Category: social pricing

Larson and Counter-Currents

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.

Read there.  Excerpts, emphasis added;

Among the candidates running against incumbent Rep. Barbara Comstock in Virginia’s Tenth Congressional District is a self-described pedophile who has allegedly admitted he raped his late spouse and advocates what he calls “benevolent white supremacy.” 

After all, this is exactly the kind of press, and public representation, Der Movement needs.  If you in any way question that, you’re obviously “crazy and bitter.”

HuffPost reports that Larson used “Leucosticte” and “Lysander” as user names to post in the chat rooms, where he endorsed child rape and sexual abuse. He reportedly wrote one essay about father-daughter incest and another about raping his ex-wife repeatedly and was asked by HuffPost whether there was a “grain of truth” in the essays. He said there was, and suggested that it’s not uncommon for women to have rape fantasies. 

It is uncommon to write about it and then run for Congress.

Here are some of the agenda items in his lengthy campaign manifesto:

Legalize the possession and distribution of child pornography;

I suppose a certain English (ex) illegal alien will be jumping on the Larson bandwagon.  All aboard!

End minimum age for consumption of alcohol;

That’s the Beavis-and-Butthead Alt Right plank of the manifesto.

Repeal Violence Against Women Act. “We need to switch to a system that classifies women as property, initially of their fathers and later of their husbands,” Larson writes; 

I won’t argue too much against that.

Legalize early marriage

How early?

Legalizing suicide. “Legalizing barbiturates, heavy machine guns, etc. makes available reliable and peaceful means of suicide for those who need them,” his manifesto reads;

If he wants to thin the herd, he can start with Der Movement.

Favors right to discriminate;

OK.

Legalize insider trading;

The Jewish plank of the manifesto?

Puts forward the idea that Jewish state should be in “more defensible location,” like the state of New Jersey;

That’s great.  Let’s move Israel to New Wopsey. Fuggedaboutit!

End laws that ban felons from owning firearms.

Self-interest?

Larson’s manifesto also reveres Adolf Hitler as a “white supremacist hero,” as well as Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism.

Did I need to tell you this is a Type I?

On a related issue.

A realistic assessment of our situation is that we simply do not have a ready collective of prepared people who are ready for prime time. We don’t have a network of disciplined organizations full of large numbers of people who are ready and able to effectively present our message to the American public, or take effective, focused action.
Are we working on it? Absolutely.

Absolutely!  After all, Revilo Oliver talked about 50 years of “movement” failure – 50 years ago.  Maybe in another 100 years all the quota queens will have figured it all out, and they can proceed to save both of the White people still existing at that time.

Are we making great strides? Most definitely. Do we have promising candidates? For sure. American Renaissance is an utterly invaluable resource.

Invaluable if you are Jewish or East Asian.

But it is also definitely true that we just aren’t there yet. We’re building it. And do you know what it looks like to build effective organization? It means sorting the wheat from the chaff so we can create something that is all wheat and no chaff—and that means criticizing the chaff so that it can get out of the way and make room for the wheat.

Yes, that’s why I criticize Der Movement in general and Counter-Currents in particular. All the chaff have glass jaws though, good at “punching right” but not at taking a punch.

Notwithstanding the fact that what we stand for are principles that vast numbers of people do (and should) consider common sense, we are a fringe political movement. And fringe political movements attract weirdos no matter what their political position.

A point I’ve made online for, literally, years.

Online movements attract people who have extra time on their hands and choose to spend it reading on the Internet. To make it into our niche in particular, we had to be curious and intelligent enough to read and comprehend essays on things like human biodiversity…

Let’s read and comprehend pseudoscience, that’s the ticket.  We’ll look at the Pyramids of Atlantis next.

…—but not so curious and intelligent that we’d already made a career in academia, where acknowledging these findings would risk ruining everything we’d built. 

Kevin MacDonald.  Frank Salter.  Those are academics. How much support does Salter get from Der Movement?

The situation we are in is intrinsically, inherently paradoxical. To succeed by “democratic” means, we need to reach ordinary people; but we are, by definition, weirdos.

Yes, and let us make ourselves more weird by rambling about “the spectral,” “Kali Yuga,” “the men who can’t tell time,” and other such nonsense.

Furthermore, “public leadership” is a position which is doubly attractive to the worst of peoples’ personality traits. People with families and children whose well-being they care about are inherently less likely to do it, but the more narcissistic a person is, the more likely they will.

Again, I’ve written about this over and over again.  The social pricing problem needs to be solved.  The incompetent affirmative action “movement leadership” are not the ones to do it though.

For a movement whose ideals are built on hierarchy and the elevation of “greatness” as a moral value of central importance, this reluctance to make high demands of those we call “leaders” is especially ironic.

Yes, indeed. And what website are you writing this for?

And for a movement so focused on mocking the modern world’s obsession with “inclusivity” and how this causes everything from the military to firefighting departments and educational faculties to constantly lower their standards regarding actual performance and success, we sure do seem to be demanding a heavy share of standard-lowering “inclusivity” of our own.

Yes, indeed. And what website are you writing this for?

If anything, what we really need is to be a whole hell of a lot more exclusive.

Exclude Counter-Currents.

Advertisements

Defending POPA

Defending the Political Opinion Protection Act (POPA).

Of relevance to this, I state the following.

Free speech is meaningless if expressing dissident opinions makes life in a modern society completely untenable.   In this manner, “private” social pricing attacks against dissident beliefs, opinions, and activism have a chilling effect on free speech, particularly today when “private” businesses and institutions rival governments with respect to power and influence. Outsourcing speech suppression from the public to the private spheres – transforming the “private” into a tool of public coercion – violates the First Amendment in spirit and this problem needs to be rectified through legal and political change.

The Political Opinion Protection Act

Against social pricing.

This is a very crude, initiative draft of an anti-social pricing law (and explanation) that requires significant further development and refinement. Consider it a starting point.

Political and social opinions, beliefs, and ideologies, and the adherence and promotion thereof, now define a protected class of individuals, against whom business and institutions, private or public, cannot discriminate in employment or in the provision of services.  The only exception is where the opinions, beliefs, and ideologies are directly and overtly incompatible with the core mission of the business or institution, strictly defined by analogy to the examples that follow.

Now, there will be some examples – relatively rare – where sociopolitical opinions would disqualify an individual for employment (or service).  For example, the core mission of a conservative political foundation is the creation, analysis, dissemination, and promotion of conservative political ideas and ideals; a committed anti-conservative progressive can reasonably be seen as an unacceptable employee of such a foundation (and the converse is true: a hard core right-winger would be unacceptable in a progressive/liberal political foundation).  Planned Parenthood should not have to hire anti-abortion activists; right-to-life organizations should not have to employ abortion doctors or pro-choice activists.  These are clear examples where the core missions directly deal with sociopolitical memes and thus certain beliefs would be obviously incompatible.

However, indirect factors allegedly affecting core missions are not the same as the core missions themselves.

The core mission of a restaurant is to sell food to customers.  A restaurant may claim that “diversity helps business by expanding the pool of potential customers,” but promoting diversity is not the core mission of the business, selling food is.  Thus, opposition to diversity cannot be reasonably seen as incompatible with the fundamental core mission of the business.  A restaurant may claim that “immigrant labor is important for our profits,” but promoting immigration is not the core mission and hence an anti-immigration attitude cannot be seen as being incompatible for someone to work in that business. On the other hand, a steakhouse can have a reasonable rationale for skepticism in hiring a militant animal rights activist (and, conversely, PETA can reasonably have the same attitude toward, say, a butcher).

Let us consider academia. The core mission of academia is education and research/scholarship; basically to create and disseminate knowledge and ideas.  An academic institution can make (and they do make) arguments about how (demographic) diversity assists them in their mission, and that may be true or it may just be justification for social engineering.  True or not, promoting diversity is not the core mission of academia, and therefore opposition to multiracial/multicultural diversity cannot be seen as incompatible with the core mission.  Indeed, if we expand the definition of diversity to include types of (e.g., intellectual) diversity that can have a direct impact on exposing students to a more varied set of ideas, then one can argue that it is a good thing to have individuals opposed to multicultural diversity in academia; it is important to have a diversity of beliefs and opinions (perhaps we need affirmative action for the Far Right in academia?).

