No Enemies to the Right

I’ve seen No Enemies to the Right (NEttR) come under scrutiny over the last while, most recently and prominently by Land. I’m going to clarify the issue a bit.

As I’ve written before, we on the right should point our guns at our true enemies, the left, and, occassionally, the traitorous moderates. We should avoid turning on each other. We should avoid attacking allies, even if they are overzealous, degenerate, wrong on certain base principles, or if they have tactics we disagree with.

When first formulated, NEttR had a slightly different formulation though than simply not attacking fellow rightests. When originally used a few years back (can’t find the links), it meant no attacking people from the left. You could not criticize people for being more right then you, ie. you never criticize from the left, always from the right. For example, you don’t criticize a anarcho-capitalist for insufficent economic justice, that would be criticizing from the left. It instead you criticize him for the problems created by a lack of legitimate authority, ie. from the right. Criticizing a 14/88er for being racist is from the left and is verboten; criticizing a 14/88er for being a nationalist rather than a thedist is fine as it is from the right.

I agree with both the old formulation and the new formulation. In that there’s a difference between attack and criticize. You don’t attack someone else on the right, but you can criticize, as long as your criticism is that they are insufficiently rightward. You never attack or criticize someone for being insufficiently left. (Remember, right is order, left is chaos. Any criticism should be that the person is not sufficiently promoting order).

We should always be signalling right. But we should not become stupid about it to the point where we devour our own or promote stupidity. Ideological purity is nice, but don’t be concerned to the point where it becomes counter-productive. Attacking everyone for some minor ideological deviation will only alienate people. Instead, try to encourage and convince them towards your point of view with reason and argumentation. As well, continually trying to one-up others in a “righter than thou” holiness competition is to be avoided. This is not a status game.

NEttR does not mean that we can’t criticize, it means we can’t criticize people for being more right than us. In Land’s case, we should not critize the assassin for excessive rightward zeal or for being an extremist. We can criticize him for promoting chaos (ie: promoting leftism), for promoting evil, or for his actions being strategically or tactically unsound. The attitude to others within the right should be “I admire his passion for the cause, but he went too far by committing this counter-productive evil.”

Criticism of other rightests should always be internal. We should never criticize other rightests to leftists. Never virtue signal to the left. Our public attitude towards our extremists to the the centre and left should be the Mutt and Jeff routine. When talking about rightests we don’t agree with to the left, our general stance should be “While I don’t agree with him and he went too far, you have to agree that he has some valid points. Maybe we could appease people like him by adopting [something moderately right].” One of the major reasons leftists win is because rightests denounce their extremists (ex: abortion-clinic bombers), while leftists play Mutt and Jeff with theirs (ex: communist and Islamic terrorists).

Similarly, some allies are ideologically impure, degenerate, or otherwise distasteful in ways other extremism. Milo, Roosh, and Spencer are some of the bigger examples. In these cases, the old Bedouin proverb comes in handy: “I against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, and my cousin and I against the stranger”. We are not biological family, but we are ideological family. Just as in a real family, we may not like or agree with some people, we may find their choices distasteful or wrong, but they are still ours. We have concentric ideological circles, and at each circle, we should always rally facing outwards. When someone in one those circles outside us gets attacked from the left, we should support them for what right thing they have. Allies are useful and we have few of them. Extremists and distasteful allies should be used not rejected. Once the restoration has succeeded, then we can sort out our internal differences.

Finally, loyalty is a two-way street. There is no need to help traitors. Those on the right who are constantly attacking other rightests, especially if they’re doing so from the left, or who betray their allies deserve nothing. Disloyalty is chaotic and disordered, it is leftist and these rules don’t apply to them; feel free to attack (but always from the right). If they repent, let off and allow them to prove themselves.

So here’s the basic rules of No Enemies to the Right we should all follow:

1) Never attack or denounce a fellow rightest. Entryists, traitorous “moderates” and R(ightests)INO are fair game.

2) Never attack or alienate an ally. If you dislike them, ignore them.

3) Rational critique is not an attack.

4) Rational critique is not personal. Keep personal drama private.

5) Criticism of rightests should always have the audience of other rightests. Never criticize rightests to leftists.

6) All criticism should be from the right. Never criticize from the left.

