Apr 15, 2016

The Socio-Sexual Hierarchy

via Alpha Game

I have a great deal of respect for Roissy, the various contributors at the Chateau, and many of the other theoreticians and practitioners of Game. However, I think the stark division of men into successful alphas and unsuccessful betas is too simplistic and reflects an artificial limitation on the broad applicability of Game beyond the sexual imperative. The inutility of the binary division should be obvious, since even those who subscribe to it tend to subdivide the categories into Greater and Lesser Alphas and High and Low Betas, while some also add the Omega category.

When we examine any conventional human social circle, we reliably observe a broader range of distinctly identifiable social archetypes that go well beyond mere sexual activity. And it is based on these observations that I have expanded the Alpha-Beta division into a hierarchy that covers the broad spectrum of socio-sexuality.

Alpha: The alpha is the tall, good-looking guy who is the center of both male and female attention. The classic star of the football team who is dating the prettiest cheerleader. The successful business executive with the beautiful, stylish, blonde, size zero wife. All the women are attracted to him, while all the men want to be him, or at least be his friend. At a social gathering like a party, he's usually the loud, charismatic guy telling self-flattering stories to a group of attractive women who are listening with interest. However, alphas are only interested in women to the extent that they exist for the alpha's gratification, physical and psychological, they are actually more concerned with their overall group status.

Lifetime sexual partners = 4x average+.

Beta: Betas are the good-looking guys who aren't as uniformly attractive or socially dominant as the Alpha, but are nevertheless confident, attractive to women, and do well with them. At the party, they are the loud guy's friends who showed up with the alcohol and who are flirting with the tier one women and cheerfully pairing up with the tier two women. Betas tend to genuinely like women and view them in a somewhat optimistic manner, but they don't have a lot of illusions about them either. Betas tend to be happy, secure in themselves, and are up for anything their alpha wants to do. When they marry, it is not infrequently to a woman who was one of the alpha's former girlfriends.

Lifetime sexual partners = 2-3x average.

Delta: The normal guy. Deltas are the great majority of men. They can't attract the most attractive women, so they usually aim for the second-tier women with very limited success, and stubbornly resist paying attention to all of the third-tier women who are comfortably in their league. This is ironic, because deltas would almost always be happier with their closest female equivalents. When a delta does manage to land a second-tier woman, he is constantly afraid that she will lose interest in him and will, not infrequently, drive her into the very loss of interest he fears by his non-stop dancing of attendance upon her. In a social setting, the deltas are the men clustered together in groups, each of them making an occasional foray towards various small gaggles of women before beating a hasty retreat when direct eye contact and engaged responses are not forthcoming. Deltas tend to put the female sex on pedestals and have overly optimistic expectations of them; if a man rhapsodizes about his better half or is an inveterate White Knight, he is almost certainly a delta. Deltas like women, but find them mysterious, confusing, and are sometimes secretly a little afraid of them.

Lifetime sexual partners = 1-1.5x average

Gamma: The introspective, the unusual, the unattractive, and all too often the bitter. Gammas are often intelligent, usually unsuccessful with women, and not uncommonly all but invisible to them, the gamma alternates between placing women on pedestals and hating the entire sex. This mostly depends upon whether an attractive woman happened to notice his existence or not that day. Too introspective for their own good, gammas are the men who obsess over individual women for extended periods of time and supply the ranks of stalkers, psycho-jealous ex-boyfriends, and the authors of excruciatingly romantic rhyming doggerel. In the unlikely event they are at the party, they are probably in the corner muttering darkly about the behavior of everyone else there... sometimes to themselves. Gammas tend to have have a worship/hate relationship with women, the current direction of which is directly tied to their present situation. However, they are sexual rejects, not social rejects.

Lifetime voluntary sexual partners = .5x average

Omega: The truly unfortunate. Omegas are the social losers who were never in the game. Sometimes creepy, sometimes damaged, often clueless, and always undesirable. They're not at the party. It would never have crossed anyone's mind to invite them in the first place. Omegas are either totally indifferent to women or hate them with a borderline homicidal fury.

Lifetime sexual partners < 2

Sigma: The outsider who doesn't play the social game and manage to win at it anyhow. The sigma is hated by alphas because sigmas are the only men who don't accept or at least acknowledge, however grudgingly, their social dominance. (NB: Alphas absolutely hate to be laughed at and a sigma can often enrage an alpha by doing nothing more than smiling at him.) Everyone else is vaguely confused by them. In a social situation, the sigma is the man who stops in briefly to say hello to a few friends accompanied by a Tier 1 girl that no one has ever seen before. Sigmas like women, but tend to be contemptuous of them. They are usually considered to be strange. Gammas often like to think they are sigmas, failing to understand that sigmas are not social rejects, they are at the top of the social hierarchy despite their refusal to play by its rules.

Lifetime sexual partners = 4x average+.

Lambda: Those men who have quite literally no interest in conventional male-female sexual relations. They clearly have their own hierarchy of sorts, but I can't say that I know much about it other than it appears to somehow involve youth, free weights, and mustaches.

Lifetime sexual partners = 10x average+

Now, it is important to keep in mind that it serves absolutely no purpose to identify yourself in some manner that you think is "better" or higher up the hierarchy. No one cares what you think you are and your opinion about your place in the social hierarchy is probably the opinion that matters least. There is no good or bad here, there is only what happens to be observable in social interaction. Consider: alphas seemingly rule the roost and yet they live in a world of constant conflict and status testing. Sigmas usually acquired their outsider status the hard way; one seldom becomes immune to the social hierarchy by virtue of mass popularity in one's childhood. Betas... okay, betas actually have it pretty good. But the important thing to keep in mind is that you can't improve your chances of success in the social game if you begin by attempting to deceive yourself as to where you stand vis-a-vis everyone else around you.

White GeNOcide and "Diversity"

via DDSWaterloo

When it comes to ‘Diversity’—- “Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding.”

The First rule of ‘Diversity’: Diversity means everyone MUST think alike about ‘Diversity’.

The Second Rule of ‘Diversity’: Nobody must EVER point out the First Rule of ‘Diversity’.

“White Privilege: “The privilege of forcing this “inevitable brown future” into ALL & ONLY White countries.”
 

Pavlov had a bell. Stalin had a bell. Liberty has a bell. And now everyone in the West has a bell around their necks. It is attached to a noose. The Bell demands that ‘Diversity is OUR strength!!!’ Even when it isn’t. Even if it means White Genocide. Even if NOBODY wants it.

When the Bell rings you had better applaud–or ELSE. This is NOT freedom.

White Privilege contains the most insidiously Orwellian, genocidal, parasitic, and totalitarian motives of anything the most envious communist Comintern could have dreamed. Stalin would be proud! It is a term of tacit anti-white hate, meant to disparage a people and cast their accomplishments, history and identity as justified only if it serves others interests.
There is no ‘White privilege’. There is sacrifice, accomplishment, effort, good fortune, and free choice. There are white people – with interests, history and unique characteristics that are not negotiable. Anti-racists never complain about Chinese privilege in China, or Japanese privilege in Japan, or Nigerian privilege in Nigeria. “Anti-racists” ONLY complain about White privilege in White countries.
What we have is a government and elite who wish to turn basic economic, social and cultural freedoms into privileges that will be controlled and allotted as they please based on their own political, ethnic or economic agenda. Free speech be damned — consider it a privilege. Keeping your earnings??? Consider it a privilege to be taken away if determined to be ‘unearned’. Freedom of association — and non-association — consider it a privilege a bureaucrat will dictate the terms on. Today’s privileges will justify tomorrow’s thefts — all in the name of equality of course. Equality of outcome – not freedom. Equality will be achieved when the envious run out of objects to covet, people to envy, status to seek and needs to satisfy. Meaning NEVER.
The same spirit, the same motives, and the same agenda that turned Russians into KULAKs brings you this menace.
 

All of this, ALL of it is completely analogous to the terror and insanity of the
USSR. Social justice not ‘working’, equality not ‘achieved’, outcomes not equitable??? The cause is obvious: WRECKERS.


Those evil wreckers. Just like the show trials of the 1930’s. Can’t draw money from a stone, or move 10 million tons of earth/day with a pickup truck. The cause???
Of course, all those BAD attitudes of WRECKERS (or racists, sexists, homophobes, capitalists…)!!! And the SJW elite are so smug. They are just a re-run, derivative imitation of the evil, bullying Soviets in new uniforms!!




