Category: national socialism

The RFR Strikes Back

Strom speaks some truths about the Alt Right.

RFR = Radical Far-Right; that is, the racial nationalist Far-Right that is not connected to the “Alt Right” and that which also rejects “mainstreaming” and other centrist ploys.

I identify as a national socialist (*), and I suspect that Strom identifies similarly.  I also have strong sympathy for non-national socialist fascist movements such as the Romanian Legion, the early and late Italian Fascists (not the middle era of reactionary authoritarianism), and also the very interesting variants of French fascism (typically ignored by a Germanocentric “movement”). I do not know how Strom views these various non-German fascist movements.  I do disagree with Strom on certain things – e.g., I am not fond of the Pierce legacy, I am ambivalent about the Germanocentric Hitler, I looked askance on Strom’s “Man on White Horse” infatuation of Putin, and was disillusioned about Strom’s self-declared involvement with the Who We Are fiasco (although Strom asserts that the extant version is not the “final version”) – however, in general, I suspect that Strom and I agree on the basics (**).  We certainly agree about the Alt Right. Now, remember that that nasty old crank Ted Sallis was always skeptical of the Alt Right, noted that their “fifteen minutes of fame” were over, viewed them as another “movement” passing fad, and noted that unless Alt Right leaders became serious and actually did real work, the advantage resulting from the Trump campaign would be lost.  

THE AMORPHOUS disunited non-group dubbed the “alt right” and defined mainly by a rejection of Political Correctness and a wish that Donald Trump would be elected instead of the War Hag, seems to be dissolving before our eyes. On the one hand, you have the “alt light” who are either horrified — or pretending to be horrified — by the racially loyal and Jew-aware elements in their own ranks, and who are falling back into line within the boundaries of the corpse called Conservatism, Inc., where they will quickly be forgotten no matter how many book deals they sign. On the other hand, you have the rest, who are beginning to realize they have been played by Trump and/or Trump’s keepers; but who also realize that they have tapped into something real — something authentic — something of deep world-historical importance and biological and cosmic significance — by becoming aware of the primacy of race and the fact that the Jewish power structure is out to kill us. It’s only the second group that’s interesting. There’s real hope for them — and, if we can help them to full awareness and commitment, there’s real hope for all of us in them.

Quite right. Just as Trump has – as Alt Righter Spencer has noted – squandered his political capital on jackass tweets and non-essential issues, the Alt Right, in typical quota queen fashion, squandered its fifteen minutes of fame with Pepe-Kek nonsense and any lack of real accomplishment. “Dissolving before our eyes” – that’s not from the crazy crank and ethnic outsider Ted Sallis but from the Norwegian-American and “Establishment Movement Figure” Strom, “one of the boys.”  I’m shocked, shocked!  Strom, like me, mocks the Alt Right’s fetishistic obsession with Trump and – while he unfortunately declines to mention the Alt Wrong – he makes the distinction between the Alt Lite and the more hardcore Alt Right, the latter which should have never had anything to do with the former.  Strom suggests that the more hardcore faction has some “real hope” – but let us acknowledge that an awakened Alt Right that rejects the Alt Lite (and Alt Wrong) is really nothing more or less than White nationalism.  Yes, there may be differences in style, but in the end, shorn of all the Beavis-and-Butthead trolling and lulzing and shorn of the Alt Lite and Alt Wrong, the Alt Right is just White nationalism with a snazzy “dust jacket” packaged for millennial consumption.  Strom, like me months ago, has seen through all the sound and fury of the Alt Right, has seen through the Alt Right bluster, has seen through the “we’ve arrived” self-congratulation of Alt Right figures, and asks that the Alt Right grow up.

Maybe where I was ignored, Strom will be listed to.  More likely though, we’ll just see more Pepe images and cries of “Hail Kek” and discussions by Roissy about his Black girlfriend’s “gravity-defying ass” or about his Asian girlfriends sticking their fingers up his anus. Hail Kek, indeed.

The Alt Right is failing; it is – as Strom says – it is dissolving.  The “mainstreamers” are failing in Europe and in Australia.  Trump is squandering is political capital.  All of the Alt Right-Mainstream-Trump “heroism” is falling apart, and it is high time that the RFR stops being on the defensive and seizes the high ground; it is time for the RFR to end its marginalization by the Alt Right.  The RFR must strike back against the losers driving the ‘movement” into the ground.  We do not need Pepe-Kek stupidity, a “movement” infiltrated by Jews, Iranians, and East Asians, we do not need Trump worship, miscegenating “game,” or any of the rest of it.

The passing fads fade away, and the racial nationalist hardcore will soldier on.

*I can imagine being accused of “LARPING” as a “Nazi” that will turn off “normies.”  I have two objections to that.  The more immediate objection is that there is a difference between being a national socialist and a Hitlerian Nazi; the former is an ideology and a worldview and the latter is a highly specific historical party and movement that was based on the aforementioned ideology/worldview.  And let’s be honest: “normies” are turned off by the ideology of the more mainstream racialists who accuse others of “LARPING” so it really doesn’t make a difference what flavor of racial nationalism one espouses.

I have a deeper objection. While I have used Alt Right-adopted slang terms like “LARPING” and “normies” myself when appropriate, I’m beginning to tire of them – particularly “LARPING” – because they are being over-used and mis-used.  There are people who believe they can win arguments simply by accusing their opponents of “LARPING” – a sloppy form of ad hominem that fails to address substantive arguments.  It is one thing to point at Nutzi types marching around with swastika banners and cry LARPING and it is quite another to label as LARPING any ideology or meme that you disagree with.  For the sake of consistency, if I’m going to reject the Alt Right, I should reject their shallow and juvenile memes as well, so I’ll try and refrain from using these phrases and I’m not going to tolerate them being used in place of actual argument.

**But how can this be?  Strom is a “virulent anti-Semite” but the Silkers accuse me (someone also accused of being a “virulent anti-Semite”) of being a “tool of the Jews” and of “sucking Jewish cock.”  How can Strom and I be in agreement?  Cognitive dissonance!  Can it be?  Can someone be both anti-Jewish and anti-Asian? Who would have ever thought it? Hmmm…one wonders how vehemently Strom would object to Asian colonization of White lands, “British Asians,” and the borders of the West guarded by black-booted Chinese girls with guns.  Is Strom a “tool of the Jews” as well? Oy vey!

A Rose By Any Other Name

Labels are not as important as that which is labeled.

A while back, I read this in pamphlet form.

Now, I don’t agree with how the author defines “Right” and “Left” (more about that shortly) and I don’t agree with some of the ideology espoused there. This latter point is – or should be – more important; ideology is more important than the labels used to describe it.  On the one hand, the author is correct in opposing activists who are so obsessed with being considered “right-wing” that they make common cause with viewpoints that are anathema to their own racialist ideology.  On the other hand, he is wrong with trying to obsessively create a similarly false “left-wing” identity for national socialism; he is equally guilty of being overly concerned with labels, with style over substance.

There is a weakness among Whites – most likely due to long being denied the right to embrace their racial and cultural identities – in being so overly emotionally invested in superficial (sometimes “implicitly White”) identities so that this emotionality blinds them to the maladaptive aspects of their behavior.  Whites obsess over sports teams full of arrogant Negro athletes (usually with White wives/girlfriends) and, more to the point, Whites engage in politics as if It was sports, with identification with “our team” and “their team” often independent of real and meaningful ideological content.  Being so concerned with labels that one supports racially destructive memes is an example of maladaptive behavior.  Even being obsessed with labels of constructive memes can be maladaptive if one spends more energy defending the labels than defending the memes.

