Odds and Ends, 2/25/24

In der news.

There is a lot of stupidity out there on Der Right praising “classical liberalism” and “democracy.” These idiots think we live in Periclean Greece. Even if we focus on a purely White electorate, there are issues.

A problem is that the average person really isn’t very bright, is conformist, and is easily manipulated by those with more cunning and greater media access and social power. So, putting aside election fraud, hate speech laws, and the banning of political parties (the first an American problem and the latter two European ones), even under optimal situations, “voting” in a “democracy” is to a large extent a fraud. The herd can be manipulated into voting for who the System wants and even if the herd goes off the reservation and elects a populist that populist will turn out to be a fraud (more manipulation) or will have his agenda stymied by the System. You can talk all you want about restricting the voting franchise (in general, a good idea), but eventually it inevitably degenerates into “one hominid, one vote.” Then we have the plusses and minuses of pure democracy vs. representative democracy. In the former, “rule by the people” is more direct, but, besides the reality that “the people” will be manipulated, in this scenario there is no filter between the “will of the people” (sic) and enactment (of course, in America we also have elite rule by judges, but I’m talking in general here). A representative democracy puts a filter in between the people and enactment, but, besides the manipulation question again, there really is no remedy for the representatives going against their voters – other than “voting them out” in the next election, to be replaced by another equally bad.

You can say that at least popular voting in theory protects against elite free riding. But in practice it does not. Maybe we need totalitarian democracy instead.

The other shoe drops:

On the concept of de-nazification: “De-nazification… means the prohibition of all kinds of neo-Nazi movements… We have to get rid of those people who maintain this concept and support this practice and try to preserve it.”

I call on ALL those who promoted the “Putin is our guy, he’s playing a deep game, the cosmic wheel is turning” memes to publicly RESIGN from any and all leadership roles within the “movement” and just shut the hell up.

See this. Consider the radically different – sometimes even opposite! – correlations between vitamin D levels, calcium, bone density, and cardiovascular disease in Whites vs. Blacks. Then consider the possibility of mulatto mixed-racers having these conflicting tendencies encoded in their hybrid genome. Outbreeding depression, anyone?

The fate of the National Alliance after the death of Pierce is another example of a weakness of Der Right – it depends too much on leadership personalities and too little on a strong ideological foundation; further, the leaders (such as they are ) do not seriously groom their replacements (because of…ego? incompetence? lack of the appropriate human material? fear of being prematurely replaced by the heir apparent?). Pierce is an example. Hitler and Mussolini and the fate of their states are others. The Legion did survive Codreanu but was not the same. MAGA is too much about Trump. And so forth.

By “hopeful monster” we do not refer to a fat woman on an online dating site. You can read the link to understand the concept. I am a proponent of this (somewhat controversial) concept in evolutionary biology and it may explain the evolutionary “gaps” that certain online retards bloviate about with an air of self-assured ignorance.

On Uniforms

A contrarian view.

Sometimes being contrarian is good, if it is done for a purpose, and through reasoned argument, as opposed to being contrarian merely for the sake of being contrarian, which is so often the case in the Dissident Right/Far Right.

I’m a contrarian in many ways in my opposition to Der Movement and one relatively minor point, but one that is important despite being minor, is on the issue of uniforms.

It has been de rigueur in the American “movement,” ever since the days of William Pierce and his National Alliance, to be against the idea of uniforms for members of Far Right American groups. We are told that wearing uniforms in a non-military (or non-work) setting is “not the American way” and is associated with “inter-war 20th century European parties and paramilitary groups” and that the whole idea of uniforms outside of the military/workplace, as part of a private (particularly, political) organization, is “foreign” and “alien” to the American mindset.

That of course ignores the long history of organizations like the Boy Scouts and Salvation Army wearing uniforms, the use of uniforms in certain private schools, and of course American political/paramilitary groups like the Silver Shirts wore uniforms as well. 

