Print this post Print this post

A Response to an Insightful Comment

1,664 words

One of the scariest moments when playing chess is when you spot a weakness in your own position which you can only hope your opponent doesn’t see. All you can do is wait and pray that he doesn’t move his bishop there or his queen there because that would convert what is already a difficult circumstance for you into a desperate one.

No one knows your own weaknesses better than you yourself do.

Anyway, I arrived at this thought when reading a fairly critical comment on my last piece for Counter-Currents, entitled “On Necessary and Convergent Goals of White Nationalism.” The basic point of the article was that we should distinguish our necessary goals (forming an ethnostate) from goals that happen to converge with our necessary goals (for instance, resisting organized, liberal Jewry). I amplified this by pointing out how we should resist those Jews who fight against our necessary goals and respect the ones who don’t. I offered two examples of Jews who don’t: The Reactionary Jew and Jewamongyou.

I thought this might strike a nerve, and it did.

The commenter points out that Jewamongyou opposes Counter-Currents and implies that the presence of Jews in the so-called “Alt Lite” (such as the American Renaissance crowd) is an effort to “divide-and-conquer” the Alt Right. He concludes that my “attempt to find ‘white Jews’ is sad.”

I would like to respond to this comment because I believe it is both correct and incorrect, and disentangling these threads will hopefully prove to be illuminating for all of us.

Firstly, let’s tackle what’s incorrect about it. He claims that Jewamongyou opposes Counter-Currents. My response? So what if he does? Counter-Currents, as great as it is, is not in itself a necessary goal of White Nationalism. It is one of many means to that goal. If Greg Johnson were to quit Counter-Currents and retire to his mountaintop retreat to write his three-thousand-page magnum opus, the need for White Nationalism would still be there. So, it is not really about who approves of or does not approve of Counter-Currents.

Further, I’m sure Alt West/alt liters like Jared Taylor and Gavin McInnes would oppose certain aspects of Counter-Currents, too. Does that mean we shouldn’t respect those guys? Sure, I wish Taylor would handle the Jewish Question differently, and I wish McInnes were more of a racial identitarian. But these two and others like them still deserve respect. They do good work. They indirectly help our cause. And, White Nationalism aside, the world is a better place with race-realist writers like Taylor and McInnes than without them. (Of course, we reserve the right to tweak and razz them to our heart’s content, just as they can do to us.)

I am also sure that there are people to our right who (let’s be honest) find Counter-Currents to be weak tea. To such people, the writers here, myself included, are the cuckiest cucks of all the cucks in Cuckland. Does that mean we shouldn’t respect such people when the chips are down and a white ethnostate is finally undergoing its bloody birth throes? Quite the opposite, I should say.

As for the divide and conquer argument, I am pretty sure that Jared Taylor, Gavin McInnes, and other anti-anti-Semites came out of the box already not hating Jews. They’ve always been like that. It’s not like those dastardly Jews infiltrated American Renaissance and Taki’s Magazine and seduced these two fine, upstanding anti-Semites away from the Alt Right. Rather, divisions such as Alt White, Alt West, and Alt Lite are what we ourselves erect to rationalize and understand the natural differences of opinion among men who share many of the same political goals. There’s nothing wrong with that. Furthermore, I’m quite certain that one will have a hard time proving that American Renaissance and Taki’s Magazine are evidence that the Alt Right has been “conquered” by the Jews.

Anyway, here is what Jewamongyou has to say about White Nationalism:

Am I a “white nationalist”? Since I believe that whites have a right (and even a duty) to their own nation – just like every other race/ethnicity – I suppose this would make me a “white nationalist”. Even if some don’t consider me “white”, this does not change my opinions about white nationhood.

Basically, he’s accepting the need for white nationalism and won’t stand in the way if it ever becomes a viable thing. You know what? That’s good enough for me. If all Jews were like this guy, we’d be smooth sailing right now on HMS Ethnostate, would we not? So, yeah, respect. I didn’t say we have to like him and eat latkas with sour cream and applesauce at his brother’s bar mitzvah, or anything. Just respect. That should be enough.

Secondly, here is what is correct about the comment: Jewish neocons did infiltrate the American conservative movement in the 1980s and 1990s and basically took it over, changing its nationalist tone to a more internationalist one and making its not-so-terrific effects felt during the Iraq War. Casualties (of the takeover, not the war) included Joe Sobran, Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis, and others. Historically speaking, if Jews are allowed to be active players in an organization that isn’t a professional sports team, they are probably going to dominate that organization sooner or later. Whether this is on purpose or not is immaterial. What is material is that for an organization based on ethno-nationalism, clogging its upper ranks with Jews (or any outsider group) not only defeats the organization’s purpose, but is actually poison to that organization. Kevin MacDonald provides excellent examples of this in his Culture of Critique, but one we can all relate to is how it has become taboo in the West for white people to self-identify as white. This lack of identity (or negative identity, however one wishes to look at it) is one reason why the political class of Western Europe has become helpless to stop the waves of Muslim invaders who are bent on Europe’s subjugation. And the people who are most on-board with keeping white identity taboo are, frankly, liberal, diaspora Jews.

Would the Israelis ever allow Palestinians or any non-Jewish group into the upper echelons of power in their country? Could there ever be a non-Jewish Prime Minister of Israel? Does Israel allow non-Jewish refugees to immigrate to their nation, even for humanitarian reasons? I didn’t think so. So our commenter’s point is well taken. It is not only reasonable, but reason for concern. The Alt Right (or at least the American, European, or Anglospheric branches of it) should never be too friendly to Jews or any other outside group. If an Alt Right-like organization pops up in Israel or China or Mexico and wants to do great things in those nations, fine. Just not here.

