Category: Old Movement

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.  

From Madness to Rhizome

Escape “movement” madness.

Some reality:

FBI Director James Comey wrote his bombshell letter to Congress on Friday about newly discovered emails that were potentially “pertinent” to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server before agents were able to review any of the material because the bureau had not yet gotten a search warrant to read them, three government officials who have been briefed on the probe told Yahoo News.
When Comey wrote the letter, “he had no idea what was in the content of the emails,”…

So, let’s compare the prudence of EGI Notes, which takes a “wait-and-see” approach to unknown/fluid situations, and the womanly hysteria of Chateau Heartiste and other precincts of Der Movement, appointing Fat Donny Amnesty as Lord God Emperor Kek of Pepeland USA simply because of Comey’s vague letter, complete with lurid fantasies of what “startling information” the FBI must have uncovered.

Now, it’s possible the FBI may discover something of importance after the fact (but I’m not optimistic about that); if so, that doesn’t excuse the quota queens acting like a bunch of undisciplined gesticulating guineas.

Once again, Trump Derangement Syndrome cuts both ways.  It’s not only the Left that has become unhinged over Trump; elements of the far-Right have as well, albeit in a positive and love-struck direction.

Just like a beta male, blinded by love, acts like a buffoon for milady, so do the “movement” and “game” crowd act completely irrationally, besotted as they are by Der Touchback.

It’s pathetic, and no doubt if Trump loses they’ll attempt to pretend it never happened.  Don’t let them get away with it.

Onanism material for Der Movement.

It’s…cognitive elitism!  Not that Breezy Steve will rethink the HBD madness he helped foist on an unsuspecting Right.

So…am I just being a “shit-stirrer” with these kind of posts?  There is a political objective here: to convince the reader that the “movement” is hopelessly inept and in its current form is not going to achieve the goals it allegedly is pursuing.  The readers therefore should become part of that voice demanding read change.  Or, becoming part of that change themselves.

Maybe you don’t think that the ideas and/or approach of EGI Notes is appropriate either.  You believe you can do better yourself.  Maybe you can!  Take the initiative, start your own blog, form your own group, organize your own groupuscle, your own part of the activist rhizome.

As long as you don’t fall into the trap of mindlessly parroting “movement” dogma and blindly following “movement” “leaders” then maybe some real good can come out of your initiatives.

Barriers To Improvement

A flawed business model.

According to the standard business model, when a business is incompetent, it will be out-performed by competitors, and eventually go out of business, being replaced by those more competent, effective competitors.

Why then does Der Movement and its quota queen “leadership” go on and on, despite a decades-long record of unremitting failure?

Some ideas (not meant to be a fully comprehensive list):

1. Der Movement is catering to a narrow niche market.  It wants to grow, certainly, but there is right now insufficient “open niche space” for new things to be easily tried (but with difficult effort all things are possible) and for new competitors to become established without running afoul of the heavy hand of monopolization.

2. There are strong barriers for entry to this market, thus barring the way for increased competition. Some of these barriers are external; e.g., social pricing and other forms of persecution from the System, which in turn makes it impossible for most people to be full-time activists, etc. These external pressures are not only a cause of “movement” dysfunction, but also a result of it: a more competent “movement” would have by this time developed approaches to at least partially resist some of these pressures. Internal barriers include the freakishness and defectiveness found in Der Movement, which is a major “turn-off” for the more sane, reasonable, and effective people who otherwise would become more deeply involved in it. Another internal barrier is reason #3.

3. Der Movement’s strict ethnic affirmative action program serves as a sort of “protectionist tariff,” preserving the quota queen monopoly, and which, together with the other internal and external barriers to market entry, prevent some effective competitors from getting a foothold in the market.  This is by no means a “free market” in any sense of the word “free.”

4. A deluded customer base that in some cases doesn’t even realize how badly it is being served and if they do realize it are unable to discern some of the reasons why  In fact, the customer base in in some cases actually complicit in the problems, by demonstrating defective freakishness, by supporting the affirmative action policy, and by enabling “leadership” dysfunction.

