Category: strategy and tactics

Summer 2018 Alt Right Assessment

Things looking grim, as usual.

This is a situation in which both sides are wrong.  Legally and morally, the judge (Is he a wop or hunkie – perhaps Richie and Kev want to chime in about that?) is in the wrong. Simply put, if Group A wants to legally exercise their constitutional rights of free speech and free assembly, and Group B attempts to stop them using any and all means at their disposal, the persons in the wrong are members of Group B, not Group A.  That’s a general description of what happened at Charlottesville.  The specifics of the case in question sounds like “lawfare.”  The Alt Right, in my opinion, were within their rights to hold their Charlottesville rallies.

Politically and practically, Spencer and company are in the wrong.  All of this was avoidable – predictably avoidable.  This is all a terrible waste – a wasted opportunity. 

Imagine an alternative reality, in which, right after Trump’s election but before Heilgate (and all the Alt Right disasters that followed), Spencer had declared that Trump’s election had put an electoral approach – as one part of an overall strategy – into play, and that, at least for the time being, he was going to focus on explicitly pro-White electoral politics, both exploring running as a candidate himself, as well as promoting, advising, managing, etc. other similar candidates.  In areas in which explicit Whiteness had a fair electoral chance, then explicit it would be, with the aim of competing for the top prize, in other areas, explicit White candidates would be for educational and propaganda purposes, and in yet other areas, more implicit candidates would run with the hope of winning and then shifting right once elected (the opposite of how the mainstream does things).  In this alternate reality, Spencer would not have compromised himself with Heilgate, with Jorjani and, with silly feuds with Johnson, and certainly not with the Charlottesville circus.  He also would not have turned his DC-area apartment into an Alt Right frathouse (alcohol, of course, always present) and would not have been involved in either Beavis-and-Butthead White nationalism (no half-drunk podcasts with Greg “pureblood mountain wop, hero of the girls soccer team” Conte; that smug ‘Catholic traditionalist” Frenchman; or Mr. Stolen Valor) or with Cosplay White nationalism (uniforms are bad, bad, bad…but dressing up like Captain America and Batman is good, good, good).  In this alternate reality, Spencer’s buddies in the Alt Wrong would not have to denounce him, or engage in wistful emails with Jewish correspondents on the probability of Spencer being shot by some enraged leftist.  There would be no Unite the Right cloud, no court case, hanging over him.  In other words, if the youthful Alt Right crowd had followed the advice – given at the time and NOT in hindsight – by older activists to stop the Pepe/Kek crap and get serious, none of this would have happened and we’d be in a lot better shape now than we all are.  

Anyone reading this blog over the last few years knows full well such suggestions are not hindsight; I’ve been advising – publicly at this blog – Spencer for a very long time to ditch the Alt Right brand and to consider electoral politics.  Even if that had turned out to be a waste of time (doubtful), he could have remained viable to return as a vanguardist Alt Right pocket fuhrer.  The opposite though is much more difficult, going from “Dastardly Dick” Spencer, Alt Right bogeyman, to viable political candidate seems increasingly unlikely.

They – Spencer and the entire Alt Right – should have known that the System is completely against us, completely against our side (even our wonderfully conservative Attorney General – “America’s Senator” – has turned out to be a de facto Antifa supporter), and the Far Right cannot expect fair, legal, and moral treatment from the System.  Thus, every move by the Far Right needs to be meticulously planned, with an eye toward contingencies, and always with overarching strategic objectives in mind.  The flaws within the System (see below) need to be mercilessly, ruthlessly exploited through carefully planned, assessed, and empirically evaluated approaches.

Now, the Type Is will exclaim: “why do you advocate some activists running for office if the System is completely against us?  It’s fixed, fixed!”  What the Type I droolcups, never noted for comprehending complexity, fail to understand is that while the System controls most things, it does not control all things.  It is powerful, but not omnipotent.  It is flawed, it is staffed by incompetents (for the most part), and, importantly, there are different factions within the System vying for power and who, in their shortsightedness, would expose the machinations of their System rivals without realizing that such an exposure ultimately dooms the exposers and much as the exposees.  Contrary to the “it’s all fixed” predictions of the “march through the woods with your rifles eating twigs and branches” Type I Nutzis, the System did not “fix” the 2016 election as to ensure a Clinton victory.  No doubt, there was cheating: illegal alien voting, dead folks on the rolls, “vote early and often” Chicago style – but a widespread systematic fix did not occur.  There are lines that the System – for now – dares not cross for fear of the repercussions if discovered, if exposed, perhaps, by rivals for System power.  They do not want to endanger long-term goals by taking insane risks (unlike Der Movement).  So, yes, despite the fact that the System is fully against us, there is still some limited room to maneuver, so possibilities exist in the electoral arena, some opportunities to infiltrate the System and co-opt it from within, some opportunities for collaboration between activist moles buried within the System, overt activists engaged in the electoral process, and the vanguardists working outside the System.  The situation is complex and the possibilities are complex, and we need people involved who understand these things, and have an activist toolkit that goes beyond tiki torch rallies, Pepe, and cries of “Hail Kek!”

What to do now?  I am not sure how much can be salvaged at this point, particularly if Spencer and company lose the case, which is likely (the real “fix” seems to be in).  Certainly, Spencer should still ditch the Alt Right brand, cut ties with the droolcup brigade, build proper infrastructures behind the scenes, make alliances with competent people, and set up contingency plans in case the worst comes true and the case is lost.  To the extent possible, he should repair the significant damage to his reputation and judgment his actions (and inactions) have done within Der Movement, and try a “reset” of his overall public image as well (to the extent possible with a biased mass media).  Although the horrific missteps of the last couple of years have drastically curtailed options, there is still some room to maneuver to attempt to rebuild a credible faction within the Far Right.  I would also advise someone in his position to forget about petty “movement” feuding – Tricky Dick has more to worry about now than catty sniping coming from the Kali Yuga types.  And, oh yes, shave off that stupid moustache.


Fisking the State of the Right

The state of the dishonest Right.

Commenting on this essay. In all cases, emphasis added.

This is a very important essay. Please read, comment, and share. — Greg Johnson

Yes, Greg, I’ll read it and comment on it, as follows. And since I’ve been ‘banned” from your blog for having the temerity to criticize you (lese majeste!) I’ll comment here.

There’s no sense in mincing words anymore: The Alt Right has hit a wall and is presently faced with the hard task of pulling back and searching for a new course. The enemy media are (prematurely) claiming victory. Many progressives are hastening to vindicate the “antifa” domestic terrorist movement,[1] discarding the pretense that liberal misgivings about organized political violence hinge on anything more than crass utilitarianism.

The domestic terrorist group supported by Antifa Jeff Sessions.

My purpose here is to offer some thoughts on what has happened and how our side can hope to recover its ground. I do not wish to exaggerate the present difficulties, nor blame people in the Alt Right…

…except for Richard Spencer, of course. After all, this is Counter-Currents.

…for suffering what is essentially a form of state repression outsourced to volunteer paramilitary groups and powerful corporations. However, repression by those in power is a constant for us; what has changed is the effectiveness of this repression, which used to meet with a fluid, agile and durable target, and now increasingly enjoys a sluggish, clumsy and brittle one. One major reason for this is that prominent figures in the Alt Right, protected by a widespread culture of hooting down internal dissent, took strategic and aesthetic decisions that ended up turning an antifragile movement into a highly destructible one.

When was the “movement” ever “antifragile?”  This is an absurdity.

Where the Alt Right was once proudly decentralized…

But with a unified fossilized dogma, criticism of which is considered blasphemy, and a good old boys network of affirmative action quota queen leadership.  How “decentralized” was that?  How were – and are – dissidents to “movement” dogma treated?  On the other hand, there are varied permutations of “movement” dogma and all these groups fight among themselves, and, in addition, there are even more battles that are about personality rather than ideology.  So, there is a practical decentralization – one can call it fragmentation – but for the most part the fragments revolve around the same failed ideas.

…it now seeks unification (and is, of course, more divided than ever). Where it once contained a constellation of anti-progressive elements, it is now reduced to an isolated ethnonationalist core spitting fire at everything else around it. Where it once employed intellectual quality and transgressive trolling to equally great effect, these polar opposites have lately been merged into a dull and stagnant rehash of Rockwellian neo-Nazism.

Question: What blog was pushing the meme that “the Alt Right Means White Nationalism…or nothing at all?”  Think hard now.

As many of these changes were made precisely so that certain individuals could enjoy leadership..

Indeed.  And “certain individuals” goes beyond just Richard Spencer. Look a bit closer to home as well.

Who wrote:

So someone will eventually endow the Alternative Right with a positive content. So it might as well be me.

This content will, to a great extent, be socially constructed. Meaning that people can try to offer any definition they want, but unless it is widely accepted by others, it does not matter. Thus, for a proposed meaning to stick, it must either come from someone relatively authoritative, or it must be immediately compelling, or both. 

My definition meets both criteria, so here goes: the Alternative Right means White Nationalism — or it means nothing at all.

That was Greg Johnson.

…it would be perverse to allow them to shirk responsibility for the results. 

Are you calling for accountability?  Crazy and bitter!

That said, I am not accusing anyone of deliberate sabotage: those who employed these methods certainly believed that they would work. This is why a true analysis of the present state of affairs must look beyond mere personalities and decisions…

Except when Richard Spencer is involved, then we’ll mention his name at every opportunity.

…and identify the deeper fault lines in the ideological fundament of our movement.

Look beyond mere personalities but be sure to bash Richard Spencer by name at every chance.

Your Brain on Liberalism

Your Brain on Der Movement

To understand why the Alt Right is failing, we can start by asking a simple question: how do most people in it envisage the victory of the movement? I would anticipate receiving three basic answers: 1) a mass white awakening provoked by anti-white depredations; 2) the rise of a reactionary post-Millennial youth wave; and 3) a collapse of modern Western civilization that will destroy the ruling power structure at a stroke.

Typical “movement” fantasies.

None of these scenarios correspond to reality. Anti-white depredations that would have seemed unimaginable a few decades ago have not provoked ordinary people into rebellion. 

Whites are a cowardly race of adaptively unfit, objectively inferior people.

“Generation Zyklon” …

Does not exist.  Stop parroting juvenile Roissyite stupidity.

…might be fairly conservative…


…but they have little social and political power, and many cradles in the West have already been filled by the children of the imported neo-proletariat loyal to the Left. As for a civilizational collapse: even assuming that such a thing could happen, it would likely favor those who already possess disproportionate resources and entrenched power structures. The big winners of the Western Roman collapse were the barbarian invaders, the Christian Church, and (sometimes) the late Roman landholding elites who got to merge with the invaders; the bagaudae rebel groups in the provinces were simply suppressed by old and new rulers alike.

This is true and a valuable observation.

All of these Alt Right victory fantasies bear a common stamp of origin: they are liberal fantasies. This fact that should not surprise us in the least, given that liberalism enjoys near-complete intellectual hegemony in the West, and forms the common ideological bedrock of progressivism and post-1945 conservatism.

One of the fundamental pillars of liberalism is what we might call a democentric view of things. In this view, men are born free, then choose to enter into a “social contract” and set up a ruling authority in order to secure their interests. This implies not only that the ruling authority is the servant of the people, but that the initiative to drive history is in the hands of the people; those in power can only choose to fulfil or deny the popular will. Although the ruling elites may disregard their obligations and repress popular demands, this can only prove ineffective in the long run, as the will of the people “inevitably” takes the course of insurrection and restores the original social contract.

Contrast this with the anti-liberal view, which we can call cratocentric or “rule-centered.” In this view, all men are born into subjection (i.e., as children under the sway of parents); society arises from the expansion and agglomeration of families, as the cities of antiquity arose according to Fustel de Coulanges; and the authority of the ruler is no more dependent on popular consent than is the rule of a father over his children. The masses can assent to the commands of the ruling authority, or else negate them, but they do not and cannot take the initiative to change society. Repression by authority usually works as advertised, and where successful insurrections do take place, they do not spring from a spontaneous popular will but from the power schemes of a rival authority.

Actually neither view is always correct.  Sometimes it is one or the other. Granted, it’s never only “the masses” per se, there are driving forces.  But those driving forces may be helping to express actual mass discontent.  The French Revolution was from what “rival authority?”  Enlightenment radicals?  Who?

Although democentric ideas may possess ideological hegemony over the modern West, cratocentric ones still possess their ancient hegemony over human nature. And when we critique democentrism from a cratocentric viewpoint, we understand that it is not really an expression of “anti-elitism,” but an ideological weapon to serve the long struggle of liberal elites against the traditional elites of the West. Democentrism is toxic to the legitimacy of an aristocracy, and hazardous to that of a monarchy; but it is a useful smokescreen for anonymous plutocrats, and a positive elixir of health for the managerial elites whose business it is to control society in the name of the people.

The sort of faux-sophisticated cynicism that the intellectually lazy like to offer in place of a nuanced analysis.  Sometimes democentric ideas are genuine.

What does all of this have to do with the present state of the Alt Right? Well, let’s come to the point: the liberal managerial class ruling the West preserves its own legitimacy by using manipulation and patronage to construct a democratic facade for its own exercise of power. When it wants to destabilize a foreign government, it funds a color revolution, or encourages an internal rebellion. When it wants to impeach a renegade US President, and anticipates the need to disarm his conservative supporters, it comes up with a media-constructed assault on public opinion masquerading as a spontaneous protest by school shooting survivors. When it wants to strengthen that impeachment effort by getting hold of some juicy photos of brown children being shot dead by border guards, it whips up a caravan of illegal migrants to storm the US border. And so on.

“And so on” – a perfect descriptive phrase for the treadmill of failure of Der Movement.