Yet my suggestion is that we resist those Jews who fight us and respect the (albeit much smaller) number of them who don’t violate any Alt Right identity principles. This is a way to distinguish between enemy and non-enemy so that when the time comes to actually fight for our ethnostate, we will have fewer people standing against us (and perhaps more standing with us) than otherwise. And we will need as much of this as we can get. So it seems that despite making a valid point, our commenter may have missed mine.

Think of it as a tactical maneuver, which is where my chess analogy comes into play. If I were the SPLC or some other highly influential enemy of the Alt Right, where would I not want the Alt Right to move? What positional weakness would I not want the Alt Right to exploit? Remember, only the SPLC knows where the SPLC is weakest. So where is it most afraid to get hit?

The answer, in my opinion, has to do with anti-Semitism, which is one of our enemies’ more effective weapons against us. If people on the Alt Right breathe fire all the time about how much they hate Jews, then this weapon maintains its power. It helps people feel sympathy for Jews, and, by extension, non-whites (because apparently if you can hate a Jew, you can hate a black, a Muslim, etc.). Those of you who have read In Search of Anti-Semitism will know that Bill Buckley was profoundly moved by such sympathy, even to the point of breaking off with Joe Sobran over the Jewish Question.

This is the case even if the Jews deserve that hatred.

In other words, the commenter could very well be correct in much of what he says, but that doesn’t mean the tactic I am suggesting won’t help us, even just a little bit. If those on the Alt Right were to overcome their emotions (in public at least) and demonstrate unexpected sophistication in their relation with Jews without violating any of their core ethno-centric principles or the necessary goals of white nationalism, then suddenly the game gets a little more difficult for the SPLC and Co. They will have a harder time justifying their cutthroat bullying practices while, to the disinterested observer, the Alt Right will come out looking like classy underdogs. People will start feeling sympathy for us.

I know. Such a tactic won’t have any great immediate effect. Our enemies won’t simply resign and go home. But they will get annoyed, and our position will be strengthened, even if only by a little bit. Of course, we have to mean it, too. If there are Jews like The Reactionary Jew and Jewamongyou who are willing to, at the very least, stay out of our way, we lose nothing by saying thank you and remaining cordial with them. In fact, we might even gain something. Over the long run, such advantages are not insignificant. Enough of them will help to create a position for us in the future that will cause our enemies to worry about where we’re going to move next, and not the other way around.

This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

34 Comments

  1. ReinDeDio
    Posted January 30, 2017 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    But why did it happen, the Islamization? It was the jews that brought it about and now you have all these schizophrenic alt-shits thinking that they are behind the anti muslim sentiments and Trump and the like… Israel has nothing to do with the politics in Europe and the USA?

    after reading this article it is safe for me to know I am in no way alt-right, I will never support this movement as it is clearly hijacked by the chosen race, people who are the biggest racists of all, israel being the most racist country ever envisioned… I guess that is why they appeal to nazis… I realize I am not even racist by your standards I am just a hater of the culture of exploitation that has lucratively been run by jews for centuries, usury, today it is wall street and global finance…
    Another thing too, if a jew renounced his Jewishness today I would see him as my brother, I just hate the jewish ideal, the religion, race I could care less about…
    The worst idea though that you can find on these websites is the idea that Christianity came from Jews and is therefore a Jewish ploy… I mean jesus christ do you people know history at all? civilization has been advancing and Christianity plays a huge part in that, do you truly think that if the romans hadnt Christianized then they would have been building rockets to the moon in 800 AD?
    We need Christian states not racial states.

  2. Jim
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    Mr Quinn:
    I understand your point about tactics; however you are fundamentally wrong about the Jews.
    If you listen to reactionary Jew he is the classic Anti-Zionist-Zionist. He knows that the Zionist project in Israel is threatened by the Diaspora Jewry’s tactics. To shore up their position, that is the (Zionist-Israeli Jews) they need to to support however disingenuously, other nationalists.
    You stated it yourself, Jews would NEVER allow Palestinians or other non-Jewish groups to have positions in their movements, organizations, or government, at least in any meaningful way. Then why are you considering doing the opposite? Why would it “work” out differently this time?
    I think unfortunately there is still a latent “leftest-liberal” mentality present here. By that I mean, just like true Marxist-Leninist’s could not admit, or conceive of their Communism being the problem and therefore their plans not working correctly, it must be the people, the saboteurs, the capitalists, the imperialists, etc. If we just “change” that it will work! Nope, the idea is incorrect. Even Jews who were instrumental in that movement abandoned the idea and came to the United States to pursue their ethnic interests via different means, when that movement got away form them.
    They are doing the same thing here. The first rule is: where is the reciprocity from organized Jewry, or most Jews anyway? The answer: none. Only if it serves their overall ethnic interests.
    The Alt-Right should do the same we only work with groups that might benefit us in someway. This is not possible with Jews. Stop trying to wheel and deal.
    Furthermore, these non-white hordes HATE us, there is no dealing with most. They are united in their resentment of whites. Stop trying to find the “good” ones. Its a myth they don’t exist. Besides who cares? I only care about white-Europeans. I have little interest or Anglo “fascination” and exotic “fetish” of the other. The only interest would be how to disrupt, exploit, and/or use something of their nature against them to help fellow whites.
    This “if we just seem reasonable, fair, and sensible to the world” approach is pathetic, they don’t care and in fact it actually invites attack…
    I don’t see Islam ever really trying to show how “reasonable” they are to each other or their enemies…
    The whites who want to live and thrive let them join us, those who don’t or are deluded leftests, fine they have cast their doomed lot with the devil, and will cease to exist as a result…

    • Arthur Bell
      Posted January 29, 2017 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

      I am not sure what qualifies as “wheeling and dealing,” here. I agree and amplify anyone who espouses goals that grossly overlap with my own. Whether they’re on a carbon copy of my own wavelength is immaterial. The truth is, there are not enough self-aware whites to pull the West out of it’s political tailspin just yet. Therefor it behooves the alt-right to spare themselves a fit of counter-signaling every time a (((person))) suggests they’re agreeable with the cause of white nationhood.

