Category: movement’s ethnic affirmative action program

They’re Hopeless

They are incapable of learning.

An Alt Righter with sweaty fantasies about documented race-mixer Ann Coulter writes:

The Left thinks it has scored some recent victories by “infiltrating” our private gatherings and reporting on them. This includes the London Forum and the Counter-Currents-sponsored Northwest Forum. As Greg Johnson has already pointed out, all these infiltrators succeeded in doing was proving that we say the same things in private that we do in public.

The absolute cluelessness of Der Movement, it’s “rock stars,” and the pathetic fanboys of the rock stars, is stunning.  They still just don’t get it.  The fundamental take home lesson of the Hope Not Hate infiltration (no scare quotes necessary, you mendacious shill) is not what was revealed, or not revealed.  That’s not the point at all.  The point is what it tells us about “movement” “leaders” – feckless, mendacious, naive, with horrifically poor judgment, a complete inability to distinguish friends from enemies (embrace your enemies and give them the keys to the kingdom, “ban” your friends), freakishness (yes, let’s walk around in khaki shirts, drinking mead, blowing on Viking horns, and reciting poems in Old Norse), and the typical ethnic fetishism (“extreme vetting” vanishes when a Swede with a transparently flimsy cover story shows up).  Worst of all, the “leaders” cannot admit error, cannot take responsibility for what they have done, cannot accept accountability for their stupidity, but instead lash out at justified criticism and have shills write nonsense to defend them.  They’re hopeless. Hopeless.

But this infiltration has the potential to birth an even more important, and less obvious, unintended consequence (and this one is real Cunning of Reason stuff). After the infiltration of the Northwest Forum, the organizers have now decided to make these events public. Our movement already has annual or semi-annual conferences, such as AmRen and NPI. However, the vast majority of events are private, invitation-only affairs which rely on secrecy: vetting (sometimes none-too-successful-vetting, it seems), announcing the location at the last minute, etc. These infiltrations teach us that the way forward may be to end this practice, and make many of our events open to the public. This would make us more visible — more of a regular part of the social and political landscape.

That’s great.  If it is such a great idea, why weren’t the meetings public to begin with?  One must await how this new genius idea will work out. Who will be picked to arrange meeting security?  Tim Wise?  Noel Ignatiev? Antifa?  

Some will try and pass this all off as “the crazy and bitter Ted Sallis going on a tirade again.”  The fact is, I’m just as bothered – actually more bothered – by the reaction to the infiltration than the fact of the infiltration itself.  None of the primary victims have exhibited sufficient character to hold themselves accountable for what happened, or to even acknowledge how bad it all was.  Instead we get ‘spin” – the infiltrator was an effeminate nobody, inarticulate and forgettable (yet invited to give speeches and invited to assist in meeting vetting, and involved in “movement” activity for a year, meeting all sorts of “rock stars”), and he really didn’t accomplish anything.  Move on, move on, there’s nothing to see here.

Actually, the “movement” got lucky here, more damage could have been done if the Left was not so inept, and so navel-gazing that they thought that exposing some reasonable Alt Right viewpoints would somehow be a disastrous exposure.  The only disastrous exposure was to show how inept the Right is.

And, since I’m on this topic I’ll formally raise the following disturbing possibility: this incident is just the tip of the iceberg, perhaps even a distraction from a more troubling possibility indeed.  Perhaps Der Movement has its own Gerald/Bill Haydon (and maybe more than one) – not an infiltrator per se but an actual well-placed and deep cover mole.  Maybe one of the current or future “rock stars” of Der Movement is actually a dedicated anti-racist, well burrowed into the fabric of “movement” Nutzi antics.  Who knows what revelations there are to come?  Meanwhile, the run-of-the-mill “sincere” ineptness of Der Movement does enough damage.

Advertisements

Fisking the Duped

Clueless quota queen.

The MSM has been in SHOCK! HORROR! mode over the news that one Patrik Hermansson, purporting to be graduate student Erik Hellberg (as if anyone could tell the difference!)…

The “movement” obviously could not.

…infiltrated and—arguably illegally and unethically—surreptitiously recorded a number of right wing organizations (he fashionably says “Alt Right” although they mostly predate the term) in Europe and the U.S. e.g. Undercover With the Alt-Right, by Jesse Singal, New York Times, September 19, 2017.

Counter-Currents‘ Editor-in-Chief Greg Johnson, a victim, has a characteristically sensible discussion here.

If by “characteristically sensible” you mean minimizing the outrageous incompetence of “leaders” letting an infiltrator joyride through the “movement” for a year, sitting with “leaders” to “vet” genuine activists, and giving “keynote addresses” about “anti-fascist infiltrators” (I still can’t get over that one), and then hysterically “banning” people who call for accountability, yes indeed, very sensible.

The bottom line: Hermansson/ Hellberg’s “revelations,” although written up in hyperventilating British tabloid style on Hope Not Hate, the Cultural Marxist Enforcer website that sponsored him, contain no evidence or even allegations of any illegal behavior, let alone any conspiracy to commit violence.

That’s not the point is it, you mendacious handout artist?  The point is that a nobody, an infiltrator with a flimsy cover story, was able to worm his way into the highest levels of “movement” discourse and decision making, simply because (1) he’s a Swedish Nord, and (2) he’s an effeminate homosexual. What happens in the future, when an infiltrator is sitting at the highest “movement” councils in a time of crisis?  Or this: how do we know that there  isn’t another infiltrator like Hermansson already there?

All Hermansson/ Hellberg seems to have, at most,  is Politically Incorrect talk—from people already associated with Politically Incorrect websites!