As these examples suggest, this manipulation does not always succeed, at least not directly. But it has created a strong illusion of unlimited popular agency that infects even the self-described enemies of liberalism, fooling them into a false view of how power is achieved and exercised. The tactics pursued by the Alt Right since Heilgate can be compared to a cargo cult, in the sense that they rely on recreating the democentric facade of liberal movements. Protest marchers chanting racialist slogans are our Black Lives Matter, street brawlers are our antifa, and neo-Nazis are our trannies and homosexuals demanding public acceptance for their shocking private fetishes.

Heilgate – it’s all Spencer’s fault.  In contrast, those who rant about the “Kali Yuga” and “the men who can’t tell time” are non-fetishistic normies.

Everything is in place—except, alas, for the decisive factor, which is the patronage and toleration of those in power. And needless to say, when these tactics fail, the defeated upstarts start to get depressed about the inability of their people to spontaneously defend their own interests. Liberalism is a potent drug indeed!

“Movement” dogma is a more potent drug for some people.

The Fascist Path to Power

In light of this, it is worth taking a brief look at the ways in which the fascist movements of the early twentieth century achieved power. Many of those pushing liberal cargo-cult tactics in the Alt Right believe that they are imitating fascism, and they hold out hope for a “white awakening” because they know that Hitler and Mussolini rose to power on the back of popular movements. However, a closer look at the history of these movements refutes the popular myth of a fascist rise to power by pure mass revolution.

Robert O. Paxton’s Anatomy of Fascism is of great use here. It discusses not only the successful fascist movements in Italy and Germany, but also the unsuccessful ones elsewhere, and distinguishes all of these from conservative authoritarian regimes that did not rely on the same radical and populist methods. It also separates out the stages through which a fascist movement must cycle in order to assume power. The aid of established power is needed at several points on the way.

An obvious logical flaw is to assume that conditions inherent in past rightist movements would necessarily obtain today.

The first stage begins long before the fascist movement is founded, and consists of the social, intellectual and political developments that contribute to making it a possibility. As everyone knows, the Great War and the rise of Communism in Russia were the most important preconditions for the original fascist movements. Less often appreciated is the role of what we would now call “metapolitics”: a longer process of mental preparation going back decades, in which the failings of liberalism and democracy were exposed and the decline of Western civilization was discussed. This smoothed the way for the creation of fascist movements in the wake of the Great War, but it did not guarantee their success (for example, fascism did not take power in France, although the French had experienced the longest period of mental preparation for it).

OK, fair enough.

The next stage begins once the fascist movement is founded and consists of a process by which it roots itself in the social and political system—or, alternatively, fails to do so. Initially, the fascist movement seeks to maximize its popular appeal by creating a loose and amorphous “antiparty,” which serves to attract all sorts of people who possess wildly divergent interests but are united by a vague discontent. Later, although the movement continues to rally the people, many of these early followers end up being pruned off as alliances are made with existing social and political interests. In Mussolini’s case, this was achieved when the squadristi in rural Italy made themselves an indispensable ally of the big landowners, who were being squeezed between the laissez-faire liberal state and the socialists agitating their workforce. In Germany, Hitler managed to attract small businessmen and a few large ones to his cause, although most of these stuck with traditional conservatives (and certainly did not bankroll the NSDAP to the extent claimed by the Left). It is important to emphasize the toleration of both of these fascisms by elements of the power structure in their countries. Local police forces often sided with Mussolini’s squadristi, and Hitler’s Brownshirt toughs enjoyed lenient treatment by the conservative Weimar judiciary.

There is not much relevance to today’s situation.

The third stage, and the final one as far as we are concerned, involves the “seizure of power” by which the fascist movement achieves unrestrained rule. But in order to achieve this, the fascist leaders must first be appointed into government by conservative elites, who typically wish to make use of their popular following in order to bolster their own legitimacy. 


The 1922 March on Rome was nearly thwarted by the Italian government—trains carrying the majority of Blackshirts were stopped by police, and the government possessed the military force to repulse the nine thousand who turned up at the gates of the city—but King Victor Emmanuel III, fearing the consequences of open bloodshed, declined to impose martial law and instead offered the prime ministry to Mussolini. After trying and failing to imitate this gambit in 1923, Hitler sought power through the political system instead, and was eventually appointed to the chancellorship by a conservative elite that had been ruling without a parliamentary majority and wished to return to popular rule. Had the intention been to lock him out at all costs, this could have been done, as the NSDAP’s large electoral support was beginning to drop off at the time.

This is all true, but representative of the times; there is no inherent reason why the same must obtain now.

In summary, successful fascist movements must cultivate not only the masses but also the vested interests of society. 

“Must?”  Nonsense.  This is not the 1920s and 1930s.  The principles of that time may apply to today, or they may not.  We cannot just blithely assume that they will.

They must be encouraged, or at least tolerated, by an established ruling elite focused on the greater threat from leftist revolution. Eventually, they must make a bid for power, and find conservative patrons who are both willing to cooperate with them and obliged by their own crisis of legitimacy to do so. Where no such opportunities existed in the 1920s and 1930s, fascism got nowhere; and where it directly confronted conservative authoritarian regimes, it typically ended up being repressed as one more phenomenon of public disorder.

Again, this does not necessarily mean that the same situation would obtain today.  

The fascist experience can teach us many things. It illustrates the importance, yet also the limitations, of metapolitical action. It tells us that anyone attempting to follow the route to power walked by the fascists must appeal to a vast array of classes and interests and must work with national sentiment instead of offending it, which rules out anyone who chooses to marginalize himself by waving the flag of a defeated foreign enemy. It also reminds intellectuals that the angry young men attracted to the Right, who often egg each other on into unwise patterns of behavior, are in fact indispensable to the cause—what matters is to put them to good use defending the people being bullied by the Left, instead of wasting them in pointless street parading or noxious infighting.

Again the “must.”  Inevitability may be relevant for such things as human death or the fate of the universe, but not for human-political-social affairs.  To assume that the situation today “must” follow along the same lines as nearly a century ago is irrational.  It may follow, or it may not – there is no “mist” about it.  The author has to make better arguments in favor of his assertions rather than just an appeal to past historical (few in number) precedents.

However, the most important thing that fascism teaches us is that it cannot be recreated in the present era. 

No, instead we need idiots screaming about Pepe and Kek, Trump worship, babbling about psychokinesis and the Pyramids of Atlantis, and “metapolitical” meetings infiltrated by Swedish homosexual anti-racists and by snarky journal writers posing as movie critics.

The ruling power structure was founded on fascism’s defeat and is watching out for its revival at every turn. 

Since they label everything from Trump farting to Greg Johnson working out at a gym as “fascist” that apparently would seem to considerably constrain the scope for action.

The modern avatar of leftist revolution is not a military threat from beyond the frontier, but a political enemy ensconced in every official institution, and it is now the “antifa” and “SJWs” who enjoy judicial leniency and elite patronage. 

Meet Jeff Sessions!  And what has the Right been doing all these decades while the Left has infiltrated the institutions?  Answer: Pepe!  Kek!  The Men Who Can’t Tell Time!  True Romance!  March of the Titans!  Living on the mountaintop indulging in serial monogamy with a series of Eastern European mail order brides living off the donations of followers you deride as “soft city-dwelling Whites!”

The managerial revolution in industry, and the abandonment of white proletarian interests in favor of foreign immigrants by the Left, has neutralized a great deal of the old opposition between Bolshevism and big business. Perhaps most importantly in the long run, the West is no longer made up of sovereign states based on the rights of a fighting citizenry but consists of the territories of a de facto US Empire that pursues its expansionist goals through manipulation and subversion. And while there are still “conservatives” in office, these are no longer the anti-liberal traditionalists who used that name before 1945, but right-liberal “loyal opposition” who pride themselves on keeping the real Right out of power.

The latter sounds a lot like Trump, the grand “patron” of the Alt Right.

Of the three stages of fascist pathbreaking, the only one available to us right now is metapolitics. 

In other words, Counter-Currents is our salvation.  Give generously!  After all, the Golden Age exists wherever anyone lives it today, and you live it by tossing shekels in the direction of panhandling “leaders.”

Thanks to the internet, a true “free press,” the savagery and hypocrisy of the liberal oligarchy can be communicated every day to ever-increasing masses of people outside the official media structure. This can never induce the masses to rise up and replace that oligarchy of their own accord, but it can ensure that they become convinced of its illegitimacy and unwilling to react strongly against threats to its power. That is the first step from which all others must follow.

How’s that been going?

From Fourth to Second Generation Warfare

As regards political action, in a situation where previous roads to power have been closed to us, there is only one model that can offer any hope for success. This is the guerrilla war—or, more precisely, the Fourth Generation War (4GW) described by William S. Lind in his works On War and Fourth Generation War Handbook.

It goes without saying that I am not suggesting a physical war with the managerial state, and anyone who does so is either a fool or an enemy shill.

Or a Type I activist.  Off to the woods with your rifle to chew on some twigs and branches! Or snug in your hobbit hole, eh?

But it should be clear to us by now that politics is war by other means, and that we are in the strategic position of “non-state actors,” prevented from fighting in the open against enemies who enjoy official backing. Non-state actors are no exception to everything that I have said about power and patronage, and the most effective ones are aided and financed by sympathetic states. However, we know that patronage is not required for the creation of a political guerrilla movement, as we ourselves have witnessed the creation of just such a movement out of absolutely nothing.

I thought Trump as an “informal” patron?

I am referring, of course, to the Alt Right, which in its original form showed a promising application of guerrilla methods to political warfare. As a diverse collection of autonomous Rightist groups operating under a loose brand name, it presented no single target for the enemy to attack. The movement had no single leader who could be vilified, co-opted, hyped up as the ‘big bad guy’ indispensable to all Hollywood narratives, or harassed and made to look stupid in public. In the absence of such a hate figure, it was Hillary Clinton and her official media backers who made themselves look ridiculous by declaring war on Pepe the Frog.

How about people looking ridiculous by making a cartoon frog the symbol of racial activism?

Online trolls associated with the Alt Right used Nazi imagery to publicly flout the speech restrictions imposed by the Left and transform the “Brown Menace”—the justification for every foreign imperial war and domestic repression campaign, treated with due reverence by Leftists and fake conservatives—into a big stupid joke. It is impossible to say whether the majority of those using this imagery were consciously doing so as a means to these ends, although expressions such as “Great Meme Wars” imply that this was actually the case. The point is that it was done by rank-and-filers sniping from the undergrowth of anonymity, and when the shrieking volunteer commissars wanted to hit back at Alt Right public figures, they found none who were foolish enough to present themselves as targets by endorsing Nazi imagery.

Unlike Counter-Currents, which as we know never runs articles favorable towards Hitler.

By extending its branding to milder strains of conservatism as well as ethnonationalists and reactionaries, the original Alt Right conformed to the 4GW principle of “hugging the civilians,” forcing the enemy to infuriate ordinary people by attacking them in order to get to the guerrillas. 

Yes, and let’s publicly discuss setting up “ordinary people” to being attacked by leftist thugs in order to promote “4GW.”   I’m sure all those “ordinary people” will thank you from their hospital beds.

In the physical 4GWs of Iraq and Afghanistan, American forces sowed dragon’s teeth among the local populations every time they shot at a guerrilla fighter and hit an innocent bystander. In the political 4GW against the Left, the same effect was achieved when Clinton dismissed half the American electorate as “deplorables” in response to the rise of the Alt Right. When this sort of thing happens, and the guerrillas (Alt Right) shoot back while the client-rulers (cuckservatives) wring their hands, the loyalties of the people begin to shift in a new direction.

This is an interesting and useful observation, and I admit I haven’t fully considered the “big tent” approach in that light.  How then do I square my opposition to “big tent” with the realization that the approach has some strategic value?  I will explain and please pay attention to what is a very simple argument, but one which is ignored, or misunderstood, by the simpletons of the “movement” – this in essence explains the major problem I have had with the Alt Right.  Now, the Alt Right style is not for me, and the “big tent” approach is not for me either.  But, that’s me; others have different views, and in principle I have no problem with the Alt Right and the Big Tent as specific components of an integrated strategic approach.  Indeed, I’ve always advocated multiple approaches, geared to the interests, skills, and personalities of different activists, tackling the problem from different directions.  But that’s the point, you see.  My basic problem with the Alt Right, including its Big Tenters, is with its arrogant presumption to represent the totality of racial activism.  The Alt Right IS the Movement, the Alt Right IS White nationalism, the Alt Right IS racial activism, the Alt Right MEANS White nationalism or nothing at all – that’s the hegemonic view that was promoted, and which I vehemently opposed and will continue to oppose.  They wanted ONE direction – the Alt Right way.  They wanted ONE brand, ONE identity, ONE approach – those crying for decentralization today were the ruthless memetic centralizers of yesterday.  And contrary to Orwellian memory hole historical revisionism, Alt Right hegemony was being preached by Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents as much as it was by Richard Spencer and all the rest.  In contrast, and consistent with my promotion of the groupuscule idea, I wanted more decentralization. There were, and are, diverse activists, such as Ted Sallis, Kevin Strom, Rodney Martin and others who want nothing to do with the Alt Right or with Big Tent mainstreaming.  If others want to do it, great, go ahead, but don’t you dare try to subsume the entirety of racial activism under the banner of sniggering Beavis-and-Butthead Millennialism, Big Tent dilution,, mainstreaming, and the “jump on the bandwagon” attitude that we all have to buy into the Alt Right brand, whether we want to or not.

Today, “decentralization” is a handy concept to use to hammer away at Richard Spencer’s alleged deficiencies, but a couple of years ago, when I objected to Alt Right hegemony, and championed real decentralization, I was a crazy and bitter shitstirrer with nothing to contribute, right?  The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

So, yes: a “hug the citizens” strategy can justify some factions of racial activism taking a Big Tent approach.  But it is not for everyone, and you will need to maintain separate factions that represent undiluted ideological and analytical rigor, so that the essence of what is being fought for is not diluted away in the name of pragmatism.

