Spencer is a man of character, as opposed to the Jew filth attacking his mother.
So what is wrong then with a few “hails” at the NPI conference?
Where’s the beef?
I watched the end of the Red Ice video of Spencer’s speech. Cutting through all of the anti-Spencer hysteria and all of the pro-Spencer spin, my own view can be summarized in three points:
1. I didn’t like it.
2. It was a mistake.
3. It really isn’t that big a deal.
Given all the breast-beating going on, point three needs to be stressed. Long term, I simply do not see this permanently damaging either Spencer or the Alt Right brand (such as it is). Spencer is young and potentially has decades of activism ahead of him. Who knows what may happen in that time? One must look at the long time horizon here, rather than obsessing over short-term damage.
Any significant political success for Spencer and the Alt Right presupposes a set of conditions that would ensure that many Whites simply would not care about a few silly seconds at the end of Spencer’s 2016 NPI talk.
Whites becoming more desperate as the racial conditions worsen – would those Whites care about a few “Hails” here and there?
Whites becoming more aggressively ethnocentric and willing to defend racial self-interest – would those Whites care about a bit of youthful indiscretion?
If and when the times become more propitious for a racialist far-Right in America (in contrast to today’s Trumpian cucked civic nationalism), then the real test will be if Spencer (or whoever) presents an attractive memetic product to the people. If so, then all the film clips of the 2016 NPI conference won’t make any difference whatsoever.
And even today: the type of Whites WNs would want to recruit, those hardcore Whites not satisfied with Trumpism, those Whites are not going to be “put off” by what happened at the conference, other than being dissatisfied, as I am, by the usual piss-poor “movement” judgement. But then, Spencer is really no worse than other “movement” leaders, so even that isn’t a major problem by “movement” standards. Unless the individuals criticizing Spencer are willing to speak out against the even more serious and fundamental problems of Der Movement, then the whole Hailgate episode is merely sound and fury signifying nothing.
Alinsky’s rules co-opted.
1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” – I have read innumerable articles in recent months from the lying press about how the GOP is full of crypto-White nationalists. Sounds good. Big if true.
As long as Der Movement is not fooled by this unhinged hysteria as well.
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” – We’re not going to get most people to do things they have no habit of doing. We need to play to the strengths of our existing human resources.
That’s very important. To quote Dirty Harry: “a man got to know his limitations.” But in order to effectively utilize everyone’s skills and aptitudes we must carefully match individuals with responsibilities. There are “leaders” who have no leadership skills or judgment whatsoever, as one example of a mismatch.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” – This and the above rule are standard Sun Tzu; know the enemy and know yourself or else you will be defeated. We must always stay abreast of the opposition, always be more informed, and always make them look stupid.
Making the Left look stupid really is not so difficult, IF the far-Right is clever.
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” – There are two key forms of this: concern-trolling and malicious compliance. Doing so will stress them out by increasing their cognitive dissonance load, bleed them of resources, and generally waste their time and energy. You can also bait your opponents into producing specific outcomes if they are inflexible and dogmatic enough.
Yes, yes, yes. And this is what Salter’s democratic multiculturalism is all about. Use sociopolitical ju-jitsu to leverage all the Left’s talk about “inclusion” against them. A multiculturalism that is for everyone, including and particularly the majority, conflates into a multiculturalism for no one. The whole purpose of multiculturalism is to empower minorities while disempowering majorities; if the majority demands inclusion into multiculturalism – real inclusion that explicitly defends majority interests – then multiculturalism becomes diluted into nothingness and it falls apart. Further, majority-friendly multiculturalism will enrage the minorities who believe that they have an innate right to exclusive ethnic mobilization, and this rage will enhance chaotic balkanization and therefore underscore the demands of the majority for inclusion = a virtuous cycle. And all the idiots who say that democratic multiculturalism is “dishonoring our ancestors” – it is losing that dishonors our ancestors. Winning is honorable, let’s win, and we can win by forcing the enemy to live up to its own rulebook. Let’s do it.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” – Most of the Alt Right’s troll ops consist of making a mockery of things. Ditto for our memes and critiques, e.g. cuckservative. It will probably go down as one of the greatest political slurs of all time: implying that your opponent gets off to watching his country be destroyed while his wife’s son votes against him. Cuckservative captures perfectly, and ridiculously, how the target serves every interest but the national.
Agreed. And it applies to ridiculing Der Movement as well.
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” – Trolling. Shitposting. Meme magick. It never gets old because there is always something new to provide a perspective on, or some new journalist to troll, or a comments section to raid, or a viral media campaign to be fought.
Well, we know some folks enjoy posting pictures of Pepe.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” – I think the only area the Alt Right sees diminishing returns on is putting out too blackpilled of a message, or being too gloom and doom. People don’t really want to hear that all the time, even when it has to be said. Things getting worse is after all part of the sales pitch as to why the Alt Right’s solutions are necessary. On the other hand, we have to have a positive and future-oriented message to put out, and that reaches a bigger audience than commiseration.
Sure, that should be the public face. In private though, we really need to follow the Sallis Strategy: despair, disillusionment, chaos, hatred, rage, balkanization, bitterness, etc.
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” – I tend to think this won’t be much of a problem because there is nothing the regime can offer us that would be satisfying other than its resignation.
Murray is naïve here. We already have people saying “we won” after Trump’s electoral victory.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” – This certainly works in our favor given how (((neurotic))) the people we are engaged in holy memetic warfare with are. Even the implication of our presence somewhere or in something is enough to produce media hysteria and maelstroms of kvetching.
True, and this can be used to provoke the Left, see number seven.
10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” – At the moment this is our endless streams of daily content across multiple platforms, something we should continue to scale up and diversify.
See number eight. I agree completely; now is the time to push, push, push, not to declare victory and go home.
11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” – We want to get to a point where being labeled by the establishment as a racist, sexist, or anti-Semite is a sign of having done something correct, being that bad people are saying it about you.
This is reasonable.
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” – In other words, to win you actually need an answer to the issue. It can’t just be about opposition. We must be more than reactionary.
We need a Futurist visionary objective. Criticism must be constructive criticism. When I criticize Der Movement, I also present an alternative at the Western Destiny blog.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” – This is my favorite and I think Alt Right troll ops have done this quite well. First you get ahold of a luegenpresse journalist’s attention. Then you apply the other above tactics to him or her. Finally you get some sort of overdone reaction from them AND their supporters against you, which helps reinforce your own battle lines by showing that the issue you are up against is supported by x and x-plus, all of whom are against you. Many journalists noted during the 2016 presidential campaign that if one were of a Semitic surname (or known to follow a cult of volcanic demonology) and said something critical of Donald Trump, that he or she would be targeted and harassed on their social media or in the comments section. They began to reach out to one another about this and write about the responses they were getting, many going as far as labeling themselves with the triple parentheses symbol in solidarity. So what had basically happened was that our argument all along that overseas Israelis were uniquely opposed to nationalism in the United States was proven—by getting them to band together and admit that they were, and that they were proud about it too. See, all those people who hate Trump have (((something in common)))!
This is somewhat similar to something Nietzsche wrote: that he would focus on particular people in order to criticize ideas that those people represented, not criticizing the people as an end to itself.
Similarly, I criticize individuals – or more often, types of individuals, without focusing so much on single individuals – to focus attention on their stupidities, including and especially in Der Movement. And why not? I’ve learned well. After all, for years, I’ve been the target of this personalized polarization, particularly by elements of Der Movement (e.g., those hostile to pan-Europeanism, those who oppose White ethnics in Der Movement). And what is fascinating is that some of the same people who are upset with me for being a “shit stirrer” today were completely silent back then when the thoughtful and analytical Rienzi/Holliday/Sallis was being polarized by other shit-stirrers – a fascinating contrast that confirms the validity of my criticisms of Der Movement.
And – other than tone – how is my criticism of Der Movement really any different than this? Why is my criticism wrong and those other criticisms legitimate? And some of the “esteemed movement leaders” quoted there, should we care what they think? Brimelow? Taylor? Spencer should wear their criticism as a badge of honor. On the other hand, Greg Johnson and Devlin are serious and intelligent activists and their critique of the NPI follies need to be considered. But the critique doesn’t go far enough. If a rather silly episode is worthy of an obituary, what about endless decades of “movement” failure? What about all the fossilized dogma, the silly “movement” narratives, the fact that Der Movement alienates a significant portion of America’s White population – the White ethnics who supported Trump? And how about all these “movement” feuds, which go on and on – the specific personalities change, but the atmosphere stays the same. In the past, it was Pierce vs. Covington or Pierce vs. Carto and today it is – what? – Johnson vs. Spencer? So now we have a series of articles and podcasts at Radix putting their “spin” on “Hailgate” and we have articles at VDARE and Counter-Currents taking the opposite tack. The more things change the more they stay the same. Aren’t there more important things to polarize over?
In any case, Alinsky’s “rules” are as good for the gander as for the goose.
Spencer and NPI give their side of the story:
A point to be stressed: if I criticize Spencer, it is meant to be constructive criticism from someone who is 95% or more in agreement with him, including (mostly, but not completely) about the “Big Europe” idea.
In the “friend/enemy” distinction I consider Spencer in the “friend” category (regardless of what he may think of me), and while I may get frustrated at “movement” stupidity, I clearly distinguish who is “on the side of the angels” and who is not.
I believe that some of what occurred at the meeting was a mistake, including and especially the lack of security and foresight (the Budapest fiasco is another example of poor planning). But if I have to choose between Spencer and “oh, how offended am I” Brimelow, I choose the former and reject the latter.
I do wish though that these Alt Right guys get over their Trump fetish, ironic or not. Der Touchback should be following us WNs, not the other way around.
If there is anyone most deserving of criticism the last few days it is the “God Emperor” himself – but, alas, “gods” are beyond criticism, eh?
The meeting security issue though really needs to be addressed. Who knows? When the “God Emperor” ascends to his throne, he may actually approve of, and encourage, leftist thug attacks. There will be no help from that quarter, that’s for sure.