Category: Old Movement

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.

This is Serious

This all needs to change.

Thus, my recent supposition – made at the time with no knowledge of the details of these affairs whatsoever – that Morgan joining Counter-Currents is somehow fundamental to this feud has turned out to be correct.

I have no idea whether the accusations made in this post are true or false.  I have no idea whether the accusations made against Friberg are true or false. I have no definite idea whether O’Meara’s accusations against Spencer in the comments thread are true or false, but I believe the accusation that Spencer is a “CIA asset” is patently absurd.  Of course, I have no evidence that it’s not so.  I also have no evidence that Spencer isn’t really an alien from a planet circling a red supergiant star in the Andromeda galaxy.  Some things are more or less likely than others.  And read more through the comments section.  Besides the anti-Spencer “CIA plant” ranting, we also see rude and vulgar attacks against Greg Johnson (similar to the vile crap at Majority Rights), who is an excellent writer and nationalist theorist (albeit one who has soured on Sallis, but, hey, no one is perfect), other back-and-forth personal attacks, and the like.  All about personality; nothing about ideology.


Greg Johnson’s response.


I’ll give credit to Greg for this:


But the only way to “win” these sorts of public battles is not to get involved in the first place. And since I obviously failed at that, the second best option is to stop them before they escalate any further. So, for my part, it stops here.


I hope that’s correct.  But the Friberg-Spencer side have their arguments as well, and much of that focuses on Morgan.  Again, it seems to me as an outsider here that Morgan switching to Counter-Currents was an initiator of this sorry sequence of events.


Greg also writes:

And since criticism is inevitable, isn’t it better to get it from our friends now than from our enemies later?


Er…yes.  Exhibit one: Ted Sallis’ criticism of the “movement.”


And although I grant that there is definitely a place for barbs and mockery in driving home a well-argued point or skewering pretense and folly…


So, it’s not always “crazed bitterness?”

Apparently, there are no real consequences for wrongdoing in this movement. 


I’ve been saying that for years.  That’s what you get with a dysfunctional “movement” with affirmative action “leadership.”


A movement that seeks the renewal of white civilization should, at the very least, try to maintain a few minimum standards of civilized behavior. But the movement today resembles a post-apocalyptic wasteland in which warlords and their gangs fight for spoils.


Exactly.  And therefore isn’t vehement criticism of such a “movement” – including “barbs and mockery” – justified in “skewering” the “pretense and folly” of such a “movement?”


The original of this post was written before Greg Johnson’s response.  This version of my essay is not substantially different from this version (hardly different at all) – I still do not know who is right or wrong (both sides make plausible arguments but show minimal concrete evidence and I am not taking sides).  I am glad though I waited so I could link to Greg’s riposte. However, as you will see as I make my argument below, it really does not matter who is more in the right and more in the wrong here.  Someone here did wrong and the entire episode is a blight on the Alt Right and by extension the “movement” that the Alt Right has, unfortunately, become the predominant element in.  


For all these people’s criticisms and ignoring of that crazy shit-stirrer Ted Sallis, they are, by far – by an order of magnitude or more – “stirring the shit” more than I ever have.  And my “shit stirring” has always been about substantive issues – ideology or “movement” defectives and their unethical behavior. It’s not been a “movement catfight” of folks hurling accusations against each other.

And to me all these explanations seem incomplete.  Not that it matters for my final thesis of this post, but: what was the true origination of the Johnson-Spencer feud that seems to have predated this latest imbroglio? Why did Morgan leave Arktos for Counter-Currents? From an ideological standpoint, how does all of this background drama affect, for example, the (in my opinion unfortunate) embrace of narrow ethnonationalism by some of the people involved over the last few years?

Let us crudely divide the combatants in two camps.  First, we have the Spencer-Friberg-Jorjani-Arktos camp and then we have the Johnson-Morgan-O’Meara Counter-Currents camp.  Some very serious accusations and counter-accusations have been made in both directions.  As I’ve said, I have no idea where the truth lies here. I previously asserted on this blog that Spencer and Johnson should settle their differences for the good of racial nationalism; this obviously does not appear likely to occur.