No, all he has is exposing a bunch of clowns with their red rubber noses and makeup on.

He claims “sometimes being a mole in the far right was dangerous….” But he (and his rewrite man, who tried very hard) provide absolutely no support for this.

Big deal. The Hope Not Hate donors, who reportedly supported him for a year, must be very disappointed.

No, they are getting a big laugh over it all, I’m sure.  But in the last analysis, they could have done us all a big favor by exposing the affirmative action racket in the “movement” for what it is.  I say “could have” because I know the mental weaklings among the “movement “rank-and-file don’t have it in them to abandon failed “leadership.”

VDARE.com and I make a number of minor appearances on Hope Not Hate (here and here), but it’s just Search Engine Smear stuff.

Which is mildly interesting, because Hermansson/ Hellberg did contact me and Lydia and I met with him for coffee in Cipriani Dolci above New York’s Grand Central Station. 

And the other shoe drops.  Quota queen Brimelow fell for the same scam as his affirmative action colleagues.

(Note to Hope Not Hate bookkeeper: I paid!)

In other words: VDARE donors likely ultimately paid for it.

I guess I agree with Greg Johnson’s summary: “A bit socially awkward, a bit inarticulate, a bit effeminate, but not so outside the norm for academic types that I felt suspicious.” (Hope Not Hate says proudly that Hermansson/ Hellberg is a “gay, anti-racist activist”).

Two important points. First, the more I hear about Hermansson’s “effeminacy,” the more I think that Andrew Joyce is correct in his criticisms of gays in the “movement.”  If the Far Right was less tolerant of homosexuals, then Hermansson’s behavior would have been a more obvious red flag (alternatively, Hope Not Hate would just have had to dig up an attractive young blonde women to do the job, recording conversations while fending off groping and dodging marriage proposals).  Second, if Hermansson was so awkward and inarticulate, how did he end up being invited by Johnson to address a private Counter-Currents meeting?  How did he end up with the London Forum “leaders,” helping with meeting vetting?  Don’t these guys understand that the more they mock Hermansson as part of their “spin,” the worse they make themselves look for trusting Hermansson and elevating him?  Are these guys really that clueless?  So lacking in self-awareness?  Apparently so.

But I must also say that Hermansson/ Hellberg never said he was anything other than a graduate student, frankly asked if he could record me (Lydia got bored and left)…

That’s surprising. I would have expected she would have a high threshold for boredom.

…and never evinced anything other than academic interest in the movement.

Maybe that’s why his rewrite man couldn’t figure out how to smear us.

No need.  You smear yourselves, first by incompetence, and then by your pathetic “spin” to try and cover up the incompetence.

So why did Hermansson/ Hellberg (and/or his rewrite man) not realize they were undercutting the Left/ MSM Narrative? Because these Leftists are idiots. 

If they are idiots, then what about the Rightists so easily fooled for a year?

They live in an intellectual bubble and they believe their own propaganda.

Is Brimelow talking about “movement” activists here?  Or just deluded VDARE donors?

At least, the Hope Not Hate rewrite man does. But after we met, Hermansson/ Hellberg (email him) replied to my polite note:

Thank you yourself! It was really great talking to you.

Since I left I’ve actually looked into applying for universities in the US so I’m right now looking at Georgetown in DC and possibly NY as well. It’s my supervisor who pushed me to look into a phd or a research position.

Hey, Pete: did you – or any of the “characteristically sensible” members of the “good old boys network” – ever bother to check “Hellberg’s” academic bonafides?  Maybe contact his “supervisor” directly to say what a fine job he’s been doing (by supervisor I mean the alleged academic supervisor, not Hope Not Hope staff). You know, as part of the “extreme vetting” and all.  The Alt Right could have done that after drinking mead, reciting poems in Old Norse, and blowing on a Viking horn (and on anything else for that matter).

My intuition: Hermansson/ Hellberg actually is a graduate student. He really does hope to study in the U.S. (Note to VDARE.com readers: watch out!).

My intuition: Brimelow/Mophead actually is a panhandling, empty suit, quota queen.  He really does hope to continue to exploit readers to contribute to keep Happy Penguins LLC’s coffers full, so he can continue living that fine blue state lifestyle.

He’s just ripping off Hope Not Hate as well as the AltRight.

Are we talking about Hermansson here, or the editor of an “immigration restrictionist” website?

All joking inside, this is a serious matter.  What we likely have is a coordinated effort by an Alt Right-Alt Wrong alliance of affirmative action hacks to minimize the travesty that took place, distract their supporters from utter incompetence, and to get back to “business as usual” as quickly as possible, ensuring a steady stream of donation money.

Frankly, it’s more disgusting than comical.  And our EGI goes down the toilet due to failed leadership.  So much for adaptive fitness.

Advice For the Young Activist

Navigating the madhouse.

What advice would I give a (real, not infiltrator) newcomer, particularly a young one, to the “movement?”  Since most, albeit of course not all, such newcomers would be expected to be relatively young, and since younger, less experienced, individuals would be more likely to be vulnerable to errors of judgment, I entitle this piece: “Advice For the Young Activist,” although it applies to all people who find themselves in The Movement Madhouse.

Based on plenty of experience (most of it negative), I would start off with the following.

