Category: white nationalism

Salter Trad Analysis, II

More.

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

(a)

Ethnic nationalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 (b)

Liberal Nationalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f)

Reactive Nationalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparing Types of Nationalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That system SHOULD be compromised.  Bring it on!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

Der Movement’s Dangerous “Minds”

SLC News.

In an otherwise fine book review and analysis by Johnson, we find two disturbing bits.

First:

This is why I don’t regard Alexander Dugin and Richard Spencer as contributing anything to White Nationalism, which is the advocacy of ethnic self-determination for all white peoples. 

That’s an incredibly misleading, actually mendacious, description of what White Nationalism is, essentially equating White Nationalism as the sum of all the various intra-White ethnonationalisms added together.  Instead, what most honest people in the “movement” consider by “White Nationalism” is exactly what the term literally implies – a form of nationalism centered on race rather than ethnicity; the ORION principle: Our Race Is Our Nation.  Thus, for White Nationalists, the ultimate form of nationhood, and the highest form of national allegiance, is to the race as a whole; individual ethnic allegiances are secondary.  In this sense, White Nationalism is the antithesis of narrow ethnonationalism.

Instead, they are simply apologists for Russian imperial revanchism. 

Dugin yes.  But Spencer?  That’s going too far.  By the way, who has it been promoting the work of Dugin over the years?  All the Type Is out there, all the “traditionalists,: certainly not me.

Spencer regards ethnonationalism as “petty”….

He’s right about that. 

…siding with the UK against Scottish independence, the EU against Brexit, and Spain against Catalan independence. 

I disagree with Spencer here and go along with Yockey: In an Imperium there can be whatever local autonomy people wish, and if Scots and Catalans (or whoever) want such autonomy, fine, as long as all these regions and micro-nations are confederated into the Imperium.

But although he opposes the UK leaving the EU, he opposes Ukraine joining it. He praises the EU as a transnational, imperial organization — but not NATO. 

Spencer can explain his UK vs. Ukraine views himself.  The EU in principle is not a bad idea; its execution is globalist and anti-White, so I oppose it.

Clearly, he is more interested in shilling for Russian geopolitical interests than in setting forth a coherent moral and political framework for white survival.

Is White survival instead advanced by setting forth coherent moral and political frameworks of White nations ethnically cleansing each other?

Then we have this:

Beiner then quotes Spencer denouncing “fucking middle class” values and proclaiming “I love empire, I love power, I love achievement.” We even learn from a Jewish female reporter that Spencer will sometimes “get a boner” from reading about Napoleon.

If any of that is true, what can I say that I haven’t said before?  All you Type I Nutzis and heavy breathing fetishists out there are responsible for that, you are the ones who enable the affirmative action program.  You made your bed so now lie in it (albeit not along with Spencer reading about Napoleon).

Griffin Reviews Hawley

A better book review.

Robert Griffin, who phone interviewed me a long time ago for one of his books, seems to me to be a good man and an honest academic.  I am pleased he has written a critical analysis of Hawley’s Alt Right book, a review that is perhaps more objective than the more positive reviews given by (ego-driven?) individuals interviewed by Hawley and featured in the book and who no doubt are positive about the publicity (good for panhandling drives, I guess).

As per Hawley, Griffin notes his obsession about “racism” and “supremacy” and, indeed, anyone who, like Hawley, would write the following is intellectually suspect:

Throughout this text, I use the term ‘white nationalist’ largely because that is the term used by many on the Alt-Right to describe themselves.  But I acknowledge the critique that white nationalism was a term invented to make white-supremacist views more palatable.

True enough, Hawley uses weasel words such as “I acknowledge the critique” without openly saying whether he agrees or disagrees with it (although his fulminations against “racism” is a possible clue here). The bottom line is that the “critique” in question is politically-motivated libel and slander, and is objectively false.  An honest academic would have pointed out the emptiness of the critique and the clear differences between nationalism and “supremacy,” but, as Griffin suggests, Hawley may have been more concerned about his upcoming tenure application as he is about White “racism” and “supremacy.”

I give Griffin’s review a 10 out of 10.

The Alt Right is White Nationalism 0.5

Pretentious Millennial retards do not a movement make.

Now that AltRight.com is back on line, it’s time to post this, which was written several weeks ago.

Contention: Despite their protestations to the contrary, the Alt Right, exemplified by AltRight.com, but also including Counter-Currents and all the rest, is no different from, and no better than, the “Boomer” and “Generation X” White Nationalism 1.0 that the smug, navel-gazing Millennials love to critique.

Here’s a brief list of some of the most important internal factors which prevented White Nationalism 1.0 from achieving its goals:

Radical Individualism

White Nationalism 1.0 was a much smaller movement and disproportionately attracted an audience of edge cases. These people are extreme non-conformists and expressive individualists. 

Unlike the Alt Righters showing up at rallies like refugees from a cosplay convention.

This stratum of the population is always found at the fringes of society and have a personality type that is resistant to social conditioning. The same characteristic that initially opened their minds to our message holds back the larger social movement when they reach a critical mass.

Unlike the majestic Alt Right, which took advantage of Trumpism to reach out to a wider audience, or did they (“reach out” not including making drunken podcasts or running people down with cars)?  

There are legions of these ornery people out there who are naturally disagreeable and incapable of finding common ground and working with others to advance a common purpose. They are a familiar figure in all marginalized extremist movements. The low trust, anonymous nature of online messageboards is the perfect breeding ground for their worst tendencies.

Unlike the Alt Right, where personalities like Spencer, Friberg, Johnson, TRS, and Jorjani mesh together agreeably and harmoniously.

These gadflys are commonly found engaging in shit stirring and crank spiraling and the distractions they create prevented White Nationalism 1.0 from moving forward. Some common examples of this are unfounded accusations that various people in the movement are secret Jews or homosexuals or enemy agents and other types of conspiracy theories.

Unlike the Alt Right, which, as exemplified by the personalities mentioned above, and their allies, who certainly never – ever! – accuse each other of being CIA plants, gay groomers, buddies with Antifa, Jews, etc.  If you think differently – it’s all “Boomer” lies!

Extreme Message

In many cases, the message of White Nationalism 1.0 was simply too extreme. Many of these people were just unable to communicate with their peers. Their message and presentation was stupid, vicious, crazy or ugly. It was easier for the opposition to brand these people with stereotypes and marginalize them. They responded to their rejection by seeing themselves as part of a chosen few

So, joking about “Jewish children in boxcars” like the Alt Right lulzers do – that’s not “too extreme.”  Considering all Europeans deriving from the south of Vienna (or Munich) and the east of Berlin to be functionally equivalent to Africans and Asians is not “too extreme” either.  Even worse: not only does the Alt Right share the usual 1.0 disdain for Southern and Eastern Europeans, but now they’ve become obsessed with hating the Irish.  Repeating the Know Nothing movement is all real progressive and all.  The Alt Right is All Right!

Negative Atmosphere

We didn’t use the term at the time, but White Nationalism 1.0 could be a “black pill” for its target audience. The chaos and dysfunction created by all the edge cases led to a negative atmosphere. In turn, this led to years of stagnation which led to many people getting demoralized and dropping out of the movement while others were deterred from becoming more active.

Unlike the Alt Right, in which vicious feuding, throwing each other under the bus, womanly gossip, extreme disdain for White ethnics, gross incompetence, and constant panhandling creates a warm and fuzzy “white pill” positive atmosphere. It’s all great for morale and recruiting!

Marginal Figures

As Brett Stevens has pointed out, many of the people who were willing to step forward and become public leaders of White Nationalism 1.0 weren’t the best people.

Well, that’s even more true today.  The folks willing to step forward and become public leaders of “White Nationalism 2.0” aren’t the best people; these are people who have nothing to lose one way or the other.  Lulzing retards, panhandlers, fetishists, cosplay costume actors, idiots who think that “extreme vetting” is asking “are you Swedish?,” folks who took Jorjani seriously and brought us the blessings of Charlottesville 2.0 – are these supposed to be the “best people?”  They are below marginal.  Pierce was a physicist for godssakes, that’s more marginal than the Beavis-and-Butthead crew?  Really, now.

Violence

The violent wing of White Nationalism 1.0 would periodically lash out in mass shootings. Usually, this accomplished nothing but creating a wave of negative publicity for the movement.

Certainly, the Alt Right and their rallies have never been associated with violence, no sir.

Impractical Mindset

White Nationalism 1.0 was far too focused on violent, apocalyptic scenarios in the distant future. It thought much less about the here and now, how to create a bridge between the present the future, the small steps that need to be taken to get us on the path to achieving our goals. “Naming the Jew” became a fixation for many of these people. 

The Alt Right of course never mentions Jews at all.  Except when they accuse each other of being Jews, are married to Jews, and/or joke about putting Jews into ovens.

What do you do after the Jew has been named though?

You dress up like Captain America, go to Charlottesville, and then run when things get hot.

Narrow Message

I agree with Brett Stevens that White Nationalism 1.0 was too narrow. The message often never got beyond a desire to be rid of all the Jews and non-Whites. Even if that were accomplished, many of these people failed to realize that it is the nature of liberal democracy itself which leads to this outcome. The system naturally exhausts, disintegrates and perverts its host culture. The presence of Jews exacerbates its worst tendencies and acts as a catalyst that accelerates the timetable.

White Nationalism 2.0 is broad indeed.  Not only do the 2.0 leaders get along famously, but the ties between Alt Right and Alt Lite are tighter than ever!  Behold the Big Tent!

Failure To Exploit The Internet

The internet was a great new tool, but it was misused in its earliest years. The rise of online forums was a double-edged sword. It brought countless new people into the movement and successfully educated them in our beliefs and values, but it also gave them a safe outlet for role playing. White Nationalism 1.0 never got beyond shitposting on forums and remained bottled up online.

While 2.0 gives us drunken shitpodcasting.  Good work.

Prioritizing Politics

I think the biggest error of White Nationalism 1.0 was prioritizing politics. This ossified over time into the strategic division between mainstreamers and vanguardists. The mainstreamers believed in ultimate political victory through winning elections while the vanguardists believed in either violent revolution or creating small groups of the chosen few and waiting for the collapse of civilization.

Wow, it’s a good thing the Alt Right didn’t get all wrapped up with Trump and his campaign.  The refreshing sense of distance that the Alt Right always maintained from Trumpism is to their credit now that Trump is The Cuck Emperor. Tragicomedy.

Neither of these strategies worked because politics is downstream from culture. The mainstreamers were always politically marginalized and contained by the dominant taboos. The vanguardists were either perceived as destructive when they lashed out in violent acts or they spent all their time preaching to the choir which limited their influence and effectiveness. Both groups took White identity and various other cultural assumptions for granted which were no longer shared by their target audience which had become a herd of pleasure seeking, deracinated individualists.

As opposed to today, where the Alt Right has been so successful in turning the masses into racially aware heroes that the ethnostate is just around the corner.  However, when you look around that corner, just watch out for Leftist flamethrowers, ramming cars, and Trump signing congressional orders denouncing you and marshaling federal resources against you.

The Alt Right = White Nationalism 0.5. The same dogma, the same marginal personalities, the same propensity to “acting out” violence, the same freakishness, as version 1.0, but coarsened and worsened by dumbing it all down for Internet “youth culture.”

The Nazi Next Time, II

Further analysis.

Let’s take another look at my The Nazi Next Time essay from 2015.  How does all of that look now from the perspective of Trump’s election and all the events from the year (and more) since that election?

Before we look back at the main points of that “Nazi” essay, let us consider that now, approximately two years later, certain elements of the System Left are beginning to reach similar conclusions.  Read this Frank Rich piece.

However common the ground of Democrats and Trumpists when it comes to economic populism, they will still be separated by the Trumpists’ adamant nativism, nationalism, and racism. The liberal elites who continue to argue that Democrats can win by meeting Trump voters halfway don’t seem to realize that those intransigent voters have long been hardwired to despise them.

The pot calling the kettle black?  Who despises who?  It was the Democratic Party’s abandonment of the White working class, in favor of Colored Identity Politics, which set the stage for right-wing populism to begin with.  Working class and middle class White Americans rightly perceive that the Democrats despise them, so why not return the favor?

Looking to the future in his 60 Minutes White House exit interview, Bannon said, “The only question before us” is whether it “is going to be a left-wing populism or a right-wing populism.” And that is the question, he added, “that will be answered in 2020.” Give the devil his due: He does have the question right. But there is every reason to fear that our unending civil war will not be resolved by any election anytime soon in the destabilized America that Trump will leave behind.

But the long-term threat is bigger than the potential arrival in the Capitol of radicals like Moore or the conspiracy theorist Kelli Ward, a possible inheritor of Flake’s Arizona seat. By illuminating a pathway to power that no one had thought possible, and demolishing the civic guardrails that we assumed protected us from autocrats, Trump has paved the way for far slicker opportunists to gain access to the national stage. Imagine a presidential candidate with Trump’s views and ambitions who does not arrive with Trump’s personal baggage, his undisciplined penchant for self-incrimination, and his unsurpassed vulgarity. 

Yes, I can imagine it: that’s why I wrote the “Nazi” essay; the vision was clear in my mind…and still is.

Finer-tooled instruments — smarter and shrewder demagogues than the movement’s current titular head — may already be suiting up in the wings.

Oh, we can only hope.  I do believe eventually, we’ll see that.

In any case: Sallis was prescient once again.

Now, back to the 2015 Sallis piece.

The hysterical angst of the Republican Establishment concerning the rise of Trump is glorious to observe.  Of course, the interesting thing is their complete lack of self-awareness, their lack of understanding that they themselves are responsible for the predicament they find themselves in.

I was I believe too kind to the GOP then.  Or, perhaps, I realize now that the Republicans don’t care about winning; they only care about being part of the System’s anti-White agenda.  Trumpism in the 2016 election gave the GOP sweeping victories at every level, leaving the Democratic Party in complete disarray.  2016 was a stunning confirmation that right-wing populism is the path for continued Republican electoral dominance even in the face of the changing demographics that the GOP itself has been complicit in promoting.  Trumpism can build a solid White voting bloc, with strengths among demographics (working class Whites, White ethnics) who were part of the Reagan coalition, but who have been straying from the GOP after decades of Neocon-corporate-cuckservatism, as exemplified by the Bush family, “plastic man” Romney, and execrable filth like John McCain (and the pink-frilled Lindsey Graham).  And how has the GOP reacted to this good fortune?  By doubling down on their anti-Trumpism, by obstructing what little the Grand Cuck Trump (this revealed after the election) wants to accomplish in a positive sense, by joining in with the absurd moral panic over “Russian interference,” by cucking to an extreme degree, by doing everything possible to throw away the fruits of the 2-16 electoral sweep an alienate and discourage Trump’s base.  So, now, I believe that they have awareness and understanding – it’s just that they are part of the same corruption, and always have been.  It’s always been a fraud, a scam, a con game run on the White American voter.  The GOP really isn’t in any predicament at all; they are simply playing the role assigned to them, playing it with relish.

Of course, all else being equal. The GOP would prefer to win elections, as they would like to enjoy the power and perks of elected office.  They also want to convince the rubes of the viability of the “two party system” and they want to keep the political donations and campaign contributions flowing in.  But winning is not an existential issue for them, but being anti-White is. If given a choice between winning with an explicitly pro-White agenda and losing as pandering cucks, they’d pick the latter every time. When the choice is put into those stark terms, the real Republican agenda comes into sharp focus.

Consider: after the startling electoral success of 2016, GOP cucks still pretend that association with right-wing populism will somehow damage the party – they will be ‘”toast.”

Still think they really want to win?

One reason is that the GOP has been complicit in the demographic changes that have put them “in between a rock and a hard place,” politically speaking. On the one hand, Republicans look at America’s growing colored population and see the need to appeal to that demographic. On the other hand, the GOP base of support is conservative White Americans, particularly right-of-center White men.  To pander to minorities runs the risk of alienating the base; to secure the base runs the risk of alienating the coloreds. Up to this point, the GOP strategy has been to pander to the colored minorities, while throwing “bones” to the base in the form of phony “implicit Whiteness” and “dog whistling” rhetoric with no real-life political consequences. Heretofore, the GOP has mastered feinting right during the primaries, running centrist in the general election, and, in the rare cases of GOP Presidential victories (since Ronnie Raygun, we have had only the two failed Bush men being elected), governing from the left. Base anger has been silenced by “they have nowhere else to go” “lesser of two evils” electoral considerations.

But now, the rise of Trump is an ill wind blowing in the direction of the GOP elites: the base is starting to awaken and will not be forever willing to “vote for lesser of two evils” and support anti-White leftist Republican candidates.

Whatever else Trump is or does, this alone justifies supporting his 2016 campaign, which I did.  Even if he is a completely self-interested phony, his reliance on right-wing populism “let the toothpaste out of the tube” and the System, however it may try, cannot get it all back in again, long-term.  They may win some battles here or there, tactical successes, but the tides of war will go against them.  By this, I mean the war to make multiculturalism work smoothly, and have White blithely accept their own dispossession.  The System may still win in the end, but their victory will be a Pyrrhic one, a bloody mess that will leave a nation essentially ungovernable long term as any major power on the world scene.  They may suppress right-wing populism short-term (and likely, not even that), but, like a bed penny, it’ll keep on popping up again.  Trump is a catalyst, a “John the Baptist” foreshadowing things to come.

But there is something else. The problem with Trump is seemingly not only his ideology of right-wing populism (real or fake), it is also because the Republican Establishment – with some justification – see Trump as an ill-informed, vulgar, obnoxious, childish buffoon, with no self-control and an embarrassing lack of gravitas.  Very well, but in response to those concerns I have two words: Pat Buchanan.

Like Trump, Buchanan ran for President as a right-wing populist Republican. In fact, there is considerable overlap in overt ideology between the two men’s campaigns. While lacking Trump’s “alpha jerk-boy” charisma, Buchanan has certain advantages that you would think would endear him to the GOP elites: Buchanan is a well-informed, articulate, religious man, with strong Establishment connections, and prior political experience in previous Republican administrations. Buchanan has always been an “inside-the-Beltway” man, and is not an obnoxious buffoon.

And how did the GOP elites deal with the more polished and political Buchanan?  With the same disdain and hysteria that they now reserve for “Der Trumpening.”  The Elite made it clear that they would never accept Buchanan as the nominee, they panicked over his early successes, they sabotaged his campaign (as I recall, they even prevented him from being on the ballot in some states), etc.  So, the case of Buchanan proves that the problem with Trump is not so much his repellent personal aspects, but his core of right-wing populism. Anything that appeals to Whites is anathema to the GOP, which is of course self-destructive given the nature of the GOP base (it is not for nothing that Sam Francis labeled the GOP “the Stupid Party”).

As stated above, the GOP would rather lose as anti-Whites than win as pro-White.  It’s a well-established trend dating back decades.

The point is that the GOP lost anyway with Bush and Dole in 1992 and 1996. While it is understandable that the incumbent would be favored in 1992, there was no excuse for favoring the “living mummy” “civil rights Republican” Dole over Buchanan in 1996. Favoring Buchanan would have solidified the GOP base and could have put the party in the direction of a right-wing populist track that could have genuinely benefited White Americans.

That is anathema to Establishment Republicans.

But, no. The elites sabotaged Buchanan and they suppressed right-wing populism for several electoral cycles. Now it has erupted in a more “virulent” form with Donald Trump. Instead of learning their lesson and understanding that the base cannot be taken for granted, instead of understanding that they need candidates that appeal to the base, the GOP elites are hell-bent on sabotaging Trump and suppressing right-wing populism for another couple of electoral cycles.

They may succeed but they are playing with fire.

They couldn’t stop Trump from winning, but they are fairly successful in teaming up with Democrats to block Trump’s ostensible agenda. Here, they are getting help from Trump himself, who betrays his base at every opportunity.  xxThere are some who say that there is evidence that Trump is sincere in his right-wing populism: he gave up his easy billionaire lifestyle to run for President. But that in and of itself means nothing.  It ignores issues of ego and the lust for (political) power. By analogy, we can ask why billionaires all don’t just ease up and enjoy the “good life,” why do most of them continue to strive, “wheel and deal,” obsess over money, and engage in rent-seeking behavior, including political lobbying, designed to further increase their wealth and power?  That’s the nature of the rich and powerful: they are never satisfied; they always want more (and that is one reason that they become rich and powerful to begin with).  If such people are given the opportunity to go into the history books as US President, would they eschew that opportunity?  Trump’s Presidential ambitions tell us nothing about his sincerity.  The fact that Trump ran as a right-wing populist may reflect his real views, or it may simply reflect his realization that the only way he could stand out from the established field of GOP cucks was to give the base the “red meat” that they were craving.  If Trump is really the shrewd businessman his admirers says he is, then he must have noticed the open political niche space to the political right of the GOP candidate field.  Trump’s sincerity would be better displayed by an honest and consistent effort on his part to fulfill his campaign promises.  That he is not doing; instead we get jackass tweeting, half-heated measures, backpedaling, a disgraceful waste of political capital, and waffling on issues like DACA.  If there is sincerity there, it is awfully hard to see.

Who will come after Trump?  Who will be the next right-wing populist?  As even worthless and weak Whites become more aggressive out of sheer desperation, who will they turn to next?  Someone more extreme and firebrand-populist compared to Trump to the same degree Trump is compared to Buchanan? 

It won’t be “the fire next time,” but it may well be “the Nazi next time.”  The GOP elites had better hope that their country clubs are well fortified indeed.

Will Trump’s constant betrayals and failures discourage his base?  Or, as Rich suggests, whatever the outcome of Trump, the base will only become more energized?  The latter, we hope.  But we must realize that the trauma of Trump has immunized the System against the “virus” of right-wing populism; they’ll be on their guard against it, and will try and nip any further manifestations in the bud.  Where they will fail, I believe, is that the System is, at its heart, anti-White; they cannot muster up any real “red meat” to satisfy a growing sense of White Identity Politics that will become ever more resistant to Democratic attempts to divert race with economics or GOP attempts at implicitly White “culture war” dog whistling.  The toothpaste is out of the tune, so to speak.

But, the System may not be able to win over the Trump base, but they’ll use their power to sabotage future political manifestations of right-wing populism.

In the movie The Day of the Jackal, the Jackal tells the OAS leaders: “Not only have your own efforts failed, but you’ve rather queered the pitch for everyone else.”  One can say that about Trump perhaps (and about the “movement” more generally, certainly).

Now, right-wing populism, essentially civic nationalism, is not the answer.  It is best a precursor or at least a stop gap, and at worst a diversion, a cul-de-sac, a competitor to what is needed – which is explicitly prop-White racial nationalism – White nationalism.  At this point in time, we can work to ensure that right-wing populism serves positive functions, as a precursor to White nationalism (the membrane separating the two is thin; it is one step from civic nationalism to racial nationalism, but an big step many do not make), or at least as a stop gap as racial nationalism begins to develop (Trump is in a sense a stop gap; one other benefit of his election, besides all “breaking the ice” for more extreme politics and increasing balkanization an chaos, is that he prevented a Clinton election that could have led to more repressive conditions for the development of racial nationalism – worse is not always better).