After finding an informal patron in Donald Trump, the Alt Right acquired the ability to go on the offensive.

Informal is an understatement.  The man is an absolute fraud. Remember that just a few paragrphs above we were told there was no patron.

The election of Trump, which offered the chance to substitute a real conservative political class for the professional losers of the loyal opposition, should have been understood as the first step towards reopening a road to patronage that has been closed to the radical Right ever since the defeat of fascism. However, many Alt Righters in the US—who had been happy to castigate democracy as a rigged game during the years of Obama’s rule—treated this event not as the capture of a bridgehead but as the crowning victory of a war. They had Cast Their Votes, Thrown the Bastards Out, and Put Their Man into Office, and some of them really started to say things like “we are the establishment now.” They forgot the prudence learned by everybody who lives under a totalitarian regime, and blissfully reverted to the liberal faith of their hearts, discarding hard-won knowledge under the pretext of taking action.

That’s true, the phony victory psychosis the Right always has.  But that mental aberration is closely tied to the Man on White Horse Syndrome, which this author promotes.  Trump is no “patron” – informal or otherwise.  At best, he’s an icebreaker, but the loser “movement,” full as it is with inept quota queens could not take advantage of the opportunity, and now the window of opportunity may be closing.

This set the stage for the regression of the Alt Right into conventional tactics, or Second Generation War (2GW), the tactics of the state forces that tend to lose Fourth Generation wars despite massive superiority in money and muscle. This began with rank-and-filers shaming people for exercising basic prudence, but it was formalized by Richard Spencer’s Heilgate stunt in November 2016. Spencer, who had created the original Alternative Right website in 2010 and shut it down three years later,[2] almost certainly regretted publicly discarding the Alt Right brand just before it exploded in popularity. In the old Rockwellian tradition, he decided to raise his name by using Nazi symbolism to play the enemy media, forgetting that this strategy always entails being played right back. 

Always Spencer’s fault.

By sparking a media outcry and winning over the large audiences flocking to the increasingly Nazi-themed outlets of Andrew Anglin and Mike Enoch, Heilgate succeeded in its covert goal of presenting Spencer as the leader of the Alt Right.

Earlier, this author claims he’s not criticizing anyone and he believes everyone – even when wrong – were acting in good faith.  Now, he ascribes “covert” motives to Heilgate.  To Counter-Currents, Spencer is some sort of Bond villain, petting a cat while plotting doom and destruction.

However, the wider effect of the stunt upon the Alt Right was disastrous. It drove a wedge into the loose alliance between radicals and populists, negating the 4GW strategy of “hugging the citizens” and allowing the core of the movement to be isolated as a target. The Alt Right quickly reformed into a small alliance of edgy white nationalist groups revolving around Spencer…

If they had instead revolved around Greg Johnson, it all would have turned out OK.  Dat right! 

…and promptly isolated itself further by declaring war on the “Alt-Liters” who had broken off to form the New Right. 

Ignoring that the Alt Lite had been constantly attacking those to their Right, and that there really was little in common between the two “Alt” factions.

At the same time, a plan was unveiled to redefine the new Alt Right as a centralized coalition…

Later on, this author supports the idea of one group with “momentum” absorbing the others.  Well, that’s what Spencer did.  It failed?  Great – then let’s have true decentralization, not covert calls for Counter-Currents to be the new hub of resistance.

…commanded by an eponymous corporate entity under Spencer’s leadership. 

Which I for one criticized from the start.  Indeed, I criticized the entire Alt Right project from the start, while Johnson and other Counter-Currents writers were enthusiastically all on board.  I was right and they were wrong.  Again.

And if centralization is bad, what about:

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go forth into battle and make this concept of the Alternative Right the dominant one. That is all.

That’s Greg Johnson again.

This threatened the organic unity of the original Alt Right, by making it harder for diverse groups to coexist within the same movement—and sure enough, ever since the change from “rhizome” to “tree” was made, the result has been a bitter fruit of obnoxious internal crusades against homosexuals, women, insufficiently edgy people, and other targets.

Can’t criticize those homosexuals, that’s for sure!  That’s a red line for some, no doubt.  As for the “wimmin” make sure to send in your donations so female Alt Lite podcasters can, in Greg’s words, buy all sorts of “frilly” things.

If the methods of the decentralized Alt Right can be compared to guerrilla warfare, centralization was equivalent to crawling out from the undergrowth and forming up as conventional battalions in the open field. And at Charlottesville, the Alt Right marched directly into one of the strongpoints of the enemy, with no plan other than to triumph by muscle and will. Although the men present showed great bravery against the antifa scum and politicized police sent against them, how could they have hoped to win against the weight of media, judicial, corporate and political power stacked against them? Needless to say, it is the failure of the Alt Right to keep up these costly frontal attacks has brought us to the present state of affairs, in which the enemy media demoralizes our people by gloating over the humiliation of the Spencers and Heimbachs they themselves elevated into place.

Once again: it is all Richard Spencer’s fault, right?  The ENTIRE Alt Right, including Counter-Currents, has to be held accountable for ineptness and failure, and for squandering the opportunities extant after Trump’s electon.

How, in retrospect, could things have been done differently? And how can things yet be done differently?

Deconstruct the failed “movement” and start over again.  And ditch the quota queens.  They are no more suitable for “movement” leadership than is any affirmative action Negro is performing their job.

We have to admit that that the pre-Heilgate structure of the movement could not have survived forever, and certainly not outside of cyberspace. 

Thank you for stating the obvious.

The fact that rank-and-filers in the Alt Right felt the need to out-edge each other in order to gain status is proof enough of the need for formal leadership and hierarchy. But if the contours of the original movement had been respected, the natural development would have been towards the creation of several real-life organizations within the overarching brand of the Alt Right, which would have tried out various approaches until one of them gained the strength and momentum to absorb the others.

That’s “decentralization” for you – one group absorbing all the others.  Is this new crop of Counter-Currents writers pathologically un-self-aware, are they trolling us, or are they merely stupid?  And while, eventually, one or more groups can become powerful and absorb others, that will require a level of competence and success at least one order of magnitude greater than has ever been seen before in this failed “movement.”  And even then serious ideological fissures would remain.

Ideally, these organizations would have carried the guerrilla tactics of the online movement into real life: harrying the enemy and luring him into overplaying his hand against ordinary people, instead of isolating ourselves from those people and courting their hatred by signaling as a threat to social order. Instead of rushing to usurp the brand name of the entire movement, the leaders—again, ideally—would have been wise enough to maintain a degree of plausible deniability between real-life activity and online discourse, making it less likely that political action will backfire on metapolitical work by inviting corporate-antifa censorship.

Does saying “The Alt Right MEANS White nationalism” count as such an error? Inquiring minds want to know.

Although spent political capital cannot be recovered, there is nothing stopping us from taking this course in the present day. Organizations like Identity Europa in the US (apparently modelled on Europe’s Generation Identity) are using political guerrilla tactics such as flash demos and leaflet bombing. Antifa, who feel vindicated by recent events, continue to push conservatives towards radicalization by violently harassing them.[3] The political bridgehead in the U.S. established by the Trump election is still intact, though much beleaguered, and the fight against impeachment may offer an issue around which the Rightist elements sundered by Heilgate can be reunited.

The dastardly Richard Spencer did it all!  Bad Dick bad!  Heilgate!  How about Infiltrategate?  Did that do any damage as well?  And here’s another reason why big tent mainstreaming is not for me: defending the cuck fraud Trump against impeachment is going to be the rallying point for the Right! The Man on White Horse rides again!

It may be that we shall have to discard the name of the original movement in order to recover its ethos. The centralized Alt Right exists mainly as an idea, which may serve to funnel donation money up to the handful of outlets that follow its rigid orthodoxy…

Like Counter-Currents.

…but exacts an intolerable price in strategic uselessness and internal friction. Distancing ourselves from the Alt Right brand name cannot make it go away—we are stuck with it for the foreseeable future—

Speak for yourself.  I was opposed to the Alt Right foolishness from the beginning, and have been proved, once again, to be correct. Let’s not whitewash history and forget that Counter-Currents was originally gung-ho in support of the Alt Right.

…but it may dispel the illusion of unification and allow the decentralized substance of the movement to reassert itself. 

Like the EGI Notes/Western Destiny groupuscule?  Does that count?  Why not?

And if we should require another catch-all name that can be used for the purpose of “hugging the civilians,” there is always the New Right brand currently being used by civic nationalists, who would be powerless to prevent its repossession by ethnonationalists and reactionaries.

Ethnonationalists and reactionaries – why are you surprised the “movement” is a failure when you count those two groups as constituting its core?  Backward-looking, divisive, moronic fossils – Yockey would call them Culture Retarders.  Or just plain Retards will suffice.

Perhaps the long-term success of our struggle will hinge upon future tectonic shifts in the Western power structure. However, at the very least, we can reject the patronage of the only power actor willing to support insane strategy and neo-Nazi stupidity: the enemy media. As Greg Johnson has observed, the media and certain Jewish organizations exert a great deal of control over the selection of leaders in the radical Right, simply by hyping up anyone who confirms their stereotypes as a serious threat and channeling credibility in his direction. 

The media and Jewish organizations consider Counter-Currents more of a threat than, say, EGI Notes.  Does the preceding paragraph apply to that situation as well? Or are we only supposed to think of Spencer and Heimbach?

It is no accident that the fifty-year-long cautionary tale of ‘WN 1.0’ began when George Rockwell thought he could manipulate the enemy media and resurrected itself for a second act when Richard Spencer fell into the same trap. The fact that both men were, in my estimation, generally sincere in their motives did not prevent the media from making use of their antics in order to discredit the wider movement.

The maxim no enemies to the Right can only hold true in the context of no alliances with the Left. This precludes courting the attention of the enemy media, just as it precludes selling our principles out to the Left and trying to win mainstream “respectability.”

We don’t want “mainstream respectability” and yet at the same time we want a “big tent” approach, eh?  Oh, that is to “hug the citizens” so as to use them as cannon fodder in “fourth generation warfare.”  Very well, that is discussed above.  But, maybe, just maybe, that’s something that shouldn’t be discussing publicly?  You really want to publicly admit that you are reaching out to John Q. Public so as to set them up to be punched in the face at some rally by Antifa Jeff’s leftist thug pets?  Do we really want this as yet another accusation against the Right by the Left: “the Alt Right tries to appeal to normal folks so as to set up those normal folks to get assaulted and then increase tensions?”  It would be better just to put it in more vague terms like “increasing balkanization” and “increasing social divisions” than to so explicitly describe a process of using “normies” in a ruthlessly instrumental fashion so as to accomplish those goals.

Those who want to lead this movement to victory have no serious choice other than to pursue steady, organic growth through meritorious action, and give the Fake News nothing but the savor of a door in the face.

We need real leaders for that, not inept affirmative action appointees.

Once again, to refute the historical revisionism at the essay being fisked: even when the Alt Right was at its peak (say, 2016), I was opposed to it and its pretensions to “movement” hegemony and I predicted its downfall, as long time readers of this blog are well aware; at the same time, Johnson was fully on board the Alt Right train, saying that the “Alt Right means white nationalism or nothing at all,” and was pushing for Alt Right dominance over racialist discourse.  Today of course Counter-Currents would have you believe something else entirely.

Alt Right Aesthetics

A brisk fisking.

1. Aesthetics matter more than optics

It Doesn’t (sic) matter what you do, it matters what you look like while you do it. They hate you, no matter what. You can save an entire school bus of children from drowning in a river in a flash flood, but the second your politics are revealed they will hate you and try to discredit and destroy you. Are we clear? Yes? Good. It doesn’t actually matter what you say, hardly anyone will remember it unless it’s exceptionally profound and you are a person of note. It matters what you look like, a well kept man is immediately notable versus a disheveled bum. How you are dressed -clean, well-fitted, matched- and what your hair looks like -effort vs no effort- your footwear -appropriate shoe for the occasion- and, if in person, how you smell. These are the things that impact people and it happens in 1/10th of a second. If you can make someone like or trust you in 1/10th of a second they will second guess everything that comes after that, you can only do that visually. First impressions are forever. If in doubt, start with the footwear and move upwards.

There is some value here; it is true that many people, a large fraction of the masses, judge almost entirely by appearance, by aesthetics.  Also, even those people who pay attention to the message also are influenced by aesthetics.  So, obviously, this is all important.  But taken literally as written, point one is absolute nonsense.  Really?  No one at all will pay attention to anything you say? Really?  So Trump won the Presidency because he was better dressed than, first, Jeb and Rubio and Ted and then, later, Clinton?  The best dressed man won?  If all that matters is aesthetics than “suit-and-tie” Jared Taylor and “metrosexual” Richard Spencer would be our Senators from Virginia already.  Yes, first impressions are forever.  But if you think that a good pair of shoes can completely substitute for a compelling message than you’re dumber than the average “movement” Nutzi.

2. Not everyone is an erudite gentleman. Nor should they be.

To the untrained eye this may seem in opposition to my previous point. It is not. 

Actually it is.

Authenticity is as much a part of aesthetics as anything else. 

Which is why you wrote: 

How you are dressed -clean, well-fitted, matched- and what your hair looks like -effort vs no effort- your footwear -appropriate shoe for the occasion- and, if in person, how you smell.

Cosmopolitan dwelling fellas, you ain’t getting a country boy in a suit and tie if he isn’t getting married or burying a relative, and that is okay. Some of the issues you have with “optics” is expecting a regionally distinct nation to follow the rules of only one region; which is exactly what the liberal coastal elites have been doing for decades! Speaking of regional conflicts…

OK, so a farmer wearing dirty boots and smelling like cow manure is A-OK.  Start with dem dere footwear and move upwards.