It is also important to prevent businesses and institutions from redefining their core missions so as to exclude opinions they do not like.  Core missions are those that derive naturally from the existential meaning of what the business and institution is, how they have been perceived and/or are perceived and/or will be perceived by reasonable people, and which can be organically associated with the “product” of the business or institution. Thus, attempts by, say, a college to redefine its core mission so as to include “promoting diversity” should be rejected, since that is an ad hoc extension of the natural and organic real fundamental academic core mission, and therefore can be reasonably seen as an attempt to evade the spirit and letter of this new law.

Services like Internet providers or transportation companies have a core mission in providing the specific service that defines the company; the opinions, beliefs, and ideologies of current or potential customers do not affect the core mission (indeed, one would think a business, valuing their core mission, would want to maximize their customer base and not arbitrarily exclude customers) and thus cannot be used as an excuse to deny service. Ad hoc redefining of the core mission to exclude “undesirable customers” is, again, forbidden.

Ragnarok II

More.

Read this. 

We demand legislation forbidding all US companies from adopting politically correct terms of service and employment. All private companies must be forced by law to respect freedom of speech and thought.

That is essential, but expect the System to fight that tooth-and-nail.  In the absence (yet) of overt “speech laws” due to the First Amendment, social pricing is the number one method to keep White folks in line.  Antifa violence and all the rest is nothing by comparison, a firecracker compared to a thermonuclear device.

Once people are free to express dissident opinions without fear of workplace punishment, the System’s biggest stick collapses, and they simply no longer have sufficient carrots for all the disaffected Whites.  So, yes, we need a “political opinion protection act.” 

The current administration could have been the best hope for that, but with Trump/Sessions trying to out-virtue signal the worst of the GOP cucks, it seems unlikely.

We should not give up though.  Extended First Amendment protections to the private sphere is probably the single most important idea of this post.  With that, the dam cracks and eventually collapses.

On Trump.

I feel like vomiting after watching this video.
The Alt-Right attempted to hold a peaceful rally in Charlottesville, VA. We had to get a federal court order to be able to exercise our First Amendment rights. After arriving in Lee Park, we were attacked by violent Antifa while the police stood down and watched. Gov. Terry McAuliffe declared a “state of emergency” and riot police pushed us into hordes of violent leftists who attacked dozens of people.
In response to this outrage, Donald Trump has condemned us, praised the Virginia State Police and said nothing about the actions of violent Antifa groups who will only be further emboldened to attack his supporters all over the country. While Donald Trump talks about restoring “law and order,” the reality of the matter is that police departments in leftwing cities are standing down and ceding the state’s monopoly on violence to lynch mobs. We saw this happen in Portland and Charlottesville the last two weekends.
Everything I have said was captured on video. For two years now, Donald Trump has said nothing while violent lynch mobs have attacked his supporters all over the country, not only in Charlottesville, but also in Washington, DC during the inauguration and Berkeley and many other places. A disabled man who supported Donald Trump was even kidnapped and tortured on Facebook Live in Chicago and he said nothing. President Trump talks about “equal rights,” but the truth of the matter is that White Americans in his country are routinely subjected to censorship, physical violence, employment discrimination, intimidation and massive civil rights violations while the Trump administration looks the other way. It does so because it is afraid of the power of the mainstream media.
The Alt-Right will stand with White Americans who are under siege in Trump’s America who have been deserted by their president. The Trump administration showed today that it is more interested in moving forward with its agenda of massive tax cuts for the wealthy than in defending our most basic constitutional rights. Sadly, President Trump’s chilling message will only stoke the flames of the violent Left and will strike fear into all those who dare to speak out against it who know they will inevitably be attacked now and portrayed as wicked racists by a vicious and hostile media cartel.
Donald Trump has given a green light to Antifa. He has sided with a group of people who attack us on sight and attempt to kill us and for that the Alt-Right can no longer support him. What Donald Trump has done today is an unforgivable betrayal of his supporters.

Devlin is a smart fellow and I always liked his writing, but at some point we need to stop making excuses for Trump.  Yes, his press conference wasn’t bad, but the fact is he and Sessions never cracked down on Antifa and they both denounced us all.

The Free-Riding/Social Pricing Paradox

If free-riding makes ethnic nepotism “impossible” than why are social pricing and anti-discrimination laws felt to be necessary?

