Category: mainstreaming

Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark

Another failure for mainstreaming.

Sallis: Mainstreaming doesn’t work, one reason for that is that the Center-Right can co-opt your lukewarm positions and scoop up your votes as the “safe” alternative.

But the situation is even worse than I had written – Denmark shows that even the Left can co-opt weakly moderate “anti-immigration” positions – and of course later betray those positions, leaving the stupid hoodwinked voters high and dry and leaving the Far Right out of power (as usual). If you cannot even distinguish yourself from Social Democrats, then isn’t that the most searing indictment of mainstreaming possible?

The riposte will be that in Europe, with their “hate speech” laws, more aggressive campaigning is not possible.  Even there, Sallis is right once again:

Some will object – what about Europe?  They have repressive speech codes and aren’t the national governments there considered legitimate by the people?  First, I can’t speak for rightist Europeans – it is very possible that the growth of populism there is indicative of a growing element that does indeed consider the System illegitimate. And, second, the USA, with its particular history of, and alleged commitment to, free speech, is expected to exhibit a much stronger association between free expression and political legitimacy than do nations that have histories of kings, dictators, strongmen, and laws against lese majeste. What about the argument that European nationalists have had success despite the speech codes there?  What success?  In some nations, there has been a temporary slowdown in the degeneration, which can be quickly reversed by any subsequent leftist government; at best, there have been victories by civic nationalists and moderate petty nationalists. The “grand success” in Europe is a figment of the Nutzi imagination. And I can turn the argument around – imagine how much more successful the European Right could be if they could actually express their real views without fear of being fined or jailed?

So, no, the pathetically flimsy “successes” in Europe – which in any case have limited relevance to the American situation – in no way disprove the thesis put forth here.  Given the concerns of White nationalists, the situation in Europe remains dire. Demographic replacement is still “baked into the cake” there. Can European nationalists freely and frankly discuss these concerns?

Der Movement argues how wonderfully the ethnonationalist heroes, with their carefully worded mainstreaming, are doing in Europe.  Sallis argues that this vaunted success is an illusion and that mainstreaming is a disaster, and that without the ability to speak freely – that for the most part European nationalists do not even have as a part of their political platforms – nothing significant can be accomplished.

Sallis – correct; Der Movement – wrong.

But that’s OK, keep on supporting the Quota Queens, those empty vessels who have all the depth of a piece of tissue cut by a microtome and all the heft of a rotifer.  Affirmative action and all that. Meanwhile, enjoy the fruits of mainstreaming in Denmark.

And then we have America:  Trump will be monitoring the situation.  Stay tuned!

I’m fair-minded, and will praise Der Movement when it is warranted.  Thus, in the midst of the horrendous pile of written garbage that now passes for Counter-Currents is a thoughtful essay that I believe has real value – see here.  This attitude, to be actualized into reality, will require community activism, focusing on real social and economic problems instead of nonsense about “Kali Yuga,” and will require an adoption of populist “lefist” economic positions instead of “conservative-libertarian” posturing about “sweet business deals” (the latter coming, perhaps not coincidentally, from the pro-Jewish HBD side of the “movement” aisle).

The Rank-and-File Should Revolt

Forget about the shark, Der Movement has jumped Moby Dick.

Following up on this, and this:

In the real world, no one actually supports Andrew Yang in this movement; it is the “insiders” trying to push it on the rank-and-file. This push, thankfully, is failing.

Why don’t the rank-and-file of Der Movement finally revolt against their “leaders” – against the “insiders” constantly leading them astray?

Johnson:

The following text is an interview I gave to a reporter.

Remember this?

…many scandals to come — are all predictable results of crawling into bed with the press.
…most people in this movement lack the “self-esteem” and judgment to choose their own leaders. Instead, they allow the press and groups like the SPLC to anoint their leaders for them…
…How does one court the press? By giving them what they want, of course. By fulfilling the stereotypes that advance the enemy’s narrative…
…Will these people ever go away? Not as long as the movement lets a hostile press declare who our leaders are.