3. The South is for Southerners

There is no rational reason to concede ground to an enemy preceding a war, unless you have an advanced strategy to counter the push. You don’t volunteer your losses ahead of the game, and you certainly don’t reveal your hand of what you find most valuable. Alienating swaths of people by volunteering their homes as tribute to the very people who swarm their neighborhoods making them unsafe and barely habitable may seem like a funny meme or a rational concession; but it isn’t and by the by, I don’t hear an alternative where you give up your homes and flee to the South. The idea of an ethnic homeland for our people is a good one, but we need to think smarter than Balkanizing the United States of America.

Alright, I see nothing wrong with this.  I previously, it is true, wrote essays favoring this sort of racial portioning, but I see the point.  If White Southerners can seize and hold territory, more power to them.  Let’s see how it all falls out.

4. Shitposting isn’t going to save the world

These ideas have to make it into the real world where people live. Even the people you have contempt for have life experiences they can relate to our ideology. Why? Because the things that you’ve noticed aren’t unique to you just because you noticed them already for what they are. Online we live in a polarized meta-reality of extremes. Fascist or Marxist. Right or left. Genocide or victory. Those extremes simply don’t exist on the typical person’s radar. There is a season for all things and now is the season to forge real life connections with real life people. The way forward is not tiki-torches and marching, it is a quiet, responsible conversation about real affairs that matter to the man or woman in the street.

So then, basically the entire Alt Right “strategy” up until this point has been wrong.

5. Stop trying to purge people!

What kind of whacked out brain-fry drug den did you just crawl out of to think that any white person to the right of center is disposable? Identify them for what they are, and then utilize whatever it is they do or can do to benefit our immediate concerns. We have other concerns than just Zionism. We have to get legislation passed or stopped. We have to spread the word of first and second amendment breaches and violations. We have to talk about immigration. We have to talk about MS-13 and other gang activity. We have to have discussions existing on the internet that we don’t have a million hours in the day to have. I personally am very critical of basic CivNat conservatives. They are weak and ineffective at conservatism, but i never advocate for purging their huge, beautiful, rarely banned platforms. Stop being ridiculous. Immediately.

I disagree; the “big tent” approach, a form of mainstreaming, was, is, and remains a failure.  Although “purging” may be the wrong approach; ignoring in some cases can be better.  However, if someone promoting failed approaches is occupying your niche space, an ideological and memetic battle is necessary.

6. There’s no such thing as “Punching Right”

Nobody is above criticism. Nobody is above harsh criticism. Nobody. 

Including all the Quota Queens?  Now, don’t get all “crazy and bitter” on us here.

This doesn’t mean that person needs to be “purged” from the movement. We refine ourselves through defending our positions, we refine our arguments by having them more than once, and losing more often than we win. We refine our ideology through discussion; and you aren’t the gatekeeper of how that discussion is meant to be hosted. Anyone who has put their name or pseudonym forward accepts the inevitability that they will be challenged intellectually, morally and spiritually. There is surely no reason to schism between fans of this guy or that guy. That guy is not the be-all end-all, and this guy is only the guy until we find a better guy. Avoid cults of personality.

Err…the entire “movement” is based on “cults of personality” – hence all the catfights and feuding.  And does the “inevitability” of criticism apply to “milady” who has her crew of white knights ready to defend her honor (or what passes for it).

7. Get a thesaurus

Stop using words you know will get you banned on leftist social media platforms. The English language is the best language on the planet; and there are about 40 legitimate words that aren’t bannable for every bannable word you type. For example whore is bannable, strumpet is not. Retarded is bannable, simple is not. Understand that in one moment we talk about white excellence and in the other we show that we can’t learn, collectively, how to stop saying bad words and getting shut down. Adapt.

OK. Fine.

8. Quit pretending you don’t want women talking about politics

Yes you do. You need women to talk about politics. You may not want them in politics or to hold office, after all,who does; women are inherently terrible at it. Please though, stop with the ridiculous assertion that you want women to stop talking about current affairs or identity issues. It’s an aphrodisiac when a woman agrees with you about topics that you care deeply about. For her to understand what concerns you and why, is a comfort to you. To be able to vent your frustrations to someone who can hear you and can fathom your concern is a boon. Do you really want to come home to dinner, start moaning about Mueller, communists or the latest political compromise in direct opposition to your immediate needs and be met by a blank stare? No. We are a partnership, always. If you happen to be the very small amount of men who actually hate women, shut up and get out of the way of the men who would like to make lots of babies with the women that you despise.

See the response to #6 above.  Women can’t have it both ways – first, wanting to be involved “just like the guys” and then whining at the slightest criticism and hiding behind white knights who come charging out from behind Patrik Hermansson’s notepads.

9. Jews aren’t that powerful.

I am not suggesting you should give them a single moment of respite from pointing out each and every instance they exercise what influence they’ve been permitted to have.

I said permitted.

They are not innovative or cutthroat or fun. They merely exhibit an enviable in-group bias. This is the fundamental crux of the relationship between the West and those Jews who take advantage of systems we create for their group benefit. It is not every Jew you meet in day to day life; and therefore our attention to relations between our peoples as a whole should be fair, polite, but firm. The cry of antisemitism arises when the grand arch of Zionist influence is threatened- because it can be taken away from them in an instant, as has been done in many other civilizations throughout history. They cannot outperform us, purely based on the relative sizes of our populations; it is a logical strategy to shape a society to better suit your own interests, given this understanding. It is our role to politely refuse such machinations.

Be polite!  Always mention that they have a high, high-IQ and are HuWhyte Men of the West.

Ultimately, though the Jewish lobby has poisoned our society in many respects they will ultimately only destroy themselves with success; just as a parasite cannot live without a host, they cannot live without the protection of Western Civilization, either in our lands or in Jerusalem. We can recognize this reality in the declining Jewish population in the West, through intermarriage and emigration to Israel. This force is in a process of decline in the West- for as much as we can say demography is destiny, this is true for all peoples. It is thus far more important in this context that you rediscover your power and learn to start saying, “No, thank you. This is not in our interest. Good day.”

Can we say “No, thank you” to the poseurs, quota queens, and cosplay actors of Der Movement?

Absent of criticism we cannot take the steps necessary to accomplish our collective goals. It is what happens within our small but growing community that sets the stage for the future battles we will face; be they culturally, politically, or in some cases physically. We need to learn to turn into ourselves and each other, first to strengthen from within and only after that push forward into the mire that awaits us. If we do, then bleak prospects will become victorious battles rather than nihilistic concessions and defeat.

Alas, some people in Der Movement have skin thinner than a microtome slice and cannot take any criticism at all.  Those are the “leaders,” by the way.  Much confidence inspired!

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Good point from the Chinaman.  The Alt Right is best described by the latter.  All bluster, no preparation whatsoever.

Salter Trad Addendum

More comments.

Salter and I agree on most (albeit not all) of the fundamentals, as readers of this blog have long known.  Focusing specifically on the Trad analysis pieces, I agree with the general pro-White, pro-Majoritarian, EGI-oriented basis.  I agree that reactive nationalism is a failure, stupid Bunkerism that is counter-productive. The recent Barr-Planet of the Apes fiasco was instructive.  Forgetting for a moment Barr’s history and ancestry, what do we see?  A crude “acting out,” spewing forth racially-charged insults lacking in any productive content (not much balkanization ensued, given Barr’s subsequent lickspittle apologetic spin), followed by the usual groveling apologies and pathology-related excuses (“it was the Ambien”).  So, “racists” are seen to be merely crude bigots, the focus of public humiliation and social pricing, followed by apologetic groveling and implications that negative comments about Coloreds must be due to medication side-effects or some other mental-medical pathology.  In summary, we would all have been better served if Barr had kept her reactive comments to herself.

One difference in our positions is that Salter seems to support liberal nationalism, at least as an option that may appeal to the largest mass of the native population, while still maintaining some degree of concern for ethnic interests.  This seems to me a sort of mainstreaming, making ethnic nationalism more palatable by moving toward the center and justifying greater ethnic homogeneity based upon an appeal to “liberal democratic values” (sort of Jobling’s argument when he was running his website).

However, just like the “Amren Gateway Hypothesis,” mainstreaming has zero empirical evidence supporting it.  Actually, it has a remarkable record of failure, most notably and recently with Ms. Le Pen.

Mainstreaming is based on the idea that the bulk of voters are toward the center, so any Far Right party that wants to win needs to move toward that center and become more palatable to those voters.

There are a number of problems with that.  First, do we know for sure that the target voters are always in the (relative) center, politically speaking?  The genius of the Trump campaign was to realize that a winnable fraction of Republican voters were significantly to the right of the GOP political establishment. In America, in the GOP, it has been the voters who have been mainstreaming toward the Establishment candidates (the Bush family, Dole, McCain, and Romney) rather than the other way around.  Trump moved toward those voters (farstreaming), rather than asking the voters to move politically to accommodate him.  Orban in Hungary is the same.  Of course, the WN position is still much farther to the right than those voters, but, still, the general principle holds.

Second, let us assume that from a Far Right perspective, most of the voters are more towards the center.  So, should the Far Right move toward them?  No, that’s a losing proposition.  Mainstream conservatives always like to feint right come election time.  If you as a Far Right candidate are moving left, toward the center, at some point your position and that of the mainstream conservatives will appear to converge.  Right-of-center voters will always prefer the “safe” and “electable” mainstream conservatives over mainstreaming Far Rightists “tainted” with a past history of “extremism.”  If there is little difference between your position and that of the right-feinting Establishment Right, why would anyone vote for you?  Even those voters skeptical of the Establishment Right’s credibility regards their right-feint won’t be tempted to look in a more radical direction if you’ve watered down your views so as to become another “conservative.”  You will lose respect and credibility, and “turn off” your own more radical base.

What about the young?  What about the need to be more moderate to gain a following among the youth?  Aren’t they all liberals anyway? What about the crowing of the likes of Matt Bai that the bigoted faction of the Trump base is disappearing?  The demographic end of the pincer, the decrease in the White population fraction and the concomitant increase in the Coloreds, well, yes, we all know that is occurring.  But, isn’t that a reason so many Whites, upset at those changes, voted for Trump in the first place?  It’s the other end of the pincer that is less convincing – that the liberalism of young Whites is an immutable characteristic that they will carry with them in the years and decades to come.

There is a stereotype, with some preliminary empirical support, that people tend to get more “conservative” with age.  Let’s say, more generally, they shift to the right.  We can only expect that trend to become even sharper as the racial situation for Whites worldwide continues to degenerate, and tribalism becomes a more dominant force in politics.  Also keep in mind that young Whites have been subjected to an unrelenting barrage of leftist propaganda, which is exponentially been made more potent via the Internet: schools, the news and entertainment media, social media, etc. At the same time, severe social pricing (and the leftist thuggery Trump and Sessions benignly enable) silences rightist voices.  No wonder then that the youth are leftist (besides typical youthful naive faux-idealism); indeed, it is a surprise that any young Whites have healthy ideas at all.  

As these young people age, and encounter the harsh realities of life, and get less dependent upon social media and snarky comedians to form their sociopolitical worldview, they will inevitably jettison, bit by bit, their leftist politics.  They will learn that regardless of their “tolerance” that they are still low-caste subaltern Whites, hated by everyone else and targeted by the System.  Heterosexual White men will find themselves the worst of all, untouchables, the Dalits of the Earth.  Will their leftist social conditioning (i.e. brainwashing) still hold under those conditions?

The likes of Bai should not get overconfident.

In the end, the Far Right needs to get the masses to farstream to us, rather than we mainstreaming to them.

Getting back to the main point: I see no need for liberal nationalism or any other approach that does not give primacy of place to EGI.  Ethnoracial nationalism needs to be sane and balanced for sure, the “mixed ethic” cited by Salter in the third section of On Genetic Interests, and some fundamental, basic human rights can be included (dependent of course on how we define “human”).  Nevertheless, we should not “mainstream” and compromise in order to appeal to fickle, lemming-like masses of sheeple.

If we believe we are the future, the masses eventually must come to us.  “Must” does not imply inevitability; we will need to work for it.  “Must” does imply that this is the only way to achieve long-lasting goals.

The necessity for “culture warriors” I also agree with.  The Right has always been weak in this regard, amplified by the Right’s “declare (premature) victory and go home” pathology, unlike the ever-striving, never-satisfied, always-fighting Left.  It is no coincidence that aggressive leftist SJW political correctness is soaring now under the Presidency of Donald “Alt Right God Emperor” Trump just as it did under Ronald “KKK groups disband because we won in November 1980” Reagan.  Instead of long culture wars of attrition and the long slog through the institutions, the Right gives us the false idols of Men on White Horse frauds.

Three practical problems with “cultural warfare” – 

1. The Right (particularly in the Anglosphere) has been notoriously weak with respect to cultural warfare (I’m talking about the real nationalist Right here, not the “Religious Right”), metapolitics, and serious ideology.  I’m not sure that many on the Right even understand why any of that is important, much less that they would know how to effectively engage in such activities.

2. To the extent that “cultural warriors” exist on the Right, there is poor integration with the more explicitly political arm of the “movement.”  Now, in America, there really isn’t a political arm either (Trump is a civic nationalist cuck and fraud); so in America, in the mess over here, there really isn’t any effective political or any metapolitical/cultural activism.  However, elsewhere – in Europe and Australia for example – there is very weak integration, as the nationalist politicians (or what passes for them) engage in reactive nationalism, in mainstreaming to civic nationalism, or try and dabble in metapolitics themselves, generally with poor results (see point 3).  And in America, whatever embryonic metapolitical and even more nebulous political activism exists is either non-integrated, or you have the ineffective “jack of all trades” problem discussed next.

3. As Salter asserts, for the most part there will need to be specialization of the political and metapolitical spheres, following by cooperative integration of these activities and efforts.  A truly effective “jack of all trades” – someone skilled at politics who is also well versed in ideology and who is a metapolitical master and culture warrior – is very rare (and should be treasured if identified).

