Category: watchdog groups

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.

Der Movement Makes You Stupid

And HBD is particularly bad.

Following up on this, let us not forget this.

Sweden’s population is highly individualistic, but operates with a societal consensus, while Sicily has strong families but little cooperation at the societal level.

Now, contrast that with MacDonald’s shallow assertion that Southern Italy is collectivist. Now, the Counter-Currents review is of the same work of MacDonald that MacDonald himself was discussing. Thus, if we try to merge both viewpoints of the same work, then we can conclude that a people that exhibit “little cooperation at the societal level” are “collectivist.”  That’s obviously an oxymoron.  These guys, lost in their sea of lies and hand-waving spin, simply can’t keep their stories straight.  Also note that peoples who are “highly individualistic” also operate “with a societal consensus” – which is almost as inconsistent as stating that folks who can’t cooperate at a level higher than the family are somehow “collectivist.”  Amoral familism is not collectivism, quite the opposite, and the “highly individualistic” Germanic populations cannot be that “highly individualistic” as they are prone to “societal consensus” of a mind-numbing conformity (see the SJW hysteria currently infecting the West).

So, in summary, Der Movement believes that people that operate with a societal consensus, easily invest in collective social goods, and who effectively work together are “highly individualistic;” while people who do not cooperate at the societal level, resist investing in collective social goods, and are composed of squabbling atomized families who don’t pull together are “collectivist.”  If that sounds absolutely crazy to you, that’s because it is.

It’s ludicrous.  If Italy – at least the south – was “collectivist” then they’d band together to at least stop the “migrant” invasion of their nation.  What’s the reality? The anti-immigration Salvini (a “Germanic” “individualist” Northern Italian, by the way) is gone, and the influx (aided and abetted by Northern Europeans) continues. The Italian mafia actually enables human trafficking of illegal immigrants into Italy in order to make money. They are destroying their own people and culture for individual and family self-aggrandizement. Collectivist?  Is corruption and organized crime collectivist? If you really want to see collectivism as a national trait look at the Jews and the Chinese, the HBD favorites. Collectivism?  How about German National Socialism?  That seems to be a lot more “collectivist” than a bunch of Afrowops scurrying around, all wrecking their own nation and people to make a buck.

HBD makes people stupid.  Der Movement’s fetishistic dogmas make people stupid. Always having to shove a square peg of dogma into a round hole of reality should cause severe cognitive dissonance in all of our “movement” “rock stars.”

So, this is a good Taylor video, but it demonstrates a lack of self-awareness.

“Say yes to your friends and no to your enemies.”

So – maybe stop slamming White ethnics and praising Jews?  Who’s been trying to shut down Amren?  Jewish organizations and/or organizations with strong Jewish support.  Who, on the other hand, used to be Amren supporters, even writers? Who do you attack?  Who do you praise?  Indeed, stop taking orders from people who hate you.

 

And, getting back to the main point of the video – what does this say about that “sincere man of genuine greatness” Donald Trump?  Any comments about that Greg?

It isn’t just HBD that makes people stupid.  Der Movement itself makes people stupid. Look what’s happened to people who’ve marinated in the “movement” milieu for years. MacDonald went from being a courageous and thoughtful scholar to a sweaty Kempian, spouting nonsense that isn’t even internally consistent or even superficially logical, never mind historically accurate. Johnson went from being a reasonably useful metapolitical contributor to a gaslighting grifter concerned about spiting Richard Spencer and garnering as much “D’Nations” as possible. David Duke, maniacally focused on “Zionism” to the exclusion of everything else, has been reduced to endorsing an anti-White half-Samoan leftist who supports reparations for Negroes. The National Alliance has become a pathetic caricature of what it was under Pierce (which itself wasn’t so hot). Whatever promise Spencer had as an activist before he took over NPI has been flushed down the toilet, and he’s become basically a meme for both the Left (elbowing in the face videos) and the Right (the face of Beavis-and-Butthead White nationalism). Taylor is an intelligent and well-educated man, and articulate enough to have been a viable political candidate (in the proper context), but he doesn’t realize when his video criticisms of others apply equally to the direction Amren has taken (HBD is also a problem there). And if guys like Johnson label me as “crazy and bitter,” then chalk that up to my experiences in the “movement” as well.  If Ted Sallis is now unbalanced and defective, as my detractors claim, then that’s from 25 years exposure to the madness of the “movement.”

Food for thought, isn’t it?

All Hail the Conquering Rescinder

In der news.

In my opinion, this changes nothing.

The hero must have realized he’d lose more through the hemorrhage of fan support than he’d gain by paying danegeld to the ADL.

He’s an immature jerk and anyone who thinks “using him” is going to benefit racial nationalism is a moron.

His initial willingness to pay is more important, and relevant to his character, than his rescinding the donation (and that, under pressure from fans).  Unless of course you’ll claim it is really “4-D chess” – if you believe that, I have a piece of Trump’s border wall I’d like to sell you.

White Nationalism, Free Speech, and Legitimacy

Defending White nationalism.

Recent events paint a dark picture for White nationalism.  Censorship.  Deplatforming. The Left-Corporate Alliance.  Government persecution.  Congressional hearings attempting to label White nationalism as akin to domestic terrorism, part of a global terror threat. The ability of leftist thugs – supporting by Big Business and by the Political Establishment – to attack rightists with impunity.

Now, the paradigm equating White nationalism with terrorism is absurd, and others have cogently pointed out that the “data” supporting that paradigm is, at best, flawed, and, more likely, intentionally mendacious.

And, of course, this is all highly hypocritical, since the real violence mostly comes from the Left. Thus, while leftists assert that “words are literally violence,” they ignore the actual global leftist terror network that attacks rightists – even political candidates – and they are careful not to apply the same standards of guilt by association to Islam or to Black activists. 

Indeed, if the government wants to investigate a global terror threat, they’d be better off concentrating on Burger King – an international corporation that encouraged the use of its products for political violence in the UK – rather than on a small handful of relatively powerless and underfunded White racialists.

But we have to understand that this is all about criminalizing an ideology. All else is merely an excuse. That is why an insulting letter to an alien congresswoman is considered “terrorism,” while Richard Spencer being physically attacked in the street because of his political views is not.  Who?  Whom?

Yes, there have been some isolated instances of White nationalist violence. However, White nationalist terrorism – to the extent it actually exists – is due to White nationalists not being allowed to participate in the political process (politics broadly defined). The repression censorship, deplatforming, leftist attacks, etc., are the cause of Far Right violence, not its consequences.  Any objective and sane understanding of cause and effect and an honest appraisal of the order of events clearly demonstrates that manifold instances of political repression and social pricing, over decades, have left some White nationalists desperate and with no confidence whatsoever that their concerns can be effectively addressed via legal political processes.  Thus, some engage in foolish acts.

Thus, it is obvious that suppressing the non-violent expression of Far Right ideas will only cause more (not less) violence coming from that direction. Now, unintelligent Arab congresswomen and moronic Puerto Rican congresswomen are likely too stupid to understand this, but the Jews behind the scenes surely must.  The latter are callously setting the stage for more violence and more victims in order to justify further repression. The brown puppets blathering in public are just for show.

One can argue that Suvorov’s Law of History – the observation that revolutions do not occur during the period of greatest repression but when that repression is suddenly relaxed – is one reason why the System dares not let up on its repression of the Far Right (see more below).  Be that as it may, the point still holds that the sporadic outbursts of Far Right violence are due to the pre-existing repression. Relaxing the repression may cause “revolution” but that “revolution” can be social and political; it does not have to include violent terrorism.  If the concern is with terrorism rather than simply the success of Far Right ideas, then more repression will cause more terrorism (likely leading to more repression, etc.).  If the Left was sincere about avoiding violence and terrorism from the Right, then they’d lessen the repression. That they want to increase the repression reveals their true motives – at least the true motives of the wirepullers behind the scenes.

And we must also consider the association between legitimacy and political participation, a participation that requires free speech and free assembly, both of which are incompatible with the criminalization of any ideology. Even some mainstream and/or leftist commentators understand that free speech and open political participation are tied to System legitimacy.  If you want people to accept the legitimacy of the outcome of the political and social process, then you must allow them free and unfettered participation in that process. That includes them expressing their views, organizing (meetings, conferences, activist groups, political parties), engaging in the electoral process as candidates, and not having their views labeled as “terrorism.”  Let’s consider what a legal scholar with a Jewish surname has to say on the issue of free speech and legitimacy, emphasis added:

Ironically, however, hate speech restrictions can undermine the legitimacy of antidiscrimination laws, both in terms of their popular acceptance but even more crucially with respect to the morality of their enforcement. For instance, laws forbidding people from expressing the view, as is the case in several European jurisdictions, that homosexuality is immoral or disordered, can destroy the moral justification of enforcing laws against sexual orientation…Conversely, the ability of Americans to freely oppose antidiscrimination laws by publicly expressing bigoted ideas about groups protected by these laws strengthens the legitimacy of enforcing these provisions even when doing so infringes upon deeply held religious convictions….I have argued that by impairing the opportunity for dissenters to participate as equals in the public debate about such matters as race, ethnicity, immigration, and sexual orientation, hate speech laws and public order provisions in force in many liberal democracies have significantly diminished political legitimacy, in both the descriptive and normative sense. Specifically, for those inhibited by these laws from expressing their opposition to antidiscrimination measures, these upstream speech restrictions have diminished, and in some instances may have destroyed, their political obligation to obey these downstream laws. Even more troubling, these inhibitions on equal political participation may have in some cases rendered immoral what would have otherwise been a moral use of force to make these dissenters comply with these antidiscrimination laws.

Let me again remind you that the people talking about “domestic terrorism” have the real objective of criminalizing an ideology. They are not really concerned about “acts of violence,” such acts coming to a significant degree from their side of the political divide and of which they say nothing.  In the end, and as shown by the censorship and deplatforming, it is really an issue of free speech, public assembly, and the right to organize on the basis of White racial interests. Thus, what Weinstein writes is wholly appropriate – the issue has always been whether someone like Taylor, Spencer, or Johnson can have a public forum; whether or not shooting up a synagogue is “domestic terrorism” is merely a smokescreen. After all, let us follow this logic to its natural conclusion.  Mr. Inner Hajnal Nutzi shoots up a synagogue, claiming White nationalism as a reason.  Domestic terrorism!  Then anyone who supports White nationalism, writes or speaks in favor of it, donates to it, etc. is a supporter of domestic terrorism and, hence, a criminal.  An ideology criminalized.  QED. Of course, no one would apply the same standards to Islam or the Left, but we understand it is all about power and not about fairness or the rule of law.

And, speaking as a (law abiding) White nationalist myself, I can assure one and all that, yes, I consider the System and its edicts as completely illegitimate, and that I follow those edicts only under coercion.  I assume many Whites – including civic nationalist types and other on the Right – believe and act the same. There is a widespread legitimacy problem for the System and it will only grow as the repression continues.  In the short term, the System can simply use coercion to enforce its edits and ignore the issue of legitimacy.  That’s likely not sustainable in the long run. Keep in mind that by saying this I am not saying “victory is inevitable,” I’m not one of the grifters trying to “white pill” supporters in order to ensure that the “D’Nations” continue.  I’m predicting eventual chaos and collapse, not victory.  As the USSR demonstrated, a System that has lost legitimacy is headed for collapse, even with coercion.  As a last resort, they loosen the chains of repression to salvage what they can, and, according to Suvorov’s Law of History, that sudden relaxation of repression heralds the final disintegration.  Alternatively, an illegitimate System can try and maintain the repression, and find that significant fractions of the population adopt passive aggressive disinterest in response, undermining social cohesion and political effectiveness. In the case of the USA, it will be precisely the most productive elements of the population that will begin to exhibit a tacit withdrawal and subtle subversion, making eventual decline and possible collapse even more likely.

Some will object – what about Europe?  They have repressive speech codes and aren’t the national governments there considered legitimate by the people?  First, I can’t speak for rightist Europeans – it is very possible that the growth of populism there is indicative of a growing element that does indeed consider the System illegitimate. And, second, the USA, with its particular history of, and alleged commitment to, free speech, is expected to exhibit a much stronger association between free expression and political legitimacy than do nations that have histories of kings, dictators, strongmen, and laws against lese majeste. What about the argument that European nationalists have had success despite the speech codes there?  What success?  In some nations, there has been a temporary slowdown in the degeneration, which can be quickly reversed by any subsequent leftist government; at best, there have been victories by civic nationalists and moderate petty nationalists.  The “grand success” in Europe is a figment of the Nutzi imagination.  And I can turn the argument around – imagine how much more successful the European Right could be if they could actually express their real views without fear of being fined or jailed?

So, no, the pathetically flimsy “successes” in Europe – which in any case have limited relevance to the American situation – in no way disprove the thesis put forth here.  Given the concerns of White nationalists, the situation in Europe remains dire. Demographic replacement is still “baked into the cake” there. Can European nationalists freely and frankly discuss these concerns?

And we must remember that the concerns of White nationalists are real; in fact, not only are they real, but they are the most important concerns of all, dealing as they do with the ultimate interests of national existence and genetic continuity.  Whites are in demographic and cultural eclipse, and will become minorities even in their historic European homelands. The United Nations openly advocates “replacement migration” targeting White nations (while Whites are told, at the same time, that any mention of that is “conspiracy theories”).  Whites are the only people on Earth not allowed to organize on the basis of racial self-interest; indeed, in majority White nations this expression of racial self-interest is either already criminalized or subject to social pricing (that is not good enough, it seems for the American Left, as they are now pushing for criminalization).  How is this repression consistent with legitimacy?  Obvious, it is not.  The System simply has no effective argument against the basic premises of White nationalism; therefore, it must use coercion.  However, as argued above, political coercion in the context of “democracy” is illegitimate and will erode the basis for peoples’ willingness to invest in the collective good.

Finally, I have to note that one major reason why White nationalism has reached such a sorry state of powerlessness and repression is the utter failure of its leadership.  The inept affirmative action leadership coupled to defective followers have squandered endless opportunities, and smeared White nationalism with the stench of failure – made more laughable by the endless cries of some of them that we are “moving to victory,”

And some of the leadership have no sensible understanding of the animating mindset of the censors.  For example, it is hard for me to express in words how absolutely foolish Richard Spencer is being here.

How naive can you be to actually believe the System will ever definitively and carefully – much less permanently – clearly state speech codes that can then be worked around.  Let me tell you the obvious – the only speech they want from WNs is silence.  No matter how you try and get around their speech codes, they’ll just keep on changing them to justify censoring you. They will forbid more and more words, and once that becomes untenable, they’ll just forbid “tones” and “implications” – all decided upon arbitrarily to achieve their political goals. It’ll be the race of the Red Queen and you can never win – it’s the gatekeepers of access who will have the power to determine what is acceptable or not. Once there are speech codes that are accepted as a part of society, nothing stops those codes from being constantly fine-tuned to silence opposition.

The only speech code that you can “work around” is NO speech code. You need either a platform that cannot be or will not be censored and/or an extension of “protected class” to include sociopolitical beliefs – with the former being more realistic than the latter.  The idea that the System is going to finalize a set of speech codes that would enable anything other than mild civic nationalism (if even that) is absurd.  Of course, Spencer may claim he is only talking in theory, but advocating for speech codes in theory (however unrealistic) is not anything anyone on our side should be doing.

The future looks grim and I have no easy answers. But I do know that asking for a more snug fit for our memetic straightjacket is not the answer. This is not an athletic contest between gentlemen, with both sides playing by the rules.  The System will continue trying to change the rules in the middle of the game in order to win. The only weakness they have is that the game has spectators, the White masses, and while these are mostly inert, they are not all completely inert. The System’s ability to “cheat” is constrained by their need to appear to be playing fair, to trick the rubes into believing the “free democratic America” still exists.  Thus gives our side some room to maneuver. Begging for better defined constraints is not the direction our maneuver should be going.

Strom on the new wave of censorship.

And what has happened to Mr. Moderation, the wonderfully pureblood Common Sense Counselor?

This account has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube’s policy prohibiting hate speech.

Chastising extremists over how they talk about the Jews didn’t really help you, did it?

Counter-Selection by the System

In bed with the System as well as with the Press.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that a particular incident took place.  Thus, let us consider the following scenario, including several premises:

1. A prominent “movement leader” is a complete incompetent, wrecking the group of which he is head.  However, he is acceptable to the rank-and-file for all the usual reasons.

2. This leader does something unpleasant that would make the rank-and-file lose respect and confidence in him and endanger his status as leader.

3. This “something” is known by the authorities and is eventually adjudicated – in criminal or civil court, it doesn’t matter – locally, so the “movement” in general does not know about it.

4. This is the crucially important point – the watchdog groups – with all their spies, infiltrators, resources, and connections to the authorities, undoubtedly know about the “something.”  How could they not?

5. And most important of all – knowing about the “something,” the watchdog groups inexplicably stay silent about it, protecting the “leader” and his reputation among “movement activists.”

If we accept all of these premises, then the question arises WHY did the watchdog groups protect the “leader” about the incident in question?  Two possibilities. The less likely is that the “leader” is actually working for the watchdog groups, and just like the FBI will protect a mob informant or an undercover agent from the local authorities, the watchdog groups wanted to protect their “man in place” in the “movement.” But, as I said, that is unlikely.  By far the more likely explanation revolves around premise 1 – the person in question was an absolute incompetent and was driving the “movement” into the ground. Why do anything that would threaten that inept “leadership?”  Why take the chance (admittedly unlikely in Der Movement, but still) of someone more competent replacing this individual?  Better to leave him in place to wreck racial activism, and serve as an effective bogeyman for watchdog group fundraising, than to expose what is described in premise 2.  So the “watchdogs” kept silent, and enjoyed the resultant chaos.

Moving on from that (Hypothetical? Real?) scenario of the WN 1.0 past, let us now consider the situation in the WN 2.0 “movement” over the past few years.  The System, the Mass Media, focus on, and elevate in status, the most incompetent (relatively speaking) of “movement leaders.”  

Let me put aside my ideological and personal disagreements with these people and just rank them in relative terms.  I see the most competent and persuasive person being Taylor. But note that Spencer gets exponentially more attention than does Taylor. Johnson is perhaps equal to Spencer in competence but less so than Taylor, and Johnson gets more attention that Taylor but significantly less than Spencer.  MacDonald is maybe one million times more effective and competent than Heimbach – but who has received more attention from the media?  David Duke always got more attention than William Pierce, and the latter was a more effective and disciplined organizer and ideologue.  Rockwell got more attention than Carto. You can talk about “personality” and a “flashy and aggressive style” as explanations, but that only goes so far.

Lest I get accused of “low information moralizing” – yes, I know that, for example, in the past Taylor was a guest on a variety of TV talk shows.  I would like to point out three things about that. First, it was years ago, long before Trump, long before the System become overly paranoid about White restlessness and resistance. Giving Taylor that attention was a mistake on their part; will they do the same today?  Two, they made that mistake because they didn’t understand how sane and articulate Taylor would appear on TV. They may have assumed that they could bait him into frothing at the mouth and giving spastic Dr. Strangelove salutes.  Third, the attention given to Taylor then is a miniscule fraction of that given to the Alt Right heroes of today, what with the larger presence of the Internet and with social media.  And, yes, Pierce was on 60 Minutes – an attempt to tie him and The Turner Diaries to the Oklahoma City bombing, an interview that took place two decades before the Trump candidacy, an interview that pales in comparison to today’s coverage of the Alt Right. So, my basic argument still holds.

One can productively speculate that the System intentionally focuses media attention on the more inept and/or bizarre elements of “movement leadership,” while starving the more effective elements of attention.  That applies to ideas as well as people.  The more stupid the idea – endorsing Tulsi Coconut or Andy Eggroll for example – the more attention it will receive from the Press.  That’s not by accident.

I’ve talked to people who grew up under communism in Eastern Europe.  After the changes, and the secret police files were opened, it was found that many dissident groups were “controlled opposition.”  Infiltrators were in many cases running the show.  In some cases, infiltrators actually founded the show – the secret police themselves organized a fake opposition to the regime so as to identify, manipulate, and compromise the authentic opposition, and to create a useless safety valve for discontent,

Whether or not that is occurring in the West today as regards the Far Right, at minimum we have a situation in which the System is taking what we can assume is an authentic dissident opposition and intentionally boosting the public profile and leadership credentials of the more incompetent, so as to fill the leadership niche space with the inept, and thus preventing the emergence of a competently effective dissident leadership.

The System is utilizing negative selection – counter-selection – to ensure that the “movement” is led by failures.  The “movement’s” affirmative action policy fits very well here.  After all, the System is well aware of “movement” fetishism – remember Hermansson gloating that HopeNotHate intentionally picked a Swede as an infiltrator so as to appeal to Nordicist instincts. In Siege, Mason talks about how the infiltrator sent to attempt to compromise him was of a racial type meant to appeal to WN archetypes.  Similarly, the System will carefully boost the credentials of the “right” types, what is required is a combination of racial bonafides as well as gross incompetence. Thus, while Taylor has the racial bonafides, he is too competent to be a focus of too much media attention.  Instead, the attention has to be focused more on Beavis-and Butthead sniggering, freaks, perverts, proven failures, etc.

So, yes, “The Press” – in conjunction with “movement” fetishism – will choose your leaders.  


Enjoy the ensuing never-ending failure.  After all, “The Press” couldn’t accomplish this without your very willing acquiescence.  You have met the enemy and he is you. Enjoy.

Joan of Arc(hed Eyebrows)

And Spencer’s elbowing.

Another Greg Johnson Joan of Arc here.

Yeastbucket express!  Diabetes?  Is the yeast feeding off the excess sugar?

Excellent gamester comment:

The question of women boils down to aptitude, Women’s Aptitude. How skilled are they really?
Historically, most men thinkers have slammed women’s ability to think. There have been a lot of ways to categorize this, from “they’re like children” to “they’re intellectual copycats”. But I think the best way is this:
When I go around in my life, I listen to other people talking. Countless times I’ve heard guys discussing things like computers, business, music. I can’t recall ONCE — NOT ONCE — hearing two women discussing a world of ideas. If the world of ideas is a beach with waves of thought coming in, women are far inland in the jungle.

In this thread, the Left tries to justify “punching a Nazi.” The questions I would ask them are as follows. Since even leftist “watchdog” groups label the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party as “hate groups,” how come no Antifa heroes ever attempt to sucker-punch (or elbow) a Black nationalist leader? How come they don’t try and break up a Black nationalist meeting or rally? How come they don’t physically confront all those “Black Israelites” screaming on street corners?

Cutting through the hand-waving (or silence), the answer to all those questions is two-fold. First, the violent left is not against “hatred, bigotry, and fascism” – they are simply anti-White.  Second, and more importantly, they are rightfully afraid. They know if they try any of that they’ll get a big Black fist in the face (likely worse), and, after they get out of the hospital, the same “White supremacist system” that ignores or supports attacks against the likes of Spencer would indict, convict, and imprison them for assaulting a Negro leader, after which they can end up in the prison hospital for surgery to repair a torn anal sphincter.

So, no viral videos of Black nationalists being elbowed in the face.  So how about this – NO ONE gets elbowed or sucker-punched or whatever for expressing their political opinions?  I mean, yes, for now, the System protects its street shock troops, but no one can say what the future holds.  Think of it as enlightened self-interest.

Advice for Der Movement Part I

Important advice.

I have written about before about pathetic apostates from White nationalism, many of whom now shill for “watchdog groups,” and/or who now run their own “anti-hate” groups, and who like to promote the meme that WNs are “troubled people” with “deep personal problems” who “join the movement because they are searching for a sense of belonging” – you know the whole song and dance by now.  Of course, this description never is applied to non-White racial activists, but no matter.  These shilling apostates are typically people who used to be Type I nitwits, and who claim they become “freed from hate” once “they met a good Black person and realized that not all non-Whites were bad” – as if a ludicrously retarded idea that “all Whites good, all non-Whites bad” actually reflects the reality of authentic White racialist thought, and that the writing of a Taylor or a Johnson or a MacDonald (regardless of my own personal disagreements with those gentlemen) actually conflates with such a simpleton’s view of the racial question.

To the extent these apostates are being honest, and not mendaciously parroting System lies, it is obvious that what they are doing here is projection. Their description of the “lonely, troubled, searching White youth desperately looking for meaning” is actually a self-description.  It is THEY who joined the “movement” for all the wrong reasons, it is THEY who were the flotsam and jetsam of White society, and is THEY who were easily peeled away from racial activism because they never really believed in it to begin with.  THEY joined because of their own personal defects; THEIR “activism” and subsequent “leaving the movement” reflects on THEM, not on racial activism itself. The reality of race, the racial question, the reality of race replacement and White genocide – these realities exist independent of the psychological problems and social maladjustments of Type I retardates.

Having said all of that, there is another take on the issue. Someone recently told me about a comment made by a CEO of some company, in which the CEO basically said: “At our company the employee comes first, the customers second.  If you have happy and satisfied employees, they will do a good job and satisfy the customer; if you don’t, no amount of ‘the customer comes first’ rhetoric will do the job.”  I am also thinking of a young activist I know long ago during my own (young) analog activist days. This person, who eventually dropped out (but who insofar as I know never became an apostate; he simply dropped out), once complained to me about his fellow racial activists – “they don’t care about me as a person, they are not my friends, all they care about is the work I do for the organization.”

I do not believe this is the same person, but the general attitude is the same.

Let’s consider that complaint in the context of, first, the apostate spiel, and, second, the CEO idea. Now, the person’s complaint is not the same as the apostate meme. The person in question, based on what I observed, was a sincere activist, with a good understanding of the issues.  He did not join primarily “to belong to something.”  However, having joined, he wanted to be respected and valued as a person, and he wanted a feeling of comradeship – he wanted normal human company (something sadly lacking in the “movement”). Now, me, I’m a cold person, am not interested in “being buddies” with other racial activists, and, to be honest, the attitude behind the complaint is alien to my nature.  But I can understand it on a purely intellectual level, although I never shared those feelings. But this person’s dropping out was a real loss. He was a good activist, a fine fellow; I respected him. But as I’ve been disgusted with the “movement” – albeit for different reasons – I can understand his situation. The only thing is that this fellow made the mistake many do – they equate Der Movement with racial activism, so for them dropping out of the former means dropping out of the latter. That does not have to be so.

This gets back to the CEO’s ideas.  If you want your endeavor to be successful, first you have to take care of your employees.  Then you care for the customers.  By analogy, in racial activism, the activists are the employees, and the White masses (or at least that fraction that is reachable) are the customers.  It’s true that Der Movement treats activists shabbily – with all the feuding, warring, aberrant behavior, defectives, unpleasantness, Quota Queen Incompetence and undependability, ethnic fetishism and hostility, etc. 

So, while a “sense of belonging” should NOT be the fundamental reason for becoming an activist, there is no harm – and much gain – in creating an authentic movement that can create such a sense of belonging for activists.  You want to retain quality activists, just like a company wants to retain quality employees. While it is true that genuine racial activists, who really understand the problem of race, are not going to become anti-racist leftist apostates against racial activism, it is possible that they will drop out (while still retaining their core beliefs).  And if these dropouts are quality people, the damage will be enormous because there are so few such people to begin with; racial activism lacks a critical mass of such people and can ill afford to blithely go along its merry way, alienating such people on a constant basis (as does occur).

There has to be mechanisms for improving the activist experience. Now, of course, that is not the fundamental priority.  People need to understand that racial activism is not there for personal fulfillment.  But activists should not be gratuitously offended, alienated, disgusted, insulted, etc. – which is what often happens.  Comradeship should occur.

A good start is to eliminate some of the more egregious examples of negative and alienating behavior and outcomes; after that, one can think about adding positives.  Eliminating negatives – how about cutting back on the feuding?  The acceptance of Beavis-and-Butthead lulzing trolling?  How about making sure meetings are not so easily infiltrated?   How about not having homosexuals hitting on young men at meetings?  How about being up front about your ingroup, and then not tolerating ethnic fetishist attacks against people you accept in your group?  You know, the time to decide on whether or not someone belongs is BEFORE they join, not AFTER, not after they’ve invested months or years of work for you and your group.  The very definition of a group is the dividing line between in/out and any group that can’t even decide on something absolutely fundamental to its existence is not really any sort of viable group at all.

I’m sure the fearless leaders of the “movement” can think of many areas of improvement with respect to the issues broached in this post.  Being a real leader means being able to make good use of the human material at hand; it means valuing people who are indeed valuable. When you have something valuable you want to retain it and make good use of it, not toss it in the rubbish heap on a whim.