Category: movement’s ethnic affirmative action program

Fool’s Gold: Netherlands Conference and Misunderstanding Epigenetics

“Movement” stupidity.

Yes, a bunch of HBD/race realists and a “greed is good” “National Capitalist” bodybuilder whose YouTube channel tells us:

This is a channel dedicated to how glorious and magnificent I am.

Sharing some of my divine wisdom when it comes to obtaining an ultimate physique worthy of the Gods!

Yes, the new golden age is just around the corner!

Consider this moronic comment left by a fact-devoid gamester commentator:

Consider two factoids, in lieu of long, drawn out arguments:

1. An organism’s form: tissues, organs, systems – the whole architecture – is epigenetic (meaning beyond DNA). The difference in size and shape of a tulip and a blue whale has nothing to do with DNA and is wholly epigenetic. (Thus, you can have identical twins with the same DNA – one born with birth defects w/o any arms for ex., while the other can have a full body and be a pro athlete.)

2. Fascinating studies have been conducted in embryos whereby the DNA is extracted before first cell division. According to the “DNA is king” crowd, the organism should be absolutely dead right there. It’s not. The embryos can continue developing for hundreds of cell division, even forming early-stage tissues, before eventually it does die off.

1. This is completely and absolutely wrong, another example of the solipsism in Der Movement: just stating something makes it true, don’t you know. 

“Factoid” – Epigenetics modifies the expression of the genetic information encoded in the DNA, it does not replace it.

The identical twins example; such an occurrence would be exceedingly rare even if theoretically possible. It’s theoretically possible that epigenetic modifications of genes that control bodily development could cause birth defects (but why pray tell would it affect one identical twin in utero and not the other given they are in exactly the same environment?). So what? Maybe you’d get one in a million blue whales born without a flipper because of an epigenetic modification due to ocean pollution, but you sure as hell am not going to get a blue whale that looks like a mouse…or a tulip. DNA is the main player; epigenetics is the sideshow. 

Anyone with at least a room temperature IQ would realize that epigenetic modifications are modifications of DNA and of the RNA produced by the DNA; it’s not “beyond DNA” you rambling idiot but OF DNA.  Epigenetics is modifying the expression of genes encoded by DNA sequences, it is not some mysterious force floating around independent of those same genes. And what does the epigenetic modifications?  Acetylases, deacetylases, methyltransferases – enzymes that, like all other proteins, are encoded by…DNA sequences.

This is Serious

This all needs to change.

Thus, my recent supposition – made at the time with no knowledge of the details of these affairs whatsoever – that Morgan joining Counter-Currents is somehow fundamental to this feud has turned out to be correct.

I have no idea whether the accusations made in this post are true or false.  I have no idea whether the accusations made against Friberg are true or false. I have no definite idea whether O’Meara’s accusations against Spencer in the comments thread are true or false, but I believe the accusation that Spencer is a “CIA asset” is patently absurd.  Of course, I have no evidence that it’s not so.  I also have no evidence that Spencer isn’t really an alien from a planet circling a red supergiant star in the Andromeda galaxy.  Some things are more or less likely than others.  And read more through the comments section.  Besides the anti-Spencer “CIA plant” ranting, we also see rude and vulgar attacks against Greg Johnson (similar to the vile crap at Majority Rights), who is an excellent writer and nationalist theorist (albeit one who has soured on Sallis, but, hey, no one is perfect), other back-and-forth personal attacks, and the like.  All about personality; nothing about ideology.


Greg Johnson’s response.


I’ll give credit to Greg for this:


But the only way to “win” these sorts of public battles is not to get involved in the first place. And since I obviously failed at that, the second best option is to stop them before they escalate any further. So, for my part, it stops here.


I hope that’s correct.  But the Friberg-Spencer side have their arguments as well, and much of that focuses on Morgan.  Again, it seems to me as an outsider here that Morgan switching to Counter-Currents was an initiator of this sorry sequence of events.


Greg also writes:

And since criticism is inevitable, isn’t it better to get it from our friends now than from our enemies later?


Er…yes.  Exhibit one: Ted Sallis’ criticism of the “movement.”


And although I grant that there is definitely a place for barbs and mockery in driving home a well-argued point or skewering pretense and folly…


So, it’s not always “crazed bitterness?”

Apparently, there are no real consequences for wrongdoing in this movement. 


I’ve been saying that for years.  That’s what you get with a dysfunctional “movement” with affirmative action “leadership.”


A movement that seeks the renewal of white civilization should, at the very least, try to maintain a few minimum standards of civilized behavior. But the movement today resembles a post-apocalyptic wasteland in which warlords and their gangs fight for spoils.


Exactly.  And therefore isn’t vehement criticism of such a “movement” – including “barbs and mockery” – justified in “skewering” the “pretense and folly” of such a “movement?”


The original of this post was written before Greg Johnson’s response.  This version of my essay is not substantially different from this version (hardly different at all) – I still do not know who is right or wrong (both sides make plausible arguments but show minimal concrete evidence and I am not taking sides).  I am glad though I waited so I could link to Greg’s riposte. However, as you will see as I make my argument below, it really does not matter who is more in the right and more in the wrong here.  Someone here did wrong and the entire episode is a blight on the Alt Right and by extension the “movement” that the Alt Right has, unfortunately, become the predominant element in.  


For all these people’s criticisms and ignoring of that crazy shit-stirrer Ted Sallis, they are, by far – by an order of magnitude or more – “stirring the shit” more than I ever have.  And my “shit stirring” has always been about substantive issues – ideology or “movement” defectives and their unethical behavior. It’s not been a “movement catfight” of folks hurling accusations against each other.

And to me all these explanations seem incomplete.  Not that it matters for my final thesis of this post, but: what was the true origination of the Johnson-Spencer feud that seems to have predated this latest imbroglio? Why did Morgan leave Arktos for Counter-Currents? From an ideological standpoint, how does all of this background drama affect, for example, the (in my opinion unfortunate) embrace of narrow ethnonationalism by some of the people involved over the last few years?

Let us crudely divide the combatants in two camps.  First, we have the Spencer-Friberg-Jorjani-Arktos camp and then we have the Johnson-Morgan-O’Meara Counter-Currents camp.  Some very serious accusations and counter-accusations have been made in both directions.  As I’ve said, I have no idea where the truth lies here. I previously asserted on this blog that Spencer and Johnson should settle their differences for the good of racial nationalism; this obviously does not appear likely to occur.

What are the broad implications here?  Now, it is of course very possible that the storylines of both sides are mixtures of truth and falsehood.  Reality – particularly in these sorts of internal squabbles – is never so clear cut that one side is all pure moral goodness and the other side pure evil.  For example, imagine that the Counter-Currents side is mostly correct, but O’Meara’s accusation about Spencer is not true (which I believe it is not). Or maybe some of the Counter-Currents folks were bad-mouthing Friberg. On the other hand, if the Arktos side is essentially correct, it is still possible they are exaggerating and embellishing the “crimes” of the other side and taking things out of context.

However – and this is the key pint – it is HIGHLY improbable, to the point of impossibility, that each side’s storyline is an exactly equal distribution of truth and falsehood; exactly 50:50.  In fact, it’s far more likely that one side is completely right and the other completely wrong than it is for there to be an essentially equal distribution of mixed truth and falsehood. In other words, it is most likely that one side of this conflict is mostly telling the truth (even if some embellishments and misleading “spin” is thrown in) and is in the right, and the other side is mostly lying and is in the wrong.  Oh, I guess it is theoretically possible the whole thing started out as a misunderstanding – but don’t you think that rational and disinterested players would have realized this and settled the matter by now if that was really the case? The situation is only getting worse – suggesting there is “real meat” to some of the accusations and/or there are some strong (financial) interests at stake.

As I said I do not know which side is the one mostly right.  And maybe, just maybe, in the broad scheme of things, it does not really matter.

What does matter is this.  If my understanding is correct and one side here – whichever side it is – is essentially in the wrong, that means that one major component of the Alt Right, one major faction of Der Movement, is in fact guilty of (some of) the serious accusations made against it.  From my perspective it really doesn’t matter which side it is – since I’m opposed to the Alt Right in general and opposed to Der Movement as it currently exists as well.

But, let us agree – both sides cannot be essentially right and ethical at the same time. Someone has done (serious) wrong; someone has been engaging in unethical subterfuge at the expense of the good of racial nationalism as a whole.  And, truth be told, even the (relatively) “innocent” faction (whichever it is) is not handling the situation well, as both sides are escalating the feud – the Arktos side keeps on running anti-Counter Currents articles at AltRight.com, while O’Meara is accusing Spencer of being a CIA plant.  They keep on “airing dirty laundry.”  So, even the “innocent” side – whichever it is – is in fact behaving more destructively than the dreaded Sallis ever has, with my tongue-in-cheek mocking ridicule of “movement” stupidities (which as we see has been justified).  They claim they are “restraining themselves,” threatening they could “disclose even more.” That’s great.  It’s a public site, read by everyone and anyone; keep it up, it’s obviously doing us all a world of good.


And guess what?  I could “disclose” many things as well, but choose not to do so.  What would it achieve?

Yes, the Alt Right spurns Sallis, thinks Sallis is crazy, and ignores Sallis. That’s great; you know, at this point, with all of this going on, I’ll consider it a compliment.


Indeed, as Johnson writes:


All things considered, though, it is better to sacrifice personal friendships than to weaken the movement as a whole.

Yes, indeed.  See the last few years of EGI Notes.

I for one do not have any financial interests in activism, I earn zero money from it (it is actually an opportunity cost taking time away from other endeavors) and I’m a third party disinterested observer to this whole mess. Do not misunderstand: I do not begrudge overt full-time activists from earning a living from activism.  Obviously, they must do so and they should do so.  In fact, if we want high-quality full time activists we need a situation where at minimum they can have a comfortable middle class existence, etc. But this should not be achieved through vicious squabbling over financial resources, unethical behavior, and the like (I also do not like constant Alt Wrong panhandling so that kosher conservative “activists” earn exuberant six figure professional-scale salaries while funneling money into the pockets of “writers” who are race-mixing child porn apologists).  From what I can see this feud is NOT over ideology or any grand statements of principle. It’s about personality, it’s about claims to leadership, it’s about the resources (such as they are) of Arktos, and it’s about money.

If it was actually about ideology and principle, then it would be at least understandable, if regrettable. But it is not.

And, I must say – the “rank and file” “movement” “activists” are to blame for this fiasco as well.  It are they who enable the “leadership,” it are they who add fuel to the fire of the feuds, it are they who keep on propping up a failed “movement” instead of looking elsewhere to people offering an alternative.

Fact is – one year after its “breakthrough” the Alt Right is a feuding muddy mess.  Who was skeptical of the Alt Right?  Who has been skeptical of Der Movement and its leaders?  Was this the same “crazy” and “bitter” person who warned you all that Trump was a vulgar beta cuck buffoon?

That’s OK though.  Double down on the Alt Right, scream “Hail Kek!,” draw some more Pepe cartoons, and let the affirmative action train keep on rolling along.  Here’s a comment from someone who understands.  Excerpt:

I don’t identify as Alt-Right – after all it isn’t an organised movement and has no clear manifesto, it’s a free for all of undisciplined rabble. It’s perfectly possibly to be Right wing and not Alt-Right. I think you find that the majority of Right wing people would never associate with such a trashy bunch of people. Teenagers might enjoy memes, but I think you will find that the adults have all the money…

All the rest of you get the “leadership” you deserve.  And you obviously are deserving of what you have.  Enjoy.

And let me rewrite this Johnson comment:

If the best among us had any conviction, people like Daniel Friberg would have never grown into the menace that he is today. If the best among us had any conviction, they would speak out against him. If the best among us had any conviction, then the worst among us — people like Friberg, Spencer, and Forney — would have no audience for their lies and no platform from which to broadcast them. They would have no credibility, no friends, no supporters, no authors, no podcasters, and the sole audience of the tabloid freak show at Altright.com would be the chan nihilists and Left-wing press they so eagerly cultivate.


As:

If the best among us had any conviction, people like Der Movement’s “leadership” would have never grown into the menace that they are today. If the best among us had any conviction, they would speak out against them. If the best among us had any conviction, then the worst among us — people like the “leadership” that’s failed us continuously for many decades — would have no audience for their lies and no platform from which to broadcast them. They would have no credibility, no friends, no supporters, no authors, no podcasters, and the sole audience of their tabloid freak show at Altright.com would be the Game/HBD/Nutzi nihilists and anti-racist freaks they so eagerly cultivate as show opposition.


My advice to third party observers such as myself: be patient and wait until the Alt Right contagion, burns itself out.  This is, by the way, we need something like Codreanu’s Legion; we need the New Man, ethical and moral leadership. not something accurately described as a “freak show.”


Delenda est Alt Right.  This episode is a perfect reason why.

Putting Our Feed Down Indeed

More madness.

I don’t “have a dog in this fight.”  I really don’t know anything about Friberg, but I used to have a productive interaction with Johnson and Counter-Currents and I’ve repeatedly stated I think Spencer has great potential as a White nationalist leader.  No doubt both are displeased with my criticisms of the “movement,” particularly the Alt Right, but I say (or write) what’s on my mind.

Putting all that aside, this latest “movement” feud is pathetic and all-too-typical.  It’s the usual “he said, she said” type of back-and-forth sniping, contradictory statements, gossip, and feuding based on personality and squabbling over limited resources rather than principled disagreements over ideology.  It’d embarrassing, it makes the Left laugh at us, it’s airing “dirty laundry” for all to see, and it exemplifies all the reasons I have zero confidence in the way things are run in the “movement.”  

Who is right?  Who is wrong?  Who knows? Who cares?  The “movement” madness train rolls on, without end. All these guys make comments about my “insanity” and “bitterness” or whatever – that’s on my part mostly tongue-in-cheek ridicule of Nutzi stupidity.  On the other hand, this long-running Johnson-Spencer feud is not tongue-in-cheek, it’s all too real.

It reminds me of the types of infighting in business – “office politics” – or in academia – “departmental politics.”  When resources are limited, this nonsense starts.

What are the resources in play here?  One is leadership and status.  Well, it would be better to at least struggle for leadership based on some concrete ideological differences, rather than personality and ambition.  Yes, yes – there’s that Big Europe vs. Ethnonationalism bit, but I wonder (as do some commentators) how much of that is a cause of the clash and how much of it is actually an effect.  Leadership?  Leadership of what exactly?  And, guys, if you really want to exhibit real leadership, you’d settle your differences and present a more united front against the anti-White forces.

Then there’s money.  Well, how about focusing your ire at the Alt Wrong instead of at each other?  From what I’ve read, the “happy penguins” of VDARE and, also, Amren take the lion’s share of “movement” funding.  And each of you have legitimate beefs with the Alt Wrong (besides just ideological differences).  Spencer should remember that it wasn’t just Greg who critiqued him over “Hailgate” – Brimelow and Taylor couldn’t “throw him under the bus” fast enough.  And let’s not forget Brimelow musing out loud at VDARE about his cheering up a Jewish correspondent with the idea that Spencer is likely to “get shot.” Johnson should remember his comments about how disgusting it is that Derbyshire is getting support from “movement” sources – that’s the Alt Wrong that’s propping up Derbyshire, at the expense (literally) of actual pro-White activists.

Problem is that the Man on White Horse Syndrome affects the “movement” internally as well as externally, so we have “rock stars” and “dignified elders” that we are supposed to not criticize.  Well, that’s another “movement” dogma I reject.

Anyway, this whole thing is pathetic.

Get over yourselves, guys.  Please.

And for another self-satisfied navel-gazer, enter Jack Donovan.

“Wolves Nationalist,” Right.  Is that gray wolf, red wolf, or werewolf?  And then we see the usual fossilized “movement” dogma/ethnic fetishism in the comments section.

And then you wonder why I can’t take any of these fellows seriously?

Der News: Rotten Orange, Silk Road, and Der Movement

Der Movement marches on.

Here is affirmative action in action – both sex and ethnic.

What choice did we have?” she asked. “I don’t apologize. … He said all the right things and nobody else would even say it.”

OK, fair enough, Mudshark Annie. Making a strategic decision to support Trump given his rhetoric during the campaign – one could understand that. But, here, my dear curry muncher, is the problem:

Coulter help drum up big support for Trump during the presidential campaign and wrote the book “In Trump We Trust,” in which she said she “worshiped” him with “blind loyalty.”

“I have no regrets for ferociously supporting him.”

How about – I don’t know – prudently supporting Trump without declaring your “blind loyalty” and how you “worship” him?

And, no, this is not “20-20 hindsight.”  I’ve been criticizing the “God Emperor” all along – as well as being exasperated with the “blind…worship” of him. Here are five posts which I made just in a period of several weeks in August 2016, representative of my skepticism:

It was always obvious what Trump was.  The disappointment of idiots like Coulter simply reflects their bad judgment (you know, bad judgement like dating Dinesh).  But Annie is a “wimmin” and “one of the gals” (the vaginized version of “one of the boys”) so she’ll get a free pass, while those who actually did know better long ago are castigated as “bitter” and “insane.”  It’s all a mystery!

More on the Jew-Chinese-Trump axis of Silk Road anti-Whitism.  To borrow the language (in a more dignified fashion) of a certain love-struck Silker blogger, one can say that the Silkers are “fellating Jewish phallus.”

This what you get when you worship “dem wimmin” in De Movement.  Is Jef going to make Pettibone breakfast?  Affirmative action cuts all ways, doesn’t it?

“Just ask…straight out.”  First, as if that’s the way to get to the truth, and second, who cares if an airhead has an affair with a Derb-wanna-be?  Oh, that’s right, Roissy cares. What I care about is racial activism, and how vagina-worship from thirsty betas introduces stupidity – well, more stupidity than is normally present.

Rotten Orange News: 5/15/17

Trump the useless.


As so often nowadays, the sad thing about this story is the spinelessness of the Trump administration in refusing to stand up for their nominee.

Trump was right about China, which makes his current pathetic cucking to China even more weak, treasonous, and absolutely pathetic.

And so of course the Chinese are warming up to Trump, as his pro-Jewish ties leads him naturally to a pro-Asian position. Remember: pro-Jewish and pro-Asian are two sides of the same anti-White coin.

Even Mudshark Annie is getting tired of Trump’s omega male uselessness. That leaves only Homoerotic Roissy as the last stand for Trump fanboy obsessiveness.

Of course, when Annie was pontificating about “In Trump We Trust” some of us were warning you all that Trump as a vulgar, ignorant buffoon and a beta race cuck who could not be trusted.  Also, when Annie was dating a South Asian, others were involved in pro-White racial activism.  But no worries!   Annie is a double quota case – ethnicity and sex – so despite all her obvious failings, thirsty betas will still give her a “pass.”

How does this square with Roissy’s assertion that alpha males lift?

The Asinine Alt Right, 5/13/17

More stupidity from the Alt Right.

Trump has always been a one-way man-crush for the Alternative Right. 

That’s true enough.  But only Trump?  Can we forget Reagan?  No, Ron Paul, no, I mean Rand Paul, no, really I mean Trad Vlad playing his “deep chess game” by rallying the world against “neo-Nazism.”  Now it’s Trump. This pathetic fanboy obsession, this Man on White Horse Syndrome, is a sign of weak-minded individuals who cannot stand harsh reality and who have to find comfort in a Big Daddy to save them (Hint: The origin of religion. Fear of death, fear of life, fear of struggle, fear of overcoming…Big Daddy and his son Jaysus will save you).

Like a beta orbiter fuming in his bedroom that a girl who is only dimly aware of him has “betrayed” him by acting on her own initiative and taking someone else to the prom, the “Honeymoon is definitely over” (Mike Enoch’s phrase) is only of the Alt Right’s volition. The Honeymoon is only over insofar as the Alt Right has read motivations into Trump’s Syria strike that are purely speculative and likely do not exist. The Alt Right can only remain TrumpTrain passengers, able to pile on weight to increase momentum, but not much else. So why bail now, so early into his Presidency?

Those of us who identified Trump from the very beginning as a vulgar ignorant buffoon with no philosophical foundation, a Negro-loving beta race cuck with strong Jewish family connections, those of us who are not quota queens and who have something called “judgment” – we do not have to “bail” since we were never on board the pitiful “TrumpTrain” to begin with. The ONLY thing useful about Trump was the perception of him by the masses, and the right-wing populism he ignited among his supporters, which is why I rejoiced over his victory – it showed that some White Americans would support a candidate labeled as a “racist fascist.”Trump himself: a moron. Trump: a two scoops-of-ice-cream-eating fat bastard who doesn’t have an ounce of sense in his orange-hued head.  And Der Movement’s obsession with this buffoon should permanently disbar Der Movement from any serious consideration as a vehicle for White racial interests.

The one-way, ideologically blinkered rationale that Trump has bent the knee to the “kikes” is an allegation born of circumstance. However, Trump cannot afford ideology. He is the President of the United States, and Richard Spencer is an otherwise unemployed activist. 

In the end, Spencer is likely to end up promoting White racial interests more than Trump ever will.  And this Spencer-bashing is getting old and reeks of envy. If you are going to critique Spencer, do so for legitimate reasons: the Alt Right itself is a disaster and not worthy of his time, the switch from Radix to AltRight.com was a terrible mistake, and he should never have fraternized with the Alt Lite/Alt Wrong to begin with.

Trump has responsibilities that are formalized by holding office, and the figures of the Alt Right are able to freewheel and dispense speculation and ideology as they please. Trump was elected to MAGA, not to immediately force through an isolationist agenda because it suits the Alt Right’s prejudices and one-track thinking. 

You can’t MAGA by doing everything and anything in opposition to what is necessary to MAGA.  It’s not like Touchback Trump simply bombed Syria and did nothing else wrong. He’s been reneging on virtually all his campaign promises, he is absolutely wasting his political capital on Neoconservatism, he’s cucking big time, and he’s behaving like a juvenile jackass on top of it. MAGA?  Really?

Trump, according to TRS, Spencer, and Counter-Currents (I don’t keep up with the Stormer) has betrayed his loyal fans and acquiesced to Israeli influence. I don’t believe he has done any such thing, and now that the last debris of the last Hebrew Hammers has been swept away, I think it is clear that the Alt Right’s hysterics have been totally premature and unjustified.

The only hysterics come from Trump fanboys whose fervor belies some deep psychosexual disturbances.

Let us consider some geopolitical realities. The United States is a maritime power whose strength is primarily projected through its allies. 

Complete retardation.  America’s allies don’t do “jack shit,” they depend on us, not the other way around. They project nothing.  They’re passive.   America’s strength is based on its military, and whatever remnants of international prestige and economic power it retains.

The only reason it can rack up trillions of dollars in debt is because of the strength of the petrodollar, which BRICS and those in their spheres of influence have been gradually building the infrastructure and alliances to circumvent. The dollar and the stability of NATO and North America as an economic whole is constantly under direct threat of being knocked off the perch of world leadership by a multipolar alliance.

More Neocon-economic blather.

The Alternative Right is also blinkered to the point of idiocy if it believes that the subsequent economic stagnation and eventual collapse would be to its benefit. 

No, we should instead embrace the genocidal status quo, as long as it makes everyone real comfy and all.

Should the West’s standing on the world stage diminish to the point of dollar and euro irrelevance – two currencies wedded on a multi-tier cake of military adventurism, arms sales, and technical innovation – the Alt Right would likely succumb to retrograde paramilitary, revolutionary fanatics, and get utterly smashed in a failed stab against “ZOG.” 

Let’s prop up the System, because if it collapses, we may actually have to do something to finish it off, and we certainly can’t have that.  On the one hand, this author dismisses the current Alt Right has unemployed misfits fuming in their bedrooms over their lost Trump love; on the other hand, being “revolutionary fanatics” is no good either.  Just sit down, shut up, consume, watch sports on the “telly” and be a good cog in the System machine. That’ll show ‘em!

For those that read the Saker, who rail against “AngloZionists,” the good news is that we are the AngloZionists. 

That’s true no doubt, literally true.

The only reason a few of us are able to support ourselves through Web readership and Alt Right pursuits is because military dominance keeps the lights on.

Therefore, in order to destroy the System, we must support that System completely, and make sure the System survives and prospers and continues onward, so the lights can stay on, so we can destroy the System…no wait….

My friends, this is affirmative action in action.  Ever experience an incompetent affirmative action Negro rambling incoherently?  How are Der Movement’s quota queens any different?

Yes, no doubt, our biggest concern must be the future of Iran.  The Alt Right is the biggest pile of “movement” horseshit imaginable.  Can we pull the plug on this train wreck, please?

George Smiley, Ted Sallis, and Der Movement

Sallis as Smiley.

If one was too look at some of Le Carre’s George Smiley works, and here I am talking about the books and BBC miniseries (which can be found at YouTube) of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (TTSS) and Smiley’s People (SP) – let’s forget about the TTSS movie – there are of course many interesting themes there.

To my mind the one major theme, and the one that has the most relevance to my work at this blog, is this: that of all the major players who are sincerely on the side of British Intelligence, Smiley is the only one who behaves in a rational, far-sighted, clear, and realistic manner, unafraid to face harsh facts whatever their implications and where they may lead him.

The other major players on the pro-British side all have similar flaws: self-deception, irrationality, wrong assumptions based on ignorance or wishful thinking, an inability to face harsh truths – to summarize: all these people engage in the moralistic fallacy.  That is, if “X” would have negative implications then “X” must be false, and if “X” would have positive implications, then “X” must be true; this is fact-free wishful thinking and self-deception to an exponential power.

Thus, in TTSS, the idea that there is a real mole in the Circus (British Intelligence) is initially dismissed by Lacon and the Minister, and continuously dismissed by the top Circus agents, because the implications of that – including that their own advancement based on fraudulent “Witchcraft” intelligence would be rendered meaningless – would be so negative, so unthinkable, that they refuse to accept the possibility.  Indeed, they let Karla invert the entire situation so the Circus bigwigs actually believe that the idea of a mole is an invention of theirs to service what they think is a Russian they’ve recruited, while that Russian is actually a Karla agent servicing the real mole.

Only Smiley – and before him Control (who is already dead by the time Smiley goes mole hunting) – is unafraid to follow the rabbit hole to its ultimate destination.

In SP, Smiley is the only major British player who takes the assassination of the old Estonian (ex-Soviet and recruited Circus agent) General Vladimir seriously, and believes it can lead him to his old foe Karla.  The Circus bigwigs dismiss the whole thing, mock the General and Smiley himself, and discourage Smiley to do anything more than “tidy things up” and put all the trouble behind them.  Pursuing this lead, and following through its implications, would be too bothersome, cause too many bureaucratic headaches – because the fact of the importance of the situation would cause what they perceive as negative complications they jump to the conclusion that the situation itself is nothing important. Again, self-deception and the moralistic fallacy at work.  Only Smiley looks at the situation with clear eyes, understands all of its implications, and is willing to pursue the facts to their ultimate conclusion.

Hopefully, the similarity of the underlying theme between TTSS and SP is abundantly clear.

We can look at those situations from the perspective of False Positive (Type I) and False Negative (Type II) errors.  Assume Smiley was wrong – let’s say there was no mole and that General Vladimir’s murder was just simply a mugging gone bad – but nonetheless he was believed and efforts were made to follow through on his error.  There would of course have been some negative consequences – the Circus would have “chased its own tail” looking for a non-existent mole and wasted time and resources pursuing non-existent intelligence links to Vladimir’s murder.  That would have been bad, no doubt, but not an existential danger to the Circus.

On the other hand, consider a Type II False Negative error here.  Smiley was right – but let us assume he was continuously ignored by everyone. In this case, the mole is never uncovered, Bill Haydon continues to do untold damage to British (and American) interests around the globe, and, if under those circumstances, the events of SP still occur, then Vladimir’s murder never results in Karla’s forced defection to the West, and he continues damaging Western interests (including running the still existing Haydon mole connection). That would be an existential danger to the Circus and a whole set of Western interests, possibly changing the direction of the Cold War.

Similarly, a False Positive cancer diagnosis can be devastating and extremely damaging, but consider the ramifications of a False Negative – someone has a cancer that is never diagnosed until it kills them.  From the “better safe than sorry” standpoint, False Negatives – Type II errors – are worse than Type I False Positives.

Let’s consider all of that from the perspective of my ongoing critique of the “movement.”

Consider that the optimal (from my point of view) realistic scenario is that some – definitely not all and not most, after all I’m not the approved type of messenger – White racial activists follow my lead and break with the Old Movement to create something new.  So, we are talking about a fraction of the total.

Now, I’m either right about Der Movement or I am wrong (even if I am only partially right, that’s sufficient to delegitimize business as usual and thus can be part of the “right” category).

Let’s assume I’m wrong. Then the worst case scenario – a False Positive Type I error – is that a fraction of activists are misled by my error and go away from the correct path of Der Movement’s glory.  That would slow down Der Movement’s march to victory, but certainly not enough to derail victory. After all, if Der Movement is correct and I’m wrong, they’ll go from strength to strength and everyone, including me, will see I’m wrong and jump back on board.

But what if I am right about Der Movement and no one listens?  This is a False Negative Type II error. What if “business as usual” continues, and more decades of “movement” failure are excused, year after year wasted, as the happy penguins and men on the mountaintop leach off money, time, and resources from racial activists, yielding no return?  If that happens, then we are all finished, since activists are proved time and time again that no degree or continuity of “movement” failure will persuade them from following the dead-end path.  If I’m right and am ignored – as I am now – the outcome will be infinitely worse than the reverse.  

Having some activists listening to me if I am wrong will inconvenience Der Movement but would not likely be any existential threat.  On the other hand, if I am correct, and Der Movement is useless as a vehicle for attaining real long-term White racial interests, then ignoring my warnings is an existential threat – if no one is building an alternative, then the totality of White racial activism will be wasted with no contingency plan in place to save the race and the “movement” fails and fails again.

I state three premises:

1. The “movement” has failed for decades, a complete and catastrophic failure.

2. Continuing the same approaches that have failed for so long will just perpetuate this failure, eventually leading to dire and irreversible negative racial consequences.

3. I identify key reasons for these failures. To turn things around, a New Movement is required that eschews the errors of the Old.

I would say that anyone denying premise 1 is delusional; how is the failure not obvious?  Where, pray tell, are all the glorious successes?

Premise 2 is slightly more ambiguous, but only slightly.  Someone could argue that applying the same failed approaches will eventually yield success, particularly if conditions change, but is this a prudent way of doing things?  Shouldn’t at least some people try something different rather than repeating decades of error and failure?

Premise 3 would be the most questionable and ambiguous, since even if people agree with premises 1 and 2 they may disagree with my diagnosis of the problems.  My answer here is that if the failure has been so complete, so continuous and comprehensive, that the errors are likely fundamental, getting to the core of “movement” dogma and the core of how the “movement” approaches tactics and strategy. If we trace these core memes and strategies to their foundation, then that foundation is what needs to be changed.

But, hey, why listen to me?  It’s all good!  Swallow those” white pills!”  Hail Pepe!  Hail Kek!