This Yang thing, on the heels of the collapse of the God Emperor narrative and the Quota Queen’s refusal take any responsibility for their role in that, should be the last straw.

How much bad judgment, humiliation, error, defeat, and embarrassment can the rank-and-file take? How much more hypocrisy?  How much more Asiaphilia?  

I have my differences with the National Alliance crowd, but, still, I’m sure both Kevin Strom and Will Williams would oppose, as I do, the hijacking of racial activism into some sort of mainstreaming embrace of idiotic political candidates, with an underlying Jewish/Asian HBD objective.

Those two gentleman have a degree of status and gravitas in “movement” circles. It would be helpful if they would openly oppose these trends.

More helpful would be if the rank-and-file took up the banner of revolt, stormed the ramparts of Der Movement, and restored at least the level of stupidity that existed under WN 1.0, which, as bad as it was, was still better than what we have today.

Most helpful of all would be a total revolution, a dismantling of the Old Movement and its replacement by something new.

Sunday News

In der news.

All together now: Cuckadoodledoo!

Didn’t I warn you that this guy is a buffoon and a fraud?

The last chance for White America!  The God Emperor!

Spencer is correct: Trump as any sort of “change agent” is finished.  I could have told you that (and did) three and more years ago, but, hey, better late than never.

Hey, Ann, I could have told you all of that back in 2015.

Once again, Sallis is right.  Mainstreaming always fails because your more centrist position can always be co-opted by the System and/or by other, more moderate, populists.  If you stake out a radical position that truly represents what you are (or should be) about, then one of two things happen – either you distinguish yourself from the opposition and thus stand alone or you force the opposition to shift toward you, moving the so-called “Overton Window” in the proper direction.  As to the cries – “oh, you won’t’ win” – please tell me about the success of President Le Pen.  You should win or lose standing on principle, rather than lose as a compromised fraud.  At the very least, if you stand your ground, you know that any success is authentic and due to shifting people toward you, rather than vice versa.

Note to micks who still identify as “liberal Democrats” and who spite WASPs by identifying as “oppressed Hibernians in solidarity with People of Color.”

Watch this.  Of course, Greg Johnson was telling us it was really a “win” for Trump (and, implicitly, I suppose, for all of us), because those wonderful Republican “didn’t lose as badly as they could have.”

Reality here – not delusional debate about “when we will win our victory.” Things are bad and getting worse.  I assume the mindset of the “optimism crowd” – if we assume that they are sincere and not merely boosting their egos and cash flows – is that despair will lead to inaction and surrender, so we have to give people hope. Unfortunately, constant disappointment, and constantly dashed hopes, leads to disgust, and, yes, despair and inaction; falsely inflated hope that “all will be well” also can lead to inaction as people believe that “it’ll all work out in the end regardless of what I do or don’t do.”  Reality is best.

Kevin, if you are going to talk about gravity, it is churlish not to mention Einstein and General Relativity.

I’m no fan of Einstein or his ethny, but fair is fair.

“I’m not surprised you’ll get different results from different companies,” Dr. Jennifer Raff, Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Kansas told TechCrunch back in September. “They have their own proprietary info based on those samples. If one of them has lots of individuals from a particular region and the other company does not, you’re more likely to show up as having ancestry from that region whereas if the other company doesn’t have that data represented in their database, it’s going to show up as a different population.”

What the parental populations are is going to significantly affect the results.