Former President of France, Nicholas Sarkozy 2012:


“The goal is to meet the challenge of racial interbreeding. The challenge of racial interbreeding that faces us in the 21st Century.” he said. “It’s not a choice, it’s an obligation. It’s imperative. We cannot do otherwise. We risk finding ourselves confronted with major problems.” “We MUST change; therefore we WILL change. We are going to change ALL at the same time. In business, in administration, in education, in the political parties. And we will obligate ourselves as to results.”

“If this volunteerism does not work for the Republic, then the State will move to still more coercive measures.“ “The challenge of racial interbreeding that France has always known. And in meeting the challenge of racial interbreeding, France is faithful to its history.“

This is admission of the worst crime: GENOCIDE. To be accomplished without representation or debate. And if volunteerism doesn’t work … with COERCION and force. That is a crime. It is occurring in every Western nation. It is White Genocide.
Diversity: Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding


With Diversity — Everyone Wants to Stop clapping!!! But Everyone is Waiting for the Bell !!!
And they want to force this old agenda into society again, in the universities, in the ‘public schools’, in the free and open MSM. — NEW WORD, SAME Evil idea. Contemptible.

Diversity means chasing down the last white person. First 5% ‘diversity’ becomes 10%, then 20%, then 50% then 100% ‘diversity’!!! Freedom now. Freedom from enforced, genocidal ‘diversity’.

Bugs Versus Drift

via West Hunter

For a while now we have seen occasional articles about how people outside of sub-Saharan Africa may have more genetic load, generated by drift over a population history in which Eurasians generally had a smaller effective population size. This is related to those recent papers with similar but stronger conclusions about Eurasian archaic humans like Neanderthals and Denisovans.

As I mentioned, I kind of doubt that that Neanderthals and Denisovans were all that screwed up – partly because a more complete theory indicates that salvage mutations get easier as you drift away from the optimum and ameliorate the effects of low population size to a surprising degree, but even more because the Neanderthals obviously weren’t all that screwed up, didn’t have their fitness depressed by tens of percent, because they stood off anatomically modern humans for something like 70,000 years after first encounter. Results count. The mechanism makes a lot more sense for Flores hobbits because their population was much smaller, but even more because they actually were screwed up: it shows in their skeletons.

So, just how screwed up do Eurasians look, compared to Africans? I mean, if we’re going to be busy explaining a phenomenon, shouldn’t we bother to make a cursory check to see whether it even exists? I know that probably sounds radical…

Of course there’s no bloody sign of any such thing. Sub-Saharan Africans have shorter lifespans and lower IQs than most Eurasian populations. East Asia has lower genetic diversity than Europeans – so has had lower effective population size over the past few tens of thousands of years – yet those populations have higher average IQs and longer lifespans than Europeans.

On the other hand, it is also the case that strong selection for any particular trait tends to mess up other traits – logical, considering trade-offs. So strong selection for resistance to falciparum malaria has made lots of deleterious variants common in the tropical and subtropical parts of the Old World. We know many that are strongly, obviously bad for you – even lethal – but there are surely many others with milder (but still negative) effects. We know that selection for resistance to sleeping sickness has selected for APOL1 variants that greatly increase the risk of kidney failure, so that African-Americans develop end-stage renal disease (ESRD) about 3.5 times more often than people of European ancestry. Those APOL1 variants also exacerbate kidney disease caused by sickle cell, and there’s an AIDs-related kidney-wrecking syndrome (HIVAN: HIV-associated collapsing glomerulopathy) (while AIDs is of course much more common in blacks) that seems to require those African APOL1 variants – HIVAN is up to 50 times more common in blacks than whites. Those social constructs can sure seem real when they’re shoveling the dirt over your face.

Lawrence Murray Speaks for Himself (Not for "White Nationalism" in General)

via EGI Notes


Putting aside minor issues such as a misunderstanding of fascism, I see two major problems with that essay.

1. Pan-Europeanism.  Of course, there is no "official" definition of "pan-Europeanism" so people are in theory able to define it as they wish, even to the extent of a straw man definition.  That said, it probably is useful to have actual pan-Europeanists contribute to the discussion.

Murray and others define "pan-European" as a set of policy prescriptions, such as a "European super-state."  That's a very narrow viewpoint, which does not encompass what I see as the reality of what is meant by "pan-European."

In my view, pan-European (no scare quotes) is more of an attitude, a meme, an ideology, rather than any specific policy initiative.  I would define pan-Europeanism as:

A meme that asserts that the interests and well-being of ALL peoples of European descent are of importance, and should be equally pursued.

That contrasts to Der Movement, which restricts its interest only to those peoples whose origins are to the north of Vienna and the west of Berlin.

The exact approach used to achieve the objectives of pursuing pan-European interests may vary.

2. The idea that we can have significant populations of non-White minorities in at least some areas of a "White ethnostate."  That's the Michael Hart ideal of multiracial "White separatism" and I reject that.  There is no reason why "ports" or "coastal cities" in any White state have to contain any non-White minorities whatsoever.  Why must Whites always accommodate the other, even in the context of racial nationalism?  Is this "cuck-racialism?"

The False Genocide of American Indians: Based on Pleasant Illusions

via Amerika

Part of the stress associated with The Awakening — the process by which a person learns that their entire worldview is constructed of lies designed to justify Leftism and its origin, the malignant individualism of the quaking cuck — is seeing how deep the rot goes.

Our only guide here is cause-effect reasoning. If you were taught it in school, there is a reason. The teaching is the effect; what is the cause? Normally, it is to hide one of several things: (1) the disparity between races, castes, and genders; (2) the decline of our civilization; (3) the bungling leadership of democracy.

Today’s topic is the Amerind, or “Native American.” The latter term is nonsense invented by liberals to counter the term “American Nativist,” which applies to those who understood the Western European root of American culture and the need for its genetic preservation. The original term, “natives,” was used alternatingly with “savages” to describe the people who were born here, but not necessarily indigenous or endogenous.

Our history tells us the following: the noble Indian lived in peace and harmony in the New World until Europeans arrived. The Europeans were puny, weak and stupid. The Indian saved them and brought them turkey. Then the Europeans turned on the Indian, and immediately embarked on a plan of genocide motivated by nothing other than racism, cruelty and a desire to dominate.

As with all things taught after 1968, but even more taught after The Enlightenment™, and even more, taught to us by someone other than a wise natural elite… well, you get the point. We live in a time of liberal domination which has been happening gradually for at least 500 years, and by 1968, almost everything was infected. So if you see elected officials, teachers, police, business leaders, clergy and celebrities endorsing something as “true,” you can be certain that it is a lie.

This means that all of your assumptions about life and history were based on illusions, and as you awaken, you will find more and more lies used as foundations for even more lies. These are complex lies: they tell part of the truth, give it a “spin” or “twist” to make your brain naturally leap to a certain conclusion, and that conclusion (coincidentally!) leads to the further assumption that Leftist ideas were right and are a solution.

Let us first look at the charges of genocide, explained here by Guenter Lewy, a professional historian, in his “Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?”:
We may examine representative incidents by following the geographic route of European settlement, beginning in the New England colonies. There, at first, the Puritans did not regard the Indians they encountered as natural enemies, but rather as potential friends and converts. But their Christianizing efforts showed little success, and their experience with the natives gradually yielded a more hostile view. The Pequot tribe in particular, with its reputation for cruelty and ruthlessness, was feared not only by the colonists but by most other Indians in New England. In the warfare that eventually ensued, caused in part by intertribal rivalries, the Narragansett Indians became actively engaged on the Puritan side.
Hostilities opened in late 1636 after the murder of several colonists. When the Pequots refused to comply with the demands of the Massachusetts Bay Colony for the surrender of the guilty and other forms of indemnification, a punitive expedition was led against them by John Endecott, the first resident governor of the colony; although it ended inconclusively, the Pequots retaliated by attacking any settler they could find. Fort Saybrook on the Connecticut River was besieged, and members of the garrison who ventured outside were ambushed and killed. One captured trader, tied to a stake in sight of the fort, was tortured for three days, expiring after his captors flayed his skin with the help of hot timbers and cut off his fingers and toes. Another prisoner was roasted alive.
A few vital points here: the Indians did not fight as a unified group, but were more interested in fighting each other. The Europeans were friendly at first, but after atrocities, embarked on counter-attacks which resulted in open warfare that frequently threatened the survival of any European colonists. Rape, murder and theft were common Amerind activities.

Now let us put ourselves into the shoes of the European settler. They find a land that is 99.9% uninhabited, being vast and having under a million Amerinds wandering around. They set up camp much as they have done for centuries in unoccupied areas of Europe. Then they meet the savages. These new people seem odd and primitive, but the settlers hope for the best and befriend them, which works out reasonably well with some tribes some of the time.

But then, problems occur. Thefts and attacks on outlying settlers are common. Who did these? Indians. That’s not very helpful; which Indians? No one knows the tribe. Distrust of Indians “in general” spreads. Some tribes ally with the new settlers, but this just makes the conflict worse. Then out comes the torture, rape and murder from the Indian side.

Every settler at once says, “Oh. So they were savages, after all.”

Most people do not know the humanitarian origins of the term “savage.” It means primitive tribespeople that you cannot expect to abide by European ways and morals. This means that you do not allow them to have the upper hand over you, because they will act as is normal in their culture, which will shock the European mind and result in retaliation. The term “savage” was used to minimize the retaliation against these groups by avoiding social trust with them in the first place.

As it played out in the Americas, the term was well-used. Rape, murder, torture, cannibalism and sodomy were common among Amerind tribes, much as they are among every third-world population ever studied. These groups had made food animal species extinct, fought many internal wars in which kidnapping and rape were common, and never managed to adopt even the rudimentary hygenic standards of Europeans which held some of the disease at bay.

Don’t take it from me. Read one of Liberal America’s best-beloved authors, Mark Twain, on his view of the Noble Savage in “The Noble Red Man”:
In books he is tall and tawny, muscular, straight and of kingly presence; he has a beaked nose and an eagle eye.
His hair is glossy, and as black as the raven’s wing; out of its massed richness springs a sheaf of brilliant feathers; in his ears and nose are silver ornaments; on his arms and wrists and ankles are broad silver bands and bracelets; his buckskin hunting suit is gallantly fringed, and the belt and the moccasins wonderfully flowered with colored beads; and when, rainbowed with his war-paint, he stands at full height, with his crimson blanket wrapped about him, his quiver at his back, his bow and tomahawk projecting upward from his folded arms, and his eagle eye gazing at specks against the far horizon which even the paleface’s field-glass could scarcely reach, he is a being to fall down and worship.
His language is intensely figurative. He never speaks of the moon, but always of “the eye of the night;” nor of the wind as the wind, but as “the whisper of the Great Spirit;” and so forth and so on. His power of condensation is marvelous. In some publications he seldom says anything but “Waugh!” and this, with a page of explanation by the author, reveals a whole world of thought and wisdom that before lay concealed in that one little word.
He is noble. He is true and loyal; not even imminent death can shake his peerless faithfulness. His heart is a well-spring of truth, and of generous impulses, and of knightly magnanimity. With him, gratitude is religion; do him a kindness, and at the end of a lifetime he has not forgotten it. Eat of his bread, or offer him yours, and the bond of hospitality is sealed–a bond which is forever inviolable with him.
He loves the dark-eyed daughter of the forest, the dusky maiden of faultless form and rich attire, the pride of the tribe, the all-beautiful. He talks to her in a low voice, at twilight of his deeds on the war-path and in the chase, and of the grand achievements of his ancestors; and she listens with downcast eyes, “while a richer hue mantles her dusky cheek."
The ruling trait of all savages is a greedy and consuming selfishness, and in our Noble Red Man it is found in its amplest development.
Such is the Noble Red Man in print. But out on the plains and in the mountains, not being on dress parade, not being gotten up to see company, he is under no obligation to be other than his natural self, and therefore:
He is little, and scrawny, and black, and dirty; and, judged by even the most charitable of our canons of human excellence, is thoroughly pitiful and contemptible. There is nothing in his eye or his nose that is attractive, and if there is anything in his hair that–however, that is a feature which will not bear too close examination . . . He wears no bracelets on his arms or ankles; his hunting suit is gallantly fringed, but not intentionally; when he does not wear his disgusting rabbit-skin robe, his hunting suit consists wholly of the half of a horse blanket brought over in the Pinta or the Mayflower, and frayed out and fringed by inveterate use. He is not rich enough to possess a belt; he never owned a moccasin or wore a shoe in his life; and truly he is nothing but a poor, filthy, naked scurvy vagabond, whom to exterminate were a charity to the Creator’s worthier insects and reptiles which he oppresses. Still, when contact with the white man has given to the Noble Son of the Forest certain cloudy impressions of civilization, and aspirations after a nobler life, he presently appears in public with one boot on and one shoe–shirtless, and wearing ripped and patched and buttonless pants which he holds up with his left hand–his execrable rabbit-skin robe flowing from his shoulder–an old hoop-skirt on, outside of it–a necklace of battered sardine-boxes and oyster-cans reposing on his bare breast–a venerable flint-lock musket in his right hand–a weather-beaten stove-pipe hat on, canted “gallusly” to starboard, and the lid off and hanging by a thread or two; and when he thus appears, and waits patiently around a saloon till he gets a chance to strike a “swell” attitude before a looking-glass, he is a good, fair, desirable subject for extermination if ever there was one.
There is nothing figurative, or moonshiny, or sentimental about his language. It is very simple and unostentatious, and consists of plain, straightforward lies. His “wisdom” conferred upon an idiot would leave that idiot helpless indeed.
He is ignoble–base and treacherous, and hateful in every way. Not even imminent death can startle him into a spasm of virtue. The ruling trait of all savages is a greedy and consuming selfishness, and in our Noble Red Man it is found in its amplest development. His heart is a cesspool of falsehood, of treachery, and of low and devilish instincts. With him, gratitude is an unknown emotion; and when one does him a kindness, it is safest to keep the face toward him, lest the reward be an arrow in the back. To accept of a favor from him is to assume a debt which you can never repay to his satisfaction, though you bankrupt yourself trying. To give him a dinner when he is starving, is to precipitate the whole hungry tribe upon your hospitality, for he will go straight and fetch them, men, women, children, and dogs, and these they will huddle patiently around your door, or flatten their noses against your window, day aft er day, gazing beseechingly upon every mouthful you take, and unconsciously swallowing when you swallow! The scum of the earth!
And the Noble Son of the Plains becomes a mighty hunter in the due and proper season. That season is the summer, and the prey that a number of the tribes hunt is crickets and grasshoppers! The warriors, old men, women, and children, spread themselves abroad in the plain and drive the hopping creatures before them into a ring of fire. I could describe the feast that then follows, without missing a detail, if I thought the reader would stand it.
All history and honest observation will show that the Red Man is a skulking coward and a windy braggart, who strikes without warning–usually from an ambush or under cover of night, and nearly always bringing a force of about five or six to one against his enemy; kills helpless women and little children, and massacres the men in their beds; and then brags about it as long as he lives, and his son and his grandson and great-grandson after him glorify it among the “heroic deeds of their ancestors.” A regiment of Fenians will fill the whole world with the noise of it when they are getting ready invade Canada; but when the Red Man declares war, the first intimation his friend the white man whom he supped with at twilight has of it, is when the war-whoop rings in his ears and tomahawk sinks into his brain.

…he is a good, fair, desirable subject for extermination if ever there was one.
The Noble Red Man seldom goes prating loving foolishness to a splendidly caparisoned blushing maid at twilight. No; he trades a crippled horse, or a damaged musket, or a dog, or a gallon of grasshoppers, and an inefficient old mother for her, and makes her work like an abject slave all the rest of her life to compensate him for the outlay. He never works himself. She builds the habitation, when they use one (it consists in hanging half a dozen rags over the weather side of a sage-brush bush to roost under); gathers and brings home the fuel; takes care of the raw-boned pony when they possess such grandeur; she walks and carries her nursing cubs while he rides. She wears no clothing save the fragrant rabbit-skin robe which her great-grandmother before her wore, and all the “blushing” she does can be removed with soap and a towel, provided it is only four or five weeks old and not caked.
Such is the genuine Noble Aborigine. I did not get him from books, but from personal observation.
Savages come in many forms. Anyone who is not aware of the consequences of his actions on a minimal level is probably a savage. This includes almost all people under 120 IQ points and many above it who have not taken the steps to self-actualize. Most Europeans are savages, these days, since Leftism has reprogrammed their brains.

