Category: strategy and tactics

Thursday Thoughts

On activism.

Attention, Greg Johnson; comment from YouTube:

LaserGuidedLoogie

1 day ago

Tell us again how “WN 2.0” is doing it better, because you know, “we are all so much smarter guies!”

WN 1.0 guys figured out 20 years ago:  You don’t talk to the enemy media.

WN 2.0 is a joke, and WN 3.0 is a plan for pathetic failure.  WN 1.0 was a failure as well, but at least it didn’t pretend to be anything other than it was – a tiny group of Nutzi freaks.

Does Hood really believe this is a realistic possibility?

Interesting comment:

Publius

I recently watched the movie “a beautiful mind” for the first time in a long time and it got me thinking. The greatest mathematical achievement that any scientist could achieve would be to solve the problem of the prisoners’ dilemma. The whole civilized world knows what is needed (Just look at the comments on any web location where comments are permitted), but anybody who acts is a Lonewolf who goes straight to jail or death by cop. No one man can do anything. How can a person act and have faith that 100 million brothers will act with him simultaneously?

I have written about this before.  Even though the great mass of Whites are useless cucks, and our situation is grim, there is likely many more people who could be on our side, but are, practically speaking, not, in the sense of being completely inactive.

Whites are atomized, not knowing who is a friend or an enemy, racial-politically speaking.  If you were to speak out, would any of the “six percenters” come to your aid? Is it possible to organize all (or any) of this unused human material, when everyone mistrusts each other?  If everyone is waiting for “the other guy” to get something started, then obviously nothing will ever get started (the current “movement” tragicomedy does not constitute such a “something’).  This is one reason the System cracks down on any public expression of pro-White attitudes, and why pro-Whites are deplatformed, and why the System uses a private army of leftist thugs to physically attack people like Spencer, and do so with impunity.  They are afraid that once a nucleus is formed (once again – this is NOT the current Der Movement), then all sorts of possibilities emerge that would not be conducive to the long term stability of the multicultural System.  

And, by the way, this is why all of the infiltration that Johnson so blithely shrugs away is so destructive, even though the direct and immediate impact was not so great. Besides the issue of revealing the horrifically bad judgement of “movement leaders,” and besides the public humiliation for the “movement,” it also reinforces the narrative that fellow Whites cannot be trusted, that your potential allies may be infiltrators, and that it is better to just hunker down alone (snug in your hobbit hole, perhaps?) and do nothing.  The damage done by Hermansson and Lewis was incalculable.

Once again: The existential meaning of Asians is hatred of Whites.  Even if every Jew in America were to disappear tomorrow, South Asians would fill the gap as the verbally-adept hectoring anti-White elite, with East Asian providing the technical “muscle” for the anti-White pan-colored alliance.  But, isn’t that what HBDers like Sailer want?  Wouldn’t his buddies from GNXP object to any skepticism about a Camp of the Saints invasion of America from the Ganges?  

This is interesting, but remember that Crick was a scientist, not an HBDer.  Ultimately, it was about facts and the truth, not politically-motivated “just so” stories to push a Jewish-Asian agenda at the expense of Whites.

Shockingly, Zman makes good sense here:

This is why civic nationalism is a dead end movement. It’s trying to reanimate an Enlightenment concept that was killed off by the post-war cultural revolution of the last fifty years. Reviving the old notions of civic identity is about as promising as reviving the monarchy in Germany. Thinking about it is a nice escape for those struggling to face the reality of identity politics, but that’s all it is, a fantasy. The world created by the Left is a post-nationalist world and therefore a post-citizen world.

Paying attention, Breezy?

This is incorrect.  What the Alt Right was really all about: Pepe, Kek, Beavis-and-Butthead drunken podcasts, Trump worship, complete misunderstanding of population genetics, covering typical fossilized “movement” dogma with a veneer of “youth culture” juvenile jackassery, cosplay rallies – in other words, WN 2.0.

Advertisements

Racial Kinism vs. Racial Instrumentalism

Two competing visions of racialism: WN vs. HBD.

There are many distinctions within racial activism.  One fundamental difference is that between White nationalists proper and so-called HBD race realists.  Of course, there is overlap between these positions to a greater or lesser degree.  However, let us consider the question of where a person’s primary interests lie.  Does a person take the view that race is of interest because they wish to preserve and promote their race for the reason that it is theirs – a kinship-EGI-based approach, or is their interest in race instrumental and utilitarian – they view population groups on the basis of some phenotypic characteristics of these groups, characteristics independent of whether or not the group is one to which the person belongs.  The former position, which I term here “Racial Kinism,” is more relevant to basic White nationalism (or any racial nationalism), while the latter position is that taken by HBD race realists.

Let us back up a minute and clarify.  HBD race realism is often pursued for reasons other than those stated by the HBDers.  For example, Jewish and Asian HBDers are for the most part really Race Kinists – racial nationalists – who support HBD as a way of promoting their own racial interests. In this case, they are Racial Kinists pretending to be Racial Instrumentalists in order to manipulate White HBDers to behave in ways congenial to Jewish and Asian interests. Thus, HBD is an approach for Jews and Asians to have White HBDers as the extended phenotypes of Jews and Asians. Some White HBDers have personal reasons for promoting HBD – consider Derbyshire and his Chinese wife and half-Chinese children.  So, familial and sexual interests play a role.  Academic HBDers promote their careers, and so forth. [And we have the White Silkers and their sexual motivations – but that’s another story].

But what about, speaking generally here, White HBDers without any obvious personal agenda?  How do we compare their viewpoints to that of White nationalists?  How do we compare Kinism vs. Instrumentalism regarding race?

Racial Kinism:  This group supports racial preservationism for its own sake. This is the basic White nationalist position – if you are White, then the White race is your race, and one you should support and promote, akin to family writ large.  Certainly, such a person may value particular characteristics of Whites, and may use such arguments, but that is not the primary motivation.  This agenda is consistent with Salter’s concept of EGI – ethnic genetic interests – a kinship-based approach where one’s ethny is a large storehouse of genetic interest for them, and inclusive fitness approaches to promote the interests of one’s ethny is consistent with biologically adaptive behavior. The Racial Kinist approach therefore values as the ultimate focus of interest biological/genetic relatedness (kinship). One supports one’s race because it is their race.  Such individuals realize that it is maladaptive to sacrifice the interests of your group for that of another group, just because that other group may rank higher on some phenotypic trait that someone values (proximate interest).  The ultimate interest of genetic continuity and EGI trump any proximate concern.  Again, this does not mean that proximate concerns are unimportant, merely secondary.

Racial Instrumentalism:  This group views race primarily in an instrumental and purely utilitarian fashion.  An ethny is valued because of how they rank in a hierarchy of certain phenotypic traits.  Arguments in favor of one’s ethny revolve around some perceived (or objective) value they have based on certain characteristics that are independent of the genetic kinship the ethny has to the person making the evaluation of the phenotypes.  While such a person may profess some value in kinship, this is a relatively weak factor; they are primarily concerned with “form and function,” and if another ethny ranks higher in the desired traits than one’s own, then that genetically alien ethny will be valued to an equal degree.  Racial Instrumentalism – caring about population groups primarily based on perception of traits, ability, and performance – leaves the instrumentalist vulnerable to extreme maladaptive behavior, as they can invest in a genetically distant group rather than in their own.  It is Whites who are particularly vulnerable – as they are generally more individualistic, lower on ethnocentrism, more universalist, more “objective” and “rational” when it comes to evaluating groups, and therefore more prone to “judge individuals rather than groups” and thus willing to accept membership in a racial categories (e.g., cognitive elitism) based on traits rather than on kinship.  Other groups, more ethnocentric and subjective in their ethnic self-interest, can manipulate this aracial universalism of Whites by promoting to those Whites the “legitimacy” of these aracial categories in which the ethnocentric non-Whites are valued for their ranking on traits.  Thus, a White HBDer, being a Racial Instrumentalist, rejects Blacks only because Blacks are perceived as stupid, violent, uncreative, sociopathic, and useless, not because of the gulf of kinship, the raw racial difference; conversely, Jews and Asians are valued as “high-IQ cognitive elitists.”  Whites can be manipulated into non-reciprocated “alliances” with these groups.  Also, note how White HBDers are manipulated into rejecting so-called “Outer Hajnal” Europeans while at the same time embracing genetically alien Jews and Asians who are even more “Outer Hajnal” than any of the European groups in question.  Interestingly, a trait ranking that is a problem when associated with fellow Europeans mysteriously disappears as an issue of concern when Jews and Asians are considered.  If none of this makes sense, well, it is really not supposed to.  The HBD cult is, in the last analysis, a strategy for making Whites into the extended phenotypes of Jews and Asians.