This reminds me of a personal anecdote. A family I know – normies not Nutzis – asked me to take a look at some confusing ancestry data they got from a company that shall remain nameless.  No problem with paternity – child has 50% chromosome match with father as well as mother, etc.  The ancestry percentages for the child are very crudely plausible based on the parents. So far, fine as well as it goes.  But the chromosomal fragments do not match.  Thus, for example, the child inherits some percentage of ancestry “X” from the mother and not the father (who lacks it, according to the test). But, the mother’s “X” is on, say, chromosomes 3, 5,and 6 (I don’t remember the exact details) and the child’s “X “is on, say, chromosomes 10 and 16. That of course is at the lower confidence levels.  At the highest confidence level, all of those chromosome fragments are “unassigned.”  So, putting aside a historically novel medical finding of mass chromosomal translocations resulting in a normal child (a probability roughly equal to picking one specific atom out of all those in the observable universe), we are left with the reality that the chromosome fragment identifies at the low confidence intervals are being assigned with the precision of a coin flip.  A fragment may be “X” but very likely could be “Y.”  Or maybe the father actually has “X” – and this is where the child is getting it – but the father’s chromosome fragment is instead labeled “Y” at the low confidence interval and “unassigned” at the higher.  Thus, maybe it is really the father who has “X” at the chromosome fragments that would match the child but the test is assigning those fragments to a different ancestry, while perhaps the mother has little or no “X” at all. If you take the low confidence level data at face value, then this all makes no biological sense at all. Recombination normally takes place between homologous chromosomes, not between non-homologous ones.

These companies would be better served to just estimate ancestry from SNP frequency data and/or genome-wide correlations of SNP frequencies (genetic integration) rather than making low probability guestimates of chromosome fragment identity.  However, the latter method is I suppose better for telling crazed cat ladies that they are descended from Pocahontas, so there’s that.

In addition, the companies’ “timeline” estimates are ludicrous, and cannot be used to “time” admixture, even if the admixture is real and not artefactual.  Putting aside the question as to whether the chromosome fragments are properly identified to begin with, and whether the boundaries between purported different ancestral fragments are also properly identified, an important point is being missed (many academic population geneticists make the same possibly incorrect assumptions).  In a large panmictic population, certainly over time you’ll have sufficient scrambling of ancestries so that in an individuals there will be sufficient possibility for meiotic recombination to mix fragments between homologous chromosomes and this breaks up ancestral blocs over time, allowing for an estimation of the arrival of the intrusive elements. But if a small population was interbreeding in isolated communities, then it is possible to have individuals with very high ancestral proportions of the original intrusive stocks, and given mating over time between such individuals any exchanges of chromosome fragments would likely be between fragments of like ancestry.  So large blocs of a given ancestry can be maintained over time, and only start degrading in size relatively recently, given increased human movement.  But let’s not have real life possibilities interfere with the business model.  Send in the shekels!  Pocahontas awaits!

 

How any of this is any better than DNAPrint (was flawed as well) is unclear to me.

Debased Poland

Der Movement marches on.

“Based” Poland!  Visegrad! Ethnonationalism!

Wrong, wrong, they’re always wrong.

Apparently, the Nazi occupation caused less damage to Poland’s genetic structure than the current reign of “Polish nationalists.”  Leave it to ethnonationalists to impose a genocidal immigration policy on their countrymen.  Another fail for “implicit Whiteness.”

Another fail for mainstreaming as well – even if the mainstreamers achieve power (a rare occurrence) they achieve nothing of value and may very well – such as in Poland’s case – act in a destructive manner. In some ways, this action of Poland’s “based” government is worse than Merkel’s – since, because of the alleged “cultural compatibility” of the Filipinos, they are more likely to interbreed with the natives, compared to the Muslims invited into Germany by Merkel.

All hail the Visegrad group!

Maybe the Poles should get back their people from the UK instead of importing Filipinos.

Durocher, January 13, 2019:

On all this, Darwin and other early evolutionary/racial scientists were ahead of the curve. See for instance the innumerable genetically-determined human adaptations to local environments that have been identified (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Local-human-adaptations-Following-Fan-et-al-2016-each-adaptation-is-labeled-by-the_fig2_321252816) or the striking correlation between “the shape of the cerebral cortex — the brain’s outer layer of neural tissue — and genetic ancestry” (https://www.labnews.co.uk/news/brain-shape-genetic-ancestry-linked-10-08-2015/). The science indicates that race is ‘only’ cerebral-cortex-deep!

Sallis, November 4, 2018: See here.  

No further comment on that Durocherism.

Answer: Because Trump is a fraud and a vulgar ignorant buffoon, as this blog has been telling you since 2015 – you know, for the last three years that the quota queens have been screeching that “The God Emperor” was “the last chance for White America” and “an American Caesar who was going to stabilize White demographics.”  And, yet, who do you continue to prop up as leaders?

