Monthly Archives: April 2016

Waarom ik geen wit-nationalist ben

Ik ga hier geen territorium betreden dat niet al eerder is betreden. Maar ik doe het graag even in eigen woorden.

Hitler is slecht.
Hitler was een witte nationalist.
Witte nationalisten zijn slecht.

Dit is het soort syllogisme dat de gevoelens omtrent fascisme wel samenvat. Het is echter niet het soort syllogisme dat op deze blog niet veel zoden aan de dijk zet. Net als Moldbug ben ik niet bepaald allergisch voor wit-nationalistisch gedachtegoed. Maar eveneens als Moldbug ben ik geen wit-nationalist.

De reden dat ik niet allergisch ben voor nazis is dat ze biologisch gesproken een prima punt hebben. Neem een neonazi meme: 1488. 1488 is tribale signalering. De 14 in 1488 slaat op de ’14 woorden’: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” Ik vind dat een best reëel motto. Blanken hebben wereldwijd nog nooit onder zoveel druk gestaan. Immigratie, geboortestatistieken en demografieën zijn allen onheilspellend. ‘White genocide’ is een over-dramatiserende meme maar zeker niet zonder waarheid. De media hebben het hier niet over, integendeel: ze staan erbij en ze kijken ernaar. Dus dat gedeelte snap ik wel.

Het tweede deel van de meme -88- slaat op de 8e letter van het alfabet aka HH aka Heil Hitler. Daar heb ik niet zoveel mee. Het is grappig omdat het counter-cultureel is, maar Hitler is geen leider waar ik veel respect voor heb. De man had een schroefje los. Dit brengt ons ook bij mijn belangrijkste reden om wit-nationalisme af te wijzen: de doelen van wit-nationalisme zijn niet wat ze lijken.

De kern van wit-nationalistisch gedachtegoed is dat blanken, het superieure ras dat ze zijn, samen horen te staan tegen de duistere wereld die hen omringt. Alle blanken? Ja ALLE blanken. Als alle blanken zo superieur zijn als ze samenwerken, waarom hebben ze dat dan niet allang gedaan? Tsja.

Het probleem van wit-nationalistisch gedachtegoed is dat blanken, net als elk ander ras in Darwin’s boeken, niet uniform zijn. Er is harde intercompetitie tussen blanken. En daarmee komt ook tegelijkertijd het ware doel van fascisme tevoorschijn: Vaisja’s (blanke onderklasse) proberen de Brahmins (intellectuele bovenklasse) voor hun karretje te spannen ten koste van de Dalits (onder-onderklasse). Het is de zoveelste samenzwering van partijen om macht.

Een andere manier om er tegenaan te kijken is om wit-supremacisten te vergelijken met andere bewegingen die macht willen puur vanwege hun status als bedreigde groep:

  • Men’s Right Activists
  • Feministen
  • Black Lives Matter

Ik kan me in geen enkele ideologie van deze bewegingen vinden. Eveneens kan ik mij niet in de ideologie van wit-nationalistisch gedachtegoed vinden. Daarom ben ik geen wit-nationalist.

the EU-referendum: why GeenStijl won’t save the Netherlands

DISCLAIMER: I do not actively follow mainstream Dutch media or politics. This is just my interpretation of the referendum at this point in time.


So TWiR linked to this post by Real Gary, who writes that the no-vote in the recent Dutch referendum on Ukraine is a positive sign. I like to respond to that.

This referendum has definitely been a big deal in recent Dutch media. The final polling was impressive: a 32% total turnout and a 61% vote against the trading treaty. I get how one could interpret this as a promising sign, especially looking from the outside in. Yet I am skeptical and I will explain why.

The 3 driving forces behind the referendum are Forum voor DemocratieBurgercomitė-EUGeenstijl. ‘Forum for Democracy’ is such a bacon-and-beans player that I’ll ignore them from this point. Burgercomitė-EU is a 2013 founded Dutch crowdfunded organization that campaigns against the giving away of Dutch sovereignty towards Brussels. GeenStijl (NoStyle) is a 2003 founded Dutch media weblog. Geenstijl is by far the bigger player in this game. Dominque Weesie [Geenstijl founder] ‘describes it as a tough-talking, politically incorrect blog.’ Their blog is well-read by white higher educated males in their 20-40s. As of 2008 Geenstijl expanded to television in the form of PowNed.

Geenstijl does not have the same goals as the Burgercomité. Geenstijl explicitly does not take a stance against the EU:

” GeenPeil wil dat de kiezer weer serieus genomen wordt. GeenPeil wil daarom geen campagne voor of tegen de EU te voeren, maar om mensen zelf de keus te geven of ze voor of tegen meer Europese uitbreiding willen stemmen.”

Freely translated: “we are not campaigning in favor or against the EU, we are campaigning to give people a choice in the matter.”

Which through our patented NRx filter(c) roughly translates as: ‘If it sells we print.’

Geenstijl is owned by the company News Media. News Media on their turn are owned by the Telegraaf Media Groep, a company that also publishes the more sensational newspapers such as the Telegraaf, Sp!ts and Metro. So who owns Telegraaf Media Groep? Is it the Jews? I did not know and put on my tinfoil hat…

… Nope. It is in fact the van Puijenbroek family, a Dutch roman-catholic family. Hah. Silly tinfoil hat. So back to Burgercomité-EU, GeenStijl and the referendum. I think the events can be summarized as thus:

  • Burgercomité-EU tries to campaign for a referendum on an association treaty between the Netherlands and Ukraine. They need 300.000 signatures.
  • They fail to get signatures.
  • GeenStijl picks up the topic and hypes the referendum.
  • They get the signatures. The referendum happens. They need 30+% turnout.
  • GeenStijl hypes the referendum.
  • They win the referendum with a 32% turnout.
  • Parliament is panically debating what to do.

By now it is probably clear what I am getting at: this is not a Burgercomité victory. It is a Geenstijl victory. The people behind the Burgercomité want to confront the Cathedral, the van Puijenbroeks want their media empire to not go broke. For the former to happen a lot more needs go to wrong first. The well will only be closed after the calve has drowned.

So, what’s in store for the future? Perhaps the Burgercomité might accomplish change someday. However their comment section does not look hopeful. The van Puijenbroeks are the real winners here. As for their fate, this article contains a good concluding quote: “Kortenhorst placht in later jaren de grap te maken dat De Telegraaf dank zij de schatrijke Van Puijenbroek voortaan ‘de meest katholieke krant van Nederland’ was. Katholiek is de krant allang niet meer; de nieuwe religie van de NV Holdingmaatschappij De Telegraaf is de advertentiemarkt.”


On the Value of Shock

“To shock or not to shock?”

This Social Matter article got me thinking about shock, or more specifically: the value of shock. In the article Mark Christensen argues against being politically-incorrect on the ground that anti-PC is not an actual identity: it only exists in juxtaposition to the reigning power, a.k.a. that which is PC. Basically he makes the very relevant point that the anti-PC frame is the same frame employed by an angry teenager who rails against his oppressive parents. The teenager may think he is all wise and independent but he is in fact in a codependent-narcissistic relationship with his parents. He gets a kick by speaking truth to power but he is in actuality completely dependent on the response of his parents upon which he feeds. He NEEDS their PC so he can calibrate his anti-PC.

So don’t be that teenager. Create your own path. I agree with that message. But I have some extra thoughts on the subject since I struggle with this myself.

Shocking is not without merit. Firstly, there is the emotional clarity of communication a good provocative statement brings to the table. As the word implies, to be ‘shocked’ by something is to be temporary jolted, perhaps into a clearer frame of mind. It can be good to jolt people – negative emotions are a powerful motivator, if not the most powerful motivators. Clarity works. Long articles stay unread and book suggestions are forgotten. Radish has 0 mainstream appeal. A single picture conveying a similar message however…

2015-11-23 11_56_07-Donald J. Trump on Twitter_ __@SeanSean252_ @WayneDupreeShow @Rockprincess818 @C.png

Clear meme, clear communication. Whether or not you personally believe the facts presented in the picture is irrelevant – the message got to you in exactly the opposite way Radish did not get to you. Good memes work. Ask Goebbels.

Secondly concise shock-statements help to clear one’s mind. In a world filled with post-modern confabulations nothing is as refreshing as a couple of good anti-PC memes that get straight to the point. What goes through for intellectual debate is often a lot of words to describe very little content, despite everybody nodding their heads in consent. Concise memes cut through this mind-wank like a knife through butter. It makes you put skin in the game. I’ve done this before but just to re-affirm:

  • Women are snakes with tits who seek demon lovers without patriarchy’s firm guiding hand.
  • Blacks are more violent and have lower time-preference when compared to whites. The races do not mix well.
  • Islam is an evil and destructive religion of war.
  • Jews are intelligent yet inherently subversive.
  • White heterosexual men built the best civilization.
  • Progressivism/Marxism is the devil.
  • Theology > philosophy

Thirdly and finally, do it for the lulz. Lulz are fun. It’s good to have a fun time.

That is what I have to say in favor of shock. But to quickly counterbalance each pro-shocking argument:

  1. Emotional clarity argument — speaking emotional truth is scarily effective in terms of breaking other people’s reality. But is it productive? I find myself agreeing with the NRx sentiment that NRx is per definition never a mass movement, so I think not. Today your shiny might convince someone, tomorrow another shiny will do the opposite.
  2. Clearing one’s mind argument — There is truth in this one. Yet at what point have you made up your mind and are you just being an polarizing asshole for the sake of being a polarizing asshole?
  3. the Lulz argument — Lulz are nice, but so is strategic thinking. If you like playing with fire don’t be surprised if you burn yourself.

So I conclude that it is better to curb my tongue more often and try a subtler approach. I will however publicly proclaim my love of Murdoch Murdoch. So good!