Der Movement: July 9, 2019

In all cases, emphasis added.

Heddi

Replying to @RichardBSpencer

1) Richard, risk involvement reduces the influx of quality people to exactly ZERO. People who have lives/families to shatter by social ostracism or job loss will not ever involve themselves visibly, thus alt right was anonymous online phenomenon.‏

2) The condition to attract quality people - those who do not come from a "nothing to lose anyway" position - is the erasure of risk. How to do it? Marry risk erasure with incentives of heightened prospects of living conditions. Immerse immediate benefits into joining. Think.

Point number one is fairly obvious but very important, and perhaps not obvious to the grand poohbahs who represent themselves as “movement leadership.”  And this is something I’ve written about before, more than once.  

As far as point two goes, I essentially agree, except that “erasure of risk” is unrealistic. There is risk in everything, even driving a car or walking down a flight of stairs. Obviously, involvement in dissident political/metapolitical activity that is opposed by the entire System, by virtually the entire political spectrum, is going to have inherent risk.  Instead, we should talk of “risk management” and “risk minimization” – far more realistic objectives.  That is opposed to the typical “risk maximization” of Der Movement.  As an example of reasonable minimization, see the 2019 Amren meeting; while Unite the Right, the fate of Ricky Vaughn, Hermansson and Lewis infiltrations, IE Discord, and similar antics exemplify risk maximization.

And as far as incentives go – there are none.  Community building? Resistance to social pricing? Alternative infrastructures and economic viability for low-to-medium scale activists (as opposed to the “Happy Penguins” soaking up the “D’Nations”)?  Camaraderie?  Normalcy?  None of that. Instead we see sour defectiveness, bizarre freakishness, and endless failure.

A comparison between the Type I-style and Type II-style “alpha males” is shown in this short clip from Twin Peaks Season 3. Ray Monroe exemplifies the style of alpha maleness prized by the Type I defectives of “game” such as Roissy - a snide, smirking, sneering, joking, obnoxious jackass.  Mr. C, on the other hand, displays a more Type II-style sense of alpha maleness - aggressive, driven, serious, threatening, focused, with the “alphaness” focused with the “want” vs. “need” distinction.  Note how the two interact – Mr C putting Monroe in his place but the latter refusing to acknowledge it other than a begrudging slight nod and semi-grunt, followed by more of the same annoying jerkboy behavior.

This is a useful contrast because it is the Type I behavior that has led to the downfall of the Alt Right and damaged (American) racial nationalism.  All you need to do is listen to (drunken) “movement” podcasts and read “movement” blog posts and comments threads and you’ll observe Ray Monroes aplenty.  Unfortunately, Mr Cs are few and far between, so the snark to seriousness ratio approaches infinity.

The paradigm of “Sallis is always right” extends to my opinion of Durocher, whose latest inane screed can be found here.  Note the Bliss vs. Malla insanity in the comments thread, which is a direct result of Durocher’s constant shilling of an unscientific, ahistorical, cartoonish Ostara-style version of racial history.  Note then the Nutzi Germanic lunatics, the raging defectives, sweaty fetishists, and all the rest.  It’s no coincidence that such freaks come out of the woodwork with a Durocher post.  As they say – garbage in, garbage out.

Once again Sallis is right – remember this:

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?

So, yeah, I’m sure the vaunted Swedish ethnonationalists will go from victory to victory when it is considered a crime to merely state the desire to deport criminal migrants.  

Laugh at this.  Soporific blog posts?

After a hard day of writing inspirational articles for Counter-Currents (under various pennames)…

Multiple pennames? If true, that would help explain the devastating decline of quality at that site.

…I mix myself a drink that consists of vodka, soda water, lots of lime juice, and lots of ice.

What is it with Type I Alt Right and drinking alcohol?