I would suggest that at this point, right-wing populism is best suited for Presidential campaigns and also for Senate and Governor races, and for lower level races in areas in which the White population is not sufficiently “prepared” for more radical approaches.  However, in selected areas and selected times, we should begin to consider explicitly White candidates – even racial nationalist WNs – ranging from school board elections all the way up to the US House of Representatives. Some successes there can lead to consideration of WNs for the higher level races.  The value of political WN campaigns exists regardless of the electoral outcome: promoting balkanization, recruiting, propaganda, organization, normalization of racial nationalist discourse and “pushing the envelope,” forcing the civic nationalists to get off the fence in one direction or another, a whole host of advantages.

Political campaigns would benefit from effective local organizing and vice versa.  It’s been said, and I believe it to be true, than in some locales, WNs love near each other but do not know of each other’s existence. Even if some fraction of these are kooks, freaks, defectives, Nutzis, fetishists, etc. there may still be a critical mass of useful like-minded people in certain areas.  The trick is to get them together, to work together, and to organize, safely, without the threat of infiltrators exposing them all.  How to do it is uncertain.  Existing meetings with their “extreme vetting” are ludicrous jokes; real extreme vetting would help, but I’m not sure that Der Movement has the competence or discipline to pull it off.  Anyone who is able to put together an effective plan for local organizing is going to be at an enormous advantage.  In the competition for racial nationalist leadership, those who can perform effectively will rise, and those who are laughably inept will fall.  

WNs cannot depend on a “man on white horse” civic cuck “hero” to save them.  The Nazi Next Time is not going to descend from Valhalla, complete with blessings of Saint Adolf; instead, the “demagogues” of the future will come to the fore as a result of hard work, discipline, and commitment.

This will, I believe, likely require a New Movement that replaces the clown show that currently exists.  I’m not sanguine about that, but this blog will continue to play the role of “loyal opposition.”  Racial nationalism is the future, but that future will only become actualized if we make it so.  

Future installments of this topic will be forthcoming when events and new ideas warrant; note as well there is overlap with the concept of Political EGI, as any pro-White leader who is worthwhile must incorporate (even if indirectly) the concept of genetic interests into their memetic toolkit.

Silk Road News: WN and Other News

Several items.

Another bizarre Asiatic behavior explained.  An annoying habit for an annoying people.

Colored is as Colored Does; Asians = more intelligent Negroes. 

Washington Post reporter Jeff Guo wrote an epic-length Tweet storm with every Angry Asian cliche imaginable: the Model Minority Myth is racist, Asians are discriminated against in the U.S., they weren’t even allowed in for awhile, the food tastes awful, and the portions are so small.

The only thing worse for nonwhites than having to live in a country built by whites is not being allowed to immigrate to a country built by whites.

Second, the claim that America was always a multiracial society — with whites, American Indians, and blacks present from the start of English colonization — is fundamentally false. From the beginning of the colonial period well into the history of the United States, there was a consensus that blacks and American Indians — and later mestizos and Orientals — might be “in” white society, but they were not “of” it. They were foreigners, not fellow citizens. They had no say about the character and destiny of white society…Chinese immigrants began arriving in the 1840s, and their presence almost immediately created a backlash. White Americans objected to Chinese economic competition, drug use, criminality, and all-round alienness.

Soon an Asian exclusion movement arose to cut off Chinese immigration and freeze the Chinese out of American society. The vanguard of Chinese exclusion came from the labor movement, which saw that big business interests were importing coolies to depress white wages and living standards. California was the front line of the Chinese invasion and the white reaction, which was often violent. The Chinese exclusion movement was led by the California Workingmen’s Party, founded by Irish immigrant Denis Kearney, who obviously didn’t fall for the idea that all immigrants are equal. (See Theodore J. O’Keefe’s “Denis Kearney and Struggle for a White America” and Raymond T. Wolters, “Race War on the Pacific Coast.”)

Because of exclusionist agitation, Chinese immigration was reduced, then completely barred for ten years by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which was renewed in 1892 and again in 1902 and extended to people from Hawaii and the Philippines. Chinese exclusion was again reaffirmed by the Immigration Act of 1924. Chinese born in America were not considered citizens until 1898, and it was only in 1940 that naturalization was opened to people of Chinese, Philippine, and Indian descent, as well as descendants of the aboriginal peoples from other parts of the Western Hemisphere, meaning Indians and Mestizos from outside the United States. Chinese exclusion was only overturned by Congress in 1943, as a wartime gesture toward China.

The Raving Madness of Silk Road White Nationalism

Answering the Silk Roaders.

This was followed by a moronic attack against me on Majority Rights myself.

