Category: Pierce

The Headquarters Question

A practical issue.

Long time readers of this blog know that I am critical of Dr. William Pierce for (among other things, many things in fact) moving from the DC area to the mountains of West Virginia.  I am equally critical of other pro-White leaders who have their “national offices” out in the middle of nowhere. We need to consider this issue.

I am not stupid and naïve, so I do understand some of the advantages of an out-of-the-way, middle-of-nowhere location. The first is increased physical security, a concern of more import today than it was even in Pierce’s day. This is in fact, really, the only major legitimate issue. Second, somewhat, but not totally, tied to the first, is the improved demographics, and third is the issue of being “cheaper to live.”

We’ll get back to these arguments, but let’s look at the other side of the ledger – the profound negatives, the costs, of this approach. There are two major issues that I will deal with here (other issues may exist, but let’s focus on the major ones). First, it is not optimal, not “healthy” from the “political” standpoint, for a leader of an alleged national and international organization or movement to be so isolated from the main political, social, etc. currents of society.  The riposte to that would be that the presence of the Internet (that in Pierce’s specific case did not exist when he made his move), and instantaneous global communication, makes proximity to the main currents of national (and international) realities unnecessary.  However, even if we are to assume that Internet access would never be abrogated for political reasons, or in a national emergency (never mind a local “outage” – is the Grand Fuhrer then cut off?), in the last analysis, digital cannot fully substitute for analog.  In the last analysis, the race crisis takes place in the real world, the physical world, and it cannot be fully engaged with, only and always, with digital bits. A further riposte against my analysis would be that America is a big place, and the world is bigger, and just because someone is located “more urban” does not mean they have physical proximity to the other side of the country or the other side of the world.  That’s true, but – besides my admonition of having multiple headquarters, see below – the point here is to optimize the situation in a realistic fashion, not expect a person to be in all places at once. The question is whether a leader of an alleged “world historical mission” should be “close to the action” to the extent possible or out somewhere where the only “action” is cow tipping and gopher hunting.

The second major issue is one of public perception. Like it or not, it is difficult to take seriously pretentions of national and international status when your “national office” is in the mountains of West Virginia or some other out-of-the-way place. Dismissing this as “superficial” doesn’t alter the reality one bit. Like it or not, politics is in large part perception – after all, didn’t the “National Alliance membership handbook” tell members always to be “well groomed” etc. when interacting with the public?  Aren’t there standards of behavior and appearance that go beyond the need to stay within the law?  Aren’t there concerns with public image and public perception? If such concerns are valid, then having “PO Box 100, Woodchuck Way, Grasslands Trailer Park, Arkansas” as your “national office” mailing address is not going to inspire confidence among your target audience. Call that “elitist” or whatever, but it is still reality.

What about the positives listed above?  Security is a concern, but I note that Amren and Counter-Currents have both survived despite being “closer to the action” and the “multiple headquarters” solution (see below), if possible, would at least partially alleviate this concern. And, anyway, in the long run, this is an issue that needs to be dealt with. Consider it from the public perception standpoint – an organization that has not at least minimally dealt with the problem of security other than being “snug in their hobbit hole in the forest” is not going to inspire confidence that they can “save the White race.” If you cannot defend yourself, then how will you defend the race? Hiding from demographic change doesn’t inspire confidence either. Economic concerns are somewhat overblown, considering the millions of dollars that flow into “movement” pockets. If your organization cannot compete with VDARE for funding, then, again, from a public perception standpoint, what good is it?

The optimal solution to this conundrum is to have multiple headquarters, at least two.  At least one of these can be the out-of-the-way “hobbit hole” location that maximizes the alleged advantages – particularly physical security – mentioned near the beginning of this essay.  The other headquarters – that needs to be the group’s “official headquarters” as well as the group’s mailing address – needs to be close to a major urban area, within access of an airport that is either international or has connecting flights to international airports (preferably the former), etc.  This second headquarters could even be, at first, just a PO Box and some office space, but with a plan for growth.  The “hobbit hole” headquarters can be the secure fall back – or, if the “leader” is so inclined, even the primary residence, but there has to be a physical location “close to the action” that the “leader” often visits. The optimal thing in my opinion would be for the primary residence to be “close to the action” with the “hobbit hole” being the alternate secure “back up” – but if we are dealing with a rural-loving persona like Pierce allowances can be made otherwise. If more satellite headquarters can be set up, even better. The security issue at the more “close to the action” location would need to be dealt with but an organization that wants to “save the White race” had better come up with viable solutions.

The bottom line is that, ultimately, only having a “hobbit hole” headquarters out in the middle of nowhere is not going to get the job done. Maybe that situation must obtain at the beginning of a group’s existence, but some of these groups have been around for decades. The National Alliance has been in existence for ~ 50 years.  In the beginning some of these groups actually were “close to the action.” At some point, excuses need to end. At some point, the organization needs to demonstrate that it is capable of effectively engaging with the broader society that it wishes to change.

The Madness of King Sultan

And other items.

I’ve been re-reading the book Peter the Great by Robert K. Massie, and there is an interesting passage there about the Ottoman sultans and their harems:

The harem was a closed world of veils, gossip, intrigue and – at any moment of the sultan’s choosing – sex…As all the women in the harem were totally dependent on how well the sultan was pleased, all were eager for opportunities to reach his bed and, once in it, desperate to please. So much so that several sultans, surfeited with endless days and nights of passion supplied by platoons of eager, adoring women, went, quite simply, insane.

Note the part about “intrigue.” Indeed, the women – far from being innocently “adoring”- were always conniving to have their sons elevated to the sultanship. And if they had no sons themselves, they would support the ambitions of their allies among the other harem women who had such. Intrigue!

And here’s my point, looking at this from a MGTOW perspective. I hypothesize that the women intentionally drove the sultans insane through sex. Indeed, sex was their only weapon (they were no doubt better suited to nag the Sultan to madness, but that would not have been tolerated). Thus, particular groups of intriguing women plotted to leverage “endless days and nights of passion” to drive the Sultan mad, and thus easily manipulated, controlled, and, eventually, disposed of, for the benefit of the heir. At which point the process of feminine evil (a redundancy?) would start once again, with another victim, the new Sultan, so targeted.

By the way, Peter the Great was of part Tatar ancestry, through his “black haired” and “almond eyed” mother of Crimean Tatar descent. Raciology!  

Reading The Turner Diaries, chapter XI, November 30 entry, the description of the anti-White “anti-racist” hysteria at the Chicago Human Relations Council rally – including the deranged and bloody killing of a white “honky” cat – strikes home given the madness we have seen unfold in America (and Western Europe) recently. Also interesting is Pierce’s description of “swarthy, kinky-haired little Jewboys” as the ones firing up the crowed. They’re HuWhite!

I support this group.

Odds and Ends, 6/21/20

In der news. In all cases, emphasis added.
Another example of how ethnonationalists ruin everything they touch:

1999, a manifesto of a second ‘European Liberation Front’ was published in Paris, but there is apparently no more active organisation of that name now. The manifesto takes its ideological inspiration from Yockey, and from Otto Strasser, who was expelled from the Nazi Party by Adolf Hitler in 1930.

Despite the pan-European style of its title, the ideology of the manifesto is ethnic and racial nationalism

Take over the name of Yockey’s organization and then promote an opposing ideology.  Very good!  Hail Der Movement!

Authentic pan-Europeanism does not exist in any organization of which I am aware over the last 50 years or more, except Lowell’s in Malta.

Forney on Spencer Part I.Part II.
Note that I do not agree on Forney on all his comments, but, nevertheless, the rank-and-file needs to understand where their affirmative action program leads.  I also find Forney’s glee at Spencer’s problems unseemly.  It is not funny, it is a tragedy.  I don’t care about Spencer himself, but we all need to realize that the White public – you know, the folks that your “movement” wants to recruit from – do not make fine distinctions between Spencer, Johnson, Forney, Taylor et al.  It’s all one.  Spencer’s downfall therefore reflects badly on the entirety of racial activism in the public “mind.”  
That downfall, ultimately, derives from the lack of judgment of “movement” “elites.”  Spencer should never have been allowed to be the head of NPI in the first place; that position should have gone to an older individual with more experience, maturity, and gravitas. Spencer should instead have been groomed for electoral politics, as the smiling young face of the Far Right, with mature adults as his behind-the-scenes handlers. 
The past cannot be changed. But going forward, the affirmative program needs to be eliminated.  That is step one.  It’s not a case of a single rotten apple that needs to be gotten rid of, it’s a whole case.  And as soon as one apple becomes so horribly decayed that it is thrown out, another one joins in. The entire crate needs to be thrown out, and the entire process of picking rotten apples changed.

A sincere man of genuine greatness.

Glad to see we got dem dere Republican conservative judges like “Earl Warren Jr.” Roberts there.

I’m no fan of Rushton, but the retraction of his hypothesis paper was unfair and disgusting, and I agree with this analysis, which is a refutation of leftist hysteria that helped get the paper unfairly retracted.  I also agree with the analysis in that the author of the leftist attack on Rushton-Templar doesn’t understand what pleiotropy is, possibly confusing it with epistasis (or who knows what).  I am also amused by the leftist critique of Rushton-Templar for having a “political bias.” Hoho!  What about the leftist critic’s bias?  Would he care to inform us on his views on say, race in America?  What’s his party affiliation?  Who did he vote for in 2016? What about, say, Lewontin’s biases?  Any comments on that?
If the Rushton-Templar paper was inherently flawed – even as a hypothesis – and this somehow escaped the notice of the reviewers at that time, then the appropriate response is to write a paper (for publication) refuting the Rushton-Templar logic and/or do studies that produce data refuting the Rushton-Templar hypothesis. Retracting the paper is politically motivated censorship, leading us to a scientific dark ages. The retraction is a disgrace.

Hey, it’s time for Trump to tweet LAW AND ORDER!  That’ll fix it.  Fat Don is like, you know, demonstrating his sincerity and his genuine greatness!

I was looking at Amazon reviews of Robert Griffin’s One Sheaf One Vine book, of interest to me since I am one of the people featured in it.  Two excerpts from the comments I found amusing:

1. Interesting anthropological study. Nothing really new here, but contains only interview available of Alex Linder. No other interviews with people who would go on to become personages. 

That’s a stinging rebuke of my lack of accomplishment I suppose.

2. Another observation I make, is that none of the people in the book, offer any solutions to the racial problems they criticize. In numerous cases, they simply flee those high-‘diversity’ problems by moving to other, whiter states. But none of them seem to envision the new domiciles undergoing future change.

Let’s see.  I spend a significant portion of my interview talking about practical things that should be done.  So it would seem that this individual lacks any reading comprehension skills whatsoever.  As well, with respect to the second half of the criticism, I’m not one of the “numerous cases” since that’s nowhere in my section.
Also interesting is that if you search on Amazon for a book like this, you get “suggested reading” consisting of a host of anti-White diatribes.  Like Google, Amazon is another company I am going to personally “deplatform” from any spending.

Thus in summary: Sallis right, Johnson wrong.

Kevin Strom:

The purpose of the race that is is to bring into being the race that is to come. Let’s concentrate on that. Let’s concentrate on being the ones who decide that.I have been in this cause of ours for nearly 40 years. I have seen and heard and read so much wasted verbiage about why Russians or eastern Europeans generally, or southern Europeans generally, or even other odd subracial or national combinations should be read out of the White race. I have heard it all, please don’t repeat it to me. I’m sick of it.
The group or groups which coalesce to save our endangered race will be the ones who determine its genetic future. Beyond the obvious aesthetic that we know White when we see it, and a future that can include (but not be totally ruled by) accurate genetic testing, that’s all we need to know. If the White future is primarily Russian or Hungarian, so be it. If the White future is primarily pan-European American with strong German, Anglo, and Irish components, so be it. If the White future is predominantly Greek or Italian or Bulgarian or Nordic, so be it. None of us are in a position to pick and choose right now, nor does such picking and choosing make sense during this crisis.
Let’s just admit that every single group and sub-group of Europeans has racially devolved — due to dysgenics, due to genetic drift, due to past mixtures. Let’s just admit that every single White nationality could be — and, if we have anything to say about it, will be — helped by a healthy dose of eugenics.
But never forget this: We are targeted and marked for death as Whites. It is as Whites — not as dolichocephalic Red Nordids, or Paleo-Atlantids, or western Europeans only — that we must become awakened and fight back.

Very good; I obviously agree.  But then Strom has to admit that much of the work of Pierce and of the National Alliance was and is de facto opposed to that pan-European view. As regards Pierce accepting people with fractional Amerindian ancestry (and Pierce’s gibbering about “Caucasian” Amerindian tribes is nonsense – whatever their appearance, they are racial aliens from Asia), we must remember that the “Indian princess” stories – real or imagined – typically derive from “Nordish” Anglo-Americans. They’ve always gotten a “pass” for that – the “Pace Amendment” for example.

By the way, even Yockey himself wasn’t immune to a touch of Nordicism, with respect to his rhapsodizing about “Northern barbarians” in both Imperium and, more especially, Thoughts Personal and Superpersonal. I suppose we can forgive Yockey for that lapse, since the broader “movement” he derives from has always been marinated in Nordicism, but it is rather hypocritical of him given his pontifications about horizontal vs. vertical race.  And what would he think today, with all of the “Northern Barbarians” being the biggest race cucks of them all?

And by the way, Yockeyites past and present should know that The Doctrine of Fascism they so admire was really written by Giovanni Gentile, not Benito Mussolini.  But Gentile was one of those two foot tall superstitious Sicilians who so vexed Humphrey Ireland, so who cares about facts?

Newly discovered!  A film clip of Humphrey Ireland being overwhelmed by the scurrying Sicilian hordes.

Defamation and Evolution

A two part post.

First, defamation:

Relevant to thissee this (emphasis added):

What is defamatory?
Defamation is all about reputation, and in particular about statements which damage others’ reputations. The English courts have not settled upon a single test for determining whether a statement is defamatory. Examples of the formulations used to define a “defamatory imputation” include:
an imputation which is likely to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking
an imputation which injures a person’s reputation by exposing him to hatred, contempt
or ridicule;
an imputation which tends to make a person be shunned or avoided.
A statement that a person is an adulterer, a gold-digger or a drunkard may be defamatory, as may an allegation of corruption, racism, disease, insanity or insolvency

Therefore, injuring “a person’s reputation by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule” by an imputation of “insanity” can be considered defamation – assuming that the person in question is not deemed clinically insane.

Also, see footnote 149 here (emphasis added):

Social Aversion. A communication may be defamatory of another although it has no tendency to affect adversely the other’s personal or financial reputation. Thus the imputation of certain physical and mental attributes such as disease or insanity are defamatory because they tend to deter third persons from associating with the person so characterized.

By the way, calling someone “insane” is not the same as calling them “fucking crazy,” which has been deemed not to be defamation as it is an opinion expressed as “slang.” Insanity on the other hand is a legal and medical term indicating a disorder associated with diminished behavioral responsibility, and hence is not merely an opinion when expressed as a fact.  

Thus, calling me “crazy and bitter” is not defamation. Calling me “fucking crazy” or a “lunatic” or any other “slang” pejorative is also not defamation (as has been legally established by precedent), since it is understood that the accuser is not talking literally using medical or legal terms. “Insane” and “insanity” are medical and legal terms with a specific meaning.  Calling someone “insane” as a statement of fact, in the absence of supporting evidence, is therefore defamation and is legally actionable.

Based on the above, there seems to be at least some legal theory supporting the contention that Johnson’s tweet is legally actionable defamation.

Rank-and-file activists should carefully consider the judgment of a “leader” who would expose themselves to liability via reckless, defamatory tweets.

Second, evolution:

The “Majority Rightization” of Counter-Currents continues apace (perhaps it is therefore appropriate that “Silver” rears its head again). One of the characteristics of Majority Right’s rapid decline phase was the long, turgid, barely comprehensible essays of Daniel S that took thousands of words to express an opinion that could have been more effectively and efficiently summarized in one short paragraph. We are getting newer “writers” at Counter-Currents who mimic this style, hiding intellectual vacuity behind unnecessarily dense and wordy prose (good ideas are instead typically associated with clarity and elegant expression). The main point of one such pseudo-intellectual vomiting is thus (emphasis added):

The value system of this narrative seems to subordinate peoples of European descent to their technologically progressive destiny. Indeed, the main focus of attention appears to be the relentless drive to the beyond, a self-justified virtue, which just happens to be contained within a vehicle we call “white people.” Articulating this telos demonstrates the similarities between the “march of the Titans” narrative in the Dissident Right and the maligned “conservative” value set typified by American Baby Boomers. Both views of historical meaning hold technological progress, which is to say, the manipulation of natural forces, above the preservation (or at least recognizable continuity) of European descended peoples. The two views seem to differ only in their preferred time frames. This observation invites a disturbing question. What is the difference between a future in which European-descended peoples have converged and transcended themselves to the inevitable point of unrecognizability, and the new post-ethnic man at the end of the Left’s mission to converge all humanity through their ideology of cosmopolitan progress?

Let’s for the sake of argument agree that these are the two possible outcomes of an anti-traditionalist “progressive” view.  What’s the difference?  The first (consistent with Pierce’s cosmotheism, by the way) is a higher path, an upper path, European man on the road to godhood, achieving an understanding of the universe and actualizing opportunities for creative activity on a level analogous to that separating modern man from an insect.  The second path is a downward path of devolution, an end not a beginning, The Last Man, a mongrel creature capable of nothing except mere existence, with all avenues of higher evolution, of higher creative activity, of higher understanding, closed off. True enough, both outcomes would diminish current EGI and both would by necessity negatively affect the value system of strict preservationists who fetishize certain phenotypes.  

But obviously there are other paths. If we accept that populations of evolved organisms will not be static in any case (because of genetic drift if for no other reason, but there will always be selective pressures, although if undirected by racialist concerns we certainly would not like the outcome), we can use science, and our understanding of ultimate and proximate interests, to direct an upward path while at the same time preserving as much of our current fundamental essence as possible for as long as possible.  We need to understand that there is no pure static preservationism in evolution. If change is inevitable, it is incumbent upon us to direct that change in a manner that is optimized to our ultimate and proximate interests, to our culture, and to our aesthetic sensibilities.