Be careful of who you deal with, who you have confidence in, who you trust.  In more than 20 years involved with racial activism, I can honestly say that there have been only two people I’ve known in the “movement” that I have had complete confidence in, who I would consider 100% trustworthy.  One of these is someone I’ve known for nearly 20 years, the other is someone I worked with very closely for several years before he passed away. That’s it.  Two in 20+ years, of the dozens and dozens (if you can online commentators, hundreds) of people I’ve encountered.  If we relax the criteria and ask how many people in the “movement” I have reasonably solid confidence in, people I’d be willing to invite over for dinner, interact with personally – maybe half-a-dozen total (including the two already discussed).  The point: be very careful who you associate who you trust.  You will meet some of the best people you will ever know in the “movement,” but also some of the worst, and the latter will outnumber the former.  A dissident movement will by its very nature tend to attract marginal personalities, and that has been amplified by freakish dogma, lack of quality control, and piss-poor leadership.” Combine that with outright trolls infiltrators, and agent provocateurs, as well as the weak-minded who join for dubious reasons and then leave – without being able to keep their mouths shut about it – and you have a recipe for disaster unless you are very careful. Then one hears rumors of “homosexual grooming of young boys” at “Alt Right pool parties” – I have no idea if that is true or not, but young men should exercise caution.  The same applies to young women entering the “movement” who may be the center of attention from the sex-starved heterosexual activist contingent.

Don’t fall in with personality cults.  Note to the “movement”: there are no “rock stars” – or there should not be any; no one is infallible; and although there are some important personages who have done real solid work, which should be respected and appreciated, no one is above criticism.  The idea that we should, on the one hand, critique “the personality cults of Jewish intellectual movements” while, on the other hand, mimic the same type of personality cult among racial activism, is outright hypocrisy and demonstrates a stunning lack of self-awareness.  If you read or hear “rock star” in reference to anyone, if you see, read, or hear anything that tells you that criticism of certain people is forbidden, then run as fast as you can.  That’s a cult, not a genuine movement.

Think for yourself, don’t mindlessly swallow fossilized “movement” dogma. The same admonitions against cultism applies to dogma that is above criticism.  We all know the official dogma: Nordicism, ethnic fetishism, Ostara-like “racial history,” HBD, etc. If there is something you are not allowed to criticize, then that’s a cult, not a real political movement.

Be wary of real-life public meetings and rallies, know very well what you are getting into and be prepared.  There are a number of dangers here.  First, even in the absence of leftist opponents, you will likely be exposed to some “sincere” unsavory characters.  Second, the leftist problem exists and comes in two flavors.  There’s the “infiltrator” flavor and then there’s the overt “in your face” flavor, the latter of which runs the spectrum of merely loud protests, and the taking of pictures and filming, to actual physical assault. Most likely, your personal self-defense will be your own responsibility, and don’t expect any real security to weed out infiltrators or to even to prevent someone sticking a cell phone camera in your face.  Weigh the costs and benefits of such meetings, look at your own personal situation carefully, understand the implications and consequences, and go from there.  If you do attend meetings at which there is no confidence of security (most of them), you at least would want to consider investing in some “technics” to obfuscate identity if you do have that cell phone camera in your face.  It goes without saying that unless you want to play a leadership role – and you know you would be accepted as such based on your merits (see below on “affirmative action”) – then do protect your pseudonymity.

Take care of yourself first.  When you travel by plane, you are told than in case of emergency, you put your own oxygen mask on first and then you help the person next to you.  The same principle applies here.  If you and your life are a mess, you’ll be little help to anyone, including “the White race.”  Education, career, financial security, family, health – all come first, racial activism comes second.  That’s not “selfish individualism”  – is it just good sense and putting yourself in the position of being the best you can be, which will be of benefit to everyone around you.  Be wary of the siren song: “I don’t know why people bother going to college or saving for retirement – don’t they know that the System is going to completely collapse in five years?”  They’ve been saying that same nonsense for more than 50 years now.  Ignore them.  Essentially what they are saying is: “Don’t take care of yourself – take care of ME instead.”  They want your time, your effort, and, above all else, they want your MONEY.  Don’t fall for it.  In many cases, calls for “selfless altruism” are actually self-interested appeals for the altruist to sacrifice himself for those doing the calling.

Don’t buy into the “Armageddon” rhetoric that “the collapse of the System and the revolution” is just around the corner, within five years it’ll all collapse.  As noted above, they’ve been saying that for more than 50 years

Don’t waste time with online comments threads flamewars.  That speaks for itself.  That’s all a waste of time, unproductive, revolving around personalities and not issues, and this time sink will get you more involved with activist freaks than you would ever want.

Don’t have unrealistic expectations and then get “burnt out” when you don’t see victory right around the corner. I’m not necessarily echoing Spengler’s “Optimism is cowardice,” but you must be realistic.  This is a long-haul endeavor, anyone who promises quick fixes ad immediate gratification is either delusional or a charlatan.

Be persistent but know when to change strategy and tactics when a “dead end” won’t budge.  Don’t be a fossil.  Be flexible.

Don’t throw good money after bad. Many “movement” outlets have their hands out; they are very good at pan-handling.  You may feel like: “I’ve already invested so much into these people, I can’t give up now.”  No, it’s a sunk cost, accept it and move on.  This applies to the investment of time and effort as much as the investment of money. Avoid the “denial of sunk cost” trap – which you are afraid to “break” with a failed group, etc. because of the perception that you’ve sunk too much into it to leave it now.  You will just sink deeper and deeper into failure.  Accept sunk costs and move on.