Question:  If free-riding is such a problem for ethnic nepotism and various forms of ethnic activism, if it is all so “impossible” and “unrealistic” then why, pray tell, is there an intricate system of social pricing – never mind actual anti-discrimination laws – designed to dissuade people from engaging in such “impossible” and “unrealistic” behavior?  If everyone would just free-ride on the ethnic altruism of a small number of naive saps, then where is the problem?  Social pricing would seem superfluous, and anti-discrimination laws even more superfluous.  Why, people would just like, you know, spontaneously engage in aracial behavior, right?
No, they would not.  That fact than a repressive “carrot-and-stick” regime of de jure laws and de facto social pricing has to be in place to punish (for Whites only, of course) ethnic altruism/ethnic nepotism while incentivizing (for Whites only, of course) neutral or even pro-alien behavior is practical prima facie evidence that people – including many Whites – would naturally engage in ethnic altruism and ethnic nepotism in a “free marketplace” system lacking in coercive laws and social controls.  There is no other reason for all these laws and social strictures except the very real fear that in the “free marketplace” of ideas and actions people would act in a more ethny-based fashion and discrimination (pro-ethny and anti-alien) would be commonplace.

Ben Raymond and Greg Johnson

Interesting podcast.

I finally was able to listen to the Ben Raymond-Greg Johnson podcast. Raymond made a very favorable impression on me and I wish him and National Action well.

I agree with 99% of what I heard.  Only two areas of disagreement.

First, the idea was put forth that we on the far-Right should not criticize our fellows on the Right; if we disagree with their approach, we should merely do better and let our success speak for itself – a “Darwinian” method of outcompeting, rather than directly critiquing, one’s opponents in the “movement.”

At one time I agreed with that.  Unfortunately, it does not seem to work. There is no accountability in the “movement,” decades of failure are excused or misdiagnosed as some sort of bizarre “success,” activists engage in personality cult followings of failed “movement” leaders, and the affirmative action policy in the “movement” protects many of these failures from being held to account for the damage they’ve done, while at the same time preventing others from actualizing their own, potentially superior, ideas as part of any so-called “Darwinian competition.”  The “game” is fixed and until that changes I see it necessary to critique the “movement” and related precincts of the Right.

Second, Raymond’s comments about the advantages American activists allegedly have in terms of “free speech” ignores the specter of social pricing in America, far more potent than in Europe.  This was discussed previously by Le Brun and Johnson and Raymond needs to understand that in certain ways America is more repressive than Europe.  For godssakes, even a billionaire political candidate, the leading candidate of the GOP, cannot hold a rally in a major American city.  Free speech?

By the way, one point of agreement is the criticism of mainstreaming in the podcast.  Cue the “pink panther” music and exit, stage left, one French mainstreamer….

Set Aside Your Humility

I was recently listening to a short podcast Greg Johnson did with an Estonian nationalist.
Johnson made two key points:
1. Because of social pricing, racial nationalists in the “First Amendment Free Speech” USA actually have less scope of action than do European nationalists with the “hate speech laws” that the Europeans have to contend with.  In other words, if the System can impose social pricing costs roughly equivalent to that observed in this Outer Limits episode, then “free speech” protections in America are mostly toothless.  Now, I say “mostly” because, you see, if First Amendment protection was to be ended in the US, we would NOT get an accompanying increase in social freedom as in Europe; instead we would have both social pricing AND speech laws.  Given that, having at least minimal legal protection is something, even though in many cases it is a very weak reed to lean upon.  What we need to is retain, if possible, the minimal First Amendment protections AND somehow defeat social pricing.  That defeat could in theory be done through the System, by making such pricing illegal, but the chances of that are minimal, given that the System itself is propped up by, and derives much of its power from, social pricing.  The alternative is an “end run” around social pricing by building alternative social and economic structures that would make such social pricing toothless. Unfortunately, that would require that a high percentage of American racial nationalists be sane, rational, organized, intelligent, and thoughtful, rather than be foaming-at-the-mouth imbecilic Nutzis.  The bottom line is that, paradoxically, European nationalists have more real freedom of speech than do American racial nationalists, because broad-based social pricing is a more effective form of repression than are legally defined “speech laws.”
2. Eastern Europeans have an inferiority complex, re: the Western part of that continent/culture, and that needs to end, especially since the East is more culturally/spiritually healthy than is the West.  Even though I (justifiably) mock Saint Viktor of Orban, the fact is that, with all his faults, he is a much better spokesman for healthy European values than is anyone in Western Europe, ranging from civic patriot Marine Le Pen to race traitor Angela Merkel.