Category: populism

Youth and the Left

Whither idealism?

Why are young White people (in the West, or whatever is left of it) typically leftist?  One argument is that it is youthful rebellion against parents, who are themselves typically more conservative due to the effects of family formation and increasing responsibility (and general experience with life and the realities of human nature). It is interesting that this scenario always seems to work in one direction – the children of leftist parents never seem to rebel by moving to the Right, if anything they may become even more radically leftist than their parents are.  So, it can’t be simple rebellion against parental authority.  Is it rebellion against a conservative society?  Well, today, the System is so far to the Left and so anti-White, that actual rebellion would mean that young Whites should all become neo-Nazis; “movement” fantasies about “Generation Zyklon” aside, that is not happening.  Is it because System propaganda portrays itself as exhibiting “systemic racism” and the youth perceived a Far Left System as being Far Right?  Is the rebellion against a perception rather than against a reality?

Or maybe it is not just rebellion – youth are by nature idealistic, and the Left traffics in idealism, as opposed to the stuffy, reactionary Right, which stupidly advertises itself as “standing athwart history yelling stop.”  What an inspiring image!

The reactionary Right needs to be displaced by the revolutionary Far Right and an inspiring ideology and worldview needs to be promoted.  By the way, “traditionalism” “snug in one’s hobbit hole” is not such a worldview.

Advertisements

Sunday News

In der news.

All together now: Cuckadoodledoo!

Didn’t I warn you that this guy is a buffoon and a fraud?

The last chance for White America!  The God Emperor!

Spencer is correct: Trump as any sort of “change agent” is finished.  I could have told you that (and did) three and more years ago, but, hey, better late than never.

Hey, Ann, I could have told you all of that back in 2015.

Once again, Sallis is right.  Mainstreaming always fails because your more centrist position can always be co-opted by the System and/or by other, more moderate, populists.  If you stake out a radical position that truly represents what you are (or should be) about, then one of two things happen – either you distinguish yourself from the opposition and thus stand alone or you force the opposition to shift toward you, moving the so-called “Overton Window” in the proper direction.  As to the cries – “oh, you won’t’ win” – please tell me about the success of President Le Pen.  You should win or lose standing on principle, rather than lose as a compromised fraud.  At the very least, if you stand your ground, you know that any success is authentic and due to shifting people toward you, rather than vice versa.

Note to micks who still identify as “liberal Democrats” and who spite WASPs by identifying as “oppressed Hibernians in solidarity with People of Color.”

Watch this.  Of course, Greg Johnson was telling us it was really a “win” for Trump (and, implicitly, I suppose, for all of us), because those wonderful Republican “didn’t lose as badly as they could have.”

Reality here – not delusional debate about “when we will win our victory.” Things are bad and getting worse.  I assume the mindset of the “optimism crowd” – if we assume that they are sincere and not merely boosting their egos and cash flows – is that despair will lead to inaction and surrender, so we have to give people hope. Unfortunately, constant disappointment, and constantly dashed hopes, leads to disgust, and, yes, despair and inaction; falsely inflated hope that “all will be well” also can lead to inaction as people believe that “it’ll all work out in the end regardless of what I do or don’t do.”  Reality is best.

Kevin, if you are going to talk about gravity, it is churlish not to mention Einstein and General Relativity.

I’m no fan of Einstein or his ethny, but fair is fair.

“I’m not surprised you’ll get different results from different companies,” Dr. Jennifer Raff, Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Kansas told TechCrunch back in September. “They have their own proprietary info based on those samples. If one of them has lots of individuals from a particular region and the other company does not, you’re more likely to show up as having ancestry from that region whereas if the other company doesn’t have that data represented in their database, it’s going to show up as a different population.”

What the parental populations are is going to significantly affect the results.

This reminds me of a personal anecdote. A family I know – normies not Nutzis – asked me to take a look at some confusing ancestry data they got from a company that shall remain nameless.  No problem with paternity – child has 50% chromosome match with father as well as mother, etc.  The ancestry percentages for the child are very crudely plausible based on the parents. So far, fine as well as it goes.  But the chromosomal fragments do not match.  Thus, for example, the child inherits some percentage of ancestry “X” from the mother and not the father (who lacks it, according to the test). But, the mother’s “X” is on, say, chromosomes 3, 5,and 6 (I don’t remember the exact details) and the child’s “X “is on, say, chromosomes 10 and 16. That of course is at the lower confidence levels.  At the highest confidence level, all of those chromosome fragments are “unassigned.”  So, putting aside a historically novel medical finding of mass chromosomal translocations resulting in a normal child (a probability roughly equal to picking one specific atom out of all those in the observable universe), we are left with the reality that the chromosome fragment identifies at the low confidence intervals are being assigned with the precision of a coin flip.  A fragment may be “X” but very likely could be “Y.”  Or maybe the father actually has “X” – and this is where the child is getting it – but the father’s chromosome fragment is instead labeled “Y” at the low confidence interval and “unassigned” at the higher.  Thus, maybe it is really the father who has “X” at the chromosome fragments that would match the child but the test is assigning those fragments to a different ancestry, while perhaps the mother has little or no “X” at all. If you take the low confidence level data at face value, then this all makes no biological sense at all. Recombination normally takes place between homologous chromosomes, not between non-homologous ones.

These companies would be better served to just estimate ancestry from SNP frequency data and/or genome-wide correlations of SNP frequencies (genetic integration) rather than making low probability guestimates of chromosome fragment identity.  However, the latter method is I suppose better for telling crazed cat ladies that they are descended from Pocahontas, so there’s that.

In addition, the companies’ “timeline” estimates are ludicrous, and cannot be used to “time” admixture, even if the admixture is real and not artefactual.  Putting aside the question as to whether the chromosome fragments are properly identified to begin with, and whether the boundaries between purported different ancestral fragments are also properly identified, an important point is being missed (many academic population geneticists make the same possibly incorrect assumptions).  In a large panmictic population, certainly over time you’ll have sufficient scrambling of ancestries so that in an individuals there will be sufficient possibility for meiotic recombination to mix fragments between homologous chromosomes and this breaks up ancestral blocs over time, allowing for an estimation of the arrival of the intrusive elements. But if a small population was interbreeding in isolated communities, then it is possible to have individuals with very high ancestral proportions of the original intrusive stocks, and given mating over time between such individuals any exchanges of chromosome fragments would likely be between fragments of like ancestry.  So large blocs of a given ancestry can be maintained over time, and only start degrading in size relatively recently, given increased human movement.  But let’s not have real life possibilities interfere with the business model.  Send in the shekels!  Pocahontas awaits!

 

How any of this is any better than DNAPrint (was flawed as well) is unclear to me.

Soak the Rich?

In a word, yes.

There’s some difference of opinion about economic issues in Der Movement, between what I would call the populist wing and the laissez-faire wing.  The former group would in general support, at minimum, a mixed-economy, or in more extreme cases, a corporatist or national socialist economic regime. These right-wing populists tend to support such economic strategies such as social credit, citizen’s dividend, guaranteed minimum income, a cap on salaries, a sharply progressive income tax, single-payer healthcare, and a racial interests-first modulation of the economy.  The more extreme members of this group would like to confiscate the wealth of aracial and anti-White wealthy Whites (never mind non-Whites) and send the ex-wealthy race traitors to work camps.

The latter group are more consistent with the typical hyper-capitalist amen corner of global capital represented by the Chamber of Commerce puppets of the GOP.  This wing preaches unrestricted free market policies, predatory capitalism, “sweet business deals,” and rail against social welfare protections even for their own race by using the pejorative label “socialism” (that is supposed to scare us away from any policies that benefit the mass of our people as opposed to the wealthy few).This latter wing tell us that attacks on the wealthy are based on “envy.”

I identify with the former group.  I have discussed economics in previous posts, but here I will focus on responding to three arguments that the laissez-faire stepandfetchits make in defense of the fatcats feeding like maggots on the corpse of America.

1. The wealthy earn their money.  To some extent yes, and to that extent of course productive people should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor.  But the problem is that in a free market economy, earnings are based on what the market will bear, on the basis of pure supply and demand.  So, if there is a demand for athletic entertainment and if the supply of highly-skilled athletes is low, then we observe the spectacle of baseball players earning $30 million per year, all for hitting a little white ball with a wooden stick. Is that earning a salary through productivity that boosts societal good?  Is the market always right?  Can there not be inefficiencies in the market?  Even pro-capitalist economists admit that possibility.

Did the Sackler family earn their wealth in a manner we would approve of?  No doubt there were many “sweet business deals” that eventually led to the degeneration of White America via opioids – is that merely fair free market economics?  Is it a fair earning for an actor to get millions of dollars for a movie or for some episodes of a TV series?  We have businessmen who loot the economy, CEOs who profit while jobs are outsourced and their company goes bankrupt, lawyers who twist and distort the legal system in ways the founders never intended…all “earning their money?”  Are they “investing in the economy” or merely investing in themselves?  If their consumerism “boosts GDP” who benefits?  The wealthy and the Chinese who sell us all the junk the wealthy (and we) consume?  Is a growing GDP the measure of a healthy society?

2. People need to be incentivized to be productive, so they must be allowed to have theoretically unlimited earnings; we cannot impose values on people as to what their desire (read: greed) for money should be in order to do “X, Y, Z” that is beneficial for society, or at least the economy.  We are told that the wealthy would not have become wealthy to begin with if they weren’t selfish and greedy. Perhaps, but an intelligent and disciplined person should have limits.  We’ll be told that we cannot measure another person’s greed, and that we cannot know what level of compensation would be required to incentivize another person to strive in ways that enhance the public good. Well, let’s try anyway.  Let’s consider marginal utility.  How much do you need?  Greg Johnson once proposed a one million dollar per year salary cap (adjust for inflation), and I think that is reasonable.  Is more really necessary?  At what point is a $30 million salary necessary?  How much more enjoyment will they get from that thirtieth million, compared to the societal good that can be accrued if the excess money is utilized in ways that benefit race, people, and nation?  If a person needs an ever-expanding salary to do their job well and be satisfied, then there is something wrong with their character, and with the character of the broader society in which they live and work.  At what point does a minute gain in satisfaction – in many cases nothing more than an ego-boost – justify the concentration of fiscal resources in the hands of a few, a few who cannot possibly utilize that money in a manner that is reasonably necessary for judicious and balanced life satisfaction?

And there is the old, crude yet true, statement: Don’t shit where you eat.  At some point, the shenanigans of the selfish wealthy destabilize society to an extent that it puts the long term well-being of the wealthy themselves into question.   Again – marginal utility. And here we get into negative marginal utility.  If you can have a one billion net worth and enjoy it in a stable society or wreck that society in pursuit of ten billion, is it worth it to choose the latter?  We go back to the excuses made above – “if they weren’t greedy they wouldn’t have made one billion to begin with” and “who are you to say where a person’s economic striving should end?”  I respond that if a person can make one billion by being a selfish destroyer then something is wrong with the economy and that the striving should end at the point where the organic solidarity of the society is wrecked, to the detriment of most, if not all.

3. The wealthy can do what they want with their money and/or they do societal good with it.  Is unbridled hedonism and conspicuous consumption a societal good? How about rent-seeking behavior to influence the political process so that billionaires can make some more billions off the backs of the dispossessed American worker? What about rent-seeking support for cheap labor, both insourced via mass migration or outsourced via globalist economics?  What about open support for anti-White causes – something many, many wealthy Whites do?  How many wealthy Whites do we know who support pro-White causes?  Other than Regnery, I can’t think of a single one.  They can do what they want with their money?  No, not when “doing what they want” is socially and racially destructive.  Or illegal or immoral. Would we say it is OK for the wealthy to, say, buy child sex slaves?  Obviously not.  There are limits to “doing what you want.”  

Obviously, I have no problem with Whites who accumulate wealth through hard work, disciplined saving, and prudent investing – the White upper middle class. I have no problem with Whites who are very wealthy through talent, productivity, and inventiveness. Of course, in both cases, the “no problem” depends upon that those in question were not indulging in aracial hedonism, greedy rent-seeking, or, worse, explicit support for anti-White causes – there I would indeed have a problem.  But otherwise, and even more so, if the well-off Whites were pro-White to some degree or another, they deserve their wealth, we should celebrate their success, and they should enjoy that success and keep their earnings.

But as regards the rest – the hedonists, the greedy, the rent-seekers, the anti-Whites – after “the revolution” they should be dragged out of their mansions, their wealth and assets confiscated, and if they are lucky, they will be allowed to live and make use of themselves doing forced hard labor in work camps.  Balancing the books, and all that.

Which Way 2019?

Questions.

Is the new focal point of the American “movement” in 2019 going to be the Alt Wrong?  Is the new focus the emerging Counter-Currents-Amren-VDARE-TOO-HBD axis?  How much damage will that do to the “movement” before it collapses as did its Alt Right predecessor?

This is actually a very serious threat, potentially more damaging to (American) racial activism than was the Alt Right.  The Alt Right did damage activism, but that was mostly through bad optics, public humiliation, and wasted opportunities. In “economic” terms, the opportunity cost of investing in Alt Right stupidity was such that it set back activism for years.  However, the damage was not ideological.  It could have been worse.  If the Alt Right took Johnson’s advice and followed a Big Tent-Alt Lite strategy, serious ideological damage could have occurred.  But, thankfully, that did not happen. The Alt Right collapsed under a pile of Pepes, Keks, and alcohol bottles, but did not become subsumed into civic nationalist mainstreaming right-wing populism.

On the other hand, domination of the “movement” by the Alt Wrong can do very serious and lasting ideological damage. Here, the threat is that White nationalism will become hijacked by HBD race realism, Judeophilia, and Yellow Supremacy.  While Spencer was tarred as a “tool of Moscow,” the Alt Wrong reality is that of “White nationalists” becoming tools of Tel Aviv/Jerusalem and Beijing.  Instead of pursuing the racial interests of Whites, we’ll just get puppets dancing on the strings of their Jewish puppeteers, as well as Derbyshirian “measured groveling” to Asians.  Hora-dancing Romanians will be out, while Hora-dancing Jews and inscrutable Orientals will be in.  Derbyshire’s “Arctic Alliance” will come to fruition, with a segment of the White population being the subaltern caste junior partners to their Jewish-Asian masters.  

Of course, it won’t be that blatant, but the end result will be the same. That’s where my critics fail with their talk of my “insanity” when I write about things like this in such stark terms.  They erect a strawman in which they assert that I am saying that we will literally see pro-White leaders on their knees before Jews and Asians and that these leaders will openly call for Jewish/Asian dominance.  Of course, they are not going to do that, and some of them may be so naïve that they don’t even realize how they are being manipulated.  But I am not talking about surface optics.  I am instead talking about the fundamental underlying reality, the ultimate consequences, of a course of action.  So, yes, the Alt Wrong will be more careful about optics than the Alt Right.  Yes, they will be careful so as to make their destructive memes palatable to Type I nitwits and sweaty ethnic fetishists. No, they will not be so blatant in that the ultimate outcome of their agenda is easily seen as a form of activism very palatable to Jewish and Asian interests. It does not matter. The final outcome will be the same, even if they don’t literally grovel before the Altar of Asia, even if they don’t literally worship a pile of yarmulkes.  Look behind the curtain, dear reader, and observe the sneering Levantines and grinning Orientals, all benefiting from activism ostensibly meant to benefit Whites.  Observe a “movement” hijacked to serve Asiatic interests. This is a danger far deadlier than Beavis-and-Butthead Alt Righters and their drunken podcasts.

If any WN 1.0 folks read EGI Notes, I hope they heed this warning, and prepare for the Alt Wrong (and Alt Yellow) assault against White nationalism. You guys still have some “pull” in the “movement” – I do not and never had.  It’s your responsibility and obligation to battle the Alt Wrong – doubly so, since you are in part responsible for the affirmative action program that results in EGI Notes having no “pull” in Der Movement.  You want to be leaders?  Then act the part.  Finally, speak out against HBD and the Alt Wrong.

Question: Will the Silkers make peace with the Alt Wrong, and look the other way as regards Jewish influence, as long as Asian interests are being served?

Question: Will the Alt Wrong be so clumsy – and not quite as optics-friendly as I wrote above – that they’ll let Jews and Asians play a more direct and public role in White racial activism?  I would predict that will eventually happen IF there is no pushback against the Alt Wrong, if they become over-confident, and if they believe that they have defeated the Ourselves Alone pro-White faction of the “movement.”  On the other hand, if they are more subtle and clever, they’ll only work behind the screen of Derbyshire and various other White HBDers.  In either case, expect Derbyshire – as long as his health allows – to play a larger role going forward. Amren and VDARE will also be expected to be proportionately more prominent.  HBD will be pushed and possibly we’ll see more articles similar to Munro’s “hit piece” against Romanians.  Never forget: pan-Europeanism is the deadly enemy of the Alt Wrong and vice versa, and the HBDers will continue to divide Europeans against each other, and attempt to set up the Jeurasian future with a subset of Whites. The Derbyshire family, in conjunction with the Hart-Weissberg crowd, is the future the Alt Wrongers want. More HBD, more Arctic Alliance, more ethnonationalism – no surprise that the Alt Wrongers wanted to subsume the ethnonationalists, anything to divide Whites – that’s what one can expect.

Who is going to be the “mainstream movement” opposition to the Alt Wrong? Will Strom finally – finally! – speak out against Jew/Asian worshipping HBD?  Or will we only have the tragicomedy of Parrott and his “Sieg Heil and pass the beer” crowd as opposition to the “Yellow Supremacy and pass the wine and cheese” crowd?

Or will the Alt Wrongers try to appease the WN 1.0 by appealing to their vanity and ethnic fetishism?  They’ll tell the WN 1.0ers that, don’t worry, you guys are so much better than those Hora-dancing Romanians.  Just throw the “outer Hajnal” crowd under the bus, get yourself a nice Asian girlfriend, and you’ll get invited to all the HBD conferences, where you can rub shoulders with that Aryan superman Professor Hart.  What’s not to like?    Better Hart than Codreanu, right?

Who will Greg Johnson feud with next?  Will the Alt Wrong alliance last through the end of 2019?

Who is the next prominent HBDer to either die and/or be exposed as was Rushton?  Will 2019 be the year of Lynn?

Johnson:

It is clear that the movement needs to do fine grained empirical studies and publish them to assess the impact of events, so we can prevent liars like you from claiming that “[Propaganda disaster X] was actually good for the movement.”

That costs money.  Which tin cupper will part with some of their proceeds to make this happen?

I’ll give Johnson credit for his online debating with Parrott.  Who’s going to be next on the comeback trail after Parrott and Heimbach?  Derek Black?  Who? Hal Turner? Patrik Hermansson?  The mind boggles.  Maybe the reincarnation of Dan Burros?  Getting back to “labor leader” Matt: For godssakes, Parrott, just go away.  JUST. GO. AWAY.

Maybe that will be a theme of 2019: Movement Zombies and Vampires – discredited and/or humiliated “movement leaders” and other personalities who rise from the activist dead to suck the blood and life out of what’s left of (American) racial nationalism.

What will be the next sex scandal in Der Movement?  Will it happen in 2019? Heterosexual?  Homosexual? Bisexual?  Transgender?  Inter-racial?  Adultery/cuckoldry?  Pedophilia? S and M?  Bestiality?  Necrophilia? Some combination thereof?

One possible scenario: A “movement leader” is accused of having S and M sex with male and female dead puppies and kittens.  These puppies and kittens were the sexual playthings of another “movement leader” (cuckoldry!) and now both “leaders” declare they are transgender and involved with Negro transgender lovers.  After several months both “leaders” re-emerge with tweets telling us everyone else in Der Movement, Inc. has it all wrong – only they, the disgraced “leaders,” are the fount of all activist wisdom.

Will Kessler organize Unite the Right III?  And will anyone show up if he does?

What are the chances that the various “movement” bigwigs will win the Unite the Right civil case?  Not good, I think.  If I had to bet, I’d bet on a loss.  That’s not because they are in the wrong; in this case they are not wrong – the case against them is ludicrous. But in Trump’s America, the rule of law is meaningless and the Left is triumphant. 

Which Way Trumpian Man?  Will 2019 lead to impeachment?  Resignation?  Or just more blowhard tweets with nothing at all getting done?  Will Roissy finally turn against his man-crush Trump?

How much of the “wall” will be built in 2019?  No, I mean the “fence.”  No, that’s not right, I mean the “metaphor.”  Yeah, yeah – “metaphor” – that’s the ticket.

Hey, Antifa Don – assuming you’re running for reelection in 2020, and won’t be in prison enjoying the attentions of DeShawn, then all those voted from your disillusioned and disgusted base will be a “metaphor” as well.  You’ll make Goldwater on 1964 look like a victory lap by comparison.

What failure of mainstreaming – and success of farstreaming – will European politics present to us in 2019?

Cue “movement” comments about Moops, Hora, and Mongols.  After all, when Whites turn on each other, the Alt Wrongers are waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces.

What outrageous errors will the Quota Queens make in 2019?  What leftist will they label an “alpha shitlord” (trust the phyzz!)?  What leftist academic or movie director will they label “a man of the Right?”  One can imagine some Old Kingdom Egyptian mummies getting gene-tested as 85% Middle Eastern and 15% sub-Saharan African, and the peanut gallery will declare – “Arthur Kemp was right!”  The mind boggles!  Possibilities, possibilities!

Prediction: White women will continue acting badly in 2019, and Johnson will continue to mumble about “Joan of Arc.”  It’s sort of like Whites and Blacks – the men who defend women the most are the ones who have the least experience and interactions with them.

Bad news.  What happens when you reward bad behavior?  You get more of it.  Good going, all you Type I rank-and-file nitwits.

Epilogue – a retard looks back and makes predictions:

ZMan:

Because the Democrats will be shifting their focus to winning the White House in 2020, the censorship trend will take a different turn, as the tech giants begin to censor the Left. Look for the social media companies to begin cracking down on the BernieBro wing, in an effort to boost the standing of party approved candidates. Suddenly, groups like Antifa are going to find themselves without the protection they have enjoyed. They were always corporate tools, they just never knew it. In 2019, they find out who signs their checks.

We’ll see about that.  Frankly, I’m skeptical, but who knows?

This is the time of year when lazy writers post about the comings and goings of the previous year, usually in the form of a listicle. “The top-10 events of the past year” is column that used to turn up in every newspaper at least once. Then you have the predictions for the coming year, which no one ever mentions as part of their year in review posts. With technology being what it is, you would think a new genre of year-end post would be the review of futures past type of post, but that has not happened.

And so Zman essentially proceeds to do what he just criticized.

One thing I got very right is the continued growth of nationalist and populist parties in Europe. It is easy to forget that the smart people were all talking about the populist wave having crested last year, so going the other way was a bold prediction. Not only have the populists displayed staying power, new movements from the Left are turning up. The Yellow Vest thing in France is much more of a leftists cause, especially in Paris, than a right-wing phenomenon. That’s something to watch for next year.

Yellow Vests!  The new heroes!  The Yellow Vest on White Horse Syndrome!  At least Zman has more sense than some other idiots on the Right and correctly labels the Yellow Vesters as more leftist.  In contrast,one can imagine Roissy identifying “alpha shitlords” among some Marxist Yellow Vesters, or Johnson pontificating about the need for a big tent (a circus tent would be most appropriate) to include such people.

 

Summary: I think it’s a reasonable prediction that 2019 will be another year of “movement” failure, humiliation, and wasted opportunities.

The AI and White Revolution

Mobilizing the disaffected.

Read this.

I recently listened to a podcast talking about the massive changes in the workplace and society due to Artificial Intelligence (AI)-induced human obsolescence (*).  For example, read this.

One third of able-bodied American men between 25 and 54 could be out of job by 2050, contends the author of “The Future of Work: Robots, AI and Automation.”
“We’re already at 12% of prime-aged men without jobs,” said Darrell West, vice president of the Brookings Institution think tank, at a forum in Washington, D.C. on Monday. That number has grown steadily over the past 60 years, but it could triple in the next 30 years because of new technology such as artificial intelligence and automation.

And it is not just “low-skilled” labor – even radiologists can be replaced by AI that can read CT and MRI scans, never mind analyzing something as relatively simple as X-rays. Robotic surgery is being increasingly utilized.  AI can certainly replace accountants.  This is the new reality.  And talk of re-training is ludicrous, as I have discussed here previously.  First, a large fraction of the population does not have the cognitive ability for such re-training, and some fraction of the economically obsolete will be too old to retool their careers, even if they have the IQ to handle it.  Second, even the jobs these folks will be re-trained for will also eventually become obsolete due to AI. And what are radiologists and other very high-skilled workers going to be retrained as?  Third, even if people can be retrained, the economic and societal costs will be enormous, and even under a best case scenario, the fraction of the population that is out of the workforce will still be significantly increased compared to today.

This of course brings opportunity.  Prime age White men, disenfranchised economically to go with their racial dispossession and societal-cultural deconstruction – this is a potent brew, an army of the disaffected looking for someone to blame, and looking for someone to give them purpose.

Remember how Saint Adolf mobilized disenfranchised German men to fill the ranks of the SA – the Nazis who rode the tide of the Depression, and the resulting societal upheaval, into power.  

And a clever movement – a real movement with real leaders – can very well show this army of disaffected White man how their futures, how their lives, and how their nation was stolen from them.  Class resentment merges easily with racial resentment, particularly since Jews and Asians are at the top of the human energy pyramid, over-represented in the professions (which will be the last jobs to be replaced by AI), with disproportionate wealth and opportunities, and who will be in a position to leverage societal upheaval to their own benefit.  Indeed, Jewish places in the System may be among the most AI-resistant, and as the wire-pullers, they can direct the flow of AI-induced dispossession away from themselves and toward blue collar and white collar Whites.  Lawyers, media executives, economists, etc. will still float at the top of a society dominated by AI, and one can expect clever and ethnocentric Jews to quickly fill, and dominate, those few professions left relatively unscathed (at least at the beginning) by the AI revolution.  Asians may be somewhat more vulnerable than Jews, since their niche professions are somewhat more easily filled by AI, but even then, they are, per capita, much less vulnerable than Whites, given Asian wealth and over-representation in professions that will be among the last to be lost.  Further, Asians can be a useful target for racial resentment if one focuses on the stereotype of the “Asian computer nerd” as being responsible for developing intrusive AI technologies (**).  On the other hand, the AI revolution can also breed White resentment against the Blacks and Browns, who will be competing with Whites for remaining employment, with the advantage of affirmative action and other programs; further, one can expect Black-Brown criminality to increase even more than its current astronomical levels given increased societal chaos and economic obsolescence.  In addition, downwardly mobile Whites will be intersecting with Blacks and Browns and competing for niche spaces, in general terms, in this re-ordered society. Thus, Whites can be shown how all their hard work was used to trick them, disenfranchise them, their wealthy stolen by White traitor fat cats, Jews, Asians, and the Colored underclass.

What we need are populist demagogues who can take advantage of these upcoming changes to fan the flames of chaos, hatred, and unrest.  What we need to avoid like the plague is any connection with traditional conservative hyper-capitalist economics.  We need to eschew Boomer “White advocates” preening about their “sweet business deals,” and we need to eschew Millennial libertarians (the same retards who populated the defunct Alt Right), and we need to eschew “pro-White” Jews and their call for laissez-faire free-trade Jeurasian states.

I’ll give credit to Greg Johnson here for talking about social credit – these are the sorts of ideas and solutions we need to be promoting, not warmed over crony-capitalism and ever-increasing wealth disparities and the creation of globalist elites.  Economic populism has to go hand-in-hand with racial-cultural populism. There needs to be consistency and authenticity – how can a racial demagogue leverage economic crises to fan the flames of ethnoracial hatred if that same demagogue is a proponent of the capitalist system causing the problem?  And the problem is NOT ‘science and technology” as the Type I traditionalist retards will say – a racially and culturally homogeneous nation could leverage the economic productivity of AI and automation to provide its citizens with a citizens dividend, coupled with shorter working hours, cultural production, and useful make-work and entertainment for the left side of the Bell Curve.  A sane racially unified society can make the AI revolution into a well-managed positive (**), instead of the dystopian nightmare we are headed toward as large numbers of men, of all races, find themselves made obsolete, all mixed together and competing in a multiracial madhouse created by the Jews and their White globalist collaborators. In this latter case, the AI revolution can lead to a real revolution – the question is, WHOSE revolution?  If we want it to be of the White Right, and not the Jew-Colored Left, we had better prepare now, to link the AI Revolution to White Revolution.

This is not something that needs to wait – we can get started now, with the already high numbers of men – that includes White men – out of the workforce, and who are not only economically and racio-culturally disenfranchised, by sexually disenfranchised as well, by a society that combines, feminism, female “empowerment,” and female hypergamy in the sexual marketplace.  Stop with the stupidity about Kali Yuga and cephalic indices and start mobilizing the disaffected – a mass of disaffected that contains some fraction of useful right side of the Bell Curve folks looking for a purpose, for meaning in life. Either we give them that purpose or someone else will do so.

Footnotes

*Needless to say, of course, all of this makes immigration not only economically unnecessary but economically harmful – just adding to the population that will be in the category of having been made obsolete by AI.  

**While we should embrace, and not reject, science and technology, we can still, as suggested above, slyly suggest to the left-side-of-the-White-Bell-Curve crowd that Asians and their fetish for computers and robotics are to blame for human economic dispossession. We could distinguish between creative White technics that empower people and destructive Asian technics – originally copied from Whites and then degenerated into negativism – that are used to create a faceless, insect-like, hive society in which people are dominated by machines instead of vice versa.

Movement Monday

Odds and ends. In all cases, emphasis added.

Counter-Currents writer takes a Joyceian, rather than a Johnsonian, view of Mr. Screw Your Optics:

No White Nationalist should feel the slightest desire to apologize, backtrack, disavow, or rethink a single thing he believes because of this event. 

I do none of these things.  I need to rethink nothing: I believed Der Movement was a disgusting mess before and I believe so now.  I believed the Type I retards have ruined racial activism and I still believe so.  I believe “acting out” is a mistake – nothing has changed.  And why should I “apologize, backtrack, disavow?”  The incident was a Type I operation; it has nothing to do with Type IIs.

Continue as if nothing happened. 

That attitude worked with all the infiltration incidents, and all other “movement” failures, why not now?

Call out our enemies at every turn, mock them for their hypocrisy, ridicule their insanely childish ideals, and throw statistics and blunt truths at them as usual – do everything but blink. Don’t give them an inch of moral ground. They have absolutely no right to take it.

True enough.  However, the same can be said of the Type Is – who have long ago forfeited any moral high ground or legitimacy whatsoever.  I suggest that the Type Is burrow down into their snug hobbit holes and let adults run things for a change.

Zman:

That’s the real fight here. Rod Rosenstein can threaten obstruction of justice all he likes, but he has not power. Trump has real power. He can address the nation one night, reveal the secrets Rosenstein is trying to hide and then fire all of the people involved in this subversive plot and its cover up. Congress, even one run by Democrats, is not going to impeach Trump for exposing corruption. They will make the ritual noises and rush to their media outlets to complain about how Trump is a tyrant, but nothing will come of it.
That’s probably why Trump has been sitting on this stuff until after the election. He has no fear of twerps like Rosenstein. He just needs to get through the election and then figure out the new game board. If the GOP keeps the House, then maybe he lets Congress work this case. If it is the Democrats, then maybe he calls their bluff and releases these documents to the public during the lame duck session. The one thing he will not be doing is worrying about what silly men like Rod Rosenstein have to say about it.

Here’s another possibility, regardless of the election’s outcome: Trump, as usual, does nothing.  Oh, not exactly nothing – he’ll continue with his blustering tweets, his late-night cheeseburgers, and will continue to trade insults with horse-faced porn stars, but with respect to actual governance, actual hardball politics, it will be, typically for him, nothing.  All talk, no action. MAGA!

Presented for your amusement.

This fellow – a German Borreby who claims to be “the head of the German Alt Right” (I’ve never heard of him) – seems like he has a good heart, but he’s naive about the whole thing.  He sees a difference between Johnson and Spencer, while, in reality, there is no real difference.  That’s why I don’t take sides in that feud – it’s mostly personality, not principled differences in fundamentals (superficial differences yes, fundamental, no).

HBDer Welton:

The likely moral for people in the West and especially in “secular” Western Europe: fundamentalist religiosity seems to be pretty important in defeating the forces of SJW chaos. It “gets things done”.

HBD and Sallis are as different in viewpoints as two entities both ostensibly on the “racially aware Right” can be.  I disagree with the HBDers on virtually everything.  It’s quite remarkable, actually.

Roissy:

Trump does have to do something, fast. He has to regulate these social media companies, internet hosting companies, and payment processor companies as common carriers. Do it!

Yeah, Trump is going to do something fast – what he does best.

Amusing:

1488D chess strikes again! Just tell the Cville and RAM guys, even those Proud Boy cucks, they have to sit it out in jail a little while longer until Trump reveals himself as the Great White Hope after the midterms, and walks back all the ZOG kissing and anti-WN rhetoric he has made. And don’t take those threats he made yesterday in the aftermath of the Pittsburgh shooting personally. He really isn’t coming after you just some strawman to placate the kikes and libs.

Crudely put, but essentially correct. The Trump worshippers will be waiting for their “God Emperor” to “do something” long after he’s dead (probably from a heart attack after eating a Big Mac) and buried.  Why, he’ll rise from the dead like Jesus and smite the heathens with some clever “negs.”

Kamikaze: a European invention.  Asians: copy, copy, copy, steal, steal, steal.

Puerile Brimelow is with his cheesecake pictures again.  This fellow used to be useful and mature.  I’m not sure what happened, but I suspect it may have to do with the tragedy of his first wife’s death – an event for which I had genuine sympathy for Brimelow and his first set of children) and his subsequent second marriage to a much younger woman.  Since then he’s been behaving like an absolute jackass.

Has Brazil elected a real right-wing populist, unlike the fraud Trump?

Roissy:

He says, without a hint of irony or glibness, that subversives within State will take Trump down if he doesn’t immediately clean house and fire at least three-quarters of the staff. He says, again sans glibness, that whatever negative blowback this will have on foreign relations is more than compensated for by removing an actively hostile threat to his Presidency, and he wonders why Trump has to date dropped the ball on this pressing matter. He presumes members of Trump’s inner circle are deliberately hiding State Department subterfuge from him, and if that’s the case, then the fix is in.

“…he wonders why Trump has to date dropped the ball on this pressing matter.”

Trump has other pressing matters to attend to…like pressing all those cheeseburgers down his throat.

“He presumes members of Trump’s inner circle are deliberately hiding State Department subterfuge from him…”

Yeah…it’s being discussed on juvenile gamester blogs, but the President is too clueless to know what’s going on in his own State Department.  MAGA!

The Nazi Next Time, II

Further analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In any case: Sallis was prescient once again.

Now, back to the 2015 Sallis piece.

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

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

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

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

Still think they really want to win?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is anathema to Establishment Republicans.

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

They may succeed but they are playing with fire.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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