If some individual/group/organization is unable to clearly define who their “ingroup” is, who they are for, run as quickly as you can.  In particular, if you are in any way unsure whether you yourself are “in” why would you waste any investment of time and resources if a group of mendacious liars or indecisive dithering idiots?  You have the right to invest in your own genetic interests.  You are not there to be the extended phenotype of someone else, defending their genetic interests at the cost of your own.  Demand transparency and reciprocity regarding interests, and if you don’t get it, take your business elsewhere.  Don’t fall for the “we’ll sort all this out after the revolution.”  No, sort it out NOW.  And if you find some individual or group trying to renegotiate the ingroup after the fact, suggesting that maybe you don’t belong after all, AFTER you’ve already invested your time, effort, and money with them, then they are utterly devoid of character, and you need to leave them ASAP, regardless of what they “decide” about ingroups.  Deciding on the ingroup is the FIRST thing – the DEFINING thing any group must do.  The definition of a group is meaningless without a clear “in/out” and if the “in/out” is going to be redefined midstream, then the definition of the group is also meaningless.  Don’t waste your time with meaningless groups….or with meaningless individuals.

Don’t waste time with “man on white horse” syndromes, magical thinking about quick fixes, and that mainstream leaders are “secretly on our side.” They’re not.

Don’t be afraid to call out “movement” “leaders” when such fail time and time again. They’ll get hysterical, “ban” you from their sites, call you names (the pot calling the kettle black), they’ll do anything to protect their money stream.  After all, we can’t let the rubes know how they are getting fleeced now, can we?  As a corollary don’t buy into, or yourself promote, the “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action policy. If any “movement” precinct declares that groups A-M are part of their ingroup, and groups N-Z are not, well and good, but then leadership of that precinct should be able to come from any qualified person derived from that ingroup (A-M).  Any “movement” group that has a caste system within their ingroup – run.  They are being disingenuous; they really want an ingroup narrower than they outwardly proclaim, and are just fishing for more money sources and other forms of support.  Again, don’t be someone else’s extended phenotype.

If I think of any more advice, a follow-up to this post will be produced in the future.

As Much Comedy As Tragedy

Exposing the “spin” of the Alt Fail account.

Reading what the Alt Fail writes about the Hermansson infiltration, the following minimizing spin emerges: “Somehow – who knows how! – the fellow evaded Steadman’s extreme vetting.  Well, he attended a few meetings here and there, and he talked with a couple of people, but, you know, he was so inconsequential that no one remembers him, and, like, you know, no harm no foul.  Move on, move on, there’s nothing to see here.”  However, Hermansson tells a quite different story; his story, backed up as it is with voluminous (and very believable) details, and videos, seems to be closer to the truth than is the official (and sanitized) “movement” version.  Let’s read excerpts (emphasis added) from Hermansson’s account (I’m not linking to the execrable site from whence this came, you can find it yourself if you are so inclined):

At any normal dinner the prospect of forcibly removing all non-whites would be greeted with shock, but repatriation was a relatively uncontroversial topic around this table.

The rest of the night I talked with Brits, Swedes, Lithuanians and Americans. Some of these were super-stars within the movement, such as the never-before-photographed American alt-right figure, Greg Johnson.

Above the sound of clinking glasses men in rented tuxedos discussed eugenics, the coming “race war” and the supposedly ongoing genocide of white people. Smugly they congratulated themselves on managing to keep the dinner a secret, away from the prying eyes of anti-fascists. Little did they know, I was secretly filming the whole thing.

Becoming part of the London Forum, the UK’s most important far-right ‘think-tank’, was not as difficult as its reputation would suggest. I got my foot in the door by claiming to be a disillusioned Swede curious about the alt-right movement in the UK. I said I came to London inspired by Brexit and to get away from the “cultural Marxism” (a favourite phrase for conspiracy-minded, far-right activists) of Swedish universities.

Jez Turner, leader of the London Forum and one of the best known far-right activists on the UK scene, quickly invited me to meet up. Later, as paranoia about a mole increased, new members began to be thoroughly vetted and were required to provide letters of recommendation from trusted members.

Luckily for me, Scandinavian heritage and culture is fetishised by some within the UK far right, meaning interest in my Swedish background overcame most suspicion. At formal dinners, for instance, we sometimes opened by drinking from a ceremonial Viking horn, then raising it to the ceiling in a prayer to the mythological Norse god Odin.

One figure from the London Forum showed a particular interest in me as soon as I arrived. Despite being in his mid-fifties, Stead Steadman, a man of diminutive stature, was always dressed in a khaki shirt, khaki shorts and black walking boots; he looked like a cross between a boy scout and a member of the Hitler Youth. Little did I know at the time but this man was to be central to the whole project. Once close to him he opened doors to some of the most influential far-right figures in the world.

Once the trust was built Steadman began openly discussing the London Forum, people they planned to invite and who he liked and disliked within the movement. The information I gathered helped HOPE not hate map the London Forum network and the movements of key activists with precision. We learned of international conferences in Lithuania, Italy and Sweden being attended by British extremists.

It even got to the stage where I was asked to sit in on the vetting meetings for new London Forum members. Steadman, Turner and I would meet applicants who wanted to attend meetings and question them on their background, politics and commitment to the cause. Soon there was almost nothing happening in the London Forum that I and HOPE not hate did not know.

On the face of it the meetings are comical. A man in a long, white, curly baroque wig introduces two to three speakers per night covering topics such as gun laws, religion and the lack of freedom of speech, interspersed with poetry performed in Old Norse or Anglo-Saxon English.

Also active in London are tiny Odinist groups, often with a healthy smattering of nazi adherents. One sunny afternoon a group of us gathered in the Barbican Centre, an iconic brutalist housing complex replete with green areas, for a ‘moot’.

Steadman, in his typical khaki shorts, lifted a horn to the sky and began to pray to the Nordic gods before taking a gulp of mead. Then he placed a Viking horn to his lips and blew, but instead of a bellowing blast echoing out a stuttered honk spluttered from his lips.