The mendacious know how to exploit this weakness.  Thus, cuckservatives love to accuse opponents of “not being true conservatives” or “not being Ronald Reagan conservatives” or they accuse the Alt Right of being – gasp! – “leftists” – with the presumable objective of wounding the right-wing self-conception of these opponents, so those people, desperate to recapture their “rightist identity,” will recant their “blasphemy” and plead to be readmitted to the “conservative fold.”  Those accusations are likely even more targeted to third party observers, with the implicit threat of “if you support those populists-racialists-nationalists then you too will be considered as ‘leftists’ and ‘not true conservatives” – a fate worse than death for those whose existential meaning is wrapped up with identification with being “conservative” and “right-wing.”  Similarly, on a blog I was involved with 10-12 years ago, a conservative “social scientist” would try to win arguments (typically against me) by labeling opponents’ opinions as “leftist.”  My response, if I recall, was to simply state: “OK, I’m a leftist, now address the issues.”

True, I typically label my views as “Far-Right” and I do so for two reasons. First, it is for the sake of clarity and convenience when summarizing these views – national socialist, fascist, racial nationalist – in a “political shorthand” that is commonly accepted by most people on the both the “Right” and the “Left.”  This is analogous to using “White” as shorthand for “peoples of European descent.”  Second, and in contrast to the author of the work linked above, I do not define “Right/Left” in terms of reactionary vs. revolutionary, nor do I accept purely economic or political definitions.  A more metapolitical definition that I support – and that is more economical with facts and aligned with how the terms are actualized in reality – is to associate the Right with hierarchy and difference and inequality and the Left with egalitarianism and obsessive equality at any cost and a leveling universalism.  Hence, my ideology is at the far extreme of the “Right” despite the fact that some of my views – on economics for example – are more “leftist.”  But, and this is the key point, I have no emotional investment in my labeling of my views.  It is merely a tool, merely shorthand, merely a consequence of the definitions I use, and if others want to label my views as “leftist” then, fine, I’m a “leftist.” There is a difference between labeling as a tool and labeling as an identity.  The former is a normal part of everyday life; the latter is foolish and childish. In the end, I care about the actual ideology and its consequences with respect to my biocentric view of racial life, not about the labels used to identify the ideology.

I also realize that in the end my definition of “Right/Left” is as subjective as all the others.  I believe my definition is more reflective of reality, but there is no hardcore objectivity in political labels.  More important, it shouldn’t really matter.  There are those who – perhaps because of their Asiaphilia – are likely more familiar with Confucius than with Shakespeare and who are not in tune with the attitude behind “a rose by any other name….”   To observe individuals spill gallons of “digital ink” analyzing the use of “Right” vs. “Left” labels, to see ideologically similar individuals engage in acrimonious debate over such labels, to read rambling theses about “White Leftism” – this reflects ideological immaturity.  If one is brought down to the level of endlessly debating the labels to be given to views, it is high time to put the labels aside and concentrate on actual differences in views, ideologies, and proposals – and not in highly abstract theoretical terms but in how these views would be, or should be, actualized into reality.

These people like labels?  Let’s use labels – by wasting time with labels and with academic abstractions, those on the “Right” (a label as defined by me) are constantly outcompeted by those on the “Left” (another label as defined by me), the latter group being more concerned with winning and achieving their objectives than with a juvenile concern with how others label them.  You can label a rose as a sewer and label a sewer as a rose, but that is not going to change how each smells.  There is of course a need for clarity of definition and a need to avoid dangerous mislabeling – if one wants a rose then they don’t want a sewer – but defining terms should be a direct and efficient process for reasonable people.  If there is a need to spend months – or years! – debating definitions and labels then something is wrong.  The people involved are being stupid, stubborn, mendacious, maladaptive, or are engaging in avoidance behavior – engaging in fruitless and sterile argument over abstractions because of an inability or unwillingness to come to grips with harsh reality. When leading troops into battle, one needs to make sure there is agreement over the meaning of labels and definitions, and then one does what they need to do.  Soldiers who endlessly debate the meaning of a “flanking movement” will quickly find themselves outflanked by an enemy who ended their debate long before.  In the end, actualized reality trumps abstract defining and labeling every time, without fail.

Stability of Collective Welfare Systems

HBDers weep.

I have previously written about computational analyses that support the stability of ethnocentric cooperative strategies and the instability of atomized individualistic free-riding strategies.