      • Jim
        Posted January 30, 2017 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

        I disagree, every time the excessive and absolutely bankrupt counter-signaling occurs, than we bring more and more people to us. These antics are irredeemable, don’t fit with regular white people’s reality, and are being scene for the frauds that they are…
        It only take a strong, confident core to lead the rest… Strength invites people to our cause, and then this will build our numbers…

    • ex South African
      Posted January 30, 2017 at 12:12 am | Permalink

      I would prefer that the case of the white European gets precedence over all other races until our own situation has stabilized, only then one can look if one can afford to try to invest into the interests of other races. The interest of other races takes up a lot of energy, which is need for the own cause. If they want to join the fight with us, then the danger exists that at the end of the day they will carry their own problems into the fight, which will divert our attention and energy.

      A core of white activism must close ranks against outside influence, for a car can not be driven with many hands on the steering wheel. Remember Francis Parker Yockeys culture destroyers! Thi will be the hard core which stands at the center of the white civilization, just as you peel of the layers of an onion, from weak to strong. If that core disappears, we have lost, for those people will be the best of our species.

      At the end of the day it is our fight, and this responsibility ultimately we cannot outsource to other races. This is our responsibility, not that of others. We have to take ownership of the problem, not delegate it to other population groups. Not being able to handle it yourself, is a sign of weakness.

      “Besides who cares? I only care about white-Europeans. ”

      I have read somewhere this:

      “The burden of the white man is not to govern the world. The burden of the white man is to show the world ways to advance the evolution of mankind, to find ways and to carve them out. And the white man must accept the fact that other people can not really follow him, fall back on the road, the distance increases. The moment we sit down, in which we rest, so that the rest of humanity can follow, we have failed.”

      • Jim
        Posted January 30, 2017 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

        Regarding your last paragraph: We see how well that worked out… Especially in South Africa… Our job is to put our people first! The last paragraph is wonderful rhetoric… but that’s all. The whites’ responsibility is to themselves, their children, to their ancestors, and European history. In fact they should NEVER reveal their inner workings to anyone but themselves…

        • ex South African
          Posted January 30, 2017 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

          Sounds good.

          However I did not quite get what you meant by “In fact they should NEVER reveal their inner workings to anyone but themselves…”

          Interesting – the late carmaker Henry Ford on the Jews (was it humour?):

          The explorer Sven Hedin to Ford: “I heard that you do not love the Jews.”

          Henry Fords reply:

          “Whoever thinks I hate them is wrong. I like to do business with them. They have a task to fulfill, and it is good for Christianity that they are there. Look at the old shaggy dog lying out there in the yard and sunbathing. The fleas in his fur leave him no rest. He must continually snap at them. This disturbs his sleep. So it is with the Christians. If they had not the Jews in their fur, they would be slothful. I do not hate the Jews.”

          Source: Stormän och kungar (Great persons I met), Volume 2, German translation 1953.

          • Jim
            Posted January 31, 2017 at 5:09 am | Permalink

            Oh great, more rhetoric… So an existential enemy “needs to be ever present” to fulfill your greatness? You have a strange servile-mentality, in which you need to compare yourself to an “other” to define WHO you are. White-Europeans need to compare themselves to NO ONE!!! We are great because we are!!! All of the non-whites are in awe and jealous of this… The resentful Jew most of all…
            We look to our ethnic comrades to measure ourselves against, and if our ancestors, as well as future generations would recognize our deeds as great…
            Henry Ford was a Mammonite-Protestant, need I say more? He unfortunately placed money ahead of ethnicity… to his determent.

  3. Steven
    Posted January 29, 2017 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    One thing the alt-right needs to stop doing is assuming everyone who doesn’t see eye to eye with us on every issue is somehow a “shill” with impure motives. If an accusation that someone is a “shill” or fake is made than it needs to be backed up with irrefutable evidence. Just because someone doesn’t agree with us on like say the jewish question it doesn’t mean that someone from Tel Aviv is sending them checks. We’ve all gone through different phases in our learning where we had different political positions. I use to be a liberal for crying out loud and no George Soros was not sending me checks.

    We need to cut back on the conspiracy thinking and instead look at the most simplest explanations unless the conspiracy can actually be proven. And I mean with real irrefutable proof, not the renegade-tier bullshit where they believe that the entire alt-right is one big jew conspiracy because we don’t all agree with them that the earth is flat.

  4. Posted January 28, 2017 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    Nobody is more vanguard and intelligent on the Alt Right than Counter-Currents, in my opinion.

    ”I am also sure that there are people to our right who (let’s be honest) find Counter-Currents to be weak tea. To such people, the writers here, myself included, are the cuckiest cucks of all the cucks in Cuckland.”

    If the following isn’t cucking, I don’t know what is:

    ” Pence Attends March for Life – We are Going to Shut Down Abortion

    Andrew Anglin
    Daily Stormer
    January 28, 2017

    At this point, I honestly do believe we are going to overturn Roe v Wade under Donald Trump, and shut these sluts up once and for all.

    There really is no limit to the amount of winning we are going to see under President Donald J. Trump. ” – http://www.dailystormer.com/pence-attends-march-for-life-we-are-going-to-shut-down-abortion/

    ” Personally, I am not too bothered by Milo Yiannopoulos’ homosexuality, or that his mother is Jewish, etc.

