Category: Old Movement

Traits of Ex-“Movement” Traitors

Misfits on the march.

I have been reading a number of leftist online journals, featuring interviews of “ex-neo-Nazis” and “reformed skinheads” etc., etc. etc.  You know the deal: former “racists” who “explain” what the “movement” is all about, and of course provide a completely misleading picture, because these traitorous misfits basically are talking about themselves and others of their ilk, which are one type of activist, and are not representative of activists as a whole, much less representative of the most dedicated and sincere among them.  In one sense, these people unwittingly are helpful as they are basically providing misinformation to our enemies, to the extent that the System believes that the pitiful confessions of the lowest sort of “activist” – essentially the “White trash” of the “movement” – somehow are informative to what racial nationalism is all about. It’s always good to be misunderstood and underestimated by your enemies; on the other hand, this misinformation does us harm to the extent that it is believed by those we wish to recruit, who will be misled and “turned off” by what they see and hear.  Are such scum really what racial nationalism is about?  Then why bother with the “movement?”

In any case, the misfit traitors have some characteristics in common, and it’s useful to understand these types – the ultra-defectives (as opposed to the “run-of-the mill” defectives that make up such a large base of “movement” activists) – so they can be avoided and eschewed.

Typically, those who “break with the movement” and show up at Vice or the Huffington Post or as travelling freakshow exhibits for “watchdog” groups are:

1. Relatively young; they haven’t been in the “movement” too long.

2. Highly defective on a personal level. These people are the archetypes of the “movement” activist stereotype – personal failures, “losers” in the fundamental sense of the word, angry at the world for their own inadequacies, and who join the “movement” to “have a sense of belonging.”  Since they themselves are characterized by these traits, and being limited in their mentality or not having the character to admit the fault is with themselves and not with the “movement” itself, they project their own inadequacies and reasons for becoming “activists” on racial nationalists in general.  Instead of admitting they speak only for themselves and their fellow freaks and misfits, they deign to assume that they are representative of everyone, ranging from a Jared Taylor to a Kevin MacDonald to a Richard Spencer to a Greg Johnson and, yes, to a Ted Sallis…all the way down to the cosplay players at street rallies.  

3. They are typically not college educated or, if they are so educated, they rarely get beyond an undergraduate degree.  They are far more likely to have spent time in prison than in a post-graduate school classroom.

4. These are almost always Type I activists: Nutzi types who swallow “movement” dogma for the “feel good” boost it gave them.  I’ve never heard of a former genuine Type II activist who repudiated their beliefs and gives breathless anti-racist interviews to leftist blogs or journals.

5. Ethnically, they are typical for the usual American Type I activist.  Personality wise, the same. 

6. They had no real ideological foundation whatsoever.  Having joined the “movement” for personal reasons, they had no intellectual, ideological, or moral underpinning for their beliefs; their racialism was a mile wide but an inch deep. All they had to do was meet “one caring Black person” and their “racialist convictions” went out the window.  What kind of idiots are these?  When was it a prerequisite for being a genuine racial nationalist to believe in the impossibility of finding a decent person of another race?  You see, these misfits actually represented in reality the stereotype of the “racist” as being someone consumed by hate, by negativism, rather than as someone with a progressive vision based on a deep understanding of Race, Culture, and Civilization.  Well, after all, as I’ve said, these are Type I activists, the types to have a Hitler tattoo and a penchant for Third Reich imagery, but never having heard the  names Francis Parker Yockey or Frank Salter before.  Only a fool with no deep ideological conviction could so blithely dismiss the reality of the racial crisis and the realities of Western decline and degeneration.  The tides of history don’t change because some random Negro was friendly to you.

7. They are hysterical and weak-minded, with no “measure” or sense of reality; thus they easily shift from one extreme to another.  I actually read one of these idiots claim that “White nationalists are already in power” because the civic nationalist cuck Trump (you know, the guy who supports affirmative action, has Jewish family connections, wanted DACA amnesty before the base kicked back, and who can’t get any significant portion of even his civic nationalist agenda – that is, whatever of it he hasn’t already abandoned – actualized into policy) was elected President, and because Bannon (another civic nationalist with an ideology even more superficial as what these misfits “believed” in) was briefly part of Trump’s national security team, and because Richard Spencer – who can’t show his face in public without having that face punched with impunity by leftist thugs supported by the System – was going to “run for office and win the election.”  Yeah, we’re still waiting for that last one.

Now, I can understand if a person, while remaining a racial nationalist at heart, drops out of the “movement” because of disgust with Der Movement, Inc. and its stupidities.  It would be better to attempt to build a New Movement, but that’s not for everyone, so I could understand quietly dropping out.  But to actually repudiate your beliefs?  And do so publicly? Any person who repudiates racial nationalism never really believed in racial nationalism to begin with.  To coin an Alt Right phrase, they were merely “LARPING.”  The demographic realities, the course of history, the clash of civilizations, racial conflict, High Culture, and genetic interests do not simply disappear because of an epiphany that some weak-minded person has when they realize that not every single Negro on Earth is a violent criminal.  In a very real sense, the term “former racialist” is an oxymoron, because the “former” implies that the person was never actually any sort of authentic racialist to begin with.  They were simply play-acting as a Nutzi as a cover for their own personal inadequacies.  We don’t need, and should not want, such people; as far as their repudiation goes, it’s addition by subtraction.

Advertisements

Fascist Typology

Bardeche’s Type I and Type II

Coogan’s Dreamer of the Day includes a quote from Bardeche’s Suzanne et le Tandis (Suzanne and the Slums), in the chapter: “Le Fascisme International” that seems more complete and accurate (and free from spelling and grammar errors) than the version popping up on the Alt Right.  This quote includes:

I have known, after Clarence, very many “fascists,” for the race is not dead. Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors. The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches. All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.

The precise translation is less important than the general point being made; an important distinction between different fascist archetypes, even though it is made in a bemused fashion, in jest, and even though I’m sure Bardeche didn’t mean to focus on that distinction in his  quote.  Nevertheless, regardless of intention and style, there is food for thought here.

Thus, Bardeche correct identifies two archetypes of fascists; thus:

Type I: Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors.

Type II: The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches.

To translate into a context more familiar to the racial nationalist “movement” of today: Type I would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: ethnonationalists, Nordicists, Traditionalists, ethnic fetishists, and Hitler worshippers; while Type II would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: pan-Europeanists, Futurists, and Imperium-oriented Yockeyites.

Type I, in its purest representation, would tend to be an extroverted, action-oriented mesomorph; Type II would be an introverted, intellect-oriented ectomorph (not sure where endomorphs would fit in, as so many of them tend to be leftists to begin with).

That is not to say that Type I activists are never intellectual, nor that Type II activists are devoid of action, simply that on a spectrum, Type I are relatively action > intellect and Type II are relatively intellect > action.

Bardeche classified both types as: All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.  That may be true, although I think the “they detested lying and injustice” part applies mostly to Type II.  It are the Type II activists who would tend to be more of the Moralpath type.  Type I activists would tend to be more pragmatists, being as they are more action-oriented in any case.  While both types include Vangaurdists, Mainstreamers are almost exclusively Type I.  Type II activists, with their severe affect and furious speeches (or, today, blog posts – “crazed and bitter,” eh?), are hardly the Mainstreamer type.

While most activists would tend to have some traits of both types, they would be skewed in one direction or another.  

Some more or less “pure” types exist.  Your host, Ted Sallis, is a more or less a pure Type II. Francis Parker Yockey himself was a Type II.  Most Anglosphere activists in Der Movement are definitely Type I, certainly in the USA. The Alt Right, with all its intellectual pretensions, is actually heavily represented by Type I activists, at least among the rank-and-file.  In general, Type I’s will outnumber Type IIs, the latter being a distinct minority.

Leaders are a mixed bag, and historical fascist leaders have shown mixed characteristics of both types.  Most interesting is when there is a distinct mismatch between ideology and personality; the person has the ideology of one fascist type, but the personality of another.  This is a crucially important point.  While Bardeche’s quote delves mostly into personality, it bleeds into ideology: those boot-wearing activists obsessed with runes, ancestral songs, and the solstice (as well as Viking horns and mead, eh?) would tend to gravitate toward ethnonationalist and/or Nordicist ideologies, and be enamored of “traditionalism,” while those idealists with their skinny severe reformer heads, furious speeches, glasses and other introvert tendencies (card-collecting being a metaphor for introverted intellectualism) would tend to gravitate toward pan-Europeanism, Futurism and other manifestations of avant-garde politics, and visions of Imperium.  

Personality and ideology are often linked, but when the linkage breaks down, all sorts of strange fascistic hybrids are observed.  For example, Hitler politically was Type I, but his personality was more Type II.  Certain Alt Right ethnonationalists mimic Hitler to the extent that they are ideologically Type I but have the “bookish” and Intellect-oriented Type II character.  Conversely, some pan-European Alt Righters are the opposite: politically Type II but with Type I personalities. 

On the other hand, when personality and ideology more or less perfectly coincide, then from that synergy you get the “impossible” extreme Moralpath types – a Ted Sallis or a Francis Parker Yockey.

There is no doubt more to analyze on this topic but this is a useful beginning.

Ethnoretardation

More “movement” stupidity.

So, with all the heroic ethnonationalist parties in Western Europe, nothing gets accomplished to save race and civilization, and Western Europeans have to flee to the east and “colonize” Hungary.

Der Movement, being what it is, can never let a story about Eastern or Southern Europe go by without commenting on how racially degenerate and inferior the natives of those lands are (*); thus:

We who live in Western Europe know what’s going on: We’re being flooded by eastern Europeans! Hungary is a corrupt Turanic-Turkish country ruled by the gypsy Victor Orban,

The guy who wrote the article is a 100% moron.

And since Eastern Europeans are feistier than slothful and hedonistic Southern Europeans, they fight back:

How long before Hungary collapses under the weight of parasitical West Euros? These Invaders are not healthy, nor are they strong. They have no closeness to the Hungarian people, no Ethnic identity. Will they stand and fight with the East Europeans? Doubtful. A backbone and determination to preserve heritage is necessary which the Hungarians have.

What can the Hungarians gain from having these toxins drip fed into their homeland?

Dilution or confusion? More likely dissolution. Better revulsion and rejection now before destruction.

Meanwhile, Europe continues to be overrun by the Global South.  Thus, the wages of ethnonationalism, a failed and expired brand of petty nationalism for which we should have ZERO TOLERANCE.


This is the outcome of Brexit.  Ethnonationalism on the march!  All hail the UKIP!  Free of the EU, just in time to become a colony of India.  Very good!  Spencer was right in his skepticism about Brexit.  The rest of us. including myself, were wrong.  Although, in my defense, my support of Brexit was simply to destabilize the EU and upset the globalist status quo – I was always deeply suspicious of the ethnonationalist scum getting all breathless about “sticking it to the Polacks” while at the same time singing the praises of “Commonwealth immigration.”  But still, I was not suspicious enough; I was too tolerant of the ethnonationalist plague.  Spencer’s initial instincts were healthier; I must admit that.  


Lesson learned: Never trust an ethnonationalist.

*The official anthem of Der Movement was written long ago by Belloc:

Behold, my child, the Nordic man,

And be as like him, as you can;

His legs are long, his mind is slow,

His hair is lank and made of tow.

And here we have the Alpine Race:

Oh! What a broad and foolish face!

His skin is of a dirty yellow.

He is a most unpleasant fellow.

The most degraded of them all

Mediterranean we call.

His hair is crisp, and even curls,

And he is saucy with the girls.

The Nazi Next Time, II

Further analysis.

Let’s take another look at my The Nazi Next Time essay from 2015.  How does all of that look now from the perspective of Trump’s election and all the events from the year (and more) since that election?

Before we look back at the main points of that “Nazi” essay, let us consider that now, approximately two years later, certain elements of the System Left are beginning to reach similar conclusions.  Read this Frank Rich piece.

However common the ground of Democrats and Trumpists when it comes to economic populism, they will still be separated by the Trumpists’ adamant nativism, nationalism, and racism. The liberal elites who continue to argue that Democrats can win by meeting Trump voters halfway don’t seem to realize that those intransigent voters have long been hardwired to despise them.

The pot calling the kettle black?  Who despises who?  It was the Democratic Party’s abandonment of the White working class, in favor of Colored Identity Politics, which set the stage for right-wing populism to begin with.  Working class and middle class White Americans rightly perceive that the Democrats despise them, so why not return the favor?

Looking to the future in his 60 Minutes White House exit interview, Bannon said, “The only question before us” is whether it “is going to be a left-wing populism or a right-wing populism.” And that is the question, he added, “that will be answered in 2020.” Give the devil his due: He does have the question right. But there is every reason to fear that our unending civil war will not be resolved by any election anytime soon in the destabilized America that Trump will leave behind.

But the long-term threat is bigger than the potential arrival in the Capitol of radicals like Moore or the conspiracy theorist Kelli Ward, a possible inheritor of Flake’s Arizona seat. By illuminating a pathway to power that no one had thought possible, and demolishing the civic guardrails that we assumed protected us from autocrats, Trump has paved the way for far slicker opportunists to gain access to the national stage. Imagine a presidential candidate with Trump’s views and ambitions who does not arrive with Trump’s personal baggage, his undisciplined penchant for self-incrimination, and his unsurpassed vulgarity. 

Yes, I can imagine it: that’s why I wrote the “Nazi” essay; the vision was clear in my mind…and still is.

Finer-tooled instruments — smarter and shrewder demagogues than the movement’s current titular head — may already be suiting up in the wings.

Oh, we can only hope.  I do believe eventually, we’ll see that.

In any case: Sallis was prescient once again.

Now, back to the 2015 Sallis piece.

The hysterical angst of the Republican Establishment concerning the rise of Trump is glorious to observe.  Of course, the interesting thing is their complete lack of self-awareness, their lack of understanding that they themselves are responsible for the predicament they find themselves in.

I was I believe too kind to the GOP then.  Or, perhaps, I realize now that the Republicans don’t care about winning; they only care about being part of the System’s anti-White agenda.  Trumpism in the 2016 election gave the GOP sweeping victories at every level, leaving the Democratic Party in complete disarray.  2016 was a stunning confirmation that right-wing populism is the path for continued Republican electoral dominance even in the face of the changing demographics that the GOP itself has been complicit in promoting.  Trumpism can build a solid White voting bloc, with strengths among demographics (working class Whites, White ethnics) who were part of the Reagan coalition, but who have been straying from the GOP after decades of Neocon-corporate-cuckservatism, as exemplified by the Bush family, “plastic man” Romney, and execrable filth like John McCain (and the pink-frilled Lindsey Graham).  And how has the GOP reacted to this good fortune?  By doubling down on their anti-Trumpism, by obstructing what little the Grand Cuck Trump (this revealed after the election) wants to accomplish in a positive sense, by joining in with the absurd moral panic over “Russian interference,” by cucking to an extreme degree, by doing everything possible to throw away the fruits of the 2-16 electoral sweep an alienate and discourage Trump’s base.  So, now, I believe that they have awareness and understanding – it’s just that they are part of the same corruption, and always have been.  It’s always been a fraud, a scam, a con game run on the White American voter.  The GOP really isn’t in any predicament at all; they are simply playing the role assigned to them, playing it with relish.

Of course, all else being equal. The GOP would prefer to win elections, as they would like to enjoy the power and perks of elected office.  They also want to convince the rubes of the viability of the “two party system” and they want to keep the political donations and campaign contributions flowing in.  But winning is not an existential issue for them, but being anti-White is. If given a choice between winning with an explicitly pro-White agenda and losing as pandering cucks, they’d pick the latter every time. When the choice is put into those stark terms, the real Republican agenda comes into sharp focus.

Consider: after the startling electoral success of 2016, GOP cucks still pretend that association with right-wing populism will somehow damage the party – they will be ‘”toast.”

Still think they really want to win?

One reason is that the GOP has been complicit in the demographic changes that have put them “in between a rock and a hard place,” politically speaking. On the one hand, Republicans look at America’s growing colored population and see the need to appeal to that demographic. On the other hand, the GOP base of support is conservative White Americans, particularly right-of-center White men.  To pander to minorities runs the risk of alienating the base; to secure the base runs the risk of alienating the coloreds. Up to this point, the GOP strategy has been to pander to the colored minorities, while throwing “bones” to the base in the form of phony “implicit Whiteness” and “dog whistling” rhetoric with no real-life political consequences. Heretofore, the GOP has mastered feinting right during the primaries, running centrist in the general election, and, in the rare cases of GOP Presidential victories (since Ronnie Raygun, we have had only the two failed Bush men being elected), governing from the left. Base anger has been silenced by “they have nowhere else to go” “lesser of two evils” electoral considerations.

But now, the rise of Trump is an ill wind blowing in the direction of the GOP elites: the base is starting to awaken and will not be forever willing to “vote for lesser of two evils” and support anti-White leftist Republican candidates.

Whatever else Trump is or does, this alone justifies supporting his 2016 campaign, which I did.  Even if he is a completely self-interested phony, his reliance on right-wing populism “let the toothpaste out of the tube” and the System, however it may try, cannot get it all back in again, long-term.  They may win some battles here or there, tactical successes, but the tides of war will go against them.  By this, I mean the war to make multiculturalism work smoothly, and have White blithely accept their own dispossession.  The System may still win in the end, but their victory will be a Pyrrhic one, a bloody mess that will leave a nation essentially ungovernable long term as any major power on the world scene.  They may suppress right-wing populism short-term (and likely, not even that), but, like a bed penny, it’ll keep on popping up again.  Trump is a catalyst, a “John the Baptist” foreshadowing things to come.

But there is something else. The problem with Trump is seemingly not only his ideology of right-wing populism (real or fake), it is also because the Republican Establishment – with some justification – see Trump as an ill-informed, vulgar, obnoxious, childish buffoon, with no self-control and an embarrassing lack of gravitas.  Very well, but in response to those concerns I have two words: Pat Buchanan.

Like Trump, Buchanan ran for President as a right-wing populist Republican. In fact, there is considerable overlap in overt ideology between the two men’s campaigns. While lacking Trump’s “alpha jerk-boy” charisma, Buchanan has certain advantages that you would think would endear him to the GOP elites: Buchanan is a well-informed, articulate, religious man, with strong Establishment connections, and prior political experience in previous Republican administrations. Buchanan has always been an “inside-the-Beltway” man, and is not an obnoxious buffoon.

And how did the GOP elites deal with the more polished and political Buchanan?  With the same disdain and hysteria that they now reserve for “Der Trumpening.”  The Elite made it clear that they would never accept Buchanan as the nominee, they panicked over his early successes, they sabotaged his campaign (as I recall, they even prevented him from being on the ballot in some states), etc.  So, the case of Buchanan proves that the problem with Trump is not so much his repellent personal aspects, but his core of right-wing populism. Anything that appeals to Whites is anathema to the GOP, which is of course self-destructive given the nature of the GOP base (it is not for nothing that Sam Francis labeled the GOP “the Stupid Party”).

As stated above, the GOP would rather lose as anti-Whites than win as pro-White.  It’s a well-established trend dating back decades.

The point is that the GOP lost anyway with Bush and Dole in 1992 and 1996. While it is understandable that the incumbent would be favored in 1992, there was no excuse for favoring the “living mummy” “civil rights Republican” Dole over Buchanan in 1996. Favoring Buchanan would have solidified the GOP base and could have put the party in the direction of a right-wing populist track that could have genuinely benefited White Americans.

That is anathema to Establishment Republicans.

But, no. The elites sabotaged Buchanan and they suppressed right-wing populism for several electoral cycles. Now it has erupted in a more “virulent” form with Donald Trump. Instead of learning their lesson and understanding that the base cannot be taken for granted, instead of understanding that they need candidates that appeal to the base, the GOP elites are hell-bent on sabotaging Trump and suppressing right-wing populism for another couple of electoral cycles.

They may succeed but they are playing with fire.

They couldn’t stop Trump from winning, but they are fairly successful in teaming up with Democrats to block Trump’s ostensible agenda. Here, they are getting help from Trump himself, who betrays his base at every opportunity.  xxThere are some who say that there is evidence that Trump is sincere in his right-wing populism: he gave up his easy billionaire lifestyle to run for President. But that in and of itself means nothing.  It ignores issues of ego and the lust for (political) power. By analogy, we can ask why billionaires all don’t just ease up and enjoy the “good life,” why do most of them continue to strive, “wheel and deal,” obsess over money, and engage in rent-seeking behavior, including political lobbying, designed to further increase their wealth and power?  That’s the nature of the rich and powerful: they are never satisfied; they always want more (and that is one reason that they become rich and powerful to begin with).  If such people are given the opportunity to go into the history books as US President, would they eschew that opportunity?  Trump’s Presidential ambitions tell us nothing about his sincerity.  The fact that Trump ran as a right-wing populist may reflect his real views, or it may simply reflect his realization that the only way he could stand out from the established field of GOP cucks was to give the base the “red meat” that they were craving.  If Trump is really the shrewd businessman his admirers says he is, then he must have noticed the open political niche space to the political right of the GOP candidate field.  Trump’s sincerity would be better displayed by an honest and consistent effort on his part to fulfill his campaign promises.  That he is not doing; instead we get jackass tweeting, half-heated measures, backpedaling, a disgraceful waste of political capital, and waffling on issues like DACA.  If there is sincerity there, it is awfully hard to see.

Who will come after Trump?  Who will be the next right-wing populist?  As even worthless and weak Whites become more aggressive out of sheer desperation, who will they turn to next?  Someone more extreme and firebrand-populist compared to Trump to the same degree Trump is compared to Buchanan? 

It won’t be “the fire next time,” but it may well be “the Nazi next time.”  The GOP elites had better hope that their country clubs are well fortified indeed.

Will Trump’s constant betrayals and failures discourage his base?  Or, as Rich suggests, whatever the outcome of Trump, the base will only become more energized?  The latter, we hope.  But we must realize that the trauma of Trump has immunized the System against the “virus” of right-wing populism; they’ll be on their guard against it, and will try and nip any further manifestations in the bud.  Where they will fail, I believe, is that the System is, at its heart, anti-White; they cannot muster up any real “red meat” to satisfy a growing sense of White Identity Politics that will become ever more resistant to Democratic attempts to divert race with economics or GOP attempts at implicitly White “culture war” dog whistling.  The toothpaste is out of the tune, so to speak.

But, the System may not be able to win over the Trump base, but they’ll use their power to sabotage future political manifestations of right-wing populism.

In the movie The Day of the Jackal, the Jackal tells the OAS leaders: “Not only have your own efforts failed, but you’ve rather queered the pitch for everyone else.”  One can say that about Trump perhaps (and about the “movement” more generally, certainly).

Now, right-wing populism, essentially civic nationalism, is not the answer.  It is best a precursor or at least a stop gap, and at worst a diversion, a cul-de-sac, a competitor to what is needed – which is explicitly prop-White racial nationalism – White nationalism.  At this point in time, we can work to ensure that right-wing populism serves positive functions, as a precursor to White nationalism (the membrane separating the two is thin; it is one step from civic nationalism to racial nationalism, but an big step many do not make), or at least as a stop gap as racial nationalism begins to develop (Trump is in a sense a stop gap; one other benefit of his election, besides all “breaking the ice” for more extreme politics and increasing balkanization an chaos, is that he prevented a Clinton election that could have led to more repressive conditions for the development of racial nationalism – worse is not always better).

I would suggest that at this point, right-wing populism is best suited for Presidential campaigns and also for Senate and Governor races, and for lower level races in areas in which the White population is not sufficiently “prepared” for more radical approaches.  However, in selected areas and selected times, we should begin to consider explicitly White candidates – even racial nationalist WNs – ranging from school board elections all the way up to the US House of Representatives. Some successes there can lead to consideration of WNs for the higher level races.  The value of political WN campaigns exists regardless of the electoral outcome: promoting balkanization, recruiting, propaganda, organization, normalization of racial nationalist discourse and “pushing the envelope,” forcing the civic nationalists to get off the fence in one direction or another, a whole host of advantages.

Political campaigns would benefit from effective local organizing and vice versa.  It’s been said, and I believe it to be true, than in some locales, WNs love near each other but do not know of each other’s existence. Even if some fraction of these are kooks, freaks, defectives, Nutzis, fetishists, etc. there may still be a critical mass of useful like-minded people in certain areas.  The trick is to get them together, to work together, and to organize, safely, without the threat of infiltrators exposing them all.  How to do it is uncertain.  Existing meetings with their “extreme vetting” are ludicrous jokes; real extreme vetting would help, but I’m not sure that Der Movement has the competence or discipline to pull it off.  Anyone who is able to put together an effective plan for local organizing is going to be at an enormous advantage.  In the competition for racial nationalist leadership, those who can perform effectively will rise, and those who are laughably inept will fall.  

WNs cannot depend on a “man on white horse” civic cuck “hero” to save them.  The Nazi Next Time is not going to descend from Valhalla, complete with blessings of Saint Adolf; instead, the “demagogues” of the future will come to the fore as a result of hard work, discipline, and commitment.

This will, I believe, likely require a New Movement that replaces the clown show that currently exists.  I’m not sanguine about that, but this blog will continue to play the role of “loyal opposition.”  Racial nationalism is the future, but that future will only become actualized if we make it so.  

Future installments of this topic will be forthcoming when events and new ideas warrant; note as well there is overlap with the concept of Political EGI, as any pro-White leader who is worthwhile must incorporate (even if indirectly) the concept of genetic interests into their memetic toolkit.

A Tacit Admission That Sallis Is Right

Quota queens on parade.

I recently commented on how Der Movement’s sick embrace of the evil and anti-WN Derbyshire can be at least partially explained by the “movement’s” strict and fervent practice of affirmative action.

…it does not explain the fervor with which Derbyshire been embraced, and the alacrity by which Sallis has been, in contrast, blacklisted.  Thus, second, I must invoke the “movement’s” affirmative action program.  Derbyshire – even with his Chinese family connections – is “one of the boys” so years of extreme anti-WN activism is breezily dismissed…

I didn’t think I would be proven right (again) so soon, but Der Movement never disappoints.  Thus, an activist now describes, on an Alt Right blog, meeting Derbyshire at a conference, and why it was such a big thrill; excerpts, emphasis added:

As a hopeless Anglophile, meeting John Derbyshire was a high point for me…With a glass of red wine in tow, he was most cordial and gentlemanly, a fountain of learned insight and witticisms…On the Anglophile theme, I was able to touch base with Peter Brimelow…

That’s the viciously anti-WN “latrine flies” Derbyshire and the panhandler Brimelow, who is one of several individuals primarily responsible for foisting Derbyshire on the rest of us.  But, but, but….they’re English….

Do I ever get tired of being right?  In a word: NO.

Alt Right: Embracing Evil

It’s the Alt Wrong.

Let’s see:

Is involved in an inter-racial marriage, and supports miscegenation.

Is a despicable HBDer who worships at the feet of Jews and Asians.

An idiot who ignores the demographic facts on the ground and states that there is no existential threat to Whites.

A multiculturalist who supports a multi-racial “stew” society.

A lickspittle philosemite.

Who wants to associate with an Alt Right that includes execrable trash like Derbyshire?  Now, I’m sure that Alt Right defenders will state that the Alt Right cannot control who does or does not identify with this “movement.”  However, the AltRight.com faction had no problem disavowing the Alt Lite, so why can’t they do the same to Derbyshire and the rest of the Alt Wrong?  Is it because they agree with the Alt Wrong? With all the hate toward “boomers” coming from Alt Right Millennials, why do they grovel to a decrepit race-mixing boomer like Derbyshire?  And before I was “banned” from Counter-Currents, that site censored my criticism of Derbyshire’s comments about child porn – criticism that was nothing more than just citing Derbyshire’s own words on that subject!  So it is disingenuous of the Alt Right to just shrug and say that they have no control over Derbyshire and his identification with the Alt Right.

We can contrast all the financial support and meeting invitations and protection given to Derbyshire compared to how a good man like Robert Griffin is essentially ignored (except by TOO; I give credit to MacDonald for giving Griffin a forum).  Contrast Griffin’s wise words with Derbyshire’s self-interested pro-miscegenation rambling.

That VDARE is getting the lion’s share of “movement” donations, and that some of that goes to Derbyshire, is absolutely disgusted.  Not surprising tough.  Not surprising at all.


Let’s delve deeper into this; this is important.  


Let’s consider Derbyshire some more.  Not only is all written above true, and documented in his own writing, but let us not forget: for years, Derbyshire was openly hostile to White nationalism.  He wrote an insulting “hit piece” against Kevin MacDonald (it was when I wrote a riposte defending MacDonald that Derbyshire first came to my attention).  He openly mocked WN’s as “crazy” and “nutty” and “obsessed with racial purity.”  He publicly agreed with the assessment of Amren conference attendees as “latrine flies.”  He challenged critics of his marriage to come to his home so he could greet them “in the appropriate manner” (i.e., an elderly fist in their face, I suppose).  He sided with GNXP against WNs, and had one of the GNXPers at his home (welcomed, not attacked).  He praised the likes of the anti-WN and anti-Salter “Jayman.”  


But what happened when National Review kicked Derbyshire to the curb over his “the talk” article? Guess who it was who eagerly embraced Derbyshire and gave him new life – and money! – to spread his repellent views?  You guessed it – the “movement.”  The same “movement” Derbyshire attacked with relish for years now fell all over themselves to rescue him, including inviting him to address all those “latrine flies” he previously mocked in (digital) print. And, of course, he gets money and more money, supported via VDARE, etc.  And he is praised by “movement” commentators on blog threads.  This anti-WN race-mixer is propped up by the same WNs he’s always despised.


On the other hand, let’s look at how genuine WNs are treated.  Let’s consider this Sallis fellow – a WN for over twenty years, someone who made a major contribution in popularizing Salter’s EGI concept in the “movement” (and defending it against critics), among many other contributions.  Ted has essentially been “blacklisted” by Der Movement for the “crime” of questioning “movement” dogma and for criticizing “movement” leaders and for asserting that these “leaders” should be held accountable for their actions.  The anti-WN Derbyshire embraced; the WN Sallis is persona non grata.


Explanation?  I put forth two explanations, both of which are undoubtedly true.


First, many in Der Movement consider White nationalism as a money-making enterprise, as a way of earning a living (and living well).  They may well be genuine activists, sincere in their beliefs, but they want their money.  Derbyshire was never a threat to that – his attacks could easily be explained away by his Chinese wife and half-Chinese children.  Criticism coming from a twenty plus year veteran of WN is a whole other story, potentially far more damaging.  Let’s quarantine that “infection” before folks start getting the wrong ideas and the shekels stop pouring in.  Yes, there is also the issue of bruised egos among the thin-skinned, but I would think the money is more of a factor here.


But that first explanation does not explain the extent of the discrepancy; it does not explain the fervor with which Derbyshire been embraced, and the alacrity by which Sallis has been, in contrast, blacklisted.  Thus, second, I must invoke the “movement’s” affirmative action program.  Derbyshire – even with his Chinese family connections – is “one of the boys” so years of extreme anti-WN activism is breezily dismissed; Sallis, on the other hand, is an “outsider,” so decades of contributions are flushed down the memory hole before you can even say the words “latrine flies.”


The “rock stars” may not want to hear any of this, but it’s true.  And it’s a damning indictment of their poor character.

Der Movement in Der News, 10/26/17

More nonsense.

Nihilistic hedonist Roissy, a self-admitted race-mixer who has chronicled his sexual adventures with Negro and Oriental females, tells us that:

Hillary Clinton is going to jail

Maybe she is.  Who knows?  But we can ask, which is more likely to happen first: leftist harridan Hillary Clinton going to jail, or leftist cuck Donald Trump being impeached?  A close call, I think.

And then we see this:

Counter-Currents now has a new shopping cart system, and the best way for us to debug it is for you to put items into your cart and buy them.

Let’s give credit where credit is due: these guys certain are innovative when it comes to thinking up new ways of getting “activists” to give up their hard-earned money.  Help to debug our system by buying our stuff!  One hopes Brimelow is paying attention; the opportunities for VDARE to adopt similar tactics to keep all the Happy Penguins comfortable on their leafy New England iceberg abound.

Do listen to that podcast.  Is it because it is well done?  No.  The personages discussed, or doing the discussing, are important?  No.  The events described are of significant impact?  No.  Instead, because it is yet another small spotlight that illuminates the madhouse of Der Movement, and how the potential of the Trumpian chaos is being wasted.

Some questions.  Isn’t this Chapman the same “based stickman” that the Alt Right was telling us, not so long ago, was worthy of our awe and admiration?  Aren’t these civic nationalists thugs, in their own way no better than Antifa, representative of the same Alt Lite that certain Alt Right leaders were telling us, not so long ago, that we should be in a “big tent” alliance with?  And do you remember what Far-Right dissident (hint: see this) was telling you, correctly, that the “big tent” was a bad idea, and that WNs should have nothing to do with the Alt Lite?  And aren’t all these people – Alt Right as well as Alt Lite – the same who go to rallies dressed up as if they just came out of a cosplay convention, and that after telling us we should eschew “fascist” uniforms because such are “un-American” and would “turn off the normies?”  Given that American rightist populism has an established history of uniforms (e.g., the Silver Shirts), and given that the comic book characters these cosplaying Alters dress up as are for the most part Jewish creations, which is more “un-American?”  Do you think that “normies” will follow men dressed up like Captain America or Batman?