Category: strategy and tactics

Democratic Multiculturalism and Title VI

Title VII and Title IX as well.

See the definitions of these “titles” here at this link.

I have previously written about, and advocated for, Salter’s idea of “Democratic Multiculturalism” – that White majorities should demand a seat at the multicultural table and use the System’s mechanisms of multiculturalism to advocate for White interests. Multiculturalism is defined (as Salter reminded us) as a system in which minorities are empowered and are encouraged to mobilize for their interests, while majorities are disempowered and demobilized. If that is so, then forcing the multicultural system to allow for majority mobilization will, by definition, make that system untenable, destabilize it, and heighten the contradictions, and lead, eventually, to its demise. There is a saying – “if everyone is my brother, then I have no brother.” Likewise, if every group tales advantage of multiculturalism, then there is no multiculturalism.

Always remember Suvorov’s Law of history – revolutions do not typically occur during the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed. That is why it is imperative to put pressure on the System, at its weakest points, to force concessions and force relaxation of the repression.  Exploiting the “titles”- VI, VII, and IX – is an excellent place to start.

I will concentrate on Title VI here, but what is written applies equally well to the others.  All are ripe for exploitation by a properly leveraged attack of Democratic Multiculturalism.

Read this.  That is open anti-White hatred and discrimination at an academic institution that no doubt falls under Title VI (as well as VII and IX).

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. All federal agencies that provide grants of assistance are required to enforce Title VI. The U.S. Department of Education gives grants of financial assistance to schools and colleges and to certain other entities, including vocational rehabilitation programs.

Examples of discrimination covered by Title VI include racial harassment, school segregation, and denial of language services to English learners. A fuller list of Title VI issues OCR addresses appears here. The U.S. Department of Education Title VI regulation (Code of Federal Regulations at 34 CFR 100) is enforced by the Department’s Office for Civil Rights.

The Title VI regulation prohibits retaliation for filing an OCR complaint or for advocacy for a right protected by Title VI. Title VI also prohibits employment discrimination, but the protection against employment discrimination under Title VI is limited. As a result, most complaints OCR receives raising race, color, or national-origin discrimination in employment are referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

A fair and just reading of Title VI clearly shows that White students are being targeted for repression at Western Connecticut State, and a legal case can and should be made that that institution is in violation of Title VI and should have all federal funding and assistance cut.

If an institution attacks Whites to such an extent that they would attempt to expel a student for saying “it is OK to be White” then this can be construed as a Title VI violation against Whites.  One can think of a myriad of other anti-White academic activities that constitute a hostile environment for White students, and for which the institution should be sued under Title VI.  There are lawyers and legal foundations who have in the past taken on academia from a rightist legal standpoint, we need more such persons and foundations, ones even more “vanguard” in their outlook, willing to begin and sustain an unrelenting legal assault on academia on this issue.  It doesn’t matter if, in the short term, such legal actions will meet with defeat.  The actions, and the resulting publicity, will put pressure on the System at a weak point. It will mobilize Whites. It will heighten the contradictions. It should be supplemented with political, social, and economic activism targeting the academic institutions in question. There should be a multi-pronged assault on the issue, continuous and unrelenting.  Why should these institutions get federal aid if they are so openly violating Title VI for Whites?  No more assistance!  No more financial aid for the students of such a racist institution!  The very act of filing these Title VI suits – regardless of the initial outcome – will be a step in the right direction, a step toward majority mobilization as part of Democratic Multiculturalism. The time to start is now.

Again, remember Suvorov’s Law – revolutions do not occur at the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed.

Worse is not always better.  

There are of course mighty obstacles. The System with its legal apparatus has already tried to define anti-White discrimination as “non-discrimination” and thus acceptable. Let us look at this, returning at the end to discuss how all of it can be leveraged against the System. 

Thus, let’s consider what Whites are up against, how “non-discrimination” is utilized to viciously discriminate against Whites, particularly White men – a tactic successful mostly because feckless, cowardly Whites refuse to fight back, refuse to sue, refuse to protest, and refuse to utilize whatever social, political, and economic power they do have to exert force for change.  

Principle 4: Financial Aid To Create Diversity

America is unique because it has forged one Nation from many people of a remarkable number of different backgrounds. 

America is certainly unique.  It is also in terminal decline – and for the reason stated.

Many colleges seek to create on campus an intellectual environment that reflects that diversity. 

Now, how does “different backgrounds” affect the “intellectual environment?’’ Only if that “diversity” leads to diversity of thought and ideas.  But the exact opposite occurs.  As schools become more demographically diverse, intellectual diversity dwindles to nothing – it  is in fact actively suppressed – to reach the real goal of a demographically diverse student body who share exactly the same social and political beliefs.

A college should have substantial discretion to weigh many factors – including race and national origin – in its efforts to attract and retain a student population of many different experiences, opinions, backgrounds, and cultures – provided that the use of race or national origin is consistent with the constitutional standards reflected in Title VI, i.e. , that it is a narrowly tailored means to achieve the goal of a diverse student body.

Who defines “narrowly tailored?” Why is a “diverse student body” desirable?  What about political diversity?

There are several possible options for a college to promote its First Amendment interest in diversity. First a college may, of course, use its financial aid program to promote diversity by considering factors other than race or national origin, such as geographic origin, diverse experiences, or socioeconomic background. Second, a college may consider race or national origin with other factors in awarding financial aid if the aid is necessary to further the college’s interest in diversity. Third, a college may use race or national origin as a condition of eligibility in awarding financial aid if this use is narrowly tailored, or, in other words, if it is necessary to further its interest in diversity and does not unduly restrict access to financial aid for students who do not meet the race based eligibility criteria.

Laugh – “does not unduly restrict access to financial aid for students who do not meet the race-based eligibility criteria.” They can’t get the aid, but, hey, they are not unduly restricted by that. The argument will then be that schools have unlimited financial resources, so there is no zero sum game, which is an outright lie.

Among the considerations that affect a determination of whether awarding race-targeted financial aid is narrowly tailored…

Again, “narrowly tailored”  is never defined.

…to the goal of diversity…

Why is that a goal?  What kinds of diversity?

…are (1) whether race-neutral means of achieving that goal have been or would be ineffective…

Of course they are ineffective, because some groups are less intelligent and less competent than are others.

….(2) whether a less extensive or intrusive use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid as a means of achieving that goal has been or would be ineffective; (3) whether the use of race or national origin is of limited extent and duration and is applied in a flexible manner; (4) whether the institution regularly reexamines its use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid to determine whether it is still necessary to achieve its goal; and (5) whether the effect of the use of race or national origin on students who are not beneficiaries of that use is sufficiently small and diffuse so as not to create an undue burden on their opportunity to receive financial aid.

If any of those criteria were fairly considered from the perspective of Whites having legitimate interests as do all other peoples, then such programs would not pass the Title VI test.

If the use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid is justified under this principle, the college may use funds from any source.

Sure!  Not for you, Whitey!

Principle 5: Private Gifts Restricted by Race or National Origin

Title VI does not prohibit an individual or an organization that is not a recipient of Federal financial assistance from directly giving scholarships or other forms of financial aid to students based on their race or national origin. Title VI simply does not apply.

The provisions of Principles 3 and 4 apply to the use of race-targeted privately donated funds by a college and may justify awarding these funds on the basis of race or national origin if the college is remedying its past discrimination…

Who decides whether there was past discrimination?  Answer – those getting the money and those eager to give out the money.

…pursuant to Principle 3 or attempting to achieve a diverse student body pursuant to Principle 4. In addition, a college may use privately donated funds that are not restricted by their donor on the basis of race or national origin to make awards to disadvantaged students as described in Principle 1.

The students who get aid, and who are also given preferences in admission, are “disadvantaged.”  Those being actively discriminated against are “advantaged” and “privileged.”  Got it!

Finally, the burden on those who are excluded from the benefit conferred by the classification based on race or national origin (i.e., non-minority students) must be considered. 

Laughable. In reality, the only consideration made is that if Whites suffer, that is good.  White suffering is an essential feature of the system in play here.

Id., at 171. A use of race or national origin may impose such a severe burden on particular individuals – for example, eliminating scholarships currently received by non-minority students in order to start a scholarship program for minority students – that it is too intrusive to be considered narrowly tailored. See Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. at 283 (use of race in imposing layoffs involves severe disruption to lives of identifiable individuals). Generally, the less severe and more diffuse the impact on non-minority students, the more likely a classification based on race or national origin will address this factor satisfactorily. However, it is not necessary to show that no student’s opportunity to receive financial aid has been in any way diminished by the use of the race-targeted aid. Rather, the use of race-targeted financial aid must not place an undue burden on students who are not eligible for that aid.

Who defines “undue burden?” That’s right – those in favor of handouts to Coloreds.

A number of commenters argued that race-targeted financial aid is a minimally intrusive method to attain a diverse student body, far more limited in its impact on non-minority students, for example, than race-targeted admissions policies. Under this view, and unlike the admissions plan at issue in Bakke, a race-targeted financial aid award could be a narrowly tailored means of achieving the compelling interest in diversity.

“Compelling interest.”  Laughable.  How come there is no similar “compelling interest” for intellectual and political diversity?” Why is the “compelling interest” only to have a demographically diverse group of students all of who have – or pretend to have – exactly the same sociopolitical views as each other?

The Department agrees that there are important differences between admissions and financial aid. The affirmative action admissions program struck down in Bakke had the effect of excluding applicants from the university on the basis of their race. The use of race-targeted financial aid, on the other hand, does not, in and of itself, dictate that a student would be foreclosed from attending a college solely on the basis of race. 

Sure! After all, if a poor White cannot afford college but is not eligible for race-based financial aid, that doesn’t preclude them from college!  Take out ruinous loans, Whitey!  Rob a bank!  That’s the ticket!  And if a wealthy Negro gets race-based financial aid, why that’s too bad on you, Whitey!  It’s “narrowly tailored” and all!

Moreover, in contrast to the number of admissions slots, the amount of financial aid available to students is not necessarily fixed. 

Sure! Schools have unlimited funds! Or perhaps they would, if they didn’t pay (anti-White) administrators bloated salaries that far surpass that given to the President of the United States.

For example, a college’s receipt of privately donated monies restricted to an underrepresented group might increase the total pool of funds for student aid in a situation in which, absent the ability to impose such a limitation, the donor might not provide any aid at all.

Certainly!  If the money can’t be given to Coloreds, don’t give it at all!  Let Whitey pump gas for a living!  If a wealthy Negro can’t get financial aid, then no one can!

Even in the case of a college’s own funds, a decision to bar the award of race-targeted financial aid will not necessarily translate into increased resources for students from non-targeted groups. Funds for financial aid restricted by race or national origin that are viewed as a recruitment device might be rechanneled into other methods of recruitment if restricted financial aid is barred. In other words, unlike admission to a class with a fixed number of places, the amount of financial aid may increase or decrease based on the functions it is perceived to promote.

Please read the above paragraph very carefully.  What it is saying is this: Even if you were to strike down as unconstitutional giving race-based financial aid, the schools – in their hate-filled animus toward Whites – would not rechannel that money into race-blind financial aid. They would simply invent new programs to skirt the law so as to enable Coloreds, rechanneling the money to Colored pockets, anything to avoid giving Whites a fair chance for a college degree. It’s the same with admissions. “Holistic review” is just a fundamentally dishonest way of enabling racial (and sex) quotas in admissions in an indirect fashion, to comply with the law in a strictly legal manner, but not in spirit. Anything to screw The White Man is acceptable!

In summary, a college can use its financial aid program to promote diversity by considering factors other than race or national origin, such as geographic origin, diverse experiences, or socioeconomic background. 

Right!  So if you come from a predominantly Black city, come from a high school that is 100% Black, are a member of your high school’s Black Student Union, etc., then, by golly, that’s race-blind admissions!  Holistic review!

In addition, a college may take race or national origin into account as one factor, with other factors, in awarding financial aid if necessary to promote diversity. Finally, a college may use race or national origin as a condition of eligibility in awarding financial aid if it is narrowly tailored to promote diversity.

Again: Who defines “narrowly tailored?”  Answer: The school administering the program.  As well as the leftist judges who rule in favor of viciously racist outright discrimination against Whites.

All of that may be disheartening, but let is take a “glass half full” approach. All those negatives mean that there is much to criticize, much to attack, much “low hanging fruit” for concerted legal, social, and, above all, political methods to be employed to leverage these anti-White policies against the System.  Vulnerabilities for the System abound, if only there was a crafty and strategic opponent willing to exploit those vulnerabilities. Consider Title Vi and academia – coupled to the whole affirmative action scam about admissions – all tailor-made to infuriate White students and their families. It is no coincidence that a major focus of “reverse racism” lawsuits have centered on the educational system.  In addition to what Title VI can do, Title VII can bring the focus of anti-White discrimination and hypocrisy to the broader arena, and Title IX can focus on anti-male discrimination and hypocrisy. The three “titles” together constitute a weak point for the System, a chink (sorry, Derbyshire) in the System’s armor.

Salter stated that – from the standpoint of a majority being displaced and replaced – the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does, thus ensuring the relatively painless race replacement of the majority.  However, as stated above, Democratic Multiculturalism is not stable for the System in the long run, as the whole idea of multiculturalism is empowering minorities and disempowering the majority. A concerted effort of the majority to demand fair treatment under multiculturalism, according to its own standards, would destabilize the entire multicultural system and heighten the contradictions. If the System tries to deny Whites relief under the multiculturalist ethos, the contradictions can be heightened to a point of complete System illegitimacy – and although the System can attempt to maintain the repression, there may be a breaking point at which they’ll have to give in.  If they attempt to relieve the pressure by giving in to some White demands, in the hope of appeasing White demands, then Suvorov’s Law comes into play, particularly if there are legitimate White leaders (and not System ringers – always a concern, something we must avoid) who will never be satisfied and will continue upping the demands. Once concessions are made, the floodgates will be opened, and the legitimacy of White interests confirmed. 

Getting back to the idea of the System trying to maintain repression – the reason why Suvorov’s Law has been actualized so many times in history is that repression is difficult to maintain at a high level for long periods of time, particularly when the repressed group is the majority – or at least a plurality – of the population. That’s why it is important to get started with Democratic Multiculturalism now, with Whites still a majority, and the “titles” are a good place to start.  And remember, I am not saying Title VI legal actions alone, but a concerted effort, including Title VII and IX, as well as all other aspects of anti-White discrimination in society, also using political, social, economic, and other forms of protest.  The struggle must be on a wide front, but it needs to start somewhere.  

Hood’s Faith and Purpose

Analyzing Hood’s analysis

Read this. Excerpts, emphasis added:

Considering my long involvement in conservative organizations, I must start by clarifying something. President Ronald Reagan said shocking things about African leaders, even calling them “monkeys.”

Monkey see, monkey do.

Thus, I would like to say that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Reagan conservative. I disavow “mainstream” conservatives and their offensive Reagan cult. After all, it’s important to maintain respectability.

Amusing.

What President Reagan said was very revealing. The federal government pushed integration in the South because it wanted to win newly independent African states to “our side” in the Cold War. In these particular remarks, Ronald Reagan was criticizing African delegates to the UN, who, in his words, were “monkeys” and “still uncomfortable wearing shoes.” They had voted to recognize Communist China and expel Taiwan from the UN, thus incurring Reagan’s wrath.

That’s the same Reagan who agreed to the MLK holiday and didn’t get rid of affirmative action at the federal level. Note that Reagan wasn’t wrathful about anti-White Black crime, but about voting about Taiwan. All Asia all the time.  Was Reagan a HBDer?

The federal government enforced integration at bayonet-point to win Third World allies. Freedom of association, property rights, and many Southern cities were destroyed — and we didn’t even get any allies.

Rewrite:

The race realists enforced HBD yellow supremacy at meme-point to win Asian allies. Freedom of association, property rights, and many White cities were destroyed — and we didn’t even get any Arctic allies.

Back to Hood:

In this recently revealed conversation, Ronald Reagan was talking to Richard Nixon. Jared Taylor always objects if I attribute motives to other people in my writing. 

Why?

Yet based on Richard Nixon’s recorded conversations over the years, I can safely say the President had politically incorrect views on many subjects. However, Richard Nixon also imposed anti-white racial discrimination, i.e. affirmative action, on the United States.

Nixon – one of the original “man on white horse” heroes.

Nixon’s personal views were far more extreme than my own. In one notorious conversation, he bemoaned the state of American culture with the well-known evangelist Billy Graham. Graham could fill stadiums around the country. The President of the United States and America’s most famous and influential Christian leader blamed cultural collapse on Jews. Yet these two immensely powerful men both agreed there was nothing they could do about it. In fact, they agreed they couldn’t even talk about it.

Bunker Syndrome – plenty of bigoted talk, but no action.

Forget the specific claim. 

It’s Amren after all.

What does this story tell us? It shows that ideology and education aren’t enough. “Red-pilling” people doesn’t necessarily lead to action. Just because somebody “knows” something, it doesn’t follow that he will do anything about it. Worse, sometimes somebody “knows” something but acts like he doesn’t. Cowardice, self-interest, and political gain are often more powerful than conviction.

That’s why metapolitics without practical politics is a dead end. Politics without metapolitics is a dead end as well. You need both the theory as well as the will and ability to actualize that theory into reality.

Many Republicans know demography is destiny for the GOP. They know how this movie will end.

After all, they wrote the script.

Look at their actions. Most oppose giving felons the right to vote. Most support Voter ID laws. These have the effect of reducing the Democrat vote.

Yes, look at their actions. Supporting mass immigration for cheap labor, opposing abortion of Negro fetuses, opposing White nationalism – these have the effect of increasing the Democrat vote.

What are elections anyway? They’re demographic contests. Each side tries to assemble the largest coalition. You increase the turnout of groups that support you and suppress opponent turnout. During campaigns and on Election Day, everyone believes in identity politics. Bill Kristol recently admitted, “We’re running a census every two years as much as an election.”

Many years ago, I was discussing my views with a well-connected Republican. “You know, I agree with you about the way this is going to turn out because of immigration,” he told me. “I’m a short-term optimist and a long-term pessimist.” He shrugged, as if to say, “There’s nothing we can do about it.”

A self-fulfilling prophecy.

They know, but they think demographic change won’t hurt their own careers. They may think they don’t have the moral right to oppose demographic change. What happens to the country in the long run is not their concern.

My friends often joke about my pessimism. However, that pessimism is short-term. I’m a long-term optimist.

We are going to win. 

You do not know that, and cannot know that.

We must have faith. It must be something completely unquestioned. It must be something as self-evident as your love for your children. It can never be subject to doubt. That’s the spirit required if we are going to get anywhere.

The problem is that being overly optimistic is just as destructive as being too pessimistic and giving up in despair. If you are so unquestionably convinced you will win – on blind faith – then why bother making sacrifices?  It’ll all work out!  Just have faith!

Yet we know “education” won’t lead to victory. Education, after all, is just a means. What is the end? What are the intermediate goals that we have for this movement?

Promoting yellow supremacism? Being front men for Jewish interests? Spewing HBD pseudoscientific lies?

One is that we must be an independent political force. Whether you want to call us white advocates, the Dissident Right, nationalists, whatever, we are not a political force right now. One proof of that is that we can’t even agree on what to call ourselves.

There was a time when we could. 

Absolute, raging bullshit.  Here comes the WN 2.0 gaslighting.

In 2015, the “Alt-Right,” a label even people like Mike Cernovich and Steven Crowder were claiming, was an independent political force. Donald Trump, an insurgent candidate opposed by the conservative movement and the Republican Establishment, was our vehicle.

This is the problem, Hood. All you “jump on the Alt Right bandwagon” guys completely ignored dissident voices like mine warning that the Alt Right would end badly and that we should not tie White nationalism to the Alt Right (as Johnson promoted). Now, guys like Hood engage in lying gaslighting, pretending that everyone on the Far Right was on the Alt Right train back then.  An absolute lie, and very convenient for avoiding accountability, eh?  Also – some of us were calling Trump a vulgar, ignorant buffoon; he was not my “vehicle,” liar.

What happened? By winning, we lost.

“We” didn’t win.  Trump won.  If Trump is, and was, a fraud then he is not, and never was, “we.”

President Trump was co-opted. When he became the incumbent rather than our wrecking ball, we were left in the cold.

He co-opted himself.

Steve Bannon said the Trump Administration’s “original sin” was embracing the Republican Establishment he had just defeated. President Trump has suffered from leakers, traitors, and saboteurs ever since. Ultimately, that’s his own fault, because personnel is policy. 

No kidding.

The Alt-Right’s response was to assert its independence by occupying space. That was what led to Charlottesville, something we can’t avoid talking about. “Unite the Right” backfired massively. I’m not scapegoating organizers. An independent review clearly proved that city and state officials wanted, and got, violence.

The organizers should have anticipated that.

Perhaps that demonstration was a chance worth taking. However, if it was a gamble, it was a gamble the Alt-Right lost.

And where is the accountability for that?  The Quota Queens just go on blithely forward.

Where does this leave white advocates today? When you are marginal, it’s difficult not be co-opted because of the desire for “mainstream” relevance.

Some believe we should align with Democrats such Andrew Yang or Tulsi Gabbard. 

Idiots like Spencer and Duke.

In truth, I support some of their policies. 

Reparations for Negroes?

Perhaps it is worth promoting these policies online.

Sure, go ahead. Waste your time.

However, it won’t be like the Trump campaign in 2016; you won’t be let into their rallies and you won’t find much support among their backers.

Because those candidates are anti-White, as are most of their backers.

There was a brief time when many supported Andrew Yang and tried to meme neon pink hats as a symbol of his campaign. The campaign, of course, disavowed it and that was that.

Gee…and who was it who said – from the very start – that this support of Yang was a bad idea and would end badly? Ted Sallis. But, hey, keep on following your affirmative action leadership.  Endless failure is very attractive, right?

Though I hate to say it, I think we are stuck with the GOP simply because that’s where our potential constituents are.

Perhaps – but quality, sane third parties have never been tried on the Far Right.

Studies indicate massive political polarization. Internal disagreements within the parties are disappearing. Members of both parties have a “racialized” view of the opposition. In one study, the authors found that race was the best predictor of attachment or hostility to a party. “Racial animosity, perhaps more than any other identity cleavage, has defined and structured American politics,” it concluded. Racial polarization mirrors partisan polarization.

How do we reach the GOP constituency? Frankly, with whatever ideas that work. Reaching the constituency is the important part.

American political parties, unlike European parties, are very “loose” ideologically. The platform is irrelevant. The GOP, in and of itself, doesn’t support or oppose anything. This is also why trying to “take over” random party positions isn’t very rewarding. The candidates are what matter. The party shifts according to what those candidates believe.

If that is true, then the imperative is to have explicitly pro-White candidates involved in politics, as I have been writing here for years.

We see this happening today. Within the past few years, President Trump has managed completely to reverse the position of Republican voters (if not Republican elected officials) on issues such as free trade and tariffs. Personality matters more than platform.

Yes, but, contra Johnson, if the Trump personality was pushing a Jeb Bush platform, he would have gotten nowhere. Both matter.

It’s going to take new candidates to change the political landscape. They will probably be people we don’t know about.

Certainly none of the comically inept “leaders” of Der Movement.

In 2013, “President Donald Trump” was a television punchline. Now it’s reality. Already, liberal pundits are fretting about a more competent version of President Trump coming along, someone who will deliver on the economic and national populism Trump hinted at.

Ultimately, that’s not under our control. There’s a more important issue than partisan politics. Our limited resources, time, and energy should be focused on building sustainable networks off-line, in the real world. Our primary challenge is economic.

No, the primary challenge is the failure of “leadership”- and that failure ultimately derives from the “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action policy.

It used to be that our ideas were very hard to find. Now you can find them easily, even with deplatforming and demonetization.

It used to be that you paid a terrible social cost when you were associated with these ideas. That’s still true to some extent. 

Some?

However, I’ve found if you’re involved with this, you have more friends than “normal” people do, whose most meaningful relationship is either with Netflix or boxed wine. A recent survey found one in five millennials say they have no friends at all, with more than one in four saying they have no close friends. Among ourselves, if you get sick, if you get married, if you have a child, there’s a whole community that cares.

Laughable.  Der Movement is full of feuding lunatics who spend a significant amount of time attacking each other.

What’s holding us back is just money.

That’s absolute nonsense, a pure lie.  Der Movement has always had money.  Sure, that money is only a tiny fraction of what the opposition has. But it still exists, and the fact that the “movement” has squandered millions of dollars, producing nothing but endless failure, strongly suggests that if the “movement” did have more money then the affirmative action “leadership” would simply squander that as well.  You would just get more of this.

Hood’s argument is actually internally self-contradictory. If what is holding us back is just money, then that implies that we have everything else we need – including competent, imaginative, and strategic-minded leadership. But if we has such leadership, then they would have already built up sufficient infrastructure that would have enabled us to have the extra money we need. The millions of dollars I alluded to above could have been used to build the infrastructure that would have led to the sort of really big money Hood wishes us to have. Instead we have pictures of Brimelow and Derbyshire sitting on lawn chairs.

Media have the power to isolate and target individual activists so they will be fired. You can perhaps get another job, but that sword is always hanging over your head. That’s the main problem. If we can get past that problem, we will advance very quickly.

I’ve been saying for years that we need to defeat social pricing.  Good to see that Hood is just realizing that now.  Better late than never.  He should be asking why the Quota Queens haven’t made any effective attempt to deal with the situation.

It’s horrible, but “doxing” is forcing us to built networks and institutions that didn’t exist before. Maybe it must happen this way. There was no other way than the hard way.

Absolute nonsense.  Nothing stopped the “movement” from building these “networks and institutions” years ago, decades ago, as some of us were urging, such as what I said to Griffin in my interview with him.  Endless years, endless decades, completely wasted.

There are models to follow. Some groups are already providing jobs and resources to one another, becoming “anti-fragile.” Look at how Mormons work together. They have a network that operates for the financial well-being of everyone in the group.

Look at the Left. Worker-owned enterprises, syndicalism, the early unions, communes — these are all things we can learn from.

What I said to Griffin long ago:

The Nation of Islam may be an example of the kind of thing I’m talking about. It was founded in the 1930s, but it wasn’t until the early 1960s that most white Americans ever heard about the Black Muslims. They spent decades building a base of support in the black community by helping black people with whatever they were doing in their community. So when they started becoming vocal and white people in the early 1960s started saying, “Hey, these people are a problem, what are we going to do?” it was already too late. The Black Muslims were already firmly established and had become an integral part of black society. In a similar way, a white nationalist movement has to grow like a plant, with its roots firmly in the soil.

But I was, of course, ignored. I didn’t have the right “credentials,” so to speak, you know, what Spencer and Johnson have.

Of course, one obstacle is that we are spread out all over the country. You probably have comrades closer to you than you think, but you can’t openly organize because the media will target overt activists. Geographic concentration is necessary. The problem is that everyone thinks where he lives now is the perfect place for everyone else to go. Where we should gather is a debate we’ll need to have.

Need to have?  Future tense? For godssakes, this has already been debated for decades. All these Johnny-come-lately Alt Righters believe, with their solipsism, that the “movement” came into existence the moment they became “red-pilled.” How much effort was spent debating about the “Northwest Imperative,” over the years, for example?

We need to discuss these questions because what’s coming is occupation. We already live under occupation, but it will be more visible and physical in the years ahead. I’m not optimistic about President Trump’s re-election prospects. Whatever happens, he’ll be out eventually, and Texas, Florida, and Georgia will flip because of demography, and then national politics will essentially be over.

And why didn’t Der Movement take advantage of the demographic situation that existed up until that point?

At that point, our opponents will circumvent the First Amendment. Certain speech will be called “ethnic intimidation,” not deserving of legal protection. The most violent and threatening language towards whites will still be allowed. People won’t be afraid just to act or demonstrate; they’ll be afraid to speak or write.

Blame the Quota Queens for that, for wasting untold time and untold opportunities. Hood really should be speaking out against the “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action program, but that’s apparently a bridge too far.

How do we survive as a people? Too many are still in that 2016 mindset where we debate mass politics.

What we need to discuss now:

How do we ensure physical safety?

How do we earn a living?

How do we support the activists and platforms we still have, especially if we can’t use payment processors?

How do you ensure that when the journalists come for you and your family, you will have support?

We need to figure this out.

I agree 100%. I’ve been saying this for years. Even my interview with Griffin, so many years ago, touched on these practical matters:

I think the challenge is to heighten whites’ racial awareness—especially the sane, honest, hardworking, law-abiding whites—and convince them to form voluntary, private organizations in their own communities. These organizations would exist to do practical things. The problem now is you have racialist organizations and they say, “Join up and send us your membership dues,” and you get a little membership card and a newsletter once a month. But the members stay isolated and everything stays divorced from reality. We need racial nationalist organizations that help children with homework, and help old and infirmed people, and that clean up neighborhoods, and where everybody stands together when some outside force tries to push them around. Maybe these organizations could have youth auxiliaries.

As it is now, we have white people thinking, “What am I going to do? I have got to send my children to the local school and it’s full of minorities and they are going to be taught all sorts of nonsense and they are going to get attacked, and my neighborhood is deteriorating, and my life is going to hell.” An activist comes up to them and says, “Let’s go protest against the United States’ foreign policy in the Middle East.” That’s great, our foreign policy in the Middle East should be protested, but there is still the question of what is going to be done to help the person scratching his head trying to figure out what he is going to do about what is happening in his life. At a very basic level we have to protect ourselves physically.

Back to Hood: 

It’s been said good generals study tactics, great generals study logistics. All our conversations need to be about logistics. There’s work to be done in terms of ideology. 

You had better believe it.

However, if we don’t figure out the supply questions, none of it matters anyway.

I agree 100%.  The greatest ideology in the world will get you nowhere if your opposition can completely suppress expression of that ideology.

If James Fields had taken a left instead of a right two years ago, we’d be in a different world. Things can break for want of a nail. 

Also for want of real, merit-based leadership.

Instead of trying to predict what’s going to happen, we need to have people capable of acting when opportunities arise. People talk about an economic crisis, a military conflict with Russia or China, some unforeseen political development. It could be all or none of these things. We can’t predict what kind of crisis is going to come. We just know that one will.

I do think something is going to happen. The political system can’t contain the tensions that are building up. Many Americans speak openly about civil war. I think that’s extreme, but there are some parallels.

Before our first Civil War, it was the Southerners who were the nationalists. They were the ones who were the most expansionist, most patriotic, most warlike. John Calhoun was a nationalist when he started out in politics, while New England flirted with secession during the War of 1812.

However, control of the political system “switched.” The people who thought of themselves as being in control, who thought of themselves as being the real America, realized they were politically powerless. They headed for the doors.

If Hood really understood the dynamics of revolutionary change, he would be talking about Suvorov’s Law here.  But, alas, it is only at EGI Notes that you’ll hear about that.

What does American nationalism really stand for? Clearly, it stands for something. The Left sure hates it. Clearly, most white people still believe in America. We must articulate what Americanism really means in a more developed way.

It means nothing any more.  

This brings us to the most important question. What exactly are we doing here? In recent weeks, journalists and antifa have doxed people and cost them jobs and careers. We’re called evil, terrorists, or Russian agents. It’s a tough life, but this is the business we have chosen. 

To some extent, we are forced into this. You can’t simply hide and hope “they” don’t get you. Ask the students from Covington Catholic. Every week, it seems some poor unfortunate becomes the “Nazi of the week” after he is caught in a manufactured controversy. Racial consciousness can help you avoid these situations because you see them coming a mile away and can sidestep them.

Yet white advocates unquestionably lead a difficult life.

Especially after the Quota Queens squandered fortunes and decades in order to live off of “D’Nations” while accomplishing absolute nothing of value.  The only infrastructure built by them are Brimelow’s lawn chairs. So, yes, “white advocates” (stupid term) lead difficult lives.

I’ve read the journalists and sociologists who claim what animates us is the search for “meaning.” That’s like saying people are immigrating to America for a “better life.” 

Or John Morgan invading and occupying Hungary for a “better life.”

Has anyone ever done something to get a worse life? Of course we’re searching for meaning. So is everyone else. It’s a human universal.

The question is what meaning, what purpose?

Some may say the memory of our ancestors and the future of our descendants. I’d say it’s something even bigger. Journalists and academics have made “whiteness” into a social construct. They’re projecting onto us their own actions.

What is whiteness? Think of the protests when Apollo 11 launched. Black leaders said we shouldn’t be going to the moon while there was still poverty in America. Think of the anarchists who say beauty standards are fascist. Human achievement, greatness, beauty — all of these things are associated with “whiteness.” This is why so many non-whites celebrated when Notre Dame burned.

Racial envy.

I do think of our people as the torchbearers of the human spirit, the Faustian civilization, people who carry something essential that nobody else does. We carry light into the darkness, even into outer space. “People of light” seems appropriate.

Hood apparently hasn’t been to a local Walmart recently. “People of light!” “Destiny of angels!”  Four hundred pound land whales on motorized scooters – the torchbearers of the human spirit!

For me, I do this because it’s the way I justify being alive. If I didn’t do this, there would be no reason for me to exist. We’re people of light. This is our purpose and our faith is expressed through loyalty to each other.

Loyalty to each other should start with loyalty to fellow activists.  Good luck with that.

If Hood is unable to understand the real underlying problems with the “movement” and/or is unwilling to discuss them, then he is part of the problem.

Recent Type I Fiasco

Type Is on the march.

Type I “movement” activism.  Emphasis added:

The white supremacist arrested last week for allegedly plotting to bomb a historic Colorado synagogue has been actively associating with other known extremists and espousing anti-Semitic and racist ideology on social media for years, according to the Anti-Defamation League. 

Youth culture! WN 2.0!

Richard Holzer, 27, was arrested on Friday night on federal hate crime charges after meeting with undercover FBI agents to pick up what federal authorities described as “inert explosive devices that had been fabricated by the FBI, including two pipe bombs and 14 sticks of dynamite.”

According to the charge against him, he planned to use the devices to blow up the Temple Emanuel synagogue in Pueblo, Colo., which is on the National Register of Historic Places.

Type I in a nutshell…emphasis on the word “nut.”

At a press conference Monday, Dean Phillips, FBI Denver special agent in charge, told reporters that Holzer first came onto the FBI’s radar in late September thanks to a tip alerting it to online comments “indicating a possible threat to the community.” 

An infiltrator?

But the ADL’s Center on Extremism says it has been tracking Holzer’s activities since 2016, and “has shared information with law enforcement on several occasions (unrelated with this case), citing concerns he might be dangerous.”

Great to know we have an ethnic-based private domestic Gestapo in America.

As far as the organization can determine, until last week Holzer’s extremism mostly took the form of online posts and participation in white supremacist events. His major act of anti-Semitism consisted of “urinating on a synagogue in Thousand Oaks, Calif.,” which he allegedly videotaped and posted to Facebook.

Come now!  How can dastardly Boomers hope to compete with these acts of intellectual ferment coming from the Millennials?

He frequently posted online about killing his enemies,” reads a report published to the ADL’s website Tuesday detailing some of Holzer’s activities both online and off that raised concern in the years leading up to his arrest last week. 

But wasn’t banned?  Why is that?

According to the ADL, Holzer posted several photos and videos of himself on Facebook “wearing black military-styled fatigues adorned with a mixture of Klan and neo-Nazi pins and patches.

Did he have swastika-soled boots?  Did he dance through cemeteries?

In June 2017, ADL researchers spotted Holzer in several images from a “March Against Sharia” rally in Denver. Photos from the event show Holzer dressed in a black “white power” shirt and marching alongside the associates of the now disbanded neo-Nazi group the Traditionalist Worker Party. 

WN 2.0 marches on!

The report published Tuesday contains photos obtained by the ADL from Holzer’s many alleged Facebook accounts, including one in which he is holding the flag of the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement, alongside the caption: “age 17 and an NSM prospect.”

In another photo, Holzer is seen with Jacob Laskey, a prominent white supremacist who spent 11 years in prison for throwing stones engraved with swastikas through the windows of a synagogue in Eugene, Ore., during religious services in 2002. 

Millennial activism!  How can WN 1.0 compare with such contributions of high intellectual and academic attainment?  WN 2.0 scholarly activities to be sure!

It was through one of these Facebook accounts that the FBI initially made contact with Holzer, on Sept. 28, 2019, through an online covert FBI employee posing as a white woman

And the thirsty beta male took the sexual bait.  

…sympathetic to white supremacist views. According to the affidavit, Holzer described himself as a skinhead in Facebook messages to the covert FBI employee and proceeded to send several photos of himself wearing clothing with white nationalist and Nazi symbols and carrying various weapons, including firearms, a machete and a knife. 

Is this guy the purest manifestation of Type I-ism or what?  Did he read March of the Titans as well?

He also “sent a video of himself urinating on the front door of what appears to be a Jewish center,” a scene similar to the one described by the ADL. 

Drinking all that Viking mead fills the bladder.

At a House Homeland Security Committee hearing last week, federal law enforcement and Homeland Security officials, including FBI Director Christopher Wray, described domestic terrorism, particularly racially and ethnically motivated violence committed by white supremacist extremists, as one of the most significant growing threats to national security. 

Let’s thank all the Type Is for supporting this dishonest System narrative. What we would do without all our Type I brothers?  Who knows?  Maybe make progress and win?

We can blame three entities for this fiasco:

First, Holzer himself. I was that age once, and did not do such things. There are many activists of his age today who do not fall for such obvious traps, and who do not plan, or engage in, violence.  Activists are told, constantly, NOT to engage in violence and to beware of infiltrators and agent provocateurs.  So, a large amount of the blame falls on Holzer.

Second, Der Movement is at fault – but NOT in the sense that the Left/System would claim. It is NOT that a dire international band of dangerous “White supremacists” are stirring up trouble. It’s not a dangerous “Far Right conspiracy.” It is actually the precise opposite of that.  It is precisely because Der Movement and its inept affirmative action “leadership” is such a pathetic joke, is so hopeless, that well-meaning but stupid people become frustrated, full of despair, with no confidence that progress can be made non-violently, and so they violently lash out. 

What?  What does Der Movement have to offer as hope?  “Leaders” who are retarded grifters? Folks who ask for “D’Nations” so they can repeatedly travel to Europe and be prevented from attending the meetings they were supposed to speak at?  What?  Lunatics screeching like deranged banshees, with every other word being “fuck” or “fucking?”  People who hold meetings in which the lead speaker, talking on the topic of “the dangers of infiltration,” is himself an infiltrator? That the person “helping” with the “extreme vetting” is an infiltrator who got in merely because he passed the “are you Swedish?” test?  What?  A constant litany of defeat, despair, and humiliation?  Homosexual sexual harassment at meetings? Accusations of drug use and alcoholism? What? Decade after decade of constant failure?  Endorsements of Princess Tulsi Coconut and Andy Eggroll?  Still thinking the fraud Trump is a “sincere man of genuine greatness?”  What?  HBD that worships Jews and Asians and that props up as a nicely reimbursed “movement spokesman” a man who is not only married to a Chinatrix and has mixed-race children, but who openly promotes miscegenation and who publicly asked why child porn should be illegal?  What?  Hundreds of thousands of dollars going to a shaggy-haired grinning moppet who basically does nothing but edit a website?  Oh yes, victory is nigh!

Third, the System is to blame.  By preventing the Far Right from having fair and free access to participation in the political process, by making peaceful change almost impossible, they PROMOTE the same violence they pretend they are trying to prevent. The System combined with Der Movement cuts off options to people.  The System then engages in “set-ups” constituting obvious entrapment.   Meanwhile, the border is porous and the streets of America run red with the blood spilled from Colored crime.  But let’s entrap some hopeless retardate who previous offenses centered around an obsession with micturation.  Donald Trump’s America!  MAGA!  Pepe!  Kek!

And don’t forget to send in those “D’Nations.”  Remember, those who give live in the golden age today!  Better that than the age of Yogi Bear and The Men Who Can’t Tell Time.

Scandza Fiasco

Surprise! 

Greg Johnson arrested in Norway, re: the Scandza conference. Despite my differences with Greg Johnson, obviously I oppose this and denounce it in the strongest terms possible. I do not want my ideological opponents silenced and censored; instead I want to engage them (something Johnson should consider with respect to his “banning” of people from his blog – what goes around comes around, I suppose).

The optimal thing from my perspective would be for Johnson to speak and for the transcript of the talk to be published at Counter-Currents, after which I can perform a thorough fisking of it.  One hopes that Johnson will publish the text of what he was going to say when he gets back. Since the conference was, I believe, promoting the anti-White, pro-Jewish, treasonous, yellow supremacist HBD cult, no doubt there would be plenty to criticize. Again, even though I consider the conference to have been a genocidal attack against White interests, we should respect free speech and let the yellow supremacists speak. Let them expose themselves, after which they can be criticized.

Thus, the action of the Norwegian authorities is despicable, and EGI Notes supports, 100%, Johnson’s right to attend and speak at Scandza, despite that I expect I would disagree with what he would say.  But that’s what free speech is all about, and if EGI Notes supports free speech, it has to be for everyone…even Johnson.

Perhaps at this point Johnson will realize that I (and Hood) are correct and that metapolitics without politics is a dead end.  Let us assume for the moment (and I know that this is a stretch) that Johnson’s speech would have been unvarnished truth, something of the highest utility.  It doesn’t matter. The System in Norway has the monopoly of force and there is no one there, no real opposition with any political power whatsoever, who is able to effectively intervene on his behalf.

Metapolitics and politics must be synergistic.  You have to have both. The metapolitics assists in the success in the political realm, and success in the political realm creates the environment in which metapolitical work can be more effective. The cycle has to begin at some point however, and gibbering about Yogi Bear and the Men Who Can’t Tell Time is not the way to do it.

What would be a better way?

At the moment, we are therefore looking at the possibility of taking legal action against Filter Nyheter.

Actually, that is something I would actually support all you guys giving “D’Nations” for – the only thing in fact.  That is at least practical political action, politics in its broadest sense as activity in relation to power.  Filter Nyheter engaged in politics in getting Johnson barred from the conference, arrested, and presumably deported.  Johnson should therefore engage in politics in taking action against Filter Nyheter.  That’s politics.  If Filter Nyheter merely criticized Johnson’s views, and, for example, challenged him to a debate, that would be metapolitics; on the other hand, utilizing the power of the state to silence Johnson is politics.  A response of legal action would also be politics.  Truth and facts are insufficient if the other side is willing, and able, to use force to silence that truth and censor those facts.

See this.

Scandza triple vets its attendees…

1. Are you Nordic?

2. Are you Swedish?

3. Are you Northwest European?

Extra bonus question: Can you fog a mirror held up to your nose?

Seriously though, something is wrong there.  The “triple vetting” is a failure or you got a mole or Antifa is so entrenched in society that they have the venue or other third party actors tipping them off.  The first two probabilities are more likely.

…to ensure that the venue is kept confidential but both in Copenhagen and in Oslo, the word appears to have got out.

You think?

As I have recently written, there is a time-honored method for identifying leaks.  It’s no secret. There’s a Wikipedia page on the method.  I’m sure all you big-brained societal consensus guys can figure it out. Unless some of those guys themselves are also infiltrators – how high up is the rot?  Start reading or watching (the miniseries not the move) Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy.  Either the “triple vetting” is majestically flawed or you got a mole, guys. Or both.

SINCERITY.net
I did not feel safe to enter the Copenhagen Scandza meeting. I could have gotten a police escort to get in. I was, though, concerned about how to get back out of the conference, and about being recognized, photographed, and targeted. Antifa is known to beat up people on their way back home, on railway stations etc. I lost time and expenses of a 3 day trip to Copenhagen, plus conference fees, without joining. I can imagine that Oslo could become worse.
It is shocking that Antifa is organized enough to get their spies among the highly vetted people and arrive in force before the actually invited people can make it. In spite of precautions like secret service spy meeting, with several intermediate stops and last moment further email messages.
If there are reports and videos out from last meeting, please send me the info here. We are also mirroring Colin Flaherty videos to vk DOT com/colinflaherty and to bitchute. We hope Scandza also will not put all their stakes into youtube.

Note: “It is shocking that Antifa is organized enough to get their spies among the highly vetted people and arrive in force before the actually invited people can make it.”

Note how the Left infiltrates the Far Right with ease…the “extreme triple vetting” means nothing – it is as if there is no vetting at all. This tells me that A) the vetting is flawed (from the analog and/or digital perspective) and/or B) the infiltration goes way up the ladder, perhaps including people doing the vetting and organizing. There are leaks somewhere, there is an error in the operational security somewhere.  I would suggest that dealing with this is the first priority.  Also note that the Right is not only helpless in preventing its own infiltration, but is helpless when it comes to infiltrating the Left (a seeming impossibility for the Right to achieve).  Further note that Frodi’s assurances that the Copenhagen fiasco was a special case because a Danish political figure was invited, and that we should not assume Antifa would show the same interest elsewhere, seems to be, not surprisingly, completely wrong.

Accountability?  Or are we so used to these guys being wrong all the time – always, always wrong, about virtually everything – that we just give it a pass?

Incel Rebellion

Reaching out to the disenfranchised.

Extending from “movement” discussion about the woman problem, I note this comment:

I have no problem with “losers in their mama’s basement” being in our movement. These are the white people who, in addition to whatever faults they might or might not have, have been systematically discriminated against as whites (particularly as white males) and systematically demoralized and even made mentally ill by the sick anti-white indoctrination that they have received from the schools and the media.

If we can’t embrace and help these people — welcoming them while recognizing that the abuse they have suffered will have affected their personalities and character, then what are we here for? I know what I’m here for — to defend myself and my fellow white people, especially my fellow white males who have suffered the double whammy of being demonized and discriminated against both as whites and as males.

I agree. That contrasts to “movement leaders” such as Spencer and their constant ridicule against incels and other disenfranchised White men.  

It is absolutely mind-boggling that “movement leaders” publicly and aggressively mock, ridicule, and attack their followers and, more importantly, potential followers as “incels,” and “manlets” and other System-approved insults against disenfranchised White men. This can be called, for want of a better term, “Chad posturing,” failed “movement leaders” engaging in high school-level “throw the nerds in the locker” ego-stroking chest-beating to the detriment of the well-being of racial activism.

The idea that all “incels” – never mind the MGTOWs (many of whom actually have voluntarily given up on women, contrary to those who claim MGTOWs are simply incels in denial) – are pimply-faced losers hiding in their parents’ basements, and hence worthy of being rejected from racial activism, is just System propaganda.  Now, of course, some of them are just such people, but not all, and, likely, not most. I believe that most incels are simply (White) beta males who are shut out of the sexual marketplace by female hypergamy, crazed feminism, and the racial-sexual caste system that places White men at the bottom of hierarchy (and the anti-incel “movement leaders” thus tacitly support this anti-White hierarchy). Instead of embracing these White men, instead of calling them brothers and welcoming them into the fold of pro-White activism, our gaggle of “leaders” reject them and force them into an unnatural aracial alliance with non-White incels (mostly Asians). The self-defeating stupidity of this is breathtaking (but not surprising).

The “movement” surprisingly had the correct “take” on the Sky King episode, but they are unable to realize that for every person who indulges in a romantic gesture of defiant self-destruction, there are literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of similar individuals who haven’t quite reached that point yet, and who are excellent human material for a dissident movement.  Instead of enthusiastically reaching out to this mass, and selecting from it the best quality recruits, the “movement” scorns them.  After all, we can’t all be as successful as the Prince of Pilleater and the King of Charlottesville now, can we?  If these “leaders” believe they need to eschew incels because they don’t want their “movement” tainted by “losers” then they have the entire situation backwards. The incels instead would be justified eschewing a pathetic “movement” that is defined by constant failure.


And I would like to point out that mainstream conservatives – and, yes, that means Bannon too – contemptuously attempt to use incels in an instrumental manner,  And then we have that estrogen-enriched effeminate freak Wylie pontificating publicly about it. The incels get it from all sides. Disenfranchised by society.  Hated by the Left.  Targeted by the Matriarchy. Exploited by conservatives.  Mocked and ridiculed by the Chad Right.

As a side note, I won’t even go into detail about the utter stupidity of the “manlet” slur, as if height is some sort of relevant criteria for a man to be a successful and competent activist. Richard “wrecked the Alt Right” Spencer and Greg “strangely obsessed with the height of Tom Cruise” Johnson are perfect examples of this. They can mock “manlets” all they want, but they can’t escape the taint of their own constant comic ineptness and unremitting failure.

Getting back to incels and related individuals, I define the group in question, the group in its broadest dimensions, as Incels-MGTOW-Men’s Rights-Manosphere: IMMM. These IMMMers – and here I specifically refer to White men only – can be a potent force. Dissident movements often have recruited among the socially disenfranchised, but the point is to select the best among those. Of the many White IMMMers there are large numbers who are quality individuals, and of those, there may be thousands, maybe tens of thousands, who have the potential to be high-tier activists. The National Socialists recruited their Brownshirts from among the disenfranchised.  Given the ascetic nature of the Legionaries of Romania, there were no doubt proto-incels and proto-MGTOWs among them. These were not “losers.”  They were political solders, or a caliber much greater than the sniggering Beavis-and-Butthead “Chads” and grifters who prance and preen on the “movement” stage with their attitude of superiority over those less well off (but who ask for “D’Nations” from them). We may have among the current IMMMers similar people of quality as the Legionaries, solid human material for pro-White racial activism. Thus, we observe yet another opportunity being recklessly squandered by the incompetent Quota Queens lifted to positions of leadership by the “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action policy.

I will give advice of “dos and don’ts” to IMMMers, starting with the “don’ts”. Don’t give in to despair. Don’t engage in acts of violence, lashing out, which does nothing but empower female victimology as well as destroy your own life, while practically accomplishing nothing and actually damaging the cause you profess to believe in.  Don’t make common cause with racially alien men, whose presence in your country plays an important role in your own dispossession and disenfranchisement, and who are given advantages by the System over you. And don’t believe that White racial activism is completely defined by the Chads, freaks, queers, and grifters who mock you and your plight, or who ignore you in favor of the Matriarchy.

Do become as successful as you can in your life.  Yes, the deck is stacked against you, but you still have room to maneuver, you can still rise in the face of your oppression, and your success will be an extended middle finger to the System, the Yeastbuckets, and the mocking Chads.  Do become racially conscious, embracing a militantly revolutionary pan-European nationalism.  Do get involved in politics, broadly defined, make your voice heard, infiltrate the System, vote, run for office, start blogs, network, and get out into the world and make an impact to defend your interests and those of your kind. Do support revolutionary voices who speak out in defense of disenfranchised White men, such as the Ted Sallis/EGI Notes/Western Destiny groupuscule. Do send the link to this post around like-minded colleagues, spread the word about this blog and what it stands for. Create your own groupuscules…JUST DO.

It is time to make your voices heard.  It is time to stand up like men and make your impact on society, in a manner that will have lasting effect, not by some infantile acting out. It’s time to get out of the shadows and into the light, into the arena, into the fray of politics, broadly defined, as well as metapolitics. It is time for defiance, a time to make a stand.  It is time for the Incel Rebellion to demonstrate to an uncaring society, to the sneering of the SJW Left and the mocking of the Beavis-and-Butthead Right, that you will no longer be ignored, that you are a force that must be accommodated. Review the Dos and Don’t’s and do the former and don’t do the latter.  And help spread the word about those who support you, such as this blog and its associated groupuscule.  


As regards the latter, note that I ask nothing from you except assistance in “spreading the word.”  Unlike the grifters of the “mainstream” Far Right, I do not ask for money, unlike the mainstream conservatives I do not ask that you go out and vote Republican, and I derive no income from this blog so my request to “spread the word” is not rent-seeking behavior.  My objectives are purely political and personally disinterested – to actualize pro-White policies, to pursue White interests, to remake society, and, in particular, to defend the interests of the natural leaders of White society – White MEN.  This battle is your battle as well.

Smash the System!  

(but do it wisely, prudently,and legally)

Hood vs. Metapolitics

Let’s consider.

Look at this again.  Emphasis added:

Obviously, public opinion affects what’s politically possible. Yet the Overton Window model is flawed because power can shape public opinion. There’s no neutral “marketplace of ideas.” It takes resources and platforms to spread a message.

Without strong political leaders, the government doesn’t govern. Policies are irrelevant. The media rule.

It’s time to rethink the Overton Window. The truth is already on our side. Many people already agree with us on most issues. If that were enough, we’d have already won.

Instead of trying to shock public opinion, we should focus on demanding platform access, creating financial networks, and building institutions and communities the media can’t destroy. Instead of focusing on ideology, we should focus on logistics. We need to change conditions on the ground and make it easier for white advocates to organize. Otherwise, we risk ending up like Georgia Clark, pleading for help from leaders who have already abandoned us.

If we consider Yockey’s definition of politics as “activity in relation to power,” then what Hood is talking about here is an emphasis on politics, broadly defined, as opposed to so-called “metapolitics.”

Is Hood correct?  It depends on what he means by “the truth is already on our side” and that people already agree with us. If he’s referring to the general idea that Whites have rights, Whites are under attack, Whites have legitimate interests and should be able to pursue those interests, and that Whites have to fight for racial preservation and a future for themselves and their civilization then, yes, the truth is “on our side” (putting aside the issue of who “our” is). How many White people already agree with us is questionable but, in broad terms, Hood is correct from this perspective.

However, if by “truth” Hood means the totality of Der Movement’s lies, half-truths, obsessions, dogmas, fetishism, and freakishness, then he’s 100% wrong.

Keep in mind though that the Left has been very successful in leveraging politics to achieve their goals, even though the Left is famous for its internal ideological squabbles.  They have been capable of doing both at the same time – power politics rallying around foundational paradigms while still struggling internally to sort out the deeper meaning underlying their paradigms.

Thus, the Far Right can and should engage in politics based on broad paradigms while the struggle for the mind, heart, and soul of racial activism continues. The two things are of course linked, in both directions.  First, the more powerful the Far Right becomes, the more familiar the masses will become to the deeper paradigms, and the more disgusted and repulsed they will become by Der Movement’s retarded dogmas, thus ending and reversing progress.  Long term progress will be attainable only if the correct paradigms underlie political activism.  Second, initial success in the political sphere will give more power for activists in the internal struggle to influence the paradigms; hence, political success by fetishists will backfire and doom long term success.

The main point I believe that Hood is making is that metapolitics is not sufficient; politics, activity in relation to power, is essential.  Anyone who is claiming that “changing the culture” – independent of politics – can lead to victory is either delusional or are openly lying to you.

I’m not a mind-reader and I am hesitant to ascribe secret agendas to any person; thus, I will not mention anyone by name.  In general, however, I suspect that, in some cases, what happened is that some of these people were genuine and sincere in their initial activism, but became disillusioned over time, and realized that they sacrificed the opportunity for a real career for a losing proposition. They then decided to grift and cynically extract a living from the “movement,” focusing on activities that will achieve nothing, all the time citing the inevitability of victory – just as long as people keep on sending them donations.

Regardless of those people, and regardless of the specifics of what Hood actually meant by “truth,” I endorse the main thesis of the last part of his essay.  Power is important; without power, all of the “truth” in the world won’t save you.  To get power, you need politics.

The grifters will, in response, invoke the example of the implosion of the Soviet Union and of communism in Eastern Europe. They’ll clam that it collapsed under the weight of its own lies, ineptness, and contradictions (will the same happen to Der Movement?). In actuality, that was only half the story, the internal problems of the Soviet bloc became fatal because that bloc was being pressured from the outside, primarily by the USA under Reagan, and, more generally, by decades of Cold War competition from the “West.”

There is no similar pressure being put against the System from the outside.  Oh, people will invoke ”Russia and China” – as if the civic nationalist Putin regime is itself not part of the System, and likewise for the White hating regime of China (*).  You can say that, well, even if the struggle is between competing factions of the same System that can still result in a useful collapse of part of the System.  But rather than collapse we’ll just get an internal power re-alignment of the System; Whites will continue to be enslaved, but the big bosses will have epicanthic folds rather than yarmulkes. There is no real “outside” here to exert pressure on the System as a whole.  Hopes about “peak oil” and “environmental collapse” are equally misguided, and “The Green New Deal” demonstrates how the System will leverage its own problems to bolster its own power and the anti-White paradigm at the foundation of its worldview. So, no my dear grifters, without the hard practical work of politics, broadly defined, there will be no change.  All of your “metapolitics” can be shut down by brute force; “truth” is meaningless when you are silenced and deplatformed, with no real outside power pressuring your enemies to force them to make concessions to you. Suvorov’s Law came into force in the USSR because the combination of internal problems and external pressure forced Gorbachev’s hand in implementing reforms. The “external” and “outside” pressure against the System is going to have to come from dissident forces within the System itself.

Hood is correct.  Johnson and all of the “we just need to change the culture” people are wrong. You can’t “change the culture” in the midst of severe repression. Only Suvorov’s Law can save us – the System has to be pressured into making concessions that begins the process of inevitable collapse. In the absence of a viable outside pressure source to “heighten the contradictions,” the “outside” source has to come from within – leveraging the System’s power against itself in a form of sociopolitical ju-jitsu – electoral politics and the holding of some of the levers of authority no matter how small (initially), democratic multiculturalism, community building and activism – practical, real world activity in relation to power.  In a word – politics.

*Speaking of the Chinese, the recent episode of Chinese illegal alien human smuggling exposes as a lie all of Derbyshire’s self-serving nonsense about an “Arctic Alliance” between Whites and East Asians. Asians are part of the problem, they are invaders the same as any other colored people.  How in the world is Chinese illegal immigration and human trafficking any different from that of, say, Hispanics invading the US? How is the Chinese invasion of Europe, legal and illegal, different from any of the other Global South influxes? There is no difference, except that “Rosie” is Chinese and not Hispanic, Black, or Muslim.  

The System is Killing White Men

Some items.


The System is killing White men (emphasis added).

“What’s interesting is that Hispanics and blacks who started off at lower levels of life expectancy, they have continued to make progress. They’re not in the deaths of despair category for the most part,” Brookings Institution’s senior fellow Carol Graham told Yahoo Finance, adding that “The entire trend is driven by premature mortality among less-than-college-educated whites, mainly in the middle-aged years. That’s a pretty big marker that something’s really wrong.”

Wrong?  Hey!  I thought the destruction of the White man was a feature of the System, not a bug.  Shouldn’t the attitude of these types be “job well done, full steam ahead?”

Women and blacks became more optimistic over time, beginning in the 1970’s when gender and civil rights improved,” Graham wrote in the report. “The one group that experienced drops in optimism around the same time were less-than-college-educated white males, not coincidentally when the decline in manufacturing began.

What mendacity. Note how they try to blame it all on economic reasons, even though they say that for Negroes and Yeastbuckets, they “became more optimistic over time, beginning in the 1970’s when gender and civil rights improved” – and that was precisely the time that optimism among White men declined.  That’s the key to “not coincidentally,” not the hand-waiving about “decline in manufacturing.” Economic concerns may play a factor, but not the major role.  As evidence that it is not all about economics, see the following form the same article:

“We uncovered those death patterns,” Graham says. “What struck me is that poor African-Americans were three times as likely to be optimistic about the future as poor whites,” Graham said. “The metric that really stands out is not sort of happy, unhappy. Happy today doesn’t matter a whole lot. It’s hope for the future or lack thereof that’s really linked with premature mortality.”

Gee, the lack of economic opportunities are not harming those “poor African-Americans” who see hope for a future in a System that literally worships them, while poor Whites, and all Whites, particularly men, view the future with despair, as they are the “devil” of the System. Indeed, opinion polls for Whites in general show they are more pessimistic than Coloreds about the future; even “highly educated Whites” are more pessimistic.

Don’t blame it all on the economy, liars.  It’s more about race and culture.


Read this excellent Hood piece.  Emphasis added:

In contrast to leftists, President Trump focuses on public opinion. He talks big but does little. He cites favorable polls to prove his greatness. His campaigning and governing styles are contradictory. He advocates policies he doesn’t implement, such as an executive order on birthright citizenship, a remittance tax, or a flag burning ban. Rather than legitimizing ideas, this discredits them. Instead of encouraging supporters, he betrays them.

But Trump is a sincere man of genuine greatness, right Greg?

It’s time to rethink the Overton Window. The truth is already on our side. Many people already agree with us on most issues. If that were enough, we’d have already won.

In general, yes. With respect to specifics, such as HBD and racial fetishistic dogma, no.

Instead of trying to shock public opinion, we should focus on demanding platform access, creating financial networks, and building institutions and communities the media can’t destroy. Instead of focusing on ideology, we should focus on logistics. We need to change conditions on the ground and make it easier for white advocates to organize. 

I agree on all, and this is very consistent with ideas I have proposed here previously.  There needs to be an emphasis on actually achieving concrete objectives, rather than nitpicking on the typical “movement” ideological and memetic obsessions. We need to fight social pricing, ensure access to the public square (both digital and analog), and real community building (which everyone talks about, but no one actually does anything about).

Otherwise, we risk ending up like Georgia Clark, pleading for help from leaders who have already abandoned us.

Leaders such as the sincere God Emperor of genuine greatness, Antifa Don Trump.

Now, I’ve already spent much time and effort here deconstructing the abysmal stupidity of extant ancestry testing, but it is worthwhile to read this, which in some ways compares favorably to some of the points I’ve made here in the past.

An amusing comment that I’ve found online (emphasis added): 

So basically the ancestry DNA test claims I’m 58% Great Britain! I am not even from Great Britain, I’m German I live in Great Britain though

Whew!  It’s good he doesn’t live in Uganda, imagine what results he would have gotten then!

In all seriousness, AncestryDNA may be the worst test out there…either that or 23andMe…both are borderline D/F grades in my opinion, absolutely horrid. AncestryDNA specializes in providing bizarre data points that overlap with zero. 23andMe isn’t much better. They’re competing for last place, putting a lot of effort there. Probably using the raw data for health-related issues may be the best use of that nonsense.

The lack of proper parental populations for Europe is a major problem.  I believe that this is a fundamental reason why the results for European-derived peoples seemingly get worse and more absurd every time that these companies “update” their tests. These companies seem to be going “PC” and adding reference populations from non-White, non-European populations; and since results are modeled based on the available reference population samples, the more non-White references you add, the greater the probability  of assigning ancestral components to those populations. Indeed, there seems to be a correlation between the politically-motivated stress on adding “diverse” parentals and increasingly absurd results. We need more parental populations from Europe – where most of the people using the rests derive their ancestry from. 

Let’s take an example. Imagine a testing company wants to determine the ancestral proportions of Iraqis. They model the “admixture” under four scenarios. One – a large reference population from Iraq; many Iraqi samples as parentals. Two – few samples from Iraq, but many samples from Jordan, Germany, and Ghana. Three – the same as two, but with the addition of a large number of reference samples from South Asia. Four – the same as two, but with the addition of a moderate number of samples from Turkey and a large expansion of the samples from sub-Saharan Africa. Now, under those four scenarios, will the results from a given set of Iraqis be the same, or even very similar? Hardly. They would be markedly different. Only when there is a significant number of reference samples from the specific population of the person or persons being tested will the results be reasonably accurate, and even then the results can be altered when there are significant changes in the types and numbers of other reference populations used to model the “admixture.” These are facts that cannot be responsibly evaded by the testing companies, although they’ll like to pretend that this is not a factor.
The current state of commercially available ancestry testing means that such testing is virtually useless for significant numbers of European-derived people. Actually, less than worthless, as the results are absolute incorrect. Again, the major advantage of this testing is using the data to make an “end run” around the paternalism of the medical community and getting a handle on health issues – assuming that the data are accurate, which is an issue that needs to be confirmed if something “bad” is discovered.