64 words
Henrik Palmgren and I had a wide-ranging 2-hour conversation on doxing, including the Millennial Woes and Mike Enoch cases, Hailgate, the self-defeating trap of identifying White Nationalism with National Socialism, and the necessity of ending the “trolls’ veto” of real world community-building and networking. You can listen here. I want to thank Henrik and the whole Red Ice team for making this possible.
5 Comments
I agree with 95% of what Greg has said here. Three quick comments:
1. If Nazi larping is considered a “turn off” for “normie” recruiting, then what about other aspects of American racial nationalism that some would object to: the conspiracy theorizing, misuse of science, racial purity spirals and ethnic fetishism, the Beavis-and-Butthead “lulz” culture, the Pepe-Kek jackassery, sneering hedonistic “game” advocates, the esoteric “traditionalism,” etc. etc. etc. There’s a lot more there than just some “Roman salutes” and Hitler fetishism. One can compare a typical American website to what Europa Terra Nostra podcasts or Alliance for Peace and Freedom material and note that many European nationalists avoid the hang-ups of their American counter-parts.
2. I’m not sure I agree with the distinction between truth and integrity/authenticity – even in the Enoch case. I do not want to be a deconstructionist (or Pontius Pilate) – but what is truth? If Enoch had taken a more “cucky” view of the JQ we may disagree with it, but can we have been so quick to ascribe it to his wife, or to personal convenience? That would be ad hominem, critiquing the pro-Jew argument on the basis of perceived self-interest on the person making it. A pro-Jew could argue that an anti-Jew is also motivated by personal issues of integrity vs. the “truth” of the pro-Jew position. In any case, the idea that a person’s views are more noble if they involve self-sacrifice and abnegation of self-interest is a slippery slope – leading to White pathological altruism and virtue signaling. I don’t see adaptive behavior as being any less “truthful” then self-denying sacrifice. Asking others to be self-sacrificing could be viewed as self-interest on the part of the person asking for, or approving of, the sacrifice.
3. The “Stand Your Ground” idea is good, but like all ideas, requires implementation. Aren’t there lawyers on our side? Was Bristow the fellow you were to meet and the meeting fell through? We have resources, but they are dissipated by feuding factions and distrust Somehow the digital-analog barrier needs to be breached and real world infrastructures achieved.
” I’m not sure I agree with the distinction between truth and integrity/authenticity … In any case, the idea that a person’s views are more noble if they involve self-sacrifice and abnegation of self-interest is a slippery slope – leading to White pathological altruism and virtue signaling.”
Is it really that hard to get your head around?
Enoch is arguing for a white ethnostate despite the fact that his wife, children would be disbarred from entry. It is intellectually dishonest to deny the truth if only to fit around your personal circumstances. It is extremely admirable to stick to the truth despite the conflict it could cause in your life, because the white ethnostate is uncomfortable to non-whites (such as Jews)
*Truth here is that the common good for whites is to live in their own ethnically homogenous country*
How is Enoch arguing for WN a form of virtue signalling or pathological altruism? It would be a form of virtue signalling or pathological altruism to cuck on the JQ because of the ethnicity of his half Jewish wife.
Personally, I think personal status is irrelevant to arguing for and creating the white ethnostate – but this is a separate argument.The most important aspect is the message since the WN ideal is to create a systematic change in the function of society so that it functions as an ethnostate in the future.
My reply is thus:
http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2017/01/when-is-self-sacrificing-altruism-noble.html
It is also intellectually dishonest to conflate your own personal preferences with “truth.” It’s real easy for moralists to define as “truth” scenarios that enhance their own interests, and then expect others to accept that “truth” and act accordingly.
One could of course make an argument – as per Salter – that the White ethnostate is adaptive for Whites and therefore from that perspective, it is “truth” that the White ethnostate should be actualized. But if we determine “truth” based on what’s adaptive, then I don’t see why someone with a different set of adaptive interests must be obligated to accept that version of the “truth” for themselves. After all, someone else can state that the “truth” is “the greatest good for the greatest number” and so the interests of non-Whites exceed that of numerically smaller Whites. A moralist can then demand that Whites give in to Colored demands since “truth” is defined by, for example, Whites opening their borders so as to benefit non-Whites.
But, no, you say, that’s not best for Whites. That’s our truth. Non-Whites have their own truth. Enoch is not obligated to accept our truth. I’m glad he does – don’t get me wrong. But I’m not going to be a hypocrite and praise as “noble” someone else’s self-sacrifice that benefits my own interests. After all, the Left may want me – and you – to be noble by accepting their truth and engage in self-sacrificing behavior on behalf of Coloreds.
“We have resources, but they are dissipated by feuding factions and distrust.”
Sortocracy: Sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them.
Turn factionalism into a true “strength in diversity”.
The enemy is suicidal. It wants to turn factionalism into their strength through forced integration. Sortocracy turns factionalism into a strength through the laboratory of the states. The enemy is destroying its own strength. Why let “purity spiraling” destroy our own strength when everyone not only can, but _should_ have all the purity they want within Sortocracy?
To quote the inaugural speech:
“We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.”
(Which is a paraphrase of what I said in hour 2 of my July 4, 2016 Red Ice interview.)
People who don’t get this have been dumbed down to the point that they think the only way forward is “white identity”, whatever that means to them. In a way, they’re correct but only because they must be permitted to pursue whatever they identify with to give their brief incarnation meaning — even if the only real meaning of their life is to demonstrate how wrong their beliefs are.
People who don’t work the problem before us because they see it as too daunting must get over that. There really is no other way forward for “whites” or, indeed, for humanity.
As I told the Daily Shoah folks upon the Enoch catastrophe: It’s discipline time, fam.
Collin Robertson and Enoch shouldn’t be discussed in the same breath.