In doing further online searches on the topic of collectivism vs. individualism as group strategies, I came across this interesting theoretical paper (emphasis added):

We propose quantization relationships which would let us describe and solution problems originated by conflicting or cooperative behaviors among the members of a system from the point of view of quantum mechanical interactions. The quantum analogue of the replicator dynamics is the equation of evolution of mixed states from quantum statistical mechanics. A system and all its members will cooperate and rearrange its states to improve their present condition. They strive to reach the best possible state for each of them which is also the best possible state for the whole system. This led us to propose a quantum equilibrium in which a system is stable only if it maximizes the welfare of the collective above the welfare of the individual. If it is maximized the welfare of the individual above the welfare of the collective the system gets unstable and eventually it collapses.

“…maximizes the welfare of the collective above the welfare of the individual. “  Sounds rather National Socialist, doesn’t it?

Now, this paper describes theoretical proposals and not “evidence” per se, but it is still thought-provoking, and the fact that collective well-being ends up as more stable than individualism is consistent with the more biologically-relevant computer modeling linked to above.  Of course, in this latter paper, one could define “collective” in leftist (any aracial group) as well as rightist (a defined biocultural group) terms.  However, when one combines the proposals of the latter paper with the stability of kinship-based ethnocentrism in the computational study, the conclusion must be that inherently rightist collectives based on race, ethnicity, and culture will be those that are most stable.

This is another blow to the anti-White/anti-racist/anti-Salterian/HBD school of thought and their “ethnocentrism for me but not for thee” self-interested memetic flim-flam.

On a more general basis, I have been unaware of lines of study that attempt to describe biological phenomena using the language of physics (and vice versa?), but this would seem to be a fruitful area of analysis that I need to look more into.  Viewing the major areas of science as disjunctive/orthogonal is, it seems, short-sighted and in error.

Labor Day Special: Some Links on Economics

Truth vs. trolls shilling for predatory capitalism.


Of relevance see this about Wall Street pay and also this. Oh yes, all those stock analysts and managers really earn their keep.


In a Ted Sallis regime, all these fatcats would have their wealth confiscated and they’d be sent to do hard manual labor in work camps.  Oh, wait – “that’s communism!”  I don’t care what you call it – its right.  The excuse for the economics uber alles mindset is that “economic growth” enhances the standard of living and overall well being.  The reality is that benefits go to a small group of (mostly incompetent) bigwigs and race traitors, while the general population deals with declining real wages and an endless cycle of mini-boons followed by hollowing-out recessions, never mind the destruction of outsourcing, mass immigration, and overall homogenizing multiculturalist globalization.

It’s time to put the socialism back in national socialism.

Totalitarian Democracy?

Various social technologies.

In his biography of Hitler, I remember Fest commenting on the Nuremberg rallies, saying something about the possibility that those rallied could have evolved into a form of “totalitarian democracy.”  Fest did not further explain his meaning, but I have my own interpretation of that, which differs significantly from the “official” Jewish–inspired concept discussed here.
What I have in mind is a situation in which the totalitarian, non-elected leader goes in front of crowds at mass rallies, crowds that represent a cross-section of the population, and presents his views and plans.  The crowd, these representatives of the populace, can either (through some mechanism, ranging from mass supporting acclamation or expressed disapprobation to actual voting of some sort) can register either approval or disapproval to these views and plans.  If it is disapproval, the leader would need to (at least temporarily) shelve the idea (until the next rally) and/or engage in mass propaganda to convince the people.
Would the leader have the legal right to disregard the will of the people as expressed at the rallies?  Would the leader “cheat” by filling the crowd with known supporters of the policies?  That may occur, but would run the risk of losing moral legitimacy with the population, if the leader’s policies go against the true wishes of the people. I note that even the Hitler regime kept tabs on popular opinion and had some concern about what the people were thinking – and that with a population with a reputation for discipline, obedience, and following orders.
Those of us, like myself, who oppose the democratic fraud currently practiced in the West need to consider what social technologies can be used to allow the people to have a say in how the nation defends their (genetic) interests, and to create mechanisms that would prevent free-riding from unaccountable elites, working against the people’s legitimate interests.  A form of national socialist “totalitarian democracy” may be such a social technology.  I have in the past also considered political forms akin to what was extent in the Roman Republic (absent the flaws that doomed that state, such as personal loyalty of the military to their leaders rather than to “the people and senate of Rome”).  Thus, revolving dual Consults, a Senate, and a Tribune of the People (Plebs), balancing power and preventing any one person or group having too much control.  This could be another form of totalitarian democracy, more similar to the Wikipedia article, albeit with the people having a real say through the powers of the Tribune (who would be elected, but who would act only according to the structures inherent in a nationalist state).  Or, some combination of the Fest-Hitler-Rally idea and the Roman idea; the possibilities are endless.  One thing is for sure: a system like the current one, in which a plutocratic globalist oligarchy masquerades as a” democracy” while waging war on majoritarian (genetic) interests, is unacceptable.

A Fascist Theoretical Journal?

Taking an updated look at Stimely’s idea.

The Keith Stimely interview of H. Keith Thompson, with a heavy emphasis on Francis Parker Yockey, is very interesting. Perhaps the most intriguing part is this exchange:

Stimely: One final question. Supposing that a group of young, relatively young, fascists – not conservatives, not [sneeringly] “populists,” not reformers not people who believe in working evolutionarily within the system, not people who believe at all in saving the system (and who may “work evolutionarily” within it only in order to undermine it) — suppose such a group were to get together and decide to publish their own little journal on the “right,” even in the modest form at first of an 8-page newsletter, entitled Thought & Action, which would be a very nearly explicit fascist theoretical journal working toward the explicit goal of a fascist revolution. Such a journal would explore in the realm of theory the contributions that have been made in political/social thought, and that should be taken into account by present-day revolutionaries, by such as Robert Michels, Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Georges Sorel, even, Lawrence Dennis, Max Nomad, James Burnham, so many more . . . Yockey, Spengler, Carl Schmitt, Harold Lasswell, other prime thinkers on the subjects of power and revolution and social dynamics . . . and to explore all these things on a fairly high intellectual level. My question is: what is your realistic estimate of the number of people who would either understand, or be at all interested in, such a publication? Thompson:One hundred.

Such a journal would be very useful, but today, it would need to expand its focus to include the Salterian empirical view as well as the more political-social-spiritual “continental existentialist” view as emphasized by Stimely.  One could envision that the fusion of those two worldviews (Salter-Yockey) would be a main objective of such a journal.
Some would argue that blogs such as this one as well as Counter-Currents, together with publications such as The Occidental Quarterly (TOQ) fill this role.  While those forums do touch on some of the topics I am talking about, what I’m proposing is something more in line with Stimely; a more focused and specialized journal, for fascist/national socialist “revolutionaries” – combining both metapolitics and politics. Such a journal would be not only explicitly (actually, not just “very nearly”) fascist and national socialist, but also explicitly pan-European, Futurist, science based (both hard science and the best of political and social science), with a solid philosophical and epistemological foundation. This would be something for the “hardcore” – not for the run-of-the-mill “latrine flies.”  It would not be ‘public” in the free online sense, more of a TOQ format, but perhaps even requiring screening of subscribers, to eliminate infiltrators and trolls as much as possible. The typical “movement” dogma would be eschewed; this would be an attempt for a fresh start, based on the aforementioned key principles, perhaps based on the key fundamentals here.

This is Capitalism

What you sow, so shall you reap.


The White worker has sowed endless decades of loyalty to “The American Dream”  and to the treasonous politicians who are the handmaids of predatory capitalism.  Now they reap the bitter harvest of outsourcing of jobs and insourcing of cheap immigrant labor.

The fatcat capitalists are sowing much these days, one wonders if they will ever reap a bitter harvest, or will they continue to hoodwink the inferior White man with “social conservatism” aimed at evangelical retards or with “labor unions” whose sole purpose is to pander to coloreds?

The System is against you, White man; capitalism is your enemy, but national socialism can save you.  

It’s your choice.