A problem therefore is when people engage in activity for which they are ill-suited.  There are people on the American scene (no names, but you can figure out who fits where) with this problem.  There are some people who would have been best suited for electoral politics – either directly as candidates themselves or indirectly as advisers and campaign managers for candidates – and these people instead ineffectively flounder as faux-intellectuals, website managers, ideologists, culture warriors, etc.  On the other hand, there are people suited for intellectual pursuits (even though I may disagree with their views) who put themselves forward in “movement” politics (not even electoral politics), and fail miserably in any leadership capacity whatsoever.

Probably we need even more sub-specialization – for example, some people may be good at organizing meetings and conferences at the level of attracting speakers and attendees, but are completely incompetent at security.  Others may be good at security, but too introverted to do the broad organizing.  Some people are skilled at the more cultural aspects of metapolitics, others at ideology, or are science experts.  We don’t have a critical mass of specialists yet, and the ones we do have can’t work together because of ideological disagreements, personality clashes, and feuding.

One omission in Salter’s work is a lack of analysis on how to defeat social pricing, and I would like to see Salter tackle that problem.

Like Salter, I support the idea of “democratic multiculturalism,” both as part of a main Plan A to defeat the System as well as a fallback Plan B position in case the System will continue going strong for the foreseeable future.  I’ve written a lot about this in the past and there is no need to rehash it now again.

In summary, Salter and I are in agreement with, say, 80% with 20% of difference (a Pareto distribution) on certain specific areas of importance.

I may have more to say on these topics in the future.

Salter Trad Analysis, II


Once again, a summary and an analysis of excerpts; follow the link to read the whole thing.


Ethnic nationalism

Ethnic nationalism treats the nation as an extended family. More than other nationalisms it most directly identifies and protects ethnic interests because it seeks to establish a relatively homogeneous, cohesive and independent society.

These motives have evolutionary origins in kinship. Cultural similarity mimics kinship, especially shared religion and historical memories and belief in descent from common ancestors. In racially diverse regions, ethnic genetic kinship is typically equivalent to that between first cousins. This makes the ethnic group a large store of each member’s distinctive genes.1 Ethnic kinship facilitates the spread and maintenance of ethnic nepotism, a weak but pervasive social tie.

That is the entire ethnic genetic interests paradigm in a nutshell.

Ethnic sentiment was hinted at and stated outright in early decisions to ban non-European immigration to Australia. Arthur Phillip, the first governor of the Sydney colony, refused the British Home Secretary’s proposal to obtain wives for the convicts by taking women from South Pacific islands. Instead he requested more female convicts be sent from England. Other early governors such as Sir Richard Bourke and Sir George Gipps took a similar stand against the importation of cheap Indian labour. This time the proposal came from squatters facing labour shortages. The Colonial Office concurred with the governors, citing the adverse effect on the wages of white labourers of introducing migrants of “an inferior and servile description”. Notice the concern with the working conditions of people of European descent in particular, not citizens in general. The first is an ethnic category, the second a civic.

Very good, No Asians.  As opposed to Silk Road White nationalism that wants to see the West colonized by Asians and Whites as an enslaved subaltern caste.

…references to the blood of patriots, security of the homeland, portraying the nation as a family (“fatherland”, “motherland”), and so on. As already discussed, “nation” connotes ethnicity and as such is a biological, tribal concept. Such rhetoric has been shown to release patriotic motivation.3 The effect is so pronounced politicians use releaser ideas in order to gain legitimacy. They use terms such as “nation” and “community” and “sovereignty” and “borders” and “homeland defence” incessantly. But the rhetoric is out of kilter with their policies, and the discrepancy is becoming evident to a growingly cynical, distrustful electorate. A competent media or an aroused citizenry would make it difficult for mainstream politicians to use this rhetoric.

Because releaser ideas fit naturally with people’s evolved predispositions, they have greater effect with less effort. They are efficient. Ideas that fit less naturally do not release instinctive fixed action patterns but must be inculcated through repetition, which is costly. Unnatural ideas rely more on power, on monopoly of the media and education curricula. Perhaps that explains the globalist left’s intolerance – they do not tolerate any opposition because their ideas are unpalatable.

The question is how the globalist left obtained all that power to begin with. If their ideas are so unpalatable that they have to be maintained by force, but these ideas did not come into power by force…it is obvious we need some sort of explanatory analysis here.

Ethnic nationalism – and we can place racial nationalism here – is the purest of the forms of nationalism Salter discusses.  It is explicit.  It has as its ends the well-being of the ethny.  This can be contrasted to liberal nationalism:


Liberal Nationalism

The notion of liberal nationalism might seem oxymoronic, especially to Americans, in an age when ‘liberal’ has come to mean leftist or socialist. Here the term’s original meaning is adopted, namely rational approaches to policy that emphasise individual rights and individual conscience.

Liberal philosophers inherited cultural leadership from traditionalists. Philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were reformers and patriots at the same time. They did not question the continuity of their people or civilisation. They were not afflicted with group guilt. Despite being reformers, by modern standards they were conservative in outlook. They represented continuity with traditional patriotism.

Mill posited a connection between national identity, homogeneity and democratic values. He concluded:

Where the sentiment of nationality exists in any force, there is a prima facie case for uniting all the members of the nationality under the same government, and a government to themselves apart […] One hardly knows what any division of the human race should be free to do if not to determine with which of the various collective bodies they choose to associate themselves.6

In Considerations Mill argued that representative institutions are “next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities”. Democracy depends on society being educated and cohesive. As Mill thought that ethnic diversity reduced social cohesion, he concluded that diversity should be minimised. His argument concerned ethnicity, of which race is only one component. “The sympathies available for the purpose are those of race, language, religion, and, above all, of political institutions, as conducing most to a feeling of identity of political interest.”7

So, in liberal nationalism defense of the ethny is means , not ends.  It is the means toward constructing a polity in which “liberal” values, such as individual rights, can be most effectively actualized.  However:

Strictly speaking, liberal nationalism need contain no national sentiment at all, only policies for making society cohere within the frame of representative democracy and individual liberty. Policy might be ethnically selective but not necessarily the motives for advancing those policies. The starting point of Mill’s analysis of nationality (immigration, domestic affairs) is not loyalty to a particular tribe but universals of social behaviour, conflict avoidance, and civil liberties, especially freedom of speech and association. 

Thus, we see the seeds of a problem in relying on liberal nationalism: it van be subverted toward policies hostile to the ethny in such policies can be formulated so as to ostensibly preserve the universal values prized by traditional liberal thinkers.

An example is Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s recent enunciation of libertarianism, which overlaps classical liberalism in emphasing the need for freedom from coercion and conflict. Hoppe concludes that immigration to Western societies should mainly consist of people descended from ethnic Europeans – “Western, white candidate immigrants” – not because of any ethnic preference but in the interests of social harmony, neighbourliness, and economic equity.16 He criticised the goal of white solidarity on the ground that many globalist elites are white.17

That last part is retarded on Hoppe’s part, and indicative of the weak analysis of libertarianism.  Whites have genetic (and proximate) interests in the well-being of Whites, and hence White solidarity is useful.  Are there free riders to such solidarity?  Yes.  Are there what I termed in the past “cross riders” to such solidarity – people who not only utilize the public good of solidarity without contributing to t but actually actively harm it?  Yes, there are.  But such types can be identified and they can be punished by withholding the benefits of such solidarity from them.  White solidarity does not mean solidarity to every single White person on Earth, irrespective of their behavior.  It instead implies solidarity to the group, in general, and those defectors from group solidarity of course should not derive benefits from it.

Genuine liberal nationalism is open to the idea that nationhood is beneficial for all peoples. This is another advantage over unregulated ethnic nationalism, which is prone to chauvinism, resulting in needless conflict. Universal nationalism has the potential to facilitate cooperation among parochialists against global centrists.

It is not clear to me why universal nationalism is not ethnic nationalism.  Well, Salter uses the modifier “unregulated.”  Very well.  But regulated ethnic nationalism is not the same as liberal nationalism. One can directly and explicitly defend ethnic interests without descending into genocidal Hitlerism.

Universalism risks drifting too far from local interests. Stability of liberal nationalism as an ethnic strategy probably depends on more than perceived fairness, privacy and equality before the law. Hoppe’s rejection of ethnic solidarity misses the fact of ethnic kinship. Social divisions do not eliminate the interest we have in the welfare of our peoples. Genetically and civilisationally, class is false consciousness.

Well said.

For these reasons it is rational for ethnic nationalists to join in discussions of liberal nationalism, clarifying matters of fact and reasoning to yield outcomes more amenable to ethnic interests.

Or we can reject liberal nationalism and promote a regulated ethnoracial nationalism.

Salter then discusses the dead ends of economic, republican and civil forms of nationalism.  You can read the details in his original ext.  On civic nationalism (read: Trump), Salter states:

One problem with basing cohesion on values is that the process of political compromise inevitably reduces values to shallow slogans. As the conservative educationalist Kevin Donnelly explained, “even when there is agreement on what constitutes Australian or Western values, […] the list is so vacuous and all-embracing that it’s impossible to identify what makes such values special or unique”.26 Australians are meant to be united by such values as tolerance and inclusion and respecting different points of view. Particular religious and ethnic origins are not even named on the assumption that all cultures are equal.

The tenets of civic nationalism are not altogether new. Empires have universalised the head of state and expanded citizenship to win the loyalty of far-flung provinces. This was an innovation of the Romans, emulated by the British. In neither case did the patrician class believe that provincials were their equals but in both cases they used citizenship to gain loyalty based on equal treatment under the law. Equality included the legal right to migrate around the empire. Omnivorous citizenship in the Roman and British empires resulted in the mass migrations towards the metropolitan society.

Cynicism and shortsightedness are apparent in these imperial ideologies. Of relevance to Australia is the use of the equality doctrine by Joseph Chamberlain, Colonial Secretary in Whitehall, to block the colonies and the new Commonwealth from explicitly selecting ethnically European immigrants. The experience of Chinese immigration during the gold rushes showed that a European country situated beside the large populations of Asia could only retain its identity by systematically favouring European immigrants. But the British government wished to sign a naval agreement with Japan, for which purpose they needed to secure Japan’s favour. Chamberlain wrote to warn Australian leaders that the British government would advise the monarch to refuse the royal assent to any explicitly racial provision.

Note how the reverse is never true; for example, Japan never felt required to make racial concessions to Whites.


Reactive Nationalism

The reactive type has been influential. It will be briefly discussed, though it is not animated by a consistent ideology. Instead it is a manifestation of anxiety with rapid change and resulting frustration with and suspicion of the authorities.

Reactive nationalism carries bits and pieces of ideologies and policies propelled by emotion. Common denominators of national identity remain largely implicit and unanalyzed.

These are negative features because emotionally-driven politics tends to be inchoate, leaderless, episodic as it reacts to overreach by elites, including oppressive social controls.

In other words, Bunkerism and to a large extent some of the more lowbrow Type I “activists” one finds on ‘movement” comments threads in online forums.

The Trump and Brexit revolts were based on passionate rejection of globalist social transformation and stifling social controls. The same reactions have propelled Pauline Hanson’s electoral success.

And without analysis, without Type II activists preaching reason and rational strategizing, all of that has come to naught.

Comparing Types of Nationalism

The six types of Australian nationalism have been combined in various ways over two centuries, concluding in the 1970s with a relatively disjunctive break with the ethnic-liberal combination that had shaped the nation from the First Fleet.

All types of nationalism have encompassed bad decisions and unrealistic assumptions. But overall, ethnic and liberal nationalisms have proven less susceptible to elite free riding. The liberal type has the added advantage of retaining political forms developed over centuries that help the formation of public goods.

There is no reason why a regulated and rational ethnic nationalism cannot utilize the political and social technologies of liberal nationalism without going “full liberal” and making ethnic preservation merely proximate means rather than ultimate ends.

Australia’s current mix of civic nationalism and multiculturalism constitutes a top-down elite agenda. It co-exists in antagonistic tension with latent ethnic nationalism, as demonstrated by the recent success of minor parties. The antagonism is caused by the multicultural establishment seeking to transform the original nation. Their dominance of the culture industries has not eliminated popular nationalism, which remains a sleeping giant.

Elites are traitors who will one day need to be held accountable.

Liberal nationalism has the advantage of self-criticism. We all operate with imperfect knowledge. By opening our beliefs to rational inspection we increase the chance of avoiding ill-informed ingrained assumptions, including those concerning goals and methods. A moderate culture of self-criticism allows a movement to adapt to changing conditions, including new tactics and strategy by opponents and potential allies. This nimbleness will be indispensible in defeating more powerful opponents.

I fail to see why a sane and reasonable ethnic nationalism cannot have self-criticism.  I realize that Der Movement is congenitally resistant to self-criticism and accountability; however, liberal nationalism has been equally so, which is why it has collapsed into globalist multiculturalism.

Liberal nationalism’s main weakness compared to ethnic nationalism is its tendency to collapse into the civic kind. The weakness lies in its reliance on ideas transmitted by higher education, at a time when universities have been captured by the West-hating left. Ethnic nationalism is less vulnerable in this respect because it has a stronger emotional basis in ethnic nepotism. It would remain loyal to the nation even if diversity were found not to have multiple negative impacts, because ethnic nationalists are willing to pay a price to live among their people in a relatively homogeneous self-governing society. The weakness of this doctrine is cultural, leading to rigidity of policy and ideas. The end result is compromise of the representative democratic system.

That system SHOULD be compromised.  Bring it on!

Ethnic nationalism, and certainly the reactive type, are insufficient credentials for an individual or party to assume government, unless ethnic identity is taken to include the political traditions inherited from England. One way or another, nationalist voters are advised to elect only those politicians who have demonstrated competence, character and tradition in the broad sweep of government duties in the tradition of representative democracy. 

Err…these latter things we need to get rid of.

One marked weakness of unqualified ethnic politics is that it risks emulating multiculturalism’s effect of fragmenting society along ethnic and religious lines. 