Sometimes being a mole in the far right was dangerous, nerve racking or scary but at other times it was surreal, ridiculous and frankly comical.

Gregory Lauder-Frost

He doesn’t hold back and I can feel little drips of his saliva hitting my face as he speaks. He describes his colleague Brooks as a “common bloke” and how Daniel Friberg, founder of Arktos and a leading alt-right figure, is “not a big thinker”. Neither does Lauder-Frost like Richard Spencer. He tells me that Spencer, who has spoken at the TBG, is “naive” and “doesn’t understand Europe”.

By the time I leave the pub it is clear that an important split is emerging within the alt-right movement between some of the biggest players.

If you want to get to the very heart of the alt-right, all roads lead to America. While Europe has produced its fair share of prominent alt-right activists and big names from America regularly visit, it was clear that if I was to better understand the alt-right movement, the emerging split and generally to get closer to the big names, I would have to head across the Atlantic.

During Greg Johnson’s short visit to London I had got to know him well. In addition to the Bowden dinner and the conference the following day I had spent an afternoon at his hotel alongside Steadman. With Johnson being at the very heart of the emerging split in the alt-right, it was decided I should start the American part of my infiltration with him.

Johnson admired the London Forum so much that he replicated the concept in New York and Seattle with closed conferences of hard-core activists addressed by leading speakers from the far right. Recent events had been attended by big names, such as the internationally recognised antisemite and editor of The Occidental Observer, Kevin MacDonald, as well as the UK’s most well-known alt-right vlogger Colin Robertson (aka Millennial Woes).

One sunny Saturday in June, I joined the list of speakers at one of these forums in Seattle. I had intended to attend as a guest but one week before the event Johnson contacted me and asked me to give the opening address, removing any doubt in my mind that I was now accepted as part of this movement.

With delicious irony I opened the event by talking about the danger of anti-fascist infiltration.

After the Seattle Forum I head to New York. The split between Counter-Currents Publishing and AltRight Corporation (the result of the Arktos row mentioned earlier) had got especially nasty.

Having spent a few days at the heart of Counter-Currents, I decided I had to go get the other side of the story.

“We had connections in the Trump administration, we were going to do things!”

I manage to convince Jason Reza Jorjani, co-founder of AltRight Corporation and editor of Arktos Media, to meet for a drink. I’m sitting across from him in an Irish pub in the shadow of the Empire State Building. The first thing he said was: “You’re not in touch with Greg [Johnson], are you?”

I assure him I’m not, knowing he would leave if he ever found out I had spent the last month getting to know people on the other side of the split, some of whom had recently accused Jorjani of being a CIA agent. “It’s like the SA and the SS,” Jorjani said. “A Night of the Long Knives is coming though.”

Jorjani talks for hours, displaying a remarkable arrogance coupled with a tiring self-pity. He’s a remarkably extreme character, much more so than his public persona. He sees the world one day being run by a single strong leader and predicts it won’t be long before bank notes are adorned with images of Hitler.

I ask about AltRight Corporation and its aims and objectives and he explains how it is a “government in waiting”. But then, out of nowhere, as though it was no big deal, he says: “We had connections in the Trump administration, we were going to do things!”

I lean forward, praying that the camera I have hidden in one of my shirt buttons captured what he had just said. I can hardly believe it. 

I thought the Keystone Cops stupidities of the real world meetings from the 1990s were bad, but whatever we Old Right types experienced back then is nothing compared to the tragicomedy of today.  Twenty years ago, maybe the utter incompetence of “meeting security” allowed an infiltrator into a public (never private!) meeting, where the infiltrator took notes, and/or wrote down license plate numbers outside after the meeting. Today, the infiltrators get all cozy with leaders and with actual decision making, and then infiltrators actually lecture genuine activists about “the dangers of leftist infiltrators.”  The infiltrator sits with leaders discussing how to “vet” genuine activists! 

 

And the other side of the Alt Right feud is not much better.  At AltRight.com, we read the following from a blogger there talking about Charlottesville:

We forced the President of the United States to weigh in on our side…

Yeah…if you didn’t notice, Alt Righter, he denounced you, and then signed a declaration, in writing, not only denouncing you but pledging to use all of the resources of the US government against you.

Delusional much?

The Alt Fail

Navel-gazing ideological contortions.

One wonders how Andrew Joyce squares his recent series on homosexuality (*) with this expression of tolerance.

It would seem that AltRight.com’s current crusade against homosexuality is to a large extent informed by their feud with Counter-Currents.  But let’s give the other side equal attention.  Greg Johnson’s crusade for ethnonationalism, and crusade against pan-Europeanism, which came as an unpleasant surprise to me (who considered him to have been a pan-Europeanist), mysteriously coincided with the deterioration in his relations with Richard Spencer.  Memes in the service of personal animus, it seems.

Feuds between “movement” leaders is a “grand tradition” – one can remember Pierce-Carto and Pierce-Covington, but in those cases, the disagreements were personal/tactical.  The situation in which “movement leaders” actually take ideological stands on important issues merely to spite each other is totally unprecedented.  Yes, it seems that “youth culture” is indeed a key component of the Alt Right scene: narcissistic, feckless, and juvenile.

On a related note (emphasis added):

However, more important is understanding how a far-right movement operates, organizes and functions. This is invaluable for finding the most effective strategies for opposing and undermining them. I spent hundreds of hours with these people and came away with a real understanding of what drives their activism, the tactics they seek to use, and what they were planning to do. This allows Hope Not Hate to always be one step ahead, and to plan responses and opposition earlier than anyone else.

But don’t forget…the problem is not with the outrageously irresponsible, feckless, imprudent, failed leadership that allowed an effeminate homosexual anti-racist infiltrator to joyride through the “movement” for a year with a tragicomically flimsy cover story while legitimate activists were frozen out of meetings because of “extreme vetting.”  No, the problem is with anyone who states that there should be some accountability for this pathetic failure of common sense and good judgment – or so say our “betters” among “movement leadership.”  I guess when faced with the possibility of the panhandling donations running dry, hysteria ensues.  Too bad they weren’t more hysterical with basic operational security.

*Before someone accuses me of being “queer,” I’ll say I’m in general agreement with Joyce (excepting the Christian apologetics and the idea that Tacitus was a historian in the modern sense, instead of in the ancient sense – a story-telling propagandist), but more nuanced.  However, my view remains that if someone is homosexual but is pro-White, and if they acknowledge that homosexuality is a defect, and if they “stay in the closet,” then tolerance could be given.  In On Genetic Interests, Salter asserts that homosexuals should actually be very pro-extended family and pro-ethny, given they have a greater genetic interest investment in broader circles of relatedness, as most of them do not have children of their own.  If a homosexual actually behaved in that fashion (most do not, including some “anti-natalists” masquerading as WNs), then some degree of societal tolerance could be acceptable.  That doesn’t preclude personal disgust and the acknowledgment that overt homosexuality, celebrated by society, has the pernicious effects described by Joyce.

It’s Time to Defund the “Movement”

Problems and a solution.

There are those who perhaps do not understand why a blog called EGI Notes comments on the state of the “movement.”  I would have thought it obvious, but there are of course cognitively deficient individuals in racial activism, as there are in the general society.  More to the point, likely many of these people merely pretend not to understand in order to oppose such criticism, and in some cases the opposition to my criticism has its basis in rent-seeking behavior.  After all, if one lives off of supporter donations, one wouldn’t want those supporters to get any idea that the money is being wasted, would they? Is that one reason Pierce had an online unit dedicated to discrediting Covington?  And is that why some today become so hysterical when I and others point out objective facts about “movement” ineptitude?

For those who, for reasons of deficiency or mendacity, do not see the point of linking genetic interests with criticism of the “movement,” the following may be helpful:

1. The only credible approach for pursuing ethnic genetic interests (with “ethnic” here meaning “ethny” in its broadest sense) is through racial nationalism (at the racial level) and ethnic nationalism (at the ethnic level).

2. For a long time, such nationalism has been encompassed within a sociopolitical artifact that I call “the movement” (or “Der Movement”).

3. Therefore, it is quite clear that the state of such a “movement” has a powerful, direct influence on our ability to pursue our genetic interests.

4. Hence, any blog dedicated to “EGI” will as a matter of course have analysis of this “movement” as a major area of concern.

QED.

Having put that aside, let’s consider some recent events. Emphasis added:

The Head of Research suggested infiltrating London Forum, a convention that attracts right-wing extremists of varying piousness, from the ethnosocialists in British National Party to downright Holocaust deniers. Hermansson quickly connected with the founder of the forum, Stead Steadman, who as many others in the subculture nurtures a fetish for Sweden.
”He learned Swedish and Icelandic by studying the Edda. He worships Thor and Odin.”

One could write volumes about that, but two quick points will suffice. First, when reality converges on caricature, you know you have a real problem. Second, any reader of my work over the years could have predicted this embarrassing nonsense with 100% accuracy.  

His guide, Stead Steadman, the man behind London Forum, opened his big, black phone book with numbers and e-mail addresses to all of the Nazi leaders in the West. Many happily participated in interviews for the “thesis.” 

No doubt they “happily participated.”  

Hermansson met dark horse Greg Johnson who founded a Nazi-convention in Seattle. ”He offered me to speak at the opening about my thesis topic: how the left has infiltrated the right. I spoke in front of 75 armed white supremacists.”

Now, the heavy breathing about “75 armed white supremacists” is just moronic leftist hysteria, which can be more accurately written: “75 white nationalists who were either unarmed or, if in any way lightly armed, was merely for protection against leftist attacks.” 

That one phrase aside, is any of the above in any way inaccurate? Essentially, reading between the lines of accounts written by “movement” figures themselves, it would seem the above storyline tracks well.  We have a young Swedish homosexual, posing as a “newcomer” to the “movement,” with a transparently flimsy cover story that no one involved in the vetting bothered to seriously and comprehensively check out, being given year-long access to private “movement” meetings, getting to interview prominent “movement” figures, while – as these figures tell us in their own explanations – sincere, legitimate activists were blocked out of various events because of the vetting.  Obviously then, it stands to reason that the infiltrator was given special treatment. Hermansson states that his preferential treatment was because of his Nordic Swedish ancestry and the “movement’s” obsession with that background, as well as Steadman’s own particular interest in, and practice of, “Germanic paganism.”  Indeed, it seems that Hermansson was chosen to play the infiltrator role precisely because the leftist extremists knew that he would be attractive (in one way or another) to “movement” activists. This much is clear, and “movement” figures really do not deny any of this, they just attack those who point it out.  

Now, no doubt, the “movement” spin doctors will tell us that the Hermansson incident may well not have much of a long-term impact.  It’ll be in the news for a while, fade away, everyone will forget about it, and then it’s back to business as usual.  

Maybe so. But that’s not the point of course.  It’s not the incident itself that is the major problem, but what it tells us about the incredibly bad judgment and raw incompetence of “movement leadership” and how it tragicomically lifts the lid on underlying “movement” obsessions and fetishes. You see, it is precisely “business as usual” that is the problem here, and in the long run, the best thing for a real movement is if this incident does not go away, and we do not have business as usual (sadly, given people’s short attention spans, likely it will all be forgotten in a week or two).

Business as usual will one day lead to a situation in which there is an extremely serious “movement” private meeting, where crucially important high strategy is being discussed, and fundamentally important planning is being conducted, and sitting at that meeting, secretly recording everything, will be some anti-racist infiltrator, let in and given the keys to the kingdom because of some stupid reason (e.g., “he’s Swedish”)..

And now we move on to recent events involving AltRight.com.

Surprise!  EGI Notes right once again: Spencer on Jorjani.  The two in happier days.

OK, all true I guess, but a little late, no?  I can’t help think back when I was criticizing the involvement of Jorjani in the Alt Right, and when the “white trash” (Jorjani’s words) of the AltRight.com commentariat were rightfully skeptical, the Alt Right crew were all on board the Jorjani train. To be fair to AltRight.com, they weren’t the only Alt Righters taken in by Jorjani. Those other individuals know who they are – as do I.  It was obvious from the beginning that Jorjani was everything the Alt Right is realizing now.  Even Silver had the good sense to question the Alt Right’s judgment on this, many months ago. So, from my third party observation deck, I shake my head sadly, and have my understanding of the poor judgment of “movement leadership” confirmed once again.

What’s the solution?

Out in the real world, when people fail miserably, when they make horrendous mistakes, when they make their businesses or institutions “crash and burn,” they typically resign or are fired. “Movement” leaders, being without shame, will not resign, so they must be fired. How are they to be fired? Look at it from the economic angle, supply and demand, costs and benefits, payment and service.  Are supporters getting their money’s worth from their donations?  If not, then why give?  Defund the “movement” as it currently exists, and stop supporting failed leadership.

Cut them off financially.  Don’t give them a penny. No donations.  No book purchases. No nothing.  Do not support them as professional activists any longer.  After all, most of these individuals complain all the time about the sacrifices they make, so we can assume they would certainly prefer the experience of actually having to earn a living through regular work. These individuals could, if they so wished, still be part-time unpaid activists, but they would no longer be financially supported allowing them to fulfill the leadership roles they have so clearly failed in.

Long time readers of this blog may point out that I have previously written about the need to support full time activists and that a step toward victory would be when such activists could live a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle. I stand by that and there is no inconsistency, because it is expected that in exchange for that support, the leadership will be effective and accountable, and neither of those two characteristics define current leadership. Letting Hermansson joyride through the “movement” for a year, or enabling Jorjani’s rambling, are certainly not examples of effectiveness, and no one is being held accountable for any of it.  And those are just two examples from an endless litany of “movement” woe. Further, much of the largesse being bestowed on the “movement” isn’t even going to racial nationalists.  For example:

The Connecticut-based VDare Foundation is led by Peter Brimelow, founder and editor of an anti-immigration website. Brimelow, who spoke at the National Policy Institute’s conference last month, founded his nonprofit in 1999 and raised nearly $4.8 million between 2007 and 2015.
Brimelow has denied that his website is white nationalist but acknowledged it publishes works by writers who fit that description “in the sense that they aim to defend the interests of American whites.”
Brimelow received $378,418 in compensation from his nonprofit in 2007, accounting for nearly three-quarters of its total expenses that year. Brimelow says his salary that year was $170,000 and the rest reimbursed him for travel, office supplies and other expenses.
From 2010 through 2015, VDare Foundation didn’t report any compensation directly paid to Brimelow. But, starting in 2010, the nonprofit began making annual payments of up to $368,500 to Brimelow’s Happy Penguins LLC for “leased employees.” Brimelow disclosed his ownership of that company on tax returns.

All that money for VDARE, it’s milquetoast articles, Sailer writing about real estate and golf courses, “cheesecake” photos of women accompanying stories, and last but not least Derbyshire. Brimelow: a $170,000 salary (year 2007) for being the editor of that website; that is is pretty good “work” if you can find it.  And can we be told who are the “leased employees” who are being paid out of the “up to $368,500” (2010-present)? That is actually indicative of another issue: financial accountability.  Why don’t all these activists living off donations tell supporters how the money is spent?  How much goes for salary? How much for operating expenses, and what are those expenses?  If we are talking about hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars shouldn’t those who donate know how it is being spent?


Not to put too fine of  a point on it, but some “activists” seem to live a lot better than most of the supporters they implore donations from: trendy blue state lifestyles, frequent international travel, vacations, pets (how much donation money goes for dog food, for example?), etc.

That’s step one, at least: get financial accountability.  Step two is actual accountability of performance, and since “movement leadership” has so clearly failed in that respect, they should be feel it in the pocketbook.

What about those activists who come from wealthy families, and who do not require handouts?  Won’t my suggestions give them an unfair advantage in the “Darwinian competition” between activists?  Perhaps, but life isn’t fair, and we must do the best we can. If such individuals exist, and if they fail as leaders, they can be dealt with by withdrawing other forms of input and support.  A stereotype (and don’t we believe that all stereotypes have a basis in truth?) of inherited wealth is that such individuals have a sense of entitlement, a habit of immediate gratification, a low threshold for frustration, and a lack of long term resiliency.  If they observe that their followers are getting frustrated with leadership failure, if they see they are being constantly criticized or increasingly ignored, then they may take their private money and find a new toy to play with; they may give up on activism even if they would still have the financial means to continue.  So, in all cases, shutting off the money spigot isn’t enough; if you have had enough with failure, then take your business – ideological and social as well as financial – elsewhere.