It’s interesting that many WN 1.0 Kinists refuse to critique HBD instrumentalism.  Is that because of personal connections – the good old boys network?  Is it because they foolishly think they can use instrumentalism in an instrumental fashion, to promote kinism (the means defeating the ends, I think)? Is it because the Instrumentalists appeal the ethnic and subracial vanity of the WN 1.0ers – you guys are better than the swarthoids and hunkies? Or is it plain cowardice, naiveté, or both?

Indeed, many Kinists are heavily into Instrumentalism.  Nothing wrong with using some degree of Racial Instrumentalism as a “side-argument,” but not as the main issue. Alluded to above, I believe that certain Kinists have been (intentionally) “seduced” by the HBDers, appealing to the Kinists’ vanity and the narcissism of minor differences, favorably comparing the good “Inner Hajnal” (and higher-IQ) superior Whites to the bad “Outer Hajnal” (and lower-IQ) inferior Whites.  Thus, these Kinists are made to feel part of a (cognitive elitist and behavior elitist) “elect” – which serves the HBD purpose of dividing Whites against each other.  Note that Jews have been said to promote alien immigration into America so as to disrupt the White majority, to disrupt the homogeneity and organic solidarity of White America – because Jews feel more safe and comfortable as one minority among many in a diverse America, and not as an identifiable minority singled out in a more homogeneous majority White America.  Similarly, HBDers fear and oppose (pan-European) White solidarity that would exclude Jews and Asians, and thus they do everything possible to disrupt the organic solidarity of the European peoples, turning different types of Whites against each other, to build a Jeurasian ingroup based on a HBD-promoted ranking of traits that would have Jews and Asians on top. And the Type I Kinists fall for it time and again, because their egos and ethnosubracial vanity trumps prudence and common sense.

What about the argument that HBDers are in “pursuit of the truth?’’ Long time readers of this blog, familiar with my exposés of HBD, know this is a lie, and know that the HBDers lie, distort, cherry pick, and omit to pursue their political agenda.  Is “pursuit of the truth” why certain “race realists” refuse to discuss population genetics findings – even those generated by Jewish researchers! – that show Jews as a genetically distinct entity, different from Europeans?  Why did the HBDers get all hysterical over the Schettino case, but studiously ignore a similar incident involving Koreans?

No, HBD, ultimately is a political movement; it is not science.  Real racial science is based on falsifiable hypotheses and hypothesis-testing, it is based on facts and skepticism, hard data, proper methodology, and a willingness to re-think ideas if the data do not fit.  HBD starts with the desired conclusion and then creates ad hoc hypotheses, combined with cherry picked data, and hand-waving spin to explain when, inevitably, the data do not support the hypotheses.  When was the last time an HBDer admitted they were wring about something fundamental?  It is politics, not science, with the politics serving Jewish and Asian interests and White HBDers seduced into supporting the political interests of alien racial groups.  That Jews have been supporting HBD is without question. They’ve supported it financially and,of course, people like Hart and Levin have been leading HBDers, saying nothing of Sailer who in the past made vague claims of at least part Jewish ancestry for his biological parents.

Although Racial Kinist WNs and Racal Instrumentalist HBDers can sometimes cooperate on certain narrow projects, the bottom line is that the two viewpoints are fundamentally incompatible when one considers primary value systems.

This is all a concern as the HBD Alt Wrong attempts to seize control of Der Movement, and many WNs refuse to oppose this, or in some cases, commit Race Treason and facilitate it.  And if so-called “anti-Semitic” WN 1.0ers continue to fail to speak out against the At Wrong, I will call them out about it.  HBD is NOT racial science, it is a perversion of it.  What are you waiting for?

Note:

Kinism apparently exists in Christianity as well.  I would guess Jews and Asians are not preferred there either.

Turning on the Gaslight

Greg at it again.

Read this, emphasis added:

The Alt Right is dead.

Not a moment too soon.  And who predicted that? 

But the Alt Right was so useful…

As an example of what NOT to do.

…and so much fun…

Sure, that’s what it was all about, no?  Let’s obsess about a cartoon frog, scream about “Kek” (and I still don’t know what the hell that was all about, nor do I want to know), and act like juvenile jackasses.  Fun, fun, fun!

…that we need to create a replacement for it, the sooner the better. 

Don’t worry Greg.  You and the rest of your fellows will come up with another tragicomic failure in short order.

By the Alt Right, I mean the online movement of White Nationalist podcasters, bloggers, and social media trolls that emerged in 2014, coalesced around the Trump candidacy in 2015

2015…when EGI Notes was already warning you all that Trump was a vulgar ignorant buffoon and a fraud.

…then began to change the parameters of political debate with stinging memes like the “cuckservative” barb…

The only useful thing they did.

…becoming an international media phenomenon in 2016.

At which time I was a voice in the wilderness, preaching against the stupidity of the Alt Right, and predicting its downfall.

As I argue in my essay “What is the Alternative Right?” (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4) this new Alt Right was quite different from the original Alt Right that took its name from the Alternative Right webzine which Richard Spencer founded in 2010 and edited until 2012. The two Alt Rights differed in terms of ethos, intellectual influences, and preferred platforms and media, although they did come to share an ideology and a name. By the beginning of 2015, the new Alt Right was increasingly comfortable with White Nationalism as an ideology and the Alt Right as a brand.

Aside from the fact that #AltRight made a good hashtag, the main utility of the term was its vagueness. It allowed people to signal their dissent from mainstream Republicanism without embracing such stigmatized labels as National Socialism and White Nationalism. The Alt Right was thus an ideal “discursive space” in which White Nationalists could interact with, influence, and convert people who were closer to the political mainstream.

What an outrageous hypocrite. It was Johnson who was publishing pieces telling us that “the Alt Right is White nationalism or it is nothing at all.”  Gaslighting alert!

White Nationalists should always remember how we came to our views.

From Pepe and Kek?  Or from Savitri Devi and The Men Who Can’t Tell Time?

We should never lose sight of the fact that it takes an inner struggle, ended by an act of courage, to seriously consider heretical and highly stigmatized ideas, even online, in the privacy of one’s own home. 

But if you disagree with the Der Movement, Greg and others will stigmatize you.

Thus we need safe spaces for trying on new ideas and building new relationships. 

As long as you don’t criticize Greg and Counter-Currents.

The Alt Right provided that. It allowed people to experiment with being radical and edgy without being one of “those people” or burning one’s bridges to the mainstream.

Pepe!  Kek!

The result was a grassroots online insurgency mobilizing a vast network of highly creative individuals and injecting their memes and talking points into the mainstream, where they began shifting popular consciousness and political debates.

But, as I also argued in “What Is the Alternative Right?” (Part 2), the Alt Right’s success in attracting people led to a crisis. Both versions of the Alt Right were always, at core, White Nationalist outreach projects. But there was a perennial battle in the Alt Right between the people who advocated a “big tent” movement and the “purity spiralers” and Right-wing sectarians who wanted to enforce one ideological orthodoxy or another.

You mean the orthodoxy of the Alt Right being White nationalism, and the orthodoxy that the entire “movement” had to be subsumed into Alt Right “youth culture?”

I was in the big tent camp. I argued that outreach projects by their nature attract people who do not (yet) agree with us. But you can only convert people who don’t already agree with you. The whole point of the movement was to convert rather than repel people who disagreed with us.

No, the whole point of the Alt Right was to convert the entire “movement” into the Alt Right; that is, into a mash-up of Pepe, Kek, drunken podcasts, Arthur Kemp, and “shitposting.”

But the new Alt Right was such a successful outreach project that it was being flooded with large numbers of Trumpian civic nationalists, including non-whites, who rejected White Nationalism. I thought this was a good problem to have, and that we needed to take a deep breath, remind ourselves that truth is on our side, and then get back to the battle of ideas. Others, however, became concerned that the Alt Right brand would be hijacked or coopted by civic nationalists like Milo Yiannopoulos. This was the Alt Right “brand war” of the fall of 2016.

And some of us were concerned that the entire racial nationalist project would be “hijacked or co-opted” by the Alt Right, and that the Alt Right’s inevitable degeneration and/or collapse would ruin the “movement” that had become dependent on the Alt Right “brand.”  Which is exactly what happened.