But this is precisely what we need!  The road to freedom passes through racial balkanization and chaos, there is likely no other way.  We NEED to be fragmented.

This has a direct human cost in social conflict and an indirect economic cost due to policy being diverted from serving public goods to serving particular group interests. 

We have sacrificed ethnic interests for “the economy” long enough.  That smacks of economic nationalism.  And public goods SHOULD serve majority interests.

Given its mixed history, liberal nationalism might appear to be unreliable. One sign that it could be reclaimed is that every instance of it serving hostile goals has entailed fraud, the compromise of Enlightenment values of rationality and liberty. 

I would say its inability to recognize and combat such fraud indicates a fatal weakness of liberal nationalism.

Australia’s historical experience – of liberal nationalism giving way to globalism – indicates that liberal nationalism is sustainable only when it respects majority ethnic and religious identity as legitimate values. Liberal nationalism’s divorce from ethnic identity in the decades before 1970 opened it to intellectual corruption and left-authoritarianism. 

I suggest that liberal nationalism always has within it this inherent trend toward anti-majoritarian multiculturalism. Therefore it cannot be trusted and should be replaced by a sane and balanced ethnic nationalism (which includes racial nationalism).

Ethnic and liberal nationalism have different strengths in relation to multiculturalism. The growth of an ethnic nationalist movement would be accelerated by the strategy of democratic multiculturalism described earlier, due to rising Anglo consciousness. However, the doctrine does not provide a political framework for accommodating other identities when the state is retaken. At that point a liberal frame would make an emerging ethnic state more governable, more stable, by providing political processes for managing diversity.

Err…we should not have to “manage diversity” – we need to end it. I suppose there can be an intermediate period as the ethnic state is “emerging” in which the remnants of diversity would need to be managed, but a regulated and sane ethnic nationalism can handle that, and “keep the eyes on the prize.”  I simply do not trust liberal nationalism or any other approach that dose not have ethnic interests and the endpoint of analysis.

Informed liberal nationalism can be an effective, though partial, defence of majority ethnicity against globalists and multiculturalists. That is because it converges on ethnic nationalism at the policy level. Historically, liberal nationalism respected ethnic sentiment. Together the liberal and ethnic types encompassed motives rational and civic on the one hand, and nepotistic on the other. Together they promoted the national bio-culture.

The fusion of liberal and ethnic nationalism that shaped Australia for two centuries is better equipped with releaser memes than competing doctrines. On the liberal side, that is because institutions such as representative democracy and rule of law are part of Anglo identity, and therefore add another cultural layer to markers of descent.

This fusion is akin to the “mixed ethic” that Salter promotes in On Genetic Interests.  The pure ethic would be analogous to unregulated ethnic nationalism and then we have all the ethics that treat ethnic interests as secondary or irrelevant.  The mixed ethic fuses primacy of ethnic interests with a doctrine of rights, similar to what is suggested here.

The main disadvantage of this approach is when its identitarianism is implicit. Only an explicit appeal to the historic nation can establish a nationalist rhetoric able to fully mobilise Anglo Australians.

Yes, this is the case. Unfortunately, the next paragraph promotes the alleged positives of the failed implicit approach.

Implicit ethnicity also has advantages. Decades of indoctrination by media and education bureaucracies have made Anglo ethnic nepotism taboo. Liberal nationalism advances ethnic interests indirectly. Indirect ethnic preservation has the additional attraction of conforming more with the non-ideological tradition of Anglophone cultures. English-derived politics is famously divorced from theory compared to the Continental tradition. People distrust theory in politics, as much as they do theory in art. They perceive both as pretentious. Like conceptual art, a political position won’t appeal to the common-sense public if it relies on abstruse theory. But everyone understands and desires social peace, stability and prosperity, which true liberal nationalism would protect better than bogus civic nationalism.

Implicit politics have ALWAYS failed.  Mainstreaming has failed in Europe again and again.  Even Orban, under EU constraints to modify his language, sometimes drifts from more implicit culturalist talk to that of ethny.  Now, Salter here talks about Australia, and contrasts “English-derived politics” from that of “the Continental tradition.”  But even in “English-derived” traditions, implicit politics and mainstreaming has failed.  Has One Nation succeeded?  No.  Brexit has led to a current UK where Polish immigrants are driven out by racist anti-White Negroes and South Asians; native Britons are a non-factor in their own nation.  Thatcher co-opted anti-immigration angst to end up being a fraud.  Then in America there is a long tradition of Republican dog whistling on race that leads nowhere: Nixon-Reagan-Trump. I most strongly disagree with Salter here.  “But everyone understands and desires social peace, stability and prosperity, which true liberal nationalism would protect better than bogus civic nationalism.”  The other side will construe “true liberal nationalism” as akin to fascism and social strife.

To put this another way, the choice of types of nationalism is not only an intellectual exercise. It is also one of self-examination. The choice must feel right to the majority now or in the foreseeable future. And that depends on who we are psychologically, who we are in terms of shared memories, and who we could feasibly become as new memories slowly accumulate and the culture changes. Multicultural critics portray Anglo-Australians as uniquely driven by racial identity. In fact Anglo Australians are among the least collectivist of peoples, much less so than multicultural activists. They are so tolerant of foreigners to have retained their composure while being inundated by immigrants.

I do not fully agree here. We should not let the herd, with their psychological comfort level, define for us the limits of our choice of nationalism.  They need to be led by the nose, ultimately.  The sheeple are a herd of lemmings (if I may mix metaphors and analogies) and the vanguard need to set the tone.

In reality ethnic activism by and for the majority is awkward in the present political climate. That does not make it inappropriate. In a healthy political culture, one not distorted by a hostile culture industry, positive majority ethnocentrism would seem natural. And it is important that it be so again, because individuals with heightened ethnocentrism are their peoples’ natural guardians, the passionate counterpoint to cold utilitarianism. Like a mother alert to her baby’s cry, ethnocentric individuals of all backgrounds are the first to feel estranged and besieged by social trends that are adverse for their people. 

But how do we protect these protectors?  How do we defeat social pricing?  There is a number of references and implications in these two essays to feed forward positive feedback loops favoring activism on behalf of the ethny.  I agree, but with one caveat – how to get it started?  We are at a sticking point.  It is like a biochemical reaction with an enormous energy of activation to overcome to get it started.  We need an enzymatic catalyst.  From where?  What will it be?

Majority ethnocentrists’ expression of concern for their people makes them prime targets of the “human rights” apparatus, part-and-parcel of big-state globalism. Those who chant “all love is equal” excoriate anyone who loves the wrong race. Beginning with the Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917, a powerful strand of left ideology has sought to suppress human nature to create a communist utopia. The civilised response is the liberal one: society should respect ethnic activists of all stripes, including the red white and blue of the founding people. Attacks on ethnic nepotism are unacceptable in a liberal society.

Ethnic nepotism is also strongly attacked by the Alt Wrong/HBD/race realists.  Actually, it is only White ethnic nepotism that is, in practice, attacked.  Always remember that the Alt Wrong is a vehicle to promote Jewish-Asian ethnic interests.

In particular liberal nationalists worthy of the name should accept individuals who profess the interests of the nation. They should accept as comrades those who do so in liberal terms, something civic nationalists and minority chauvinists can never allow. In practical terms that does not mean allowing national activists to make policy in general, because they represent one interest among many. But it does mean protecting the right to free speech and party membership of those who stand up for the historic nation. Liberal nationalists should do that not only as an expression of civil liberties but as a means of ensuring the multiple public goods that flow from a secure national identity and sovereignty.

OK, but as a racial nationalist I don’t view my position as “one interest among many” – maybe liberal nationalism itself should be so viewed.

This paper has argued that Anglo patriots should use a dual political-cultural strategy to defend the historic Australian nation and reestablish the liberal nationalist state built by the founders. The recent success of nationalist protest parties in many Western societies, including Australia, indicates that voters are ready to confer significant political and cultural niches on leaders who are willing to challenge the dominant culture. There are ways forward.

There are ways forward but apparently no one available (and ethnically acceptable to the “movement” rank-and-file) to step and perform those steps.

In summary, Salter’s two-part essay is interesting and useful, but readers can observe key differences between his positions and mine.  We agree on the fundamentals, and on the weaknesses of reactive nationalism and of nationalism lacking in proper analysis.  I understand why he in his position advocates more moderate positions.  But I will continue to assert the primacy of explicit racial nationalism and the irrefutable fact that mainstreaming has failed.

Salter Essay Analysis, Part I

Salter on Australian nationalism and what to do.

I would urge the reader to study Salter’s original essays either before or after reading my comments on them.

Salter has a two part essay about identitarian politics and nationalism from an Australian perspective, but what he writes is broadly applicable throughout the White world.  I’ll examine in part in turn, commenting on particular excerpts of relevance.  Again, these are only excerpts.  You should follow the link and read the whole thing.

The heights of Australian politics and culture have been hijacked by the leftist multicultural establishment. Anglo identitarians – those who think of themselves as part of Australia’s historic identity originating in British settlement or more broadly as part of European civilization – have been marginalized by the anti-Western left. The trend has been apparent for decades in politics and the culture industries. The process began in the universities and mass media. As a result Australia’s Western identity is ever more obscured by hostile news, commentary and curricula. It is being drowned by indiscriminate immigration and oppressed by globalist elites. The historic Australian nation is assailed from all sides at a time when it is leaderless, not protected by the sinews of government but tied up and gagged by them.

And the same applies to the entire Western world.

To fight back, people need a vision of the Australia they want. For what should they fight? The second half of this chapter compares types of nationalism that have been pursued through Australia’s history. For present purposes, nationalists and conservatives will know the fight is won or at least going in a winning direction when assimilation is once again winning over ethno-cultural diversity as a guiding principle for choosing immigrants; in particular when the refugee intake is ended and the migrant intake is greatly reduced and limited mainly to people of European descent; when the Chinese and Indian nations are no longer colonizing Australia and relations with these rising powers are stabilized…

Salter’s wisdom contrasts to Silker lunatics and Asian imperialists, who, under the guise of “White nationalism,” propose Asian colonization of Euro ethnostates and the “borders of the West” guarded by Chinese girls with guns. Indeed, Silk Road White nationalism would consider “Asian Australians” as more authentic representatives of that nation than the Anglo founding stock.

…when schools desist from radical indoctrination and teach children the truth about their nation’s and civilisation’s glorious history; when our sons and daughters are not pitted against each other in a fabricated gender war; when civil liberties are secured largely by keeping the state out of the private realm; when UN mandates are lifted to restore freedom of association, allowing citizens to choose among whom they live and do business; when core institutions are reformed to become more compatible with human nature instead of socially engineering and herding citizens; when the multicultural apparatus is dismantled as a system designed to oppress the nation and is replaced with a democratic multiculturalism that includes fair representation for Anglo Australians; when foreign ownership is once again regulated to protect Australian industry and home owners; in short when the historic nation throws off its shackles and reasserts its prerogatives.

Well said.

These policies will be enacted only when Anglo-Australians become sufficiently mobilised and organised to vote for their ethnic interests and build lobby, media, and educational organizations so powerful that wise politicians avoid offending national sensibilities or appearing less than eager to preserve national identity.

What Salter is talking about is building an infrastructure to leverage against the System in order to pursue ethnic interests.  Note to the Alt Right: Salter does not mention rallies in which “activists” come dressed up like Captain America and Batman, while at the same time denouncing the use of “uniforms.”

Because information is usually incomplete, especially concerning complex matters of policy, it is prudent in choosing goals to start with the most securely known interests. The most certain interests are biological, including personal health and a family that is safe and prosperous. That is why it is vital to have a robust diversified economy, secure borders and safe neighbourhoods. At the next layer of biological interests, one should invest in social cohesion and the secure identities upon which it relies. School curricula should induct children into their culture and history. Without such knowledge it is impossible for young adults to know themselves and Australia’s place in world history.

That is all prudent.

How to achieve those goals? I propose a dual strategy of political and cultural activism, with the two linked so as to mutually reinforce. I also discuss how individuals can contribute.


Political Activism

The successes of the Brexit and Trump campaigns point to the feasibility of advancing Western identitarian goals through electoral politics. 

Unfortunately, while Brexit and Trump represented a populist, if not nationalist, resistance, both campaigns (predictably for those who understand sociopolitical realities) have failed to accomplish what their supporters really wanted.  Brexit basically eschews Polish plumbers while welcoming Pakistani sex groomers and child rapists and Jamaican gang-bangers.  Trump’s Presidency has devolved into endless scandals, including sex scandals, and pardons for physically abusive race-mixing Negro boxers.

In Australia the same indication is provided by the success of parties that, together, are breaking the political duopoly that has dominated government since the Second World War…The electoral base of these minor parties consisted mainly of Anglo-Australians, defined broadly to mean individuals who have assimilated and identify with the British-derived nation…The European share of One Nation voters was greater than their 80% of the population.

Racial politics.

In a subsequent analysis, Black observed that the Turnbull government was attempting to win back One Nation voters by tough talk about citizenship and refugees.2 He argued that Turnbull was mindful of Senator Hanson’s wide support from “English-speaking Anzacs”, “English-speakers”, “Kiwis”, “disaffected and angry, white, Australian-born English speakers”, and “Poms”, the great majority being immigration conservatives.