One wonders if the idea of uniforms is yet another thing ruined by the post-WWII American “movement” and its inept and retarded Quota Queen “leadership” who gave us idiots dressed up like Stormtroopers and SS men, with swastika armbands – an image that is in fact foreign to the American experience. But just because someone does something stupidly does not logically imply that the something itself is wrong. And as America and American identity collapses under the strain of multicultural diversity, other forms of identity will come to the fore, and while “the color of our skin is our uniform” has some validity in the sense that racial identity is paramount, there is still a case for building political identities in the service of our race, and uniforms, presented properly, can serve a role, at appropriate place and time. 

Let us be realistic.  Even if you believe that private uniforms – particularly of a political nature – are “foreign” to the American experience, then let us be honest that the old America where that may have been true is dead, or at least dying, and there are new rules in the post-American reality.  Groups that see themselves outside of the traditional American experience have no problem in wearing uniforms, at least of a sort – think of Black nationalist groups. Isn’t a paradigm of the Far Right that Whites are essentially a people without a country, that we – at least those of us who think as we do – are now outside of the American experience as it currently exists?  If the Old America is gone, or at least going, do we need to be beholden to its taboos? That is all beside my argument that private uniforms are not as alien to America as some think, and the Silver Shirts are a homegrown example of uniforms in an American political organization. Therefore, some of the arguments against uniforms don’t hold water.  

What about “scaring the normies?’’  First, much of the crazed, imbecilic, moronic stupidity of Der Movement scares “normies” more than uniforms ever could, and if you are going to argue that we shouldn’t add to the problem by wearing uniforms my riposte would be to first stop all of the other nonsense, and then get back to me when you demonstrate professionalism and discipline sans uniforms. Second, we need to be more prescriptive rather than descriptive, doing what is right and showing leadership to convince the public, rather than slavishly worrying what others think. Does that contradict what I just wrote about “movement” dogma and its effect on “normies?” No, because I oppose Der Movement’s dogma primarily because I believe that it is wrong, not because it alienates others (which is, however, an important secondary consideration that I do mention when appropriate). My point in what I wrote above is to note Der Movement’s hypocrisy in worrying about the public’s reaction to uniforms while ignoring the public’s reaction to Der Movement’s insane dogma. Third, if you want to attract dedicated people you cannot make the barrier to entry too low, make it too easy. No, I do not advocate wearing uniforms all the time – only when and where appropriate (e.g., meetings, public events, etc.), and, no, new recruits won’t be treated as if they are joining the Marine Corps. But if the idea of eventually, occasionally, wearing a uniform at a public event scares someone, then what kind of “political soldier” will they be?  In that case, they can then be a supporter, and not a member. Fourth, as the racial situation degenerates, the public will look for a strong hand, and a professional cadre with military-style esprit de corps is more likely to inspire confidence than a bunch of fatsoes wearing t-shirts or who dress up like Batman or Captain America.

To summarize: Uniforms help build a sense of esprit de corps, professionalism, discipline, and solidarity, which is why they have been, and are, used, by organizations. I am not saying that activists have to be strutting around in uniforms all the time; I am not saying that we should repeat the past mistakes of buffoons like Rockwell. But there is a time and place for esprit de corps, a sense of solidarity, and the need to present a professional look to the public (indeed, is wearing a “suit and tie” the “uniform” for men attending Amren meetings?).  

My point here is that we who want to build a New Movement should revisit the idea of a knee-jerk hostile reaction to uniforms. My opinion is that tasteful, professional uniforms, used appropriately, can be a useful adjunct as a tool for building group cohesion and projecting a particular positive image.

Odds and Ends, 2/7/23

In der news.

LAUGH AT THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  This video.  See this as well.

I’m still laughing. Thanks Kelvin for confirming everything I have been writing about High Trusters, Nordicism, “movement” affirmative action, and Der Movement’s pitifully failed “leadership.”

Having High Trusters anywhere near pro-White leadership positions is dangerous. They’ve already proven that they are inept failures, but they also breed familial treason as well. They’re just impossible. If Wops are an inferior species, then High Trusters are a defective species.

That is all what I would term High Trust Regression To The Mean.

They simply cannot be trusted in any position of pro-White leadership, because, eventually, they or their family will turn on White interests (the Derek Black story as another example). The urge, the deep-seated High Truster urge, to grovel to Color, will always, always eventually win out.

Sorry folks, you need that good old Outer Hajnal leadership to guide the way.

The paradox of racial understanding is that a proper understanding of race likely requires exposure to the horrors of racial diversity and multiculturalism but no responsible White parent would want to expose their children to those unpleasant and potentially dangerous horrors and not responsible White citizen would want their society exposed to those horrors either. So we strive to avoid the very thing that will educate us to the reality that we really must avoid that thing. A successful avoidance then leaves those not exposed susceptible to the memetic infection of embracing diversity. I suppose that the continued degeneration of America, and of the “West” as a whole, will expose all Whites to these horrors, at least to some extent, even if indirectly, so that some immunization against the memetic infection will occur, regardless of our desires. But, still, at least for now, the paradox remains.

See this. Besides the anti-Portugal article, please see “Street Impressions of DC” by Pierce, on page 132 of the original and on screen page 70 here, far left. Note the part about Naples. They really do hate YOU; you know that, right?

An ultra-Nordicist screed. That book, as I recall, actually makes a “racial” comparison of cats vs. dogs. Cats are light-eyed, independent, and deliberate, like Nordics, while dogs are dark-eyed, servile, and frenetic, like non-Nordics. I kid you not.

Laugh at this.  I’m not going to answer the content of that Pilleater article except to briefly note:

1. The blogspot version of this blog was deleted by Google/Blogger with no warning or explanation, nor have they responded to two requests from me about clarification on this issue. So, if anyone has further interest in the reason for the deletion, contact Mr. Alpha-Synuclein Brin.

2. As I’ve stated multiple times, I’ve been “banned” from Counter-Currents (like so many others have been), and Johnson refuses to debate issues with me, instead labelling me as a “paranoid piece of crap” suffering from “insanity.”  In that context, my “obsessive” criticism of Counter-Currents is justified.  

Attachment vs. Detachment

Or a third way.

I would like to discuss two fundamental modes of behavior of dissident activists interacting with mainstream society. This issue is currently very relevant given the recent American mid-term election and the widely divergent reaction to this election and its outcome by various commentators on the Far Right. Let us consider behavioral mode, each in turn, in the opposite order of the title of this post.

By detachment, I refer to the ideal presented by the mindset of Pierce and his National Alliance, a bemused indifference to mainstream electoral politics and to popular culture as “bread and circuses,” apart from negative “worse is better” commentary on the decline represented by current events. This behavioral mode typically manifests as a smug attitude of superiority in the sense of “in contrast to the sheeple, we vanguardists dismiss all of that nonsense and concentrate on our lofty, world-historical, long-term objectives.” Note that the detachment mode can include covert engagement (attachment) to certain mainstream entities; for example, quiet infiltration of System structures, groups, and other entities, as well as quiet community building, can be included in detachment, as long as it is done quietly and with a long-term time focus, as opposed to the more immediate and public focus of attached activism.

By attachment, I refer to, for example, the approach of American Renaissance (with its constant “doom and gloom” news posts), or of the Trump-obsessed Alt Right and Alt Lite, intensely and overtly focused on electoral politics, obsessively and overtly interested in news stories and other current events and with popular culture (remember Spencer’s fixation on James Bond?), with a “big tent” strategy of meeting people “where they are,” being openly immersed in the sort of day-to-day events and interests that the detachment group eschews.

There is a spectrum of course, with many people being in between these extremes, but most are closer to one pole or another.  Counter-Currents, particularly with its latest takes on the med-term elections, is more detached, but certainly they wrote about elections and popular culture (“Trevor Lynch” writing that every movie ever made had  “right-wing themes” and certainly any site employing Goad and his juvenile Worst Week Yet posts is going to have some level of societal attachment, particularly when compared to Pierce. Any site obsessed with page views and donations, as Counter-Currents certainly is, will need to keep reader interest by a degree of focus on issues that Pierce would have dismissed as “dog and pony show” material. But the Counter-Currents crew are more detached, certainly, than Amren.  MacDonald and TOO are more attached than is Counter-Currents.  VDARE is obviously high attached, with their daily news stories and commentaries.

I myself used to be very highly detached, but have moved more in the attached direction, so that now I am a rare example of someone midway between the two poles (but with an innate preference for detached, but an understanding of the practical need for attachment). It wasn’t until the rise of Trump that I became interested again in electoral politics, after a long hiatus subsequent to the betrayals of Ronnie Raygun. After all, why get involved if the “rightist” “choices” were the likes of the Bush family, Dole, McCain, and Romney et al?

So – which mode is best? In may be a trite non-answer, but we need to do both, each relevant in a particular context.  It depends on the circumstances. If there are truly useful tools available in the attachment space then certainly those should be used. It is a waste to “leave gains on the table” by dogmatically refusing to engage in the mainstream space because of a rigidly vanguardist and elitist disdain for electoral politics, popular culture, etc. Opportunities for right-wing populism should be taken advantage of. Democratic multiculturalism should be engaged in when possible. Popular culture and popular causes of relevance to the cause should be commented on and engaged in when appropriate.  On the other hand, an activist should remember that attachment is a means to an end, not an end to itself. The real end should be a radical restructuring of society in the direction we desire. If conditions in the mainstream space are not conducive to that goal, then attachment should be eschewed in favor of detachment. That detachment can include behind-the-scenes engagement with the mainstream as described above, but would not include a public, day-to-day, open focus on ongoing societal issues. But there is no need to engage in certain activities if those are currently genuine dead-ends.

A more focused question would be – is a certain about of attachment to more mainstream interests indicative that one has given up on more radical solutions and desired outcomes for the racial crisis?  Does that mean one is a mainstreamer and not a vanguardist? No, not necessarily; as stated above, one must use the tools at hand, and if right-wing populism and democratic multiculturalism become viable tools that can be leveraged via Suvorov’s Law – means only, not ends – why not use them? True, the more one goes to the attachment direction, the less likely they are to espouse Piercian Turner Diaries Der Tag style strategies and tactics, but that is means not ends.  And of course the optimal means by change given different contexts; maybe at some time the Pierce methods would have more validity. But today other tools are available and hence some degree of attachment is a valid vanguardist strategy.

It is also important to situate oneself on the attachment-detachment scale for the right reasons, particularly, a well-reasoned judgment on what is currently the best approach to achieve Far Right White racialist goals.  My concern is that some people situate themselves only this spectrum for selfish reasons. For example, Detachers may promote detachment simply because they don’t want their followers to get distracted with (potentially useful) mainstream activism; instead, Grifting Detachers want their followers to focus solely in the Detacher and that “leader’s” cul-de-sac Der Tag revolutionary fantasies, so that Detacher can garner all of the attention, and more importantly, the financial donations, of the followers. This selfish reasons must be distinguished from a principled disinterested detachment idea of not having vanguardist followers dissipate time, energy, and resources on useless mainstream “bread and circuses.” On the other hand, Grifting Attachers may use current events as an approach to lure in readers and supporters to boost page views and donations, cynically exploiting “hot news” for personal benefit. That needs to be distinguished from a principled promotion of mainstream entities that are of genuine utility, such as right-wing populism. Therefore, we must all look closely at the underlying, sometimes almost-hidden (but not totally hidden to observant parties), motivations for the promotion of one mode or the other. How does that promotion fit with what seems reasonable given the sociopolitical climate?  Finally, it is possible for promotion of attachment or detachment to be sincere and principled and still benefit the promoter.  Just because someone gets page views and donations doesn’t mean they are unprincipled grifters. Again – is the promotion appropriate for context?  Is the promoter obviously using the controversy mainly for personal gain? And what do they do with the support that they receive? Is that support a means or an end?

In the end, for authentic and honest activists, we must be flexible strategizers and use the most appropriate tools and approaches available and relevant at the current time.