Category: politics

Trump, Russia, and the Virginia Protest

The usual stupidities.

The whole fabricated (I think) Russia scandal is yet more evidence of Trump’s omega male ineptness.  Assuming for a moment that there is no real “meat” behind this “scandal” then how did it come into existence?  There are two threads here, overlapping and synergizing with each other.  First, after they got over the shock of the election, the Left/System started fishing around for an explanation that could comfortably exclude the possibility that working-class/middle-class White Americans have interests that have been ignored or attacked.  So, they fixated on the easy explanation – it was dem dere nasty Russkis!  Second, Putin and Russia have long been bogey-men to a whole set of vested interests: Jews, old Cold War warriors, Neocons of all ethnic origins, anti-White leftists who see the multiculturalist Putin as an implicitly White leader of an authoritarian “White” nation, and Asian imperialists who covet Russia’s Far East. So there was a great deal of pressure in formulating a narrative of Russian interference being directly responsible for electing Trump with the collusion of the Trump campaign.

Now, if Trump was really a competent “alpha male” and if he had competent people on his staff, these accusations could have been – should have been – effectively refuted from the very beginning and then subsequently treated with dignified scorn if they had continued post-refutation.  Instead, the Trumpites floundered around helplessly, stammering half-assed justifications, letting Trump make a jackass of himself on Twitter, and letting the whole narrative grow like a wildfire while Trump obsessed over Schwarzenegger’s ratings on Celebrity Apprentice and concentrated on his Diet Cokes, double-sauced meat dishes, and two scoops of ice cream on his chocolate pie.

Someone needs to tell Perriello that he has no right lecturing Spencer about the Civil War- an event in American history during which Spencer’s paternal ancestors were in this country and Perriello’s paternal ancestors were not. So this half-dago should just shut his filthy mouth.

It was ironically a massive showing of Northern Yankees, Irishmen, and Italians with a few Southerners in attendance as well.

Lulz.

Spencer said the event had been planned back in March “over cocktails” and in explaining the chants in support of Russia added: “There is a common brotherhood that stretches from Portugal to Siberia, and includes North America. Even though we’re very different, we obviously have common ancestry and there’s that tie of blood.”

That’s right – and Siberia belongs to Russia, not to grasping diseased Orientals who pimp out their “women” to omega male White race traitors.

Political EGI, Part II

Political EGI, Part II.

Let’s follow up a bit on this previous discussion.

Nationalist politicians of the so-called “Far Right” have consistently failed to incorporate forthright discussion of ultimate interests in their rhetoric, and I suspect that almost all of them never heard of ethnic genetic interests and have zero awareness of, much less understating of, Salter’s On Genetic Interests book. As we are getting close to the 15 year mark since the original publication of that work, this ignorance, and lack of utility, has no excuse, and underscores the intellectual vacuity of much of the Far Right.

Excuses about “hate speech laws” (for those nations where such exist) fail for two reasons: first, it should be possible to formulate EGI memes using language moderate enough to evade such laws (in many, albeit likely not all, cases), and, second, the right for free speech, the battle against such laws, should be a foundational plank in any Far Right political platform, but for the most part, nationalist politicians and activists do not take the issue, so they can hardly be justified in using in for an excuse for their failures.

Indeed, I would say this: any White nationalist politician that neglects the free speech issue is simply not serious.  In places like Europe, with “hate speech laws,” nationalist politicians worth anything will make free speech, and the repudiation of speech restrictions, a core fundamental plank of their worldview and their campaign; in America, the focus should be on (1) preventing any such laws here; and (2) fighting against de facto speech restrictions such as political correctness, private policing of speech, and leftist thuggery.  That’s all essential and one good test of the legitimacy of any nationalist political campaign: anyone who neglects these issues is not serious about significant change and lacks understanding of basic sociopolitical dynamics (it’s real hard to battle issues that are illegal to criticize, for example)

Getting back to EGI itself: the Far Right simply hasn’t made the slightest attempt to use EGI/Universal Nationalism and similar concepts as the foundational basis of nationalist politics.

True enough Le Pen and her supporters did skirt the issue with talk of “replacement.”  That’s a start, no doubt.  However, a few phrases uttered in the heat of a political campaign, designed to (cynically?) appeal to a base of supporters, is hardly any sort of fundamental statement of principle.

In the Netherlands and Austria there has been similar “dog whistling” regarding race and ethnicity, but the language can always be interpreted more in cultural/civilizational terms. Certainly there hasn’t been any talk that even remotely touches on the EGI argument.

“Preserving ethnic homogeneity” is important to Hungary’s economy, according to the prime minister, who said “life has proven that too much mixing causes trouble”.

He insisted the government “cannot risk changing the fundamental ethnic character of the country.

“That would not enhance the value of the country but downgrade it instead, and toss it into chaos.”

That’s good as far as it goes, but doesn’t go far enough.  “Hungary’s economy?”  Well, yes, I’m sure that importing Third Worlders and other aliens into Hungary isn’t going to help their “economy,” but that’s hardly the core of the problem.  Ultimately, from the standpoint of political EGI, Orban fails.

Hanson in Australia is similar to Western Europe with the “swamping” “dog whistling” that can be ascribed to culture but resonates ethnically with at least some supporters.

Brexit in the UK was also completely devoid of any direct racial basis. Alternative for Germany also does the same moderating “dog whistling.”  I guess something is better than nothing, but it’s not a huge degree better than nothing.

Moving in the more Far Right direction, I’m sure groups like Golden Dawn and other more “extreme” organizations take a more direct racial view, but insofar as I know they lack the solid empirical foundation given by an understanding of EGI.

But, look, even allegedly openly racialist groups and blogs in America and the rest of the Anglosphere do not understand EGI.  Even those blogs that pontificate about “European EGI” promote policies that would directly and irreparably harm that EGI, such as Asian colonization of White nations (not only destructive from a gross EGI standpoint but also from a net EGI standpoint – there is absolutely no need to have any Asians around whatsoever [apart from exciting the masochistic instincts of White omega males]).

What about the “God Emperor” and other outspoken mainstream “conservative” politicians in America?

Well, as regards Trump, we know that, besides some of his bombastic campaign rhetoric on immigration, and questioning Europe’s suicidal migration policy, his basic worldview has always been aracial civic nationalism, The idea that Trump would ever understand EGI, would be willing to even attempt understanding it (he may lack the intelligence to even understand the relevance of it), or would act upon EGI if he was aware of it and understood it, is absurd.

And we see Steve King’s ultimate disavowal of an ethnic-racial-genetic component, even though “culture and civilization” really is a proxy for biological demographics. King, like Trump, categorically fails with respect to the explicitly White EGI-focused worldview that is absolutely essential.

However, King clarified his original tweet, saying he made no mention of race and did not intend for his message to be taken in a racial way.

He said he meant to and only did mention “culture and civilization.”

“We are all God’s children. We are all created in his image,” King said, adding that the political left is the group who often characterizes situations by race.

Fail, fail, and fail. No one – repeat no one – on the rightist/nationalist spectrum anywhere in the White world promotes EGI/Universal Nationalism in the slightest degree, for the most part I’m sure they’ve never heard of it, and they wouldn’t understand it or agree with it even if they did understand it. And those elements foaming at the mouth about “European EGI” actually want Europeans to be subaltern cringing serfs to their Asian overlords.  

Again: Fail, fail, and fail.

Part III will continue this discussion when relevant information comes forth that sheds more light on this issue.

What Is the Purpose of Nationalist Electoral Politics?

What should be the strategic purpose of nationalist electoral politics?

The purpose of nationalist electoral politics is not a mainstreaming “Hail Mary Pass” all-or-nothing approach to elect a national leader, compete with doom-and-gloom predictions in the case of (inevitable) defeat.  Of course, if it is possible to elect a nationalist as a President or Prime Minister, and enact change from the top down, then fine, do it. I’m not saying that we should eschew any such opportunities that may present themselves. However, taking advantage of such unexpected and unlikely scenarios does not constitute a long-term, stable strategy.

Instead, I see participation in electoral politics as serving two purposes:

First, as a means of propaganda, proselytizing, recruitment, and normalizing our message to the masses.  

Second, as a means of electing nationalists to secondary positions, ranging from, at the top, Congress/Parliament (including EU Parliament) down to very local elected positions, to infiltrate positions of authority as much as possible.  And the strategic purpose of this second objective is so that these elected officials use their positions to provide “cover” and assistance to the main thrust of nationalist activity.  And that main thrust would be building an actual, real-world movement, ranging across the breadth of modern life, including but not limited to: a real-world “street” presence and community organizing, a robust online presence, overall infiltration of the System, the building of alternative communities, and the formation of an elite pan-European Legion that represent the political warriors necessary to move the entire project forward.  Elected officials can use their power to protect and assist the growing movement as much as possible, and obstruct as much as possible attempts by the System to crush the movement.

These two major purposes of nationalist political participation are what I see to be reasonable, possible, strategically viable and compatible with more “vanguard” approaches, as described above.   And having all these instrastructures in place, if an opportunity presents itself to elect a national leader, we would be in a better position to do so than from starting from nothing in place to begin with.

No doubt, any electoral contest needs to be carefully chosen; no need to waste time and resources in an area where there isn’t the least significant chance of victory.  Even if the campaign is being done for objective one – recruiting and propaganda – you still want fertile ground and a decent showing for your candidate.  Your message will be better received in that case than in some leftist district or state where you would be lucky to get a few thousand votes. You would also need the right candidates – intelligent, articulate, attractive individuals well versed in the issues, courageous to take a stand in favor of race, culture, and nation, capable debaters, and individuals willing and able to campaign on an overtly and explicitly (right-wing populist) pro-White platform. The days of implicit mainstreaming are over, and there’s no educational value in promoting indirect and vague implicit themes. Instead of folks ever-so-carefully trying to stretch the Overton Window, we need folks willing to smash through it.

Mainstreaming R.I.P.

It is time to move on from mainstreaming.  It is time to move on from a failed “movement.”

Her Majesty, the Imperial Milady Marine of Mainstreaming, has fallen.  Will we see any honest analysis of this disaster?  Doubtful, other than here at EGI Notes.

If mainstreaming worked, we would still have to debate whether the compromises and moderation is all worth it.  But here’s the point: It doesn’t work. Once again, to be clear: Mainstreaming does not work.

Moderating Marine has achieved nothing more, electorally speaking, than her more radical father (who she denounced) did.  So, what’s the point?  Look at Austria, look at the Netherlands, look at Australia, there’s no payoff. “Where’s the beef,” so to speak?  Where’s the advantage?  Golden Dawn is not in power in Greece; the Front National is not in power in France.  They are equally not in power.  Perhaps both models need revision?

If mainstreamers justify their strategy by the possibility of electoral success, and if mainstreamers continuously fail, then why is mainstreaming still considered legitimate? Why? Yes, I can see that it may make theoretical sense, at least to those amenable to (at least temporary) compromise.  But political theory must be judged, ultimately, in how it is actualized in the laboratory of real world experience.  One forms a hypothesis and tests it. According to Popper, if the data show the hypothesis to be wrong, it should be abandoned. Perhaps the situation is more akin to Kuhn and paradigm shifts.  Activists with an intellectual and emotional investment in mainstreaming will continue to create ad hoc explanations for its failures, and resist rejection of their theory/hypothesis.  Eventually though, the sheer volume of contradictory data, combined with the rise of new activists unencumbered by adherence to failed ideas, will shift the worldview, and a realization of the emptiness of mainstreaming will occur, and a new paradigm, more hard and radical, will take its place.

Perhaps that will happen.  But the time!  The time!  Can we waste so much time with people ignoring the facts right in front of their face?

I have previously written about the phenomenon of faux-sophistication, and we may be seeing some of that with the adherents of mainstreaming.  

A clear example of this psychological flaw is seen in sports.  Sportswriters and other so-called “experts” endlessly pontificate about the values and virtue of “defense” – so as to contrast their “sophisticated expertise” and “refined tastes” from the “crude” casual fans who, presumably, enjoy lots of offense, action, and scoring.  Thus, the “expert” sniffs: “[fill in name of sport] is 90% defense.” Well, from a logical standpoint, that’s nonsense – games are won by the team that scores the most points, goals, runs, etc.; therefore, scoring and preventing scoring are of equal value and hence any team sport is going to be, in general, 50% offense and 50% defense.  But let’s not let logic and common sense get in the way of preening expertise!

The same applies to politics.  Hillary Clinton’s campaign foundered in part because of snarky millennials and their “data” and “expert” advice to concentrate on “turning out the base” –in sharp contrast to Bill Clinton’s ignored advice to throw a bone or two at the Rust Belt White working class.  

Meanwhile, on the Far Right, the “experts” sniff with disdain at radicals who insist on such outdated concepts as non-negotiable fundamental principles, and instead these heroic “experts” extol the virtue of compromise and moderation.  And they keep on losing, over and over and over again. But they know better you see.  And by taking positions that contrast to all those knuckle-dragging radical extremists, these “experts” seem like real smart and professional and polished and all.  They keep on losing, but they lose with style!

Some would argue that I’m being “premature” and we need to be patient and give mainstreaming more time to succeed.  At what point does this patience move from prudent circumspection to blind adherence to a failed hypothesis? Marine Le Pen was the clearest test of mainstreaming so far, and the test was failed like all that preceded it.  I’m not sure repeating the same over and over again is going to yield significantly different results. That she did better than her father with respect to percentages, but still failed – is this progress? Perhaps the assertion that the Front National has attracted more youthful supporters than before will be accredited to mainstreaming.  But, putting aside that Le Pen still failed, we can ask – are youth really attracted by mainstreaming and moderation? That’s doubtful.  Yes, they may want more “liberal” social mores, but the key issues of race and immigration, and sovereignty, are what motivates most Front National supporters, and with respect to those key issues I’m doubtful that high-spirited and energetic youth, some of whom are involved in the Identitiarian movement, are really looking for mainstreaming and moderation.  In the end, despite whatever the youth wants, the bottom line is, again, that Le Pen failed. Mainstreaming failed (again), big time.

“Farstreaming” has in fact been more successful.  Sometimes politicians can be more successful being more radical.  That may be context-dependent, but it is clear that “moving to the center” simply hasn’t worked.

If we can agree on that, then we can start the process of formulating alternatives.  Activists need to stop listening to memes that sound good in theory but consistently fail in practice.

A counter-argument will be that radicalism hasn’t worked either.  But what kind of radicalism?  Yes, Nutzi stupidities haven’t worked, I agree.  Historical Nazism brought back in the post-war period hasn’t worked, warmed-over Guntherism (i.e., 99% of “movement” dogma) hasn’t worked, esoteric silliness about “Kali Yuga” and “the men who can’t tell time” hasn’t worked,” and breathless navel-gazing over cephalic indices and fractional admixture percentages hasn’t worked either.

But has anyone tried to formulate EGI/universal nationalism into practical politics?  No.  Has anyone tried to combine radical policy positions with rational and professional rhetoric and a polished presentation?  No.  It’s either been mainstreaming compromise or foaming-at-the-mouth Nutzism.  

The mainstreamers can run but they can’t hide. The French election was not only a catastrophic defeat for nationalism, but it should completely undermine confidence in the mainstreaming fraud. Let’s all sit back and watch the show, the mainstreamers spinning their endless stream of defeats, rewriting history (“We always said Le Pen had no chance of winning!” or “We never were in any way invested in a Le Pen victory!”  or whatever other lie), the mainstreamers moving on to the next election including the next French election (“Hey! We never said that 2017 was the last chance to save France and Europe through the electoral process!”), Der Movement giving the mainstreamers a “free pass” and forgetting their endless stream of bad advice, poor judgment, and catastrophic defeats.

Or will a miracle occur and the mainstreamers admit they are wrong and gracefully bow out and make way for others who don’t pretend they know everything and who want to take an empirical approach to determine, and then utilize, what actually works?

It is up to you, dear reader, to demand change and leave a failed “movement” in the dustbin of history, where it belongs.  I take it endless failure doesn’t appeal to you?  

Rotten Orange News: King Cuck Keeps On A’ Cuckin

The anti-White leftist Donald J. Trump.

Do any of the Trump fanboys ever ask why such a petition is even necessary?  Why aren’t the God Emperor and America’s (ex) Senator leading the battle against globalist-leftist terrorist thugs, you know the ones who are attacking the God Emperor’s own supporters in the streets?

Do Ivanka and Jared disapprove?

You know, the same “montstrous government” that doesn’t life a finger to use its legal power to act against Antifa.  I’m not sure who is the biggest joke: the Trump/Session ultra-cucks, or globalist thugs who think they act against the System in “protest” while they are actually an integral part of that same System.

Painful truth: Trump and Antifa are on the same side. They’re both part of the anti-White System.

And, by the, way, “kinetic beauty” can go in both directions, in many forms. Personally, I think Nathan Damigo’s first has a great deal of “kinetic beauty.”

Even Mudshark Annie is displeased with the God Emperor.

Murros on Le Pen

Speaking the truth.

See here, emphasis added:

I have the greatest respect for Marine Le Pen. However, I am afraid she is fighting a losing battle. Current populist parties in Europe are only the first wave of nationalism. These parties still operate within the framework of liberal democracy — and often the activists in these parties actually believe that they can change things by playing according to the rules set by the enemy and while society at large is vehemently against them.

The parties of the first wave of nationalism do not challenge the very concept of liberal democracy (for practical reasons this is, of course, perfectly understandable). Also, these parties seldom challenge the prevailing paradigm of modern economics and therefore they do not challenge globalization as such either. Marine Le Pen, however, is a refreshing exception to this and deserves our respect for it.

The parties of the first wave of nationalism often represent the attitude of “business as usual but without the immigrants” or “business as usual and only those immigrants who work [serve us with low pay]”. The parties of the first wave of nationalism often reflect middle-class egoism and bourgeois social opportunism. Unable to grasp the true causes and effects of globalization, these parties often descend into reactionary “conservativism” complemented with economic liberalism and in the worst cases to outright anti-nation state libertarianism.

Marine Le Pen is, thankfully, free from this ideological blindness but as a representative of the first wave of nationalism she can never be radical enough. What Marine Le Pen is lacking is what the Germans call “Wille zur Macht”, the will to power.

However, what Marine Le Pen and the parties of the first wave of nationalism are doing is that they are resurrecting ethnic nationalism, making it culturally acceptable and helping to transform it from an undercurrent to mainstream – racism will be the new black. The radical left is absolutely right; you should never give a platform to nationalists – but this socio-economic/cultural process is beyond anyone’s control and the material forces in history also make it unstoppable.

The second wave of nationalism would be impossible without the Great Paradigm Shift – Marine Le Pen and the first wave of nationalism are indispensable for this shift. The second wave of nationalism is then ruthlessly radical and aims at nothing less than a total destruction of the liberal capitalist system. The violent and totalitarian nature of the second wave of nationalism simply wouldn’t wash without the masses being already conditioned to it by the Great Paradigm Shift.

For a serious political movement to reach the pinnacle of power always requires the collapse of the economy – already nicely under way – and the ensuing revolution/civil war. Islam is the new communism, the fear of which will pave the way for nationalists to absolute power. This unpalatable truth is, no doubt, too much for Marine Le Pen to digest. Therefore, FN is not a revolutionary party and has no chance of achieving even a fraction of what it promises to people. The second wave of nationalism then finally delivers.