    My biggest disagreement with him and other Alt Light figures like Gavin McInnes, both of whom are Catholic, is their anti-Planned Parenthood stance, which I feel is tremendously harmful to the Alt Right cause, and is a threat on par with Third World immigration into the West, especially in the United States, which has large, fertile, non-White populations . I always cite this brilliant Counter-Currents article by Patrick Le Brun when discussing this topic: ”White Nationalists Need Planned Parenthood, Not the Pope” http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/10/white-nationalists-need-planned-parenthood-not-the-pope/ ” – http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/09/the-alt-right-and-the-jews/#comment-1365144

    ” Brilliant piece, Mr. Le Brun.

    Your work at Counter-Currents has been a true inspiration to me, and I widely share your interview on Entryism and your article on Planned Parenthood:

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/10/counter-currents-radiogreg-johnson-interviews-patrick-lebrun-on-entryism/

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/10/white-nationalists-need-planned-parenthood-not-the-pope/ ” – http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/10/what-the-alt-right-isnt/#comment-1369666

    ” ”50. The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.” – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

    A similar foolishness Republicans/Conservatives peddle/believe, is around abortion and contraception. Populist Republicans/Trumpists/The Catholic Bannon-Milo Crew want to put a stop to immigration, because they,rightly, say, that Democrats use immigration to import more Democrat voters into the country; but then they turn around and oppose Planned Parenthood and want to ban abortion, etc., when high birth rates among African-Americans and Latino-Americans, who overwhelmingly vote Democrat, has the exact same effect; an increase in the number of Democrat voters. Their policy is probably even worse and more dysgenic, because lower IQ persons usually have more children on average, if they are not provided or cannot afford contraceptives.

    Return on Investment: A Fuller Assessment
    of the Benefits and Cost Savings of the US
    Publicly Funded Family Planning Program

    ”This investment resulted in net government savings of $13.6 billion
    in 2010, or $7.09 for every public dollar spent.” – https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/journals/MQ-Frost_1468-0009.12080.pdf

    Fools, indeed. ” – http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-right-alternative.html?commentPage=2#c7316530469240097151

    In my opinion, the Jews/media have been defeated with the election of Donald Trump, for now; the real fight is now with the Israel-friendly and anti-Planned Parenthood Alt Light and Christian/Catholic Right.

    ” Why is the American press grossly under reporting on the most significant issues of our time, i.e.: the relationship between the pope’s demand for open U.S. borders and the fact that 90% of immigrants are Roman Catholics; ” – http://www.population-security.org/issue_h.htm

    Thank you for always pushing the envelope and keeping it real, Mr. Johnson.

    • Miha M
      Posted January 29, 2017 at 7:32 am | Permalink

      I dont know Anglin’s motivation behind backing the pro-life movement. Could be because its anti-feminist or whatever. That whole site is a professional psy-op and Im still trying to figure it out.

      Now I am a hardcore 1488 and I think PP was great, but had served its purpose and its time to kill it. Killing it will lower whoring of our women because there will now be serious consequences if they get pregnant. Additionally I dont believe system can be reformed to pro-white before it starts collapsing. Fuhrer will be rise only in conditions of great despair. Trumps protectionism will start a chain reaction that will accomplish that, but forcing 1 million unwanted babies a year to be born is a great bonus.

      A comment to original essay:
      Jew’s greatest weakness is if they loose their victim status. We can only defeat and subjugate them while pretending to be their greatest ally and use their own nature against them.

    • Dov
      Posted January 29, 2017 at 8:56 am | Permalink

      The abortion question is a rather difficult one. Swift consideration of the issue from a competition-focused perspective tends to generate a pro-abortion conclusion, as certain non-White groups (Blacks and, I believe, mestizos) undergo termination at higher rates than that of Whites. However, there are two wrinkles to this:

      1) If we take the birth of a non-White in isolation from all context, that birth is not inherently a tragedy for the White race. In contrast, the abortion of a would-be healthy White child *is* a net loss to the White race. If it were a question of matching White birthrates to those non-Whites in a
      1:1 ratio, I’d adopt an anti-abortion stance. Of course, real world involves contextual factors, such as the fact that if abortion were abolished, there would still be vastly more non-Whites than Whites born. But my point is the principle that the loss of a White child is far worse than the birth of a non-White, at least in theory.

      2) There are a number of non-White groups – Arabs/Muslims, specifically – that will *never* match the White abortion rate. It’s all too easy to fall into the reflexive White vs Black or White vs Amerindian train of racialist thought, but the real threats to the White race (demographically speaking) are the Middle-Easterners and Asians.

  5. dolph
    Posted January 28, 2017 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    The Jews: the worm at the core of western civilization.

  6. George Fungas
    Posted January 27, 2017 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

    Black people are very criminal by nature, but occasionally, I meet one who is OK. He usually has 2 things, a job & good sense of humour. Most blacks don’t work, so again, this is like a once in a year kind of find.

    Pakistanis generally smell bad & are repulsive by nature, but maybe once a year, I meet one that is semi-civilised. He might perform mediocre IT or Accounting services at a low low price, & may use some of his income to invest in personal hygiene and or English classes to make himself more presentable.

    The Chinese are an insect like race, destroying & devouring all the once great lands they colonised. They are a mindless, drone like civilisation, but occasionally, I meet one that has an actual soul & personality.

    I personally never met a Jew that I liked. Not even 1. They are all sweaty, beedy eyed, rat faced & devious, screwing over everyone & everything.

    There’s nothing to gain from bringing Jews into our fold. If one is worthy of respect, always do it from a distance.

