Category: media

Asinine Huffpost

Stupid even for them.

Read this.

“Antifa” is {snip} a problem only for neo-Nazis. Antifa activists show up as counterprotesters at fascist events, like the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, last year, where thousands of armed white nationalists clashed with antifa members and other protesters.
Antifa groups are distinguished from other organizations that do not like Nazis by their willingness to use violence against Nazis, but most people have little to fear from their local antifa chapter. In more than 30 years of antifa activity, there has been one confirmed fatality caused by an antifa group member ― in 1993, when a Nazi in Portland, Oregon, was shot during a fight at a gas station. Far-right extremists, by contrast, were responsible for 670 fatalities, 3,053 injuries and 4,420 attacks in the United States from 1990 to 2012, according to a report from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.

I would respond in two ways.

First, unless this semi-retarded writer believes that anyone to the right of John McCain is a neo-Nazi, then the attitude expressed above is factually incorrect.  Antifa (and related groups) have attacked mainstream Trump supporters at rallies and marches, they’ve interfered with or prevented college speeches (including speeches by non-Nazi conservatives as well as by academics), and they rioted at Trump’s inauguration (which they essentially have gotten away with, as they are part of the Corporate-Deep State System).

Second, even if only “neo-Nazis” have the problem, does Huffpost really want to endorse the idea that masked thugs can attack with impunity anyone they think espouses “unacceptable views?”  Does Huffpost really want lawmakers to turn a blind eye to masked political vigilantes using violence against opponents?  If Huffpost really believes System reports that “Far-right extremists” are a violent danger, then don’t they fear that some masked Nutzi may deem Huffpost writers as espousing unacceptable views and take action against them?

Are they really that stupid or are they confident that the “Far-right” practically constitutes no danger at all, except perhaps to abortion clinics?  Which is it?  They can’t have it both ways.  Either the “Far-right” is a terrible violent danger and therefore Huffpost writers should welcome the proposed law or they are confident that the “Far-right” is essentially harmless and so the proposed law is correct in targeting Antifa for their attacks against harmless people whose politics they dislike.  Again: Which is it?

Or does Huffpost tacitly endorse political violence against harmless people they disagree with?  Is Huffpost the media arm of domestic terrorism? Is that it?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Advertisements

Inherent Racism of Multiculturalism

More Salter analysis.

I am going to quote, and comment on, several excerpts, not to critique the entirety of the whole piece, but rather to illuminate certain points important to this blog and to the interests of Whites in general. In all cases, emphasis added.

This article follows from my review for Quadrant of the SBS documentary Is Australia Racist? which was hosted by Ray Martin, funded by Screen Australia (and therefore the taxpayer) and aired on Sunday, 26 February 2017.1 The program was grossly inaccurate and biased against Anglo Australians. In other words, it was typical of the wide-borders multicultural propaganda awash in the mainstream media over the last half century. 

Here, I look behind the program’s glossy façade to examine another long term feature of multiculturalism: its academic enablers. I look more closely at the program’s four academic experts, their on-screen claims and previous writings. It is important to look behind the smooth opinions of laymen such Ray Martin if we are to discover whether the linked policies of massive immigration and minority privilege have any basis in reason and scholarship.

That’s what Salter’s essay is about.  Let’s look at certain important excerpts.

Prof. Dunn’s publication list is a window into academic multiculturalism. His research is funded by the academic and multicultural establishments. He researches racism and ethnic discrimination but, it seems, only when committed by mainstream Australians. He is not interested in Anglos being victimised, only in their transgressions against others, which includes denials of racism and privilege. These, together with immigrant victimhood, are treated as axiomatic. For example, he states that the “new racism” is a distinctly Anglo view of the nation as assimilationist, ethnocultural, or egalitarian. He argues that it is racist to assert the equality of all Australians, because this (supposedly) denies white privilege…Jakubowicz argues that multiculturalism is a fraud because it benefits the (allegedly) dominant Anglo population. British and Australian governments have claimed that their societies have been tolerant of diversity, reflecting genuine expressions of Anglo-liberalism. In fact these governments “disguise systematic structures of racialised inequality masked by surface egalitarian discourses.” 

This account resembles Dunn’s view that egalitarianism is a form of Anglo racism.

This is astonishing, and reflects the extreme radical drift of the Left on racial issues.  The old bywords of equality and egalitarianism, once a bulwark of the leftist worldview, are now considered forms of “Anglo” (i.e., White) racism!  Multiculturalism, which oppresses the White majority while empowering non-White minorities, is a “fraud” because it “benefits” the very group it viciously oppresses.  The very things leading to White demographic displacement – let us be frank, White Genocide – mass migration, assimilation, multiculturalism – are now considered by the Left to be manifestations of “White racism” and “White Privilege.”

The Left has drifted so far into the fever swamps of revolutionary madness that slow White genocide is not only insufficient but akin to White Supremacy – not only must the pace of displacement be increased, but Whites must be constantly humiliated, disempowered, subjugated, slandered, and tormented, all the while being gaslighted by being told they are privileged racists living in a White supremacist society.  In truly Orwellian fashion – nay, even to extremes Orwell could not imagine – a majority group being systematically dispossessed and destroyed is told that the System destroying them is a pro-majority fraud working for majority benefit and reflecting the majority’s selfish racism!  By analogy, Auschwitz was a bastion of Jewish Supremacy, and the Holomodor an example of Ukrainian Privilege.

By any objective, rational standards, the Left is stark, raving mad.  But, perhaps it is not madness bit just pure, crystalline, rock-hard hatred.  The fundamental basis of the modern Left is an unquenchable racial hatred of Whites, and the need to humiliate Whites while destroying them.  Destroying Whites alone is not enough; Whites must be made into a subaltern, despised caste, while all the time being told they are “privileged.”

To summarize: The Right can no longer assume that their opponents are merely sincere but deluded egalitarians who foolishly, but goodheartedly want equality for all peoples.  No, the opponents are revolutionary extremists so consumed by hate that the complete eradication of the hated White enemy is not good enough; Whites must be ritually humiliated as they are being eradicated.

Jakubowicz also shares Dunn’s assumption that Anglos dominate Australia’s racial hierarchy. “In most Western societies Christian values or Christian social institutions dominate public debate and public practice.

Case in point.  By some mysterious circumstance beyond our comprehension, the dominant group is being demographically and culturally displaced, while being castigated by the likes of Jakubowicz.  That’s some strange dominance, I’ll tell you that for nothing.

In Jakubowicz’s view Anglo Australians have no legitimate ethnic interests. Their only ethical option is complete acquiescence to minority demands, which do represent legitimate group interests. His call for Chinese-Australian inclusion makes no reference to numbers. Like other mainstream multiculturalists, he treats the displacement of Western populations as not worth mentioning. Note also his cavalier attitude towards Australian security despite acknowledging the growth of Han nationalism and its linkage to Chinese economic and military power. These potential threats can only be exacerbated by the growing Chinese presence in Australian politics and business, which Jakubowicz sees as an encouraging trend.

Pure hatred of Whites as Whites.

It is relevant that Beijing is already utilising Chinese-Australian individuals and organisations as agents of influence in this country, a development that is alarming security analysts. Chinese voters have been swayed by ethnic interests for many years, an example being Prime Minister John Howard’s loss of the seat of Bennelong in 2007. Sam Dastyari, a Labor powerbroker, was forced to resign from parliament after he allowed improper influence by local Chinese businessmen; his foreign policy pronouncements were slavishly pro-Beijing. Chinese community leaders helped defeat the Abbott government’s attempt to reform the draconian section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. It is true that apart from the important matters of identity and security, Chinese have been in the main high quality immigrants with stable families, an admirable work ethic, low crime rates, and strong educational outcomes. 

That last part: Oh, no; just…NO.  Maybe Salter has a reason to be moderate here and praise Chinese qualities, akin to the slavish obsessions of HBDers.  But these positive qualities – even if we were to assume they are all true – are not the point.  Even the loyalty issue is not the point.  The point IS Salter’s own paradigm of ethnic genetic interests; Chinese are a biologically (and culturally) alien intrusive subspecies in the Australian human ecology and for that reason – and that reason alone should be sufficient regardless of other considerations – Chinese immigration must be prevented.

But the Chinese population has risen from close to zero to about five percent of the population since the 1970s, concentrated mainly in capital cities. This success largely invalidates attempts to portray them as victims. Instead the issue of greatest import to Australia concerns their loyalty. If Markus and other academics had asked the obvious questions the political class would be informed on Chinese ethnicity and business cohesion, matters of national security at a time when China has become the world’s second largest economy and is increasingly activated by nationalism. Decades ago they would have realised that many Chinese Australians feel, or will come to feel, allegiance to their ancient homeland. Some would have come to respect Australia’s founding leaders for sparing the country a large Chinese minority. They would have been right to ask what madness led governments to squander this social capital by introducing a potential fifth column into the country?

True, but how about squandering the genetic capital?  One can debate the presence, and place, of non-Anglo Whites in Australia; that’s one issue – but as regard non-Whites the situation should be unambiguous and not even a required topic for debate: they do not belong.

Some factor is missing from the picture. Why the bias against Anglos?

The most overtly Marxist of the four, Kevin Dunn and Andrew Jakubowicz, may have replaced the bogey of the capitalist exploiter with the bogey of an ethnic exploiter, Anglo Australia. 

And what did the old time Marxists want to do with the “capitalist exploiters?”” What did they do once coming to power?  That’s what the Racial Marxists of today are planning for Whites.

Professors Markus and Paradies have different theories but arrive at a similar conclusion, that white racism is the main risk to the joys of permanent open borders and multiculturalism…One thing we do know is that Dunn, Markus and Jakubowicz were willing to work with Martin and Paradies, self-declared ethnic loyalists, in making a documentary that dealt in part with the latter’s identity group. It is not obvious how individuals motivated by leftist ideals could cooperate to make a program that furthered an ethnic agenda. Jakubowicz has called for Chinese Australians to establish an ethnic lobby.

An ethnic lobby for “Chinese Australians” would no doubt be welcomed by the “HBD race realists.”

Andrew Markus is Professor of Jewish Civilisation at Monash University, a chair funded by the late Richard Pratt, a generous philanthropist for Jewish causes in Australia, Israel and elsewhere. As the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted on Pratt’s death, many of his philanthropic gifts went to Israel’s universities, the integration of new immigrants (all of whom are Jewish due to Israel’s strict immigration laws) and disadvantaged Israelis. That shows love for his people, a noble sentiment. But what is Markus, supposedly a radical cosmopolitan, doing accepting funds from an ethnic nationalist? Would not a cosmopolitan shy away from a vertically integrated ethnic enterprise in which a Jewish academic is paid by a Jewish donor to study Jewish affairs? Markus has spent his professional life criticising Australia and other Western countries for immigration policies that were mildly discriminatory compared to Israel’s. Yet it seems he has never criticised Richard Pratt or the Israeli leadership, all dedicated ethnic loyalists. Indeed, he has co-authored a paper praising Israel’s discriminatory immigration policy.2

Jewish dual morality; the enemy revealed.  But some on the “Far Right” tell us that Jews are “White Men of the West.”  Do you, dear reader, really believe that?

Multiculturalism was always a regime imposed on a reluctant majority by a triumphant left-minority alliance. 

How did that alliance become triumphant?  One cannot exempt Whites themselves from blame; indeed one must place significant blame on this race of cowardly lemmings.  The failure of the “movement and its inept “leadership” must also be held accountable.

…Anglos and whites in general are rapidly being reduced to minority status due to bipartisan immigration policies imposed by the major parties and the cultural establishment. If Anglos are dominant and racist, as Dunn insists, why have they been cowed and silenced by political correctness? There is no doubt that Anglo-Australians are the prime target of the human rights apparatus. As observed by Stephen Chavura, a political scientist at Macquarie University, “Multicultural discourse is about silencing any who would dare to criticise the way immigration and integration have been conducted since mass immigration shifted from Europe to Asia and the Middle East in the mid to late 1970s.”14 Anglo-Australians look very much like a subaltern ethnic group, leaderless and prevented from complaining even while losing their country.

And yet they are “dominant” and “privileged.”  

IV

Conclusion and Policy Implications

One lesson of this review is that Australians should not be intimidated by academic titles and media fame. Individuals with high positions and the title of “professor” can peddle transparent falsehoods, as can the university courses they teach. Policy makers should be looking for ways to circumvent the leftist censorship in the social sciences and public broadcasting and re-establish a robust market of ideas.

But how?  We need concrete proposals.

The deep state has been dragging Australia down with suicidal ethnic policies for half a century…The vanguard of the new morality are the elites. Indeed, capture of the elites has been a triumph for the broad and disparate progressive tide. In Australia, like the US, elites in government, business, the public service, and civic organisations are embracing progressive ideas […] The sheer size of the professional class now dealing with the new morality is immense.27

And while this professional class was being assembled, the mainstream Right was babbling about “tax cuts” and “economic growth” while Der Movement was pontificating about Kali Yuga, subfractional admixture percentages, the racial provenance of Leonidas, the “men who can’t tell time,” cephalic indices, Pyramids of Atlantis and Ultima Thule, and “being snug in your hobbit hole.”  Plenty of blame to go around, no?

The leftist professional class described by Kelly consists of several mutually-supporting components. The main sources of personnel are university departments of humanities and social science. Left-dominated universities develop doctrine and train professionals to man the many positions in the media, bureaucracies, unions, political parties, and schools used to suppress Anglo resistance under the cover of human rights. The mainstream media play a vital role in instructing the public and intimidating majority activists. An important arm of the infrastructure is equal opportunity and affirmative action offices employed by universities, corporations and unions, who develop and manage multicultural programs at state and federal levels.

How to dismantle this?  How to build Rightist equivalents?  And, also, we need an analysis on how self-serving affirmative action “infrastructures” were built within the “movement.”

Again, it is not surprising that multicultural ideologues fear the rise of parties that could begin to build an ethnic infrastructure for the majority. The greatest danger to them is not temporary defunding of particular projects, but the creation of a professional class of national activists able to work in and with government agencies to neutralise and then replace the system of minority-left supremacy. 

A danger they seem they will not have to worry about for some time.

There have been many attempts to explain the nature and cause of the intolerant Left’s dominance of the universities…These accounts fail to explain why cosmopolitan, anti-Western ideology has prospered. A satisfactory explanation remains elusive. The academic literature on the subject agrees that the left’s takeover of elite culture began early in the twentieth century. Sociologist Eric Kaufmann has traced the starting point back that far in the United States. The process lasted for two or three generations, ending in the 1950s to 1960s when the takeover of elite universities was completed.31

And all doing this time the Right did nothing.  In my lifetime the two periods in which the Left has grown by leaps and bounds (after the 1964-1974 leftist political explosion) was during the Reagan and Trump Presidencies (the latter we see unfolding on a daily basis).  Does that tell you anything? The Right declares victory and then sits around and does nothing while allowing the Left to roll up one real victory after another.  The Right is not serious.  After all, look at the stupidities that Der Movement concerns itself with.

As already noted, there is some doubt that multiculturalism is unambiguously leftist. The SBS program’s attack on Anglo-Australians reveals that, despite its rhetoric, it can be seen as coming not only from the Left but also from individuals well to the right of One Nation. Multiculturalists mobilise ethnic constituents, their tribes, by warning them of threats from another tribe, Anglo Australia, which they vilify with accusations of racism.

But what to do about it?  We all know this is true.  What now?

It will be difficult to correct the social sciences and humanities while respecting the autonomy of scholars and the universities that employ them. Another hurdle is the fact that Australian academe is connected to international disciplines that are themselves politicised. If a way could be found, governments would be justified to defund intellectually corrupt courses and academics. The funding instrument might also be used to establish centres of excellence that champion science and disinterested scholarship over ideology. These centres would offer students real alternatives, and society real experts. Such reform will not be possible while governments of both sides of politics remain under the thumb of the powerful multicultural lobby. A parallel approach might work to reform public broadcasting.

But how exactly to get started?  We can never “get over the hump” from proposing these obviously beneficial ideas to even the slightest beginning of any real progress.  We require fresh ideas and careful planning, followed by competent implementation.

Screen Australia should be abolished or, preferably, reformed to defend traditional values. It should be feasible to reduce the high level of inaccuracy evident on ethnic and cultural themes in public broadcasting. Programs such as Ray Martin’s should not progress beyond the proposal stage. Their poor scholarship and ethnic bigotry should have ruled them out. The media and academic elites examined in this review give first loyalty to political values ahead of curiosity and intellectual openness. They and their enablers need to be exposed before Australia can begin to rebuild its national identity and social cohesion.

You can expose them, but to oppose them you will need your own competing infrastructure. I do not see anyone on the Right capable of building such.  Given the current inept “leadership” any budding infrastructure would be infiltrated by the first Swede or movie critic who walks in the door.

However, as philosopher Michael Walzer has noted, it is not feasible or desirable to abolish ethnocentrism in an open society. Instead, the multiple ethnic loyalties found in Australian society must be balanced. Decades of impotent criticism of the ABC show that balance can only be achieved among channels, not within individual channels. And that can only be achieved by establishing a counterweight, a network that take the side of Anglo Australia.

Another good analysis by Salter.  Imagine if all the money that has been wasted on the Happy Penguins had gone instead to fund Salter, so as to allow him to commit full time to ethnological/nationalist analysis and also to advising political activists worldwide.  If you want to contribute to Salter’s work, do so as described here.  Give generously.

Sallis Right Again: Its the Dolt Right

How the Alt Right (Dolt Right) defames racial nationalism.

Long time readers of this blog are aware that one of my major warnings against the Alt Right is that by promoting themselves as encompassing the totality of racial nationalism, the Alt Right will taint the entire “movement” with their stupidity and mendacity.  Thus, whatever the Alt Right says and does will be construed as representing and reflecting all racial nationalists, even those of us who despise and oppose the Alt Right fad.

Read this, emphasis added:

Eli was in his mid-20s, from a middle-class suburban home, and he had led an unremarkable life, up until the Charlottesville rally launched him forward within the ranks of the loosely organized white-nationalist movement. He rose from a self-described “anonymous Twitter troll” to head of one of the largest groups in the so-called alt-right.

“I came to the realization around the inauguration that we must take this from an online activist movement to a real-life activist movement,” he told me. “I decided that was my calling.”

After a few phone calls, Eli agreed to give me an on-camera interview, at Richard Spencer’s apartment in Alexandria, Va. Spencer, 39, plays the big brother to many teenagers and 20-somethings drawn to the alt-right, and his one-bedroom apartment has become a frat house for white nationalists passing through the D.C. area. When I was there, a steady stream of young men (and an occasional woman) flowed in and out. Although Eli lives less than an hour away, he often crashes there on late nights spent drinking and planning the next event. He proudly told me he always gets the couch, while others sleep on the floor.

And then all the “blah, blah” about the military record.  And so the mainstream conclusion based on this latest Alt Right fiasco is, emphasis added:

The movement itself also relies on falsehoods. It includes Holocaust deniers and pseudo-intellectuals who spout unsubstantiated theories about the science behind racial difference. In order to reach mainstream Americans, white supremacists have learned to cloak their racism in disorienting terms like “white identity politics.”

Thanks a lot, you goddamn idiots.  

The mainstream’s deductive reasoning:

Premise (that you promote): The Alt Right IS White racial nationalism

Premise (based on facts): The Alt Right are a bunch of stupid, lying, incompetent, panhandling, drunken lulzers

Conclusion: White racial nationalism as a whole is composed of stupid, lying, incompetent, panhandling, drunken lulzers

Or:

Premise (that you promote): The Alt Right IS White racial nationalism

Premise: The Alt Right is based on lies, is full of liars, and peddles HBD pseudoscience

Conclusion: ALL the science asserted by White racial nationalists is pseudoscience

In other words, because Alt Righters are drunken liars, EGI is pseudoscience.

Irrational on the part of the mainstream? Perhaps?  But isn’t it YOU, dear Alt Righters, who preach that people – the “normies” – are inherently irrational, so that instead of constantly burying them with logic and rational scientific facts, we need to project strength and fine character to appeal to their irrational instincts?

How’s that working out for you?  The rest of us know how it is working out for us.  Exactly as I warned, the Alt Right is wrecking racial nationalism.

Time for another half-drunk Alt Right podcast.  Cue the Beavis-and-Buttthead sniggering.

And some advice: If you are a bunch of babbling imbeciles who can’t get your stories straight in the midst of your alcoholic haze, then please don’t give interviews to the mainstream media. Thank you.

Run Silent, Run Deep: Helping the Community

Good news and bad news, and some constructive criticism.

The good news: some “movement” Nutzis understand the importance of community organizing and community outreach.

The bad news: they not only do it ineptly, but they broadcast it to the enemy.

Lesson: Never, EVER, have Type I activists monopolizing leadership positions in ANY racialist group, strategy, tactic, or endeavor. NEVER, EVER. For godssakes, do I have to draw you a picture?  You Do, and do QUIETLY, you don’t broadcast it at an early, embryonic stage. You don’t participate in blustering “interviews” with White-hating, anti-racist, yeastbucket shills.

Again, why is it that the allegedly “low-IQ, undisciplined, useless, low-time preference” Negro knows how to do community organizing correctly, and the White Superhero does not?

Some constructive criticism and suggestions:

The next time some idiot asks you for an interview, respond thus: “No thank you, I don’t have the time; I’m busy helping people.” Be discreet, don’t call attention to your actions.  It won’t stay undercover for long, but there’s a difference between word getting out because you are doing and accomplishing, and word getting out because hateful SJWs mock you publicly after you call attention to yourselves and invite the fox into the henhouse.

You should set up Euro-American help centers. These can be one or more on-site physical facilities and it can also be activists driving to meet those people who need help where they need it. Help real people – White people and White people only – who have real problems.  Don’t help those hostile to their race and our cause, but certainly do help apolitical normies who don’t know much about anything than their own life situation.  One doesn’t have to be on our side (at first) to get help – after all, there are so few of them – but certainly they should at least be neutral and not overly hostile. And of course, White activists should be helping each other.  By analogy with “god helps those who help themselves” we will be most effective in helping, and recruiting, White normies if we ourselves are all straightened out and doing well.  The same structures available for the normies can be used for activists.

Political education should be an integral part of the process, but it must be done prudently and patiently.  You do not want to be ham-fisted about it, pushing pamphlets (or websites) on people, wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth, etc. Initially, it has to be about making a personal connection, establishing a rapport, and introducing the most basic ideas after that, all the time trying to connect those ideas to their personal issues, problems, and experiences. Of course, from the very beginning they should know who and what you are and what you stand for, be upfront about it.  They should know who it is who cares about them and wants to help them.  But be genuine in your desire to help, make that predominant at first, don’t use helping as a mere excuse to engage in Nutzi propaganda from the get-go.  If people think you are just humoring their problems, using that just in order to recruit them, they’ll be turned off and lost to you.

If possible, contact “movement”-connected lawyers to make sure your dot all your i’s and cross all your t’s especially in the event any activity may require that those you help sign liability waivers (or some other issue of which we may be initially unaware).  We who are racial activists need to pool our expertise to help each other do productive activities – those of us who are lawyers or doctors or plumbers of electricians or businessmen or scientists of mechanics or schoolteachers or soldiers or police or firemen or whatever – the expertise is out there.

What about the System co-opting your efforts?  Of course, the quieter and the more discreet you are about your efforts, the more you can forestall co-opting efforts.  However, more fundamentally, the best way to prevent co-opting is to offer something that cannot be precisely mimicked.  The System can certainly throw money and resources at a problem (if they wish to do so), but what they cannot do (and still be true to the System and its ideology) is to provide sincerity, authenticity, a genuine desire to help, the proper political education, and the ability to give Whites back their Identity and make them proud of that Identity. The System is more likely to send a bunch of condescending, arrogant, White-hating SJW blue hairs unable to establish a connection with the people they are supposed to help, and certainly unable to connect those people’s uplift with a positive self-image rooted in racial and cultural identity.  If you do it right, it cannot be co-opted; or to put it another way, if the System was able to precisely co-opt your efforts, then they’ll be working to spread pro-White activism.

And whatever you do, don’t engage in “movement” freakishness; real people with real problems don’t want to hear about “Savitri Devi” or “cephalic indices” or “Kali Yuga” or “subfractional admixture percentages” or “the men who can’t tell time” or “the racial provenance of Julius Caesar.”  Save that for the next “movement” circle jerk, and concentrate political education for “normies’ as the essentials.  Later, if they so wish, they can learn the esoterica.

And, again: don’t broadcast what you are doing to the System.

As the sub-mariners say: run silent, run deep.

Der Race and Der Movement: Several Items

Several items.

Look at the pictures.  E-E-E-qualityee!

The “science” of Der Movement, particularly HBD and ethnic fetishism, is about at the level of this.

So much for those wonderful Polish “ethnonationalists,” huh?  Just as good as the Hungarian ones.  Ethnonationalists are filth.

And I also like how the mendacious media always use the same picture of Spencer in which he looks like a ranting lunatic.  They do the same with Touchback Trump.

The Nazi Next Time, II

Further analysis.

Let’s take another look at my The Nazi Next Time essay from 2015.  How does all of that look now from the perspective of Trump’s election and all the events from the year (and more) since that election?

Before we look back at the main points of that “Nazi” essay, let us consider that now, approximately two years later, certain elements of the System Left are beginning to reach similar conclusions.  Read this Frank Rich piece.

However common the ground of Democrats and Trumpists when it comes to economic populism, they will still be separated by the Trumpists’ adamant nativism, nationalism, and racism. The liberal elites who continue to argue that Democrats can win by meeting Trump voters halfway don’t seem to realize that those intransigent voters have long been hardwired to despise them.

The pot calling the kettle black?  Who despises who?  It was the Democratic Party’s abandonment of the White working class, in favor of Colored Identity Politics, which set the stage for right-wing populism to begin with.  Working class and middle class White Americans rightly perceive that the Democrats despise them, so why not return the favor?

Looking to the future in his 60 Minutes White House exit interview, Bannon said, “The only question before us” is whether it “is going to be a left-wing populism or a right-wing populism.” And that is the question, he added, “that will be answered in 2020.” Give the devil his due: He does have the question right. But there is every reason to fear that our unending civil war will not be resolved by any election anytime soon in the destabilized America that Trump will leave behind.

But the long-term threat is bigger than the potential arrival in the Capitol of radicals like Moore or the conspiracy theorist Kelli Ward, a possible inheritor of Flake’s Arizona seat. By illuminating a pathway to power that no one had thought possible, and demolishing the civic guardrails that we assumed protected us from autocrats, Trump has paved the way for far slicker opportunists to gain access to the national stage. Imagine a presidential candidate with Trump’s views and ambitions who does not arrive with Trump’s personal baggage, his undisciplined penchant for self-incrimination, and his unsurpassed vulgarity. 

Yes, I can imagine it: that’s why I wrote the “Nazi” essay; the vision was clear in my mind…and still is.

Finer-tooled instruments — smarter and shrewder demagogues than the movement’s current titular head — may already be suiting up in the wings.

Oh, we can only hope.  I do believe eventually, we’ll see that.

In any case: Sallis was prescient once again.

Now, back to the 2015 Sallis piece.

The hysterical angst of the Republican Establishment concerning the rise of Trump is glorious to observe.  Of course, the interesting thing is their complete lack of self-awareness, their lack of understanding that they themselves are responsible for the predicament they find themselves in.

I was I believe too kind to the GOP then.  Or, perhaps, I realize now that the Republicans don’t care about winning; they only care about being part of the System’s anti-White agenda.  Trumpism in the 2016 election gave the GOP sweeping victories at every level, leaving the Democratic Party in complete disarray.  2016 was a stunning confirmation that right-wing populism is the path for continued Republican electoral dominance even in the face of the changing demographics that the GOP itself has been complicit in promoting.  Trumpism can build a solid White voting bloc, with strengths among demographics (working class Whites, White ethnics) who were part of the Reagan coalition, but who have been straying from the GOP after decades of Neocon-corporate-cuckservatism, as exemplified by the Bush family, “plastic man” Romney, and execrable filth like John McCain (and the pink-frilled Lindsey Graham).  And how has the GOP reacted to this good fortune?  By doubling down on their anti-Trumpism, by obstructing what little the Grand Cuck Trump (this revealed after the election) wants to accomplish in a positive sense, by joining in with the absurd moral panic over “Russian interference,” by cucking to an extreme degree, by doing everything possible to throw away the fruits of the 2-16 electoral sweep an alienate and discourage Trump’s base.  So, now, I believe that they have awareness and understanding – it’s just that they are part of the same corruption, and always have been.  It’s always been a fraud, a scam, a con game run on the White American voter.  The GOP really isn’t in any predicament at all; they are simply playing the role assigned to them, playing it with relish.

Of course, all else being equal. The GOP would prefer to win elections, as they would like to enjoy the power and perks of elected office.  They also want to convince the rubes of the viability of the “two party system” and they want to keep the political donations and campaign contributions flowing in.  But winning is not an existential issue for them, but being anti-White is. If given a choice between winning with an explicitly pro-White agenda and losing as pandering cucks, they’d pick the latter every time. When the choice is put into those stark terms, the real Republican agenda comes into sharp focus.

Consider: after the startling electoral success of 2016, GOP cucks still pretend that association with right-wing populism will somehow damage the party – they will be ‘”toast.”

Still think they really want to win?

One reason is that the GOP has been complicit in the demographic changes that have put them “in between a rock and a hard place,” politically speaking. On the one hand, Republicans look at America’s growing colored population and see the need to appeal to that demographic. On the other hand, the GOP base of support is conservative White Americans, particularly right-of-center White men.  To pander to minorities runs the risk of alienating the base; to secure the base runs the risk of alienating the coloreds. Up to this point, the GOP strategy has been to pander to the colored minorities, while throwing “bones” to the base in the form of phony “implicit Whiteness” and “dog whistling” rhetoric with no real-life political consequences. Heretofore, the GOP has mastered feinting right during the primaries, running centrist in the general election, and, in the rare cases of GOP Presidential victories (since Ronnie Raygun, we have had only the two failed Bush men being elected), governing from the left. Base anger has been silenced by “they have nowhere else to go” “lesser of two evils” electoral considerations.

But now, the rise of Trump is an ill wind blowing in the direction of the GOP elites: the base is starting to awaken and will not be forever willing to “vote for lesser of two evils” and support anti-White leftist Republican candidates.

Whatever else Trump is or does, this alone justifies supporting his 2016 campaign, which I did.  Even if he is a completely self-interested phony, his reliance on right-wing populism “let the toothpaste out of the tube” and the System, however it may try, cannot get it all back in again, long-term.  They may win some battles here or there, tactical successes, but the tides of war will go against them.  By this, I mean the war to make multiculturalism work smoothly, and have White blithely accept their own dispossession.  The System may still win in the end, but their victory will be a Pyrrhic one, a bloody mess that will leave a nation essentially ungovernable long term as any major power on the world scene.  They may suppress right-wing populism short-term (and likely, not even that), but, like a bed penny, it’ll keep on popping up again.  Trump is a catalyst, a “John the Baptist” foreshadowing things to come.

But there is something else. The problem with Trump is seemingly not only his ideology of right-wing populism (real or fake), it is also because the Republican Establishment – with some justification – see Trump as an ill-informed, vulgar, obnoxious, childish buffoon, with no self-control and an embarrassing lack of gravitas.  Very well, but in response to those concerns I have two words: Pat Buchanan.

Like Trump, Buchanan ran for President as a right-wing populist Republican. In fact, there is considerable overlap in overt ideology between the two men’s campaigns. While lacking Trump’s “alpha jerk-boy” charisma, Buchanan has certain advantages that you would think would endear him to the GOP elites: Buchanan is a well-informed, articulate, religious man, with strong Establishment connections, and prior political experience in previous Republican administrations. Buchanan has always been an “inside-the-Beltway” man, and is not an obnoxious buffoon.

And how did the GOP elites deal with the more polished and political Buchanan?  With the same disdain and hysteria that they now reserve for “Der Trumpening.”  The Elite made it clear that they would never accept Buchanan as the nominee, they panicked over his early successes, they sabotaged his campaign (as I recall, they even prevented him from being on the ballot in some states), etc.  So, the case of Buchanan proves that the problem with Trump is not so much his repellent personal aspects, but his core of right-wing populism. Anything that appeals to Whites is anathema to the GOP, which is of course self-destructive given the nature of the GOP base (it is not for nothing that Sam Francis labeled the GOP “the Stupid Party”).

As stated above, the GOP would rather lose as anti-Whites than win as pro-White.  It’s a well-established trend dating back decades.

The point is that the GOP lost anyway with Bush and Dole in 1992 and 1996. While it is understandable that the incumbent would be favored in 1992, there was no excuse for favoring the “living mummy” “civil rights Republican” Dole over Buchanan in 1996. Favoring Buchanan would have solidified the GOP base and could have put the party in the direction of a right-wing populist track that could have genuinely benefited White Americans.

That is anathema to Establishment Republicans.

But, no. The elites sabotaged Buchanan and they suppressed right-wing populism for several electoral cycles. Now it has erupted in a more “virulent” form with Donald Trump. Instead of learning their lesson and understanding that the base cannot be taken for granted, instead of understanding that they need candidates that appeal to the base, the GOP elites are hell-bent on sabotaging Trump and suppressing right-wing populism for another couple of electoral cycles.

They may succeed but they are playing with fire.

They couldn’t stop Trump from winning, but they are fairly successful in teaming up with Democrats to block Trump’s ostensible agenda. Here, they are getting help from Trump himself, who betrays his base at every opportunity.  xxThere are some who say that there is evidence that Trump is sincere in his right-wing populism: he gave up his easy billionaire lifestyle to run for President. But that in and of itself means nothing.  It ignores issues of ego and the lust for (political) power. By analogy, we can ask why billionaires all don’t just ease up and enjoy the “good life,” why do most of them continue to strive, “wheel and deal,” obsess over money, and engage in rent-seeking behavior, including political lobbying, designed to further increase their wealth and power?  That’s the nature of the rich and powerful: they are never satisfied; they always want more (and that is one reason that they become rich and powerful to begin with).  If such people are given the opportunity to go into the history books as US President, would they eschew that opportunity?  Trump’s Presidential ambitions tell us nothing about his sincerity.  The fact that Trump ran as a right-wing populist may reflect his real views, or it may simply reflect his realization that the only way he could stand out from the established field of GOP cucks was to give the base the “red meat” that they were craving.  If Trump is really the shrewd businessman his admirers says he is, then he must have noticed the open political niche space to the political right of the GOP candidate field.  Trump’s sincerity would be better displayed by an honest and consistent effort on his part to fulfill his campaign promises.  That he is not doing; instead we get jackass tweeting, half-heated measures, backpedaling, a disgraceful waste of political capital, and waffling on issues like DACA.  If there is sincerity there, it is awfully hard to see.

Who will come after Trump?  Who will be the next right-wing populist?  As even worthless and weak Whites become more aggressive out of sheer desperation, who will they turn to next?  Someone more extreme and firebrand-populist compared to Trump to the same degree Trump is compared to Buchanan? 

It won’t be “the fire next time,” but it may well be “the Nazi next time.”  The GOP elites had better hope that their country clubs are well fortified indeed.

Will Trump’s constant betrayals and failures discourage his base?  Or, as Rich suggests, whatever the outcome of Trump, the base will only become more energized?  The latter, we hope.  But we must realize that the trauma of Trump has immunized the System against the “virus” of right-wing populism; they’ll be on their guard against it, and will try and nip any further manifestations in the bud.  Where they will fail, I believe, is that the System is, at its heart, anti-White; they cannot muster up any real “red meat” to satisfy a growing sense of White Identity Politics that will become ever more resistant to Democratic attempts to divert race with economics or GOP attempts at implicitly White “culture war” dog whistling.  The toothpaste is out of the tune, so to speak.

But, the System may not be able to win over the Trump base, but they’ll use their power to sabotage future political manifestations of right-wing populism.

In the movie The Day of the Jackal, the Jackal tells the OAS leaders: “Not only have your own efforts failed, but you’ve rather queered the pitch for everyone else.”  One can say that about Trump perhaps (and about the “movement” more generally, certainly).

Now, right-wing populism, essentially civic nationalism, is not the answer.  It is best a precursor or at least a stop gap, and at worst a diversion, a cul-de-sac, a competitor to what is needed – which is explicitly prop-White racial nationalism – White nationalism.  At this point in time, we can work to ensure that right-wing populism serves positive functions, as a precursor to White nationalism (the membrane separating the two is thin; it is one step from civic nationalism to racial nationalism, but an big step many do not make), or at least as a stop gap as racial nationalism begins to develop (Trump is in a sense a stop gap; one other benefit of his election, besides all “breaking the ice” for more extreme politics and increasing balkanization an chaos, is that he prevented a Clinton election that could have led to more repressive conditions for the development of racial nationalism – worse is not always better).