Der Movement has its priorities straight on Trump:

Once again the Beloved God Emperor has proven to be worth more than double his weight in gold. Those tweets are priceless.

All you need to do to be a successful President is tweet like Beavis and Butthead.  Der Movement marches on.

Read this, and remember that Counter-Currents writers now tell us how much they love the GOP. Republican conservatives: Vicious anti-White racist Sarah Jeong good, good, good; mewling cuckservative civic nationalist a bad, bad, bad racist.

Saturday News

In all cases, emphasis added.

Sallis back in November 2015warning you about Trump.

Trump may be a fraud.  Even if he is not, he is not “one of us.” Any WN who wastes time, energy, and money actively supporting Trump’s candidacy is an idiot.
But there is a reason, one reason, the only reason, to consider making the trip to the polls to vote for Der Touchback if he’s on a ballot (primaries, if you are a registered idiot [i.e., Republican], or in the general election if Trump is on the ballot as a Republican or an Independent).
It is not because “he’ll do something about immigration.”  It’s not because you should have some Roissy-like heavy breathing sexualized fetish for “Der Trumpening.”  It’s not because an obnoxious, mercurial buffoon would make a good President.
No, it is this: whatever Trump really is, the public perception of him is that he is a pro-White, anti-immigration “fascist” right-wing populist.

Sallis: Always Right.

Quota Queens: Wrong, wrong, wrong, they are ALWAYS wrong.  See the next item.

Roissy:

Is Jack Nicholson the last old school alpha male in Challahwood from De Niro’s era? I haven’t heard a peep from Jack about politics, which is exceedingly rare in this age of celebrities flapping their gums nonstop about ORANGE MAN BAD. I suspect Jack is an uncucked shitlord, like Mel and Vince.

The reality:

He calls former British Prime Minister Blair a “rock star … he’s wonderful” and says he supports Hillary Clinton in the presidential race (“I’m a friend of the family”). Nicholson acknowledges being “a lifelong Irish Democrat. What more can I say? I voted for what’s his name, (1988 presidential candidate Michael) Dukakis. This was the real test for a Democrat.”

See this.

Nicholson has called himself a “lifelong Irish Democrat,”and he’s got the financial records to prove it. Since 1980, he’s donated $23,350 to Democrats–and not a penny to any Republicans.
But his involvement with Democrats goes back farther than that. In 1972, he was a supporter of George McGovern’s failed presidential bid against Richard Nixon. Back then, Nicholson was supporting causes that many think are new in today’s political conversation:
I wanted to do solar energy. I wanted to legalize drugs versus the terrorist problem, which I was aware of in the ’70s. Because where else are they getting illegal money at that level?
The issue of solar energy and the big corporations that prevent it from becoming a widespread phenomenon was on Nicholson’s mind as recently as 2007, when he ranted that big oil sets the energy agenda even into the level of education and likened them to an “evil genius.”
So in the end, Nicholson is a liberal Democrat like the majority of his Hollywood colleagues. The difference is, he might be one of the originals who set the tone for later incarnations of Tinseltown politics.

But, hey, don’t worry, Roissy.  You can always post some gifs of Jack strutting like Vince McMahon, and that will make it all OK.

They’re “proud,” boys.  Meanwhile Gaslighting Greg will continue his dishonest narrative that all the street brawling is due to WN 1.0 and WN 1.0 “attitudes.”  And, yes, dat dere “big tent” has been working out just wonderfully. Just blame it all on Richard Spencer, and that’ll make it all better.