    Never let these Nation Destroyers near you, always have 2 eyes on your back, & keep your distance. It’s like approaching a venomous snake, just stay clear, even if he tries to entice you with low low interest rates, & never ever forget how poisonous this serpent really is.

  7. Dov
    Posted January 27, 2017 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    I always like your writing, Spencer, but I think it’s an injustice to Jared Taylor to (mis)characterize him as “Alt-lite.” JT is an unabashed White Nationalist, unlike Gavin McInnes, Yiannopoulos, etc. Further, whether they realize this or remain oblivious to it, every WN or Identitarian who comes to his or her position from a scientific, reasoned approach owes a great deal to Taylor for his tireless and mostly thankless work. While it’s true that AmRen reached a limited audience for two decades, it remains fact that the organization exemplifies quality rather than quantity. If its comment section weren’t in Disqus format, I suspect the caliber of its discussions would be on par with that of Counter Currents (not that there ought to be any sense of competition).

    It’s true that Taylor chooses to skirt the JQ, but he was forthright enough at a conference in the UK to note that Jewish activities, on the whole, have been detrimental to European societies. In addition, such avoidance has its tactical advantages, and not simply as a “baby” or “introductory” WNism as people titter. No, in some circumstances it actually allows for plausible deniability, when appropriate. For instance, I feel safe liking and commenting on AmRen posts on Facebook, whereas I’m not (at this time) able to do the same with a Counter Currents post, as finely written as the linked article might be. Hopefully, this will soon change, but Taylor blends idealism with realism, and he does so beautifully with the niche-filling AmRen.

    • Barton Fill
      Posted January 27, 2017 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

      I recommend this article:

      counter-currents.com/2016/09/the-caste-system-of-the-alt-right/

      Jared Taylor is definitely in tier two of the alt-right. The third and fourth tier are alt-lite.

      Since this article was written in September, I think Spencer has moved from tier two to tier one after forming the “triumvirate” with Anglin and Enoch, though he spends the minimal time possible talking about Jews.

      The tier three is rapidly shrinking and seems to only include Jared Taylor and VDARE. Tier one and the alt-lite, by contrast, are rapidly growing. I think as the alt-right brand moves more deeply into the Anti-Semitic camp, Taylor and Brimelow will drop the alt-right branding and simply call themselves “pro-white.” Amren has a video on YouTube where Jared rejects the term alt-right and uses the term “white advocate.” As branding becomes more agreed up, I’m sure we’ll come up with a term to describe these people who reject the anti-Semitism of the alt-right and also reject the race denialism of the alt-lite.

      • Dov
        Posted January 27, 2017 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

        Good for JT for rejecting the term “Alt-Right.” So do I. I was pro-White before this “Alt-Right” business caught on, and I prefer to identify with clearly-defined goals to identifying with a nebulous political movement that may recieve a new moniker by the time 2020 rolls around. “Alt-Right” is reactionary. “Pro-White” is timeless.

        And no offense to the author of that article, but I don’t care about the “tiers” others craft. With regard to financial support, Taylor will always be top-shelf material as far as I’m concerned.

    • Spencer Quinn
      Posted January 28, 2017 at 8:17 am | Permalink

      Dov, I agree. I have tremendous respect for Jared Taylor. I have been reading Amren for decades now.

    • Ted
      Posted January 29, 2017 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

      Taylor is a self-described “yellow supremacist”
      http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Jared_Taylor
      who also has said that Jews are “White men of the West.” His “tactical” reasons for evading the JQ sure hasn’t stopped Amren from dispensing from such tactics when it comes time to critique White gentiles.
      Taylor, Derbyshire, and Brimelow are all major members of what I term the “Alt Wrong.” And, yeah, I’ve been “reading Amren for decades” as well.” More than that, I used to write for them. But enough is enough.

      • Dov
        Posted January 29, 2017 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

        I’m not sure that you understand the meaning of the term “self-described.” Either that, or provide proof that he has made a statement to the effect that he identifies as a “yellow supremacist.”

        • Ted
          Posted January 29, 2017 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

          http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/02/24/hyatt-slammed-for-hosting-white-supremacist-group-conference.html
          “Taylor said he does not view himself as a white supremacist even though he believes whites are genetically superior to blacks.

          “If anything, we’re yellow supremacists because the IQ data, the general social dysfunction data, suggest that Asians are superior to whites,” he said in a telephone interview.”

          • Dov
            Posted January 29, 2017 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

            You’re free to interpret that however you like; judging by everything I’ve read, heard, and seen from him, I’d wager that he was using the East-Asian card to extract himself from the “White Supremacist” charge. Suboptimal, of course, but he has much more conviction now and has abandoned that sort of defensiveness (as far as I can tell).

          • Ted
            Posted January 30, 2017 at 1:26 am | Permalink

            “You’re free to interpret that however you like”

            Right…you asked for evidence and when I give it, you try and hand-wave it away.
            Here’s something from 2012:
            https://www.amren.com/commentary/2012/07/those-unmentionable-asians/
            Here’s Taylor’s assistant Roberts in 2016:
            https://www.amren.com/news/2016/09/why-are-asians-invisible/

            Amren: Asiapphilic HBD race realism. See also:
            https://eginotes.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/cretaceous-91916/
            https://eginotes.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/alt-wrong-on-display/

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted January 30, 2017 at 1:41 am | Permalink

            Obviously you are offering a strained and jaundiced reading of what Taylor said. He rejects supremacism. And if IQ superiority = supremacism, then he is an Asian supremacist. It is offered as a reductio ad absurdum of the “Jared Taylor, white supremacist” meme.

            Bitterness is a kind of neurosis, Ted, and you have the worst case I have ever seen. The embittered person carries around a lot of grievances, and unloads them on whoever reminds him, even tangentially, of the causes of his discontent. Bitterness destroys objectivity and justice, which are signally lacking in your ranting about the movement. You really need to disengage from this. It is not healthy for you, and it accomplishes absolutely nothing for the greater good of the cause.

          • Ted
            Posted January 30, 2017 at 2:32 am | Permalink

            Greg, because I respect your opinions on matters (even when I may disagree with them), I will give your comment consideration.

          • Ted
            Posted January 30, 2017 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

            Here is a constructive post on how to argue against the “White supremacist” label without invoking Asian supremacist/IQ arguments:
            http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2017/01/bitter-neurotic-ted.html

            This may be off-topic for this post, but I need to ask it somewhere – and I ask it sincerely, with no sarcasm or bitterness:
            Given the state of racial nationalism in America (in my experienced opinion low – sorry, that’s my considered opinion), what can or should be done for the greater good of the cause? Sure, there’s some good things going on in Europe – APF, Europa Terra Nostra, various nationalist parties – but here in America it’s a morass. We are not effectively utilizing the talents of the people we have, for a variety of reasons. Those who find themselves up against a dead end have the urge to knock down the wall blocking them. In what way can that be constructively channeled?

          • Dov
            Posted January 30, 2017 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

            Ted, I enjoyed the linked blog post. I’ve made the same argument – if I had a choice between saving my brother or a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, I’d pick my brother. Not because I believe him to be smarter, stronger, funnier, or better-looking… no, simply by virtue of his being my brother. The same principle applies to tribe, ethnic group, and even race.

            In addition, the fact that East-Asians are, on average, significantly more intelligent than Blacks *does not* imply that they are objectively superior. Blacks, for instance, can jump higher and run faster than Asians. But this doesn’t make Blacks the “superior” race. Given the true biodiversity between racial groups, I consider any claim of racial supremacy to be impossible to buttress with objective fact. Nature giveth and Nature taketh away.

          • Proofreader
            Posted January 31, 2017 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

            Ted,

            I think you’d have made an excellent writer for the Yockeyist periodical Trud!, judging by the citations in Kevin Coogan’s Dreamer of the Day.

            This is probably the last comment I’ll make anywhere for some time, but I think your question should be explicitly formulated as a wicked problem, in which both the problem and the solution are ill-defined, open-ended, ever-changing. This requires more detailed treatment than I can give here, but you might like to consider what Douglas Schuler writes on this matter:

            Problem One often regards difficulties or issues as problems to be solved, but one must not blithely accept the implication that the first step is to define the problem and the next is to find one or more solutions to it. The significant issues and difficulties in the world do not sit still for this orderly strategy: every attempt to define these problems changes them, and so does each step in any attempted solution. Moreover, there are no sound rules to tell when a solution to such a problem is complete or any way to test it offline.

            Context This pattern addresses the mind-set one brings to a problem. It may be especially useful for people weighed down by the complexities of the problem they confront and by the accumulation of previous failed solutions that complex problems tend to accumulate about themselves.

            Discussion The system theorist Horst Rittel coined the term ‘wicked problem’ in the early 1970s as a corrective to the rationalist approach to planning and design of large-scale systems. The late 1960s and early 1970s were a heyday for rationalist planning, which can be summarized as the process of fully and explicitly laying out goals, assumptions, and constraints of a problem situation; generating and evaluating alternative solutions; and expecting that the preferred solution will emerge clearly, backed by good reasons. This approach grew, among other things, from the rise of digital computation, the activist federal mood of the 1960s, and the prospect of bypassing bitter political struggles over such matters as urban extensions of the interstate highway system. Among its applications were low-cost public housing projects, flood control initiatives, moon missions, and the Vietnam War strategy. The hope was that objective, data-driven analytical approaches would provide a broadly applicable tool kit for solving large-scale social and environmental problems.

            “Rittel saw that this hope was doomed because the problem situations in view could not be defined in agreed, unchanging ways (Rittel and Webber 1973). These problems are intrinsically ill defined, and attempts to define them are already actions that reshape the problem and commit the analyst to a course of problem solving that omits legitimate alternatives — and there is no way of escaping this. An extreme example is the Israel-Palestine question: a storm of protest and counterprotest greets every attempt to say what ‘the question’ is, much less propose answers. But much milder situations exhibit wickedness. Consider low-cost housing, middle school math curriculum, or the length of the salmon fishing season. Indeed, every building project and most social action, down to the smallest scale, has elements of wickedness. In each case, the interests in play, the intangibility of key values, and the elusiveness of key information mean that a commonly agreed base for problem solving is not objectively available.

            “There are, however, ways forward. The first is to shift the goal of action on significant problems from solution to intervention. Instead of seeking just the right moves to eliminate a problem once and for all, one should recognize that any actions occur in an ongoing process, in which further actions will be needed later. This is not to accept injustice or suffering quietly. If there are ways to eliminate smallpox as a public health problem, and the vaccination campaigns of the 1970s proved there were, one should pursue them by all means. But one should realize that smallpox will remain part of the global health situation in some way. (And so it has, most recently as a potential bioterror weapon.) The intervention mentality recognizes that situations tend to continue, even if their form changes radically.

            “There is a natural fit between the wicked-problem mentality and the Design Stance . . . While design has often aimed at closed, once-and-for-all solutions, the multifactor, iterative, imagination-based process of generating designs is very congenial to what is needed for intervening in wicked problems. Design naturally generates multiple possibilities before settling on one proposal; it naturally engages in a sort of dialogue with the problem situation, in which drawings or other representations of the design idea reveal consequences or relationships that call for changes in the design idea, and vice versa. The precise definition of the problem evolves alongside the ideas for interventions until they converge on action.