The same old trick: mainstream conservatives shift right to poach ethnic patriotic voters, only to shill for more immigration and more anti-White policies once elected.  And the voters fall for the trick every time.  This also shows why “mainstreaming” is a recipe for failure. When “Far Right” parties “mainstream” and move toward the center, they get politically close enough to mainstream conservatism so as to allow the mainstream conservatives to plausibly position themselves as the “more acceptable and electable version of the same basic policies.”  Time and time again, mainstream conservatives outcompete mainstreaming patriots and time and time again, mainstreaming fails.  In Hungary, we instead see the success of what I call “farstreaming” – Orban, originally a more mainstream conservative, has gone from success to success the farther to the right he has moved; while his rightist competitors at Jobbik, originally on Orban’s right and a credible threat, have experienced political disappointment after they have mainstreamed so far they are now on Orban’s left.  Orban and Jobbik have essentially exchanged places on the Hungarian political spectrum, with greater success being observed with more radical rightist positions.  Even Trump’s election can be viewed as a form of farstreaming success, as Trump’s campaign (as opposed to the man himself and how he has governed) was the most “far right,” politically speaking of any since Reagan, and in some ways even more so.  Mainstreaming is a fraud.  Even if staying true to “extremist” principles results in electoral defeat, that’s better than ditching your principles and still being defeated.  At least in the first case, you stake out a position and gradually normalize it through participation in the political process; in the second case, you lose you vacate your ideological high ground and become just another vaguely “conservative” politician, albeit one unelectable compared to your more tame conservative colleagues because of your past “extremist” positions.  Mainstreaming gives you the worst of both electability and ideological promotion: you are still unelectable while weakening your ability to promote an ideology and educate the public.

One Nation’s appeal to Anglo Australians has profound implications. A party could dominate Australian politics if it became identified in the public mind as representing mainstream Australia. At the same time, the census reveals the nation is splitting into ethnic zones, accelerating the rise of identity politics, including among Anglo Australians. The makeup of One Nation’s supporters shows that the nation is not as far gone as its enemies hope, that survival is possible. For many journalists and commentators it is a bitter fact that the original Australian nation is not dead.

One Nation is showing the honesty and courage necessary to represent mainstream Australians and thus the national interest, especially on the issues of Islamic immigration, foreign ownership, and leftist bias in public broadcasting. The party would be allocating resources efficiently if it invested in appealing to its Anglo base, because Anglos are most likely to respond positively and because they are a majority of the population.

As a nationalist party that represents the majority population, One Nation or its successors could become a major political force. However there are obstacles to achieving this, the greatest being that the party’s ethnic appeal is due to the intuitions of the leadership. Party leaders care about Australia and are courageous but like the mainstream parties are not versed in the sociology or history of ethnicity and nationalism. Their ethnic vision of society is implicit. Beyond Pauline Hanson’s wish that Australia return to a relatively united culture, her party has not described the Australia they want in realistic demographic terms. This places One Nation among conventional political parties, not at the cutting edge of reform and renewal.

This is a key, important, fundamental observation, and it is good that Salter objectively identifies weaknesses in One Nation here.  This is particularly important since the same weaknesses are inherent in much of right-wing populist and “mild” nationalist parties and even in some “movement” groups, such as the Alt Right and certainly the Alt Lite.  No doubt Trump goes by “intuition” and “feeling” rather than by thoughtful analysis, ideology, and an explicit ethnoracial focus. We need cutting edge parties and leaders.

Pauline Hanson’s biographer, Anna Broinowski, summarises her nationalism as a deep nostalgia for the monocultural Anglo society of her childhood.7 The left and minority chauvinists disparage nostalgia for any European society. In reality it is noble to be nostalgic for the sense of belonging and community that Australia is losing. There is nothing wrong with such emotion as part of a social vision. But nostalgia can only serve that function if it is attached to analysis. That requires cultural expertise and vision. Politicians cannot be expected to cover all bases. They rely on intellectuals in the humanities and social sciences. The anti-national left’s domination of the universities helps explain why nationalist social analysis is weak.

That last sentence is important.  The suggestion, the implication is that the Right is weak intellectually, analytically, and academically.  The Left’s domination of academia is, as Salter asserts, one key reason for this.  But the Right itself is to blame, for its anti-intellectual tendencies, its reliance on irrational impulses to the exclusion of rational analysis, its eager grasping onto bizarre memes, fossilized dogmas, and crackpot conspiracy theories as well as crackpot pseudoscience.  What passes for “rightist academic analysis” these days is HBD nonsense and “traditionalist” rambling about “the pyramids of Atlantis” being built by “psychokinesis.”  The Right is an unfriendly place for rational, empirical academics, and until that changes, don’t expect the problems identified by Salter to be soon rectified.

Political leaders could exploit cultural capital by the following:

1. Talking about how cultural and racial diversity undermines social cohesion;

2. Introducing the public to the meaning and benefits of nationhood and its reliance on a dominant and confident core ethnic identity;

3. Explaining that multiculturalism is an ethnic hierarchy that subordinates Anglo Australians;

4. Linking indigenous identity to Australia’s historic Anglo identity;

5. Maintaining a rational rage against the corruption of the universities and proposing remedial policies;

6. Working with responsible protest groups to defend the right to public assembly;

7. Explaining how the ANZACs have been betrayed by abrogating the social contract between generations. They did not fight and die for open borders or multiculturalism or foreign ownership;

8. Formulating and transmitting these messages would be made possible by working with nationalist think tanks to obtain analysis and personnel. The identitarian political front cannot advance far without drawing on advances in the culture war.

Who is actually doing this?  


Cultural Activism

Identitarian goals can also be advanced by cultural and social work. This overlaps the idea of metapolitics, though that term has obscure post-modernist meanings. Raising ethnic and national consciousness is the prime goal of identitarian cultural activism, a necessary condition for national liberation.

At present patriotic ideas are marginal in academe but have the huge advantage of being largely true or at least open to scientific findings on history and ethnicity. Cosmopolitans, whether motivated by corporate or leftist or minority-chauvinist values, have become anti-scientific in order to construct an ideology that justifies attacking natural parochialisms, from families to nations. Long ago they expelled biological theories of human nature from the social sciences.8 The result has been intellectual chaos. Radical academics have maintained dominance only by non-intellectual means. Research by psychologist Jonathan Haidt9 confirm what many academics have experienced for decades, that conservatives and nationalist are driven out of university careers by hostile work environments and career-limiting bias.

This is all true.  But it is also true that the “movement” is all a “hostile work environment” for activists with an academic/intellectual bent.  The overall disinterest in EGI and, in general all of Salter’s work, is troubling.  In Salter and his work, activists have a rich resource that can be mined for ideas and for guidance, and most of them would rather dress up like Captain America at rallies, make drunken podcasts, or sniff about “spectral psychokinesis,” “orcs,” or “Kali Yuga.”  

Cultural warfare is more fundamental than electoral politics and has objectives broader than those of any political party, even one with a cultural string to its bow. A full cultural strategy cannot be managed by the political leadership; it must be conducted by cultural warriors. That is why the political and cultural strategies will often be separate specialisations, which nevertheless depend upon one another. Just as smart parties invest in culture, wise cultural warriors reach out to help political campaigns. Though neither side can be well managed by the other, both depend on the other; simultaneously self-managing and interdependent.

This is important, and I concur that such cooperation is crucial. Unfortunately, it rarely occurs.  Politicians, who pride themselves on their “pragmatism” and attention to “the real word,” often look with disdain on culture warriors, viewed as “pie in the sky theorists.” For their part, the culture warriors sniff disdainfully at “crude politics” and claim “the time is not right” and we should exclusively concentrate on “metapolitics” (ill-defined).

Those engaged in cultural advocacy for their people also need theory if they are to compete with opponents who for generations have been beating them hands down. The starting point is to understand how cosmopolitans and globalists have been winning. A key source is Canadian sociologist Eric Kaufmann’s 2004 text, The Rise and Fall of Anglo America. Kaufmann traces the rise of radical cosmopolitanism from its beginnings in the late nineteenth century to its victory over America’s traditional culture leaders in the 1950s and 1960s. Instrumental for that victory was the left’s capture of much of the centralised mass media and elite university culture by the post-Second World War years. This wrested the heights of culture production and distribution from the hands of traditionalist Anglo-Americans. Since then radicals have been mopping up Anglo resistance. They put down the Old South’s resistance to desegregation in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1965 they opened the borders to Third World immigration despite lack of popular support.

A missing word here: Jews.

When America lost the cultural cold war so did Australia because we depend on U.S. military and economic power and are net importers of American culture. Academic disciplines and markets for culture are international, especially within language zones such as the Anglosphere. Now the U.S. and Australia are being mopped up through replacement-level immigration, the final irreversible cultural-genocidal stage of the conflict.

Kaufmann’s analysis provides lessons in cultural warfare. Cosmopolitans invested in mobilizing intellectuals and professionals, and through them winning the hearts and minds of up-and-coming leaders. They:

1. Maintained their objectives but used flexible methods. Kaufmann traces the cosmopolitan movement back to 1876. Through all the ideological and organisational changes they retained their hostility to Anglo-Christian America. The New York Intellectuals, who brought cosmopolitanism to victory in the U.S., began in the 1930s as Stalinists, converted to Trotskyism before dividing into nihilistic radicals and pseudo-conservatives (‘neo-conservatives’). Persistence paid off in the 1950s and 1960s, almost a century later, when radicals found places in the universities and the federal government.


2. Pursued objectives strategically. Cosmopolitans prioritised ethnic goals over other radical policies. This meant that the goal of liberal immigration trumped most other policies. For example, feminists and gay rights activists have not oppose the immigration of Muslims who hold them in contempt, and environmentalists did not oppose large scale immigration that increased the number of consumers and polluters.

Unlike Der Movement, which is incapable of thinking strategically, is always asserting an imminent System “collapse” and whose “long-term” planning is typically in the realm of weeks or months,

3. Funded their intellectuals with generous philanthropy.

Salter should be funded. The failed Tin Cup Fuhrers of Der Movement should not.

4. Established parallel institutions, social and educational, from which they sallied forth to participate in mainstream politics and culture.

Precisely the type of infrastructure building I’ve been promoting and that the “movement” ignores.

5. Developed tribe-like solidarity and hatreds. Kaufmann describes the pseudo ethnic character of the New York Intellectuals. One aspect of the tribal spirit of the radicals was their unwritten rule against public criticism of other leftists and their intolerance of those whose views they rejected. They showed a racist-like loathing and contempt for conservatives and small town Anglos.


6. Found psychological substitutes for religion in ideology and organisations. Their cohesion and ultimate triumph were achieved despite them rejecting traditional religion, not because of it. Put differently, their militant atheism was costly, driven not by cost-benefit logic but by some non-rational impulse to attack Christendom. One lesson for universal nationalists, those who want everyone to enjoy the benefits of identity and community, is that their fight back will be easier because they support religious freedom.

7. Prioritised gaining positions in universities, government departments and the media.

8. Showed disdain and intolerance for opponents, which marginalised conservatives and nationalists, yielding an effective radical monopoly in the universities. This intolerance continues as a hallmark of culture industries across the West.

Unfortunately, the Right is often also intolerant of their own intellectuals.  “The future is in the forest,” don’t you know.

9. Strove to secure career paths for members. Junior recruits were mentored and defectors ostracised.

Compare that to Der Movement, where “leaders” have pontificated that such activities are useless since “the System will collapse within five years.”  Head to the hills!  Grab your musket and pemmican!

10. Put great effort into acquiring or starting journals of analysis and opinion, such as Ramparts and The New York Review of Books, mainstays of the New York Intellectuals. These magazines gave the network some aspects of an academy. They emphasised intellectual achievement, not electoral politics. They adopted the cultural warfare objective of influencing the culture industries, which construct and distribute information, including entertainment, news and commentary. By the 1950s the New York Intellectuals were being hired by the universities and government agencies, which accelerated the march of cultural Marxism.


A deeper unstated implication of Kaufmann’s analysis is that these radical cosmopolitans…


Religion has been a major front in the culture wars for at least a century. It should give pause that radicals and multiculturalists strive to separate the nation from Christianity and turn the secular state against that religion. Andrew Fraser has studied the role of Christianity in forging the English and Australian nations.12 Other theorists have studied religion as a “group evolutionary strategy” that forges cohesion and cooperation.13 Still other analysts observe that religions provide identity markers.14

According to evolutionary biologists D. S. Wilson and K. MacDonald, Christianity has underpinned European cultural group strategies, which release and direct intense altruism. These group strategies defend bio-cultures by clarifying identity and intensifying altruism. Andrew Fraser includes Australia in his observation that the Christian religion, through myth and ritual, has provided motivation essential for ethnic and national defence. England and Australia originated as Christian nations.

I’m no fan of Christianity and certainly no fan of Fraser, but I understand where the Anglo-Australian Salter is coming from here.

Both Christians and secular patriots need to understand the importance of religion in the culture wars. For Christianity has been a historic identity marker uniting European nations and Europe as a whole against existential and internal threats.

That’s fine as far as it goes.  It goes too far when people make Christianity the litmus test for the West, put religion ahead of race, and start ranting that atheists and agnostics (and pagans too I suppose) should make a pretense of Christian belief so as to “fit in.”  No, sorry, not going to do that. By the way, it is the responsibility of Christian racialists and nationalists to show us how their religion can be reformed and is currently compatible with EGI.  It is not the responsibility, and certainly not the obligation, of non-Christian atheists to help Christians reform their cuck-religion.

These great deeds could not have been accomplished without a Church which saw its pastoral duty as extending to defence of the people, their nations and civilisation. De-Christianisation has been a successful strategy for breaking down ethnic and national solidarity of Western peoples. 

The Christian churches themselves have been in the forefront of this.  Can they be reformed?  Christians need to show the way.  Not me.

Countering this is an important part of an identitarian cultural strategy. 

I really do not agree with that.

The concept of “political warfare” was adopted by Rich Higgins, a security analyst who worked for the National Security Council during the early Trump presidency. Higgins described the unprecedented institutional attacks on Trump and noted that:

Political warfare operates as one of the activities of the “counter-state” and is primarily focused on the resourcing and mobilization of the counter state or the exhaustion and demobilization of the targeted political movement. Political warfare methods can be implemented at strategic, operational, or tactical levels of operation.16

Higgins also described the larger goals of political warfare:

Attacks on President Trump are not just about destroying him, but also about destroying the vision of America that lead to his election. Those individuals and groups seeking the destruction of President Trump actually seek to suffocate the vision of America that made him president. Hence, the end state is not just a delegitimized, destabilized, immobilized and possibly destroyed presidency; but also a demoralized movement composed of a large enough bloc to elect a president that subsequently become[s] self-aware of its own disenfranchisement.17

Trump has been busy destroying himself and shunning his White base.

