On Leadership Redux

Thoughts.

Anyone with experience with corporate politics in the business world, or with departmental/institutional politics in the academic world, understands certain power realities that can inform a better understanding of, on a larger scale, how America (or any other nation) really works, and, how, on a smaller scale, Der Movement really operates.

In reality, in most cases, laws, regulations, documents, principles, ideologies count for little.  Personalities, and the struggles of these personalities, are paramount. What is most important are the aggressive psychopaths with dark triad traits who strive for power and prestige (and money); individuals who use entities for their personal aggrandizement, who use networking, lies, force, deception, amoral and immoral actions of all sorts to achieve their goals. Now, these individuals may have beliefs, and they may actually believe in these beliefs, but in most cases that is secondary to, again, power and prestige, and the struggles between individual personalities for such.

If an entity is lucky, the dark triad leaders will choose competent and moral people to actualize some good for the entity (if for no other reason than to help the leaders maintain power); in rare cases, leaders themselves are competent and moral and are not the psychopaths so described.  America’s founding fathers were such competent and moral leaders. More often, leaders feel threatened by subordinates who are too competent, particularly when they are moral; so you often get corrupt subordinates actualizing evil, who turn out to be convenient scapegoats to assuage popular anger – sacrificed by the leaders to win popular favor (see The Prince for more on that).

While the ethnic affirmative action program of Der Movement certainly distorts some of this (as such policies do with other entities), and helps prop up people inept even in their personal leadership, in general some of the harm done by “movement” “leaders” derives from the mechanisms described above.  Even if there was no quota system, there will always be a struggle between psychopaths and moralpaths with the former typically, but not always, coming out on top.

And those on the side of the right cannot depend on “laws, regulations, documents, principles, ideologies” to help them in this struggle.

Nietzsche vs. Melville

Western Destiny essay.

See here.

Animal Mother vs. Joker

Full Metal Jacket.

See this. I would recommend watching the full movie for context.

We will assume three premises.

First, we will examine this as normal people, not as sexually deviant HBDers, who would sacrifice all of these soldiers for one Southeast Asian female (as is the sniper), or who would sacrifice the entire US military for one Northeast Asian female.

Second, we will ignore all of the keyboard warriors, who have never been even in a fistfight, who would bleat that “rules of war” are nonsense, and any actions that contribute to victory are equally valid. We will assume that certain accepted rules of armed engagement apply here.

Third, we will assume (the questionable stance) that Whites, Negroes, Asians, Hispanics are all equally human.

That said, what do we have here?  

The sniper is a non-uniformed partisan, not a uniformed solder – war rule violation number one.

With respect to the actual sniper shots, the killing of Cowboy was an acceptable military necessity and a “clean kill,” while the torture shots of Eightball and Doc J, clearly intended to lure more Marines into the killing zone, were war rule violations two and three.

Thus, the sniper was a war criminal.  Even if she were captured alive and unhurt, the proper outcome was her execution.

Given the circumstances given in the movie, was Animal Mother correct in his plan to leave her to slowly die, suffering in agony, left for the rats, or was Joker correct to give a quick mercy killing?

The “two wrongs don’t make a right” pious Christians would side with Joker; I, however, side with Animal Mother. When your opponent behaves in a manner in opposition to all standards of decency, in violation of accepted rules of warfare, when they abdicate their humanity (assuming their humanity to begin with) by their actions, what do you owe them?  One can respect an honorable opponent, but how should one deal with evil?  With malice?  With an inhuman absence of decency and honor?

Animal Mother was correct. 

The idea given in the YouTube video that the person making the choice would themselves benefit from giving mercy makes assumptions about the mentality of that person. One assumes that the only guilt and regret would be that of Joker if he had listened to Animal Mother.  What about the opposite?  Maybe Animal Mother – and the other soldiers – will later feel guilt and regret that they didn’t exact proper justice by letting the yellow filth suffer. And such suffering would indeed be justice. Even the YouTube video maker accepts that justification, to at least some extent. Why let Joker’s sentimental “morality” trump the morality of justice felt by others?  Or do we consider those "vengeful" just others to be merely “animals driven by instinct” (see below), in contrast to the wonderfully moral fully formed human Joker?

Some would argue that the Animal Mother choice would itself be a war crime. Really? Are soldiers obligated to dole out mercy killings on the battlefield?  Are they obligated to endanger themselves by staying around to give useless medical aid to mortally wounded partisan war criminals who would be shot anyway if they survived? If the soldiers had simply walked away and let nature take its course, would that have been a war crime?  Or merely an affront to the tender sensitivities of Joker?

More: Given the activity of partisans, and the fact that any little Asiatrix could be a sniper, how wrong was that helicopter “get some” gunner?  How really wrong was he?

And, is it in any way surprising that a Jew director would preach that self-sacrificial instinctual heroism for “kin” is less moral than mercy to an enemy that hates you?  After all, who was it who infected European Man with Christianity, a religion the infectors themselves reject? Do they show mercy to, say, elderly Nazis or to young Palestinians?  Hardly. Merciful behavior for thee but not for me.