The Leftist promotes the Noble Savage myth as a way of promoting the Leftist agenda, which is to replace all truth and reality with Left-thoughts, starting with the idea that everyone is equal and we need a strong ideological leader like Joseph Stalin (Bernie Sanders is the dollar store substitute) to enforce that equality.

But in reality, savages are savages, and the nobility is a projection of the neurotic Leftist mind.

Generation Alt-Right

via Radix

As befits its moniker, Conservatism Inc. is obsessed with the past. And not in a healthy way.

In the same way that it’s always 1939 somewhere for neoconservatives, for other “movement” conservatives it always happens to be 1955. This was the year that the first copies of National Review rolled off the presses and William F. Buckley assumed his role as grand hierophant, hauling heretics against “TruConservatism” off into the outer abyss. A cabal of commissars still attempt to continue His Jowliness's perpetual purge, having ordained themselves as bitchy bishops in the high church of conservatism.

Their characterization, not mine. One such cleric over at Commentary puts the age in candid perspective:
For a time conservatism may have resembled the Catholic Church, with Buckley as pope, issuing bulls and ex-communicating heretics.
The revisionist history they tell themselves reads that Buckley purged the “anti-Semites” and John Bircher types from their movement (though this is hardly the full story). These undesirables were cast into the pits of the outer darkness where they have been waiting for just their time to strike.

It is only the ever-vigilant hall monitors over at National Review, Commentary, and the Heritage Foundation that save American “Conservatism” from the foul and odious forces forever banished by Buckley.

Our commissar goes on:
The nasty mouth-breathers Buckley expelled from conservatism have returned. The proximate cause of this efflorescence of the pre-Buckley right is Donald Trump’s campaign for president. Trump has dog-whistled at racists so much for so long that they feel resurgent. They call themselves the “alt-right,” a grab-bag category that includes nativists, eugenicists, bigots, anti-Semites, misogynists, reactionaries, aristocrats, monarchists, isolationists—basically anyone who hates today’s America and the modern world and the men and women, of any race or religion, who flourish in it.
The truth is, this isn’t the return of some long-forgotten enemy from the TruCons' past. Many in the “alt-right,” including your humble author, are below thirty. The history of the conservative movement means little if anything to us.

But the world they helped to midwife, one where shopping is patriotism, Europe is for “fags,” and history starts in 1945, has been pervasive for the younger generation's view of “the Right.”

For the millenials who make up a large bulk of “Generation Alt-Right,”,we don’t have a past to look back to. If we do, it is always in the vaporwave-shaded lenses of ironic nostalgia, through which we construct a simulacrum in place of actual memory. We were promised a future that saw its first crash in the dot-com bubble of the early 2000s and was bookended by the Great Recession of 2008.

Multiculturalism, far from being some plan being foisted on us from far away, has been our reality. For our generation, we have always been told that “America was a melting pot,” and we were made to memorize the “dream” of America’s King.

In many ways, we are the children of Conservatism Inc. Perfect consumers whose only loyalties have been to brands and whose only values have come from menus. We grew up with everything behind us, and a future as unknowable as our retirement prospects.

At some point we got fed up. I know I did.

In our guts, most of us knew there had to be an alternative. The Internet opened entirely new avenues that were closed off to other generations. Many, if not most of us went through several permutations. We latched onto Ron Paul and binged on Austrian Economics.

We thought the world could be saved by “Ending the Fed,” or just getting enough people to read Rothbard. Others stumbled through more radical forms of leftism where “socialist” wasn’t the dirty word our elders always said it was. But in our hearts, all of us were just searching for who we are.

For many alienated young White men, our credo could be summed up in that most angsty of films Fight Club:
We’re the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War’s a spiritual war… our Great Depression is our lives. We’ve all been raised on television to believe that one day we’d all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won’t. And we’re slowly learning that fact. And we’re very, very pissed off.
However, what we are now learning is that we do have an identity. It’s one that has been suppressed and mangled. An identity that dares not speak its name.

We Whites have been deconstructed down only to find what remains. Our essence is who we are. We are White Europeans, the descendants of conquerors and settlers who brought a civilization to entire continents. A people who survived in the savage wilds of the new world to one day step foot on worlds beyond.

For many of us, these realizations have only come in the last few months. Maybe it was the migrant crisis, maybe it was Donald Trump, or maybe it has just been that nagging search for what’s been wrong since as long as we can remember.

Whatever it was, we found our answer. It’s not in being some John Birch Society reenactment that the gerontocracy (and its doppelgangers) over at National Review and Commentary believe that we are. In reality, we are the post-modern and alienated children that Con. Inc. helped to bring about.

We’re not a ghost from their past. We're much worse than that. We are their worst nightmare for the future.

Generation Alt-Right is one with nothing to lose and everything to gain. It frightens them, let’s keep it up!

Sweden Is the Globalists' Lab-Rat

via BNP News

It’s where they test Cultural Marxism, political correctness, indoctrination, media manipulation, suppression of free speech, etc.
 
The only part left to test is a massive financial crisis, where the highly indebted Swedes will have the rug ripped out from under them in a financial apocalypse that will put the Great Depression to shame.

My guess is 2018, after the elections.

Sweden is lost.

Already in 2015, the results from the Swedish experiments were encouraging enough for the Globalists to order Merkel to go ahead and open the floodgates for Muslim invaders into Europe.

Normal people know something is wrong when they see it. But they need a moral compass for that (an education).

When millions of people act like brainwashed zombies, and applaud attacks by the violent Left against dissenters, it is a tragedy of unspeakable proportions.

It must be how the sensible Germans must have felt (in the 1930s), knowing they have little power to speak against the masses of brainwashed National Socialists.

The only thing that changed, it is now the International Socialists doing the “social engineering”, “state bullying”, and soon… bringing in the troops on the streets (as Germany already started) to consolidate power.

People must stop using their made-up jargon, and call them for what they are: regressives, social bullies, bigots.

It is applying advanced techniques of psychological manipulation, en masse, to vulnerable youngsters.

We have it in this country. I suspect children are told that to be anti EU is to be racist and xenophobic. It’s these trigger words that create an emotional response, and in doing so prevent critical analysis.

That is exactly what these words are meant to do: stop any dissenting thoughts in their tracks.

Another Regressive Left technique is “Double-Speech” or “Double-Think” jargon. For example, calling themselves “progressive” or “liberal” when they are in fact the opposite.

Other examples are “social justice warriors” when there is nothing of “justice” and even less “warriors”, but more to do with “social bullying”.

People must stop using their made-up jargon, and call them for what they are: regressives, social bullies, bigots.

If you can control what people say, you can control what they think.

Are you going to see your children, grandchildren bought up as Muslims or paying the Jizya (the tax on non-believers)?

Are you going to contemplate what true civil war actually brings because that is the direction this country is going in – as well as most of Europe?

There will be no need to worry about democracy because there will not be any; not that there was before because it had been hijacked by the high priests and priestesses of political correctness who brainwashed all those available for such a procedure.

Our sons and the daughters will look at us parents and say “how could you let this have happen? “What were you doing to prevent it look at our lives now – this is your fault!”

Why did you not tell us or explain to us or fight for freedom, why did you just let us slide into state like this. Why did you keep voting for parties that promoted this?

A History of Jewish Deception and Disinformation

via Solar General

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which describes itself as a civil rights organization, has been in the forefront of an ongoing attempt to label legitimate American-Arab and American-Muslim charitable, political, and informational organizations as fronts for terrorism. This attempt is part of a long-standing ADL policy of discrediting any individual or organization opposed to Israel or supportive of Palestinian rights. The ADL’s strong political loyalty to Israel as well as its acknowledged ties to Israel’s external intelligence agency in addition to its past practices of spreading disinformation and intimidating those who have spoken out against Israeli policies should however serve as a warning about the ADL and the nature of its claims.

When the ADL was founded in 1913 it defined its mission as opposing the defamation of the Jewish people. Over the years, the organization won respect for its active support of civil rights and its opposition to segregation and white supremacist groups. However after the founding of the State of Israel and the 1967 Middle East War, the ADL significantly altered the way it defined its mission. In a 1974 ADL publication entitled “The New Anti-Semitism”, then-ADL National Director Benjamin Epstein argued that any “criticism of Israel reflects insensitivity to American Jews and constitutes a form of anti-Semitism”. This change in the way it defined its mission meant that the ADL would no longer be engaged in merely civil rights work but would rather take on a very strong political stance in defense of Israel. The main goal of the ADL became to counteract any criticism of Israel and to promote Israel’s interests regardless of other considerations. Throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s, for example, the ADL was in the forefront of an effort to keep documents underscoring Israel’s sinking of an American naval ship confidential. Such efforts cannot be understood in the context of the ADL’s former civil rights agenda. Similarly, in November, 1994, ADL’s Executive Director Abraham Foxman personally appealed to President Bill Clinton to commute the prison sentence of Jonathan Pollard, an intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy who sold what the New York Times described as “suitcases full of military intelligence” to Israel. Foxman’s appeal to President Clinton can only be understood in light of the ADL’s new mission of promoting Israeli interests.

The fact that the ADL has become a pro-Israel interest group is, of course, not in itself problematic. The entire United States political system is based on the freedom of interest groups to compete with others in promoting their often conflicting agendas. However the ADL has overstepped the bounds of legitimacy on a number of levels. The organization has engaged in illegal domestic spying activities, has worked with foreign intelligence agencies to undermine the rights and endanger the lives of American citizens, has undertaken disinformation campaigns slandering and intimidating numerous academicians, politicians, journalists, church officials, and Arab-Americans.

ADL’s transgressions were most notably exposed in January 1993 when San Francisco newspapers broke the story of ADL’s extensive domestic spying network. The San Francisco Police Department discovered that under the cover of fighting anti-Semitism, the ADL had gathered and sold to intelligence agents of the Israeli and South African governments information on thousands of American individuals and groups. In addition to nearly all Arab American organizations, those whom the ADL targeted included House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ron Dellums, former Congressman Pete McCloskey, Los Angeles Times correspondent Scott Kraft, the board of directors of public television station KQED, the Rainbow Coalition, a number of labor unions, Greenpeace, as well as numerous other journalists, professors, members of Congress, and activists who the ADL suspected had “anti-Israel” leanings. The information which the San Francisco police department confiscated from the ADL offices included illegally obtained confidential police material. The manner by which the ADL obtained such information as well as the fact that they sold it to foreign governments are both felonies.

The ADL’s ties to the Mossad, Israel’s external intelligence agency, had been known even before the scandal broke out in 1993. During the court proceedings concerning a 1970 lawsuit against the ADL, an internal letter was disclosed in which ADL’s Epstein bragged about the close intelligence relations between the ADL and Israel. Furthermore, in his 1988 autobiography, ADL general counsel Arnold Forster described the close connections between the ADL and the Mossad. The Mossad connection is especially disturbing because of the Israeli intelligence agency’s long record of engaging in political assassinations of opponents of Israel throughout the world.

Like the Mossad, the ADL has not been content with just gathering information on those who have spoken out against Israel or in favor of Palestinian rights. The ADL has also actively engaged in discrediting them through disinformation campaigns which are aimed at both distorting the records and intimidating those opposed to Israel. While in the 1970’s and 1980’s, the ADL often falsely labeled such individuals as being connected to the PLO or in the pay of Arab Gulf states, since the 1990’s, the ADL has begun labeling them as being connected to Islamic terrorist organizations. The ADL’s allegations, while couched in a matter-of-fact style, nearly always falls far short of providing any real evidence. However such allegations have had far-reaching effects. After the ADL accused seven Palestinians and a Kenyan woman in California with ties to a PLO terrorist group, for example, the eight individuals were arrested and deportation proceedings were begun. When it was later discovered that no real evidence existed against the eight individuals except for the fact that they had distributed anti-Israeli magazines, the media sharply criticized the government.

One of its first salvos in the disinformation war was its 1975 report entitled “Target U.S.A.: The Arab Propaganda Offensive”, in which the ADL distorted the images of nearly all mainstream Arab-American groups. The ADL followed up that report with its most controversial book of all: Pro-Arab Propaganda: Vehicles and Voices, an enemies list of 31 organizations and 34 individuals which was published in 1983 and was largely aimed at countering opposition to Israel from University professors and student organizations. The publication intentionally takes statements of those on the list out of context, accuses them of Anti-Semitism, and falsely accuses a number of academic scholars of being part of a PLO support network or of having been paid by Gulf Arab countries. The report calls upon Jewish leaders in Universities throughout the country to boycott and intimidate those appearing on the list. Those who appeared on the list later found themselves ostracized by the academic community with some losing their jobs or denied promotions. S.C. Whittaker, the former chairman of the Political Science Department at Rutgers University admitted, for example, that political reasons, rather than academic ones, prevented Dr. Eqbal Ahmad from obtaining a regular teaching appointment after his name appeared on the ADL list. Dr. Noam Chomsky, who also appeared on the list, says that since the book was published, protesters have appeared at every one of his speaking engagements and have distributed distorted ADL reports containing fabricated quotes that he was alleged to have made in an attempt to intimidate him and his listeners. On Nov. 30, 1984, the Middle East Studies Association passed a resolution protesting the “creation, storage, or dissemination of blacklists, enemy lists” or surveys that call for boycotting individuals or intimidating scholars. Similar intimidation campaigns have been waged by the ADL against reporters and journalists who have criticized Israel.

Throughout the 1980’s, the ADL also accused liberal church officials, church groups, and religious organizations which called for peace and justice for all in the Middle East as being connected to the PLO. The Reverend Don Wagner and the Presbyterian Church had especially been accused by the ADL of having connections to the PLO, though no evidence was ever presented backing up such contentions. On the other hand, after a 1994 report on the religious right, the ADL was accused by religious conservatives of going after people for their political views and of taking numerous quotes of religious leaders out of context. Also on May 25, 1994, the ADL’s Jerusalem office released a sensationalist story which appeared the next day in the New York Times and other newspapers which alleged that the Vatican had admitted to being responsible for the Holocaust. The Vatican later totally denied the story. The ADL’s blatant misrepresentation of facts was sharply criticized.

The ADL’s credibility has been severely shaken by its long record of disinformation. While the ADL has every right to continue advocating pro-Israel policies, its real agenda should be exposed and it must be made to end the illegal spying, harassment, and intimidation of political opponents. More importantly, U.S. law enforcement agencies, the media, and political circles need to see the ADL for what it is: a pro-Israel group more than ready to distort the truth to further the Israeli agenda. While in retrospect, it now seems very clear that the ADL’s wild allegations against alleged PLO support networks in the 1980’s were baseless, it must be remembered that at the time they were seen as credible and led many people to lose their jobs and others to be imprisoned. The ADL’s current crusade against alleged Islamic terrorist networks is almost identical to its earlier one against so-called ties to the PLO. Both campaigns are based on general stereotypes and fears and are devoid of evidence and fact. To repeat such allegations without further investigating them, as some in the media have done, is unprofessional and unethical. To act upon them, as some law-makers and law-enforcement agencies have done, is dangerous and threatens the freedoms and civil liberties Americans have grown to expect.

Stand Your Ground: Milo, the Alt-Right, & Mainstream Attention

via Counter-Currents

It is hard not to like Milo Yiannopoulos. Watching him is like watching Firing Line if it were being hosted by Noël Coward. He is unquestionably a witty, bright-eyed, and charming individual. Politically, he inhabits the intellectual space in which White Nationalism and conservatism sometimes overlap. That is to say, he is a vocal opponent of feminism in its most flawed manifestations, opposes Muslim immigration, supports Donald Trump, and so on. And he does so fearlessly. Few reading this will not have taken some small delight in one of his particularly cutting phrases or cool trouncing of some hysterical social justice warrior.

For whites, this is often all that it takes to be welcomed into the fold. As a largely politically voiceless group, whites tend to flock towards anyone who has the courage to speak publicly what they think in the privacy of their own minds or dare to say only to close associates.

The problem with Mr. Yiannopoulos is that he is not white. He is in fact half Jewish — a particularly thorny issue indeed. Despite all we know of history, many whites just cannot help themselves but to embrace anyone who is perceived as being supportive of white interests. At the same time, however, it is pure folly to reject the benefits of a sympathetic voice, especially one with such a large audience, just because he is a member of an out-group.

In the article “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right,” co-written by Mr. Yiannopoulos and Allum Bokhari, the authors attempt to explain to Breitbart readers (mainstream conservatives who are slightly farther to the right and more open-minded than the average Republican) exactly what this “Alt-Right” they have been hearing so much about actually stands for and why their Twitter timelines are filled with swastikas and “le happy merchant” memes.

The article, well-written and relatively informative, albeit highly selective in its subject matter, has reawakened a debate within our circles about a subject with which we are all familiar: what contributions, if any, can non-whites make to the Alt-Right? Part of the problem is one of terminology. The controversy surrounding the concept of “allies of color” is, in part, that the term itself suggests a far more intimate working relationship between us and non-whites than White Nationalists feel comfortable having. An alternative phrase — “peripheral agents” — might provide a greater intellectual distance between sympathetic non-whites and White Nationalists while allowing us to more objectively and calmly analyze their impact on the movement and public perception.

If we answer the question of the role of peripheral agents simply by emphatically restating our foundational principle — the creation of sovereign white nations — and take all the ultimate restrictions that such a project will necessitate as a given, we are left to deal with three important issues: first, the question of whether sympathetic publicity is always good publicity, even if emanating from non-white voices; second, the question of how White Nationalists should make use of mainstream coverage; and third, who exactly is it that White Nationalists are seeking to attract (a question that is not quite as simple as one might guess).

It is not necessary to provide a complete synopsis of the article here but a short description of a couple of its elements is required. The authors define the Alt-Right very broadly: they mention a number of well-known contemporary names, including Steve Sailer, Curtis Yarvin (the Jewish neoreactionary better known as Mencius Moldbug), Razib Khan, and Richard Spencer, as well as early luminaries such as Julius Evola, H. L. Mencken, and Oswald Spengler. Included in their genealogy of the Alt-Right are various factions or fields of interest such as the human biodiversity movement, libertarianism, neoreaction, and the manosphere. Even a passing mention of the Nouvelle Droite is made. It is an eclectic mix of ideas but each has in common a disdain for and a rejection of the oppressive and ill-informed world of politically correct pearl-clutchers on both the Left and the mainstream Right. Needless to say, most of those who are reading this will likely already have read the article but, if not, it is worth spending a few minutes perusing it because it will attract newcomers. For this reason, it can be seen as a benefit to the movement. But the fact that it will serve as an introduction for many people makes it that much more crucial for White Nationalists to assert our particular message clearly, loudly, and without compromise.

The head, heart, and muscle of the Alt-Right is White Nationalism, a movement which is not mentioned once in the article. Considering the scope of the piece, this can hardly be construed as anything but deliberate. Without the tools of extra sensory perception, we cannot know for certain precisely why the authors have neglected White Nationalism but, with our understanding of Jewish intellectual movements to guide us, we can surmise that they chose to downplay the influence of radical White Nationalist intellectuals in favor of a more inclusive and socially acceptable collection of thinkers in an effort to secure for themselves a niche in the marketplace and a future for non-white writers. To do such a thing makes perfect sense. The authors cannot be faulted for this. It is not even out of the realm of possibility that they are genuinely sympathetic to White Nationalism in the same way some of us are sympathetic to Hindu Nationalism or various other anti- or postcolonial movements — i.e., as movements consistent with our ideology but within which we can play no part other than that of observers and commentators.

There can be no doubt, for example, that the Indologist Koenraad Elst has had a tremendously positive influence on Hindu Nationalism without pretending to be a Hindu Nationalist. His books are widely read and can certainly be seen as good publicity for that particular movement. Though the situation is not strictly analogous (especially considering the fact that he is not Jewish), in the context of Indian politics and demography, Dr. Elst is a “minority” who has devoted his career to a cause that is not, strictly speaking, his own. There are, of course, numerous other examples of this phenomenon but the point is that it is certainly possible for members of an out-group to aid the cause of an in-group provided that the in-group is firmly and explicitly committed to its own principles and that this is understood by both sides.

If we approach the subject from this point of view, it seems clear that sympathetic publicity arising from anyone is good for the movement (with the above caveats). Good publicity is, of course, any publicity that attracts new people to one’s project, whatever that may be. As Greg Paulson points out in his recent related piece at Counter-Currents, for many millennials, involvement with the various factions of the Alt-Right mentioned above provided their introduction to White Nationalism. He writes: “. . . they started out by simply finding our racial, anti-feminist, and un-PC memes funny (but not taking them seriously), and as time and engagement with our memes progressed, they started taking the legitimacy of our points and eventually embraced our ideas.”

The intellectual paths taken by individuals who end up becoming White Nationalists are probably as diverse as White Nationalists themselves. An in-depth study of this process will surely be undertaken someday, but anecdotal evidence abounds and would suggest that Mr. Paulson is correct. Thus it is important to cast as wide a net as possible. After all, we are attempting to undo many years of philosophical and political corruption, as well as — and most importantly — the suicidal psychological distortions inflicted upon a group of people that make up about 18% of the world’s population. Some will, by nature, respond more slowly than others and to them we must show patience (a task that, admittedly, seems to grow more challenging the longer one has been in the movement). However, as long as we are honest about our goals and refuse to temper our basic message, providing a warm welcome to the curious will benefit us all tremendously.

One of the claims made by the Mr. Yiannopoulos and Mr. Bokhari is that many in the Alt-Right are simply being childishly rebellious and lack any real substance to their arguments. They write, for instance, that some are drawn to the movement because “it promises fun, transgression, and a challenge to social norms they just don’t understand [italics mine].” And later: “Young people . . . are drawn to [the Alt-Right] because it seems fresh, daring and funny, while the doctrines of their parents and grandparents seem unexciting, overly-controlling and overly-serious.” This is doubtless true to some extent. But behind this jocularity is a deadly seriousness that risks getting lost in the “amorphous movement,” as the authors term it, if it is not regularly checked and contextualized. It is the job of the older and/or more learned members of the community to ensure that the young do in fact understand the ideas behind the memes.

Though many have arrived on this side of the political spectrum from a variety of backgrounds and political philosophies, it must be remembered that the core ideas that propelled the Alt-Right onto the pages of Breitbart in the first place were those of White Nationalists. We have gained strength and followers precisely because we do not compromise with our enemies. It should be obvious that there is no reason to start now. It is our honesty about everything that has made the movement a dynamic, cutting-edge, and ultimately unavoidable force in contemporary political discourse. One of our greatest powers is that we know we are right and we can prove it. And we do not back down under pressure. Simply put, White Nationalists are the alpha males of politics and this is, without a doubt, partially what draws people towards us.

The question of who our audience actually is and which segments of the white population are most necessary to attract is one that also needs to be considered in the context of any conversation about publicity and mainstream attention. First and foremost, it must be stated that White Nationalism is neither a rebrand of conservatism nor is it a joke, despite sharing some positions with conservatives and having a uniquely talented number of true comedic talents in our ranks. It is now — and always has been — a radical political movement. We are not looking to restore the collapsing architecture of a system that brought us to this point in the first place. We are trying to create a new and healthy culture in which we freely and without sentimentality discard those ideas that have failed us and have helped to maintain the collective state of white psycho-social submission to Jewish elites. It is absolutely necessary to for us to begin to think exclusively as radicals, using the terms and ideas of radical politics, and to distance ourselves from conservatism with no compunction.

Radical political action is almost always the result of the dissemination of a particular ideology by a cadre of older intellectuals whose ideas, refined and crystallized by years of serious study, find traction with military-aged men, especially those on the younger side of this demographic. These people experience the effects of previous generations’ bungles and missteps in ways that are often more immediate and pressing than they are for older, more secure, and less socially flexible individuals. The young tend not only to be more intellectually open but also more willing to undertake risk and to find delight in spiritually fulfilling thrill-seeking. A movement that is not seen as dangerous in some way is not going to attract these people and will always drift towards stagnation.

One of the fears often expressed at times like this is that of mainstreaming. We are all aware of both recent and historical examples of such behavior and rightly fear it. Who does mainstreaming attract? Primarily those with a heavy stake in the current system, people who believe that a few tweaks in the political climate will restore the stability of decades past, and those who long for a world that has either already passed or never actually existed, i.e., hopeless nostalgists. This is not the stuff of which radical political movements are made. Thus any attempt at mainstreaming our message will alienate the precise demographic that is most necessary for the success of any radical political movement. There must be a space for those entrenched in the system to find common ground with White Nationalists (they most certainly have as much to gain from us as we do from them) but at the same time those with youthful energy and a healthy sense of adventure must not be alienated. The “14/88ers,” despite occasionally being crudely over the top (those whom Greg Johnson has famously termed “vantards“) should be corrected when appropriate and necessary but not to the point of demoralization. None of us need look too far to find sources of frustration and ennui. But this should not come from within our community if it can at all be helped. White Nationalists should be supportive and provide a safe haven for those who are pro-White and are not harming the movement either through stupid behavior or fundamentally misguided ideas.

In sum:
  1. Any publicity that is not explicitly negative should be seen as a boon to the movement — even if it comes from a non-white.
  2. In order to use such publicity most effectively, White Nationalists must be gracious and appreciative without ever straying from our fundamental beliefs or trying to downplay some particular aspect of our ideology in order to trick people into accepting us. This will guarantee that our ideas will be accepted by those ready to accept them and increases the likelihood that we will garner respect, however begrudgingly, from all whom we engage.
  3. Replacing the term “allies of color” by the more neutral (and accurate) “peripheral agents” might go a surprisingly long way in reducing knee-jerk reactions to out-group attention in the future.
  4. Finally, it is crucial to maintain a certain level of tolerance for the young and hot-headed so that they learn and progress as individuals and as activists rather than throwing their hands up into the air and gravitating towards unstable and marginal figures within the movement, thereby wasting their talents and energy pursuing chimeras

American Narratives: The Rescue Game

via The Archdruid Report

Last week’s post here on The Archdruid Report, with its analysis of the way that affluent white liberals use accusations of racism as a dog whistle for their own bigotry toward wage-earning Americans, got a flurry of emails and attempted comments trying to push the discussion back into the officially approved narrative of race in the United States. That came as no surprise, at least to me. Every society has a set of acceptable narratives that frame public discourse on any controversial subject, and trying to get past the narrow confines of any such narrative inevitably brings some form of pushback.
Depending on the society and the era, the pushback can quite readily include such entertainments as being burnt at the stake for heresy, so I don’t feel any need to complain about the really rather mild response I got. At the same time, though, I don’t propose to back down. Every society, as just noted, has a set of narratives that confine discourse on controversial subjects to approved channels, but tolerably often those approved channels exclude crucial details and head off necessary questions. In today’s United States, in particular, the facts concerning nearly every significant crisis we face can be divided up neatly into two entirely separate categories. The facts that most Americans are willing to talk about belong to one of these categories; the facts that matter most belong to the other.
Thus one of the things I plan on doing over the months ahead is talking about some of the narratives that keep most people in today’s America from discussing, or for that matter noticing, the most crucial forces dragging this country down to ruin. Such an examination could as well start with any of those narratives—as Charles Fort pointed out, one traces a circle starting anywhere—but given the response to last week’s post, we might as well start with the accepted narrative about race.
It’s probably necessary to reiterate that this discussion is about narratives, not about the things that the narratives are supposed to describe. If you want to hear about the realities of racial privilege, racial prejudice, and racial injustice in the United States, you need to talk to the people of color who have to deal with those things day in and day out, not to a middle-aged white intellectual like me, who’s by and large been sheltered from that dimension of the American experience. People of color, on the other hand, have had very little influence on the officially approved narrative of race in the United States.  Like most of the narratives that shape our collective discourse, that’s been crafted primarily by middle-aged white intellectuals with college educations and salary-class backgrounds: that is, people like me. If I sing you some of the songs of my people, in other words, I hope you won’t mind.
I’m going to approach the opening notes of this first song by what may seem like a roundabout route. There’s a school of psychology called transactional analysis, which focuses on interactions between people rather than the vagaries of the individual psyche. Transactional analysis covers a lot of ground, but I want to focus on just one of its themes here: the theory of interpersonal games.
An interpersonal game, like most other games, has a set of rules and some kind of prizes for winners. In a healthy interpersonal game, the rules and the prizes are overt: that is, if you ask the players what they are, you can pretty much count on an honest answer. As this stops being true—as more of the rules and prizes become covert—the game becomes more and more dysfunctional. At the far end of the spectrum are those wholly dysfunctional games in which straight talk about the rules and payoffs is utterly taboo.
The accepted mainstream narrative about race in America today can best be described as one of those latter category of wholly dysfunctional games. Fortunately, it’s a game that was explored in quite a bit of detail by transactional analysts in the 1960s and 1970s, so it won’t be particularly difficult to break the taboo and speak about the unspeakable. Its name?  The Rescue Game.
Here’s how it works. Each group of players is assigned one of three roles: Victim, Persecutor, or Rescuer. The first two roles are allowed one move each: the Victim’s move is to suffer, and the Persecutor’s move is to make the Victim suffer. The Rescuer is allowed two moves: to sympathize with the Victim and to punish the Persecutor. No other moves are allowed, and no player is allowed to make a move that belongs to a different role.
That may seem unduly limited. It’s not, because when a group of people is assigned a role, all their actions are redefined as the move or moves allotted to that role.  In the Rescue Game, in other words, whatever a Victim does must be interpreted as a cry of pain. Whatever a Persecutor does is treated as something that’s intended to cause pain to a Victim, and whatever a Rescuer does, by definition, either expresses sympathy for a Victim or inflicts well-deserved punishment on a Persecutor. This is true even when the actions performed by the three people in question happen to be identical. In a well-played Rescue Game, quite a bit of ingenuity can go into assigning every action its proper meaning as a move.
What’s more, the roles are collective, not individual. Each Victim is equal to every other Victim, and is expected to feel and resent all the suffering ever inflicted on every other Victim in the same game. Each Persecutor is equal to every other Persecutor, and so is personally to blame for every suffering inflicted by every other Persecutor in the same game. Each Rescuer, in turn, is equal to every other Rescuer, and so may take personal credit for the actions of every other Rescuer in the same game. This allows the range of potential moves to expand to infinity without ever leaving the narrow confines of the game.
There’s one other rule: the game must go on forever. The Victim must continue to suffer, the Persecutor must continue to persecute, and the Rescuer must continue to sympathize and punish. Anything that might end the game—for example, any actual change in the condition of the Victim, or any actual change in the behavior of the Persecutor—is therefore out of bounds. The Rescuer also functions as a referee, and so it’s primarily his or her job to see that nothing gets in the way of the continuation of the game, but all players are expected to help out if that should be necessary.
Got it? Now we’ll go to an example—and no, it’s not the one you’re thinking of. The example I have in mind is the standard narrative of race in the deep South for the century or so after the Civil War.
The players were rich white people, poor white people, and black people—this latter category, in the jargon of the time, included anyone with any publicly admitted trace of African ancestry.  The roles were assigned as follows: poor white people were Victims, black people were Persecutors, and rich white people were Rescuers. The rest of the game followed from there.
Anything that poor white people did to black people was thus justified, under the rules of the game, as a cry of pain elicited by their suffering at the hands of Yankees, carpetbaggers, former slaves, etc., etc. etc.  Anything rich white people did to black people was justified by their assigned role as Rescuers. Meanwhile, anything and everything that was done, or not done, by black people was defined as a persecution—if black people pursued an education, for example, they were trying to steal jobs from white folk, while if they didn’t, that just proved that they were an inferior element corrupting the South by their very presence, and so on through all the classic doublebinds of bigotry.
A variant of that game still goes on in the pseudoconservative end of American politics. When Hillary Clinton went out of her way to characterize African-American youth as “superpredators” not that many years ago, she was playing a version of that same game, in which law-abiding white citizens were the Victims, black youth were the Persecutors, and white politicians were the Rescuers. On the other end of the political spectrum, of course, the roles are reversed; in games played on that field, people of color are the Victims, working class white people are the Persecutors, and affluent white liberals are the Rescuers. The players have changed places but the game’s otherwise identical.
Yes, I’m aware that people of color on the one hand, and working class white people on the other, occupy radically different places in the hierarchy of privilege in today’s America. More precisely, members of each of these heterogeneous groups occupy a range of sharply differing positions in that hierarchy, and these two ranges have very little overlap. What’s come to be called intersectionality—the way that social divisions according to gender, race, class, ethnicity, physical disability, and a bubbling cauldron of other factors, intersect with one another to produce the convoluted landscape of American inequality—is a massive factor all through contemporary life in the United States. So is the wretchedly common human habit of “paying it downwards,” in which an abused and exploited group responds by seeking some other group to abuse and exploit in turn.
All these considerations, though, belong to the real world. They are excluded from the artificial world of the Rescue Game, and from the officially approved narrative about race that derives from that game. In the Rescue Game, all members of the group assigned the role of Victim are always, only, and equally Victims, all members of the group assigned the role of Persecutor are always, only, and equally Persecutors, and the maltreatment of the Victims by the Persecutors is the only thing that matters. If anyone tries to bring anyone else’s treatment of anyone else into the game, it’s either dismissed as an irrelevance or denounced as a deliberate, malicious attempt to distract attention from the maltreatment of the Victims by the Persecutors.
The assignment of roles to different categories of people takes place in the opening phase of the Rescue Game. Like most games, this one has an opening phase, a middle period of play, and an endgame, and the opening phase is called “Pin the Tail on the Persecutor.” In this initial phase, teams of Victims bid for the attention of Rescuers by displaying their suffering and denouncing their Persecutors, and the winners are those who attract enough Rescuers to make up a full team. In today’s America, this phase of the game is ongoing, and a great deal of rivalry tends to spring up between teams of Victims who compete for the attention of the same Rescuers. When that rivalry breaks out into open hostilities, as it often does, the result has been called the Oppression Olympics—the bare-knuckle, no-holds-barred struggle over which group of people gets to have its sufferings privileged over everyone else’s.
Once the roles have been assigned and an adequate team of Rescuers attracted, the game moves into its central phase, which is called “Show Trial.” This has two requirements, which are not always met. The first is an audience willing to applaud the Victims, shout catcalls at the Persecutors, and cheer for the Rescuers on cue. The second is a supply of Persecutors who can be convinced or coerced into showing up to play the game. A Rescue Game in which the Persecutors don’t show quickly enters the endgame, with disadvantages that will be described shortly, and so getting the Persecutors to appear is crucial.
This can be done in several ways. If the game is being played with live ammunition—for example, Stalin’s Russia or the deep South after the Civil War—people who have been assigned the role of Persecutors can simply be rounded up at gunpoint and forced to participate. If the people playing the game have some less drastic form of institutional power—for example, in American universities today—participation in the game can be enforced by incentives such as curriculum requirements. Lacking these options, the usual strategies these days are to invite the Persecutors to a supposedly honest dialogue, on the one hand, and to taunt them until they show up to defend themselves, on the other.
However their presence is arranged, once the Persecutors arrive, the action of the game is stereotyped. The Victims accuse the Persecutors of maltreating them, the Persecutors try to defend themselves, and then the Victims and the Rescuers get to bully the Persecutors into silence, using whatever means are allowed by local law and custom. If the game is being played with live ammunition, each round ends with the messy death of one or more Persecutors; the surviving players take a break of varying length, and then the next Persecutor or group of Persecutors is brought in. In less gory forms of the game, the Persecutors are shouted down rather than shot down, but the emotional tone is much the same.
This phase of the game continues until there are no more Persecutors willing or able to act out their assigned role, or until the audience gets bored and wanders away. At this point the action shifts to the endgame, which is called “Circular Firing Squad.” In this final phase of the game, the need for a steady supply of Persecutors is met by identifying individual Victims or Rescuers as covert Persecutors. Since players thus accused typically try to defend themselves against the accusation, the game can go on as before—the Victims bring their accusations, the newly identified Persecutors defend themselves, and then the Victims and Rescuers get to bully them into silence.
The one difficulty with this phase is that each round of the game diminishes the supply of players and makes continuing the game harder and harder. Toward the end, in order to keep the game going, the players commonly make heroic attempts to convince or coerce more people into joining the game, so that they can be “outed” as Persecutors, and the range of things used to identify covert Persecutors can become impressively baroque.  The difficulty, of course, is that very few people are interested in playing a game in which the only role open to them is being accused of violating a code of rules that becomes steadily more subtle, elaborate, and covert with each round of the game, and getting bullied into silence thereafter. Once word gets out, as a result, the game usually grinds to a halt in short order due to a shortage of players. At that point, it’s back to “Pin the Tail on the Persecutor,” and on we go.
There’s plenty more that could be said here about the details of the Rescue Game and the narrative of race derived from it, but at this point I’d like to consider three broader issues. The first is the relation between the game and the narrative, on the one hand, and the realities of racism in today’s America. I don’t doubt that some readers of this essay will insist that by questioning the narrative, I’m trying to erase the reality.  Not so. Racial privilege, racial prejudice, and racial injustice are pervasive factors in American life today.  The fact that the approved narrative of race in today’s America is deceptive and dysfunctional doesn’t make racism any less real; on the other hand, the fact that American racism is a stark reality doesn’t make the narrative any less deceptive and dysfunctional.
The second issue I’d like to consider is whether the same game is played on other playing fields, and the answer is yes. I first encountered the concept of the Rescue Game, in fact, by way of a pamphlet lent to my wife by her therapist sister-in-law, which used it as the basis for an edgy analysis of class conflicts within the lesbian community. From there to the literature on transactional analysis was a short step, and of course it didn’t hurt that I lived in Seattle in those years, where every conceivable form of the Rescue Game could be found in full swing. (The most lively games of “Circular Firing Squad” in town were in the Marxist splinter parties, which I followed via their monthly newspapers; the sheer wallowing in ideological minutiae that went into identifying this or that party member as a deviationist would have impressed the stuffing out of medieval scholastic theologians.)
With impressive inevitability, in fact, every question concerning privilege in today’s America gets turned into a game of “Pin the Tail on the Persecutor,” in which one underprivileged group is blamed for the problems affecting another underprivileged group, and some group of affluent white people show up to claim the Rescuer’s role.  That, in turn, leads to the third issue I want to consider here, which is the question of who benefits most from the habit of forcing all discussion of privilege in today’s America into the straitjacket of the Rescue Game.
It’s only fair to note that each of the three roles gets certain benefits, though these are distributed in a very unequal fashion. The only thing the people who are assigned the role of Persecutor get out of it is plenty of negative attention. Sometimes that’s enough—it’s a curious fact that hating and being hated can function as an intoxicant for some people—but this is rarely enough of an incentive to keep those assigned the Persecutor’s role willing to play the game for long.
The benefits that go to people who are assigned the role of Victim are somewhat more substantial. Victims get to air their grievances in public, which is a rare event for the underprivileged, and they also get to engage in socially sanctioned bullying of people they don’t like, which is an equally rare treat. That’s all they get, though. In particular, despite reams of the usual rhetoric about redressing injustices and the like, the Victims are not supposed to do anything, or to expect the Rescuers to do anything, to change the conditions under which they live. The opportunities to air grievances and bully others are substitutes for substantive change, not—as they’re usually billed—steps toward substantive change.
The vast majority of the benefits of the game, rather, go to the Rescuers. They’re the ones who decide which team of Victims will get enough attention from Rescuers to be able to start a game.  They’re the ones who enforce the rules, and thus see to it that Victims keep on being victimized and Persecutors keep on persecuting.  Nor is it accidental that in every Rescue Game, the people who get the role of Rescuers are considerably higher on the ladder of social privilege than the people who get given the roles of Victims and Persecutors.
Step back and look at the whole picture, and it’s not hard to see why this should be so. At any given time, after all, there are many different Rescue Games in play, with affluent white people always in the role of Rescuers and an assortment of less privileged groups alternating in the roles of Victims and Persecutors. Perhaps, dear reader, you find it hard to imagine why affluent white people would want to keep everyone else so busy fighting one another that they never notice who benefits most from that state of affairs. Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to you that giving the underprivileged the chance to air their grievances and engage in a little socially sanctioned bullying is a great deal less inconvenient for the affluent than actually taking action to improve the lives of the underprivileged would be. Such thoughts seemingly never enter the minds of most Americans; I’ll leave it to you to figure out why.