It is relevant that Higgins knew, as did every political analyst in the U.S., that Trump’s implicit constituency was white America. The deep state’s goal is not only to bring down the Trump presidency but to break the political will of the historic American nation. A similar situation exists in Australia, with the difference that the political leadership is still in the hands of the multicultural establishment.

The only reason to support Trump.

It is significant that Higgins, a staffer loyal to Trump’s original policies, was fired by a more senior staffer. Training competent and loyal staff is one obvious benefit of cultural activism, which will be discussed further.

Are we surprised that Higgins is gone?  Trump has shifted left upon election, as do ALL Republican “conservatives.”


Feedback: the Virtuous Cycle

So far I have discussed political and cultural strategies for protecting national identity and thus cohesion. Also important is the relationship between them. Electoral and cultural successes need to feed on one another to produce positive feedback. That salutary process should be facilitated where possible because only exponential growth can allow national movements to acquire the numbers and commitment they need to stand against globalist forces.

Very true.  But as I stated above, both sides of the rightist Political-Cultural divide disdain the other.

The cultural front can also help the political front by providing able and loyal staffers. Incompetent or subversive staff are a frequent reason minor parties fail. Patriotic parties must be able to draw on a pool of speech writers, policy analysts and media people who not only support conservative and nationalist values but are able to defend them with social and economic arguments. Promising politicians are too often hobbled, diverted, or hijacked by opportunists.

Or, in many cases, the opportunists are the politicians themselves. Hello Trump!

By constructing parallel institutions in education, media and welfare – all cultural projects – the movement would be better placed to retain its core values as it grows, resisting the temptation to compromise with “big tent” politics. The goal should be to roll back the subversive aspects of the cultural revolution that began in the 1960s while accepting change that is benign or harmless.

Parallel cultural institution should be of sufficiently high quality to be worthy of large investments and philanthropic bequests. Projects should be positive, not reactive. Wealthy individuals will only support groups whose operations are scalable, i.e. whose output rises with investment. Thus they will look for talented individuals and organisations whose performances can be broadcast on radio, television or internet. In the early phase the key ingredient is quality, not quantity.

Who will do this infrastructure building?  The current “movement” has proven itself incapable of doing so.

Two obvious examples are a news service and, more importantly, an online academy. The latter would teach what the universities refuse to teach. Subjects would include social science that incorporates biosocial theories of human nature. Students would be introduced to research on ethnicity, nationality, social cohesion, political and cultural history, reproductive strategies, gender and race, and comparative civilisation.

The dual culture-politics strategy makes sense only if it includes a reformist critique of the universities’ anti-Western bias. The social sciences and humanities are the jewels in the globalist crown. They must be won back to serve truth. Only by fixing the corruption in higher education will political victories be sustainable.

How to fight social pricing?  Theorists like Salter should tackle this problem.  I have no ideas myself other than that of building a sufficient infrastructure so as to “defang” the power of social pricing.  But this is a classic “chicken-and-egg” scenario since social pricing stands in the way of the initial steps of infrastructure building required to defang social pricing.

Political and cultural strategies should be aimed at carving out a constituency. In asymmetrical conflicts the little guy does not have many victories, and when he does, the resulting political and cultural capital is fleeting. So victories should be maximally exploited. The goal should be to complete the feedback loop. Political victories yield platforms, windows of publicity. These should be used to draw people’s attention to important values. Identity comes first, because interests so often depend on who we are.

No greater victory has been won by the enemies of the Australian nation and the West than the obscuring of traditional identities. Those the gods would destroy they first make mad, and loss of identity is madness. Nationalist advocates should expend their limited political capital on clarifying and reaffirming the nation’s core Anglo European identity. That is best achieved through two-way feedback between political and cultural activities.

Good sense, no doubt.  How to actually go about doing it is another story. The “movement” as it exists today is a poor vehicle for getting us there.



An arena in which feedback should be effective is multiculturalism. This is an important doctrine used to legitimate mass non-European immigration and suppress majority resistance.

Identitarians need a Plan B in situations where (and while) nationalism has failed to produce a homogeneous nation state. They need a strategy that protects ethnic and civilisational interests in the face of hostile multicultural regimes. In particular, the strategy needs to be workable in a situation where the majority or original nation has been subordinated by the aggressive type of multiculturalism practised in the West. This type consists of an alliance between minority ethnics and big coercive governments, promoted by the left cultural establishment.

And that Plan B is democratic multiculturalism, which I endorse, and which actually can form a component of Plan A as well.

A promising strategy is to advocate “democratic multiculturalism”, in which the subaltern majority mobilises to demand group rights in the same way that minorities do. The majority is disadvantaged because, far from being treated as a client by the cosmopolitan elite, it is viewed as the main enemy. Nevertheless, agitating for democratic multiculturalism should yield positive results because the identity politics used to mobilise minorities will also work to some extent with Anglos, more so when their level of discomfort rises…Democratic multiculturalism promises to be a powerful strategy if feedback is successfully channeled between electoral and cultural activists. Electoral success can provide resources and growing legislative power. Cultural products can arouse identity and thus prime a growing constituency to vote for identitarian parties. By raising national identity and mobilisation the strategy stands to provide a rear-guard. New parties and activist groups are slowing and blunting multicultural policies such as open borders and the criminalisation of Anglo resistance. 

“Movement” retards say all of that is “dishonoring our ancestors.”  Instead we all need to “grab dem muskets” and head off into the woods.

The doctrine of democratic multiculturalism provides a Plan B that can grow alongside and support the Plan A of liberal and ethnic nationalist strategies while giving people a workable way of life in coping with the diversity inflicted by a hostile political class.

Exactly, do both at the same time; thus Plan B can be a part of Plan A, as well as being a fallback position in case Plan A fails.


Risks of Feedback

Cultural activists should remain autonomous, speaking truth to power. To do so they should not be wedded to any politician or party. They should throw their support behind politicians who are good for Australia and punish those who are not. 

In a word: Trump.  The lickspittle worship of the “God Emperor” by factions of the Right is juvenile and pathetic. That’s America; as Salter suggests, the same principle applies to Australia (and throughout the Western world).

Likewise, politicians should support promising cultural projects. They need to gather constituents able to diffuse ideas into the community. There is no ironclad solution. The relationship between political and cultural activism will sometimes need to be explicitly managed. What is certain is that a national revival will be unattainable without positive feedback between them.

“Explicitly managed.”  I agree, because as I suggested above, if left to their own devices, the political and cultural spheres will disdain each other and achieve nothing…for the Right.  Of course, the more politically mature Left has had a seamless cooperation between Politics and Culture for many decades. Question: Who will be these explicit managers?

A fundamental challenge is weak leadership caused by political expediency. 

In a word: Mainstreaming.


Personal Activism

Finally, I want to discuss personal strategy. What can one isolated person do with few resources and an imperfect grasp of the situation? Those engaged in asymmetric conflict must think hard about this question. First and always, citizens should strive to learn more about society, human nature, and the political process, circumventing establishment censorship.

Individual activism can be political and cultural. On the political front, join or support a party or special interest group that represents our people directly or indirectly. Choose one that is capable of making a difference. That is usually not a single-issue or tiny party. Whichever party or group you do join, agitate to have it accept members who are open national activists.

Cultural activism is broader and more varied, including individual artistic expression. On the joining side, get involved with or if necessary establish a group performing useful or needed work. Examples include supporting patriotic events such as Australia Day and Anzac Day; celebrating cultural events, such as Anglo-Celtic and European ethnic festivals and local community events. Become involved in community associations such as historical societies and local suburban groups, such as those resisting high-rise property development. Look for ways to help old people and families trapped in hostile immigrant suburbs. Friendly contact can reduce the sense of isolation and threat. Do chores, help with shopping. Alert the local council and police about local crime and anti-social behaviour. Provide information about welfare rights.

These are exactly the sorts of things I have been advocating for a long time, even as far back as my interview for Robert Griffin’s book.  The “movement” has not listened; the Type I activists have neither the desire nor the aptitude for these types of activities.

As already noted, religion is an important front in the culture war. There are things individuals can do. The religious should get involved in their local churches. Have a presence. Express yourself sincerely while listening to others. Urge ministers, priests and lay people to respect Anglo Australians’ multicultural rights and return the church to its pastoral duty of uniting all communities. Oppose those who seek to hijack religion to harm the nation. The latter point applies to those who are not religious, who can legitimately claim and defend Christianity’s cultural heritage. They can also defend their (and others) ancestral religions against vilification. They can teach children about the religion of their ancestors, the heroes of their faith, their music, art and literature. Cultural Christians can encourage clerics who speak up for the nation and for wholesome values.

For an atheist like me, this: “The latter point applies to those who are not religious, who can legitimately claim and defend Christianity’s cultural heritage. They can also defend their (and others) ancestral religions against vilification” seems like good sense.

Stand up for your beliefs at work and among colleagues and friends. Use common sense. There are often opportunities to express viewpoints in workplaces. That includes responses to workplace surveys and electing union representatives. Communicate your views in a non-aggressive manner that maintains social norms.

This is an extremely important paragraph of suggestions.  The last sentence is the sort of it-should-be-obvious advice that escapes many “activists.”  Crude Bunkerism is counter-productive.  Set a good example, and, as Salter suggests “use common sense.”  Make use of the opportunities that present themselves to get pro-White views aired, normalizing such views, engaging in “democratic multiculturalism,” and heightening the contradictions while promoting racial balkanization.

Elites have greater responsibility. Individuals influential in politics, economy or culture should examine their consciences. They have a duty of care, especially to their own nations.

Elites are traitors and at some time in the future need to be held accountable for their treason.


Choosing an Adaptive Nationalism

A big decision individuals need to make concerns political goals. What are the most adaptive policies relating to the national question?

Our starting position is nationalist, meaning that the nation is something worth preserving. But what is a nation and why is it valuable? At the start of this essay I described some nationalist policy objectives, without defining nationalism. For present purposes it can be defined as a form of social cohesion or solidarity derived from national identity. At its simplest and most cohesive a nation is an ethnic group living in its homeland, the latter being a named and demarcated territory. An ethnic group is a population with a proper name that believes itself to be descended from common ancestors.

Politicians refer to the nation while perpetuating mass indiscriminate immigration and approving a coercive multicultural apparatus that subordinates the founding historic nation. Are such politicians nationalists and can their policies produce social cohesion?


To decide that, we need to examine doctrines that have attracted the nationalist label.

I will next proceed to an analysis of Part II, when time allows.


How to leverage against the chosen ones?

Following up on this

Quinn’s latest.

If I may make a constructive suggestion, a bit of constructive criticism: analysis is good, but at some point, we need to have less of historical and theoretical analysis and more of current and practical analysis.

Consider: KMacD is the world’s leading critical expert on Jews and Jewish behavior.  His work and understanding constitute a crucial intellectual resource for Europeans fighting against the Jewish power structure.  So, instead of TOO’s current direction (*), wouldn’t it be more productive for KMacD to formulate strategies, based on an understanding of Jewish behavior, of leveraging against Jewish psychology to benefit Europeans and combat the Jewish power structure?  If not him, who?  If not now, when?

Learning about the Jewish “culture of critique” should not be an end in itself, but a means to an end: defending European ethnic interests.  We learn about Boas and Freud so as to better understand how to combat Soros.  It’s time for a bit less of the former and a bit more of the latter.  

Long time readers of my own work have no doubt noted that this blog has moved in a more practical direction over the last few years.  Although there is still some interesting and useful theoretical work to be done (and I recently looked at genetic integration of human population genetics data), the fact remains that, ultimately, the promotion and defense of ethnic genetic interests will have to be actualized out in the real world, in the rough-and-tumble of politics (in all its forms, including some of what is termed “metapolitics”) and in the cut and thrust of ethnic competition.  Rightist academics can be of most utility in the service of assisting in the development of cutting edge political, metapolitical, and social technologies to deal with the reality of our racial and cultural dilemma.


*Much of which is, unlike MacDonald’s work on the Jews, of limited predictive value.  All of the rambling about “northern high trust hunter gatherers” actually has little real world predictive value.  Indeed, taking all of that at face value, you would predict that, e.g., Italy and Greece would be blasting migrant invader boats out of the water, instead of meekly rescuing the migrants and welcoming them into the homeland. There also is no clear correlation in Europe between the Paleolithic Hunter-Gatherer vs. Neolithic Farmer divide and the success, or lack thereof, of ethnonationalist parties and politics within nations.  And while it’s true that Sweden is particularly “cucked,” one can argue that Denmark is healthier with respect to defending ethnic interests than are Italy, Greece, or Spain. One can further argue that a major reason Northwest European nations are further along on the road to race replacement is not so much that the native populations are more “high trust altruists” than the fact that those nations are more prosperous and orderly, and hence more attractive to immigrants, than the disorderly tragicomedies of feckless and lazy dumb dagoes.  Now, one can also argue that a reason why the northerners are richer (besides higher IQ) is precisely the fact that they are “high trust” nations and hence invest more in social goods, and can engage more productively in economic activity. Very well, but then, isn’t that more collectivist?  Granted, high trust is not necessarily orthogonal to individualism, but it strains credulity to argue that orderly, high trust societies are more individualistic than disorderly madhouses where atomized swarthoids are bouncing off each other like air molecules in a heated kettle.  More fundamentally, and getting back to the main point, the “high trust hunter gatherer” paradigm has little predictive value with respect to responses to race replacement and mass migration. And if this is so, why make it such a major focus of analysis?