            “A second way to work with the wickedness of significant problems is to admit the significant actors to the design process. A typical wicked problem is shaped and reshaped by multiple actors whose influence cannot be closed out. The long maneuvering over the reconstruction of Ground Zero in New York City is a classic example. Both the rationalist tradition in architecture, engineering, public policy, and most other fields and what could be called the now-we-need-a-genius tradition in those same fields have relied on an expert (or sometimes a team of experts) generating a solution in isolation. But the multiple actors in wicked problems cannot only obstruct such a solution, they can change the problem’s definition while the solution is being generated.

            “A third step is to design loose-fit actions. Instead of tailoring an intervention tightly to the understood conditions of a problem, for example, choosing sealed windows and central air-conditioning for an office building, one should allow for uses, costs, and regulations to change in unforeseen ways, for example, drastic escalation in energy costs. Architecture is one area where the rationalist, optimizing mood of the 1970s (and after) has saddled businesses and communities with rapidly obsolescing buildings of many kinds, but the need for loose-fit designs or plans occurs in any area with wicked problems.

            “. . .

            Solution Address significant problems with a design mentality that expects them to be ‘wicked,’ recognizes the kinds of wickedness at work, and understand the design process, from initiation to proposals, as an intervention in a flow of events, not a fixed change in a static scene. Admit the significant actors to the design process. Pursue ‘loose-fit’ interventions that have good potential to adapt to unforeseen changes in needs or impacts.” (Douglas Schuler, Liberating Voices: A Pattern Language for Communication Revolution [Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008], pp. 353-55.)

            A fuller discussion of what wicked problems are and suggestions of how they might be best tackled can be found in Peter J. Denning and Robert Dunham’s book, The Innovator’s Way: Essential Practices for Successful Innovation (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010).

            I think one should define problems and solutions in more iterative, dynamic terms, “to shift the goal of action on significant problems from solution to intervention. Instead of seeking just the right moves to eliminate a problem once and for all, one should recognize that any actions occur in an ongoing process, in which further actions will be needed later.” Carl von Clausewitz’s discussion of “fog” and “friction” in warfare, and Maurice Bardèche’s remark that fascism is “an empirical medicine born of crisis,” are pertinent here.

            Of course, admitting “significant actors to the design process,” as Schuler recommends in some situations, should not mean admitting “significant malefactors to the design process.”

            I would suggest that a major source of wicked problems among White nationalists is the “toxic triangle” of destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments briefly discussed in Adrian Furnham’s book, The Elephant in the Boardroom: The Causes of Leadership Derailment (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010). For want of a sound political culture, “followers ‘conspire’ with bad leaders and particular situations. They encourage, allow, and even require, destructive leadership styles rather than prevent them” (p. 22). This might help to explain the rise of destructive leaders like Nick Griffin and Gianfranco Fini. Although such “postfascists” should have their heads stuck on posts for their betrayals, such exemplary punishment is unlikely to solve the problem of bad leadership. The role of susceptible followers (who can be divided into “colluders” and “conformers”) in enabling destructive leaders needs to be addressed. Some means of breaking the toxic triangle needs to be found.

            The combination of destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments may be likened to the combination of heat, fuel, and oxygen needed to sustain a fire. Some political cultures are prone to spontaneous combustion.

            Another source of wicked problems is widespread disregard for sensible and adaptive priorities, measures, and metrics — something you have discussed repeatedly, notably with reference to the Pareto principle.

          • Proofreader
            Posted January 31, 2017 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

            The word “measures” in the last paragraph of my previous comment should read “methods.” (I tend to use the words interchangeably, but “methods ” is the better word in this context.)

          • Ted
            Posted February 1, 2017 at 2:15 am | Permalink

            Proofeader, thank you, I’ll closely study what you wrote.

          • Proofreader
            Posted February 12, 2017 at 2:10 am | Permalink

            Ted,

            There’s a lot I could say in reply to your thoughtful blog on wicked problems. The subject is one I’ll have to return to, and I’ll have to do a bit of reading about it. Some of the literature dealing with decision-making and innovation from publishers such as MIT Press, O’Reilly, and Wiley might be worth reading. How one defines problems and solutions, and how one conducts the process of addressing problems, are extremely important matters.

            One could say that wicked problems must be addressed both iteratively and reiteratively. They must be addressed iteratively because they require constant change. They also must be addressed reiteratively because the work of creating and maintaining a consensus of thought and action capable of supporting effective activism is slow, laborious, and precarious. We need a common body of knowledge and belief; we need a common framework for discussion and collaboration; we need to have a clear consensus regarding who we are, what we want, and what we are doing; we need to renew all these things by constantly affirming and applying them through education, discussion, and work; we need to make these things the “common sense” and “collective goods” of our political culture; we need to strengthen all these things by making them better and doing them better. We need to cultivate problem-solving skills at all levels. This work involves everybody: leaders, organizers, theorists, educators, activists.

            To use computing terminology, we need to create a cultural operating system and associated applications and applets that can capture the market.

  8. Barton Fill
    Posted January 27, 2017 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    I claimed that “jewamongyou opposes counter-currents.” Quinn says, “So what? So does the alt-lite!”

    My point isn’t that all white people are good, or that the alt-lite is beyond reproach, it’s that no Jew is worthy of respect. I don’t know what kind of twisted morality buys into the concept that respecting our enemies is somehow and honorable or enlightened position. Yet Quinn tries to equate “respect” with “strategic advantage”:

    “my suggestion is that we resist those Jews who fight us and respect the (albeit much smaller) number of them who don’t violate any Alt Right identity principles. This is a way to distinguish between enemy and non-enemy so that when the time comes to actually fight for our ethnostate, we will have fewer people standing against us (and perhaps more standing with us) than otherwise. And we will need as much of this as we can get.”