Joe Afrowop.  Excerpts:

DiMaggio — a child of the Depression, the eighth of nine born to Italian immigrants — was raised in San Francisco. His first marriage — to Dorothy Arnold, a bit player in films — was a disaster. She thought she was getting an icon of American decency. Instead, her new husband drank and chain-smoked and cheated constantly.
They had a baby, Joe Jr., but DiMaggio barely paid attention to him and regarded him as an irritant. When the baby got sick, Joe would check in to a hotel.
“Joe misunderstood Monroe,” ­Solotaire said. “Like, here’s this young, beautiful woman on the verge of becoming one of the most successful and famous actresses in the world, and she’s going to give it all up to make lasagna for Joe and spend her days changing diapers?”
But she wasn’t to outshine him. When she did, he’d sleep in another bedroom and go days without speaking to her.
Monroe felt suffocated. In her memoir, she wrote that she and DiMaggio had known “it wouldn’t be an easy marriage,” but that she had no idea of the abuse to come.
Monroe was always on a quest for self-improvement: psychotherapy, college courses, devouring books and art exhibits. DiMaggio preferred to spend his time indoors, drinking and smoking and watching daytime TV, just waiting for her to come home from work.
 “When she didn’t respond the way he wanted her to, he became physical,” Heymann writes. “On one occasion, he ripped an earring from her lobe and scratched her face.”
DiMaggio spent $10,000 on a life-size sex doll made in Monroe’s image. One year after Monroe filed for divorce, he showed it to a stewardess he was seeing.
“She’s Marilyn the Magnificent,” DiMaggio said. “She can do anything Marilyn can do, except talk.”
“I’ll give you five minutes to get her out here,” said DiMaggio, “or I’ll tear this f–king place apart brick by brick.”

African is as African does.  Seriously though, DiMaggio was a lout and Monroe was a slut. 

Speaking of violent Africans…they just can’t help it.

The next time you complain that Der Movement “has no money” and that is why “they can’t do anything” remember this.

Read this.  That goes back to the fundamental problem.  The White nations who are signing the agreement – where did their governments come from?  Yes, I know – mindlessly chant about “the Jews” – but that won’t alter one bit that Whites are a weak, feckless ace of self-destructive pansies.

Another Germanic genocidal lunatic.  In this case, Germanic Swiss. Mama Merkel’s son?

Read this.

But this has its risks. The True Finns entered Finland’s government in 2015. But then, rather than bring down the government over the Centre Party Prime Minister Juha Sipila’s insistence—against all election promises—on allowing in thousands of “refugees,” the party did nothing at all. True Finns’ members were so furious that its leader, the Foreign Minister Timo Soini, was displaced by a hardliner, Dr Jussi Halla-Aho, with whom the other parties in the government coalition would not work. The party split in two [True Finns split holds lesson for Europe’s populists, by Richard Milne, Financial Times, June 16, 2017] with 18 of its 38 MPs—including all those with government positions – breaking away to create “Blue Reform.”

Come now – the True Finns were simply “mainstreaming” – and the great and good “leaders” of Der Movement tell us that is the path to success, right?  Hail Marine!  Hail Mainstreaming!  Hail losing election after election and doing nothing when (ever-so-rarely) you are invited to participate in a government! What are principles?  Just maximize dat dere vote – maybe you’ll break the 20% mark in another 50 years…that is, 20% of the remaining White population, by which time may be down to 20% of the total national population.

Revisionist Alt Right History, Part 2

Revisionism by omission.

From the summer of 2015 to the fall of 2016, the Alt Right was winning debates and changing minds. Even more significantly, it was also changing the parameters of political debate. It was increasingly capable of driving the news cycle and forcing the political establishment to respond to it. It was also funny, creative, and cool. Naturally, people wanted to join the movement and embrace the brand.

It was during this time that only two people (that I know of) associated with (American) racial nationalism had the prescience to be critical and/or skeptical of the Alt Right: Ted Sallis and Kevin Strom.  Everyone else – including Johnson – were 100% on the Alt Right bandwagon.  All the juvenile posturing, intellectual vacuity, obsessions over a cartoon frog, screaming about something called “Kek,” Trump worship – that was 100% fine and good to all these other people. Strom was skeptical, and I was openly critical (and skeptical), predicting (and hoping for) an end to the “Alt Right fever.”  Those are the facts that all sorts of revisionist attempts at rewriting history cannot change.

But that presented some problems.

The Alt Right itself was the problem, and carried within it the seeds of its own downfall, clear to anyone with foresight and good judgment.

First of all, the Alt Right was a decentralized, largely anonymous, largely online network of individuals, webzines, and small organizations. Because of its online nature, there were no barriers to the movement’s viral growth—but by the same token, there were no barriers to entry either.

Doesn’t most of that also apply to Der Movement in general as well?

Second, the Alt Right brand was effective because of its vagueness. 

No, that was one of the key flaws leading to its downfall.  It was a building with no foundation.  It was a deck of cards – which predictably collapsed at the first strong wind.  That Johnson even now doesn’t realize this is remarkable.

But the flip side of that vagueness was that nobody could control how it was used. Anyone who dissented from the Republican establishment could call himself Alt Right, and as the Trump campaign gained momentum, increasing numbers of young Trumpian populists and civic nationalists wanted to use the term. However, many of these newcomers were ideologically naïve and half-baked.

The problem is that “ideologically naïve and half-baked” describes the founders of the Alt Right themselves.

The main bone of contention was race. The core and vanguard of the Alt Right were White Nationalists. They believed that whiteness is a necessary condition for being a member of any European or European-derived society like the United States. Many newcomers rejected this idea. They were ignorant of the problems of multiracial, multicultural societies. They believed the widespread dogma that being an American is a matter of a civic creed, to which people of any race can adhere. Many of them greeted White Nationalist ideas with indifference or downright hostility.

And so the Alt Right fell in between these two stools.  Surprise!

The utility of the Alt Right brand was as a tool of reaching out to people who were closer to the political mainstream, the “normies.” The normies were now coming in droves, and some of them wanted to define the Alt Right in more comfortable civic nationalist terms. This led to a crisis in the Alt Right. 

For years, people in our movement had complained about only “preaching to the choir.” But now that White Nationalists had a vast audience of people who didn’t already agree with them, they did not feel elated; they felt threatened. Many people were worried that their movement was going to be “coopted” by “entryists” and started thinking in terms of how to repulse newcomers.

Here’s where I think we delve into revisionism by omission.  Johnson leaves out a middle ground here. My criticism of the Alt Right was two-fold.  First, I didn’t like its intellectual vacuity, Millennial jackassery, regurgitation of empty “movement” dogma, stupid memes, Trump worship, drunken acting out, and all the rest.  Second – and relevant to the point here – I vehemently objected to the Alt Right’s pretensions of hegemony of (American) Far Right activism.  My point was, and is, clear: if the Alt Right wanted to welcome all sorts of “newcomers,” if it wanted a “big tent,” if it wanted to equate its worldview to a mash-up of Trump, Pepe, Kek, alcohol in Alexandria loft apartments, Beavis and Butthead sniggering, and Arthur Kemp, all well and good.  But – BUT! – keep the Alt Right as its own separate entity, the “Far Right for immature Millennials” – don’t you dare pretend to represent, or speak for, ALL (American) Far Rightists, don’t you dare equate the Alt Right with White nationalism, and vice versa.  I opposed putting all our racialist eggs in one Alt Right basket, I opposed Alt Right dominance and hegemony, I foresaw the damage that would be done by the Alt Right’s inevitable collapse, and I, frankly, resented being represented in the public eye by this group of semi-retarded imbeciles.  It was not an either-or of “vanguardism” vs. “mainstreaming entryism.”  It was to keep the Alt Right separate from racial nationalism proper.  But all the folks who are historical revisionists about the Alt Right today did not see that then (or even now).  

I thought this was self-defeating. I urged people to see the situation as an opportunity to convert a vastly expanded audience to White Nationalism. The reason we had come so far is that we had the best arguments and propaganda. We just needed to have faith in ourselves and our message, then we needed to get back in the battle and continue winning new converts.

Was the way to win new converts – all those “normies” – to declare that the Alt Right was White nationalism or nothing at all?  Seems inconsistent.  Don’t you want to bring the “converts” in gradually?  Isn’t the whole point of Johnson’s argument so far that the original Alt Right was successful in attracting a “big tent” following because of its vagueness?

We also needed to be realistic about the limits of our ability to control a decentralized, grass-roots, online social movement with anything less than the best memes. It is empty to talk of entryism and purges when one is dealing with an online movement with fuzzy boundaries. 

How does this differ from Der Movement in general?

We cannot prevent people from going online, nor can we throw them off the internet. Finally, we needed to develop an ethos that would allow us to collaborate productively with people closer to the center, whose links to the mainstream were channels for our ideas and influence.

By declaring that the Alt Right was White nationalism – or nothing at all?

These arguments, however, were rendered moot on November 21, 2016, when Hailgate allowed the mainstream media to forever tie the Alt Right to neo-Nazism. At this point, many civic nationalists rejected the Alt Right brand entirely. This was the birth of the so-called “Alt Lite.” It was “lite” only in one sense: it had tossed White Nationalists overboard. The Alt Lite remained a potent force, while the Alt Right became significantly weaker. The Alt Lite commanded a large audience, which White Nationalists could no longer reach. The Alt Lite retained an enormous social network, from which we were now cut off. White Nationalists could accomplish less, because a lot of highly competent and creative people on the Alt Lite would no longer cooperate with us.

If the Alt Lite was so sensitive, so weak, then good riddance.  You don’t want to be in a foxhole with someone who starts running as soon as they hear one artillery shell being fired.

Perhaps the worst loss, however, was in the ideological realm. The most important intellectual battle White Nationalists face is to destroy the taboo against white identity politics. After Hailgate, the Alt Lite differentiated itself from White Nationalism by drawing a firm line against white identity politics and digging in behind it, strengthening the taboo among the very people who were most receptive to questioning it.

Ideological realm?  What was it before Hailgate?  Pepe?  Kek?

It was a disaster. But it did get high marks from Andrew Anglin, who had been at the forefront of the effort to identify the Alt Right with Nazism: “Basically, Richard Spencer did something at NPI that was needed exactly right now in the post-victory period: he separated the Alt-Right from the Alt-Cuck and the Alt-Kike. We are better off without these people.”[1] We were better off only if one’s goal was to assert control over a marginal, subcultural political movement. We were significantly worse off if one’s goal was to interface with the cultural and political mainstream and move it in our direction.

I thought Anglin was one of the new voices of White nationalism?  I suppose when he defends Spencer, that’s all forgotten, eh?  Look, I disagree with Anglin on most things, but he was right about all those folks throwing Spencer under the bus because of Jews. I wish we had “pro-White leaders” who cared about ALL Whites (i.e., European-descended people) as much as they care about Jews.  Then again, Jews are much superior to low-IQ Afrowops and all those “non-Western” Romanians dancing the hora (long may it turn), right?

Some figures on the Alt Lite have speculated that Spencer engineered Hailgate precisely to drive off civic nationalists by identifying the Alt Right with racial nationalism in its most stigmatized and toxic form. For what it is worth, I ran this theory by someone who socialized and worked closely with Spencer over the years, and he rejected it as “giving him too much credit” for Machiavellian strategizing. Instead, he chalked Hailgate up to a mix of impulsiveness, drunkenness, and unfathomable bad judgment.

I said it then, and I’ll say it now: Hailgate was bad judgment and bad optics, but it was nowhere the disaster all the Spencer-haters make it out to be.  Spencer and the Alt Right could have rebounded, if all the hysterical Alt Wrongers didn’t start immediately disavowing him (for all the wrong reasons) and if Spencer and the Alt Right wasn’t fundamentally characterized by “a mix of impulsiveness, drunkenness, and unfathomable bad judgment.”

Whether Hailgate was intentional or not, however, it became the pattern for what came next: a drive to centralize the Alt Right under the leadership of Richard Spencer, which led to further division and dysfunction.

All Spencer’s fault.  Boring already. How about the error in trying to centralize White nationalism under the Alt Right?  And if folks are now saying that Spencer has long been “problematic” and has all sorts of serious personality flaws, then why didn’t they see that earlier?  Didn’t they all work with, associate with, and make podcasts with, Spencer before?  Before these folks had their own personal falling out with Spencer, he and his “flawed personality” were no problem.  Judgment?

Who is ultimately at fault here?  Neither Spencer nor Johnson.  It’s the rank-and-file of Der Movement, who keep on following and enabling failed leaders through all of their “unfathomable bad judgment.”

SLC News, 7/14/18

More stupidity.

Antifa Jeff rides again. Sessions bestirs himself to action.

The federal government has quietly revived its investigation into the murder of Emmett Till, the 14-year-old African-American boy whose abduction and killing remains, almost 63 years later, among the starkest and most searing examples of racial violence in the South.

The Justice Department said that its renewed inquiry, which it described in a report submitted to Congress in late March, was “based upon the discovery of new information.” 

MAGA!  Pepe!  Kek!  Roissy: “Sessions as Attorney General alone justifies the entire Trump Presidency.”

Question: Is it possible Sessions is a mole, a radical leftist who spent a lifetime posing as a hardcore conservative so as to burrow deep into the mainstream Right, and to then ascend to a position of power and authority in which he can enact leftist tactics to subvert America?  Or is he just another over-rated quota queen cuck?  The end result is the same.  Of course, Der Movement will once again be silent about Sessions; after all, he’s “one of the boys.”

The despicable Durocher lies once again, this time about Ancient Roman demographics. By the way, that essay proves once again that lies about Ancient Rome are made in large part to make parallels to the modern situation; being dimwitted, Type Is cannot understand today’s peril without being shown historical cartoon comparisons, as if they were mentally retarded five year-olds (which they are the mental equivalent of).  Notice what blog Durocher chooses for this trash – the ultra-Nordicist, anti-White ethnic TOO.

About Rome, see this.  And this.

Copy, copy, steal, steal, steal.  Have Orientals invented anything in the last 1000 years?

Spencer expresses himself:

@RichardBSpencer

Anglo-Saxons were once the American ruling class. We are now a dispossessed elite–symbolized by the fact that the establishment’s inner sanctum, #SCOTUS, is Jewish and Catholic.

Don’t worry Richie.  You are still the ruling class in the American “movement.”  We can all sigh with relief over the great competence demonstrated by, say, yourself and your buddy Greg “open borders meeting vetting” Johnson.  

Then we have:

‏ @RichardBSpencer

Just in case there was any misunderstanding–though I, of course, recognize ethnic differences, I do seek broader European unity; though I do lament my people’s decline, I take responsibility for it. The WASP death was both suicide and murder.

More suicide than murder.  Let’s consider the 1965 immigration act.  Let’s blame it on the Jews (and Irish).  Very well.  Who let the Jews (and Irish) into the country in the first place?  Who let in the ultra-leftist Scalias and Alitos to displace the red-blooded patriotic White Americans like Earl Warren?  Who let in the Polacks, five of whom are needed to screw in a light bulb?  Forget about Negro slavery, we won’t even mention that.  The Anglo-Saxons should not have let in any other peoples after the Revolution. They can’t blame “the Jews” for that.

Roissy fantasizes:

If an arm of the Deep State was involved with the Rich murder and two government employees were the hired hit men, don’t wake up the next day after the news drops expecting life in America to be the same. It will change everything.

Let’s say the story is correct and Rich was killed by “Deep State” operatives and not by feral Negroes.  That’s a big IF, but let’s assume it is true.  Let’s further assume that the truth comes out and is not buried by the same Deep State.  Very well.  What does it change?  Nothing.  Trump will just post some jackass tweets, demanding that Sessions “do something.”  Antifa Jeff will ignore those pleas and instead focus his (very limited) energies on more “hate crimes” prosecutions of Unite the Right attendees for the “crime” of defending themselves, or on dredging up 60 year-old murders of little Negroes. The media will ignore/scoff/mock and the Alt Right will babble on about Kali Yuga and “the Moops.”  The Right is inept, Trump is a buffoon, Sessions is a far-left cuck, and the media are corrupt.

How’s that mainstreaming working out for you?  Once again, Sallis is right, and Der Movement wrong.