined in various ways over two centuries, concluding in the 1970s with a relatively disjunctive break with the ethnic-liberal combination that had shaped the nation from the First Fleet.

All types of nationalism have encompassed bad decisions and unrealistic assumptions. But overall, ethnic and liberal nationalisms have proven less susceptible to elite free riding. The liberal type has the added advantage of retaining political forms developed over centuries that help the formation of public goods.

There is no reason why a regulated and rational ethnic nationalism cannot utilize the political and social technologies of liberal nationalism without going “full liberal” and making ethnic preservation merely proximate means rather than ultimate ends.

Australia’s current mix of civic nationalism and multiculturalism constitutes a top-down elite agenda. It co-exists in antagonistic tension with latent ethnic nationalism, as demonstrated by the recent success of minor parties. The antagonism is caused by the multicultural establishment seeking to transform the original nation. Their dominance of the culture industries has not eliminated popular nationalism, which remains a sleeping giant.

Elites are traitors who will one day need to be held accountable.

Liberal nationalism has the advantage of self-criticism. We all operate with imperfect knowledge. By opening our beliefs to rational inspection we increase the chance of avoiding ill-informed ingrained assumptions, including those concerning goals and methods. A moderate culture of self-criticism allows a movement to adapt to changing conditions, including new tactics and strategy by opponents and potential allies. This nimbleness will be indispensible in defeating more powerful opponents.

I fail to see why a sane and reasonable ethnic nationalism cannot have self-criticism.  I realize that Der Movement is congenitally resistant to self-criticism and accountability; however, liberal nationalism has been equally so, which is why it has collapsed into globalist multiculturalism.

Liberal nationalism’s main weakness compared to ethnic nationalism is its tendency to collapse into the civic kind. The weakness lies in its reliance on ideas transmitted by higher education, at a time when universities have been captured by the West-hating left. Ethnic nationalism is less vulnerable in this respect because it has a stronger emotional basis in ethnic nepotism. It would remain loyal to the nation even if diversity were found not to have multiple negative impacts, because ethnic nationalists are willing to pay a price to live among their people in a relatively homogeneous self-governing society. The weakness of this doctrine is cultural, leading to rigidity of policy and ideas. The end result is compromise of the representative democratic system.

That system SHOULD be compromised.  Bring it on!

Ethnic nationalism, and certainly the reactive type, are insufficient credentials for an individual or party to assume government, unless ethnic identity is taken to include the political traditions inherited from England. One way or another, nationalist voters are advised to elect only those politicians who have demonstrated competence, character and tradition in the broad sweep of government duties in the tradition of representative democracy. 

Err…these latter things we need to get rid of.

One marked weakness of unqualified ethnic politics is that it risks emulating multiculturalism’s effect of fragmenting society along ethnic and religious lines. 

But this is precisely what we need!  The road to freedom passes through racial balkanization and chaos, there is likely no other way.  We NEED to be fragmented.

This has a direct human cost in social conflict and an indirect economic cost due to policy being diverted from serving public goods to serving particular group interests. 

We have sacrificed ethnic interests for “the economy” long enough.  That smacks of economic nationalism.  And public goods SHOULD serve majority interests.

Given its mixed history, liberal nationalism might appear to be unreliable. One sign that it could be reclaimed is that every instance of it serving hostile goals has entailed fraud, the compromise of Enlightenment values of rationality and liberty. 

I would say its inability to recognize and combat such fraud indicates a fatal weakness of liberal nationalism.

Australia’s historical experience – of liberal nationalism giving way to globalism – indicates that liberal nationalism is sustainable only when it respects majority ethnic and religious identity as legitimate values. Liberal nationalism’s divorce from ethnic identity in the decades before 1970 opened it to intellectual corruption and left-authoritarianism. 

I suggest that liberal nationalism always has within it this inherent trend toward anti-majoritarian multiculturalism. Therefore it cannot be trusted and should be replaced by a sane and balanced ethnic nationalism (which includes racial nationalism).

Ethnic and liberal nationalism have different strengths in relation to multiculturalism. The growth of an ethnic nationalist movement would be accelerated by the strategy of democratic multiculturalism described earlier, due to rising Anglo consciousness. However, the doctrine does not provide a political framework for accommodating other identities when the state is retaken. At that point a liberal frame would make an emerging ethnic state more governable, more stable, by providing political processes for managing diversity.

Err…we should not have to “manage diversity” – we need to end it. I suppose there can be an intermediate period as the ethnic state is “emerging” in which the remnants of diversity would need to be managed, but a regulated and sane ethnic nationalism can handle that, and “keep the eyes on the prize.”  I simply do not trust liberal nationalism or any other approach that dose not have ethnic interests and the endpoint of analysis.

Informed liberal nationalism can be an effective, though partial, defence of majority ethnicity against globalists and multiculturalists. That is because it converges on ethnic nationalism at the policy level. Historically, liberal nationalism respected ethnic sentiment. Together the liberal and ethnic types encompassed motives rational and civic on the one hand, and nepotistic on the other. Together they promoted the national bio-culture.

The fusion of liberal and ethnic nationalism that shaped Australia for two centuries is better equipped with releaser memes than competing doctrines. On the liberal side, that is because institutions such as representative democracy and rule of law are part of Anglo identity, and therefore add another cultural layer to markers of descent.

This fusion is akin to the “mixed ethic” that Salter promotes in On Genetic Interests.  The pure ethic would be analogous to unregulated ethnic nationalism and then we have all the ethics that treat ethnic interests as secondary or irrelevant.  The mixed ethic fuses primacy of ethnic interests with a doctrine of rights, similar to what is suggested here.

The main disadvantage of this approach is when its identitarianism is implicit. Only an explicit appeal to the historic nation can establish a nationalist rhetoric able to fully mobilise Anglo Australians.

Yes, this is the case. Unfortunately, the next paragraph promotes the alleged positives of the failed implicit approach.

Implicit ethnicity also has advantages. Decades of indoctrination by media and education bureaucracies have made Anglo ethnic nepotism taboo. Liberal nationalism advances ethnic interests indirectly. Indirect ethnic preservation has the additional attraction of conforming more with the non-ideological tradition of Anglophone cultures. English-derived politics is famously divorced from theory compared to the Continental tradition. People distrust theory in politics, as much as they do theory in art. They perceive both as pretentious. Like conceptual art, a political position won’t appeal to the common-sense public if it relies on abstruse theory. But everyone understands and desires social peace, stability and prosperity, which true liberal nationalism would protect better than bogus civic nationalism.

Implicit politics have ALWAYS failed.  Mainstreaming has failed in Europe again and again.  Even Orban, under EU constraints to modify his language, sometimes drifts from more implicit culturalist talk to that of ethny.  Now, Salter here talks about Australia, and contrasts “English-derived politics” from that of “the Continental tradition.”  But even in “English-derived” traditions, implicit politics and mainstreaming has failed.  Has One Nation succeeded?  No.  Brexit has led to a current UK where Polish immigrants are driven out by racist anti-White Negroes and South Asians; native Britons are a non-factor in their own nation.  Thatcher co-opted anti-immigration angst to end up being a fraud.  Then in America there is a long tradition of Republican dog whistling on race that leads nowhere: Nixon-Reagan-Trump. I most strongly disagree with Salter here.  “But everyone understands and desires social peace, stability and prosperity, which true liberal nationalism would protect better than bogus civic nationalism.”  The other side will construe “true liberal nationalism” as akin to fascism and social strife.

To put this another way, the choice of types of nationalism is not only an intellectual exercise. It is also one of self-examination. The choice must feel right to the majority now or in the foreseeable future. And that depends on who we are psychologically, who we are in terms of shared memories, and who we could feasibly become as new memories slowly accumulate and the culture changes. Multicultural critics portray Anglo-Australians as uniquely driven by racial identity. In fact Anglo Australians are among the least collectivist of peoples, much less so than multicultural activists. They are so tolerant of foreigners to have retained their composure while being inundated by immigrants.

I do not fully agree here. We should not let the herd, with their psychological comfort level, define for us the limits of our choice of nationalism.  They need to be led by the nose, ultimately.  The sheeple are a herd of lemmings (if I may mix metaphors and analogies) and the vanguard need to set the tone.

In reality ethnic activism by and for the majority is awkward in the present political climate. That does not make it inappropriate. In a healthy political culture, one not distorted by a hostile culture industry, positive majority ethnocentrism would seem natural. And it is important that it be so again, because individuals with heightened ethnocentrism are their peoples’ natural guardians, the passionate counterpoint to cold utilitarianism. Like a mother alert to her baby’s cry, ethnocentric individuals of all backgrounds are the first to feel estranged and besieged by social trends that are adverse for their people. 

But how do we protect these protectors?  How do we defeat social pricing?  There is a number of references and implications in these two essays to feed forward positive feedback loops favoring activism on behalf of the ethny.  I agree, but with one caveat – how to get it started?  We are at a sticking point.  It is like a biochemical reaction with an enormous energy of activation to overcome to get it started.  We need an enzymatic catalyst.  From where?  What will it be?

Majority ethnocentrists’ expression of concern for their people makes them prime targets of the “human rights” apparatus, part-and-parcel of big-state globalism. Those who chant “all love is equal” excoriate anyone who loves the wrong race. Beginning with the Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917, a powerful strand of left ideology has sought to suppress human nature to create a communist utopia. The civilised response is the liberal one: society should respect ethnic activists of all stripes, including the red white and blue of the founding people. Attacks on ethnic nepotism are unacceptable in a liberal society.

Ethnic nepotism is also strongly attacked by the Alt Wrong/HBD/race realists.  Actually, it is only White ethnic nepotism that is, in practice, attacked.  Always remember that the Alt Wrong is a vehicle to promote Jewish-Asian ethnic interests.

In particular liberal nationalists worthy of the name should accept individuals who profess the interests of the nation. They should accept as comrades those who do so in liberal terms, something civic nationalists and minority chauvinists can never allow. In practical terms that does not mean allowing national activists to make policy in general, because they represent one interest among many. But it does mean protecting the right to free speech and party membership of those who stand up for the historic nation. Liberal nationalists should do that not only as an expression of civil liberties but as a means of ensuring the multiple public goods that flow from a secure national identity and sovereignty.

OK, but as a racial nationalist I don’t view my position as “one interest among many” – maybe liberal nationalism itself should be so viewed.

This paper has argued that Anglo patriots should use a dual political-cultural strategy to defend the historic Australian nation and reestablish the liberal nationalist state built by the founders. The recent success of nationalist protest parties in many Western societies, including Australia, indicates that voters are ready to confer significant political and cultural niches on leaders who are willing to challenge the dominant culture. There are ways forward.

There are ways forward but apparently no one available (and ethnically acceptable to the “movement” rank-and-file) to step and perform those steps.

In summary, Salter’s two-part essay is interesting and useful, but readers can observe key differences between his positions and mine.  We agree on the fundamentals, and on the weaknesses of reactive nationalism and of nationalism lacking in proper analysis.  I understand why he in his position advocates more moderate positions.  But I will continue to assert the primacy of explicit racial nationalism and the irrefutable fact that mainstreaming has failed.

SLC News, 4/10/18

In der news.

Another victory for farstreaming: Chickenwire Vic wins again.

Read this.

Orban moves ever more to the Right, and goes from strength to strength.  Jobbik engages in centrist mainstreaming, and achieves results so modest they are equivalent to a moral defeat.

There is in fact NO evidence whatsoever that mainstreaming works as an effective electoral strategy.  Quite the opposite: mainstreaming usually ends in humiliating defeat, while prudent farstreaming, in the right circumstances, yields the desired results.

Mainstreaming, just like the “gateway hypothesis,” is one of those ideas that sounds reasonable in theory, but has not a single shred of empirical evidence to back it up.   

More anti-White animus displayed by the Yellow Fist of Hatred.  No worries though.  According to the Silkers. These disgruntled Asiatrices will be “the border guards of the West.” All they have to do is let their natural black hair color shine through, pick up their trusty rifle, and start ordering about mewling White manlets.  It’s all good!

Don’t forget that borderline retarded cuck nagger Roissy predicted that Bezos would turn “hard right” politically because Bezos looks “jacked” after working out.  After all, as we know, every single male with a muscular physique (or what passes for it) is a budding Nutzi, that’s how political affiliations are formed.

Yes, I agree, what Nehlen did was unforgiveable,  But what caught my eye was this”

Then in 2018 (several weeks after my Wage the Battle review), Jared Taylor distanced himself from him. Initially Nehlen had been invited to speak at the 2018 American Renaissance conference. But after taking a close look at Nehlen’s campaign, Taylor disinvited him from speaking (but not from the conference). Nehlen responded by embargoing the conference altogether and making a big stink about it on social media.
For me, that’s when the cracks in the dam began to appear. Sure, Nehlen had his supporters, many of whom accused Taylor of cucking to the Jews. But other voices began to pop up. Nehlen’s campaign does lack a certain amount of class. Maybe Taylor was put off by that. Nehlen does kind of beat a dead horse with the Jew thing as well. Maybe that made Taylor uncomfortable. Nehlen also had some nice things to say about Louis Farrakhan, didn’t he? That certainly wouldn’t fly at Amren. So maybe Taylor wasn’t completely out of his mind by disinviting him. Furthermore, Nehlen certainly could have handled it better. He could have realized that the JQ simply isn’t Taylor’s thing…

Yeah, sure, it was about Farrakhan, which is why Amren itself endorsed Farrakhan’s Black separatism.

Why can’t the “old boys network” be honest and just admit the disinvitation of Nehlen was mainly – likely only – for one reason?

In the Alt Wrong hierarchy, Jews (and Asians) are right there at the top, certainly valued much more than grossly inferior groups like Romanians and Italians.  What’s the chance that an anti-White ethnic activist would be disinvited from the conference?  

Fascist Typology

Bardeche’s Type I and Type II

Coogan’s Dreamer of the Day includes a quote from Bardeche’s Suzanne et le Tandis (Suzanne and the Slums), in the chapter: “Le Fascisme International” that seems more complete and accurate (and free from spelling and grammar errors) than the version popping up on the Alt Right.  This quote includes:

I have known, after Clarence, very many “fascists,” for the race is not dead. Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors. The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches. All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.

The precise translation is less important than the general point being made; an important distinction between different fascist archetypes, even though it is made in a bemused fashion, in jest, and even though I’m sure Bardeche didn’t mean to focus on that distinction in his  quote.  Nevertheless, regardless of intention and style, there is food for thought here.

Thus, Bardeche correct identifies two archetypes of fascists; thus:

Type I: Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors.

Type II: The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches.

To translate into a context more familiar to the racial nationalist “movement” of today: Type I would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: ethnonationalists, Nordicists, Traditionalists, ethnic fetishists, and Hitler worshippers; while Type II would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: pan-Europeanists, Futurists, and Imperium-oriented Yockeyites.

Type I, in its purest representation, would tend to be an extroverted, action-oriented mesomorph; Type II would be an introverted, intellect-oriented ectomorph (not sure where endomorphs would fit in, as so many of them tend to be leftists to begin with).

That is not to say that Type I activists are never intellectual, nor that Type II activists are devoid of action, simply that on a spectrum, Type I are relatively action > intellect and Type II are relatively intellect > action.

Bardeche classified both types as: All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.  That may be true, although I think the “they detested lying and injustice” part applies mostly to Type II.  It are the Type II activists who would tend to be more of the Moralpath type.  Type I activists would tend to be more pragmatists, being as they are more action-oriented in any case.  While both types include Vangaurdists, Mainstreamers are almost exclusively Type I.  Type II activists, with their severe affect and furious speeches (or, today, blog posts – “crazed and bitter,” eh?), are hardly the Mainstreamer type.

While most activists would tend to have some traits of both types, they would be skewed in one direction or another.  

Some more or less “pure” types exist.  Your host, Ted Sallis, is a more or less a pure Type II. Francis Parker Yockey himself was a Type II.  Most Anglosphere activists in Der Movement are definitely Type I, certainly in the USA. The Alt Right, with all its intellectual pretensions, is actually heavily represented by Type I activists, at least among the rank-and-file.  In general, Type I’s will outnumber Type IIs, the latter being a distinct minority.

Leaders are a mixed bag, and historical fascist leaders have shown mixed characteristics of both types.  Most interesting is when there is a distinct mismatch between ideology and personality; the person has the ideology of one fascist type, but the personality of another.  This is a crucially important point.  While Bardeche’s quote delves mostly into personality, it bleeds into ideology: those boot-wearing activists obsessed with runes, ancestral songs, and the solstice (as well as Viking horns and mead, eh?) would tend to gravitate toward ethnonationalist and/or Nordicist ideologies, and be enamored of “traditionalism,” while those idealists with their skinny severe reformer heads, furious speeches, glasses and other introvert tendencies (card-collecting being a metaphor for introverted intellectualism) would tend to gravitate toward pan-Europeanism, Futurism and other manifestations of avant-garde politics, and visions of Imperium.  

Personality and ideology are often linked, but when the linkage breaks down, all sorts of strange fascistic hybrids are observed.  For example, Hitler politically was Type I, but his personality was more Type II.  Certain Alt Right ethnonationalists mimic Hitler to the extent that they are ideologically Type I but have the “bookish” and Intellect-oriented Type II character.  Conversely, some pan-European Alt Righters are the opposite: politically Type II but with Type I personalities. 

On the other hand, when personality and ideology more or less perfectly coincide, then from that synergy you get the “impossible” extreme Moralpath types – a Ted Sallis or a Francis Parker Yockey.

There is no doubt more to analyze on this topic but this is a useful beginning.

Citizenism and Mainstreaming Failure

More fails.

Trump so far has illustrated the underlying flaws of Sailler’s “citizens” (warmed over civic nationalism).  While Trump proved that, under the right set of circumstances, there was a narrow electable window for citizenism to come into power, he is also proving how utterly useless citizenism is – and will be – once elected.  Citizenism is “weak sauce” – half measures, compromises, furtive implicitness, which at its best would only slow the decline and delay the inevitable day of reckoning.  However, the Left – nay, the entire Establishment – views citizenism as equivalent to neo-Nazi White supremacy, and thus they oppose and sabotage even the most modest citizenist initiatives of Trump. Thus, while citizenism has proved electorally successful – at least this one time, with a very unconventional candidate – it is inherently doomed to fail, caught as it is between two pincers.  On the one hand, it really cannot solve the Race-Culture problem, because that’s not what it meant to do; on the other hand, it triggers the whole Establishment the same as if it really could effectively deal with Race and Culture.  It’s the worst of both worlds – not radical enough to actually achieve the required outcomes, but just radical enough to trigger a vociferous opposition that prevents even the most modest outcomes from being achieved.

Meanwhile, the “label Antifa as a terrorist organization” has passed the required number of signatures to be considered by the White House.  The ball is in your court, Mr. Trump – as is the question why you have to be forced to consider it (assuming he actually does, and doesn’t blow it off) rather than just doing the right thing to begin with.

I can’t think of a more wonderful test of Trump’s “God Emperorness” than this.  At what point will the sweaty homoerotic fanboys give up on their hero? This is something he should have done after the Inauguration riots.

They never learn.  Electoral failure, inability to appease opponents, unlimited ability to disgust the base. Mainstreaming is a perfect example of what happens when adherents to a plausible hypothesis refuse to give up that hypothesis even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

That applies to almost everything about the “movement,” by the way.