    Calling Jews white is violating an alt-right identity principle, which almost all of these so-called “white nationalist Jews” violate. You’re not going to form a battalion out of the crusty old David Coles and “Jewsamongyou.” You’re sacrificing a huge psychological potency (AXALT) for the sake of a couple hundred weird Jews who have very low levels of ethnocentrism (probably a result of low testosterone and low self esteem, which makes them pretty much useless in any struggle.)

    Look, if you want to manipulate Milo or Kushner into helping us, that’s one thing. If you want to strike some deal between Zionists and Nazis to send them back to Israel, that’s one thing. But I don’t see where respect enters into the picture. We are not going to win by being fair minded and trying to find respectful individuals among our enemies. We’re going to win when we start chanting mantras while channeling our spirit energies into sigils of merchant memes and pepe memes. This is a spiritual struggle, not a Machiavellian intellectual struggle. Respect is something spiritual.

    I’m also befuddled by this paragraph:

    “I am also sure that there are people to our right who (let’s be honest) find Counter-Currents to be weak tea. To such people, the writers here, myself included, are the cuckiest cucks of all the cucks in Cuckland. Does that mean we shouldn’t respect such people when the chips are down and a white ethnostate is finally undergoing its bloody birth throes? Quite the opposite, I should say.”

    Look, Spence, I’m sure you’re a nice white guy. I respect you to the extent that you’re a white guy trying to do the right thing. Maybe if I met some alt-light guy in person, I’d have a personal respect for him. Sometimes I meet boomer cucks, cucks of all kinds, liberals, what have you, and I respect them on a personal level because they’re decent people and I believe in racial solidarity. I’m willing to look past a lot of bullshit and show a fellow white person some respect.

    So what are you advocating for Spence? Personal respect? Why? Professional, ideological respect? Why? Why /should/ I respect Jews who refuse to immigrate to Israel and leave me alone?

    You claim that Jewamongyou is “accepting the need for white nationalism and won’t stand in the way if it ever becomes a viable thing.” No, he doesn’t, because he believes that he is white and if it ever came to formulating the laws of the ethnostate, he would lobby to include Jews as white.

    “If all Jews were like this guy, we’d be smooth sailing right now on HMS Ethnostate, would we not?”

    Absolutely not. Marx wasn’t a fan of the blacks. When race realism was at its peak between 1800 and 1970, you can find plenty of Jews who make negative comments about brown, black, or Asian people. Still today, there are plenty of Jews like “Jewamongyou” who want to live in a white country and a white neighborhood. There are also plenty of blacks, mestizos, and Asians who feel the same exact way. They still don’t belong in the white ethno-state, and as they are racial cuckolds, I don’t really feel a lot of natural respect for them.

    Why /should/ I compel myself to feel respect for any of these people? Respect is an emotion which builds social trust, cohesion, unity across and over ideological lines. Respect is a great thing to have within the white race. Maybe once Jews transport themselves to a parallel universe where they cannot interfere with me I will respect them (probably not.)

    Quinn: “The Alt Right should never be too friendly to Jews.” Why not? Why should we respect them, but not be friendly to them? Dude, I’d much rather advocate for being friendly to Jews in order to make Machiavellian deals with them than advocate respecting them. Why do you feel the need to police my emotions and tell me to be respectful, but not friendly to Jews?

    You know, I think your emphasis on being respectful, but not friendly, is indicative of an obsession with RESPECTABILITY! MUH RESPECTABILITY! I am a respectable, intelligent white nationalist who sees the shades of gray and I don’t engage in black-and-white thinking like those stupid stormfags!

    Again, I’d much rather be friendly than respectful to Jews. In fact, I’ve been plenty friendly to plenty of Jews in my time, because it benefited me at the time. There’s a case to be made for friendliness on a racial level for similar reasons. But not respect.

    Quinn makes the point that some cucks are “moved to feel sympathy” for Jews because some people said some mean, hateful things. Well, I’m not really out to recruit the Bill Buckleys of the world. The Bill Buckleys of the world will fall in line when we take power, or be too cucky to mount a resistance.

    Obviously I’m not in favor of ISIS style executions of Jews, I’m not in favor of BLM style terrorism against Jews, I’m not in favor of doing anything that would generate sympathy for Jews. But saying that “I don’t respect Jews” is not really one of those things. You can say “I respect /some/ Jews” a million times and people will just laugh at you. If you say, “I don’t respect Jews, and here’s why,” you won’t be laughed at anymore.

    “we lose nothing by saying thank you and remaining cordial with them.” Go ahead, be friendly. Thank you Jewamongyou! Thank you kind sir! But in my soul, I don’t have respect. Respect is deeper than all that.

    You can call it semantics, but I’d hope a man of letters like yourself would understand the importance of such things.

    • Spencer Quinn
      Posted January 28, 2017 at 8:14 am | Permalink

      Barton, You are arguing Truth, I am arguing tactics. I make no attempt to get to the bottom of the JQ. Instead, I’m offering what might turn out to be a quicker, more direct route to what we all want, an ethnostate. That is all.

      • Barton Fill
        Posted January 28, 2017 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

        I agreed with your tactics from the start: I support leaving the U.N., even if that benefits Israel. I would encourage you to continue with your line of thinking, but to be more sensitive to “Truth.” Truth and tactics can work in harmony, with a little work put into it.

        “Even if we don’t respect them, we can still use tact, manners, friendliness, politeness, and negotiating skills with them.” That’s how I’d rephrase your argument. Anyway I appreciate your engagement and glad to have caught your attention and sparked a dialogue on this issue.

    Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    The World in Flames

    Venus and Her Thugs

    Cynosura

    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance