Analyzing Hood’s analysis
Read this. Excerpts, emphasis added:
Considering my long involvement in conservative organizations, I must start by clarifying something. President Ronald Reagan said shocking things about African leaders, even calling them “monkeys.”
Monkey see, monkey do.
Thus, I would like to say that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Reagan conservative. I disavow “mainstream” conservatives and their offensive Reagan cult. After all, it’s important to maintain respectability.
What President Reagan said was very revealing. The federal government pushed integration in the South because it wanted to win newly independent African states to “our side” in the Cold War. In these particular remarks, Ronald Reagan was criticizing African delegates to the UN, who, in his words, were “monkeys” and “still uncomfortable wearing shoes.” They had voted to recognize Communist China and expel Taiwan from the UN, thus incurring Reagan’s wrath.
That’s the same Reagan who agreed to the MLK holiday and didn’t get rid of affirmative action at the federal level. Note that Reagan wasn’t wrathful about anti-White Black crime, but about voting about Taiwan. All Asia all the time. Was Reagan a HBDer?
The federal government enforced integration at bayonet-point to win Third World allies. Freedom of association, property rights, and many Southern cities were destroyed — and we didn’t even get any allies.
The race realists enforced HBD yellow supremacy at meme-point to win Asian allies. Freedom of association, property rights, and many White cities were destroyed — and we didn’t even get any Arctic allies.
Back to Hood:
In this recently revealed conversation, Ronald Reagan was talking to Richard Nixon. Jared Taylor always objects if I attribute motives to other people in my writing.
Yet based on Richard Nixon’s recorded conversations over the years, I can safely say the President had politically incorrect views on many subjects. However, Richard Nixon also imposed anti-white racial discrimination, i.e. affirmative action, on the United States.
Nixon – one of the original “man on white horse” heroes.
Nixon’s personal views were far more extreme than my own. In one notorious conversation, he bemoaned the state of American culture with the well-known evangelist Billy Graham. Graham could fill stadiums around the country. The President of the United States and America’s most famous and influential Christian leader blamed cultural collapse on Jews. Yet these two immensely powerful men both agreed there was nothing they could do about it. In fact, they agreed they couldn’t even talk about it.
Bunker Syndrome – plenty of bigoted talk, but no action.
Forget the specific claim.
It’s Amren after all.
What does this story tell us? It shows that ideology and education aren’t enough. “Red-pilling” people doesn’t necessarily lead to action. Just because somebody “knows” something, it doesn’t follow that he will do anything about it. Worse, sometimes somebody “knows” something but acts like he doesn’t. Cowardice, self-interest, and political gain are often more powerful than conviction.
That’s why metapolitics without practical politics is a dead end. Politics without metapolitics is a dead end as well. You need both the theory as well as the will and ability to actualize that theory into reality.
Many Republicans know demography is destiny for the GOP. They know how this movie will end.
After all, they wrote the script.
Look at their actions. Most oppose giving felons the right to vote. Most support Voter ID laws. These have the effect of reducing the Democrat vote.
Yes, look at their actions. Supporting mass immigration for cheap labor, opposing abortion of Negro fetuses, opposing White nationalism – these have the effect of increasing the Democrat vote.
What are elections anyway? They’re demographic contests. Each side tries to assemble the largest coalition. You increase the turnout of groups that support you and suppress opponent turnout. During campaigns and on Election Day, everyone believes in identity politics. Bill Kristol recently admitted, “We’re running a census every two years as much as an election.”
Many years ago, I was discussing my views with a well-connected Republican. “You know, I agree with you about the way this is going to turn out because of immigration,” he told me. “I’m a short-term optimist and a long-term pessimist.” He shrugged, as if to say, “There’s nothing we can do about it.”
A self-fulfilling prophecy.
They know, but they think demographic change won’t hurt their own careers. They may think they don’t have the moral right to oppose demographic change. What happens to the country in the long run is not their concern.
My friends often joke about my pessimism. However, that pessimism is short-term. I’m a long-term optimist.
We are going to win.
You do not know that, and cannot know that.
We must have faith. It must be something completely unquestioned. It must be something as self-evident as your love for your children. It can never be subject to doubt. That’s the spirit required if we are going to get anywhere.
The problem is that being overly optimistic is just as destructive as being too pessimistic and giving up in despair. If you are so unquestionably convinced you will win – on blind faith – then why bother making sacrifices? It’ll all work out! Just have faith!
Yet we know “education” won’t lead to victory. Education, after all, is just a means. What is the end? What are the intermediate goals that we have for this movement?
Promoting yellow supremacism? Being front men for Jewish interests? Spewing HBD pseudoscientific lies?
One is that we must be an independent political force. Whether you want to call us white advocates, the Dissident Right, nationalists, whatever, we are not a political force right now. One proof of that is that we can’t even agree on what to call ourselves.
There was a time when we could.
Absolute, raging bullshit. Here comes the WN 2.0 gaslighting.
In 2015, the “Alt-Right,” a label even people like Mike Cernovich and Steven Crowder were claiming, was an independent political force. Donald Trump, an insurgent candidate opposed by the conservative movement and the Republican Establishment, was our vehicle.
This is the problem, Hood. All you “jump on the Alt Right bandwagon” guys completely ignored dissident voices like mine warning that the Alt Right would end badly and that we should not tie White nationalism to the Alt Right (as Johnson promoted). Now, guys like Hood engage in lying gaslighting, pretending that everyone on the Far Right was on the Alt Right train back then. An absolute lie, and very convenient for avoiding accountability, eh? Also – some of us were calling Trump a vulgar, ignorant buffoon; he was not my “vehicle,” liar.
What happened? By winning, we lost.
“We” didn’t win. Trump won. If Trump is, and was, a fraud then he is not, and never was, “we.”
President Trump was co-opted. When he became the incumbent rather than our wrecking ball, we were left in the cold.
He co-opted himself.
Steve Bannon said the Trump Administration’s “original sin” was embracing the Republican Establishment he had just defeated. President Trump has suffered from leakers, traitors, and saboteurs ever since. Ultimately, that’s his own fault, because personnel is policy.
The Alt-Right’s response was to assert its independence by occupying space. That was what led to Charlottesville, something we can’t avoid talking about. “Unite the Right” backfired massively. I’m not scapegoating organizers. An independent review clearly proved that city and state officials wanted, and got, violence.
The organizers should have anticipated that.
Perhaps that demonstration was a chance worth taking. However, if it was a gamble, it was a gamble the Alt-Right lost.
And where is the accountability for that? The Quota Queens just go on blithely forward.
Where does this leave white advocates today? When you are marginal, it’s difficult not be co-opted because of the desire for “mainstream” relevance.
Some believe we should align with Democrats such Andrew Yang or Tulsi Gabbard.
Idiots like Spencer and Duke.
In truth, I support some of their policies.
Reparations for Negroes?
Perhaps it is worth promoting these policies online.
Sure, go ahead. Waste your time.
However, it won’t be like the Trump campaign in 2016; you won’t be let into their rallies and you won’t find much support among their backers.
Because those candidates are anti-White, as are most of their backers.
There was a brief time when many supported Andrew Yang and tried to meme neon pink hats as a symbol of his campaign. The campaign, of course, disavowed it and that was that.
Gee…and who was it who said – from the very start – that this support of Yang was a bad idea and would end badly? Ted Sallis. But, hey, keep on following your affirmative action leadership. Endless failure is very attractive, right?
Though I hate to say it, I think we are stuck with the GOP simply because that’s where our potential constituents are.
Perhaps – but quality, sane third parties have never been tried on the Far Right.
Studies indicate massive political polarization. Internal disagreements within the parties are disappearing. Members of both parties have a “racialized” view of the opposition. In one study, the authors found that race was the best predictor of attachment or hostility to a party. “Racial animosity, perhaps more than any other identity cleavage, has defined and structured American politics,” it concluded. Racial polarization mirrors partisan polarization.
How do we reach the GOP constituency? Frankly, with whatever ideas that work. Reaching the constituency is the important part.
American political parties, unlike European parties, are very “loose” ideologically. The platform is irrelevant. The GOP, in and of itself, doesn’t support or oppose anything. This is also why trying to “take over” random party positions isn’t very rewarding. The candidates are what matter. The party shifts according to what those candidates believe.
If that is true, then the imperative is to have explicitly pro-White candidates involved in politics, as I have been writing here for years.
We see this happening today. Within the past few years, President Trump has managed completely to reverse the position of Republican voters (if not Republican elected officials) on issues such as free trade and tariffs. Personality matters more than platform.
Yes, but, contra Johnson, if the Trump personality was pushing a Jeb Bush platform, he would have gotten nowhere. Both matter.
It’s going to take new candidates to change the political landscape. They will probably be people we don’t know about.
Certainly none of the comically inept “leaders” of Der Movement.
In 2013, “President Donald Trump” was a television punchline. Now it’s reality. Already, liberal pundits are fretting about a more competent version of President Trump coming along, someone who will deliver on the economic and national populism Trump hinted at.
Ultimately, that’s not under our control. There’s a more important issue than partisan politics. Our limited resources, time, and energy should be focused on building sustainable networks off-line, in the real world. Our primary challenge is economic.
No, the primary challenge is the failure of “leadership”- and that failure ultimately derives from the “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action policy.
It used to be that our ideas were very hard to find. Now you can find them easily, even with deplatforming and demonetization.
It used to be that you paid a terrible social cost when you were associated with these ideas. That’s still true to some extent.
However, I’ve found if you’re involved with this, you have more friends than “normal” people do, whose most meaningful relationship is either with Netflix or boxed wine. A recent survey found one in five millennials say they have no friends at all, with more than one in four saying they have no close friends. Among ourselves, if you get sick, if you get married, if you have a child, there’s a whole community that cares.
Laughable. Der Movement is full of feuding lunatics who spend a significant amount of time attacking each other.
What’s holding us back is just money.
That’s absolute nonsense, a pure lie. Der Movement has always had money. Sure, that money is only a tiny fraction of what the opposition has. But it still exists, and the fact that the “movement” has squandered millions of dollars, producing nothing but endless failure, strongly suggests that if the “movement” did have more money then the affirmative action “leadership” would simply squander that as well. You would just get more of this.
Hood’s argument is actually internally self-contradictory. If what is holding us back is just money, then that implies that we have everything else we need – including competent, imaginative, and strategic-minded leadership. But if we has such leadership, then they would have already built up sufficient infrastructure that would have enabled us to have the extra money we need. The millions of dollars I alluded to above could have been used to build the infrastructure that would have led to the sort of really big money Hood wishes us to have. Instead we have pictures of Brimelow and Derbyshire sitting on lawn chairs.
Media have the power to isolate and target individual activists so they will be fired. You can perhaps get another job, but that sword is always hanging over your head. That’s the main problem. If we can get past that problem, we will advance very quickly.
I’ve been saying for years that we need to defeat social pricing. Good to see that Hood is just realizing that now. Better late than never. He should be asking why the Quota Queens haven’t made any effective attempt to deal with the situation.
It’s horrible, but “doxing” is forcing us to built networks and institutions that didn’t exist before. Maybe it must happen this way. There was no other way than the hard way.
Absolute nonsense. Nothing stopped the “movement” from building these “networks and institutions” years ago, decades ago, as some of us were urging, such as what I said to Griffin in my interview with him. Endless years, endless decades, completely wasted.
There are models to follow. Some groups are already providing jobs and resources to one another, becoming “anti-fragile.” Look at how Mormons work together. They have a network that operates for the financial well-being of everyone in the group.
Look at the Left. Worker-owned enterprises, syndicalism, the early unions, communes — these are all things we can learn from.
What I said to Griffin long ago:
The Nation of Islam may be an example of the kind of thing I’m talking about. It was founded in the 1930s, but it wasn’t until the early 1960s that most white Americans ever heard about the Black Muslims. They spent decades building a base of support in the black community by helping black people with whatever they were doing in their community. So when they started becoming vocal and white people in the early 1960s started saying, “Hey, these people are a problem, what are we going to do?” it was already too late. The Black Muslims were already firmly established and had become an integral part of black society. In a similar way, a white nationalist movement has to grow like a plant, with its roots firmly in the soil.
But I was, of course, ignored. I didn’t have the right “credentials,” so to speak, you know, what Spencer and Johnson have.
Of course, one obstacle is that we are spread out all over the country. You probably have comrades closer to you than you think, but you can’t openly organize because the media will target overt activists. Geographic concentration is necessary. The problem is that everyone thinks where he lives now is the perfect place for everyone else to go. Where we should gather is a debate we’ll need to have.
Need to have? Future tense? For godssakes, this has already been debated for decades. All these Johnny-come-lately Alt Righters believe, with their solipsism, that the “movement” came into existence the moment they became “red-pilled.” How much effort was spent debating about the “Northwest Imperative,” over the years, for example?
We need to discuss these questions because what’s coming is occupation. We already live under occupation, but it will be more visible and physical in the years ahead. I’m not optimistic about President Trump’s re-election prospects. Whatever happens, he’ll be out eventually, and Texas, Florida, and Georgia will flip because of demography, and then national politics will essentially be over.
And why didn’t Der Movement take advantage of the demographic situation that existed up until that point?
At that point, our opponents will circumvent the First Amendment. Certain speech will be called “ethnic intimidation,” not deserving of legal protection. The most violent and threatening language towards whites will still be allowed. People won’t be afraid just to act or demonstrate; they’ll be afraid to speak or write.
Blame the Quota Queens for that, for wasting untold time and untold opportunities. Hood really should be speaking out against the “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action program, but that’s apparently a bridge too far.
How do we survive as a people? Too many are still in that 2016 mindset where we debate mass politics.
What we need to discuss now:
How do we ensure physical safety?
How do we earn a living?
How do we support the activists and platforms we still have, especially if we can’t use payment processors?
How do you ensure that when the journalists come for you and your family, you will have support?
We need to figure this out.
I agree 100%. I’ve been saying this for years. Even my interview with Griffin, so many years ago, touched on these practical matters:
I think the challenge is to heighten whites’ racial awareness—especially the sane, honest, hardworking, law-abiding whites—and convince them to form voluntary, private organizations in their own communities. These organizations would exist to do practical things. The problem now is you have racialist organizations and they say, “Join up and send us your membership dues,” and you get a little membership card and a newsletter once a month. But the members stay isolated and everything stays divorced from reality. We need racial nationalist organizations that help children with homework, and help old and infirmed people, and that clean up neighborhoods, and where everybody stands together when some outside force tries to push them around. Maybe these organizations could have youth auxiliaries.
As it is now, we have white people thinking, “What am I going to do? I have got to send my children to the local school and it’s full of minorities and they are going to be taught all sorts of nonsense and they are going to get attacked, and my neighborhood is deteriorating, and my life is going to hell.” An activist comes up to them and says, “Let’s go protest against the United States’ foreign policy in the Middle East.” That’s great, our foreign policy in the Middle East should be protested, but there is still the question of what is going to be done to help the person scratching his head trying to figure out what he is going to do about what is happening in his life. At a very basic level we have to protect ourselves physically.
Back to Hood:
It’s been said good generals study tactics, great generals study logistics. All our conversations need to be about logistics. There’s work to be done in terms of ideology.
You had better believe it.
However, if we don’t figure out the supply questions, none of it matters anyway.
I agree 100%. The greatest ideology in the world will get you nowhere if your opposition can completely suppress expression of that ideology.
If James Fields had taken a left instead of a right two years ago, we’d be in a different world. Things can break for want of a nail.
Also for want of real, merit-based leadership.
Instead of trying to predict what’s going to happen, we need to have people capable of acting when opportunities arise. People talk about an economic crisis, a military conflict with Russia or China, some unforeseen political development. It could be all or none of these things. We can’t predict what kind of crisis is going to come. We just know that one will.
I do think something is going to happen. The political system can’t contain the tensions that are building up. Many Americans speak openly about civil war. I think that’s extreme, but there are some parallels.
Before our first Civil War, it was the Southerners who were the nationalists. They were the ones who were the most expansionist, most patriotic, most warlike. John Calhoun was a nationalist when he started out in politics, while New England flirted with secession during the War of 1812.
However, control of the political system “switched.” The people who thought of themselves as being in control, who thought of themselves as being the real America, realized they were politically powerless. They headed for the doors.
If Hood really understood the dynamics of revolutionary change, he would be talking about Suvorov’s Law here. But, alas, it is only at EGI Notes that you’ll hear about that.
What does American nationalism really stand for? Clearly, it stands for something. The Left sure hates it. Clearly, most white people still believe in America. We must articulate what Americanism really means in a more developed way.
It means nothing any more.
This brings us to the most important question. What exactly are we doing here? In recent weeks, journalists and antifa have doxed people and cost them jobs and careers. We’re called evil, terrorists, or Russian agents. It’s a tough life, but this is the business we have chosen.
To some extent, we are forced into this. You can’t simply hide and hope “they” don’t get you. Ask the students from Covington Catholic. Every week, it seems some poor unfortunate becomes the “Nazi of the week” after he is caught in a manufactured controversy. Racial consciousness can help you avoid these situations because you see them coming a mile away and can sidestep them.
Yet white advocates unquestionably lead a difficult life.
Especially after the Quota Queens squandered fortunes and decades in order to live off of “D’Nations” while accomplishing absolute nothing of value. The only infrastructure built by them are Brimelow’s lawn chairs. So, yes, “white advocates” (stupid term) lead difficult lives.
I’ve read the journalists and sociologists who claim what animates us is the search for “meaning.” That’s like saying people are immigrating to America for a “better life.”
Or John Morgan invading and occupying Hungary for a “better life.”
Has anyone ever done something to get a worse life? Of course we’re searching for meaning. So is everyone else. It’s a human universal.
The question is what meaning, what purpose?
Some may say the memory of our ancestors and the future of our descendants. I’d say it’s something even bigger. Journalists and academics have made “whiteness” into a social construct. They’re projecting onto us their own actions.
What is whiteness? Think of the protests when Apollo 11 launched. Black leaders said we shouldn’t be going to the moon while there was still poverty in America. Think of the anarchists who say beauty standards are fascist. Human achievement, greatness, beauty — all of these things are associated with “whiteness.” This is why so many non-whites celebrated when Notre Dame burned.
I do think of our people as the torchbearers of the human spirit, the Faustian civilization, people who carry something essential that nobody else does. We carry light into the darkness, even into outer space. “People of light” seems appropriate.
Hood apparently hasn’t been to a local Walmart recently. “People of light!” “Destiny of angels!” Four hundred pound land whales on motorized scooters – the torchbearers of the human spirit!
For me, I do this because it’s the way I justify being alive. If I didn’t do this, there would be no reason for me to exist. We’re people of light. This is our purpose and our faith is expressed through loyalty to each other.
Loyalty to each other should start with loyalty to fellow activists. Good luck with that.
If Hood is unable to understand the real underlying problems with the “movement” and/or is unwilling to discuss them, then he is part of the problem.