7) Always signal right.

8) This is not a holiness competition. Don’t don’t be stupidly excessive when signalling right.

9) Don’t denounce extremists. Remember, Mutt and Jeff.

10) Zeal is good and should be commended, stupidity is not and should be criticized.

11) Always rally facing outwards at our concentric ideological circles.

12) Support those attacked from the left, even if the person is more left than you.

13) None of this applies to the disloyal or traitorous.

Lightning Round – 2016/06/22

Islam, men, and progressivism: divide and conquer.

Driving through dying blue towns.
Related: A desire to avoid Brazilification.
Related: Anarchy in the USA.
Related: Trump saying what others won’t dare.
Related: The impossibility of open borders.

Rival victimhoods in Orlando.
Related: The Orlando murderer was probably gay and theologically ignorant.
Related: The 3 hour wait and the police retreat.

Closing down the ghettos.

How King Tommen won like a boss.

The distrustful youth.

Jim on rape.
Related: The thorny issue of rape.
Related: Time for a temperance movement.

Don’t talk to the media.

The NYT does what it does best. More.
Related: Journalistic irony.
Related: Gersh Kuntzman on firing an AR-15.

Looking for love in the wrong places.
Related: The constitution con.

Land against the activists. More.

George Grant and the liberalization of Canada.

The fundamental skill of sociology.

Reactionary Tree makes a reading list.

On Brexit.

On apostasy.

Hook-up culture stats.

The Swiss draft.

On “harassment”.

Against dog whistles.

Twitter user @Real_PeerReview gone after doxing threats.

On pygmy’s.

Lightning Round – 2016/05/15

Atavisionary releases his new book: Smart and SeXy.
Related: Roosh released a book on his doxing.

Church and sovereign authority.

Two definitions of culture.

Ethnic warfare doesn’t stop at the border.
Related: An inside look at the Hungarian border fence.

How many books do you think Trump reads?

Trump and Curiel.
Related: Trump will suspend immigration.

Why conservatives lose.
Related: If you are a conservative

Does formalism matter?

The slaughterhouse the left built.
Related: The American experiment.
Related: Ripe for tyranny.

On child-killing.

A show resists progging.

Authenticity and the Cable Guy.

The ADL shuts Citadel down.

Canada SC legalizes non-penetrative bestiality.

Gawker goes bankrupt.

Men and women’s food habits.

Multiple shooters in Orlando?

Wright defends liberalism.

The left is imploding.

Colour Doesn’t Exist

Colours don’t exist. There are no seperate colours; all the colours overlap and blend into each other, making colourist distinctions impossible. How can we possibly say blue and green exist when teal is a combination of both and all three blend into each other? There is only one colour and that is the colour spectrum.

Colour is a purely meaningless social construct. Who gets define what is red and what is orange? Different cultures can’t even agree on whether some colours are distinguishable or not. How can we say colours exist when Japanese people didn’t even distinguish between blue and green until colourist American imperialists forced this distinction on them?

Colourism is not natural. Young children can’t distinguish colour on their own, the social construct of colour has to be taught to them by the colourist system. We can know colour distinction doesn’t matter because different cultures teach their children different colours and spectrums. Colour is an unnatural cultural distinction and not real.

As further evidence for the non-existence of colour, many people can’t physically distinguish between red and green or between blue and yellow. There are even some people can’t see colour at all. If colour is genetically alien to so many people, how can we say it exist?

Even the same person may see colour differently. Why just when making this post on multiple computers, the colour charts have displayed differently on the different screens, and the colours have looked different. Even on the same screen, the colours have looked different depending on whether the colours were against a background that was “white” or “black”. Colour can’t exist if the same person can’t even perceive the same colours as being the same in every possible instance.

The differences between so-called colours is minute. What we call colour is only the 400-800 THz sub-spectrum of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. Compared to the entire ER spectrum, the differences between colours are non-existent. The minute differences between colours pale in comparison to the differences between colour and microwaves. The differences between the various sub-spectrums of electro-magnetic waves is important, but variation within the visible spectrum are so miniscule as to not be worth distinguishing between.