This whole analysis is important not only in its own right, but as a proxy, an analogy, for the relationship between pro-White activists and the System. Right now, the System has the upper hand, and is treating pro-White activists, and Whites in general, the same as the sniper treated Eightball and Doc J. What if we eventually get the upper hand?  Should our response be that of Animal Mother or of Joker?  I prefer the former. What about you?

Leadership Sociopathy

And other news.

See this. I would like to first consider this topic from the perspective of the actual post and then briefly examine how this can be extended to the “movement.”

Loyalty — of any kind — is a career impediment.

Loyalty to one’s race, religion, region (the South) etc., are not only impediments. Those kinds of loyalty are radioactive, instant death.

Even loyalty to one’s family is a career impediment. The normal young law firm associate wants to go home at 5.00 p.m. to be with his wife and child. The sociopath will work on till 8.00 on the important brief without any psychological conflict. He’ll call up the wife and tell her he won’t be home for dinner without any upset.

This explains someone like Biden feeling no loyalty to his country and being willing to pimp for those with power and money without any regard to what it means to people at large.

What makes the situation in America even worse, however, is that this situation is the opposite for the predatory ethnic groups seeking conquest at our expense.

Black, Hispanic, Jewish politicians are successful the more they are loyal. A law student who can put in his resume that he was President of the Black Law Student’s Association, the La Raza Club or the Hillel Foundation enhances his chances of getting a high-paying job with a prestigious law firm, a federal judgeship or election to the US Senate. (Like Schumer who was recently caught explaining to other Jews that his whole life is spent scheming on how to advance his own particular ethnic group.)

What these two contradictory patterns lead to is what’s going on in contemporary America.

Our antagonists are led by men whose loyalty to their ethnic group exceeds that of most of the others.  We are “led” by people like Biden, Clinton, John McCain, William F Buckley Jr., Johnny Isakson, Lindsey Graham, and Mitch McConnel who are bereft of loyalty to us.

This is another reason why there is no hope of reform under the present System.

I agree with this overall assessment. Yes, political leaders are, typically, sociopaths (or, if you will, psychopaths). Yes, and this is important, White political leaders are unique (in a negative sense) in that they are hostile to, and opposed to, the interests of their own people, in contrast to leaders of all other groups, who (almost) always strongly support and promote the interests of their own group. 

An older National Alliance ADV broadcast (I don’t remember if it was Pierce or Strom) mentioned a sociopolitical “ratchet” – events move only in the direction of anti-Whiteness and never in the direction of pro-Whiteness. If both White and non-White political leaders are anti-White and pro-non-White, thus having the entire political system hostile to White interests, then we can understand why this "ratchet" exists.

Of course, the HBD-Nordicists would have varied other explanations for the behavior of White political leaders; in some cases, perhaps those Whites are acting in a “sincere” manner in pursuing pathological altruism (high trusters!). Still, generally, it would seem that many of these leaders have strong strains of sociopathy, for the reasons explained in the essay.

This would in part explain why the ratchet moves in an anti-White direction in nations that have a White majority and the majority of voters being White. Yes, some Whites are leftists and openly act in defiance of group interests, and, in combination with non-White voters, there is a strong anti-White voting bloc. But, how did all of those newer non-White immigrants get here in the first place?  Why was the minority of Whites who are leftist allowed to get their way all the time? If you want to blame "the Jews," then who empowered them (and let them in the country to begin with), and who goes along with their agenda in exchange for "thirty pieces of silver?"

Political policies derived from White leaders put into office by a majority White electorate are responsible. But, here is an important point – even when the White electorate puts right-of-center political leaders into office, the same ratchet moves in the anti-White direction. So, even when Whites try and vote in the direction of their interests, they are betrayed by their leaders, most recently by Trump. Therefore, sociopathy plays a role, perhaps a crucial role. When your own leaders, across the entire political spectrum, betray you without remorse, with no conscience bothering them, who openly lie and betray – this seems to be sociopathy in action.

Moving to the “movement,” I would maintain that sociopathy plays a role as well. Gaslighters, grifters, betrayers, liars, lazy good-for-nothings – is it any wonder why Der Movement has gone from failure to failure decade after decade? When you combine sociopathy with outrageous incompetence, all protected by an ethnic affirmative action program – well, we see the utter catastrophe that is (American) pro-White activism.

Maybe we need to add some moralpaths to the mix?

Other news:

See this.  Well, OK, if you agree that women are basically whores who exchange sex to gain goods, favors, and concessions from men, and who have nothing else to offer society, I suppose that’s an effective approach for inducing change.  What say you, ladies?

Of course, the tactic is not going to very effective with the typical married Western man, who’s not “getting any” regardless of circumstances. Milady, how can you go “on strike” if you’re not “working” in the first place?

The solution for men? The man strike. Note what the article says:

“Successful lysistratic non-action works best among large groups of women who have little or no power in the social system.”

That’s exactly the type of women who NEED men for support and resources. So, fine. No sex?  Then no money, no food, no support.  Walk out on the harridan and let her go rot. After all, when men (except for Travis Bickle) pay for prostitutes they expect sexual activity in return.  Children involved?  Take them away and let their grandmother take care of them.  Is grandma supporting the strike?  Well, then tell grandpa to leave her and let her go rot as well.

Another intellectual product from the brave new Counter-Currents. Title: “white-people-need-to-start-fucking-again.”

Of course, all of the highbrow Herrenvolk who turn up their nose to the “uncouth” Sallis Groupuscule will, of course, have nothing to say about “white-people-need-to-start-fucking-again.”

Laugh at this.

Perhaps Le Pen’s progress is indeed explicable with what Le Monde calls her “permanent normalization”: she is perpetually moderating her discourse…

And perpetually losing. There isn’t the slightest evidence that mainstreaming is a winning electoral strategy.  And even if I turned out to be wrong here, and she wins – to what end? The purpose of winning elections should be to actualize a political agenda, not merely to attain power for its own sake. If a moderate and “normalized” Le Pen is elected and ends up doing little to nothing for France and Europe, then who cares?

…and sending signals to make herself more “presidentiable” in the eyes of the mainstream media and skittish center-right voters (think pensioners and bourgeois Catholics disturbed by Afro-Islamization, but also wary of the potential instability and incompetence of a Le Pen presidency, particularly in the economic sphere).

So, if these voters are “skittish” of Le Pen, and believe that a Le Pen presidency will be characterized by “instability and incompetence,” then why should they vote for her if she moves so far toward the center that the political distance between herself and Macron – particularly if he feints right for the election – is negligible?

Le Pen’s closer advisor and brother-in-law Philippe Olivier says: “There is no more detoxification, now is the time of presidentialization.”

The moves towards normalization include praise for Charles de Gaulle (loathed by Le Pen père for his abandonment of the 1 million Europeans of French Algeria), the commemoration of the victims of the Vel d’Hiv, agreeing with the media that the “Great Replacement” is a baseless conspiracy, and providing only qualified support for the persecuted group Generation Identity on grounds of free speech.

And that substantially differs from Macron how, exactly?

In a debate with Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin, the Macronist even sought to attack Le Pen from the right saying: “you’re practically soft now.”

Exactly. That is a key component of my argument against Durocher’s mainstreaming that I have been making for years now. If Le Pen moves so far to the center that that she can be outflanked on the right by Macronists, and if voters are “skittish” about her, then why the hell won’t they just vote for Macron? If it’s between a “stable” known quality centrist and “potential instability and incompetence” of another centrist slightly more to the right (maybe), where’s the incentive for favoring the latter over the former?

And even if she does win, then we get this:

Indeed, Le Pen now is very careful to distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is “a religion like any other” with its place in France, she says, reserving her trademark “far-right” rhetorical fury for the government’s failure to eliminate “Islamism.”

That’s great.

By the way, Durocher, if Salvini was so wonderfully popular among Italians, then they can, you know, elect him back into office, this time to the top spot. Why not? I mean, if he’s so insanely popular and all, right? 

Let’s see mainstreaming accomplish two things.  First, win a major election. Second, after that victory, leverage power to actually get something done to benefit native Europeans. Can we get one – just one – example of accomplishing both? 

Don't mention Orban. He's an example of the opposite tactic - farstreaming, moving further to the right. Orban is now to the right of Jobbik, and he's more popular, and successful, than ever before. Trump's success in America came in 2016 when he moved to the right; he failed in 2020 moving to the center (putting aside election fraud; he could have still won in 2020 if he had done better among White men).

There is actual electoral success observed with farstreaming, none with mainstreaming. But promoting mainstreaming makes you look ever-so-clever to the peanut gallery, so let's all burnish our "pragmatic" mainstreaming credentials, despite zero actual success backing up that paradigm.

Meanwhile, the despicable Unz site promotes anti-vaxxism, particularly with respect to covid-19. Fascinating when Jews promote anti-vaxxism.  They are very good at making sure their Israel is well protected, but, hey, let’s convince the goyim that the vaccines are “toxic operating systems.”  More for the chosen ones, eh?

Der Movement onanism material.  HBDers are looking for the Japanese equivalent.

Of course not. Ben Dover! Remember, Ben Dover! Reality is here. But, hey, The Holy Orientals are off limits. Let’s focus on “mRNA operating systems” and “face diapers” instead, amirite?

Take the Moralpathy Quiz!

Take the quiz.

The Moralpath.

An initial quiz to determine your moralpathy score. A = 2 points, B = -2 points, C (if present) = 1 point, D (if present) = -1 point. Add together all of your positive and negative points to calculate your final score.

1. You are President of the United States. A foreign power has launched a nuclear first strike against the USA, destroying a significant portion of America’s nuclear weapons, but leaving sufficient such weapons unscathed so as to allow you to launch a retaliatory strike, which would destroy the majority of that foreign power’s civilian population and industrial capacity, as well as seriously degrade their military apparatus.  However, if you launch that retaliatory strike, the enemy would deploy the remainder of its nuclear weapons to destroy the majority of America’s civilian population and much of its industrial capacity. The foreign power, after making this threat of a secondary strike, demands that you surrender without any retaliatory strike against them, a surrender that would eliminate American sovereignty and independence. You are given one hour to decide; otherwise, they will launch the secondary strike. You would:

A. Refuse to surrender, launch the retaliatory strike, and accept the damage from their secondary strike response.

B. Surrender.

2. Statement: To achieve your goals in defense of your people’s interests, actions up to and including war and genocide are justified. You:

A. Agree.

B. Disagree.

3. Your view of morality is:

A. I am a strictly moral person but the moral standards I follow are my own, not society’s.

B. I am amoral; I do as I please independent of any morality whatsoever.

C. I am a strictly moral person, following typical societal standards.

D. I try and follow societal standards of morality, but often fail to live up to them.

4. You are a member of a movement and/or organization. You have some fundamental disagreements with that movement’s and/or organization’s ideology and/or tactics. To openly criticize that entity and its leadership would likely mean that you would lose influence, friends, and associates, possibly no longer being considered part of that entity. Speaking out privately may result in the leadership losing confidence in you and would also be “politically” damaging to you, but not as bad as doing so publicly. Going along with the ideology and/or approach, even though you disagree and are sure that it is wrong and destructive of the entity’s objectives, would preserve your place in the entity. You would:

A. Speak out publicly, either from the outset or after private intervention failed.

B. You would go along with what you think is wrong to preserve your position.

C. You would speak out privately only, but do so strongly and consistently.

D. You would make some mild private criticisms but not push the issue too hard.

5. Those who know you think that you are:

A. Bluntly outspoken, particularly on issues that revolve around your perceptions of right and wrong.

B. You project a sense of getting along with everyone.

C. You sometimes speak out diplomatically on issues of importance to you.

D. You only speak out on issues that affect you personally, but you are outspoken on these.

6. Doing the right thing, according to your perception, even if it may harm you in some way, as opposed to always promoting your own personal interests no matter the cost:

A. You do the right thing.

B. You always promote your own interests, regardless of the damage to others.

C. You rarely do the right thing.

D. You care about yourself only, but you try to minimize the damage to others, if for no other reason than to preserve your reputation.

Points:

12 = Strong moralpathy

Numbers increasing to 12 = Increasing moralpathy

Numbers centered around 0 = Typical person who thinks they are “good,” including many SJWs

Numbers decreasing to -12 = Increasing psychopathy

-12 = Strong psychopathy

A Time to Hate

A general approach.  And other news.

What we need.

…I agree with Salter - the only thing worse, from the perspective of a majority being replaced, than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does work. What must be avoided at all costs is a “successful” multiculturalism that enables the peaceful and orderly race replacement of the majority population…The new America must…become a living hell of division, despair, bitterness, rage, balkanization, hatred, distrust, and unending boiling anger and frustration.  Group must be against group; the idea that “we are all Americans” must be thrown into the dustbin of history.  “Americans” of European, Asian, African, Jewish, Hispanic, etc. origins must hate and distrust each other, making a “coming together” impossible, making the multicultural consensus untenable.

Powerful forces will attempt to smooth over these difference to delay the collapse of multiculturalism sufficiently to ensure that Whites are a powerless minority.  We must oppose this…We need to do everything to highlight the contradictions, encourage distrust and division, stoke anger, promote rage, open up the fissures to full-fledged balkanization, catalyze chaos, tear open the wounds of America and pour salt into those wounds and rub them raw and bleeding…

MAKE AMERICA HATE AGAIN!

Gee, Zman finally gets what has been written here for years:

From the perspective of white populism, all politics must now be irregular politics as conventional politics has been closed off to us. The Right has to move away from the mindset of the majority to the mindset of the put-upon minority. That means engaging in unconventional tactics. When you cannot participate in conventional politics in order to advance your interests, your choices are clear. You either submit and live the lie that is conventional politics, or you rebel and live outside the lie.

This is why boycotting elections and threatening the Republican Party from the Right must be part of the new political toolkit. In the old politics, it was always about the people running the system, not the system itself. The focus was on getting the right people elected. In the new politics, this is reversed. It is about the system, not the people running the system. The GOP is part of that system. Attacking them is part of weakening a system that makes war on us.

This has a strategic value, as well. The Left has always looked at the Republicans, along with their enablers from Conservative Inc., as an electric fence that keeps the white majority inside the system. Attacking the GOP forces them to choose their friends on the Left over their former constituents. It reframes politics as insiders versus outsiders, rather than one group of insiders versus another, with the white majority looking on like spectators, hoping for a good result.

The hardest part of this new mindset will be the idea of being ungovernable. This is the opposite of what most right-wing people have been conditioned to think. In the old way, the good citizen plays by the rules. In the new age, the good citizen is always looking for the chance to throw sand in the gears and undermine the rules. The dissident is always looking to drive up the costs to the managerial class by making them expend resources to compel compliance with their rules.

When Sallis and Zman are actually on the same general side of an issue, this would, I believe, mean that side is obviously and self-evidently right. America is a dead country with no future. A call for “unity” is actually a call for White genocide. Instead, Salter's "democratic multiculturalism" is a good approach to try.

Now, EGI Notes is, of course, a pacifist blog, unalterably opposed to any and all forms of violence whatsoever. But the approach outlined here is 100% legal and requires absolutely zero violence. It is all about memes, politics, the promotion of cynicism, the spreading of bitterness, despair, distrust, division, balkanization, etc. Whites need to view the American society and system as the enemy, to withdraw consent, to view (correctly) the GOP as a fraud that needs to end up in the dustbin of history.

Please note the inherent weakness of the System:

1. The System's raison d'etre is hatred of Whites, particularly White men.

2. The proper functioning - actually the entire existence - of the System depends upon the work and compliance of Whites, particularly White men.

What is the critical mass of that group required to undermine the System by withdrawing their compliance?

That is the critical question, isn't it?

Other news:

I recently thanked Putin for the Russian government's words criticizing the "American" government's persecution of dissidents, but I did note that I disagree with him on many issues.  Well, right on cue, here we go.  "Caveman nationalism?"  Some blue-haired SJW couldn't have made a more silly remark.  As I've always said, while Putin wants a strong Russia, he apparently doesn't care if that Russia is populated by ethnic Russians or by Central Asians or by NEC filth. It's a shame. It's the same for America and the civic nationalists.  Who cares about a "strong America" if it is not a White America?  The nation as a specific people creates a legitimate and strong" state, not the other way around.

An Amren commentator makes a similar point (emphasis added):

Pavel  

...Putin is a pure Russian imperialist who does not care about race or ethnicity of his subjects. He only needs their full compliance. I, for years now, have been explaining why he is not, and has never been a defender of our race. But people in the US just do not listen... I guess truth hurts...

See this. I disagree. Full Moon Ancestry as a predator? Well, maybe to East European women, but not to sociopaths. The natural predator to the sociopath is the moralpath.

While I have little doubt that The Holy Orientals of China hacked the election, as part of The Tropical Alliance against White interests, I see the narrative going nowhere. Pro-White interests have no real influence on the levers of power. In my 25+ years associated with the "movement" I have constantly heard or read people saying or writing that something is going to be a "game changer" and that "finally, this will make White people wake up" or "you have to read this, it's going to make a difference"- and then, of course, absolutely nothing happens, it comes and goes with zero impact. If I had a dollar for every time that happened, well, I could be challenging the Quota Queens with their D'Nations.

Leftist Chutzpah, re: Portland

Hypocrisy. 

Behold the Left:

Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to connect over interests and passions. In order to improve our community experience, we are temporarily suspending article commenting.

That’s The Huffington Post.  Improve experience by suspending commenting.  Gee, I guess they’re losing the debate, so…

Sort of like Greg Johnson “banning” people and refusing to debate them.

Anyway, what the Left is whining about this time - and what they don't want comments about because those comments would expose leftist hypocrisy - is that, according to the Left, the "Proud Boys" and other rightist groups are being allowed to "be violent with impunity" in Portland; the police are standing back and doing nothing.

Now, the chutzpah there is incredible.  For weeks, the Left has been running wild in America with near-impunity, particularly in Portland and Seattle - rioting, vandalism, attempted murder, assault and battery, lasers shined in eyes, anti-White racial harassment, wielding weapons, repeated race-based violations of federal fair housing laws to try and force Whites out of "gentrified" previously-Black neighborhoods, attacks against police, hate crimes against Whites, blocking traffic, and open treasonous insurrection against the US government with their violence-ridden "autonomous zone."  All of that with near impunity.  For the last four years of the administration of Antifa Don Trump, there has been anarcho-tyranny - the radical Left has been allowed to run wild with impunity, and when rightists, including Antifa Don's own deluded supporters, fight back, it are they, and they alone, who are arrested, prosecuted, and persecuted.  But, now, briefly, in Portland, we have a single moment of pure anarchy instead of anarcho-tyranny - BOTH sides are being allowed, more or less, to do what they want.  Very well.  And the outcome is such as that anyone could predict - in a fair and open battle, without anarcho-tyranny intervention, the Right comes out on top.  This proves, once and for all, that Antifa is, and always has been, part of the System, a branch of local, state, and federal government, street fighters for global capitalism, etc. They have achieved everything because they are protected by the System that they are a part of.  But, given a specific situation (Portland police losing their patience because they have been abandoned by the same System they and Antifa both serve) in which official protection is briefly withdrawn from the Left, and we see that they start whining in The Huffington Post how they are being "victimized" and "not protected by the police"- the same police they want to defund (as there is competition between the two branches of the System - why have both doing the same job?).

The lesson here is what people on the Right have been saying all along - the real problem is anarcho-tyranny, not anarchy.  If there was anarchy, then the Right could fill in the niche space left by the absence of state authority and institute their own law and order; however, the current System of anarcho-tyranny is an alliance between the System and the Left - however an alliance that is sometimes unstable when factions of the System see their own interests threatened by the leftist violence they encourage.

The carnivore diet.

I often mock Der Movement as a modern form of Ostara. And, as always, the other shoe drops.  The only thing worse than a Type I is a homosexual Type I.  Puts new meaning in the term “fetishist” eh?

A Western about moralpathy.

Gore Vidal in Julian (sort of paraphrasing Machiavelli):

One curious aspect of human society is that preventive measures are seldom taken to avert disaster, even web the exact nature of the approaching calamity is perfectly plain.

One can consider all sorts of easily foreseen "movement" disasters with respect to that quote.

An observation - True enough, the USSR was repressive throughout its entire existence, but there is this interesting dichotomy: It was when the USSR was led by non-Slavs (Jews, Georgians, mongrels like Lenin, etc.) that there was the mass murder of millions of Russian and Ukrainian Slavs, but after the Slavs took the reigns of power after the death of Stalin, the mass murder stopped (although of course repression remained). I suppose that this dichotomy is purely a coincidence - right? 

More of The Marching Movement

In all cases, emphasis added.

Traditionalism:

HungarianFashionista

Posted January 5, 2019 at 6:08 am | Permalink

Lajos Kassai, one of the intellectual leaders of the Hungarian Right says this: someone’s true race is shown by the kind of archetypal image that stirs his soul. So true. Show me a sandy beach with palm trees, or an image of a rainforest, and to me, it could be on another planet. Show me Mediterranean or Nordic images, and I say, “Hm, nice”. But when I see an image of the steppe, it feels like coming home. I’m a descendant of White people who did not migrate to the West.

Hey, I like outer space images; hence, I’m a Martian.

And, we can ask – are there any hobbit holes on the steppe?  Well, hamsters and gerbils live on the steppe, with their snug burrows, so I suppose a Hungarian traditionalist can be snug in his steppe hobbit hole as well.

The Zman:

The Greeks are a bit different. I think it is because the West has so much more respect for the Greeks than the Romans. Maybe it is the fact the Greeks never conquered the world, like the Romans.

The history books I have read have left out the Roman conquest of Germania, Scandinavia, Scotland and Ireland, Eastern Europe, the rest of Asia other than the Near East, sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, the Americas, the Pacific Islands, etc.  Perhaps Mr. Zman can recommend a history text to us where those events are properly chronicled.

And the West will respect people who conquered less?  Maybe the West should have done a bit less colonization then?

I think we should have Carlson 2020 rather than anyone else.  But, hey, Tuck, it’s race and civilization, not “happiness.”

I recently watched the 1998 Moby Dick miniseries starring Patrick Stewart.  Very well done – it is recommended. Ahab is the ultimate Moralpath, and the story is a warning that pure moralpathy unleavened with pragmatism can lead to disaster.  On the other hand, pure pragmatism is doomed to failure and utter stagnation – it is worthless. Even further on the other hand, however destructive Ahab’s obsession turned out to be, it is much better than cowardly hiding from life and from the inexorable march to the future by hiding “snug in one’s hobbit hole,” letting other races do what Whites once dared.

I essentially agree with this.  The memes are more important than the source.  And that’s something the thin-skinned, hysterically womanish quota queens can never understand with their cordon sanitaire around EGI Notes.

An expert on female behavior tells us what’s what.  Next - commentary from Pee Wee Herman about weightlifting.

Maybe this is explained by all those “British Asians,” eh, Silkers?  I don’t understand why the HBD VDARE site has any problem with this.  Isn’t the lowly White subaltern race supposed to serve their “high, high-IQ” Oriental masters?  Maybe throw in some "measured groveling,” as well – right Derb?

Notice Jews similar to Blacks and Hispanics.

The answer: Either Trump is the most incompetent, lazy, and low-energy President in US history, or he simply doesn’t care (or actually secretly supports the invasion).

But, hey, let’s not forget the Quota Kings (Coulter) and Queens: In Trump We Trust, the God Emperor, the last chance for White America, an American Caesar who will save White demographics.

Wrong, wrong, they’re always wrong.

Sallis in 2015: Trump is a fraud and a vulgar, ignorant buffoon.

Sallis – right, right, he’s always right.

How does a bearded man in a red pickup truck transform into a red-bearded man?

Can TOQ Live host Richard Spencer and Greg Johnson together?  Seriously.  Let them actually debate, instead of sniping.  Also, if TOQ is interested in “academic” style material, my recent refutation of leftist misinterpretations of Lewontin would fit the bill.  Ball in your court, gentlemen.  

Fraud Trump and…Is There Oil on Arrakis?

Odds and ends.  In all cases, emphasis added.

Someone gets it; Trump is a fraud:

Because We Live Here‏

 @PKsbpdl

 Oct 21

More Because We Live Here Retweeted Donald J. Trump

Here's an idea: do an executive order to #BuildTheWall then start mass deportations of illegal aliens. Oh, and arrest sanctuary city mayors. JUST DO SOMETHING instead of TWEETING!

Cue Roissy praising Trump for “negging” a woman or screwing porn stars.  MAGA!

By the way, note Trump embracing Cruz in Texas.  Back at the 2016 GOP convention, I remember Roissy predicting Cruz was “finished” in the GOP because of his “betrayal” of Trump, complete with a picture of the Trump clan looking at Cruz with disgust.

Wrong, wrong, the quota queens are always wrong.

More on Trump the utter fraud, emphasis added:

If Trump isn’t what it takes, what is? The very question shows that Trump is neither more nor less than what serves his constituencies’ desires for protection and payback. President Trump has found it easier to proclaim victories over middle America’s enemies than to achieve them. Often, he has simply protested the bipartisan ruling class’s continued rule while acquiescing in it, as he did on March 23, 2018 when signing the $1.3 trillion omnibus bill that continued financing every Progressive group, and increased funding for all of the ruling class’s priorities; and as he did on September 17, 2017 when he signed the Joint Congressional Resolution that urged all U.S agencies to combat “hate speech”—and defined it in such a way as to accuse his supporters of it. On national TV, he confessed that wise men in Washington had convinced him that his (and his voters’) desire to withdraw from the Afghan war had been wrong. Having finally decided to declassify documents many of which the intelligence agencies had given to the Washington Post, he apparently let them convince him that doing so would harm national security. While complaining of the Democrats’ slander of Judge Kavanaugh, he led Republicans in refraining from asking the questions and bringing out the facts about the accuser that distinguish legitimate complaints from slander. Trump’s rousing speeches feed the body politic as empty calories feed the human body. Bluster followed by surrender has political legs both short and shaky. Trump’s tone has lifted his constituencies’ expectations. But tone does not give substance to public opinion, poses but a flimsy barrier to the ruling class’s concerted power, and does not begin to satisfy constituencies threatened by the ruling class machine that came of age in the anti-Kavanaugh campaign.

How about this: how about the USA withdraws from all “treaties” that obligates this country accepting “refugees?”  The “refugee” scam is just a cover for invasion.  Too bad these treaties didn’t exist 80 years ago – the Germans could have conquered Europe by claiming the Wehrmacht was just a “refugee caravan.”  Come now – they just wanted to escape the big bad Hitler, who can blame them?  Instead, Trump will probably meekly process their "refugee" applications, give them room and board, and have his DOJ indict more Nutzis for "hate crimes."

Come on, now, Greg, all this scifi stuff is just nonsense!  With “Peak Oil” how are we going to power our starships?  Let’s just stay snug in our hobbit holes, enjoying the “de facto anarchy in the provinces.”  But, hey, maybe like the Middle East, there’s oil in dem dere hills (of sand) on Arrakis, not just “spice,” so we can drive our space ship up to the nearest gas station and fill ‘er up!

More lack of self-awareness:

First, Johnson denies his site constantly attacks Spencer:

I don’t know what you mean by “a lot.” Besides this three parter and my review of Vegas Tenold’s book, I can’t think of any others.

Conveniently forgetting not only the major opinion pieces, but the constant sniping – by him and others - against Spencer in the comments threads of other articles.  I’ve been commenting on such comments regularly on this blog.  And let’s not forget this.

Second, this:

But everyone in this movement has amnesia.

Yes, they’ve already forgotten about Hermansson, Lewis, etc.

It would be best if Greg would forget about Spencer and just build his own Counter-Currents brand.  There’s a certain ugliness in kicking someone when they’re down – and Spencer is currently way down, both in his activist and personal lives. I’m sure Greg feels justified in his bitterness toward Spencer and Friberg - and perhaps he’s right to feel so (but I wonder if he has enough self-awareness to understand that others may feel the same way about him), but a bigger man would just let it go.  Another argument I suppose would be to counter “movement” amnesia by constantly reminding everyone of Spencer’s foibles, so as to attempt to prevent a Spencerian comeback.  That attitude would be more principled if it was aimed at the entire Alt Right brand, rather than just personally on a down-and-out would-be Fuhrer; then again, all the criticism would have even more “bite” if it had started when the Alt Right was riding high.  But only Sallis and Strom had the prescience to issue warnings back then.

Spencer is just a symptom, Der Movement is the disease, and the Alt Right is the most recent pernicious manifestation of that disease.  Spencer can permanently disappear from the “movement” scene, and all these problems would still be here.  EGI Notes tells you that, while Johnson fulminates against someone whose current status is equivalent to that of Hitler’s last days in the bunker.

Johnson also answers a lukewarm defender of Spencer who suggested that Richie Rich would have done better with a handler behind the scenes – to which Johnson, justifiably, answers that if someone needs a handler they are a figurehead and not a leader.  But that’s the point – Spencer would have been better suited as a player in electoral politics – yes, a figurehead – with the CMS guys being the handlers behind the scenes.  Regnery’s initial instincts were sound – Spencer should never have compromised his future political viability by taking over NPI and being directly involved in Der Movement to such an obvious extent.

The Alt Wrong expresses itself:

Jared Taylor: If Europeans are to be replaced, I would far prefer that we be replaced by Asians than by Africans or Middle-Easterners and, certainly, by Muslims. I hope, of course, that Western civilization will survive, that white people will carry their civilization and their biological substrate forever into the future. I hope that’s what happens. But, if we are—if we really are—to be bred out of existence, or if we do not reproduce ourselves, if the continent of Europe becomes non-white, if North America becomes increasingly non-white, I would prefer they became Asian rather than African, Middle Eastern, or Latino. Asians are a high IQ group, and they would organize superior societies, whereas if the United States became populated by people like Guatemalans, Haitians, Syrians, then the United States would become a Third World mess.

That is of course not the classical HBD view, which instead actively does hope and prefer for Whites to be replaced by Asians as the optimal scenario.  

Anyway, I disagree with Taylor.  Why should Asians, or anyone else, inherit the Earth, and the achievements and inventions of Whites, if Whites become extinct?  On the contrary, let the world burn; if Whites are not around to fulfill their destiny, let the remaining featherless bipeds go rot.  Who cares about a “superior society” run by Orientals?

I guess that’s my moralpathy talking. Speaking of which – how many Nutzis have coined their own psychological term?  Ted Sallis – the gift that keeps on giving (Narcissism!  Narcissism!)!

Zman on the future of America:

All the while the role of the central government recedes domestically as the local cultural regions re-assert their authority.

De facto anarchy in the provinces!  And we can all be snug in our hobbit holes, reading The White Nationalist Manifesto!

Fascist Typology

Bardeche’s Type I and Type II

Coogan’s Dreamer of the Day includes a quote from Bardeche’s Suzanne et le Tandis (Suzanne and the Slums), in the chapter: “Le Fascisme International” that seems more complete and accurate (and free from spelling and grammar errors) than the version popping up on the Alt Right.  This quote includes:

I have known, after Clarence, very many “fascists,” for the race is not dead. Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors. The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches. All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.

The precise translation is less important than the general point being made; an important distinction between different fascist archetypes, even though it is made in a bemused fashion, in jest, and even though I’m sure Bardeche didn’t mean to focus on that distinction in his quote.  Nevertheless, regardless of intention and style, there is food for thought here.

Bardeche correctly identifies two archetypes of fascists; thus:

Type I: Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors.

Type II: The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches.

To translate into a context more familiar to the racial nationalist “movement” of today: Type I would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: ethnonationalists, Nordicists, Traditionalists, ethnic fetishists, and Hitler worshippers; while Type II would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: pan-Europeanists, Futurists, and Imperium-oriented Yockeyites.

Type I, in its purest representation, would tend to be an extroverted, action-oriented mesomorph; Type II would be an introverted, intellect-oriented ectomorph (not sure where endomorphs would fit in, as so many of them tend to be leftists to begin with).

That is not to say that Type I activists are never intellectual, nor that Type II activists are devoid of action, simply that on a spectrum, Type I are relatively action over intellect and Type II are relatively intellect over action.

Bardeche classified both types as: All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.  That may be true, although I think the “they detested lying and injustice” part applies mostly to Type II.  It are the Type II activists who would tend to be more of the Moralpath type.  Type I activists would tend to be more pragmatists, being as they are more action-oriented in any case.  While both types include Vangaurdists, Mainstreamers are almost exclusively Type I.  Type II activists, with their severe affect and furious speeches (or, today, blog posts – “crazed and bitter,” eh?), are hardly the Mainstreamer type.

While most activists would tend to have some traits of both types, they would be skewed in one direction or another.  

Some more or less “pure” types exist.  Your host, Ted Sallis, is a more or less a pure Type II. Francis Parker Yockey himself was a Type II.  Most Anglosphere activists in Der Movement are definitely Type I, certainly in the USA. The Alt Right, with all its intellectual pretensions, is actually heavily represented by Type I activists, at least among the rank-and-file.  In general, Type Is will outnumber Type IIs, the latter being a distinct minority.

Leaders are a mixed bag, and historical fascist leaders have shown mixed characteristics of both types.  Most interesting is when there is a distinct mismatch between ideology and personality; the person has the ideology of one fascist type, but the personality of another.  This is a crucially important point.  While Bardeche’s quote delves mostly into personality, it bleeds into ideology: those boot-wearing activists obsessed with runes, ancestral songs, and the solstice (as well as Viking horns and mead, eh?) would tend to gravitate toward ethnonationalist and/or Nordicist ideologies, and be enamored of “traditionalism,” while those idealists with their skinny severe reformer heads, furious speeches, glasses and other introvert tendencies (card-collecting being a metaphor for introverted intellectualism) would tend to gravitate toward pan-Europeanism, Futurism and other manifestations of avant-garde politics, and visions of Imperium.  

Personality and ideology are often linked, but when the linkage breaks down, all sorts of strange fascistic hybrids are observed.  For example, Hitler politically was Type I, but his personality was more Type II.  Certain Alt Right ethnonationalists mimic Hitler to the extent that they are ideologically Type I but have the “bookish” and intellect-oriented Type II character.  Conversely, some pan-European Alt Righters are the opposite: politically Type II but with Type I personalities. 

On the other hand, when personality and ideology more or less perfectly coincide, then from that synergy you get the “impossible” extreme Moralpath types – a Ted Sallis or a Francis Parker Yockey.

There is no doubt more to analyze on this topic but this is a useful beginning.