Category: racial nationalism

Multiple Nationalisms

Good points.

…the concept of “white nationalism” is a distinctly American notion. Europeans are “British Nationalists,” or they support “Germany for the Germans.” 

This argument again? Funny how few people counter-signal against “British nationalism” despite “British nationalism” itself actually being a rather artificial conflation of English, Scottish, and Welsh (and Irish even.) 

Why is no one attacking “Spanish nationalism” despite the fact that “Spanish” is hardly more authentic than “American” – just look at the Basque vs. the Catalan, etc?

America has always drawn on a wider European base than individual European nations. 

So what? No one in America is demanding that the nations of Europe all drop their identity and become generic “white” – but apparently there is no end to the attempts to define “American” out of existence. 

How eerily similar to the well known Jewish talking points: “Palestinians are an invented people” and “Whiteness is a social construct” and “how the Irish became White.”

To which I reply:

Excellent comment.  Indeed, I’ve known Spaniards who were vehemently “Catalonian” and not “Spanish.”  On the other hands, I’ve seen websites of equally vehement Spanish nationalists.  And there are Spanish pan-Europeanists.  All levels are valid.

One can go to absurd levels of microcosms here.  Spanish or Catalonian? Catalonia or a specific attachment to Barcelona?  A particular neighborhood in Barcelona?  A particular pub in that neighborhood?  Or perhaps different tables in the same pub can form their own tribes?

Cui bono?


Answering a “Wolf”

More permutations of “movement” stupidity.

Read this.

…but count us out…

My reply:

We will.  Something that took me many years to learn, but which is now obvious, is that it is not possible to convince all people, or most people, or even perhaps very many people, of your views. What is more important: to convince the right people.  It is quite obvious that “radical individualists” are not the right people for racial nationalism.

Also: that “radical individualists” need and want a collective tribal wolfpack doesn’t quite make sense.

As regards the main article: citing the Mafia as an example of a System-resistant group is ludicrous. With RICO, informers, targeted prosecutions, and sociopolitical issues, the Mafia today is a weak shadow of what it was in the past.  

The idea that the “Wolves” are going to resist the government like a Red Dawn scenario is equally ludicrous.

Resist the Alt Right

We need to fight this contagion.

Alt Right memetic imperialist:

Call yourself what you want, but you are part of the Alternative Right whether you like it or not. White nationalist? Your Alt-Right. Fascist? Your Alt-Right. National-Socialist? Alt-Right. Race-realist? Alt-Right. It’s a brand with recognition that is slowly appealing to the mainstream and making White Nationalist ideas tenable to people. But because you don’t like the predominance of younger people and youth culture, you defame the name and act like your too good for it. Your like a Hispanic person who says “I’m not Hispanic! I’m Colombian!”

Putting aside the grammar errors, let’s look at the content.  This is the most outrageous nonsense imaginable, a perfect example of the Alt Right’s memetic hegemony.

Let me be crystal clear: I am a national socialist White nationalist and I am NOT – repeat NOT – of the “Alternative Right.”  Don’t like “youth culture?” Look, the Alt Right is nothing more or less than the most superficial and intellectually shallow fossilized “movement” dogma dressed up in juvenile jackassery to appeal to the absolute worst aspects of social media and “youth culture.”  

I am unalterably opposed to this disgusting and disgraceful contagion of the racial nationalist ecosystem, I reject the Alt Right without reservation, and fervently hope for its quick collapse.

Arrogant retards like this semi-illiterate commentator should stop projecting his Pepe/Kek lulzing on sane and rational racial nationalists.  “”Too good for it?”  You’re (not “your”) damn right I am!

I hope that EGI Notes can be one nexus of the anti-Alt Right resistance among racial nationalists. I’d like to see more posts/thoughts from racial nationalists on building an Alt Right-free Movement.

Against the Alt Right’s Memetic Imperialism

A battle for the meaning of racial nationalism.

Read this.  It’s a good piece except for this disgusting example of Alt Right arrogance:

We in the Alt-Right are the only true opposition to Neoliberalism…

That’s why I despise and oppose the Alt Right – its smug memetic imperialism.  The Alt Right wants you to believe that it and racial nationalism are one and the same, an equation that I unalterably oppose and will continue opposing.  Racial nationalism – in opposition to “Neoliberalism” – existed before the Alt Right, non-Alt Right racial nationalism exists today, and it will continue to exist after the Alt Right fad has burned itself out.

Sorry, Alt Right – there is more to racial nationalism than juvenile jackassery, “game,” lulzing stupidity, obsessions over a cartoon frog, homoerotic fervor over the “God Emperor,” yelling “Hail Kek!,” breathless excitement over facts and memes the rest of us knew a generation earlier, and all the rest.  The Alt Right is simply a Millennial-friendly version of the Old Movement, and as such is stupefied with all the old fossilized dogma, and it is thus destined to fail.  You have to change the product, my friends, not merely the packaging.

The only “true opposition to Neoliberalism?”  Hardly.  Indeed, attitudes like that make me wonder whether the Alt Right is best characterized as a form of Neoliberalism itself.

Bitter Neurotic Ted

A non-bitter argument.

In response to some of my criticisms of the Alt Wrong, Greg Johnson writes:

Bitterness is a kind of neurosis, Ted, and you have the worst case I have ever seen. The embittered person carries around a lot of grievances, and unloads them on whoever reminds him, even tangentially, of the causes of his discontent. Bitterness destroys objectivity and justice, which are signally lacking in your ranting about the movement. You really need to disengage from this. It is not healthy for you, and it accomplishes absolutely nothing for the greater good of the cause.

That’s something to consider.  There is some truth to that, although I would argue that my grievances, such as they are, are completely legitimate.  That I behave in similar fashion in “the real world” does suggest that my basic character is in the direction of relentless vindictiveness. Indeed, being very critical in “real life,” I have been admonished by someone I know personally, telling me that “you should criticize only when you have a constructive suggestion to make to improve the situation.”  Very well.  How would I respond to accusations of “White supremacy” without invoking Asian (or Jewish) IQ and without calling myself a “Yellow supremacist?”

I could of course direct the accuser to my writings on White inferiority (from an adaptive fitness standpoint) that are analogous to an old Strom ADV broadcast on the same topic that made a positive impression on me.  More fundamentally though, I would argue thus (sentences in bold are excerpts useful for a shorter “sound bite”):

Racial preservation, White advocacy, and racial nationalism are not at all dependent on notions of superiority or inferiority.  Racial nationalists such as myself make an analogy between family and ethnic group/race. Political scientist Dr. Frank Salter uses the term “ethny” to describe various types of population groups such as ethnic group and race, and he argues that individuals have interests – genetic interests – in their ethny just as they do with their family. Further, a person can identify with ethny through shared history and culture in addition to the purely biological aspect of group identity.  Just as a person’s defense of family is not dependent on the notion that their family is “superior” but simply because it is their own, so does defense of ethny derive from a sense of belonging, a sense of loyalty, and acknowledgment of the fundamental interests a person has in the continuity – genetic and otherwise – of their ethny and in the interest they have in its well-being and advancement.  While a parent may brag about their children, their caring for their children is due to the kinship they have in them and notions of superiority/inferiority have nothing to do with it. After all, parents will care for children who are sickly retardates and hardly superior by any reasonable measure.  It is not by chance that Salter used “child equivalents” to express the level of genetic interest a person has in their ethny, and such equivalents are independent of any ranking of phenotypic characteristics.  True enough, White accomplishments are a matter of record, and one can make the argument that humanity would benefit by White continuity, but the argument for racial self-defense ultimately does not derive from such considerations, but is inherent in the unique existence of every ethny.

Now, Alt Wrong representatives are certainly intelligent and articulate, some are familiar with Salter’s work, and nothing stops them from making similar arguments.  Why they have not done so, and instead fall back on “high Asian IQ” arguments is something to ponder. Regardless of their motivations heretofore, I would strongly suggest that they switch their arguments away from a hierarchical ranking of traits (that ostensibly favor Asians and Jews) and instead base racialist arguments on kinship, which would always favor those more closely (genetically) related to you.

Racialist Expected Value, Process, and Results

Economic-based analysis.

Listening to some financial podcasts about ‘wealth building” I noticed some analogies to racial activism (perhaps not surprising since child equivalents of EGI can be transformed into financial impacts based on estimated “values” of a human life, e.g., for insurance purposes).

One point made was that calculating probabilities is not sufficient; one must also estimate the potential value obtained from each outcome.  Thus, outcome A may be more probable than outcome B, but if the payoff of B is far greater than that of A, it would be most prudent to invest in B rather than in A, since the “expected value” of B-oriented scenarios is greater than that for scenarios oriented around pursuing A.

This is one of the points I’ve previously made about Breezy’s “citizenism.” Yes, it may be that civic nationalism is more probable as an achievable outcome than racial nationalism (see: Trump, Donald J. as an example). Nevertheless, the potential outcome of racial nationalism is so far superior to anything achievable from civic nationalism (perhaps infinitely greater if one supposes that civic nationalism in America following current demographic trends would result in the White race replacement that racial nationalism would prevent), then it is obviously more prudent, form a cost/benefit ratio to pursue approaches leading to racial nationalist outcomes.

Another point made by financial analysts and advisers is to be process-driven rather than merely results-driven.  An example given is to imagine a process in which there is 55% probability of success and 45% probability of failure, with equal relative outcomes of gain/loss respectively (and assume there are no other approaches that would give a higher expected value than pursuing this 55:45 advantage).  A person who is purely results-driven, if they had lost after the first try, would give up, saying: I tried it and lost.  A process-driven person would realize that, over time, this approach would yield value, given a sufficient sample size of attempts.

That’s very simplistic of course, and is not an argument against considering results – after all, if you attempted this approach 1,000 times and kept on losing, those results would inform you that the process was flawed.  After all, you need feedback to judge whether the process is as effective as you originally thought.  Further, you may not have the resources to keep on losing waiting for the process to work; there are many considerations where results are important.  So, perhaps it is best to say that you should be BOTH process-driven and results-driven, not one or the other.  At the beginning, it is best to emphasize process over results, to generate sufficient sample size so that the results become relevant.  Later, the importance of a results-driven approach increases, but should never rise to the level of completely excluding process.  Indeed, process can be refined based upon results (and of course results are driven by process, modified by probability).

I’m critical of Der Movement from the basis of BOTH process (which I find stupid and wrong-headed) as well as results (decades of failure represent a sufficient sample size to judge the lack of efficacy of process).

Business Not Personal

Stating the obvious.

Some recent Der Movement correspondence leads me to state that my (sometimes harsh) criticism of (White) racial nationalists is business, not personal (*).  And, of course, I’ve already stated, multiple times, the over-the–top rhetoric that accompanies some criticism is tongue-in-cheek and not to be taken purely seriously.  But the serious criticism, which should be taken at face value, is business: a different view of ideology and of the direction that the “movement” needs to move. There is always – even if weak – an underlying attitude of all belonging to “this thing of ours” and therefore at least some minimal “professional courtesy” is in order (again excluding the obviously sardonic mocking of “movement” Nutzi lunacy).

With respect to individuals who are not racial nationalists, my criticism may very well be personal as well as business – Derbyshire is a classic example.  These people are beyond the pale of respectability as defined from a racial nationalist perspective, there is no underlying sense of community, and some of the harsher criticisms are not necessarily tongue-in-cheek.

All of this would seem to be (at least intuitively) obvious, but I suspect it is not.

* Similar as explained in this swarthoid movie.