Beyond that, differences in colour have no real impact on our lives. Sure, a red car might, to us, look better than a vomit green car, but that is simply cultural preference, it doesn’t effect how the car performs. In the past, colour might have mattered a little when it may have meant the difference between a nourishing meal or death by poisonous berry, but with modern science we can tell poisonous berries apart without having to use something as primitive as colour.  In anything that matters, there is no real difference between colours. All colours are the same.

Most of the variation in colour occurs within colour. If we view the spectrum below, we can see that the variation within blue is far larger the variation between blue and red or blue and green. And if we stop with our imperialist colourism and acknowledge blue and green as being the same colour as many cultures do, almost half the variation of colour exists within grue. There can be no distinction between colours because most colour variation occurs between individual colours within colour groups rather than between different colour groups.

Colour divides us as people. People distinguish themselves by their coloured banners and use different colours to signal in-groups and out-groups, causing violence, hate, colourism, and imperialism. Wars are caused by colourism, as various people march under differently-coloured banners in opposition to those with minor colour differences in their colour banners. We all know how Hitler distinguished his followers by brown shirts and red armbands when he usurped Germany. Then he invaded Europe because their banners were different colours from his red, white, and black banner. Colourism is the cause of so much violence and war in the world, it must be eliminated.

Colour reductionism reduces the great variation among the varying colours destroying diversity. When we call a colour red, we eliminate all the differences between the many diverse shades that brighten up the colour spectrum. This type of colourist colour-typing denies the existence of the varying shades of red and their importance to a diverse colour-spectrum. When we draw a clear, false distinction between red and yellow, we destroy the experience of the colour orange and are all the weaker for it. Instead of engaging in colour reductionism, we need to recognize and celebrate the great diversity of varying shades of colour.

Colour doesn’t exist and colour distinction is nothing more than an unnatural social construct determined by culture and perpetuated by the systemic colourism. Colourism must be eliminated and we must celebrate colour diversity.

Lightning Round – 2016/06/10

A combination of sickness, business, and forgetfulness has made this a week late, but in exchange, it’s a double edition.

The voice of the dead.
Related: Deconstructing Maoist Jesus.

Rules for reactionaries.

WeSearchr is live. Land’s comments.
Related: The bounty on Nick Denton.
Related: The coming information wars.
Related: An interview with Pax.

Don’t despair.
Related: Breaking the feedback loop.

Echoes and coincidence.
Related: Vox debated Louise Mensch on anti-semitism.

Names.

A reply to Josephine Armistead’s “The Silicon Ideology”.
Related: Anissimov on the absorption of NRx into the alt-right.
Related: Tyler Cowan misunderstands “neo-reaction”.

Baby boomers fail two generations.
Related: Dan Quayle was right.

The second part of the US cannot balkanize.

Trump for king.
Related: The white prole party.
Related: Trump as a tribal leader.
Related: Your skin is your uniform. Related.
Related: Your name is HUD.
Related: Collapse traps people.
Related: SA: Faster and more effective.
Related: The colour of crime.
Related: Ejecting the cult of nice.
Related: Rod Dreher on re-tribalizing America. Not here yet, but a little closer.
Related: The Mexican invasion is defensive.

The evil alt-right.
Related: Cuckservative self-labelling.

Inside the Trump rally riot in Chicago.
Related: Trump feeling the pressure.

Germans migrating to Christian Hungary.

Who killed conservatism?
Related: The right-liberal dance steps.
Related: The central conservative insight?
Related: Why Jonah hates Milo.
Related: Ace disavows #NeverTrump.
Related: Saruman was a true cuckservative.

Hoppe, skip, and a jump from libertarianism.

Against Harvard.
Related: Harvard’s eugenics era.

The managerial revolution.

Humanity is in the details.

Against utilitarianism.

EsotericTrad takes his exit.

Pardon me, ze.

Poverty and complexity.

Weaponizing billionaires.
Related: Countrywide bank takeover.

The ticking Nigerian time bomb.

Have you seen Angry Birds?

Weaponized ambiguity.

The Spirit of the Age.
Related: Decay is a time of pruning.

On Genesis 3.

On Theranos.
Related: The Theranos devaluation.
Related: Style over substance: Elizabeth Holmes and Amelia Earhart.
Related: The pettiness of pointing out feminist’s envy.

Striking back at the press.