The brand war came to an end with the Hailgate incident of November 21, 2016, when, before the cameras of the enemy media, Richard Spencer raised his glass with the words “Hail Trump, Hail our People, Hail Victory!” and people in the audience responded with Nazi salutes. This stunt indelibly identified the Alt Right not just with White Nationalism but with neo-Nazism in the minds of the whole world.

Johnson’s obsession with Spencer on display again. 

This led to a split between White Nationalists and civic nationalists, who came to be called the Alt Lite. To differentiate itself from the Alt Right, the Alt Lite dug in its heels on the one issue that White Nationalists most urgently need to destroy: the moral taboo against white identity politics. The great big beautiful tent, where civic nationalism and ethnonationalism could be debated—an argument that White Nationalists always win….

Notice how Johnson equates White nationalism with ethnonationalism, which is, if you think about it, an oxymoron.  

…was replaced by a great big ugly wall, over which only venomous tweet barrages were exchanged.

I thought walls were good? MAGA!

The expanding discursive space….

We’re all impressed by your big words there, Greg.  We defer to your intellectual brilliance.  You own that discursive space!

… in which White Nationalists could influence the mainstream was replaced by a self-marginalizing political sect which in 2017 began to focus on street activism…

Or on Kali Yuga and “traditionalism.”

…even though they were vastly outnumbered and outgunned by the Left, which could count on collaborators in the media and all levels of government, as well as armies of lawyers and effectively unlimited funds. White Nationalists have none of these advantages. Thus, a movement that had grown by attacking the system’s moral and intellectual weaknesses from a position of strength was replaced by a movement that attacked the system’s institutional power centers from a position of weakness. Catastrophic failure was inevitable.

And Sallis predicted all of this, while Johnson, Taylor, and MacDonald were happily jumping on the Alt Right bandwagon.

By the end of 2017, much of the American White Nationalist movement was simply exhausted from the wave of doxings, deplatforming, and lawfare that followed the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville…

Yes, as I predicted, tying White nationalism to the Alt Right turned out to be a disaster.

…Virginia, on August 12, 2017. In the days following Unite the Right, more than one hundred people disappeared from my social media sphere alone. They obviously did not change their political convictions, but they clearly believed that the movement was going in the wrong direction. 

For the last 50 years.

Nevertheless, the rallies and college speaking events continued, hemorrhaging people and money—which were in short supply to begin with—until they finally bled out.

The post-mortem of the activist phase of the Alt Right led to a healthy debate about “optics” and whether it is better for American White Nationalists to embrace American political traditions and symbols or imported ones. There was also a growing consensus that the movement needed to return to our strengths, namely the war of ideas. Even activist events needed to be reconfigured along the lines of the European Identitarian movement, which does not battle antifa but engages in low-risk, high-reward publicity stunts, i.e., “propaganda of the deed.”

Let us not forget the “extreme vetted” private meetings. “Are you Swedish?”

But for many in the American movement, 2018 has simply been a year of watching and waiting. People hunkered down to let the storm pass. Now that it is dying down, they are surveying the damage and wondering what comes next.

More failure.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have a common cause to rally around again? Wouldn’t it be nice to have a new discursive space in which we could again interface with and perhaps influence the political mainstream?

Some people are hoping that Trump’s re-election campaign might provide a rallying point, but most of us have lost our enthusiasm for Trump. Thankfully, there’s something bigger and better than Trump. While there will always be a place for defending Trump’s National Populist policies from critics and detractors, we can’t lose sight of the big picture. We need to look beyond Trump to the forces that made Trump possible.

You mean the forces that created opportunities that were squandered by Quota Queen Ineptitude?

These are the same forces behind the Brexit victory; behind the rise of politicians like Viktor Orbán, Matteo Salvini, and Sebastian Kurz; behind the success of parties like Alternative for Germany, Poland’s Law and Justice, and the Sweden Democrats; and behind the Yellow Vests insurgency in France.

Yellow Vests!  Fuel taxes!  Poland bringing in those Filipino immigrants! Based, Based, Based!

All of these are manifestations of what is called National Populism or the New Nationalism. We need to understand the forces driving the rise of the New Nationalism. Then we need to add our impetus to these forces and try to steer them toward White Nationalism. The New Nationalism should be our new rallying point, our new discursive space in which we can inject our ideas into mainstream discussions.

A new record for the number of times the word “discursive” has been used in a Far Right essay – congratulations!

For starters, I urge every White Nationalist to read National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin,[1] two British political scientists specializing in populism and political extremism.

Eatwell and Goodwin are evidently men of the Left, but they do not seem to be liberals or globalists. Indeed, they relish demolishing liberal and globalist illusions about National Populism, arguing that it cannot be dismissed as mere fascism or racism; nor can it be dismissed as a mere flash in the pan, the product of ephemeral events like the 2008 recession or the migrant crisis; nor is it the last hurrah of “old white males” who will simply die off and be replaced by tolerant millennials; nor, finally, is it merely the product of charismatic politicians.

Instead, Eatwell and Goodwin argue that National Populism is the product of deep social and political trends which they call the four Ds: Distrust, Destruction, Deprivation, and De-Alignment. 

All four D’s also are relevant for Der Movement.

Distrust refers to the breakdown of popular trust in political elites. 

Or the hoped-for breakdown in activist trust for failed “movement” “elites.”

Destruction primarily means destruction of identity, i.e., the destruction of peoples and cultures by immigration and multiculturalism. 

The destruction of racial nationalist identity by Alt Right memetic hegemony.

National Populism is, therefore, a form of white identity politics. 

Except when it becomes Trumpian civic nationalism, or Gallic obsessions about fuel taxes.

Deprivation means the erosion of First World middle-class and working-class living standards due to globalization and neoliberalism. 

Or the erosion of racialist rational thought by both fossilized dogma and by esoteric traditionalism.

De-Alignment is the breakdown of voter identification with dominant political parties.

Or the breakdown of traditional “movement” organizations.

Eatwell and Goodwin marshal impressive empirical studies that indicate that these trends are pervasive in white countries. These trends are deep-seated rather than ephemeral. Not only are they going to continue on into the future, they are likely to grow stronger before they abate.

And no doubt that the “movement” will flounder around helplessly, wasting this opportunity, and let this populism abate without achieving anything of lasting value.

Thus, National Populism is here to stay. 

Until it abates.

National Populism is the wave of the future, not just a ripple in the news cycle, hence the great wave on the cover of their book. 

More victory psychosis. We’ve moved from The Man on White Horse Syndrome to The National Populist on Movement Delusion Syndrome.

Eatwell and Goodwin are so confident of this that in their final chapter, “Towards Post-Populism,” the only post-populist scenario they can imagine is the political establishment adopting National Populist policies. In other words, they think National Populism will likely become the hegemonic political outlook. This is an astonishing concession, since it means that the hegemony of globalism is drawing to a close.

So, populism will be co-opted to serve multiracialism and multiculturalism.

I find this analysis deeply encouraging, and it puts to rest a fear that has been gnawing at me for the last two years.

The fear that Counter-Currents donations will dry up?

I believe that nothing less than White Nationalism can save our race, thus the success of our movement is the supreme moral imperative. Whites are in a state of emergency. This is serious. This is urgent. Thus in 2015 and 2016, I was thrilled to see forces in the broader political realm aligning with White Nationalist ideas and goals, specifically Brexit and the Trump phenomenon.

Brexit: Failure.  Trump: Failure.

But I also thought it likely that this historical moment would be fleeting. Thus we had to capitalize on it while it was still possible. This is why I was so horrified at Hailgate, when instead of giving a statesmanlike speech outlining how the National Policy Institute would serve as the intellectual vanguard for National Populism—a move that would have secured Spencer’s bid for movement leadership and attracted significant resources—he instead chose the path of juvenile buffoonery, pandering to the cool kids at TRS and on the chans.

Wasn’t Johnson a fan of TRS?  Didn’t Johnson eagerly jump on the Alt Right bandwagon of juvenile buffoonery?  I remember Pepe and Kek memes at Counter-Currents.

But that was just the beginning of months of sectarianism, schisms, purges, and purity spirals. In 2017, we saw the birth of toxic, self-marginalizing memes like “white Sharia” 

Johnson has stated that Anglin will be one of the voices of WN 3.0.

…and the return of the worst ideas and attitudes of White Nationalism 1.0. 

Lies.

We had arrived at a moment of decision, and our “leaders” had chosen juvenility and irrelevance. 

That’s because they are all incompetent products of an affirmative action policy. Since Greg himself was on the Alt Right bandwagon, while others presciently pointed out the dangers of the Alt Right, why shouldn’t Greg be included in this cohort of leaders?

They were not ready for prime time. As I explained in my essay “Against Right-Wing Sectarianism,” this could only lead to a smaller, weaker, poorer, and dumber movement. Such a movement would be unable to halt white genocide.

By May of 2017, I started thinking that we needed a new “brand.” The term “New Nationalism” was already being used to describe National Populism. The term was broad and vague enough to encompass everyone from White Nationalists to sitting presidents and ruling parties. I even went so far as to reserve the domain name newnationalism.net. In keeping with my essay “Redefining the Mainstream,” I envisioned a discursive…

This is a very discursive use of the word discursive.  The discursive space of Counter-Currents is the most effective discursive space to analyze – in a properly discursive fashion – the precise discursive use of the word discursive.

…space that was the exact opposite of Right-wing sectarianism. Our movement must prefigure the hegemony we want to create in the broader society, encompassing the full diversity of whites…

Except for critics of Greg.  And we really don’t like all those White ethnics either.

…united only by the central principle of white identity politics and free to differ on all other matters.

You are not free to differ on Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents. 

The most important intellectual battle is over the legitimacy of white identity politics. The greatest political taboo of our times is the idea that…

Greg Johnson may be wrong about something.

…identity politics is immoral for white people—and only for white people. This taboo unites the whole political establishment against us. The political establishment knows this, but many National Populists don’t. This is why the establishment attacks National Populists as fascists, nativists, and racists.

But many National Populists don’t challenge the idea that white identity politics is immoral. Instead, they insist that they are color-blind civic nationalists, concerned only with a common culture. Then they try to turn the tables on Leftism and accusing it of being the real identity politics.

And so the National Populists are useless cucks.

But, of course, the Left is not going to drop identity politics. Why would they drop a winning strategy? Foreswearing identity politics is a losing strategy for the Right, akin to unilateral disarmament, taking a knife to a gunfight, or allowing one’s opponents a trump card but refusing to use it oneself.

The main trump card being The God Emperor himself.

Thus, the New Nationalism platform needed to be a space where one could argue about virtually anything except the moral legitimacy of white identity politics. Instead, our overriding editorial agenda would be to establish that white identity politics is inevitable, necessary, and moral—and to expose the moral illegitimacy of the system.

And the moral illegitimacy of Der Movement, Inc.

I shared this idea with a number of writers, podcasters, and video bloggers who also believed the Alt Right was spiraling into irrelevance.

But not with those who predicted that spiraling into irrelevance as far back as 2016.

They were uniformly enthusiastic. 

Of course they were.  Cherry pick a bunch of yes men, and you’ll get “uniform enthusiasm.”  If they weren’t uniformly enthusiastic, they’d be banned from Counter-Currents.

But there were things I had to take care of first, like…

Feuding with Richard Spencer.

…finishing The White Nationalist Manifesto. I also sensed that it would be some time before the Alt Right would finally exhaust itself and people would be ready for something new. 

Some of us were talking about this back in 2016?  What were you doing back then, Greg?  Pontificating that WN should be subsumed within the Alt Right?

Eventually, though, I decided that I want to stick with Counter-Currents. 

That would maximize the donations.

I still think that a New Nationalism webzine is a good idea. But somebody else needs to create it.

Richard Spencer?

Of course White Nationalists do not need a new platform to contribute to the rise of National Populism. In fact, we have been contributing to it for quite some time. Furthermore, if Eatwell and Goodwin are right, we will be contributing to it well into the future, for white nations will be receptive to National Populism for some time to come. And although nothing has greater moral urgency than stopping white genocide, we’ve got time to get our message and our strategies right. (And if we don’t have time to do it right, doing it wrong won’t save us, anyway.)

So, how can White Nationalists insert ourselves into the broader National Populist phenomenon? Let’s look at Eatwell and Goodwin’s four Ds again.

Yes, let’s.  See above.

Distrust: when people distrust their rulers, the system loses legitimacy and power. 

When will Der Movement lose its power?

White Nationalists are masterful at mocking the lies, hypocrisy, sanctimony, cowardice, and degeneracy of our rulers. 

If you do the same to “movement leaders” they become hysterical. Talk about “lies, hypocrisy, sanctimony, cowardice, and degeneracy!”

Furthermore, nothing destroys trust in the establishment quite like learning that its ultimate agenda is the genocide of the white race.

But our propaganda needs to be truthful as well, because we want people to trust us. For if distrust becomes pervasive throughout society, then the people cannot unite against the establishment. Our goal is to promote a high-trust society. We cannot accomplish that if we cynically resort to lies because “that’s what the establishment does to us.” If we want to replace the establishment, we have to be better than the establishment.

Be truthful?  If you want truth, read EGI Notes.  Lies?  Der Movement.

Destruction: White Nationalists have been raising awareness of the destruction of white nations and cultures through immigration and multiculturalism for decades. Even so, our educational efforts have awakened far fewer people than the negative consequences of immigration and multiculturalism themselves. The system is doing far more to push people toward white identity politics than we are doing to pull them. Thus, white racial consciousness will continue to rise even if our movement is completely censored.

Yes, opinion polls show this.  No, wait….

We should, of course, do everything we can to raise awareness. But I think we have a much more important role to play, namely deepening awareness.

Of your own incompetence.

First, we need to help people understand why multiculturalism is a failure—namely, racial and ethnic diversity in the same state is always a source of weakness—so people are not fobbed off with half-measures like “conservative” multicultural civic nationalism. Moreover, only White Nationalists fully understand the forces promoting mass migrations and multiculturalism and how they fit into the overall agenda of white genocide.

Forces?  You mean the group your buddy Zman defends?

Second, and most importantly, we need to defend the moral legitimacy of white identity politics. Vast numbers of whites are in thrall to the establishment because they believe there is something immoral about taking their own side in ethnic conflicts. This taboo is like a dam, holding back the floodwaters of National Populism. Once we break that dam, the wave of National Populism will sweep away the whole rotten system.

Sure it will.   Just give it another 50 years.  By then, all of our analysis of Guenon and Evola would have turned the tide.

Deprivation: basic economics predicts that globalization will lead to the collapse of middle-class and working-class living standards throughout the First World, although First World elites will benefit quite a lot. 

And “movement leaders” will continue collecting their donations.  Remember, if you contribute, it is like living in the Golden Age today!

Obviously, the masses in any First World society never consented to such policies. Genuine Leftists recognize that globalization has undermined the gains of the Left in the First World. But global socialism is not the answer to global capitalism. Only National Populists understand the natural limit of globalization: the nation-state.

De-Alignment: when voters begin to distrust the establishment, they begin to distrust establishment political parties as well. 

Rewritten – when activists begin to distrust the movement dogma, they begin to distrust movement leaders as well. 

White Nationalists are masterful at showing that electoral politics, in which voters take sides in the battles between mainstream political parties, is only a superficial distraction from real politics. Political power does not lie in voters choosing between Coke and Diet Coke. 

Likewise, choosing between WN 1.0 Kempism and WN 2.0 Kempism is a superficial distraction.

That’s an election that the Coca-Cola Corporation can’t lose. Real power lies in framing all political debates so that, no matter which party ends up in power, the establishment always wins. 

Or…the Quota Queens always win.

Heads they win; tails we lose. Real power lies in establishing the things about which political parties don’t fight and about which the voters are never given a choice. The political establishment, center-Left and center-Right, is of one mind on the goodness of globalization, immigration, and multiculturalism—the very things that National Populists oppose.

What white people want is essentially a socially conservative, interventionist state. We want National Populism. What the establishment wants is socially liberal global capitalism, what Jonathan Bowden called Left-wing oligarchy. The people are never allowed to vote for National Populism straight up. The center-Right packages social conservatism with neoliberal globalization. The center-Left packages the interventionist state with social degeneracy. When the center-Right is in power, they only give the establishment what it wants: lower taxes and freer trade for the oligarchs. When the center-Left is in power, they only give the establishment what it wants: more degeneracy. The parties blame their failures on the opposition and assure their voters that the next time their party is at the helm, the voters will finally get what they want. The people are placated with the illusion of political representation in elections where the establishment parties trade power. But no matter who is elected, the outcomes always drift father and farther from what the people want, namely National Populism—and closer to what the degenerate global elites want.

Very well. What’s the solution?  Savitri Devi?

White Nationalists are also highly aware of how the establishment works to co-opt National Populist uprisings like the Tea Party and now, sadly, Donald Trump. For Trump has fallen into the center-Right establishment pattern of giving the oligarchs what they want (tax cuts), failing to do what the people want (a border wall), and blaming his failure on his opponents (first the establishment Republicans, now the Democrats).

Hey!  I thought Trump as going to be an “American Caesar” who was going to prop up America’s White demographics!  Remember that, Greg?  How soon we all forget, eh?

In sum, White Nationalists can intensify National Populist forces and steer them toward White Nationalism by deepening the people’s Distrust of the establishment; broadening and deepening the people’s awareness of how and why globalization, immigration, and multiculturalism are leading them to Destruction and Deprivation; and creating new political possibilities by encouraging De-Alignment with the establishment’s sham political debates and contests.

That’s great.  Too bad we have no leaders to provide direction.

But to ride the National Populist wave, White Nationalists have to jettison certain incompatible ideological fixations.

Hmmm: Like what?  Traditionalism?  Pseudo-Intellectual Elitism?  Nordicism?

First and foremost, we actually have to be populists. 

And we become populists by being hyper-intellectualized “discursive” elitists, pontificating about the finer points of “traditionalism,” and behaving as if The Lord of the Rings was a blueprint for an overarching strategy.

Eatwell and Goodwin also show that National Populism is not anti-democratic. National Populists want more democracy, not less. They also argue that National Populism is not fascist in its inspirations or goals, although the establishment loves nothing more than to stigmatize National Populism with such labels. We shouldn’t help them. Thus those among us who sneer at populism and democracy, make fetishes out of elitism and hierarchy…

The lack of self-awareness here is simply staggering.

…and try to resurrect inter-war fascist movements are not helping.

Instead: Guenon and Savitri Devi.  The Age of Aluminum!

Second, National Populists really are economic interventionists. Old habits die hard, but those among us who still think in terms of “free market” economics are not helping. Eatwell and Goodwin point out that in the United States, Republican voters are significantly more interventionist than Republican legislators. Which means that all that Koch-funded free-market fundamentalism has simply produced a party headed by ideologues who are out of touch with their constituency. Don’t be one of them.

Instead, follow a “movement” that Revilo Oliver characterized as having 50 years of failure…50 years ago.

Where do we go from here? The most important thing to keep in mind is that National Populism is arising out of the breakdown of the political system. Just like shattering an atom…

Dat dere science!  Means nothing!  Traditionalism!  Back into our hobbit holes, snug as a bug!

…the breakdown of a system releases immense energies. It also creates radical new possibilities, “holes in being” where new actions can take place and new orders can emerge.

Actions such as screaming about “Kek.”

But the breakdown of systems also creates uncertainty and surprises. It is not an environment in which one can expect to unfold grand plans. Thus, the more our movement is tied to long-term plans and fixed ideas, the less adapted we are to the climate we wish to create, and the more brittle and susceptible to catastrophic failure we become. Accordingly, at the present moment, the best overall strategy is not to get ahead of ourselves. We simply need to promote chaos, but also plant the seeds of a new order. 

The Sallis Strategy.  While Counter-Currents has been gibbering about “Kali Yuga,” this blog has been outlining these approaches.  And yet who are your leaders?

Then we need to wait.

For another 50 years.

The Yellow Vests insurgency is a genuine grassroots National Populist movement. But it was nobody’s grand design. It emerged spontaneously, and it surprised everyone. But spontaneous movements of large numbers of people are only possible because the participants share common views and values. Such movements also propagate through existing social networks. Thus, if we want more National Populist insurgencies, we need to promote chaos in the system…

The Sallis Strategy, outlined here years ago.

…seed people’s minds with models of genuine National Populist alternatives, and build real-world social networks through which we can propagate ideas and influence. Beyond that, we simply need to adopt an attitude of maximum openness and flexibility in the face of new possibilities so we can react with fresh provocations.

“…maximum openness and flexibility?”  Gee…maybe you should stop pathologizing honest criticism, and stop obsessing over fossilized dogma?

In short, we need more New Right metapolitics. But this is second-nature to us. We’ve been doing it for years now. 

And failing endlessly.

We have the best ideas, the best memes, and the best people.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. 

But we need a new focus.

And a new leadership.

If Eatwell and Goodwin are right, though, we now know that we have a vast audience, strong historical winds at our back, and time enough to turn the world around. Let’s make 2019 the year of the New Nationalism.

Sure.  More realistically: 2019, another year of utter failure.

Fisking the Epistles

Ripostes to Zman.

I will very briefly comment on the anti-Semitism epistle, before looking at the Alt Right issue in more detail

This is grossly disappointing, but not surprising from these HBD-oriented types.  Most of the arguments are similar to those of Cofnas, and have been, in that context, addressed by others.  Here I concentrate on the ending:

Obviously, my resistance to antisemitism is not based in ignorance of the material or fear of the morality police. The real issue for me is that anti-Semites taste Jews in their sandwich. They are like a man who has only mastered how to use a hammer. He sees every problem as a nail. In the case of anti-Semites, everything is blamed on the Jews to the point of absurdity. It seems to me that in order to be an anti-Semite, one has to commit their life to it, like joining the priesthood or a religious cult. It must define one’s life.

This is not only wrong, but so obviously wrong it is almost ludicrous.  By mainstream standards, an anti-Semite is simply someone reasonably critical of Jews, someone who knows the answer to the Jewish Question, someone who essentially agrees with MacDonald’s position on the Jews.  While it is true that some “anti-Semites taste Jews in their sandwich” and are obsessive in their single-mindedness, that is not a prerequisite to being an “anti-Semite.”  Being “Jew aware” is simply one component of a well-balanced and informed activist life, it need not “define one’s life.”  I may well be labelled an anti-Semite by most (*), but readers of this blog know I take a nuanced and complex view of the race issue, and certain do not blame everything on “the Jews.”  Zman basically is knocking down a strawman here; it is dishonest.  If anti-Semitism is the hammer in the activist toolkit, it is quite possible to also know how to master the use of screwdrivers and wrenches.  This argument by Zman is just plain stupid.

While I bear no ill will to those of you who have become anti-Semites, I just don’t think it is the place for me. My group evolutionary strategy, as it were, is to enjoy the fullness of life, even the parts that are not so good. Obsessing over Jews all the time seems like a waste of time. If there comes a time when I have to obsess over Jews all the time, then I’ll do what I must, but for now, I have lots of other things that interest me. No hard feelings and I wish you luck in your business, as long as it does not interfere with my business.

This is even more stupid.  How does “enjoying the fullness of life” have to do with being aware of, and honest about, the character and influence of the Jewish people, and their effect on White racial interests? He makes it sound like facing facts about Jews is going to spoil his fun, so he would rather be willfully ignorant (contrary to his assertion that ignorance of the material is not part of his attitude) than have a stray dark cloud obscure, even for a moment, the sunny bliss of his life’s enjoyment.  And again, he conflates, in a dishonest fashion, being an “anti-Semite” with “obsessing over Jews all the time.”  What is it about these HBD types that they are so obstinate?

By all accounts, the alt-right is at a crossroads. The movement that started as an internet phenomenon and blossomed into a full-blown political force in the 2016 election….

Full-blown political force?  Nonsense.  Fantasy.

…has stumbled in the past year. Most people peg the start of the trouble at the Charlottesville riots, which were used to paint the alt-right as a bunch of torch wielding Nazis. Others put the blame on the personalities and their endless bickering. Of course, the troubles are exaggerated, but there’s no doubt that the movement is in a difficult patch.

Exaggerated?  Merely a “difficult patch?”  It’s much worse than that.  And deservedly so.  A full-blown collapse is more like it.

In order for the alt-right to get out of the ditch and become an effective political voice, the leaders of the various groups within the alt-right have to stop screwing up. The number of unforced errors over the last year, by big names in the alt-right, leave people with the impression the movement is not serious. 

Err…the reason that people have that “impression” is because it is true.  Come on now. Pepe?  Kek?  People attacking the idea of uniforms and then going to a rally dressed as if it were a cosplay comic convention?  Half-drunk podcasts?  Juvenile sniggering?  Mindless Trump worship?  When was any of that serious?

