Category: New Movement

Der Movement Parallax

Analyzing some important points.

Read this.

For 15 long years, beleaguered Rhodesia maintained near total tactical military supremacy in the region despite severe weapon, materiel, and manpower shortages. Yet, military victory bereft of a strategic vision and clearly delineated political objectives is ultimately self-defeating. The political objectives of Rhodesia changed throughout the course of the war. Initially Rhodesia sought to maintain White minority rule, later hoped to create an African puppet regime, and finally sought nothing more than a seat at the proverbial “multicultural table.” This last political objective sealed the fate of tiny Rhodesia, and led to the pogrom of White genocide presently occurring in southern Africa. The nation of Rhodesia faced a series of overwhelming odds since its inception as a sovereign nation, but its greatest threat was its internal lack of strategic aim. This is a mistake we cannot afford to make.

This is very true.  A fundamental error that is often made is confusing strategy with tactics, and vice versa.  Means and ends are not the same; objectives and the tools to achieve those objectives are not the same.  One problem with mainstreaming is precisely this; the idea is to “mainstream” in order to “achieve (and maintain) power” so the power can be used to “preserve race and culture.”  Very laudable. Let’s put aside the empirically determined fact that mainstreaming simply doesn’t work.  Let us assume it does work.  What happens when selfish human nature takes over and the attainment and maintenance of political power ends up being the ultimate objective, the end, rather than as means to achieve racial-cultural objectives?  You may object: the same power-fetish may occur even with a vanguardist strategy.  That’s true, but less likely. The farther one’s “everyday” activity is separated from their ultimate objective, then the easier it is to lose sight of that objective. Mainstreaming is, in theory, a way to actualize vanguardism; vanguardism in turn is (in theory if you will) a way to achieve racial-cultural goals.  Being one major step removed from the alleged “real objective” makes mainstreaming more susceptible for activists to give up on their supposed goals and pursue political power for its own sake.  Vanguardists, on the other hand, live in “racial extremism” on an everyday basis and are less likely to lose sight of the objective that is “in their face” on a constant basis. Vanguardists are thus more likely, in my opinion, to understand, and remain focused on, the strategic aim.

As Greg Johnson articulated in New Right versus Old Right, white racial survival is the ultimate goal of White Nationalism, but I would go one step further and say we must explore not only how to survive, but also how to thrive racially as one people.

Fair enough.  Preservation is the first step.  Overcoming and progress comes next.

The policy failures and lack of strategic vision of former Rhodesia mirror those of the contemporary White Nationalist movement. The survival of the White race is imperative, but whites will only succeed if they maintain unity; in what form this “unity” manifests itself, and how centralized or decentralized it is, is open to debate. In order to reach our peoples greatest potential, we must seek unity of both race and thought, and harmonize these into a new European/White ecumene. 

There may be truth in this.  But it is a futile exercise to attempt to get everyone in the “movement” on board with a common vision.  It’s not going to happen.  Out of the morass – or perhaps from a fresh direction – a dominant memetic structure will emerge. Whether that will be the right direction, or a disaster, remains to be determined.

In Ricardo Duchesne’s penultimate work, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, Duchesne rightly speculates that a penchant for rational abstraction is the hallmark for White racial success. From this ancestral proclivity new and old ideas must be forged, crafted in a manner conducive to White unity. We’ve all borne witness to the perils of abstraction run amok, such as diversity for the sake of diversity and so-called “human rights”, but abstraction, when grounded in blood and soil and beholden to a people rather than to a proposition like universal equality, can produce a clarity of vision commensurate with the greatness of our race. I’m not opting for ideological orthodoxy or an outright purge, but I am suggesting that we as a movement begin a dialogue towards what we can and cannot accept.

Again, I’m doubtful that the feuding activists of Der Movement – all Chiefs and no Indians – will come to such a consensus.

Rhodesia wasn’t able to formulate a clear sense of strategic national purpose, because they couldn’t decide what they could and could not accept. Pragmatism is the basis of power politics, but it must be grounded by an immoveable set of axiomatic principles. 

That’s correct, and why mainstreaming is bad even if it would be politically successful – because there pragmatism itself becomes the “immovable axiomatic principle.”

Our lack of a cohesive vision is tantamount to a proverbial arming of the natives, and the natives are getting restless.

True, but, again, one cannot force a collective vision on a collection of individuals and mini-groups who cannot even decide on the parameters of “Us” vs. “Them.”  The Us/Them division is the fundamental characteristic of what a group is; if even that cannot be agreed upon, then there is no group.

Old hostilities and petty ethnic rivalries exacerbated an already precarious military and political situation. Intra-racial division, aside from contributing to Rhodesian political incongruity, proved deleterious to the war effort by limiting the mobilization of the population…

Let’s have more dem dere narrow ethnonationalism, as well as more divisive Guntherite racial theories!  That’ll bring folks together in unity, no doubt! 

We contemporary White Nationalists find ourselves in similar circumstances. The rampant division within our movement, though generally not based upon intraracial ethnic distinctions…

“…not based upon intraracial ethnic distinctions…”  Uh, I think the author of this piece just missed the last century of failed racial nationalism.  “Intraracial ethnic distinctions” constitute the first major division of “movement” disagreement.  If one wanted to do a memetic “PCA plot” of Der Movement, then the subracial/ethnic question would be the first major axis of variation.

Like our former Rhodesian brothers, our numbers, though growing, are few and the upcoming struggles will require mobilization of our entire movement for the survival of our race.

Not going to work. You need to find the optimal segment of Der Movement – or better yet start a New Movement beginning with first principles – and build your unity out of that.

European civilization has always been conflicted, agonal in nature, and historically our propensity for low-level kinship violence has been evolutionarily beneficial. 

Perhaps in the past, not the present.  The definition of what is “evolutionarily beneficial” (i.e., adaptive) depends on the environmental context.

However, in the midst of possible racial extinction, it’s of the utmost importance that internecine movement division stop. But how can division stop, particularly if we begin to explore new strategic paradigms, as dialogue breeds division?

Good question.

Put simply, we can stop division through dialectical synthesis. The musical virtuoso J.S. Bach wasn’t simply a master composer and performer; he was first and foremost a “synthesist” and thus able to harmoniously weld together an eclectic assortment of European musical styles into a cohesive melody. More to the point, like the works of Bach, we in the White Nationalist movement must shed the detritus of the past and form a new metapolitical imperative based upon a thoughtful, long-term strategy and movement unity. Strength in numbers is a very real thing, and as was the case for our Rhodesian ancestors it will be a deciding factor in our movement’s life or death.

That’s not an answer.  It’s hand-waving.  How to, in real-world terms, practically speaking, create the unity the author refers to?  Actually and precisely, how?

Native Africa never truly overcame the so-called “k-factor,” though it did receive outside help from a variety of forces, from international finance to Communist China…

A side note: Asians are always going to be on the forces of anti-Whitism and anti-Westernism.  Yockey understood that.  Can today’s yellow fever fetishists understand that as well?

My criticisms aside, I liked this article and believe the author is on the right track, sort of. But I myself went through this stage, long ago, of thinking that the entire “movement” could unite around some fundamental principles, have unity, and move forward.  Not possible.  As I said, the “movement” cannot even agree on the most basic distinction of all – Us/Them – how is anything else possible?  The author it seems wants to make “preservation and advancement of the White race” as the “immoveable axiomatic principle” – good luck with that since Der Movement cannot agree on what the “White race” is and who does or does not belong to it.  

So, while the author’s heart is in the right place I have to tell his head: it’s not that simple. It’s not like others haven’t come to similar conclusions before.  It just doesn’t work that way in reality.  The solution for him, personally, is either find a segment of the “movement” that fits his perspectives and try and build that segment into the dominant activist vehicle, or, if no such suitable segment exists, then help build a new one from the ground up.

Resist the Alt Right

We need to fight this contagion.