I would suggest that at this point, right-wing populism is best suited for Presidential campaigns and also for Senate and Governor races, and for lower level races in areas in which the White population is not sufficiently “prepared” for more radical approaches.  However, in selected areas and selected times, we should begin to consider explicitly White candidates – even racial nationalist WNs – ranging from school board elections all the way up to the US House of Representatives. Some successes there can lead to consideration of WNs for the higher level races.  The value of political WN campaigns exists regardless of the electoral outcome: promoting balkanization, recruiting, propaganda, organization, normalization of racial nationalist discourse and “pushing the envelope,” forcing the civic nationalists to get off the fence in one direction or another, a whole host of advantages.

Political campaigns would benefit from effective local organizing and vice versa.  It’s been said, and I believe it to be true, than in some locales, WNs love near each other but do not know of each other’s existence. Even if some fraction of these are kooks, freaks, defectives, Nutzis, fetishists, etc. there may still be a critical mass of useful like-minded people in certain areas.  The trick is to get them together, to work together, and to organize, safely, without the threat of infiltrators exposing them all.  How to do it is uncertain.  Existing meetings with their “extreme vetting” are ludicrous jokes; real extreme vetting would help, but I’m not sure that Der Movement has the competence or discipline to pull it off.  Anyone who is able to put together an effective plan for local organizing is going to be at an enormous advantage.  In the competition for racial nationalist leadership, those who can perform effectively will rise, and those who are laughably inept will fall.  

WNs cannot depend on a “man on white horse” civic cuck “hero” to save them.  The Nazi Next Time is not going to descend from Valhalla, complete with blessings of Saint Adolf; instead, the “demagogues” of the future will come to the fore as a result of hard work, discipline, and commitment.

This will, I believe, likely require a New Movement that replaces the clown show that currently exists.  I’m not sanguine about that, but this blog will continue to play the role of “loyal opposition.”  Racial nationalism is the future, but that future will only become actualized if we make it so.  

Future installments of this topic will be forthcoming when events and new ideas warrant; note as well there is overlap with the concept of Political EGI, as any pro-White leader who is worthwhile must incorporate (even if indirectly) the concept of genetic interests into their memetic toolkit.

Der Movement: 10/13/17

Der Movement roundup.

Fascinating how Der Movement is obsessed with Evola (I’m unimpressed with his work myself; as a scientific empiricist, I find Evola’s  writings the worst form of subjective gibbering nonsense), yet are, in general, filled with a loathing and contemptuous disdain for the people from whence Evola sprang.  It’s ironic, as I suspect that Evola’s “spiritual race” stupidity was a sort of “memetic allergic response” to those sorts of attitudes.

Buchanan is more right than he knows.  Man on white horse syndrome, style over substance, betrayal, talk of amnesty – a heir indeed!

It seems unlikely that Marantz will offer either a retraction or offer sufficiently credible supporting evidence for his assertion.  Further, as I have previously asserted, anyone who uses the term “White supremacist” to describe White nationalists is being intellectually dishonest. MacDonald is not the only one who has a potential justification for a libel suit – Enoch has as well, if he can demonstrate that his views are nationalist and not supremacist.

I also find Marantz’s reply to MacDonald fascinating. When leftists contact Far Right leaders, digging around for more information for future “hit pieces,” it’s almost as if they are writing off of the same script; they all sound exactly the same: cheerful insouciance, bright-eyed innocence, insults couched in ostensibly friendly language, and, always, “I really want to know you better, I’m so very much genuinely interested in hearing your side.”  Emphasis added:

Hi Prof. MacDonald, as you’ll see in the piece, I bought your book and have read much of it, and I don’t think I characterized it unfairly. I have also read your many replies to your critics, here (http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/tooby&pinker.htm …) and elsewhere, and I understand your rejoinders (that Pinker never finished the book, that Tooby takes too narrow a view of genetic variation and adaptation, etc.)—and yet I don’t think it’s unfair to say that CofC was roundly debunked by mainstream social scientists. First, I think it’s fair to say that Pinker debunked the book even though he didn’t finish reading it. Whether it’s fair to debunk a set of arguments without engaging with them fully is another matter, but it is what he did, as did many others, not limited to Tooby. Of course, as you know, on your site you tend to emphasize the positive reviews of your book (by Derbyshire, Gottfried, etc.) but there are, of course, many negative ones as well, many of which are by mainstream social scientists (Jefferson Singer, John Hartung, etc). Again, not all of these took the form of published papers, but they were “debunkings” nonetheless. Your work is obviously influential in certain circles, and I would love to talk to you about it sometime—I am genuinely interested in it, and I think you’d find me a fair interview—but it’s just a fact that the mainstream has largely rejected your arguments. Moreover, it’s a fact I’ve seen you acknowledge (and complain about) fairly often…

In any case, MacDonald’s work on the Jews has NOT been “debunked.”  It has merely been criticized.  Whether or not you agree or disagree with that criticism (I disagree) is one thing, it’s another to falsely claim that this criticism has been so definitive (and unanswerable) so as to constitute “debunking.”  This all shows what a sorry state media writing has fallen to – it’s all political propaganda, without substantive, objectively useful, content.