Leaders need to be something more than gags on-line. They have to be a respectable face to a skeptical public. That means being careful and prudent in their public actions. That’s not what has happened over the last year.

Because we have failed leaders, chosen by their misfit Type I followers according to strict affirmative action rules.  Garbage in, garbage out.

The first thing the alt-right needs to do is figure out how it got tangled up with people who turned out to be unstable or unreliable. 

Your answer. [Since originally writing this essay, the video in question has been deleted by the System.  And that is in essence the point – all the sound and fury of the Alt Right, and we are worse off than we were two years ago]

Starting with Charlottesville, that has been the thread running through all of the stumbles. There’s always a wacko involved. Whether it was a “crying Nazi” at Charlottesville or a tubby cuckold at Michigan, the source of trouble has been people who should never have been given a place at the table. You cannot make up with enthusiasm what you lack in prudence, maturity and intelligence.

“…you lack in prudence, maturity and intelligence.”  That lack is the defining characteristic of “movement” leadership.  Indeed, possessing prudence, maturity and intelligence would be disqualifying, right?

Fringe politics can be a lonely place, so it is tempting to welcome everyone, but this is why the Libertarian Party is full of goofballs. The trick is to avoid the temptation to embrace all comers and be skeptical of converts. 

Some are sincere and full of enthusiasm. These are the foot soldiers that add energy to a movement. Some are attention whores, looking for a cheap stage. Others are unstable loudmouths who like turmoil. A little skepticism about the new converts allows the movement leaders to avoid getting mixed up with nutjobs.

What happens when the “leaders” are nutjobs themselves?  

Another way of not inviting the troubles of others into your movement is to not get too close to the other movements. Quiet alliances can be quietly dissolved when they become inconvenient. The alt-right, which largely appeals to college educated suburban males, had no business locking shields with groups like the Traditional Workers Party at public events. Their thing is not your thing and the best way to avoid conflict is to keep a healthy distance. That way, you don’t pay for their mistakes, as has been the case with the TWP.

No kidding.

That’s the other thing that has to be front and center. The groups that have been operating on the fringe for generations have been on the fringe because they are either doing something wrong or they like the fringe. It’s always wise to be cautious of the older groups trying to hitch their wagon to your star. Charlottesville was not about “uniting the right”. It was crabs in the bucket pulling you back down into the bucket with them. A successful mass movement, in this age, will be one that is free of those of the prior age.

I call “BS” on this.  While I am 100% in support of deconstructing the Old Movement and building a New Movement, the above paragraph implies that the Alt Right itself is something new and fresh, instead of merely the same old crap dressed up with “youth culture” and sprinkled with Bevis-and-Butthead sniggering.  The raises an important point.  Was the relatively greater success of the Alt Right (short-lived as it was) compared to “WN 1.0” due to better ideals and exaction or just finding itself in more propitious times?  More of the latter, I think.  Whites are mewling cowards, but even cowards will begin to fight back when their back is up against the wall and they are left with no other choice.  The rapidly degenerating racial situation is creating opportunities – opportunities for the most part wasted by Alt Right dimwits.  And the rise of Trump helped them – rather than saying the Alt Right helped elect Trump (a fantasy on par with Roissy’s caravans of Amish horse and buggies converging on voting centers), the truth is that Trump boosted the Alt Right.  If Trump hadn’t run, if we had a Jeb-Hillary election, likely no one outside of Der Movement, Antifa, and the “watchdog groups,” would have had the faintest idea of what the Alt Right is.  So stop making it seem like the wonderful Alt Right juggernaut was stopped by inferring “WN 1.0 Boomers.”  The “younger groups” ruined themselves.  And what’s left of the Alt Right today are people like Taylor who calls himself Alt Right even though he was a major “movement” figure when Spencer was still in high school, and groups like Identity Evropa, who have more in common with NA-style groups than with the Pepe/Kek crowd.

Dissident politics, like revolutionary politics, depends upon reliable communication and operational security. 

Operational security: “Are you Swedish?”  

In all ages, especially this age, these can come into conflict. Making yourself available to speak to the people, make you vulnerable, and not just physically vulnerable. It makes your message vulnerable to corruption by others beyond your control. Effective communications means controlling the message, which is why the people in charge invest so heavily in monopolizing the media platforms.

And as with all monopolies, the “customers” suffer.

Building your own media and supporting the media that supports you is the key. Here is a lesson that can be learned from the New Left. They avoided the mainstream press and instead relied on independent media. They would charge reporters for access to their events. In our age, it means never going on mainstream shows unless they are live, and never agreeing to print interviews. It also means not getting into fights with people on social media. You are the message. Your movement will judged by how you are judged.

Judged as failures.

This has the added benefit of not inviting attacks from the Left. The last year, from the perspective of an outsider, has looked like the alt-right picking a fight with the people in charge, only to be squashed like a bug. That’s bad optics. When you can’t even hold a luncheon for your people, without being harassed by the Left, it’s time to accept reality and become less public. The alt-right needs to be like an iceberg with a small public face above the water line and large rank and file underneath the water line.

Reality and Der Movement is like oil and water.  What else to expect from people who take seriously ramblings about “the Pyramids of Atlantis were built by psychokinesis.” 

Another thing the alt-right needs to understand is this is not 1920’s Germany or 1960’s America. The people in charge are not weak like the Weimar Republic and they are not complacent like the post-war American ruling class. The Nazis filled the vacuum left from the collapse of German ruling class after the war. The New Left was able to roll to victory because the people in charge at the time, were largely sympathetic and even a bit envious. Today, the people in charge are not weak and they are not sympathetic. 

Those movements are not good models for today’s fight. Brawling with state sponsored goons like Antifa is a fool’s errand. Antifa has the backing of the Left and all the money from the billionaires they need. Similarly, demanding to go on campus, on free speech grounds, hoping to shame the Left with their hypocrisy, does nothing but display a fundamental misunderstanding of the opponent. The people running the college campus know that game backward and forward. There’s no beating them at a game they designed.

Agreed.

A better model is something like Irish nationalism. Ultimately, they were effective when they combined a guerrilla movement that operated in the shadows and a political movement that kept its distance from the fighters. We’re not in a world of car bombings and targeted assassinations, but we are in an age when an energetic social media troll can wreak havoc on the prevailing narrative. A guy putting up “It’s OK To Be White” signs around a Progressive hive is the modern version of the car bomb. It does real damage.

Agreed.

That gets to the heart of why the alt-right has stumbled of late. The alt-right had momentum when one wing stuck to making sensible arguments about the demographic reality of our age and what it means for the future. Meanwhile, the other wing took these ideas and used them in the meme war and comment sections of web sites. The reason the people in charge are dumping comment sections and purging social media of anyone with a whiff of heresy is they fear this more than anything. The alt-right needs to get back to what works.

Problem: Did it ever really “work?”

This is a big subject that requires a lot more debate, but effective activism focuses on the effective, not on helping e-celebs get mentioned by Lefty. For dissidents, effective activism makes the strong side look weak and makes the dissidents look smart. If the organizers at Charlottesville had stopped at the Friday night event, and backed out of the rally on Saturday citing safety concerns, the ensuing riot would have been blamed on the other side. You would have effectively used their size against them by being clever.

You cannot expect half-drunk dimwits to be clever.

Of course, the alt-right could only have pulled off such a move at Charlottesville if it was better organized. The overall lack of organization is killing the alt-right. There has to be small local groups of people who trust one another and will cooperate with other local groups, as long as leadership trusts them. This is a basic organizing technique. There should be alt-right clubs all over the country. They should be social clubs that focus on the politics of our age. The alt-right leaders need to focus on this rather than making noise. 

Effective organizing means not airing your laundry on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram. One reason competent people are not going to want to help the cause is the ridiculous habit of drama queens from the alt-right making grand announcements on social media. When Evan McLaren wants to move on to other things, he should tender his resignation in private like a man, not post it on Twitter like he is Milo promoting some new media scheme. High quality people do not want any part of this. It has to stop.

Drama queens are derived from quota queens. Want quality leadership?  Put an end to Der Movement’s ethnic affirmative action program.  Anyone who doesn’t address that elephant in the room is being fundamentally dishonest (and will soon find that room full of elephant dung).