Alt Right memetic imperialist:

Call yourself what you want, but you are part of the Alternative Right whether you like it or not. White nationalist? Your Alt-Right. Fascist? Your Alt-Right. National-Socialist? Alt-Right. Race-realist? Alt-Right. It’s a brand with recognition that is slowly appealing to the mainstream and making White Nationalist ideas tenable to people. But because you don’t like the predominance of younger people and youth culture, you defame the name and act like your too good for it. Your like a Hispanic person who says “I’m not Hispanic! I’m Colombian!”

Putting aside the grammar errors, let’s look at the content.  This is the most outrageous nonsense imaginable, a perfect example of the Alt Right’s memetic hegemony.

Let me be crystal clear: I am a national socialist White nationalist and I am NOT – repeat NOT – of the “Alternative Right.”  Don’t like “youth culture?” Look, the Alt Right is nothing more or less than the most superficial and intellectually shallow fossilized “movement” dogma dressed up in juvenile jackassery to appeal to the absolute worst aspects of social media and “youth culture.”  

I am unalterably opposed to this disgusting and disgraceful contagion of the racial nationalist ecosystem, I reject the Alt Right without reservation, and fervently hope for its quick collapse.

Arrogant retards like this semi-illiterate commentator should stop projecting his Pepe/Kek lulzing on sane and rational racial nationalists.  “”Too good for it?”  You’re (not “your”) damn right I am!

I hope that EGI Notes can be one nexus of the anti-Alt Right resistance among racial nationalists. I’d like to see more posts/thoughts from racial nationalists on building an Alt Right-free Movement.

The Movement Tripod

Tripod of victory.

Recently, I criticized Walker’s pro-mainstreaming Counter-Currents piece on populism. There’s a saying: don’t criticize unless you provide a solution, a better way of doing things, an alternative. Therefore, I’ll present my “triangle of activism’ that provides a balanced platform for achieving our goals.  Note that Walker’s meme is actually one the points of the triangle, one of the legs of the tripod.  My objection to Walker’s thesis is that he apparently views it as the primary, or sole, approach we should take, a major strategic approach, while in actuality it should be only one component – and that the least important – of an integrated revolutionary Movement.  

Why a triangle?

Soviet defector V. Rezun has written of the triangular structure of the Soviet system – Party, Army, KGB – being a source and stability (*):

A triangle is the strongest and most rigid geometric figure. If the planks of a door which you have knocked together begin to warp, nail another plank diagonally across them. This will divide your rectangular construction into two triangles and the door will then have the necessary stability. 

The triangle has been used in engineering for a very long time. Look at the Eiffel tower, at the metal framework of the airship Hindenburg, or just at any railway bridge, and you will see that each of these is an amalgamation of thousands of triangles, which give the structure rigidity and stability. 

The triangle is strong and stable, not only in engineering but in politics, too. Political systems based on division of power and on the interplay of three balancing forces have been the most stable throughout history.

Multiculturalism is destroying the American system, also put on a tripartite structure of Federal, Legislative, and Judicial, but that structure nevertheless also has demonstrate remarkable staying power overtime.

I propose the following Movement tripod:

1. The Elite: this is the hardcore vanguardist (avant-garde) element that constitutes the most important part of the triangle, the focal leg of the tripod, and the top of the pyramid.  This element is not so much concerned with policy positions and such details, but instead provides leadership, unalterable fundamental principles, moral and spiritual guidance, commitment and discipline, and the impetus for creation of the New Man and raciocultural renewal.  As a model for what this Elite should be like: Codreanu’s Legion.

2. The Movement: this is also vanguardist, but not the hardcore Elite; the Movement constitutes the shock troops, the main group of political soldiers who implement the principles and objectives set forth by the Elite.  It is at this level that policy positions and other details are formulated, guided by the Elite’s hardcore principles; it is this level that provides the human material for the Elites, it is this level that overlaps both the higher Elite level and the lower Mass level with respect to actualizing the “mass movement” aspects of the endeavor.  If Der Movement was to be reconstructed sanely, it would serve as the basis for this level – but as it currently exists Der Movement cannot constitute any part of this tripod structure.

3. The Mass: this is what Walker talks about, this is the mainstreaming, populist leg of the tripod, that reaches out to the people, engages in mass politics, recruits for the Movement, and makes the tactical alliances and compromises without affecting the strategic goals and ideological fervor of the Elites and the Movement.

Each of these three focal points serves a purpose. Each is necessary. Each is incomplete without the other two. But they are not of equal importance.  In biological terms, the Elite is akin to the stem cells of the overall Movement.  If it exists and thrives, it can over time efficiently reconstitute the other two parts of the system.  However, if the stem cells are lost, the organism’s only hope for survival is for some differentiated cells to dedifferentiate and reform the stem cell pool.  That’s a tricky process; here one would have to hope that the Movement leg of the tripod could somehow generate a new Elite- but even so there’s the chance that core principles would become “mutated” and who knows what make take its place. The Elite is of prime importance, but without the Movement, the Elite is like a head with no body, and the Mass  – the people – are ultimately what the Elite (and Movement) want to save (or at least the better parts of them). The Mass without the Elite and the Movement is just an atomized herd, and the Movement without the Elite is a headless body, and the Movement without the Mass loses its purpose.

Just like the cells of the body, each plays a role.  None should proliferate out of control – cancer – imperiling the entire body.  Walker’s thesis is just this type of cancer.

*Yes, the Soviet Union collapsed – but that was due to the unworkable stupidity of Marxism and the fact that – as Yockey noted – “rationalist” (and Jewish) Marxism is alien to the “Russian soul” – Russia making up the core of the old USSR.  The System as such was stable, but the underlying foundation it was built on was nonsense and in the end no one cared enough about it to stick with it when it crumbled.  Considering how flawed the Marxist foundation was, the fact that the Soviet system lasted three quarters of a century, surviving Stalin, World War II, and several decades of Cold War, is evidence supporting Rezun’s thesis.

In Praise of Extremists

A critique of mainstreaming from Counter-Currents.

This seems to me a reasonably forceful criticism of mainstreaming, and I of course agree wholeheartedly:

Vanguardism must be repeatedly emphasized, because the instinct of every politician seems to do the exact opposite. Politicians are inveterate panderers and flatterers of the public mind, which unfortunately has been completely molded by our enemies for generations. Politicians follow the people. Vanguardists seek to lead them. Politicians take public opinion as a given. Vanguardists seek to change it. Politicians always seek to soften their message to appeal to the public. Vanguardists realize this is folly. If one attracts lukewarm followers who are in only partial agreement, then under normal circumstances, you will be fighting with them as much as with your opponents — and when things get tough, they will sheer off and leave you alone anyway.

That’s what I’ve been preaching for years – mainstreaming, at its best, will leave you with support a mile wide and an inch deep.  I’d rather have the opposite: support only an inch wide, but a mile deep, and then take the time to expand that mile deep support ever wider. Greg seems to agree; thus:

Thus Vanguardists realize that there is no real substitute for the slow, painstaking, and difficult work of converting a significant minority of our people to our way of thinking. We have to uphold a radical and absolute vision and then bring as many of our people around as possible.

Yes, indeed.  Less Le Pen and more Golden Dawn. Less Trump and more Salter. Less Alt Right/Alt Lite/Alt Wrong and more EGI Notes.  Let’s talk about the ideas of Yockey rather than obsess over cartoon frogs or civic nationalist political candidates.  How about more emphasis on Codreanu and the Legionary movement and less emphasis on how to boost Marine Le Pen’s vote totals?

And then we have this:

 
We should follow the old Roman maxim, “Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re”: suave, supple, and infinitely pragmatic and persuasive in style — yet firm and steadfast, indeed adamantine and dogmatic about essential principles.

Which is exactly what I’ve been saying for a long time. Modifying rhetoric and tone?  Certainly. After all, the hard tone of this blog is not meant for the general public.  But modifying core principles?  Absolutely not. And even if we wanted to do so, it doesn’t work.  Mainstreaming fails, time and time again.

…extremists are important. Cultural and political innovations take place on the extremes, at the margins, and then are diffused to — or imposed upon — the mainstream. Thus we should treasure extremists. We should cultivate them. We should encourage their creativity. 

I certainly agree.  I would like to see this attitude actualized.

Then we should steal their best memes and spread them far and wide.

If only people in the “movement” would steal my best memes and spread them far and wide. Please do.

And foremost among those memes is that the “movement” is a complete failure, needs to be deconstructed, and reconstructed starting with first principles.

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!

Mainstreaming R.I.P.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Odds and Ends, 1/20/17

Race and Der Movement in a world gone mad.

Getting serious – if I, a veteran of more than 20 years of this nonsense including a spell of analog activism which led me to observe Grade-A real-world lunacy, is completely disgusted with the latest round of “movement” drama and defective shenanigans, what’s all the “normies” going to think?

At what point will the sane minority in Der Movement realize that they need to pull the plug on the Old Movement and build a New Movement from the ground up, starting with first principles?

Or is all the LARPIng just too damn fun to give up?

Yes, the counter-argument would be that the anti-racist Left and the cuckservative Mainstream Right is as vile, or more so, than is Der Movement.  Quite right, but that misses the point: one expects one’s opponents to be vile and stupid; the problem is when one finds those traits over-represented on one’s own side.

Then we have this excellent comment (spelling corrected):

Stop being so god-damned autistic, idiot. Anyone who isn’t a Scandinavian whose family is from outside of the major cities is likely to have some unwanted mixing somewhere in their line, let alone American mutts. Fucking autists are going to drag the entire movement down because they’re mentally incapable of flexible reasoning, while they type away, unmarried, likely many of them having worse genes than Enoch’s wife.

“Flexible reasoning” is perhaps one of the best descriptions I’ve read about what Der Movement needs.  Stop with the purity spirals and the inflexible rigid fossilized dogma and start actually thinking for godssakes.  There’s more to activism than Hitler-Pierce-Kemp, believe it or not.

All of these anti-Enoch people should get off their high horse.  Some of these, who object vehemently to Enoch’s wife, have no problem with East Asians or Iranians in Der Movement.  Some of these have no problem with Trump’s strong Jewish family connections and pro-Zionist foreign policy (which even some “anti-Semites” ignore or try to explain away).  If you are so “hardcore” to object to Enoch, then you need to at least rationally explain how these other things, which more directly affect Der Movement than does (did?) Enoch’s wife, are A-OK.

The pro-Enoch folks also need to be consistent.  For example, Greg wrote:

Beyond that, Mike married before he was red-pilled, such vows matter, and his wife was supportive of him. Frankly, under those circumstances, he would have been a monster to want to divorce her, and I said so.

According to TRS itself, he’s now leaving his wife.  Is he a monster then? And while I agree with most of what Greg wrote in his essay, and agree that the JQ is more than just about genetics/biology and encompasses the totality of Identity, critics do raise the issue of the “unprincipled exception” here.  This does NOT mean I agree with those critics, just that the issue is legitimate to raise and perhaps deserves a more comprehensive answer – a more abstract consideration not directly connected to the Enoch case but a more general analysis of the nature of Jewishness and how to approach such things going forward.

I generally agree with Dienekes here, although some historical indicators of achievement have been quite stable.  Lack of Negro achievement has been the norm.  Europeans and Asians have achieved; within those groups, things may have shifted a bit over time, but the large differences between the major population groups (with Europeans far out-classing Asians in everything except scores on tests that Asians cheat on and in “success” in academia and the professions achieved through copying and uncreative robot-like conformity).  In the end though, HBD obsessions about IQ and other traits that change over time miss the point of the importance of genetic kinship. Yes, gene frequencies change over time, but are stable, over historical time, in the relative sense that affect EGI considerations across wide genetic gulfs.  Otzi the Iceman is still, after all this time, genetically more similar to modern Europeans than to Asians and Africans.  In the big picture, kinship is remarkably stable.

ET-looking Chinaman Ma praises globalization and outsourcing – surprise! On the other hand, he’s right about how Jewmerica wasted trillions fighting Israel’s wars in the Middle East (a full interpretation of his more limited comments on war) and lavishing the fruits economic success on Blue State coastal areas of America.  To those who say the success was generated in the coastal regions I answer thus: Wall Street has looted America’s patrimony and Silicon Valley is based on the White man’s technology.