Educating the customer base would seem a reasonable first step toward beginning to alleviate these problems; however, expect the quota queens to resist any attempt to break their monopoly.

Alt Right Chic

There has to be pushback against this.

My overall impression of this podcast is highly negative.  Now, if the Alt Right wants specifically and only to be “White nationalism for Millennials” then no problem (but if so, there’s no need for the doddering HBD crew, is there?), outreach to the young is a good idea that needs to be done by someone  But conflating the entire “movement” with the Alt Right is an embarrassment.  It’s cringe-inducing to anyone over the age of – what? – 35 or so.  The degree of juvenile silliness here is outrageous.  This podcast sounded like two twelve year old boys talking in a middle school lunchroom trying to sound tough by dropping “F bombs” every few minutes.  Moronic jokes, “Kek” stupidity, Pepe…worse than I thought it would be.

Why did anyone ever think this Milo creature should have been tolerated for even one second in any association with the “movement” whatsoever?  Was it really so difficult to see it would turn out badly?  But Spencer and whatever specimen he’s talking to think Milo is good, let’s not have any “purity spirals” against an anti-WN Jewish homosexual drag queen-type.  Oh wait, “if Milo tries to redefine the Alt Right, we need pushback.”  But isn’t he already doing it?  So how about pushing back?  Gee, “why does Milo try to openly confuse what the Alt Right is?”  It’s a mystery, it is!  A Jewish homosexual is confusing what the Alt Right is, and trying to redefine it to “cultural libertarianism.”  Why, oh why?  It’s pathetic.

Yes, I know some people in Der Movement do not like my criticism, but it is richly deserved. Der Movement’s “leaders” keep on making the same mistakes over and over and over again; they simply are incapable of learning.  The fundamental mistake this time: being so desperate for any hint of support that you would latch onto, or at least tolerate, any sort of questionable specimen: Jewish queers, Internet trolls who openly mock you with their memetic games (and chameleon-like personas), the neckbeards and Nutzis, the “SuperHitlerSS1488” types who are either lunatics or infiltrators.  Yeah, yeah, let’s “debate” about Milo, and have all sorts of blog posts and comments threads about him. That’s the ticket!  Being a homo Jew who from the beginning, was trying to portray the Alt Right as merely online trolling snark by young conservatives wasn’t sufficient warning.  He was giving you “free publicity” and all. That’s the ticket!

No worries though.  The Catholics say a few “Our Fathers” and “Hail Marys” and expect absolution; the Alt Right only needs to post pictures of Pepe, yell “Hail Kek!,” and onanistically swoon over low-energy, debate-losing, grossly overweight, Negrophilic beta race cuck Donny Touchback, and it’s all OK!

Now, look, I have no problem with the Alt Right as an experiment (*), different things can be tried, and it may have attraction to degenerate Millennials.  The problem is that just as Milo attempts to redefine what the Alt Right is, so is the Alt Right attempting to redefine White nationalism in the image of “Pepe” and “Kek.”  If Milo represents the Alt Right, then the Alt Right is in trouble.  If White nationalism is represented by this Radical Chic podcast, then White nationalism is in serious trouble indeed.  If the Alt Right remains a separate ghetto of White nationalism, doing their thing, that’s fine, have fun and good luck and much success. But the outlook that White nationalism is the Alt Right is going to provoke real pushback from WNs who want nothing to do with the Alt Right, Alt Lite, Alt West, Alt Wrong, “meme magic,” “Pepe and Kek,” Jewish homosexuals, yellow supremacists and the whole HBD crowd, the VDARE boys, and the civic nationalists.

Der Movement may be upset with my criticisms, but these criticisms are meant to be constructive, they are born out of frustration.  Among “movement” leaders there are people of genuine intelligence and ability, but they are squandering those traits because they are not being challenged, not being held to high standards, and not being subjected to different viewpoints and approaches.  The “movement” is an echo chamber; as a simplification – but only a slight simplification – we can say that Der Movement’s leaders are all of the same ethnicity, same background and experiences, same viewpoints, and same approaches. Homogeneity, like endogamy, is a good thing; however, just like endogamy can go too far with incest, so can homogeneity go too far with conformity.  Just like natural selection requires some degree of variation, political selection does as well. There is no selection in Der Movement because there is hardly any variation there at all (at least in America); “differences” in Der Movement are akin to what would have obtained if the 2016 election was between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush.  Der Movement needs some Trumpian “wrecking balls” to shake things up and initiate the process of real change.

*But this experiment is one of image and “marketing” approach, not a true difference in viewpoint and approach.  The Alt Right, for all its peculiarities, still exhibits all the typical characteristics and fossilized dogmas of Der Movement, the WN wing of the Alt Right is still part of the “movement’s” echo chamber, the difference is that it presents all of the “same old same old” in a particularly juvenile, repellent, and asinine manner – and through its connections with those further to their left, opens up Der Movement to co-option.

Basket of Bunkers

The Left’s misunderstanding (or deception).

Hillary’s supporters are doubling down on her “basket of deplorables” comment; indeed, they tell us that she underestimated the proportion of Trump’s supporters who are irredeemable bigots.  Thus, the current narrative of the Left is that a very significant portion of the White American electorate is composed of hardcore racists akin to the most extreme of the Alt-Right – many millions of White racial nationalists.

However, the reality is that White racial nationalism in America is tiny and powerless, often persecuted, sans resources and supporters.  Indeed, many racial nationalists – myself included – have asserted that only if a fraction – even 10% – of White Americans supported our views then we would be on the road to victory, given a bedrock of support; history is always made by a dedicated minority. But that minority must have some numbers, two dozen guys measuring each other’s cephalic indices with calipers in the basement of a meeting hall just won’t cut it.  Obviously, this minority does not currently exist.

So, why this discrepancy between breathless Leftist accounts of numberless hordes of virulent White racists, and the grim reality of a powerless “movement?”

The Left, to the extent they believe their own rhetoric, are captive to their Manichean mindset; they view race through a binary prism: if you are not a racial progressive, then you are a Hitler-loving Nutzi.  This is absurd and unrealistic, as racial attitudes exist along a continuum, and the bulk of even the most hardcore Trump supporters are more liberal about race than are most Alt-Righters, never mind other types of racial nationalists.

Trump’s supporters, and here I am talking about those the Left labels as “deplorables,” are at best “Archie Bunker types” – causal bigots whose mild racism is almost always a private affair and never manifests as public behavior or, more importantly, into the political realm. These are civic nationalist types who don’t like Blacks (who does – other than Trump, the cucks, and the Left?) and who have nostalgia about an America that is long gone.  In the past they have cheerfully voted for the most outrageous of anti-White liberal Republican cucks.  But after many years of disappointments and frustrations, they feel like Trump’s politically incorrect speech gives them a voice (however muted and cucked it may be). These people are hardly racial nationalists, not in any way supporters of Der Movement, and are for the most part completely useless – for now – for racial nationalism.

They do, however, constitute a possible source of recruits (at least those who don’t already have one foot in the grave – remember, Trump’s supporters are all “old grouchy White men”).

However, before Der Movement can go recruiting among the Bunkers, it must get its own house in order.  Who in their right mind would want to be recruited to a deranged embarrassment like Der Movement? [Note: I’m obviously not in my right mind, to have been so recruited in the past.  After all, haven’t my critics labeled me as insane?].  I have to laugh at those activists who dream of a “Day of the Rope,” a “reckoning” for all who have harmed the White race.  How about looking at yourselves?  If there ever is a settling of accounts by a real racial nationalist revolution, all the Nutzis and their leaders (including, perhaps, some “Alt-Right” heroes) had better wonder what end of the rope they’ll end up at.

Of course, a dedicated pacifist and effete liberal such as myself does not like to think about such distasteful topics.

In any case, “movement” stupidity and failure aside, the inability of the Left to understand the concept of degree leads them to hysterical errors in which all is black vs. white (no pun intended).  And then they accuse us of simplicity – of not being able to see all the shades of gray!  Fifty shades, no doubt, to the leftist eye, if they would only look.