The reality of Silk Road White nationalism exposed here.

Daniel S, ally of Kumiko, saying that Asians should have colonies in the West and at its borders because a racial nationalist Europe will need Chinese girls with guns to defend us (emphasis added):

“Sacrosanct European territories in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand will likely need to become smaller at any rate in order to be maintained and defended. But with the increased manageability of defense will come an opportunity to offer cooperation to Asians to have some sacrosanct territories of their own in these places. 

We already have Chinatowns. Now there could be some intermittently disbursed along the borders of the Mediterranean and among European cities with border and migrant control an explicit part of their mandate.”

My reply to that race treason:

That is not simply saying, “Better Asians than Blacks.” That is saying to have Asian colonies in: Americas, Australia, New Zealand, European cities, and Mediterranean borders.   It’s there in black and white. 

And this is precisely my objection.  I absolutely reject any scenario that includes Asians having “sacrosanct territories” in White lands and/or maintenance of “Chinatowns” or any other invasive colonies in White “borders” or in “European cities.

And although the Silk Roaders will deny that Daniel S advocated Chinese girls with guns guarding the borders of the West, it is right here, with pictures.

In case the Silkers block the link from here, it is:

One can only speculate about the mentality underlying that.  

To summarize: In exchange for handing over the Russian Far East to Asians, Whites will in return get the “benefits” of Asian colonization of White lands, including Chinese girls with guns enforcing law and order.  What a deal!  It sounds more like an Alt Wrong masochistic sex fantasy than any sort of reasonable racial alliance, but what do I know?  Putting aside the obvious point that the problem that the West has currently with immigration (including of Asians, by the way) is one of will, not one of ability.  If Whites wanted to stop the influx tomorrow, they could very well do so on their own; they do not need Suzie Wong and her Kalashnikov to do the job for us.

And oh yes, the Silk Roaders will praise Britain’s “geostrategic thinking” in order to foment intra-European conflict, but note that this is the same Kumiko who wrote about the UK:

Yes, the UK’s leadership deliberately and consciously siding with international motherfucking Jews…

Which is it?  Britain’s wise geostrategic statesmanship, or a leadership “siding with international motherfucking Jews…” Whichever hands over the Russian Far East to Asians, and creates Asian colonies in White nations so that White males can be bossed around by Asiatrices with rifles – that’s the ticket! That’s to my mind an order of magnitude more repulsive than anything Hoffmeister ever said, and if I had to choose between Hoffmeister and Majority Rights, I pick the former.

And get this (emphasis added)

For British Asians in the Brexit environment, our lives and our property are bound up with the fortunes and the flag of Great Britain, so it is only natural that we would stand with Britain against any and all opponents.

Hmmm…”our?”  This creature, this diseased Oriental, lives in the UK?  Well, why not? Majority Rights supports Asian colonization of White lands, so it makes sense.  Some “White nationalism” MR is, with a female Japanese, living in a White nation, attacking WN by talking about “non-existent European solidarity.”  MR is not a pro-White site.  It is an anti-White, pro-Asian site.  Actually, even if Counter-Currents supports ethnonationalism it still does, insofar as I know, support the European solidarity this Asiatic claims to be non-existent.  So, the incompatibility between the two blogs is very clear.

To summarize: a non-White invader living in a White nation – the very thing Majority Rights was created to oppose! – uses that forum (what used to be a pro-White site) to attack the very foundation of White racial nationalism, the European solidarity that used to be a guiding principle of that site. In any case, MR is now openly hostile to the ethnic genetic interests of Europeans.

PLEASE TAKE MY EGI POST OFF YOUR GODDAMN SITE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

But I would urge readers of Counter-Currents to take a look at Majority Rights, both posts and comments threads, where the Alt Right and Trump are attacked as lackeys of Russians/Jews/Israel and where Alt Right personalities like Greg Johnson, Richard Spencer, and Michael Enoch are subjected to juvenile, and sometimes vulgar, personal attack.  After all, if you are not slavishly pro-Asian and anti-Russian, you are no damn good. In particular, Captain Chaos subjected Greg Johnson to a particularly repulsive attack (which I have saved in case the dishonest Silk Roaders delete it). Instead of moderating it away, they let it stand.  What to expect from a bunch of vile trash that harassed Michael Enoch (who was supported by the same Counter-Currents the vile Japotrix wants to curry favor with now – probably the reason Greg was attacked, his support of Enoch), engages in gay baiting of Richard Spencer as a lisping effeminate (while he actually has more physical courage than most, going out in public), and the way Bowery has been treated there over the years, allowing him to be abused by Graham Lister, while in the midst of serious personal difficulties, was disgusting and atrocious.

And lest we forget, I was labeled as a “Jew” or someone who “sucks Jewish cock” by Daniel after I had the temerity to object to colonies of Asian women with guns in Western nations. If that’s the supporters of ethnonationalism, again, I’ll take Hoffmeister over them any time.

By the way, the Majority Rights hostility to Trump and the Alt Right is encapsulated by this Kumiko comment:

I can’t wait to see the kind of vacuous nonsensical stream-of-conscious word-salad which will be deployed across the lectern in search of a meaning, once Trump actually starts ad-libbing in the middle of his own speech as he so often tends to do.

In terms of the substance of his speech, I’m expecting that it will be in the combined tradition of Madison Grant, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Dwight D. Eisenhower – which is to say, a crybully session in which people will be entreated to ‘discover’ that all of the problems of White and Jewish Americans and Israeli Jews, all the problems that they have, are somehow to be blamed on Asians and Mexicans.

We can’t pick on those poor Asians and Mexicans!  And how about putting Madison Grant in the same category as FDR, who pushed the Democrat party into anti-Whitism and Ike, who began the process of integrating the American educational system   How can you compare a racial nationalist like Grant (who defined his race specifically in terms of Nordic) to anti-Nordics (and anti-Whites) like FDR and Ike?  Answer: they all picked on those poor, innocent Asians.  The whole world must be explained in terms of Asian interests, don’t you know.  And if you object, then you’re a “Jew” or “suck Jewish cock.”

The Silk Roaders essentially use anti-Semitic rhetoric as a smokescreen to conceal Asian supremacist and Asian imperialist motives.  Throw a few “It’s the Jews!” bones in the direction of “movement” Nutzis and hope they don’t realize your entire agenda is about enriching Asian interests at the expense of that of Europeans.  The idea that someone can be opposed to BOTH Jews and Asians doesn’t quite register on the memetic maps of these Asiatic swindlers.

Meanwhile, the Alt Right, for all their faults, at least critique Trump for valid reasons.  You know, a pro-White site actually cares about what’s good for Whites, instead of what’s good for Asians.  Paying attention, GW? Remember when the “Majority” in your “Majority Rights” referred to Europeans and not Asians?

One basic problem with the whole Silk Road Asian Alliance/Derbyshire Arctic Alliance nonsense is that it presupposes a set of conditions that would render it irrelevant.

This is common sense and logic.  Who in the White world would make such an alliance with Asians?  Who?  Merkel and other anti-White, liberal, globalist leaders?  The American System?  Who?  Well, the answer would come, it would be White/Euro-nationalists who would make such an alliance.  Uh, well, that’s great, but such nationalists are not in any position to make any grand international alliance as envisioned by the Silk Road/grovel-to-Rosie crowd, a grand geopolitical/strategic/military alliance to keep out the hordes of the Global South.

Thus, it would need to be White/Euro-nationalists in positions of power.  In other words, the grand alliance would need to occur after the White world is governed by ethno/racial nationalists.  Who else would want to make such an alliance and be in a position to do so?

Very well.  But, if ethno/racial nationalists are in control of the White world, then what need to they have for Asians and an alliance with Asians?  The current invasion of the White world by the Global South (which, truth be told, includes East and South Asians, who are migrating to the West the same as all the other Coloreds) is a social and political problem, it is a problem of will. It is not a technical or military problem.  If Whites decided tomorrow that they wanted an end to the invasion, then the invasion ends.  There is no way for the Coloreds to force their way in if Whites absolutely refuse. The problem is that Whites, particularly the globalist elites who control White nations, do not want to stop the invasion; instead they want to encourage and facilitate it.  Likewise, if Whites wanted to expel all non-Whites from White nations, they could do so – it wouldn’t be easy, and would require some bloodshed no doubt, but it could be done.  Whites do not need Asian help to enact these measures, and Whites are the ones who need to decide that it must be done.  No one else can do that for us.  Indeed, one could expect that Asians, at least some Asians, would object to such a renaissance of White Will and White Power, since Asian immigration to the West is one safety valve for their teeming hordes (and infiltrates the West with Asian influence).

So, why an alliance?  What possible benefit could it confer?  And at what cost?  The Silk Roaders talk about ceding the entire Russian Far East to Asians, they have talked about having Asian colonies in White cities, having Asian colonies on the borders of Europe – as if Europeans need those Chinese girls with guns (pictured at Silk Road blogs) to defend them. And what price Derbyshire’s Arctic Alliance?  That we need to have an Asian and Jewish technocratic elite living in White nations, insisting on our “measured groveling” and intermarrying with high-IQ Whites to form a Jeurasian overclass?

No thank you.  This is all cost and no benefit.  Any alliance is unnecessary and would confer unacceptable costs.  Instead, the most we should strive for is peaceful coexistence, peaceful competition.  Any further than that is madness.