Category: political opinion protection act

White Nationalism, Free Speech, and Legitimacy

Defending White nationalism.

Recent events paint a dark picture for White nationalism.  Censorship.  Deplatforming. The Left-Corporate Alliance.  Government persecution.  Congressional hearings attempting to label White nationalism as akin to domestic terrorism, part of a global terror threat. The ability of leftist thugs – supporting by Big Business and by the Political Establishment – to attack rightists with impunity.

Now, the paradigm equating White nationalism with terrorism is absurd, and others have cogently pointed out that the “data” supporting that paradigm is, at best, flawed, and, more likely, intentionally mendacious.

And, of course, this is all highly hypocritical, since the real violence mostly comes from the Left. Thus, while leftists assert that “words are literally violence,” they ignore the actual global leftist terror network that attacks rightists – even political candidates – and they are careful not to apply the same standards of guilt by association to Islam or to Black activists. 

Indeed, if the government wants to investigate a global terror threat, they’d be better off concentrating on Burger King – an international corporation that encouraged the use of its products for political violence in the UK – rather than on a small handful of relatively powerless and underfunded White racialists.

But we have to understand that this is all about criminalizing an ideology. All else is merely an excuse. That is why an insulting letter to an alien congresswoman is considered “terrorism,” while Richard Spencer being physically attacked in the street because of his political views is not.  Who?  Whom?

Yes, there have been some isolated instances of White nationalist violence. However, White nationalist terrorism – to the extent it actually exists – is due to White nationalists not being allowed to participate in the political process (politics broadly defined). The repression censorship, deplatforming, leftist attacks, etc., are the cause of Far Right violence, not its consequences.  Any objective and sane understanding of cause and effect and an honest appraisal of the order of events clearly demonstrates that manifold instances of political repression and social pricing, over decades, have left some White nationalists desperate and with no confidence whatsoever that their concerns can be effectively addressed via legal political processes.  Thus, some engage in foolish acts.

Thus, it is obvious that suppressing the non-violent expression of Far Right ideas will only cause more (not less) violence coming from that direction. Now, unintelligent Arab congresswomen and moronic Puerto Rican congresswomen are likely too stupid to understand this, but the Jews behind the scenes surely must.  The latter are callously setting the stage for more violence and more victims in order to justify further repression. The brown puppets blathering in public are just for show.

One can argue that Suvorov’s Law of History – the observation that revolutions do not occur during the period of greatest repression but when that repression is suddenly relaxed – is one reason why the System dares not let up on its repression of the Far Right (see more below).  Be that as it may, the point still holds that the sporadic outbursts of Far Right violence are due to the pre-existing repression. Relaxing the repression may cause “revolution” but that “revolution” can be social and political; it does not have to include violent terrorism.  If the concern is with terrorism rather than simply the success of Far Right ideas, then more repression will cause more terrorism (likely leading to more repression, etc.).  If the Left was sincere about avoiding violence and terrorism from the Right, then they’d lessen the repression. That they want to increase the repression reveals their true motives – at least the true motives of the wirepullers behind the scenes.

And we must also consider the association between legitimacy and political participation, a participation that requires free speech and free assembly, both of which are incompatible with the criminalization of any ideology. Even some mainstream and/or leftist commentators understand that free speech and open political participation are tied to System legitimacy.  If you want people to accept the legitimacy of the outcome of the political and social process, then you must allow them free and unfettered participation in that process. That includes them expressing their views, organizing (meetings, conferences, activist groups, political parties), engaging in the electoral process as candidates, and not having their views labeled as “terrorism.”  Let’s consider what a legal scholar with a Jewish surname has to say on the issue of free speech and legitimacy, emphasis added:

Ironically, however, hate speech restrictions can undermine the legitimacy of antidiscrimination laws, both in terms of their popular acceptance but even more crucially with respect to the morality of their enforcement. For instance, laws forbidding people from expressing the view, as is the case in several European jurisdictions, that homosexuality is immoral or disordered, can destroy the moral justification of enforcing laws against sexual orientation…Conversely, the ability of Americans to freely oppose antidiscrimination laws by publicly expressing bigoted ideas about groups protected by these laws strengthens the legitimacy of enforcing these provisions even when doing so infringes upon deeply held religious convictions….I have argued that by impairing the opportunity for dissenters to participate as equals in the public debate about such matters as race, ethnicity, immigration, and sexual orientation, hate speech laws and public order provisions in force in many liberal democracies have significantly diminished political legitimacy, in both the descriptive and normative sense. Specifically, for those inhibited by these laws from expressing their opposition to antidiscrimination measures, these upstream speech restrictions have diminished, and in some instances may have destroyed, their political obligation to obey these downstream laws. Even more troubling, these inhibitions on equal political participation may have in some cases rendered immoral what would have otherwise been a moral use of force to make these dissenters comply with these antidiscrimination laws.

Let me again remind you that the people talking about “domestic terrorism” have the real objective of criminalizing an ideology. They are not really concerned about “acts of violence,” such acts coming to a significant degree from their side of the political divide and of which they say nothing.  In the end, and as shown by the censorship and deplatforming, it is really an issue of free speech, public assembly, and the right to organize on the basis of White racial interests. Thus, what Weinstein writes is wholly appropriate – the issue has always been whether someone like Taylor, Spencer, or Johnson can have a public forum; whether or not shooting up a synagogue is “domestic terrorism” is merely a smokescreen. After all, let us follow this logic to its natural conclusion.  Mr. Inner Hajnal Nutzi shoots up a synagogue, claiming White nationalism as a reason.  Domestic terrorism!  Then anyone who supports White nationalism, writes or speaks in favor of it, donates to it, etc. is a supporter of domestic terrorism and, hence, a criminal.  An ideology criminalized.  QED. Of course, no one would apply the same standards to Islam or the Left, but we understand it is all about power and not about fairness or the rule of law.

And, speaking as a (law abiding) White nationalist myself, I can assure one and all that, yes, I consider the System and its edicts as completely illegitimate, and that I follow those edicts only under coercion.  I assume many Whites – including civic nationalist types and other on the Right – believe and act the same. There is a widespread legitimacy problem for the System and it will only grow as the repression continues.  In the short term, the System can simply use coercion to enforce its edits and ignore the issue of legitimacy.  That’s likely not sustainable in the long run. Keep in mind that by saying this I am not saying “victory is inevitable,” I’m not one of the grifters trying to “white pill” supporters in order to ensure that the “D’Nations” continue.  I’m predicting eventual chaos and collapse, not victory.  As the USSR demonstrated, a System that has lost legitimacy is headed for collapse, even with coercion.  As a last resort, they loosen the chains of repression to salvage what they can, and, according to Suvorov’s Law of History, that sudden relaxation of repression heralds the final disintegration.  Alternatively, an illegitimate System can try and maintain the repression, and find that significant fractions of the population adopt passive aggressive disinterest in response, undermining social cohesion and political effectiveness. In the case of the USA, it will be precisely the most productive elements of the population that will begin to exhibit a tacit withdrawal and subtle subversion, making eventual decline and possible collapse even more likely.

Some will object – what about Europe?  They have repressive speech codes and aren’t the national governments there considered legitimate by the people?  First, I can’t speak for rightist Europeans – it is very possible that the growth of populism there is indicative of a growing element that does indeed consider the System illegitimate. And, second, the USA, with its particular history of, and alleged commitment to, free speech, is expected to exhibit a much stronger association between free expression and political legitimacy than do nations that have histories of kings, dictators, strongmen, and laws against lese majeste. What about the argument that European nationalists have had success despite the speech codes there?  What success?  In some nations, there has been a temporary slowdown in the degeneration, which can be quickly reversed by any subsequent leftist government; at best, there have been victories by civic nationalists and moderate petty nationalists.  The “grand success” in Europe is a figment of the Nutzi imagination.  And I can turn the argument around – imagine how much more successful the European Right could be if they could actually express their real views without fear of being fined or jailed?

So, no, the pathetically flimsy “successes” in Europe – which in any case have limited relevance to the American situation – in no way disprove the thesis put forth here.  Given the concerns of White nationalists, the situation in Europe remains dire. Demographic replacement is still “baked into the cake” there. Can European nationalists freely and frankly discuss these concerns?

And we must remember that the concerns of White nationalists are real; in fact, not only are they real, but they are the most important concerns of all, dealing as they do with the ultimate interests of national existence and genetic continuity.  Whites are in demographic and cultural eclipse, and will become minorities even in their historic European homelands. The United Nations openly advocates “replacement migration” targeting White nations (while Whites are told, at the same time, that any mention of that is “conspiracy theories”).  Whites are the only people on Earth not allowed to organize on the basis of racial self-interest; indeed, in majority White nations this expression of racial self-interest is either already criminalized or subject to social pricing (that is not good enough, it seems for the American Left, as they are now pushing for criminalization).  How is this repression consistent with legitimacy?  Obvious, it is not.  The System simply has no effective argument against the basic premises of White nationalism; therefore, it must use coercion.  However, as argued above, political coercion in the context of “democracy” is illegitimate and will erode the basis for peoples’ willingness to invest in the collective good.

Finally, I have to note that one major reason why White nationalism has reached such a sorry state of powerlessness and repression is the utter failure of its leadership.  The inept affirmative action leadership coupled to defective followers have squandered endless opportunities, and smeared White nationalism with the stench of failure – made more laughable by the endless cries of some of them that we are “moving to victory,”

And some of the leadership have no sensible understanding of the animating mindset of the censors.  For example, it is hard for me to express in words how absolutely foolish Richard Spencer is being here.

How naive can you be to actually believe the System will ever definitively and carefully – much less permanently – clearly state speech codes that can then be worked around.  Let me tell you the obvious – the only speech they want from WNs is silence.  No matter how you try and get around their speech codes, they’ll just keep on changing them to justify censoring you. They will forbid more and more words, and once that becomes untenable, they’ll just forbid “tones” and “implications” – all decided upon arbitrarily to achieve their political goals. It’ll be the race of the Red Queen and you can never win – it’s the gatekeepers of access who will have the power to determine what is acceptable or not. Once there are speech codes that are accepted as a part of society, nothing stops those codes from being constantly fine-tuned to silence opposition.

The only speech code that you can “work around” is NO speech code. You need either a platform that cannot be or will not be censored and/or an extension of “protected class” to include sociopolitical beliefs – with the former being more realistic than the latter.  The idea that the System is going to finalize a set of speech codes that would enable anything other than mild civic nationalism (if even that) is absurd.  Of course, Spencer may claim he is only talking in theory, but advocating for speech codes in theory (however unrealistic) is not anything anyone on our side should be doing.

The future looks grim and I have no easy answers. But I do know that asking for a more snug fit for our memetic straightjacket is not the answer. This is not an athletic contest between gentlemen, with both sides playing by the rules.  The System will continue trying to change the rules in the middle of the game in order to win. The only weakness they have is that the game has spectators, the White masses, and while these are mostly inert, they are not all completely inert. The System’s ability to “cheat” is constrained by their need to appear to be playing fair, to trick the rubes into believing the “free democratic America” still exists.  Thus gives our side some room to maneuver. Begging for better defined constraints is not the direction our maneuver should be going.

Strom on the new wave of censorship.

And what has happened to Mr. Moderation, the wonderfully pureblood Common Sense Counselor?

This account has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube’s policy prohibiting hate speech.

Chastising extremists over how they talk about the Jews didn’t really help you, did it?

Advertisements

The Creativity Gambit

Religion.

Sociopolitical opinion and ideology does not define a “protected class” in America, leaving White nationalists and others on the Right vulnerable to social pricing and other forms of persecution.

This, of course, needs to be remedied by law, and I have previously proposed such a law. However, no such protections currently exist.

Religion, however, is a protected class.  Could WNs utilize religion as a vehicle to shield their beliefs from official persecution?  Creativity, for example – and there are other race-based and race-aware fringe religions (for Whites or some subsection of Whites) as well.

The System of course may simply refuse acknowledge the validity of such religions, and attempts have been made for such invalidation.  The legal findings have been a mixed bag but the favorable rulings suggest the religion gambit may be worth trying, but of course activist judges and the System in general may still continuously attempt to define religion in a manner so as to exempt anything pro-White.

One can argue that religions such as Christian Identity, Asatru, and Cosmotheism may reflect a concern for the “imponderables” more so than Creativity and therefore may be better for challenging System refusal to accept the validity of such beliefs as protected.  New religions (EGI-based? The Church of the Holy Salter?) can also be developed that would be fully compatible with White nationalism while dealing with so-called “imponderables.”  This might be best as all existing racial religions are seriously flawed and it is embarrassing to be openly affiliated with them; however, it is worth considering all options.  

Of course, the definition of utility of “imponderables” to define religion should itself by challenged.  Who decides what an “imponderable issue” is?  Are kosher and halal dietary laws “imponderables?”  They sound very secular and practical to me. Is the Muslim dislike of dogs an “imponderable?”  What about the Hindu caste system?  How is that related to deep moral and ethical issues?  The reality is that religion is for the most part a technic for controlling human behavior, dressed up (in some cases) with a lot of supernatural mumbo jumbo and in most cases with hypocritical cant and in virtually all cases with arbitrary dictums. Creativity (and other race based religions) are certainly no worse and in some cases clearly better. Any religion that helps preserve EGI would seem to be on a higher ethical plane than, say, a ban on eating pork.

I am not recommending this for everyone – for example, I am not a religious person and I have very serious problems with all of the aforementioned extant racial religions.  However, I cam imagine that Type I activists would find much of that very congenial.  If so, why not attempt to take advantage of possible religious protections?

If all else fails, there is always the Church of the Almighty Bomb and the Holy Fallout.

Friday News

In der news.

Spencer podcast.

I have some comments to make about the discussion at the beginning of the podcast, which was addressing “movement” critics, of which I am one.

Some points made I agree with, particularly concerning the stupidity of people celebrating Spencer’s failures; Spencer is correct in noting that the System doesn’t make distinctions – thus, Spencer’s failures are indeed seen as representative of the totality of White racial activism.  However, Spencer should reflect upon this – one reason why some people are so critical of Spencer, and are annoyed at him for his errors, is because those errors harm us all. Spencer can’t have it both ways – on the one hand saying that the failure of one (himself) affects all, and then, on the other hand, dodging responsibility for harming the “movement,” and instead complaining about his critics.

There are three major disingenuous and/or dishonest points made:

1. The critics are people who “are now blackpilled longer than they were redpilled” – all are recent activists who have become disenchanted.  Well, in my case, I am coming on a quarter-century, 25 years, a full generation, of racial activism. I for one have become completely disgusted with the “movement” from many years of experience – the same mistakes made over and over again, the stupid fossilized dogma, the endless cycle of failure and delusion. Other critics or skeptics of Spencer and/or the Alt Right in general, people like Johnson, Taylor, and Strom are all long-term activists. So, this point is plain wrong.

2. People may have bad motives.  Maybe some, but all of the people named above, whether I agree or disagree with them, are, in my opinion, sincere.  The Pepe-Kek crew should contemplate the possibility that not all – or even most – of their critics are insincere, are acting from bad motives.

3. No one has done better.  That’s true – but that is only relevant to the other affirmative action beneficiaries. Only those people seriously in the running for “movement leadership” – people who fit the “one of the boys” profile of “movement” acceptability – have on themselves the responsibility of proving themselves capable of being leaders. Other people are simply bloggers, commentators, analysts, etc. – in some cases restricted to those roles not by choice – and as such they should be judged by the criterion of leadership.  But I’ll agree – the Quota Queen crew have not taken advantage of Spencer’s absence from the stage to get anything meaningful accomplished. That gets back to point 1 – I have good reasons to be disgusted by Der Movement and its endless failures.

More from the podcast: An Internet Bill of Rights is not enough – we need POPA.

And, yes, we need to stop with the Man on White Horse Syndrome.

Moving on:

See this.

Greg Conte Twitter, 1/24/19:

Account suspended

Does Twitter follow Der Movement’s affirmative action policy with respect to who is allowed to have an account?  No wops allowed!  

The “down payment.”

The most self-non-aware tweet in human Twitter history.

Der Movement Marches On

More wreckage.

Whatever you want to say about Taleb, he’s at least forcing the Alt Wrong HBD fetishists to defend their premises – for the first time, in, well, forever.

Apparently, those 23ndMe results have real world consequences.

A bit behind the times:

December 2018.

August 2017.

Never fear – given enough time, Der Movement belatedly realizes, promotes, or understands many of the points raised here months or years earlier.

Does the taint of Arktos prevent book reviews?

Vincere Arkadin
Posted December 26, 2018 at 5:27 am | Permalink
What about Bolton’s Yockey bio? Did you read it by chance?

Greg Johnson

Posted December 26, 2018 at 5:37 am | Permalink
I have not been able to read it.

A Type II review is here.

Meanwhile, Johnson is now a writer for the Jewish-HBD Unz site.  Zman would be proud. Is this a paid position?  After all, moneybags Ron usually pays his writers.  Does Greg believe that Unz should be “driven out of White society” as he has stated for Jews in general?  Pay close attention, goys, pay close attention.

The young Pirandello.

The young Mussolini.

More examples for the “movement” cherry pickers:

Giovanni Gentile.

In phenotypic contrast, Lega Nord politician Maroni, born in Varese, Lombardy.  Undoubtedly, a Celt-Germanic Nordic.  As Roissy commentators assert – “geography matters in Italy, like a lot.”

For Greg Conte – an Italian politician of Calabrian ancestry.  Another purebred mountain wop, no doubt. Arya…arya….

Go away, Parrott.

This is the future you choose for your children when you mumble on with your excuses and reservations.
Yes, it’s worth some people getting doxxed, fired, and arrested over. It’s a real struggle, not an internet hobby.

Rewritten:

This is the future you choose for your children when you tolerate outrageously incompetent quota queens, freakshows, and online grifters.
Yes, it’s worth some “movement leaders” being mocked and ridiculed. It’s a real struggle, not a panhandling scheme for people who want to live off of follower’s donations.

Der movement marches on.  The voices of WN 3.0?  Say it aint’ so!  Let’s see now.  Trolling, “shitposting,” and generalized juvenile jackassery: all WN 2.0 activities.  Another fail.  Is Greg going to try and blame this fiasco on WN 1.0 as well?

And this is another example why Parrott and all the other quota queens are so wrong in their “suggestions” and “advice.”  Rallies, trolling, beer bellies with their muskets, and all the rest mean nothing, absolutely nothing, when there is no infrastructure, no one embedded in the System, not a single lawyer on call ready to defend, absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zero – nothing except drunken podcasting, Pepe and Kek, trailer park cuckolding, “Proud Boys” chased out of LA boys and then abandoned by their founder, and “leaders” constantly with their hands out demanding “D’Nations.”  There’s nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  And if anyone asserts that we need something, then the good old boys emerge out of the woodwork and – aping their retarded God Emperor – lash out with tweets.  Pathetic.

We’re stuck in an eternal negative feedback loop.  The freakshows of Der Movement repel high quality people.  The lack of high quality people leads to a “movement” dominated by freaks, incompetents, and jackasses. This in turn further repels high quality people.

Only when the rank-and-file activists rebel against their “leaders” will this ever change.

A Stunning Lack of Self-Awareness

The Gaslighting Greg Show.

First, a short take: Trump utterly humiliated in the mid-term elections, Roissy softly weeps, and the God Emperor has feet of clay…and a belly of lard.  And I’d like folks like Johnson, McCulloch et al. to explain how their “metapolitical education” has been succeeding, and will be successful, when so many Whites currently vote against their interests that even a Negro-loving and Jew-loving civic nationalist cuck like Trump gets “repudiated” as a “fascist racist” in midterm elections by a coalition of highly educated White professionals, White women of all educational levels, and non-Whites?  

Read this.

And this.

Remember the quota queens in 2016: Trump is the last chance for White America, he’s an American Caesar preserving White demographics, etc., etc., etc.  Who was telling you from the beginning that Trump was a fat, lazy, witless, moronic, vulgar, ignorant buffoon?

Long take: Greg Johnson is possibly the most self-non-aware person in human history.  Emphasis added:

In the short run, we need an internet Bill of Rights to protect dissidents from censorship and deplatforming. Beyond that, we need an across-the-board ban on politically-correct terms of service and employment, so we are free to dissent without threatening our livelihoods and social capital. If we can get such legislation in place, I am confident that we can win, and sooner rather than later.

Remember this?

Freedom of speech is a value because we are all fallible and vulnerable. Fallibility means that we can make mistakes. We can have false or inadequate pictures of the world which can be improved upon. Vulnerability simply means that unforeseeable contingencies can upset our best laid plans. To overcome mistakes and misfortunes, we first need to know about them. That means that we need the freedom to be the bearers of bad news. We need freedom of speech, because it makes genuine intellectual and social progress possible.

Unfortunately, not in Der Movement.  There, the quota queens squelch any free speech that threatens the queens’ sinecures.

A society that lacks the ability to change lacks the ability to preserve itself. But a society can’t change if it lacks the ability to communicate bad news to its leaders. This is why we should want to protect freedom of speech, even when we are the ones in power.

That coming from someone who constantly “bans” critics from commenting on his blog.

First, some people think they already have the truth. This truth is, moreover, absolute: it is complete and not subject to revision. Any contrary position is, therefore, a falsehood. This is why religions in the Abrahamic tradition — including Marxism — have opposed freedom of speech. They claim to be absolutely true. Therefore, all other religions are false — or, at best, semblances of the truth — and must be suppressed.

And criticisms of “movement” dogma and “movement” failure must also be suppressed.  Ban, ban, ban!  Moderate, moderate, censor!

Second, people with a vested interest in a given political and economic system don’t like criticism because it threatens their power and peace of mind.

Just like “movement leaders” have a “vested interest” in preserving that system as well, right Greg?

We all make mistakes. We all suffer misfortunes. But only some of us are destroyed by them. Others learn from them and overcome them. But, again, the first step to overcoming a problem is knowing that one has it.

Earth to Greg: Look in the mirror.

Narcissism is a problem, though, when one puts preserving a positive self-image ahead of positive self-actualization.

And preserving your tin cup income.

Everyone makes mistakes. 

Some more than others.

The path to self-actualization requires that we acknowledge our mistakes, take responsibility for them, learn what we can from them, and then rise above them. 

Greg, do you actually read the things you write?  For godssakes every time someone leaves a comment on your blog that irritates you, or is mildly critical of you, they get the “this is your last comment here” treatment.  Is it possible for anyone to be so overtly non-self-aware, or are you just “trolling” us?

The narcissist, however, seeks to preserve his positive self-image at all costs. So when confronted with his mistakes, he denies them and doubles down on them. 

Yes, after all….the Hermansson and Lewis infiltrations “didn’t do any real damage,” right?  Being wrong about Donald Trump, wrong about the Alt Right….let’s ignore or double down, right?  Blaming the failures of WN 2.0 on WN 1.0 – that’s not “doubling down” or “blaming others,” right?

Or he blames others for his mistakes. 

It’s…WN 1.0.  Or…the “crazy and bitter” Ted Sallis.  The dastardly Richard Spencer (who behaves in the same  manner, by the way) is always an easy target.

Or he goes on the attack, particularly against the bearer of bad news. Anything, really, to avoid taking responsibility and acknowledging that he might have some room to learn and grow.

This is exactly what Johnson did to critics of his behavior on Hermansson and Lewis, as well as critics of he and the Alt Right/WN 2.0.  At this point, this has to be a “troll” job; Greg is laughing at us.  I simply cannot believe an intelligent and educated person on the Right can be so painfully non-self-aware.  This level of pathology simply isn’t possible.

Narcissists may be highly attractive people. 

Or not.

They may have enormous potential. 

Or not.

Unfortunately, they think they are perfect just the way they are, and such complacency is deadly to personal growth. So as time passes, you will notice that narcissists seldom actualize their potential. Instead, they come off as dilettantes with a smooth patter. Older narcissists also seem increasingly puerile when compared to their contemporaries.

Oh, yes, indeed.

Narcissists also have difficulty maintaining friendships. 

Hmmm…can we name one prominent “movement” “leader” who has the reputation of eventually alienating, and feuding with, almost everyone they know?  Maybe Counter-Currents has the answer to that one.

Friends tell you what you need to hear — even if it is painful. 

For example – that the Hermansson infiltration reelected horrific judgment and also was a direct result of Der Movement’s obsessive Nordicism.  Even Hermansson openly admits that Steadman opened the door wide because of racialist fetishization of Scandinavian heritage.  Don’t you dare write that on Counter-Currents comments though.  Time to get banned!

Flatterers tell you what you want to hear. Friends aid self-actualization because they will tell you bad news. Flatterers encourage complacency because they only tell you how wonderful you are. Friends threaten a narcissist’s positive self-image, whereas flatterers reinforce it.

Anyone you know who fits those descriptions, Greg?  Do you happen to know any “movement leader” who “bans” people who (mildly) criticize them and their “movement,” even if the person is someone who was a writer for that “leader’s” blog?

Obviously it is disastrous to put narcissists into positions of power, because they end up making important decisions based on false or incomplete information fed to them by flatterers. It is no way to run a society.

Or run a “movement.”

Der News, News, News, 3/5/18

It’s Der Movement!

First: an unannounced odyssey.  Every couple of months I search Amazon to see if Bolton’s Yockey book had been published (as well as checking Far-Right sites for an announcement).

Lo and behold!

I’ll read that Kindle when I finish the sets of books I’m tackling now (Late Western Roman Empire, and also a new Hitler biography is gathering dust here and I need to get to that at some point). But for now I ask: why hasn’t this book publication been announced and promoted at various Far-Right sites?  This is an important development and we have to search it out as if it was being hidden.

Sometimes Der Movement baffles me, it really does.

So let EGI Notes make the announcement:

BOLTON’S YOCKEY BIOGRAPHY HAS FINALLY BEEN PUBLISHED

Nicholas Farrell, who is not an ethnic Italian but lives in Italy, sighs loudly once again about those stupid and unruly Afrowops:

The Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, comparing himself to Michelangelo and Italians to marble—the raw material the Renaissance genius used to fashion his sculptures—once complained to German journalist Emil Ludwig: “It’s the raw material that I lack. Governing the Italians is not impossible. It is useless.”
Since the fall of Il Duce in 1945, Italy has had 65 governments, and today the Italians return to the polls to choose the 66th. Incredibly, for non-Italians at least…

Yeah Farrell, it’s all like real terrible and all.  How about leaving Italy then?

A new “movement” disease called the Farrell-Munro-Deasy Syndrome: live in, or at least visit, someone else’s nation (as an ethnic alien), complain about and insult the natives, with marrying a native woman optional (while mocking the men…an omnidominant ploy? Perhaps those “farther from human origins” are more “omnidominant?”).

So far I have no reason to include that Leonard (AltRight.com) fellow in this syndrome; while he lives In Italy he so far has not attacked the natives.

Read this.

This is a vehemently pacifist blog, advocating complete non-violence in the grand Gandhian tradition, a beacon of human love and compassion, unalterably opposed to the use of any force whatsoever.  Turn the other cheek!  However, on a purely theoretical basis, purely hypothetically, what if, the next time some “extreme right leader” is “violently attacked by protestors” that some identified extreme left activist thug simply disappears?  Vanished, never to be seen again. What happened to them?  A mystery it all is!  Such a course of action is of course despicable and denounced by this blog in the strongest possible terms, it must never happen, we denounce it utterly, but, hypothetically speaking, purely theoretically, it may make the thugs think twice the next time they decide to do their usual ten-on-one “sucker punch” style attacks on rightists.  But self-defense for rightists contravenes the hardcore humanist views of this blog so it must of course never ever occur. Never, never, never!  Rightists must of course be attacked with complete impunity, with the Left fearing no payback whatsoever.

After all, why should a “movement” ostensibly based upon concepts of national greatness, masculinity, virility, force, and Faustian overcoming ever defend itself?  Do nothing, meekly allow yourselves to be assaulted, and then cry for the authorities (who hate you) to step in – that’s the ticket!

By the way, that happened while a “hardcore conservative” is President of Sicily.

Sound familiar? Just like how Trump and Sessions look the other way when Antifa run wild in the streets of America, even though Der Touchback and Der Howdy have the power to declare that group a terrorist organization and fully unleash federal law enforcement on them.

In any case, isn’t it clear that “extreme right” leaders need bodyguards when venturing out in public?  It’s even obvious to an ultra-pacifist and lover of humanity as me that the “extreme right” needs to form paramilitary groups to defend their politicians, speakers, and leaders, within the scope of existing law. 

Read here. That is why we need POPA.

Defending POPA

Defending the Political Opinion Protection Act (POPA).

Of relevance to this, I state the following.

Free speech is meaningless if expressing dissident opinions makes life in a modern society completely untenable.   In this manner, “private” social pricing attacks against dissident beliefs, opinions, and activism have a chilling effect on free speech, particularly today when “private” businesses and institutions rival governments with respect to power and influence. Outsourcing speech suppression from the public to the private spheres – transforming the “private” into a tool of public coercion – violates the First Amendment in spirit and this problem needs to be rectified through legal and political change.