Scott Adam’s endorses Hillary.
Related: Hillary, America’s mother-in-law.

Why even conservatives deserve the decline.

Captain America chooses the right side.

Overlapping bell curves and being an outsider.

The hominin braid.

Elizer Yudkowsky “quotes”. Heh.

SJW’s attack Warhammer.

The city of Benin.

The fall of Salon.

Fire Katie Couric (out of a cannon).

A review of Age of Em.
Related: The ascended economy.

Women’s Olympic soccer team loses to 14-year-old boys.
Related: Transsexual beats women in track and field event. Heh.

H/T: Land, SSC, Wright

Lightning Round – 2016/05/25

Don’t wait on the church.

Inference with the vampire.

A list of unmentionable nations.

The types of property.

Anarcho-tyranny and Duerte Harry.

NRx is gearing up for the next step and wants your help.

All slopes are slippery.

Ghostbusters, women, and Hillary.

The pope of moldbuggians.

Marcuse’s deep state ties.
Related: Comments on Marcuse and Marxism.

East Asians: Between a rock and a hard place.
Related: On google-doodle Yuri Kochiyama.

Counterintelligence in the mindwar.

Free speech cannot be given.

The rise of the white tribe.

The terror begins.

Trump’s Supreme Court picks. I thinking Trump actually gets it.
Related: Trump is normal, the Republican’s aren’t.

The demographic nightmare as a symptom.

The NRx presidency.

Sam Francis: Beautiful Losers.

Against LLC’s.

The biosemantics of representation.

Holiness escalation.

Whose bathroom is it anyway?

The bow of the king of Chu.

The Austrian flashpoint.

The alt-right and the chans.

Who should Christian female bloggers be?

The hidden costs of dual income relationships.

Diversity is our vibrancy.

Red State surrenders the GOP to the alt-right.

Thiel is funding Hogan’s anti-Gawker lawsuit.

Looks like a pedophile scandal in Hollywood may be brewing.
Related: The child-toucher checklist.

A Jew accusing another Jew of not being sufficiently pro-Jew is anti-Semitism.

Zuckercucks.

On teacher impact.

How to protect SF from Bad People.

Roosh made an SF story.

World War Zero, the sea people. Related.

H/T: Land, VD

Diverse GenCon

GenCon, the biggest board game convention in North America, has a very diverse (read: non-white male) line-up for its Insider Featured Presenters this year, including a female majority. I’ll let a celebrator explain (H/T: VD):

That’s right, folks. There are 13 female IIFPs and only 12 men. This means there are MORE WOMEN THAN MEN, and that is a HUGE FUCKING DEAL, because that is a HUGE amount of change in a really short period of time.

So, how did GenCon attain this goal of diversity:

And importantly, this lineup is much more reflective of the diversity of activity within the gaming industry as a whole. In years past, in order to get selected you pretty much had to be a cishet white dude working for a mainstream company on trad tabletop games. But this year’s lineup includes a wide swath of thought-leadership in the hobby, including tabletop publishers, LARP designers, event organizers, activists, critics, podcasters, academics, and community managers. Which is EXCITING!

Consider the nerd/geek distinction when reading the italicized list.

Here’s the list of people and their credits.

It has abandoned having presentations from people who create board games in companies that matter, in favour of people who like to talk about board games or have nothing to do with board games. Of course, our diversity celebrator thinks abandoning the raison d’etre of the convention is EXCITING!

Why is it that diversity is only ever achieved by allowing those who don’t make things, unimportant people, and those aren’t involved in the activity equal say to to key players who actually create things?

****

Also, notice this: more women than men is a huge deal. The individuals and their worth aren’t even mentioned, just having women there is all that is celebrated. Yet it is evil to suggest that: “Indies chosen as IIFPs were selected because of pretentious identity politics and not merit.” It’s all identity politics all the time with them, yet pointing it out is just wrong.

****

Contra Vox, I doubt this particular action will effect GenCon attendance over much. Of the many people I’ve known who’ve gone to GenCon not one has ever mentioned attending a panel. Most of the people I know who go, go to play as many games as possible and buy the newest games. I doubt a change in the industry panel line-up will even be noticed by the majority of attendees, let alone effect their attendance. (Although, it could be a first step to other measures).