Finally, the leaders of the alt-right need to understand that in an information war, the message has to be effective against the target. When Mike Enoch says, “no one has a right to be around white people,” that is highly effective, because it states a simple truth in a way that gets the target audience to think of themselves as white. It speaks to people at a personal level. The whole point of the alt-right, allegedly, is to get white people to think of themselves as white. Anything that distracts from that must be avoided.

If that is the point of the Alt Right, then I’d advise them to behave in a way that also appeals to people over age 30.

Way back in the olden thymes, Buckley Conservatism got going because it spoke to the masses of people revolted by what they saw going on with the Left. Bill Buckley never would have amounted to anything if there was not a willing audience, waiting for someone to provide intellectual leadership. Whatever that brand of conservatism became in the long run, it started as a group of smart guys, who took their task seriously. Most important, they exploited an eager market looking for an alternative to what was emerging on the Left. 

The alt-right is in a very similar position. There are millions of white people looking around at what is happening in America, wondering why they are doing this to us. Fundamentally, and most importantly, the message of the alt-right is sound. It offers whites a reason to fight for their interests and cheer for their team. What must come next is a class of respectable spokesman and leaders who add weight to this message and organize people as a political force. It’s time for the alt-right leaders to take the next step or step aside.

They need to step aside and take their failed Alt Right brand with them.  These “leaders” and their brand were handed a golden opportunity with Trump, Trump’s election, and its aftermath.  They blew it. Big time.  While I realize that affirmative action and accountability are more or less orthogonal to each other, at some point accountability must be forced onto the quota queens.  They cannot be allowed to endlessly fail with impunity for time without end. Enough is enough.  It’s time for a change.

*Of course, according to the Silkers, I am a philosemitic Jew-lover, a tool of the Jews, someone who – in their own exact words – “sucks Jewish cock.”  That is because I reject their (wet) dream of Asians colonizing Whites nations with the borders of the West guarded by black-booted Chinese girls with guns.  Putting aside that Jews favor Asian immigration to the West, and that Israel is building close ties with both China and India, the demented nature of Silker lunacy should be apparent. To their “minds” anyone (White) who doesn’t pitifully grovel to Asians must, by some law of nature known only to them, pitifully grovel to Jews.  That it is possible to not pitifully grovel to anyone is not part of their ideology, it seems.

Optimism is Cowardice

Facing facts squarely in the face. Emphasis added.

Despite the impediments, however, I am fundamentally optimistic about our movement.

Spengler:

Faced as we are with this destiny, there is only one world-outlook that is worthy of us, that which has already been mentioned as the Choice of Achilles — better a short life, full of deeds and glory, than a long life without content. Already the danger is so great, for every individual, every class, every nation, that to cherish any illusion whatever is deplorable. The march of time cannot be halted; there is no question of prudent retreat or clever renunciation. Only dreamers believe there is a way out. Optimism is cowardice.

Yockey:

If pessimism is despair, optimism is cowardice and stupidity. Is there any need to choose between them?

I will rephrase Spengler and Yockey: Unwarranted optimism is cowardice and stupidity – a form of moral cowardice and self-serving stupidity.

At the current time, optimism is completely, utterly, unwarranted.

Facts: Der Movement is an unmitigated failure, Whites are celebrating their own demise, HBD hero Rushton is accused by a fellow HBDer (Dutton) as being a race-mixing adulterer and cherry picker of data.

The Man on White Horse Syndrome is another permutation of the moral cowardice of optimism.  Unable to face harsh reality, activists descend into a bright fantasy land in which Reagan or Putin or Trump is going to be their God Emperor and Savior.  There is always some deus ex machina that is going to save us from our predicament, with little or no effort on our part: fairy tales for weak-minded people.

Yeats:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

 The best lack all conviction, while the worst

 Are full of passionate intensity.

Finally:

 And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

 Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

The Death of the West and the (Self) Destruction of the White Race

That’s reality.  Face it.  

Spengler:

We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one thing that can not be taken from a man.

I differ from Spengler, as I’ve written a number of times, in the assumption of definitive inevitability in his description.  Inevitability in human affairs is a myth, a self-perpetuating myth: once you accept something as inevitable then it becomes in fact inevitable.  

Even at this late hour, we have a choice.  Even now, there is a slim hope of redemption.  That is not cowardly optimism: I see the chance, the hope, as slim, the great likelihood of utter failure, the maw of the abyss beckons.  But 99% certainty is not 100%.  If racial activists wake up, destroy the Old Movement, spurn and mock and reject the quota queens, eschew affirmative action, turn their backs on fossilized dogma and blind faith, and build a New Movement with competent leadership, that slim chance can be leveraged.  

But if we continue on the current path, we are doomed, and any optimism to the contrary is cowardice, and, truth be told, self-serving, rent-seeking behavior as well when expressed by those who personally benefit from the current state of affairs. Treason to race and civilization in exchange for the thirty pieces of silver deposited in the tin cup.

Ted Sallis Rides the Tiger

Reevaluating a concept.

Long time readers know that I am critical of Julius Evola, including his concept of Ride the Tiger, which many on the Right interpret as an excuse to do nothing except engage in hedonistic individualism.  I instead advocate Kill the Tiger.  However, the two concepts are really not mutually exclusive. Some IRL experiences in being faced with unpleasant situations – for example, working with psychopaths and having such people in positions of authority (similar to Der Movement, eh?) – has led me to reevaluate the Ride the Tiger concept.

Now, this essay contains within it all the types of “traditionalist” things I despise – nonsense about Kali Yuga, transcendence, left hand path, infiltration of South Asian cultural ideas into European thinking, the whole lot. But let us ignore the surface trappings and dig deeper. One must have the political maturity to look beyond aspects of a worldview one dislikes in order to find whatever is useful contained within it.  So, let us consider the concept of Ride the Tiger, and interpret it – in a minimalist Pareto Principle fashion – to its core constituents, and, then, formulate it to a Sallisian perspective.

If you are attacked by a tiger and you do not want to be killed by it, and yet you are not equipped to directly battle it, then you jump on its back where it cannot get to you, and you keep on riding it until it becomes exhausted.  At that point, you can safely flee, or, if so inclined, find some weapon and kill it.

Similarly, when faced with a situation that is unacceptable, but which cannot be directly challenged at the current time, you transcend it, ride it out, and wait for the situation to play itself out, at which time some action can be taken, a new direction can be followed.

Of course, there are problems here.  How do you know that the situation is one that you really cannot effectively battle?  Should you just pre-emptively surrender to it?  Conversely, how do you know you can safely ride it out?  Perhaps having the situation “play out” will end with total destruction, total and final defeat, and, even if defeat was inevitable in either case, it would have be more honorable to fight to the death rather than give up and “ride the tiger.”

Let us assume though that the following conditions are met: The situation is one that really cannot be effectively battled at the current time, AND riding it out does not definitively mean inevitable total defeat.  However, even here, the second point is equivocal, since even if it is not “definitive,” it may still be very likely.  Thus.one must take action while riding the tiger to make your own victory more likely, and that of the tiger less likely, once the riding is completed.  Riding the tiger has to be a more aggressive exercise than what Evola originally intended.

Let us more carefully define what we mean by Ride the Tiger, formulating it to a Sallisian perspective.  The Ted Sallis formulation of Ride the Tiger necessarily implies the following: (a) the riding will be active, it will be done in a manner so as to harass, annoy, tire, and weaken the tiger, it will done aggressively and not passively, it will be an indirect form of battle, guerrilla warfare; and (b) the ultimate objective of riding the tiger is to survive its assault and then tire it out with the final aim of killing it.

So, here, Ride the Tiger is a strategy aimed at the ultimate goal of Killing the Tiger. The idea is that the tiger is too powerful for you to defeat at the current time, so you must survive its attack and, at the same time, alter the power relationship so that you will emerge victorious in the end. That may well be a far more aggressive, in-the-world, and actively direct, interpretation than Evola intended, but I’m not interested in dogma or Evola-worship.  I am interested in creating and promoting an analogy helpful in guiding effective strategies – and my interpretation of Ride the Tiger fits that bill.

Of course, this strategy applies not only for Der Movement vs. the System, but for the Sallis Groupuscule vs. Der Movement. The relative power relations are the same – as the System dwarfs Der Movement in power, so does Der Movement dwarf the Sallis Groupuscule.  In both cases, Ride the Tiger – in an aggressive, Sallis fashion – is a viable option, and for the latter case, of Sallis vs. Der Movement, one can view EGI Notes through that lens.

Through a Glass, Darkly

Against both The System and The Movement.

To see “through a glass” — a mirror — “darkly” is to have an obscure or imperfect vision of reality.

New readers to this blog may be confused about its purpose, its underlying objective.  Is it just to heap mocking ridicule on the “movement?”  Of course, there is other material discussed here – including important material directly related to EGI, population genetics, political strategies, etc. – but the quota queens like to pretend that this blog is simply the “bitter” and “crazy” rants of some nutcase constantly attacking the “movement” for no good reason.  So, let us back up a bit and reconsider what the fundamental approach of EGI Notes is.

The purpose of this blog is promote a certain metapolitical worldview.  This blog engages in mocking ridicule not for its own sake, but for the specific purpose of deconstruction.  If you consider Nietzsche’s camel, lion, and child paradigm, then my previous pre-EGI Notes work for the “movement” (with the exception of Legion Europa) was the camel phase, EGI Notes is the lion phase of defiance and deconstruction, and the creative child phase is represented by Western Destiny.  Legion Europa can be viewed as having been a mix of both lion and child, both destructive and creative.

It is my judgment – and long-time readers of this blog know that my judgment is sound and I am usually correct – that on its current course Der Movement will utterly fail to achieve its objectives.  Even worse: It will may impede or even prevent those objectives from being achieved through the actions of others or even through spontaneous currents of human history.  Der Movement constitutes one of the biggest threats to White survival extant today. Therefore, it must be analyzed, ridiculed, and deconstructed.  The weeds need to be cleared away before anything useful can grow on long-neglected activist soil.

One fundamental premise of the Sallis Groupuscule is that BOTH the System and the Movement exhibit a defective perception of reality; as the title of this post suggests, both System and Movement see through a glass, darkly – they “have an obscure or imperfect vision of reality.” They are mirror images of each other, distorted funhouse mirrors; their inability to perceive reality without distortion causes both to become distorted themselves, and not only do they see through a glass, darkly; but, we, without a proper understanding of both System and Movement, see those entities through a glass, darkly, and hence fail to comprehend their respective realities.

The Movement attempts deconstruction of The System, with varying degrees of success, while The System profoundly misunderstands The Movement; however, in neither case do we observe a principled, consistent, and rationale understanding of either, nor do we observe any much needed Far Right deconstruction of Der Movement – until now.  What the dimwits and the rent-seekers of the “movement” see, or proclaim, as “crazy and bitter” mocking ridicule is actually the deconstruction of Der Movement Inc.  This blog makes no claim to be a comprehensive deconstruction; indeed, I hope that others will join in and together we can create a comprehensive and lasting deconstruction that finally finises off the grotesque monstrosity of Der Movement.  At the current time, this blog is the only outpost of such an effort; EGI Notes is the icebreaker, leading the way.  Whether or not others follow, this blog will continue in its efforts to expose the intellectual, moral, ethical, and spiritual bankruptcy of Der Movement, Inc.

I typically criticize “movement” dogma, starting from the earliest days of racial activism up to today.  This naturally includes what the current crowed sneeringly dismisses as “WN 1.0.” Casual readers may confuse my position with that of Greg Johnson, based on the following misunderstanding.  I assert that the Alt Right – essentially “WN 2.0” – was nothing more than the same old, tired, fossilized dogma of the “movement” – all of the memes originating with “WN 1.0”- dressed up with a veneer of “youth culture.”   Johnson claims that WN 2.0 was corrupted and ruined by the “attitudes” of WN 1.0.  Isn’t that the same thing?  No, it is not.  

First, we have the difference between the dogma, the fundamental beliefs, of a “movement” and what Johnson terms as “attitudes.” These are not the same thing – the former is that of content and the latter is more that of presentation and behavior. Second, even if were to grant that by “attitudes” Johnson was in fact specifically referring to the actual content and dogma of Der Movement, our positions are still fundamentally different, since I assert that WN 2.0 reflected WN 1.0 dogma from the very start, but added to that all of the Millennial juvenile jackassery. Johnson, on the other hand, asserts that WN 2.0 started out well and was later corrupted by WN 1.0. In my case, I suggest that the failure of WN 2.0 was due to its own inherent nature of being nothing more than Pierce/Kemp with Pepe/Kek/Trump added on, while Johnson believes that WN 2.0 was fundamentally sound at its origin and then became ruined by later adopting the worst aspects of WN 1.0.

We can then extend this to Taylor’s assertion that while the young activists of today are wonderful, the activists of the past were, in contrast, weird and undesirable.  My objection to that is not with the characterization of the older activists, but the assertion that the Pepe/Kek/drunken podcasts crowd of today are in some way superior.  I also object in that the “youth” of today are essentially recapitulating the content of the past, so why should they pose as being superior to that past?  Is obsessing over a cartoon frog, screaming “Kek,” or drinking gallons of milk as a racial statement, somehow better than the poses of past “movement” retardates?  No, it is not.  And if the dogma is essentially the same, and if that dogma originated, as Taylor suggests, with the weird and undesirable, what does that imply about the dogma?  Now, we do not want to descend into ad hominem; just because the original promoters of the dogma were in some way socially undesirable does not logically imply that the dogma is wrong.  However, at the very least, it would suggest to us we had better at least subject that dogma to review, to rigorous proofing, to ascertain whether or not it is sound.  Such review is wise even if its originators were socially adept paragons of civic virtue; that its originators were in large part (according to today’s “movement leaders” themselves!) the weird and the botched is even reason to consider that extensive review and revision of the dogma is required.

Thus, the Sallis Groupuscule is opposed to: the Alt Right, Millennial “youth culture” taking over (American) racial activism, mainstreaming, the “Big Tent,” Nordicism, narrow ethnonationalism, traditionalism, fossilized dogma and solipsist fantasies, HBD pseudoscience, race-denial, invented racial histories and sweaty ethnic fetishism; while it is for: pan-Europeanism, empiricism, futurism, vanguardism, science and technics, genuine racial science, authenticity, prudent analysis, and seriousness and long-term planning.  The latter list is the positive aspect of my work, the sort of growth that can occur once the “movement” weeds are uprooted and cleared away.

I would like to point out that an opposition to the aforementioned “isms” and fetishes does not mean that this blog is afraid to document difficult topics concerning intra-European relations.  Nor does it (unlike Der Movement) “play favorites” among European ethnies.  This blog is as critical – if not more so – about “White ethnic” types such as “swarthoids” and “hunkies” as it is about NW European Celto-Germanics.  Everyone is fair game for criticism if that criticism is justified; unlike Der Movement, we do not label ethnies as either Gods or Devils (or “angels” with a destiny, eh?), but instead look at all with a critical eye, the cold eye of hard realism.  Stereotypes exist for a reason; stereotypes contain a kernel of truth, and that maxim applies as much for intra-White comparisons as it does to comparisons between Whites and non-Whites, or between different non-White groups themselves.

Stereotypes can be extended into the past of our race’s history, and analogies can be made to the present day.  Thus, in the Classical civilization, particularly in its later stages, and in the interregnum of the Dark Ages, the stereotype was that of the peoples of the Mediterranean basin being effete and over-civilized, while the Germanic barbarians of the north were healthy and vigorous, albeit loutish. Today, in the Winter of the West, by analogy, it are the Celto-Germanic peoples of NW Europe who are stereotypically effete and over-civilized with their xenophilia and pathological universalist altruism, while the peoples of Eastern Europe now play the role of the more vigorous and healthy barbarian louts.  Southern Europeans of today I suppose are analogous to the peoples of the Near East in the later Classical civilization – decayed and degenerate fellah peoples.

It is not necessary to indulge in Lynnian pseudoscience in order to study real differences between European types, differences that have important functional consequences and significance.

This puts the lie to the mendacious flim-flam of the fundamentally dishonest “Desmond Jones,” who asserted that my commitment to pan-Europeanism means I believe all Europeans are fungible – an outright falsehood, as such sentiments have never been present in any of my work.  However, I do assert that, despite differences, all Europeans should be preserved and promoted, and Europeans as a whole constitute a broad racial-cultural group.  Familial relations do not equate to fungibility; I make no apologies for my militant pan-Europeanism, which also seeks to preserve ethnic and sub-racial differences that exist among the European peoples.

Let’s look through the glass clearly and with plenty of light.  Der Movement, Inc. needs to be utterly destroyed in order for us to show this clarity, this light, to others.  That’s what this blog is all about.