The Trouble With LARPing……..

Live action role playing, or LARPing, is a form of game play where participants act out the actions of characters in the game. “LARPing” has come to mean any use of archaic right-wing political symbols, specifically Nazi or NSDAP symbols.

Now, I’m the last person to tell you not to be a Nazi, or not carry a Nazi flag for reasons of “optics” or scaring normies or being a loser dork. However, that does not mean there is not a problem with using archaic symbols in current political activity.

The same problem applies to the left as well, to the use of revolutionary communist and anarchist symbols like red flags and the hammer and sickle. The problem is this- the conditions that created the organizations that created these symbols are not the same now as they were then.

The National Socialist German Workers’ Party came into existence in the collapse of German society after WWI. The German army and people thought they were participating in a negotiated truce, not an abject, unconditional surrender. The army, or at least its soldiers, did not lose credibility in the collapse. The veterans still trusted each other and when they decided to band together to put an end to communist, Jewish subversion and destruction of German society, the people trusted them and followed them.

The Communist Party in Russia was composed primarily of Jews. Jews trust each other and cooperate with each other against their host societies. It’s what they do, and the communist revolution was just one example of this. Many communists were not Jews; a critical majority were. Jews trust and cooperate with some non-Jews, as long as Jews are clearly in charge of the enterprise. This is also what they do.

The NSDAP was not, as the alt lite and associated nitwits will tell you, a left-wing organization. It did however use tactics that have historically worked only for left-wing organizations and that can now probably only work for left-wing organizations. They were a public, urban mass political movement with tacit governmental support. The dissident right does not have tacit government support and can’t operate in the same way.

The NSDAP- and the CPSU- formed under certain specific circumstances with certain specific leaders and members, and chose symbols to represent themselves. You can’t create a national socialist political movement with an NSDAP flag or other imagery, because that’s not how symbols work.

If you want a national socialist political program, you have to get like-minded people who trust each other to come together. Having done so, they will create symbols. I don’t think those symbols or aesthetics will resemble too much those of the NSDAP.

Aesthetics matter to the members of the organization and to outsiders. Any serious nationalist movement will probably be formed by Southern military veterans. American military veterans are much less likely to form an anti-system alliance than the German veterans of WWI. American veterans are very conformist and submissive to authority. Still these are the only people who will possibly take action. If they do band together, they will use symbols that they feel represent them. The League of the South uses a black St. Andrew’s cross on a white field. Other Southern nationalists use the Bonnie Blue flag.

Black is a traditional fascist color as a color of formal authority. In America dark blue is the color of formal authority and seriousness and a more likely color to be adopted.

Symbols and images are tools. Tools change over time and what people used generations ago probably isn’t appropriate today.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Leadership Is Social Dominance

Leaders are born, not made. Not being a leader I thought for a long time that wasn’t true, that a smart, capable person with proper training could be a leader but that’s clearly not true.

Social dominance is a personality trait. If you drop five people off on a deserted island, pretty soon one person will be in charge and telling the others what to do. There may be some friction, some resistance, some jostling for position, but it will happen. If you drop twenty five people off, one will be in charge of all and some other will be in charge of sub-groups.

This person or these people won’t necessarily be the smartest, or most conscientious. This bothers smart, conscientious people to no end but it’s the truth.

In more complex situations there will be different types of leaders, with their own ranking. Howard Bloom describes this as leader, bully, joker, nerd. The dissident right has no shortage of “nerds”, or intellectuals. But these people are the lowest level of leadership. With the advent of the memesters, it now has some jokers, and jokers have breathed life into the movement that was intellectually strong but dry before.

Nothing is going to happen though until some enforcers and most importantly, charismatic leaders emerge. Who? From where? I don’t know. No one knows, probably not even the men themselves who take on these roles.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Kai Murros and National Revolution

Kai Murros is probably for most people a curiosity, known best by this image and quote that you see on Twitter occasionally-


So I decided to read a little more about him, and I was astonished. He has the most profound insights of any nationalist thinker I have read, has expressed clearly ideas only dimly seen by me, and proposed solutions to several problems plaguing nationalists.

For a nationalist, he’s pretty off the wall. He comes from a communist or Marxist philosophical background, while rejecting communism and Marxism. In particular he uses the revolutionary ideas of Mao and applies them to nationalism.

He is definitely a socialist and definitely an advocate of the white working class. Laying aside what “socialism” actually means- I don’t want to upset Vox Day!- and considering that all modern political systems have a social aspect, I think this is entirely appropriate.

From cursory study, Mao’s big idea was the concept of the “base area”- an area controlled by revolutionaries where they establish control and gain strength. Everyone else- left and right- seems to have always regarded politics as an urban thing, because that’s where formal politics happen, and that’s where the money and power are. Political events happen in the city, and the result is imposed on the country.

As we saw in Charlottesville, however, leftists control the city. They control the police and the courts. Nationalist activity is aggressively suppressed in the city.

One question for nationalists is, do we have a service organization or a military organization? Golden Dawn is both. Some nationalists- Mindweapon for a long time, Ryan Landry recently- propose a service organization. Ryu advocates direct action.

Murros says it must be both, and this organization must start in the base area or areas. Another problem is, are the police our enemies or our friends? To Ryu, they are the enemy. To VXXC, they can’t be our friends, but they can be neutral.

City police are firmly in the control of leftists and have been for decades. Rural police- particularly in the South- are more likely to turn a blind eye to armed political action, partly because of sympathy and partly because they are few in number.

Rural areas are the best places to start nationalist action. The people are more likely to be traditionalist, feel hostile toward the city power structure, and feel abandoned by it.

The best example is drugs. Legal opioid addiction and associated heroin use are the worst in rural areas. Everybody knows who the pill mill doctors are, and who the drug dealers are, but nobody does anything. White people look to the police, but the police don’t really care. Narcotics enforcement is a tedious business and harder to do where anonymity is difficult. However, if these people get notice they need to leave town, and when they don’t they wind up dead- well homicide investigation is tedious also, and maybe the sheriff is likely to shrug and say “We need the public to come forward.”

In rural areas nationalists can provide social services and also take military action. Nationalists then become the de facto government. Americans are allergic to political violence, but they are fairly comfortable with vigilantism.

Murros puts violence in three categories- state violence, revolutionary violence, and direct action. Revolutionary violence protects the people- to start with, vigilante action against drug dealers, gangs and other criminals. Direct action is what is commonly called terrorism. Murros despises direct action as the lashing out of bourgeois revolutionaries with no connection to the working class- the leftist terrorists of the late 60’s and early 70’s fit well this definition.

I have difficulty condemning any person taking direct action they believe is necessary. I don’t condemn Dylann Roof. Better he stalked and killed black pimps and drug dealers, but the nice church ladies at FAME hate white people just as much. I don’t condemn Anders Breivik. How effective his attack was is up for debate, but the people he killed hated Norwegians and wanted them crushed by African and Moslem invaders.

Violence however is a rough tool, and must be used carefully. Terrorism doesn’t really work because it just frightens and upsets people, and makes them support the system more.

There have been urban revolutions and rural revolutions. The French and Russian urban revolutions succeeded; the Spanish urban revolution failed, because it did not control enough territory. The Chinese and Cuban rural revolutions succeeded, the Vietnamese partially, until massive military power could be applied, and most other rural revolutions have not been successful. Colombia is wrapping up a stalemate on a rural revolution.

In Colombia, the communists had support of landless farm laborers but to the city people they were just kidnappers and extortionists. City people have different interests and perspectives than country people and will not see violence the same way.

This is a very shallow introduction to the topic and I will write more about these ideas in the future.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Charlottesville III- You Win, You Lose

A simple message to the system- you got what you wanted in Charlottesville. And you also laid the charade bare for the whole world.

We played by your rules. Formally permitted political rally, affirmed in its constitutionality by a federal judge. Free speech. The First Amendment, by God! Everybody gets free speech. Voltaire and all that cheap horseshit.

And it’s shut down. Normally judges rule, but even judges get overruled when the system wants something. Antifa attack the UTR crowd as the police watch. A frightened schizophrenic accelerates into a threatening crowd and is charged with murder. The media spins, spins and spins. The entire Republican establishments sides with the communists.

The alt lites and NRx describe it as an awful failure. The antifa double down on the next few “free speech” events and attack “Nazis” who are just regular Trump supporters. It gets so bad that some Democrats actually back off them.

Trump goes with amnesty, and millions of his supporters are humiliated.

If you think in terms of “optics” it looks like a defeat. But it’s really more of a clarifying moment. Millions of people can now see the system hates them, wants them to shut up and die, and will not pay them the least phony courtesy or lip service. There is a huge population of angry people who hoped some kind of democratic change and have been formally told no, not even a dry bone.

I’m not a civic nationalist, but really civic nationalism would be best for America. It permits groups to live and deal with each other in some kind of civilized context- that’s why it’s called “civil”. ┬áBut that can’t happen. And if it can’t happen, worse is better, until enough people clearly see what the deal is.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Vox Day Shows Everybody Who’s Boss!

“Vox Day” has been securing his right flank for some time now, with Jonah Goldberg style explanations of why Nazis are leftists and useless losers too.

He has picked up the clever insult “alt-retards” in his attempt to establish his social dominance. The problem is there’s no social dominance here, he’s just a guy, he’s not a leader of anybody. Labeling insiders and outsiders helps group cohesion, but there’s no group here.

This would be normal internet retardedness (on his part, not the “alt-retards”) except some piqued party decided to insult him back, on Gab, the free speech alternative to Twitter, with words that can in all fairness be described as libelous.

So he wants Andrew Torba, the founder of Gab, to take them down. Torba is not some guy on the internet, he’s trying to do something to preserve free speech and debate. He has already been threatened by his registrar and doesn’t want to provide private information, take down the posts or close the accounts. So Vox will sue.

Nobody takes internet insults seriously but Vox can cause all kinds of legal trouble for Torba, probably destroying Gab before finding an assetless person to harass with a judgment.

There is no alt right, just people attacking each other while Trump screws them. Pax says don’t accuse Vox of trying to sell books because that’s too easy. I don’t think he wants to sell books, he wants to satisfy his ego and he can because he has enough money from selling books.

To me, this doesn’t seem like a good use of his time. But the nice thing about being rich is you can indulge your ego and use money to put yourself above other people. But hurting Torba and Gab is a shameful way to do it.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

The Twilight of Bourgeois Liberalism

Most people, including me, would date the origin of leftism’s link to neoliberalism to the alliance of Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin in the early 1990’s. However in this Atlantic piece, Matt Stoller dates it much earlier, to the early 1970’s.

Liberalism came to mean something a lot different in the 1960’s than it had before. Leftists had always been in favor of protecting the lower classes economically. But as the 20th century went by, they became more and more concerned with what have to be considered moral issues, although they weren’t always framed as such.

Civil rights was sometimes presented as a matter of good governance, the full participation of citizens, but was mostly presented as a matter of morality. The Vietnam War was sometimes presented as a bad policy choice, but was usually criticized as just evil. Sexual liberation, from contraception to the decriminalization of homosexuality, was sometimes a libertarian issue of maximum personal freedom but was usually presented as a moral necessity.

Affluent people slowly went from being businessmen who were mostly interested in making money to professionals who were in the business of telling people how to behave. Widespread prosperity meant the working class didn’t need much help, so economic issues became almost irrelevant by the end of the Vietnam War.

At the same time though their increasing affluence made progressive professionals see things like libertarian businessmen- the economy should be free, to serve them.

Jimmy Carter was the most annoyingly moralistic man to be President, and his record is regarded poorly by most. A journalist who worked for him, James Fallows, posted a thread on Twitter recently listing Carter’s accomplishments.

What they were, were things like appointing Paul Volcker to the Fed chairmanship- the first monetarist in the job, who crushed inflation by crushing the economy- and airline deregulation. I can’t find the thread and don’t remember the complete list, but it was all neoliberal economic policy.

This seems strange for a liberal, but this economic consensus was there before Ronald Reagan, and he only pushed it a little farther.

So for decades liberals have been forcing the problems created by one bad group or another down our throats, while laughing all the way to the bank. But what can’t go on forever, won’t go on forever. They have run out of victims to bother us with- people can stomach gays, but not transexuals, and are long past tired of blacks. “Free market” policies that benefit only the rich have also reached their logical end, since people are now too broke to buy anything.

The next left will be economic and only as rainbow-colored as it has to be. Wall Street will not call the shots any more. The age of bourgeois liberalism is over.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Charlottesville II- Biomass, Or, The Biology of Power

The Brown Scare continues. Jim Donald tells us that Vox Day is correct to punch Nazis, because he is punching left. Brett Stevens informs us that “Neo-Nazism, white nationalism, National Socialism and White Supremacy have died” because they are embarrassing and outdated. More insultingly yet, a Twitter user going by @CorncobLeft compares the alt right to cargo cultists, in that they believe white people equal civilization.

People have been saying neo-reaction, or NRx for short, is dead. I don’t think this is true. The alt right is and always has been a collection of angry misfits; NRx was and is an intellectual movement critiquing the dysfunction of modern society and politics in the West.

NRx emphasized itself as purely intellectual and not involved in any kind of activism, in fact it advocated the “passivism” of Moldbug- be ready intellectually and wait.

The Trump phenomenon tempted NRx into seeing things as moving in their direction, and saw this as their opportunity to get involved. The alt right did also, and in the process the distinction between the two became blurred. Recent events are showing that the two remain distinct.

The relationship between intellectuals and the society they live in tends to be hostile. Consider the Greek philosophers, by which we mean the Athenians. Foremost among these were Plato, who left extensive writings, and his teacher Socrates, whom we know only through Plato’s work.

Athens was a democracy, and Plato and Socrates did not like this one bit. They wanted an oligarchy, and went to some lengths to establish it- leading to the execution of Socrates. They were of the hoplite class, foot soldiers who supplied their own equipment, and thus had to be fairly affluent to participate.

Did the elite philosophers make Athens great? Maybe, but they did not make it possible. The Athenian hoplites were outclassed by the Spartans, and possibly those of other city-states too. Athens was a rich and powerful state because one, it had the best navy in the region. The navy was paid for by the wealthy but staffed by common men. Two, Athens was not on the water, but had walls connecting Piraeus, its port suburb, to the main city so it could keep its navy going and maintain sea trade even if under siege. The Long Walls were built not by wealthy intellectuals but by common men also.

Neo-reaction makes the intellectual mistakes that the common people do not support civilization and cannot create it. I have talked about this here, here, and here. But if you are going to have a civilization you will need a mass of people who can keep it going.

La Griffe du Lion wrote about the “smart fraction”, the idea that the wealth of a country depends on the portion of the population with some base IQ. This IQ will not be particularly high by the standards of competitive admissions universities or accomplished, affluent professionals, but the more healthy white people you have, the more likely you are going to have this thing we call “civilization”.

“The mob” is a phrase that sometimes is thrown out. But a mob is just a group of people, men usually, who want something. If some charismatic, bright fellow can get up on a rock or a tree stump and tell them a way to get it, a mob becomes an army. Once the army controls some territory, they can put up some buildings and you have a city. They can then fight and defeat other cities, or encourage them to “patch over” as the outlaw motorcycle gangs do. If the enterprise is successful then over time it becomes quite respectable.

That’s Rome for you right there. The Romans were not noted for their culture or intellectual refinement, they were known for their military power. This power depended on having reliable foot soldiers, of which the neo-reactionaries have none.

The classic comeback is “You and what army?” Well, you and what army?

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments