Category: Pat Buchanan

The Nazi Next Time, II

Further analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In any case: Sallis was prescient once again.

Now, back to the 2015 Sallis piece.

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

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

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

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

Still think they really want to win?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is anathema to Establishment Republicans.

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

They may succeed but they are playing with fire.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

Der Movement: 10/13/17

Der Movement roundup.

Fascinating how Der Movement is obsessed with Evola (I’m unimpressed with his work myself; as a scientific empiricist, I find Evola’s  writings the worst form of subjective gibbering nonsense), yet are, in general, filled with a loathing and contemptuous disdain for the people from whence Evola sprang.  It’s ironic, as I suspect that Evola’s “spiritual race” stupidity was a sort of “memetic allergic response” to those sorts of attitudes.

Buchanan is more right than he knows.  Man on white horse syndrome, style over substance, betrayal, talk of amnesty – a heir indeed!

It seems unlikely that Marantz will offer either a retraction or offer sufficiently credible supporting evidence for his assertion.  Further, as I have previously asserted, anyone who uses the term “White supremacist” to describe White nationalists is being intellectually dishonest. MacDonald is not the only one who has a potential justification for a libel suit – Enoch has as well, if he can demonstrate that his views are nationalist and not supremacist.

I also find Marantz’s reply to MacDonald fascinating. When leftists contact Far Right leaders, digging around for more information for future “hit pieces,” it’s almost as if they are writing off of the same script; they all sound exactly the same: cheerful insouciance, bright-eyed innocence, insults couched in ostensibly friendly language, and, always, “I really want to know you better, I’m so very much genuinely interested in hearing your side.”  Emphasis added:

Hi Prof. MacDonald, as you’ll see in the piece, I bought your book and have read much of it, and I don’t think I characterized it unfairly. I have also read your many replies to your critics, here (http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/tooby&pinker.htm …) and elsewhere, and I understand your rejoinders (that Pinker never finished the book, that Tooby takes too narrow a view of genetic variation and adaptation, etc.)—and yet I don’t think it’s unfair to say that CofC was roundly debunked by mainstream social scientists. First, I think it’s fair to say that Pinker debunked the book even though he didn’t finish reading it. Whether it’s fair to debunk a set of arguments without engaging with them fully is another matter, but it is what he did, as did many others, not limited to Tooby. Of course, as you know, on your site you tend to emphasize the positive reviews of your book (by Derbyshire, Gottfried, etc.) but there are, of course, many negative ones as well, many of which are by mainstream social scientists (Jefferson Singer, John Hartung, etc). Again, not all of these took the form of published papers, but they were “debunkings” nonetheless. Your work is obviously influential in certain circles, and I would love to talk to you about it sometime—I am genuinely interested in it, and I think you’d find me a fair interview—but it’s just a fact that the mainstream has largely rejected your arguments. Moreover, it’s a fact I’ve seen you acknowledge (and complain about) fairly often…

In any case, MacDonald’s work on the Jews has NOT been “debunked.”  It has merely been criticized.  Whether or not you agree or disagree with that criticism (I disagree) is one thing, it’s another to falsely claim that this criticism has been so definitive (and unanswerable) so as to constitute “debunking.”  This all shows what a sorry state media writing has fallen to – it’s all political propaganda, without substantive, objectively useful, content.

Rotten Orange and Silk Road News

In the news.

Not just Muslims.  It’s the forever war against Asians, Jews, NECs, and White leftists. One of the terrorists was a “British Asian” by the way.

The Deep State revealed. Not much of a winner. That’s who has a “top-secret security clearance” in today’s America.  

I don’t know what’s less surprising – that “America’s senator” Sessions is overmatched in his new role, or that Trump is angry at his only cabinet pick that was satisfactory to the Alt Right.  We are witnessing apolitical train wreck of unprecedented proportions. And according to the gamesters, wasn’t “Sessions as Attorney General” by itself “worth having Trump elected?”  

Rotten Orange News: More Betrayal

More betrayal.

Is Roissy choking on his “white pills” yet?

More immigration!  More “high skilled” immigrants so American professionals can be displaced, and American IT workers can train their brownster replacements.

That’s yet another reason it’s laughable when the Trump fanboys pretend the only issue of concern in Syria.  The buffoon Trump is essentially reneging on his entire campaign.  What’s next: support for the “gang of eight” amnesty bill?  That we need to “build bridges, not walls?”

To summarize the problem crudely: Whites thought they were voting for Pat Buchanan but got Lindsey Graham instead.

Yes, and talk of “geostrategy” to support Trump’s foreign policy cucking can cut both ways. Let’s say that our “geostrategy” lies in a grand alliance with Russia against militant Islam to the south and China to the east.  Dem Russkis gots lots of oil too!  And think of all the arms sales we can have with China’s Asian neighbors arming them against Chicom aggression. Wow, it’s a win, win!

The Two Faces of Trump

The buffoon and the victim.

First, let’s take a look at what Spencer has to say about the floundering moron Touchback Trump (emphasis added):

The fact that Trump allowed himself to be tricked into supporting the current healthcare proposal reveals his own naiveté and reminds us, once again, that the Beltway advisors who have surrounded him are objectively bad at politics. Rather than focus on immigration—the issue that defined his candidacy—Trump got sucked into a whirlpool of regulations, arcane policies, climate-change debates, and taxes. This is a shocking waste of political capital, and it is not why his supporters put him in office.
Looking beyond the hysteria of the past two months, if Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush had won the presidency instead Trump, each wouldn’t have acted much differently in terms of policy, aside from the “Muslim bans,” which weren’t actually Muslim bans and have been tossed out anyway. Trump’s fights with the media are hilarious—and serve the strategic purpose of delegitimizing these old-line institutions and the Left as a whole—but they do little in terms of concrete change.
More important, the substance of Trump’s healthcare plan is a fucking joke. What Trump partisans call “Ryancare” or “Obamacare 2.0”—but which everyone else calls “Trumpcare”—will increase costs on Trump’s core constituency of White working-class voters, as even Breitbart points out.

The “movement’s” Man on White Horse fetish is collapsing once again as it always does.   I’ve been consistent on Trump.  Thus:

1. I supported Trump and his candidacy because I saw Trumpism as opening the field to right-wing populism and therefore stretching the scope of American politics in ways amenable to racial nationalist ideas and also promoting racial chaos and balkanization.  I also approved of Trump’s overall foreign policy worldview: pro-Russian and anti-Chinese.

2. I have always considered Trump as an ignorant vulgar buffoon, Negrophilic, Jew-connected, superficial, lacking in an understating of priorities, a juvenile jackass who believes that half-assed tweets can substitute for mature leadership and the pursuit of long-term objectives.

But the “movement” with its Pepe-Kek lulzing and “Trump is the last chance for White America” delusional “thinking” worship the buffoon.

Next, we’ll look at what Pat Buchanan has to say about the Deep State conspiracy against King Tweet:

The Obamaites seeded the U.S. and allied intel communities with IEDs to be detonated on Trump’s arrival. This is the scandal, not Trump telling Vlad to go find Hillary’s 30,000 missing emails.
We need to know who colluded with the Russians, if anyone did. But more critically, we need to unearth the Deep State conspiracy to sabotage a presidency.
So far, the Russia-connection investigation has proven a dry hole. But an investigation into who in the FBI, CIA or NSA is unmasking U.S. citizens and criminally leaking information to a Trump-hating press to destroy a president they are sworn to serve could prove to be a gusher.
As for the reports of Lynch-White House involvement in this unfolding plot to damage and destroy Trump the real question is: What did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it?

Herein is the problem: having tied themselves to Trump, the “movement” finds itself having to defend this clueless buffoon from an anti-White System that believes by attacking Trump they harm the Whites these globalists hate so much.

Der Movement is Disheartening and Demoralizing

Der Movement on perfect display.

While I do not want to criticize for the sake of criticism, I’m not going to be silent when Der Movement conducts itself in its typically embarrassingly stupid and predictably fetishistic manner.

For example, let’s take the latest example of why Der Movement disgusts me.  When Trump picked Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, the typical “movement” reaction was that as demonstrated here (*) – a real American! Triumph of the WASPs!  Just look at him!  Look at his family! The American archetype!  These guys are so predictable in their comments it is if they are reading off of a pre-prepared script.  Same old, same old…over and over again.

In his predictable homoerotic fashion, Roissy started heavy breathing about Gorsuch’s alpha maleness and his erect posture (contrasted against even the God Emperor, who “slouches at the neck” because of his “age and heavy frame” – a polite way of saying that Der Touchback is old and fat).

Well, that’s all great, except that, again predictably and typically, Gorsuch has started cucking even before being confirmed.

Senators from both sides of the aisle, including Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Ben Sasse (R-NE), have confirmed that Judge Neil Gorsuch said something along the lines of Trump’s comments about a member of the judiciary were “disheartening” and “demoralizing.”

Pat Buchanan, with all his faults, at least has the honesty to speak some truths (emphasis added):

What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer? Sorry, this is not Antonin Scalia. 

Yes, this is not Scalia.  He may well be Earl Warren though, who was, no doubt, another real American.

From my perspective, what I want from a Supreme Court Justice is that he (yes, he – not she) be a European-American (of whatever ethnicity) and at least an implicitly White hard conservative (as much as we can expect now).  If that’s a WASP, great.  If it’s a wop, mick, hunkie, frog, squarehead that’s great too.

Now, from past experience I know that without any clarification (or even with it), my words here will be misused and misinterpreted by Nutzis and fetishists.  So, I’ll say the obvious. Yes, there should be significant representation of founding stock Americans on the Supreme Court.  Yes, the current lack of such representation is a legitimate concern.  Yes, individuals of founding stock ancestry (which I assume both Griffin and Spencer are) should expect ethnic representation.  But that’s not exactly what’s going on here.  Instead, we’re seeing breathless ecstasy solely based on Gorsuch’s background, independent of impacts on White racial interests, and disregarding the warning signs of cuckiness even before Gorsuch’s whining complaints.  And so we see nitwits like Roissy and Derbyshire having second thoughts now, in their post-orgasmic refractory period, both considering the possibility that the alpha-WASP Gorsuch might just be more Lindsey Graham and less Donald Trump.

It is an example of several underlying “movement” problems – the lack of judgment, the rush to embrace Men on White Horse heroes, the affirmative action program, the script-like dogma, etc. There’s no original thinking here. There’s no prudent “wait and see” calculation.  

Of relevance is this article, particularly this quote:

The hard Left has an effective infrastructure. The hard Right is looking to build one.

That’s relevant to the Gorsuch situation because it reflects the same underlying problem. Now, the author of that piece suggests that the advantage of the Left is the legacy of communism and the support given the American Communist Party by the USSR, which created sufficient subversive infrastructure that has been handed down from one generation of leftists to another.  That’s almost as much as an “Occam’s Butterknife” explanation as Roissy’s stupidity about “geography.”  Pleasureman at MPC was more accurate in ascribing the Strong Left vs. Weak Right paradigm to the character flaws of rightists.

Let’s look at the Far Right, shall we?  Revilo Oliver talking about 50 years of ‘movement” failure…in 1969.  One failed project after another…the Klan, Silver Shirts and the Bund, the John Birch Society, followed by various Nutzi antics.  How much money and effort was expended on Pierce and his National Alliance?  Apart from supporting Pierce in his mountaintop serial monogamy with Eastern European women, how did that work out?  How about all the money and effort expended on Duke (casino profits notwithstanding)?  The Right is “looking to build” an infrastructure after endless decades of money and hard work poured out to various quota queens. Yeah, the Left is successful – they have serious, hate-filled, high-IQ Jewboys coupled with the pick of dedicated self-hating White gentiles, and the best of the pick of wherever other racial flotsam and jetsam exist.  The Right on the other hand practices its strict affirmative action programs leading to pathetically incompetent “leadership” that has squandered millions of dollars and continues to do so.  How many millions of dollars have gone to the “happy penguins” over the past decade for example?

White nationalists cannot have such an infrastructure, but Black nationalists, deriving from a race derided as “inferior” by WNs, have indeed developed a reasonable degree of infrastructure. If we consider a people lower on the racial hierarchy than are the Negroes – the wops – we see another example. Low-IQ Afrowop dagoes came to America and established a highly organized criminal enterprise with an integrated infrastructure involving violent coercion (**).  But WNs can’t do it. The “hard Right” in general – with its decades of support and millions of dollars or largesse – cannot do it. These are all direct consequences of the failure of “movement” memes and policies.

On a perhaps not unrelated note, I’m always amused by Der Movement’s interest in Julius Evola (whose work is to me mostly the worst sort of moronic nonsense imaginable).  This breathless pro-Evolaism, coupled to Der Movement’s typical dogma and fetishes represents an extreme case of compartmentalization, cognitive dissonance, or both.  Or perhaps they really do think Evola was a bearded Amish man?

*That coming, ironically enough, from a website/groupuscule that has chosen for tis intellectual linchpin a half-Iranian who babbles NECist historical revisionism and fruitcake pseudoscience.  You can’t make this stuff up.  It’s comedy gold.

**Which has to a large part collapsed because of the assimilation that Der Movement denies exists (imagine if Scalia were a mafia don instead of a Supreme Court Justice, he would have made a formidable criminal mastermind) and the RICO laws (which Trump/Sessions should now use against the Left – we’re waiting).

Irish Readers and Other Items

Several items.

Over the past few days, we’ve had here (Note: this refers to the Blogger version of the blog, not the WordPress one here) quite a few page views from the Emerald Isle, and I welcome our Irish readers.  I hope you derive utility from this blog.

Racial nationalism in Ireland seems at an earlier stage of development compared to most other Western European nations, as well as in the USA, and in the long run, that is a good thing, as that allows Irish activists to get things on a correct footing at the beginning, and avoid pitfalls, such as that which has impeded the American “movement” (including in America, ironically enough, hostility toward the Irish and Irish-Americans).

I would suggest taking a close look at the work of Dr. Frank Salter on ethnic genetic interests, and to carefully consider the basic tenets described here.

Koreans, contra the heavy-breathing HBDers, are not quite along the road the self-destruction as has been described by those frosty individuals who value East Asians over Europeans.  Speaking of Asia-fanatics, the top photo accompanying the article is as good a visual description for the real derivation of Silk Road White nationalism as any other.  Got to get the Korean girls, as well as the Chinese ones, as border guards for the West, eh?

Buchanan, possibly getting mentally feeble in his old age, confuses the multiculturalist Putin with an ethnonationalist.  Hey, Patrick, there’s a difference between “Russian speakers” and “Russians.”  It’s the difference between civic nationalist multiculturalism and authentic ethnonationalism.