What are the broad implications here?  Now, it is of course very possible that the storylines of both sides are mixtures of truth and falsehood.  Reality – particularly in these sorts of internal squabbles – is never so clear cut that one side is all pure moral goodness and the other side pure evil.  For example, imagine that the Counter-Currents side is mostly correct, but O’Meara’s accusation about Spencer is not true (which I believe it is not). Or maybe some of the Counter-Currents folks were bad-mouthing Friberg. On the other hand, if the Arktos side is essentially correct, it is still possible they are exaggerating and embellishing the “crimes” of the other side and taking things out of context.

However – and this is the key pint – it is HIGHLY improbable, to the point of impossibility, that each side’s storyline is an exactly equal distribution of truth and falsehood; exactly 50:50.  In fact, it’s far more likely that one side is completely right and the other completely wrong than it is for there to be an essentially equal distribution of mixed truth and falsehood. In other words, it is most likely that one side of this conflict is mostly telling the truth (even if some embellishments and misleading “spin” is thrown in) and is in the right, and the other side is mostly lying and is in the wrong.  Oh, I guess it is theoretically possible the whole thing started out as a misunderstanding – but don’t you think that rational and disinterested players would have realized this and settled the matter by now if that was really the case? The situation is only getting worse – suggesting there is “real meat” to some of the accusations and/or there are some strong (financial) interests at stake.

As I said I do not know which side is the one mostly right.  And maybe, just maybe, in the broad scheme of things, it does not really matter.

What does matter is this.  If my understanding is correct and one side here – whichever side it is – is essentially in the wrong, that means that one major component of the Alt Right, one major faction of Der Movement, is in fact guilty of (some of) the serious accusations made against it.  From my perspective it really doesn’t matter which side it is – since I’m opposed to the Alt Right in general and opposed to Der Movement as it currently exists as well.

But, let us agree – both sides cannot be essentially right and ethical at the same time. Someone has done (serious) wrong; someone has been engaging in unethical subterfuge at the expense of the good of racial nationalism as a whole.  And, truth be told, even the (relatively) “innocent” faction (whichever it is) is not handling the situation well, as both sides are escalating the feud – the Arktos side keeps on running anti-Counter Currents articles at AltRight.com, while O’Meara is accusing Spencer of being a CIA plant.  They keep on “airing dirty laundry.”  So, even the “innocent” side – whichever it is – is in fact behaving more destructively than the dreaded Sallis ever has, with my tongue-in-cheek mocking ridicule of “movement” stupidities (which as we see has been justified).  They claim they are “restraining themselves,” threatening they could “disclose even more.” That’s great.  It’s a public site, read by everyone and anyone; keep it up, it’s obviously doing us all a world of good.


And guess what?  I could “disclose” many things as well, but choose not to do so.  What would it achieve?

Yes, the Alt Right spurns Sallis, thinks Sallis is crazy, and ignores Sallis. That’s great; you know, at this point, with all of this going on, I’ll consider it a compliment.


Indeed, as Johnson writes:


All things considered, though, it is better to sacrifice personal friendships than to weaken the movement as a whole.

Yes, indeed.  See the last few years of EGI Notes.

I for one do not have any financial interests in activism, I earn zero money from it (it is actually an opportunity cost taking time away from other endeavors) and I’m a third party disinterested observer to this whole mess. Do not misunderstand: I do not begrudge overt full-time activists from earning a living from activism.  Obviously, they must do so and they should do so.  In fact, if we want high-quality full time activists we need a situation where at minimum they can have a comfortable middle class existence, etc. But this should not be achieved through vicious squabbling over financial resources, unethical behavior, and the like (I also do not like constant Alt Wrong panhandling so that kosher conservative “activists” earn exuberant six figure professional-scale salaries while funneling money into the pockets of “writers” who are race-mixing child porn apologists).  From what I can see this feud is NOT over ideology or any grand statements of principle. It’s about personality, it’s about claims to leadership, it’s about the resources (such as they are) of Arktos, and it’s about money.

If it was actually about ideology and principle, then it would be at least understandable, if regrettable. But it is not.

And, I must say – the “rank and file” “movement” “activists” are to blame for this fiasco as well.  It are they who enable the “leadership,” it are they who add fuel to the fire of the feuds, it are they who keep on propping up a failed “movement” instead of looking elsewhere to people offering an alternative.

Fact is – one year after its “breakthrough” the Alt Right is a feuding muddy mess.  Who was skeptical of the Alt Right?  Who has been skeptical of Der Movement and its leaders?  Was this the same “crazy” and “bitter” person who warned you all that Trump was a vulgar beta cuck buffoon?

That’s OK though.  Double down on the Alt Right, scream “Hail Kek!,” draw some more Pepe cartoons, and let the affirmative action train keep on rolling along.  Here’s a comment from someone who understands.  Excerpt:

I don’t identify as Alt-Right – after all it isn’t an organised movement and has no clear manifesto, it’s a free for all of undisciplined rabble. It’s perfectly possibly to be Right wing and not Alt-Right. I think you find that the majority of Right wing people would never associate with such a trashy bunch of people. Teenagers might enjoy memes, but I think you will find that the adults have all the money…

All the rest of you get the “leadership” you deserve.  And you obviously are deserving of what you have.  Enjoy.

And let me rewrite this Johnson comment:

If the best among us had any conviction, people like Daniel Friberg would have never grown into the menace that he is today. If the best among us had any conviction, they would speak out against him. If the best among us had any conviction, then the worst among us — people like Friberg, Spencer, and Forney — would have no audience for their lies and no platform from which to broadcast them. They would have no credibility, no friends, no supporters, no authors, no podcasters, and the sole audience of the tabloid freak show at Altright.com would be the chan nihilists and Left-wing press they so eagerly cultivate.


As:

If the best among us had any conviction, people like Der Movement’s “leadership” would have never grown into the menace that they are today. If the best among us had any conviction, they would speak out against them. If the best among us had any conviction, then the worst among us — people like the “leadership” that’s failed us continuously for many decades — would have no audience for their lies and no platform from which to broadcast them. They would have no credibility, no friends, no supporters, no authors, no podcasters, and the sole audience of their tabloid freak show at Altright.com would be the Game/HBD/Nutzi nihilists and anti-racist freaks they so eagerly cultivate as show opposition.


My advice to third party observers such as myself: be patient and wait until the Alt Right contagion, burns itself out.  This is, by the way, we need something like Codreanu’s Legion; we need the New Man, ethical and moral leadership. not something accurately described as a “freak show.”


Delenda est Alt Right.  This episode is a perfect reason why.

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.

Against the Alt Right’s Memetic Imperialism

A battle for the meaning of racial nationalism.

Read this.  It’s a good piece except for this disgusting example of Alt Right arrogance:

We in the Alt-Right are the only true opposition to Neoliberalism…

That’s why I despise and oppose the Alt Right – its smug memetic imperialism.  The Alt Right wants you to believe that it and racial nationalism are one and the same, an equation that I unalterably oppose and will continue opposing.  Racial nationalism – in opposition to “Neoliberalism” – existed before the Alt Right, non-Alt Right racial nationalism exists today, and it will continue to exist after the Alt Right fad has burned itself out.

Sorry, Alt Right – there is more to racial nationalism than juvenile jackassery, “game,” lulzing stupidity, obsessions over a cartoon frog, homoerotic fervor over the “God Emperor,” yelling “Hail Kek!,” breathless excitement over facts and memes the rest of us knew a generation earlier, and all the rest.  The Alt Right is simply a Millennial-friendly version of the Old Movement, and as such is stupefied with all the old fossilized dogma, and it is thus destined to fail.  You have to change the product, my friends, not merely the packaging.

The only “true opposition to Neoliberalism?”  Hardly.  Indeed, attitudes like that make me wonder whether the Alt Right is best characterized as a form of Neoliberalism itself.

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.