Assuming we stop wasting donations, what should be done with the money instead?  A good short term solution is to fund specific projects instead of just showering individuals with money; at least one website to do so has been established, and that is a good start, assuming that the projects have clearly defined goals and the recipients of the donations are held accountable (that word again) to the donors for successfully completing the project. That would be equivalent to a grant award.  More long term solutions would include establishing competent think tanks and other organizations, professionally run, with – you guessed it – performance and financial accountability, and these groups, openly racial nationalist, can support competent full time racial activists at the lifestyle level alluded to above.  

But the way things are going now, any of my readers who are donating to the “movement” are essentially performing the equivalent of flushing money down the toilet. You are feeding a metastatic cancer. We need chemotherapy here.  Analogous to an “angiogenesis inhibitor” cutting off a tumor’s blood supply, we need to cut off the money supply to the various “movement” cancer cells proliferating around us.

I’m not optimistic that I will be able to get most activists from pouring good money after bad. But I can certainly try.  Any progress, even incremental, in preventing the enabling of chronic failure, would be helpful  Even though many precincts of the “movement” are well-funded, a big enough financial hit may well slow them down enough to open the field for other people, better people, to establish themselves.  And once a New Movement gets established, then you will have a real choice as to who you can support.

The power – including the power of the pocketbook – is in your hands (and wallets).  And if you need a reminder as to why this is important, let’s consider some of the things that have occurred in 2017 alone (forgetting for a moment the last 50-60 years of utter “movement” failure):


1. The Spencer-Friberg-Johnson feud

2. The Charlottesville fiasco and subsequent “deplatforming”

3. The humiliation of the Alt Right by Trump’s constant betrayals

4. The Alt Lite turning against the Alt Right after the latter tried to bring the former into a “big tent” against all reason and common sense

5. A prominent “movement” activist promoting the idea that Europeans should “ethnically cleanse” each other after national disagreements

6. The Jorjani fiasco on the Alt Right

7. Last but not least the Hermansson infiltration came to our (and world) attention


Is that worth your continued support?

A Response to Greg Johnson

Behold the “movement.”
 
Greg Johnson writes at Counter-Currents:
 
Ted,
This will be your last comment here. You’ve got your own blog for your embittered rants. You no longer have anything constructive to contribute.
Greg Johnson
 
Greg, believe it or not, I always thought you were a good guy and a useful intellectual contributor (despite our disagreements).  Apparently though, you are a bit too thin-skinned, a trait that won’t serve you going forward.  An inability to accept criticism, however harsh, from your own side, is the path to personal stagnation. To answer your latest criticism (which I accept with no personal rancor):
 
I may well be a “crazy, bitter, low information moralizer,” but I’m also not the one responsible for the potential doxing of dozens of activists, I’m not the one who let an infiltrator waltz through “extreme vetting” because of ethnic fetishism and affirmative action, I’m not the one who took The Great Persiante Shah Jorjani seriously, I’m not the one who let “Smoky Mountain SS” walk off with secret National Alliance files to be handed off to “watchdog groups,” I’m not the one who invites Hart, Weissberg, and Derbyshire to speak at conferences, I’m not the one who lived on a mountaintop engaging in serial monogamy while living off the donations of members who I secretly (and not so secretly) despised, I’m not the one who cheerfully interviews activists who I publicly accused of being untrustworthy and mentally unstable only a few years prior, I’m not the one who changes fundamental aspects of my worldview essentially to spite other activists with whom I’m engaged in a public feud, I’m not the one who shamelessly panhandles for money online using pictures of my children (who are too young to understand how they are being used), I’m not the one who throws activists who I recently posed with “under the bus” because they did something that may offend some of my Jewish supporters,  I’m not the one who chuckles with Jewish correspondents about how a prominent racialist activist “may get shot,” I’m not the one who considers certain “movement” figures to be “rock stars” that are immune from criticism – while at the same time criticizing the “personality cults” of Jewish intellectual movements, I’m not the one who championed “mainstreaming” for years and stated that Marine Le Pen’s election was the last chance for a peaceful resolution of Europe’s racial crisis while having no comments to make about her humiliating electoral defeat, I’m not the one who publicly airs the most intimate of “dirty laundry” in “movement” feuds (although I do know plenty of such laundry, some of which I’ve kept to myself for two decades), I’m not the one who writes that it is good to sometimes “punch right” but who then myself exhibits a “glass jaw” when a few legitimate memetic punches are thrown in my direction, I’m not the one who publicly questions why possession of child porn should be illegal, I’m not the one who writes under two different names and then does podcasts under each name thinking that no one will notice that the voice is exactly the same (granted, most “movement” activists are so clueless and unaware that I’m sure they did not notice), I’m not the one who wrote that “Trump is the last hope for White America” and I’m not the one who makes the “man on white horse” error over and over and over again, I’m not the one who made a cartoon frog and “Kek” the symbols of racial activism, I’m not the one who gambled away supporter contributions, I’m not the one who organized Charlottesville or threw up my right arm at Hailgate, and I’m not the one responsible for decades of racial nationalist failure and incompetence.  That’s the purview, it seems, of sane, cheerful, high-information activists.  
 
That’s not an “embittered rant.” It is in fact objective truth, and if there is one single point listed in the above paragraph that is factually incorrect, then please point it out. But there are none. Not a single one. What we have here is simply personal anger and hurt feelings up against verifiable, objective facts. Is this perhaps a clue as to why incidents like a year-long infiltration by a thinly disguised informant repeatedly take place?
 
Good luck with your blog.