Category: racial nationalism

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.

Advertisements

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).