Category: Old Movement

Ragnarok II

More.

Read this. 

We demand legislation forbidding all US companies from adopting politically correct terms of service and employment. All private companies must be forced by law to respect freedom of speech and thought.

That is essential, but expect the System to fight that tooth-and-nail.  In the absence (yet) of overt “speech laws” due to the First Amendment, social pricing is the number one method to keep White folks in line.  Antifa violence and all the rest is nothing by comparison, a firecracker compared to a thermonuclear device.

Once people are free to express dissident opinions without fear of workplace punishment, the System’s biggest stick collapses, and they simply no longer have sufficient carrots for all the disaffected Whites.  So, yes, we need a “political opinion protection act.” 

The current administration could have been the best hope for that, but with Trump/Sessions trying to out-virtue signal the worst of the GOP cucks, it seems unlikely.

We should not give up though.  Extended First Amendment protections to the private sphere is probably the single most important idea of this post.  With that, the dam cracks and eventually collapses.

On Trump.

I feel like vomiting after watching this video.
The Alt-Right attempted to hold a peaceful rally in Charlottesville, VA. We had to get a federal court order to be able to exercise our First Amendment rights. After arriving in Lee Park, we were attacked by violent Antifa while the police stood down and watched. Gov. Terry McAuliffe declared a “state of emergency” and riot police pushed us into hordes of violent leftists who attacked dozens of people.
In response to this outrage, Donald Trump has condemned us, praised the Virginia State Police and said nothing about the actions of violent Antifa groups who will only be further emboldened to attack his supporters all over the country. While Donald Trump talks about restoring “law and order,” the reality of the matter is that police departments in leftwing cities are standing down and ceding the state’s monopoly on violence to lynch mobs. We saw this happen in Portland and Charlottesville the last two weekends.
Everything I have said was captured on video. For two years now, Donald Trump has said nothing while violent lynch mobs have attacked his supporters all over the country, not only in Charlottesville, but also in Washington, DC during the inauguration and Berkeley and many other places. A disabled man who supported Donald Trump was even kidnapped and tortured on Facebook Live in Chicago and he said nothing. President Trump talks about “equal rights,” but the truth of the matter is that White Americans in his country are routinely subjected to censorship, physical violence, employment discrimination, intimidation and massive civil rights violations while the Trump administration looks the other way. It does so because it is afraid of the power of the mainstream media.
The Alt-Right will stand with White Americans who are under siege in Trump’s America who have been deserted by their president. The Trump administration showed today that it is more interested in moving forward with its agenda of massive tax cuts for the wealthy than in defending our most basic constitutional rights. Sadly, President Trump’s chilling message will only stoke the flames of the violent Left and will strike fear into all those who dare to speak out against it who know they will inevitably be attacked now and portrayed as wicked racists by a vicious and hostile media cartel.
Donald Trump has given a green light to Antifa. He has sided with a group of people who attack us on sight and attempt to kill us and for that the Alt-Right can no longer support him. What Donald Trump has done today is an unforgivable betrayal of his supporters.

Devlin is a smart fellow and I always liked his writing, but at some point we need to stop making excuses for Trump.  Yes, his press conference wasn’t bad, but the fact is he and Sessions never cracked down on Antifa and they both denounced us all.

A Tale of Two Failures

A tale of two failures: Klassen and Pierce.

We’ll now take a look at this analysis of Klassen’s basic errors and compare some of those to that of Pierce, and observant readers can discern patterns inherent in generalized “movement” failure. This is by no means any comprehensive analysis; nevertheless, it points toward real problems.

Problem A: Less than Stellar Employees
The problems Ben Klassen ran into are probably more related to the natural conditions of pioneering any sort of new religious and ideological territory than failings on his part. After all, Klassen’s career was extraordinary. He was so financially successful he was able to retire as a young man. From that situation he went on to successfully invent and market a product, be elected to public office, and make more money in real estate in Florida. His racial ideas, while radical, cannot be ignored.
His first problem related to the limitations of his pioneering work was having more problem employees than top talent during his active career as the church’s leader. Klassen writes in 1992, “I had damn few volunteers to choose from that were foot-loose and fancy free, could type and were dedicated to the cause, all of which is a dismal reflection on the disoriented state of mind in which the White Race was then, and still is.”
White advocate Jared Taylor spoke of this phenomenon in a 2017 YouTube.com interview. After describing his “redpilling” and white advocacy work going back to 1990, Taylor says, “In the earlier days you met most unusual people because it took a very unusual frame of mind to look into those dusty corners of university libraries [where frank discussions of racial matters existed in print] and to be aware of the obscure PO Boxes [where one could get racially frank literature]. So they were always very unusual people. Now, you meet more and more perfectly ordinary (sic), they’re not particularly unusual, they don’t have sort of the odd kinks of the mind that the older race realists tend to have. They’re smart, hard-working, nice looking, attractive people who have just seen through the rubbish.”[3]
In the above statement, Jared Taylor is pulling his punches and being generous. 

Dissident movements tend to attract marginal personalities.  It’s the nature of the beat.  One could attempt – one MUST attempt – to counter this tendency by weeding out the more obvious dysfunctional individuals at the very least. Failure to do so make dysfunction a self-reinforcing quality, as higher quality people become repelled by the freaks, while, of course, even more freaks are attracted.  Der Movement has always had the weakness of being so desperate for followers, for validation that they’ve accepted virtually anyone and everyone, leaving themselves open to both sincere freaks as well as malicious infiltrators.

Of course, in reading some of the quotes above, one wonders about the “pot-kettle” thing, but we can leave that aside for now.

Problem B: Location, Location, Location
Klassen sunk a great deal of capital into his church’s campus in the mountains of western North Carolina. In Trials… Klassen remarked that most of his neighbors were curious about his ideas and mostly friendly to his face. However, this friendliness masked the serious problems that developed due to the church’s location.
On the surface, the homogeneously white and rural location in the “conservative” Highland South would be a great pick for a new, explicitly pro-white church, however this was not the case…Framed in the metapolitical structure of the time and place, Klassen was, to put it simply, a living embodiment of “evil.” He was a big target smack dab in the center of the pre-sighted range of the Southern Protestant “Guns of Singapore.” The workers building Klassen’s church were shot at and had to bring their firearms to the site to be able to finish the job. After the church was built, it was vandalized, and the sign was hit by a shotgun blast. Klassen received hate mail, bomb threats, hostile trespassers, and prank phone calls…Klassen did recognize that his Christian neighbors would be hostile in theory. However, he didn’t realize the counterintuitive nature of ethnic struggles. This is the second problem with his pick of location. Those in homogeneous areas like Minnesota, western North Carolina, and Vermont are often so insulated from non-white dysfunction that there is no understanding in such communities of why someone like Ben Klassen would come into their midst with an idea that the institution of Christianity damaged white racial interests. They didn’t even realize white racial interests were under threat. As a result, every local politician in the area could be hostile to Klassen and not lose a single vote.
Had Klassen organized his church in South Florida, Anglo preachers would, possibly, have sermonized against him, but the whites in the pews would have all had personal experience dealing with non-whites and their problems. With this in mind, in South Florida, The World Church of the Creator might have easily gotten a quiet, solid-as-bedrock, base of support. 

True. But these types make the same mistake over and over again.  What is it?  Quota queen deficiencies?  Personal preferences (see about Pierce below)?  Ethnic affinities?

Had Klassen purchased property in the Poconos, he’d probably had done one better. Those with summer homes in that area would have had deep connections to New York City, quite possibly the city with the most red-pilled white population on this planet. It is also possible that had Klassen put his headquarters in eastern Pennsylvania and northwestern New Jersey, he’d have had an all-around better class of “walk-ins” supporting him.

But, but, but…those Whites (you know, the same sorts who supported Trump precisely because Trump was painted as a “fascist bigot” by the media) are the wrong (wrong! wrong!) kind of Whites – or perhaps not even White at all! Southern European Negroes, Eastern European Asiatics, all sorts of non-core European, outside-the-Hajnal-line, low life trash!  No, no, a thousand times no!  

The National Alliance – well, Pierce – made a similar error with respect to location– moving to the mountains of West Virginia, completely isolated from the main currents of American (and world) events and power, was a horrendously bad case of poor judgment.  And this was particularly so given that Pierce exerted tight centralized control over the activities of the Alliance’s local units (see more on this below) – a person so isolated being in no condition to exert control over people dealing with the real world of modern America.  And to the argument – “they had to move there to avoid leftist attacks” – let’s consider what Pierce told Griffin when the latter was writing his biography of the former.  Essentially, Pierce left DC because he wanted to, he wasn’t comfortable in “the big city,” he preferred the “mountain man” life, and he was getting disgusted and triggered by DC and was “doing things” (*) and was afraid those “things” would escalate and get him in real trouble.  The move from DC to Hillsboro was not really informed by a grand strategy, but by Pierce’s personal lifestyle preferences and his self-stated inability to control his behavior.  Now, if the “National Office” was the headquarters of an underground guerilla movement then, yes, living out in the middle of nowhere, the grand sage on the mountaintop, would have made sense.  But as the leadership of an aboveground, legal, metapolitical activist group, the location of the National Office was simply terrible.  If DC or some other “diverse” city was unacceptable, then there were plenty of predominantly White smaller cities, not too far from the centers of power, in which a real National Office could have been located.  With the income being generated, and with some good sense, and quality staff, security arrangements could have made that would have been tolerable. But that’s not what Pierce wanted for his lifestyle, with the predictable outcome.

Also, and no offense meant to those who worked with Pierce in the wilds of West Virginia, but that location, that environment selected for people who were not representative of Whites in general, or of White nationalists more specifically.  That may be one reason why the Alliance’s propaganda (apart from the ADV broadcasts, which were usually quite good), membership handbook, and book catalog were all “off-putting” and did not resonate well with the target audience.  Essentially, the location predisposed the National Alliance to (relative) irrelevance and failure.


Problem C: Too Many Targets
Ben Klassen did himself no favors by picking too many targets. In his tribal struggle against Jews and non-whites, he also became a tax protestor, an anti-Mason, and an anti-Federal Reserve activist. His anti-Mason attitudes were probably correct in a European, French Revolution sense, but in the English Speaking World, Freemasonry is little more than a social club providing a place for retirees to get away from the wife and bicker with each other over trifles. 

Conspiracy theorizing and pet peeves have always been a problem for Der Movement. That goes against one of my most important pieces of advice: do not expand “movement” freakishness beyond what is absolutely necessary. That’s Sallis’ Razor: do not multiply memetic entities beyond necessity. Racial nationalism is already a “bridge too far” for most people, adding these other things is just plain stupid.

However, his biggest “too many targets” problem was his tax protest. Because he didn’t file his taxes, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was on to him, and that gave a desperate edge to his activities. 

That was just plain stupidity (once again) on Klassen’s part.  Why add to your troubles and give the System ammunition against you?


Don Johnson died of a heart attack shortly after the Chilton Bank fiasco, and Klassen came to believe that his employee may have been a plant to disrupt his activities all along. 

Maybe.  Or maybe Klassen was simply foolish.  Or both.

Problem D: Competent Enemies
While Klassen was stuck with a large number of bumbling employees and unable to find a “great promoter” or “white financial angel,” his enemies moved on him with a ruthless efficiency. Klassen’s true ideological enemies consisted of the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, both of whom used the local Macon County, North Carolina authorities to further their aims.
His enemies used the tactics of the strong against the weak. If one has more firepower but is faced with an elusive enemy, the trick is to bait the enemy into exposing itself to the firepower. This happened on the night of June 13-14, 1986. Klassen’s chief typesetter and employee Carl Messick, titled by Klassen Hasta Primus (meaning spearhead) awoke to voices in the middle of the night. Fearing an arson attack, he called both Klassen and the sheriff’s department and then took a firearm and fired into the intruders’ car as the trespassers attempted to escape. It turned out the intruders were a Georgia couple, William and Patricia Trusty. They claimed to be looking to visit a local couple. Remember, in 1986, there were not any pro-white activists on the internet that could crowd-sleuth the Trusty’s background like today.
The SPLC’s report on the affair states that the “…[S]ecurity chief Carl Messick fires 19 shots at the car of a Georgia couple who strayed onto the COTC grounds.”[11] The SPLC intelligence report doesn’t mention that the Trusty’s “strayed” onto COTC grounds in the middle of the night. The Sherriff’s Department arrested Messick. The trial was another unforced error. Messick didn’t use a lawyer in his defense, but the alleged paralegal expert in the COTC, the aforementioned Don Johnson. Messick was sentenced to seven years. By Klassen’s account, Messick was one of the few competent employees, and his incarceration really put him behind.
Klassen’s movement was bankrupted by the SPLC legal trick of suing a pro-white organization after someone with “links” to it did an illegal act. In this case, a follower of Klassen shot a black sailor and Gulf War veteran in a road rage incident in 1991. A jury ruled in favor of the SPLC and The World Church of the Creator was destroyed.
This tactic, where a follower of an extreme, pro-white group gets involved in a violent confrontation with someone else, and the SPLC swoops in with slick lawyers that seek a bankrupting judgement is effective. However, like the famous Highland Charge was effective against soldiers armed with matchlock harquebuses, but not more advanced flintlocks that were quicker to load and had a longer range, the SPLC’s tactic might not work in the future.

Again, quality followers/employees are important here.  And anyone who takes someone with an online handle like “supernazi1488ssmanadolflives” and gives them “the keys to the kingdom” is just asking for trouble.  Don’t be all surprised when your files end up in the hands of “watchdog groups.”

The SPLC’s bankrupt on behalf of tactic only works in a situation where the overwhelming preponderance of the public see the SPLC as a moral force. Additionally, a jury must be persuaded to give a big payout targeting an organization only thinly “linked” to the actual criminal, therefore the entire jury must be totally alienated from any pro-white idea. If pro-white metapolitical ideas seep into the culture, jury decisions will change. Additionally, this tactic can be used against the SPLC. For example, in 2012 a gunman named Floyd Lee Corkins II, who had links to the SPLC, shot up the Family Research Council after the SPLC labeled them a “hate group.”

Let’s consider the tight and hyper-centralized control of National Alliance activities by Pierce and his “National Office,” relevant to the abovementioned stories.

I have heard some people defend Pierce’s rigid centralized control with reference to the SPLC tactics mentioned above.  The idea was this – if Pierce let local units have more autonomy, they might do something illegal, which would be used to legally bankrupt the Alliance.  Or even if they just did something stupid and not illegal, and/or produced shoddy propaganda, that would have been an embarrassment to the “National Office.”

There is some truth to that.  One could counter-argue that by establishing such tight control, Perce created a legal situation that he could not plausibly deny pre-knowledge and approval if a NA member did do something illegal (even if Pierce had nothing at all to do with it and had no pre-knowledge). One could counter-counter-argue that this wouldn’t have made a difference one way or another, Pierce would have been blamed in any event, so better he exerted as tight control as possible.

A better argument against Pierce’s centralized control was that if he had picked better local unit coordinators, and had been more selective in NA membership, he would have had higher quality people in the local units who could have been trusted with a bit more autonomy.  You could have had local unit coordinators enforcing discipline in some cases rather than having the constant micro-management from the local office.

And the most convincing argument against the Pierce approach was that the centralized control was not really of the nature of “hey, you can do some local initiatives targeted to your local context, but you need approval first” but rather of the nature of “you guys can do nothing except distribute propaganda produced by the National Office (purchased by members thus forcing them to subsidize Pierce’s lifestyle if they wanted to do some local activity) or maybe if you are Gliebe you can be allowed to put together some sort of small cultural festivals.”  In other words, the centralized control essentially stifled all local initiative and all local activities except putting up the NA’s stickers and distributing leaflets (except again for a small amount of leeway allotted to one local unit – Gliebe’s).  Pierce’s centralized control was excessive, it was not a request for approval but rather a denial of all local initiative.  It led local units to be nothing more than money-generating vehicles for the National Office: membership dues, purchasing the centralized propaganda for distribution, and recruiting more members to do the same.  It was more like a Ponzi scheme or cult than an activist organization.  It could have been possible for Pierce to retain control but still let local initiatives go forward, if these initiative were actualized by high quality members, led by high quality local unit coordinators, and with timely approval by the National Office.  That’s not how it was done, however.

*I remember visiting the DC area during the last years of Pierce being located there (and long before I became associated with Der Movement), and seeing a building in Arlington with the following words, in big letters, carved into its wall: White Revolution is the Only Solution – accompanied by a swastika. One wonders if that was an example of Pierce “doing things.”

Der Movement Parallax

Analyzing some important points.

Read this.

For 15 long years, beleaguered Rhodesia maintained near total tactical military supremacy in the region despite severe weapon, materiel, and manpower shortages. Yet, military victory bereft of a strategic vision and clearly delineated political objectives is ultimately self-defeating. The political objectives of Rhodesia changed throughout the course of the war. Initially Rhodesia sought to maintain White minority rule, later hoped to create an African puppet regime, and finally sought nothing more than a seat at the proverbial “multicultural table.” This last political objective sealed the fate of tiny Rhodesia, and led to the pogrom of White genocide presently occurring in southern Africa. The nation of Rhodesia faced a series of overwhelming odds since its inception as a sovereign nation, but its greatest threat was its internal lack of strategic aim. This is a mistake we cannot afford to make.

This is very true.  A fundamental error that is often made is confusing strategy with tactics, and vice versa.  Means and ends are not the same; objectives and the tools to achieve those objectives are not the same.  One problem with mainstreaming is precisely this; the idea is to “mainstream” in order to “achieve (and maintain) power” so the power can be used to “preserve race and culture.”  Very laudable. Let’s put aside the empirically determined fact that mainstreaming simply doesn’t work.  Let us assume it does work.  What happens when selfish human nature takes over and the attainment and maintenance of political power ends up being the ultimate objective, the end, rather than as means to achieve racial-cultural objectives?  You may object: the same power-fetish may occur even with a vanguardist strategy.  That’s true, but less likely. The farther one’s “everyday” activity is separated from their ultimate objective, then the easier it is to lose sight of that objective. Mainstreaming is, in theory, a way to actualize vanguardism; vanguardism in turn is (in theory if you will) a way to achieve racial-cultural goals.  Being one major step removed from the alleged “real objective” makes mainstreaming more susceptible for activists to give up on their supposed goals and pursue political power for its own sake.  Vanguardists, on the other hand, live in “racial extremism” on an everyday basis and are less likely to lose sight of the objective that is “in their face” on a constant basis. Vanguardists are thus more likely, in my opinion, to understand, and remain focused on, the strategic aim.

As Greg Johnson articulated in New Right versus Old Right, white racial survival is the ultimate goal of White Nationalism, but I would go one step further and say we must explore not only how to survive, but also how to thrive racially as one people.

Fair enough.  Preservation is the first step.  Overcoming and progress comes next.

The policy failures and lack of strategic vision of former Rhodesia mirror those of the contemporary White Nationalist movement. The survival of the White race is imperative, but whites will only succeed if they maintain unity; in what form this “unity” manifests itself, and how centralized or decentralized it is, is open to debate. In order to reach our peoples greatest potential, we must seek unity of both race and thought, and harmonize these into a new European/White ecumene. 

There may be truth in this.  But it is a futile exercise to attempt to get everyone in the “movement” on board with a common vision.  It’s not going to happen.  Out of the morass – or perhaps from a fresh direction – a dominant memetic structure will emerge. Whether that will be the right direction, or a disaster, remains to be determined.

In Ricardo Duchesne’s penultimate work, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, Duchesne rightly speculates that a penchant for rational abstraction is the hallmark for White racial success. From this ancestral proclivity new and old ideas must be forged, crafted in a manner conducive to White unity. We’ve all borne witness to the perils of abstraction run amok, such as diversity for the sake of diversity and so-called “human rights”, but abstraction, when grounded in blood and soil and beholden to a people rather than to a proposition like universal equality, can produce a clarity of vision commensurate with the greatness of our race. I’m not opting for ideological orthodoxy or an outright purge, but I am suggesting that we as a movement begin a dialogue towards what we can and cannot accept.

Again, I’m doubtful that the feuding activists of Der Movement – all Chiefs and no Indians – will come to such a consensus.

Rhodesia wasn’t able to formulate a clear sense of strategic national purpose, because they couldn’t decide what they could and could not accept. Pragmatism is the basis of power politics, but it must be grounded by an immoveable set of axiomatic principles. 

That’s correct, and why mainstreaming is bad even if it would be politically successful – because there pragmatism itself becomes the “immovable axiomatic principle.”

Our lack of a cohesive vision is tantamount to a proverbial arming of the natives, and the natives are getting restless.

True, but, again, one cannot force a collective vision on a collection of individuals and mini-groups who cannot even decide on the parameters of “Us” vs. “Them.”  The Us/Them division is the fundamental characteristic of what a group is; if even that cannot be agreed upon, then there is no group.

Old hostilities and petty ethnic rivalries exacerbated an already precarious military and political situation. Intra-racial division, aside from contributing to Rhodesian political incongruity, proved deleterious to the war effort by limiting the mobilization of the population…

Let’s have more dem dere narrow ethnonationalism, as well as more divisive Guntherite racial theories!  That’ll bring folks together in unity, no doubt! 

We contemporary White Nationalists find ourselves in similar circumstances. The rampant division within our movement, though generally not based upon intraracial ethnic distinctions…

“…not based upon intraracial ethnic distinctions…”  Uh, I think the author of this piece just missed the last century of failed racial nationalism.  “Intraracial ethnic distinctions” constitute the first major division of “movement” disagreement.  If one wanted to do a memetic “PCA plot” of Der Movement, then the subracial/ethnic question would be the first major axis of variation.

Like our former Rhodesian brothers, our numbers, though growing, are few and the upcoming struggles will require mobilization of our entire movement for the survival of our race.

Not going to work. You need to find the optimal segment of Der Movement – or better yet start a New Movement beginning with first principles – and build your unity out of that.

European civilization has always been conflicted, agonal in nature, and historically our propensity for low-level kinship violence has been evolutionarily beneficial. 

Perhaps in the past, not the present.  The definition of what is “evolutionarily beneficial” (i.e., adaptive) depends on the environmental context.

However, in the midst of possible racial extinction, it’s of the utmost importance that internecine movement division stop. But how can division stop, particularly if we begin to explore new strategic paradigms, as dialogue breeds division?

Good question.

Put simply, we can stop division through dialectical synthesis. The musical virtuoso J.S. Bach wasn’t simply a master composer and performer; he was first and foremost a “synthesist” and thus able to harmoniously weld together an eclectic assortment of European musical styles into a cohesive melody. More to the point, like the works of Bach, we in the White Nationalist movement must shed the detritus of the past and form a new metapolitical imperative based upon a thoughtful, long-term strategy and movement unity. Strength in numbers is a very real thing, and as was the case for our Rhodesian ancestors it will be a deciding factor in our movement’s life or death.

That’s not an answer.  It’s hand-waving.  How to, in real-world terms, practically speaking, create the unity the author refers to?  Actually and precisely, how?

Native Africa never truly overcame the so-called “k-factor,” though it did receive outside help from a variety of forces, from international finance to Communist China…

A side note: Asians are always going to be on the forces of anti-Whitism and anti-Westernism.  Yockey understood that.  Can today’s yellow fever fetishists understand that as well?

My criticisms aside, I liked this article and believe the author is on the right track, sort of. But I myself went through this stage, long ago, of thinking that the entire “movement” could unite around some fundamental principles, have unity, and move forward.  Not possible.  As I said, the “movement” cannot even agree on the most basic distinction of all – Us/Them – how is anything else possible?  The author it seems wants to make “preservation and advancement of the White race” as the “immoveable axiomatic principle” – good luck with that since Der Movement cannot agree on what the “White race” is and who does or does not belong to it.  

So, while the author’s heart is in the right place I have to tell his head: it’s not that simple. It’s not like others haven’t come to similar conclusions before.  It just doesn’t work that way in reality.  The solution for him, personally, is either find a segment of the “movement” that fits his perspectives and try and build that segment into the dominant activist vehicle, or, if no such suitable segment exists, then help build a new one from the ground up.

More Alt Right Madness

It continues.

I’m sort of oscillating between schadenfreude and disgust.

I’m not taking sides here – a pox on ALL their houses – but I do hope that Greg has learned his lesson with TRS, and will eschew lulzing jakasses from this point forward.

By the way, read the comments section of the AltRight.com piece.  With a few exceptions, it is like swimming through an open sewer.

When oh when is this Alt Right contagion going to burn itself out?  When even the Grand Lord Pepe turns against them, is the time nigh?

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.