And other news.
See this. I would like to first consider this topic from the perspective of the actual post and then briefly examine how this can be extended to the “movement.”
Loyalty — of any kind — is a career impediment.
Loyalty to one’s race, religion, region (the South) etc., are not only impediments. Those kinds of loyalty are radioactive, instant death.
Even loyalty to one’s family is a career impediment. The normal young law firm associate wants to go home at 5.00 p.m. to be with his wife and child. The sociopath will work on till 8.00 on the important brief without any psychological conflict. He’ll call up the wife and tell her he won’t be home for dinner without any upset.
This explains someone like Biden feeling no loyalty to his country and being willing to pimp for those with power and money without any regard to what it means to people at large.
What makes the situation in America even worse, however, is that this situation is the opposite for the predatory ethnic groups seeking conquest at our expense.
Black, Hispanic, Jewish politicians are successful the more they are loyal. A law student who can put in his resume that he was President of the Black Law Student’s Association, the La Raza Club or the Hillel Foundation enhances his chances of getting a high-paying job with a prestigious law firm, a federal judgeship or election to the US Senate. (Like Schumer who was recently caught explaining to other Jews that his whole life is spent scheming on how to advance his own particular ethnic group.)
What these two contradictory patterns lead to is what’s going on in contemporary America.
Our antagonists are led by men whose loyalty to their ethnic group exceeds that of most of the others. We are “led” by people like Biden, Clinton, John McCain, William F Buckley Jr., Johnny Isakson, Lindsey Graham, and Mitch McConnel who are bereft of loyalty to us.
This is another reason why there is no hope of reform under the present System.
I agree with this overall assessment. Yes, political leaders are, typically, sociopaths (or, if you will, psychopaths). Yes, and this is important, White political leaders are unique (in a negative sense) in that they are hostile to, and opposed to, the interests of their own people, in contrast to leaders of all other groups, who (almost) always strongly support and promote the interests of their own group.
An older National Alliance ADV broadcast (I don’t remember if it was Pierce or Strom) mentioned a sociopolitical “ratchet” – events move only in the direction of anti-Whiteness and never in the direction of pro-Whiteness. If both White and non-White political leaders are anti-White and pro-non-White, thus having the entire political system hostile to White interests, then we can understand why this “ratchet” exists.
Of course, the HBD-Nordicists would have varied other explanations for the behavior of White political leaders; in some cases, perhaps those Whites are acting in a “sincere” manner in pursuing pathological altruism (high trusters!). Still, generally, it would seem that many of these leaders have strong strains of sociopathy, for the reasons explained in the essay.
This would in part explain why the ratchet moves in an anti-White direction in nations that have a White majority and the majority of voters being White. Yes, some Whites are leftists and openly act in defiance of group interests, and, in combination with non-White voters, there is a strong anti-White voting bloc. But, how did all of those newer non-White immigrants get here in the first place? Why was the minority of Whites who are leftist allowed to get their way all the time? If you want to blame “the Jews,” then who empowered them (and let them in the country to begin with), and who goes along with their agenda in exchange for “thirty pieces of silver?”
Political policies derived from White leaders put into office by a majority White electorate are responsible. But, here is an important point – even when the White electorate puts right-of-center political leaders into office, the same ratchet moves in the anti-White direction. So, even when Whites try and vote in the direction of their interests, they are betrayed by their leaders, most recently by Trump. Therefore, sociopathy plays a role, perhaps a crucial role. When your own leaders, across the entire political spectrum, betray you without remorse, with no conscience bothering them, who openly lie and betray – this seems to be sociopathy in action.
Moving to the “movement,” I would maintain that sociopathy plays a role as well. Gaslighters, grifters, betrayers, liars, lazy good-for-nothings – is it any wonder why Der Movement has gone from failure to failure decade after decade? When you combine sociopathy with outrageous incompetence, all protected by an ethnic affirmative action program – well, we see the utter catastrophe that is (American) pro-White activism.
Maybe we need to add some moralpaths to the mix?
Other news:
See this. Well, OK, if you agree that women are basically whores who exchange sex to gain goods, favors, and concessions from men, and who have nothing else to offer society, I suppose that’s an effective approach for inducing change. What say you, ladies?
Of course, the tactic is not going to very effective with the typical married Western man, who’s not “getting any” regardless of circumstances. Milady, how can you go “on strike” if you’re not “working” in the first place?
The solution for men? The man strike. Note what the article says:
“Successful lysistratic non-action works best among large groups of women who have little or no power in the social system.”
That’s exactly the type of women who NEED men for support and resources. So, fine. No sex? Then no money, no food, no support. Walk out on the harridan and let her go rot. After all, when men (except for Travis Bickle) pay for prostitutes they expect sexual activity in return. Children involved? Take them away and let their grandmother take care of them. Is grandma supporting the strike? Well, then tell grandpa to leave her and let her go rot as well.
Another intellectual product from the brave new Counter-Currents. Title: “white-people-need-to-start-fucking-again.”
Of course, all of the highbrow Herrenvolk who turn up their nose to the “uncouth” Sallis Groupuscule will, of course, have nothing to say about “white-people-need-to-start-fucking-again.”
Laugh at this.
Perhaps Le Pen’s progress is indeed explicable with what Le Monde calls her “permanent normalization”: she is perpetually moderating her discourse…
And perpetually losing. There isn’t the slightest evidence that mainstreaming is a winning electoral strategy. And even if I turned out to be wrong here, and she wins – to what end? The purpose of winning elections should be to actualize a political agenda, not merely to attain power for its own sake. If a moderate and “normalized” Le Pen is elected and ends up doing little to nothing for France and Europe, then who cares?
…and sending signals to make herself more “presidentiable” in the eyes of the mainstream media and skittish center-right voters (think pensioners and bourgeois Catholics disturbed by Afro-Islamization, but also wary of the potential instability and incompetence of a Le Pen presidency, particularly in the economic sphere).
So, if these voters are “skittish” of Le Pen, and believe that a Le Pen presidency will be characterized by “instability and incompetence,” then why should they vote for her if she moves so far toward the center that the political distance between herself and Macron – particularly if he feints right for the election – is negligible?Le Pen’s closer advisor and brother-in-law Philippe Olivier says: “There is no more detoxification, now is the time of presidentialization.”The moves towards normalization include praise for Charles de Gaulle (loathed by Le Pen père for his abandonment of the 1 million Europeans of French Algeria), the commemoration of the victims of the Vel d’Hiv, agreeing with the media that the “Great Replacement” is a baseless conspiracy, and providing only qualified support for the persecuted group Generation Identity on grounds of free speech.And that substantially differs from Macron how, exactly?
In a debate with Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin, the Macronist even sought to attack Le Pen from the right saying: “you’re practically soft now.”
Exactly. That is a key component of my argument against Durocher’s mainstreaming that I have been making for years now. If Le Pen moves so far to the center that that she can be outflanked on the right by Macronists, and if voters are “skittish” about her, then why the hell won’t they just vote for Macron? If it’s between a “stable” known quality centrist and “potential instability and incompetence” of another centrist slightly more to the right (maybe), where’s the incentive for favoring the latter over the former?
And even if she does win, then we get this:
Indeed, Le Pen now is very careful to distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is “a religion like any other” with its place in France, she says, reserving her trademark “far-right” rhetorical fury for the government’s failure to eliminate “Islamism.”
That’s great.
By the way, Durocher, if Salvini was so wonderfully popular among Italians, then they can, you know, elect him back into office, this time to the top spot. Why not? I mean, if he’s so insanely popular and all, right?
Let’s see mainstreaming accomplish two things. First, win a major election. Second, after that victory, leverage power to actually get something done to benefit native Europeans. Can we get one – just one – example of accomplishing both?
Don’t mention Orban. He’s an example of the opposite tactic – farstreaming, moving further to the right. Orban is now to the right of Jobbik, and he’s more popular, and successful, than ever before. Trump’s success in America came in 2016 when he moved to the right; he failed in 2020 moving to the center (putting aside election fraud; he could have still won in 2020 if he had done better among White men).
There isactual electoral success observed with farstreaming, none with mainstreaming. But promoting mainstreaming makes you look ever-so-clever to the peanut gallery, so let’s all burnish our “pragmatic” mainstreaming credentials, despite zero actual success backing up that paradigm.
Meanwhile, the despicable Unz site promotes anti-vaxxism, particularly with respect to covid-19. Fascinating when Jews promote anti-vaxxism. They are very good at making sure their Israel is well protected, but, hey, let’s convince the goyim that the vaccines are “toxic operating systems.” More for the chosen ones, eh?
Der Movement onanism material. HBDers are looking for the Japanese equivalent.
Of course not. Ben Dover! Remember, Ben Dover!Reality is here. But, hey, The Holy Orientals are off limits. Let’s focus on “mRNA operating systems” and “face diapers” instead, amirite?
eginotes 
You must be logged in to post a comment.