Category: mendacity

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.

Advertisements

Mainstreaming R.I.P.

It is time to move on from mainstreaming.  It is time to move on from a failed “movement.”

Her Majesty, the Imperial Milady Marine of Mainstreaming, has fallen.  Will we see any honest analysis of this disaster?  Doubtful, other than here at EGI Notes.

If mainstreaming worked, we would still have to debate whether the compromises and moderation is all worth it.  But here’s the point: It doesn’t work. Once again, to be clear: Mainstreaming does not work.

Moderating Marine has achieved nothing more, electorally speaking, than her more radical father (who she denounced) did.  So, what’s the point?  Look at Austria, look at the Netherlands, look at Australia, there’s no payoff. “Where’s the beef,” so to speak?  Where’s the advantage?  Golden Dawn is not in power in Greece; the Front National is not in power in France.  They are equally not in power.  Perhaps both models need revision?

If mainstreamers justify their strategy by the possibility of electoral success, and if mainstreamers continuously fail, then why is mainstreaming still considered legitimate? Why? Yes, I can see that it may make theoretical sense, at least to those amenable to (at least temporary) compromise.  But political theory must be judged, ultimately, in how it is actualized in the laboratory of real world experience.  One forms a hypothesis and tests it. According to Popper, if the data show the hypothesis to be wrong, it should be abandoned. Perhaps the situation is more akin to Kuhn and paradigm shifts.  Activists with an intellectual and emotional investment in mainstreaming will continue to create ad hoc explanations for its failures, and resist rejection of their theory/hypothesis.  Eventually though, the sheer volume of contradictory data, combined with the rise of new activists unencumbered by adherence to failed ideas, will shift the worldview, and a realization of the emptiness of mainstreaming will occur, and a new paradigm, more hard and radical, will take its place.

Perhaps that will happen.  But the time!  The time!  Can we waste so much time with people ignoring the facts right in front of their face?

I have previously written about the phenomenon of faux-sophistication, and we may be seeing some of that with the adherents of mainstreaming.  

A clear example of this psychological flaw is seen in sports.  Sportswriters and other so-called “experts” endlessly pontificate about the values and virtue of “defense” – so as to contrast their “sophisticated expertise” and “refined tastes” from the “crude” casual fans who, presumably, enjoy lots of offense, action, and scoring.  Thus, the “expert” sniffs: “[fill in name of sport] is 90% defense.” Well, from a logical standpoint, that’s nonsense – games are won by the team that scores the most points, goals, runs, etc.; therefore, scoring and preventing scoring are of equal value and hence any team sport is going to be, in general, 50% offense and 50% defense.  But let’s not let logic and common sense get in the way of preening expertise!

The same applies to politics.  Hillary Clinton’s campaign foundered in part because of snarky millennials and their “data” and “expert” advice to concentrate on “turning out the base” –in sharp contrast to Bill Clinton’s ignored advice to throw a bone or two at the Rust Belt White working class.  

Meanwhile, on the Far Right, the “experts” sniff with disdain at radicals who insist on such outdated concepts as non-negotiable fundamental principles, and instead these heroic “experts” extol the virtue of compromise and moderation.  And they keep on losing, over and over and over again. But they know better you see.  And by taking positions that contrast to all those knuckle-dragging radical extremists, these “experts” seem like real smart and professional and polished and all.  They keep on losing, but they lose with style!

Some would argue that I’m being “premature” and we need to be patient and give mainstreaming more time to succeed.  At what point does this patience move from prudent circumspection to blind adherence to a failed hypothesis? Marine Le Pen was the clearest test of mainstreaming so far, and the test was failed like all that preceded it.  I’m not sure repeating the same over and over again is going to yield significantly different results. That she did better than her father with respect to percentages, but still failed – is this progress? Perhaps the assertion that the Front National has attracted more youthful supporters than before will be accredited to mainstreaming.  But, putting aside that Le Pen still failed, we can ask – are youth really attracted by mainstreaming and moderation? That’s doubtful.  Yes, they may want more “liberal” social mores, but the key issues of race and immigration, and sovereignty, are what motivates most Front National supporters, and with respect to those key issues I’m doubtful that high-spirited and energetic youth, some of whom are involved in the Identitiarian movement, are really looking for mainstreaming and moderation.  In the end, despite whatever the youth wants, the bottom line is, again, that Le Pen failed. Mainstreaming failed (again), big time.

“Farstreaming” has in fact been more successful.  Sometimes politicians can be more successful being more radical.  That may be context-dependent, but it is clear that “moving to the center” simply hasn’t worked.

If we can agree on that, then we can start the process of formulating alternatives.  Activists need to stop listening to memes that sound good in theory but consistently fail in practice.

A counter-argument will be that radicalism hasn’t worked either.  But what kind of radicalism?  Yes, Nutzi stupidities haven’t worked, I agree.  Historical Nazism brought back in the post-war period hasn’t worked, warmed-over Guntherism (i.e., 99% of “movement” dogma) hasn’t worked, esoteric silliness about “Kali Yuga” and “the men who can’t tell time” hasn’t worked,” and breathless navel-gazing over cephalic indices and fractional admixture percentages hasn’t worked either.

But has anyone tried to formulate EGI/universal nationalism into practical politics?  No.  Has anyone tried to combine radical policy positions with rational and professional rhetoric and a polished presentation?  No.  It’s either been mainstreaming compromise or foaming-at-the-mouth Nutzism.  

The mainstreamers can run but they can’t hide. The French election was not only a catastrophic defeat for nationalism, but it should completely undermine confidence in the mainstreaming fraud. Let’s all sit back and watch the show, the mainstreamers spinning their endless stream of defeats, rewriting history (“We always said Le Pen had no chance of winning!” or “We never were in any way invested in a Le Pen victory!”  or whatever other lie), the mainstreamers moving on to the next election including the next French election (“Hey! We never said that 2017 was the last chance to save France and Europe through the electoral process!”), Der Movement giving the mainstreamers a “free pass” and forgetting their endless stream of bad advice, poor judgment, and catastrophic defeats.

Or will a miracle occur and the mainstreamers admit they are wrong and gracefully bow out and make way for others who don’t pretend they know everything and who want to take an empirical approach to determine, and then utilize, what actually works?

It is up to you, dear reader, to demand change and leave a failed “movement” in the dustbin of history, where it belongs.  I take it endless failure doesn’t appeal to you?  

The Donald and the “Kumiko”

Two peas in a pod, one orange, the other yellow.

The orange.

Conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh is not pleased. During his Tuesday broadcast, he said, “I’m very, very troubled to have to pass this on…But it looks like…President Trump is caving on his demand for a measly $1 billion in the budget for his wall on the border with Mexico.”
He continued, “…the bottom line is that if he is willing to withdraw a demand of his for a measly billion dollars for the wall because the Democrats are threatening a shutdown then the Democrats will have just learned that this threat works on Trump, too, not just all the other Republicans.”
Limbaugh also predicted that “…once [the Democrats] get away with it, they’re gonna keep trying. And if they get away with it once, they’re just going to keep using it.”

And, yes, there’s a GOP movement afoot to redefine “the wall” as a “metaphor” for “strict immigration enforcement.”  As the anti-White, pro-Asian Captain Cuckmerica would say: lulz.

The yellow, see comments thread.

There the MR Japotrix insists that Asians must, must, must have part of America’s land, and threatens violence toward Whites who think otherwise, and tells them – the Whites – that they should leave.

Very well.  What about “British Asians?”  I guess any native Britons who want Asians out of their homeland will be threatened as well, and told they should leave their own homeland.

Majority Rights is a viciously anti-White, Asian supremacist, Asian imperialist hate site ruled over by this vile Oriental, with submissive White male cucks scurrying around defending Asian supremacy. She’s yellow in appearance, they’re yellow in character.

Lulz.

Quite the Mendacious Happy Penguin

Failed spin.

Despicable “happy penguin” Brimelow, disturbed at the blowback to his pathetic comments about Spencer, tries to spin it thus:

I got a certain amount of weird harrumphing over my blog congratulating Richard Spencer for his Auburn triumph, because I noted the danger that he will eventually be shot. Incredibly, some readers apparently thought I was advocating his being shot, or somehow making it more likely..

OK, Pete.  In your original post, you note an email correspondence with an anti-Spencer Jew, in which you say this about Spencer:

If it’s any consolation to you, I think it’s just a matter of time until he gets shot.

I don’t know, Petey my boy.  If you blithely talk about someone getting shot being “consolation” to a correspondent, it doesn’t seem like you’d be real upset and all about the possibility.  I mean, Pete, you are a professional writer, are you not?  If only one person “misinterpreted” your statements, you could credibly try to spin that as one individual’s error, but you mention “readers” – as in plural – no?  So, I’d say you are either a lousy writer or you were expressing schadenfreude over the possibility of Spencer being shot – the latter interpretation not unreasonable given your “anger” at Spencer and your falling out with him.

What next, Pete?  Going to try and spin Derbyshire asking at your VDARE dump why possession of child porn should be illegal?

Silver Attacks Greg Johnson and Adolf Hitler

Tarnished Silver.

Silver sarcastically attacks Greg Johnson and calls Hitler a “delusional nutter” on Radix (emphasis added):

Silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ  Riopel • a day ago
So what? That doesn’t mean attacking first made good sense. Hitler, that great statesman (the greatest in the 20th century, according to Greg Johnson), had already so completely antagonized Britain and France with his rushed and totally unnecessary expansionism that there was no chance they’d side with Germany against the USSR – even if they believed that the Soviets were preparing an assault on Europe (via Germany).
silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ  Gubbler Chechenova • a day ago
It never seems to occur to them that if the Soviets attacked Germany first, then the western powers would have stepped in and taken Germany’s side. They weren’t going to let the Bolshies take over Europe for no good reason. Eastern Europe was only allowed to fall to the Soviets because everyone was so exhausted from the war with Germany. But if the Soviets had attacked first it would have all-out war until the Soviets unconditionally surrendered.
Hitler was a fuck up beyond belief. Nutzis are so completely taken by the vision of what might have been, the sort of ideal that Hitler could have represented, that they just can’t see the plain reality of what a delusional nutter he was.

I’m no Hitler apologist, but the fact is that Saint Adolf tried to get the Western powers on board for a common front against the Soviet Union and they simply were not interested. France signed an anti-German alliance with the USSR simply as a result of German rearmament, and years before Hitler’s antics in Austria and Czechoslovakia.

The UK was at best lukewarm to Hitler and the Churchill faction was always openly hostile. The USA under the FDR regime was openly pro-Soviet.  Would these nations have come to Germany’s defense if Stalin had struck first?  That’s by no means definite.  It’s also interesting to note that while both Germany and the USSR invaded Poland, the UK and France declared war on Germany only.

Meanwhile, Silver has nothing else to do but attack Greg Johnson and Hitler.

More Than Minimal Daylight

The fraud proven wrong once again.

Silver previously described me as “insane” due to my critiques of Durocher, because as Silver asserted:

But there’s minimal daylight between his own position and Durocher’s, when you get down to the brass tacks. 

Now, I believe that I’ve already outlined the glaring daylight – the solar mass – between my position and that of Durocher, but more data are always welcome. So, let’s see some more on how Silver is – as usual – completely wrong.
Here is Durocher’s latest screed; we can look at relevant excerpts and discern how the “minimal daylight” is far from minimal”:

All militant atheists should be given Darwin Awards.


I am a militant atheist. Now, I’m not offended by Durocher’s comment, any more that am offended by Captain Chaos’ retarded yapping at Majority Rights (“Michael Ravioli”). Nevertheless, can it be admitted that Durocher’s comment, coupled to my extreme scientific-materialist atheism, means that there is indeed a very wide gulf between our respective worldviews?

Logically, all this ends in either World-Judaism and/or Islam or esoteric Hitlerism.


So, if not Judaism or Islam, we all need to believe in gnostic esoteric fantasies, that Saint Adolf, The Man Who Can’t Tell Time, is piloting a flying saucer through the ruins of Atlantis – or is it in the “secret Antarctic Nazi fortress?” – “Hyperborea or Ultima Thule?” – “Mars?”

The advent of agriculture led to a spiritual crisis and religious change, as must the advent of modern technology. We need a new religion. Fascism was an attempt, smothered with hate-filled fanaticism. Late liberalism is a half-orgiastic/half-life-fearing effeminate death cult.


Fascism, according to Durocher, is bad, “smothered with hate-filled fanaticism.” We must have religious esoteric Hitlerism instead. I am a fascist and an atheist who thinks “esoteric Hitlerism” ranks among the most stupid horseshit imaginable. Can a normal and honest person (a category which necessarily excludes Silver) therefore conclude that there is in fact an enormous gulf between the Sallis and Durocher worldviews?  Yes.

But one should not limit oneself to a profane scientific approach.


According to Durocher, science is “profane.” I endorse the scientific approach. Does anyone still listen to Silver?

Eliade is astonishingly optimistic in the film. I guess those 1980s New Age movements and Westerners’ dabbling in Buddhism were hopeful signs? Eliade is convinced that a return to sacred convictions would lead to great existential improvement and to cultural creativity, from poetry to the sciences. (I think he is absolutely right.)


I think Eliade is absolutely wrong. Tell me again how there is virtually no difference between Sallis and Durocher?

Women have a much stronger intuitive sense of health and the good life than men…

I agree with the gamesters that women are child-like, indulging in deception and self-deception; women are in large part responsible for the degeneracy of the modern West. Thus, I 100% disagree with Durocher.

Hence, your modern yuppie gal — though raised on Sex and the City — will go to yoga and earnestly chant an “ohm!” of surprising power. Health and spirit are calling her.


Can anyone familiar with my work and worldview think I would endorse the laughable lunacy of the preceding two sentences?

Obviously men should be coming forward to found a new faith.

Yes, but not a religious one.

We salute you Mircea Eliade, Aryan mystic, loyal in a dark age to the faith of your forefathers.


I laugh at you Mircea Eliade: childish buffoon, loyal to pathetic fantasies because you are too weak-minded to face harsh reality, betraying your forefathers by burying your head in the sand of imbecilic esoterica while race and civilization collapse around you.

Durocher? My opinion of him – rather, the specific Durocher incarnation – is well known, and my critiques are based on an utterly incompatible worldview, not “insanity.”
Readers of this post may agree with me, or they may agree with Durocher, but I would hope that none agree with Silver, who once again is exposed as a liar, a fraud, a mendacious twister of facts, an obvious distorter of reality.

The Lie of Rampant Far-Right Terrorism

More leftist lies.
Of course, it all depends how the anti-Whites define “terrorism.” Back ~12 years ago, Malloy of GNXP defined as a “terrorists” White folks who opposed Asian immigration to the USA and/or who wrote positive articles about Leon Degrelle.  HBD as a political movement, indeed.