In Defense of White Globalism

The Norman Conquest

In this essay I’ll address the points raised by longtime Substackamerad

Norman Eckart

in his piece Refuting Walt Bismarck's White Globalism, which he penned in response to my earlier essay White Nationalism is Anti-White.

Many of you will recognize this name from his appearances on Walt Right Perspectives last April and July, wherein Norm distinguished himself not only by sounding almost identical to Nick Fuentes / Yakko Warner, but also by providing what was easily the most articulate and well-reasoned defense of traditional White Nationalism I’ve encountered since returning to these frothy online waters.

Sorry—I ought to be precise here—I meant to say *American Nationalism*.

…or was it just Nationalism?

---

It genuinely pains me to preface this piece with pedantry, as I myself found this sort of thing intolerable when I was in Norman’s jackboots half a decade ago.

But I’ll ask him and his supporters to bear with me nonetheless, because I actually think this gets at a deeply important point, which is that names are incredibly powerful.

Back in 2016 I loved calling myself “Alt Right.” I adored its sharp and steely mouthfeel; its self-assured bisyllabic brevity; its unrepentant youthful aggression; and above all else how elegantly it conveyed subversive metapolitical rebellion and brash theatrical hipsterdom in equal measure. The Alt Right brand was lightning in a bottle, and to obviate such cataclysmic power Roberta Kaplan et al had no choice but to corrupt and anathematize its energy through a grisly human sacrifice.

And it pains me to admit these ghouls succeeded—that’s why I reluctantly abandoned my efforts to forge an Alt Right 2.0 last spring. But there’s a very good reason I pivoted to “Walt Right” instead of passively adopting the scene’s standard nomenclature, which is that “Dissident Right” is a straightforwardly horrible brand.

The reasons for this abound, but let’s begin with the simple phonetic texture of “dissident.” I can’t imagine a worse mouthfeel. The very sound evokes an obsequious homosexual snake—probably the last thing you’d want for a right wing movement. It’s also way too long; two syllables was perfect, three would be serviceable, but once you hit four the lack of confidence just slams into uninitiated normies like a freight train.

Then to top it all off you’re calling yourself a dissident—i.e. making *not having power* the central facet of your political identity. You don’t need any Ashkie admixture to realize this is a catastrophic PR blunder that basically amounts to doing the enemy’s propaganda work for them. It’s tantamount to identifying as the Loser’s Club—it means foreclosing any real chance of seizing hard institutional power, while resigning oneself to a life of sitting around with other losers being powerless and broke and gay.

So if we don’t want to be poor and gay snakes we clearly require a better word than “dissident.” But we can’t say “Alt Right” either, as that conjures up frightening specters in the normie mind of tiki torches and imperfectly dapper undercuts.

So what about “White Nationalist?”

This is obviously the nomenclature I used in Why I am no longer a White Nationalist and White Nationalism is Anti-White to define my opposition… but in all honesty I don’t love using this term even in reference to people I disagree with. That’s because actually identifying as a White Nationalist to a normie will provoke basically the same reaction as saying “nigger,” and nobody with a remotely serious desire to influence hearts and minds would ever do something so blockheaded.

Admittedly, there are certain contexts where the term might be warranted; a guy like me or

Richard Hanania

can debate a feller like Norm or Jared Taylor entirely in good faith and use the term “White Nationalist” to accurately characterize their views, and this wouldn’t be the least bit disingenuous (at least when done privately or in front of an audience of heterodox right wing intellectuals). But when done before an audience of low openness normie libtard types the term carries all sorts of horribly problematic baggage, and forces one’s interlocutor to waste valuable breath and cognitive space clarifying how they don’t ackchully want to exterminate anyone.

Now, if I’m just dabbing on wignats in the Millenniyule peanut gallery I’ll gladly lean into this dynamic to perform a sort of rhetorical shell game wherein I deftly sister soulja LampshadeDenier1488 to jam a foot into the Overton Window and create runway I can later use to broadside WNs from the right in some funny exaggerated way that advances my higher order metapolitical objectives (often to ends Norm et al might find broadly favorable). But much like Uncle Jared, I consider Norm a friend, and would never instrumentalize him in such a callous way—particularly because he is directionally aligned with me in most of his political objectives. He’s also so close to me in temperament that I owe him a response positively Mormon in its earnestness.

So to that end I’ll start with this: the difficulties you face with nomenclature (and let’s not kid ourselves, Norm—all intelligent WNs know this has been a giant pain in the ass ever since the enemy ruined “Alt Right”) are meaningful and substantive and actually speak to something deeply problematic for your long-term objectives: namely, that the unwashed normie will always find it severely disingenuous to call yourself a “Nationalist” or “American Nationalist” when your ideology has such a clear racial valence to it. And if we’re being honest injuns, Norm… are they wrong to do so?

Kindly note I’m not saying that blurring the boundaries between ethnonationalism and civic nationalism is entirely untenable—if anything that’s the fundamental conceit of my entire project! But my way of going about this demands a certain synthesis—a push-and-pull in which our discretely Dardenellian concept of wypipo gives way to a more clinal and graduated view of Whiteness as an aspirational ideal, much as we observe in that charming impulse in Latinos to mejorar la raza.

This approach will always be a million times easier to sell to people than Norm’s more exclusionary and inward-looking framing. Because at the end of the day most people don’t really demand “equality;” they don’t even particularly want it. What they actually demand is to be ruled by a capable and beautiful elite truly worthy of veneration.

If you want to see how this works simply look at any Latin American country.

---

A few clarifications before we proceed.

First and foremost, I don’t support additional mass immigration from the turd world into the United States, whether we’re talking lettuce pickers or software engineers.

I’d likewise support financial incentives to facilitate limited repatriation of non-MENA / Castizo immigrant populations, with the tacit long-term goal of rebalancing the US population such that wypipo gradually come to constitute 80-85% in total, which I’d argue is the optimal amount of diversity for a vitalist empire. Though perhaps an even better approach would be to simply take in tens of millions of Ukrainian and Russian refugees such the median American starts to look a bit more like

Daniella Pentsak

. Either approach would work in practice.

I think this is a broadly achievable goal, and feel confident I could easily defend it to a Nigerian Uber driver and Punjabi tech lead without offending either of them.

But what will never ever sell in America are the following vectors of approach:

• Any sort of involuntary repatriation measures

• Any dream of a racially maximalist ethnostate

• Any attempt to deny “American” status to assimilated scions of immigrant Caucasoid / Mongoloid pops who are individually “pro-White”/ “pro-West”

• Anything obsessively antisemitic (particularly from a low status direction)

At this point there are simply far too many second and third generations azns in America who have interbred with Whites or assimilated heavily into White culture, and even the modal White Nationalist wouldn’t feel comfortable targeting such people for repatriation. They’re simply part of the fabric of the country now, and it behooves any serious WN to game around that reality in his racist theorycrafting, because to earnestly countenance any change in this state of affairs would require entertaining counterfactuals so wild as to necessitate a complete reinvention of his worldview.

It’s also just a complete non-starter to pursue policy objectives from a scarcity mindset or low status angle. WNs need to come to terms with the simple fact that Status Is God, and that in a triumphalist City On a Hill like America it will always evoke horrible low status fugly vibes to overtly resent a group that’s more successful than you. That doesn’t mean you have to be sycophantically philosemitic, but if you’re gonna swing at the Jews you need to do so from a stance that won’t make you seem like an impotent broke bitch, and there’s nary a WN who’s pulled that off since 1945.

---

With all that out of the way, let’s actually get into the meat of Norman’s riposte and address his critiques head-on, starting with the topic of wypipo’s minority status:

Defeatist phrases like “inevitable minority status” and this inherently Retreatist mentality towards wheeling-and-dealing with racial replacements is a too-common mewling among Nationalists. These mentalities must be shamed out of those capable of grasping anything of this brass-tacks discourse.

There is nothing inevitable about the racial composition of America. Today’s crisis was built from decades of cultural and political subversion, and it can be undone with the application of clever and effectual Will. No fatalism will do in the great game of power.

Most of the peoples trapped in the Communist hellscape behind the Iron Curtain believed that it was an invincible system, right up until the Soviet’s sudden end. Indestructible. Eternal. Inevitable.

Virtually all victims of post-totalitarianism believed so, save for those like Czech radical Vaclac Havel. In his essay The Power of the Powerless, he noted how these kinds of increasingly reality-disconnected regimes trap their populace under a sort of socially-imposed shell, forcing the people to reinforce the system’s terror onto themselves and their countrymen.

This isn’t a proper analogy.

The fall of the USSR was a geopolitical event. Governments can topple in a weekend and do all the time. But demographic change is infinitely harder to directly influence, and to the extent you can influence it, it happens slowly, messily, and unpredictably.

Now, I’m certainly not aprioristically ruling out the possibility of future ethnic strife leading to large-scale repatriation efforts that ultimately precipitate something like the population exchange between Turkey and Greece in the early 20th century. But this could never happen in modern America given the median Burger’s sensibilities.

As it stands demographic transformation is baked into the cake and would require a catastrophic upheaval of the sociopolitical order to disrupt. Consequently, as mentioned above, if anything like this *does* happen then every aspect of the world will need to be so fundamentally different that we’d probably have to rethink every aspect of our ideology from the ground up. As such I don’t find much utility in speculating along such lines—it feels too much like fanfiction.

As for ethnic-trend reversals, the case of Kyrgyzstan is a useful example. After the native Kyrgyz were systematically ethnically replaced to falling minority status by the Soviet Union, they bounced back to over 77% in less than 30 years once reasserting control over their country, and its still climbing. Need I even cite Spain’s Reconquista beginning at so miserable a point of 200 men holed up in the mountains in Moorish Spain, and ending with the reconquest of the entire Iberian Peninsula?

Kyrgyzstan only has seven million people—hardly comparable.

Also I’m too lazy to verify this, but I imagine the dynamic you mention consisted almost entirely of Russians and other high status groups migrating there during the Soviet era to exploit its natural resources because of the shared political union, before moving back to Russia when the USSR collapsed. That isn’t really comparable to what it would take to meaningfully bleach California.

Moreover, Spain is actually a counterexample to your thesis; simply compare the phenotype of Andalusians to that of Galicians. Also observe that the model of governance / cultural cohabitation Spain employed in Andalusia post-1492 was literally a prototype for the sort of Castizo Futurism I’m advocating.

---

Norman goes on to explain the familial case for nationalism, leveraging some very splendid crustacean imagery:

…I’m going to pull a Jordan Peterson here and tell you all about how humans are like Hermit Crabs.

Hermit Crabs move into the vacant shells of other creatures in order to protect themselves from predators. But not just any shell will do. Different Hermit Crab species can be highly particular about the size, shape, and material they will accept for their borrowed carapaces. More difficult still is that their continued growth forces them to regularly swap for bigger, better shells.

All that shell-searching and testing takes a lot of time and energy, which they have to get right lest they risk being gobbled up. However, Hermit Crabs will gather up to form a swap meet of sorts, lining up to inherit the discarded shell of an older relative. Rather than go to all the effort of personally finding a brand new suitable shell, the Hermit Crabs rely on the “tastes” of their kin to do all of the testing and delivery for them. Because they are so similar genetically, their needs and lifestyles are virtually as interchangeable as the shells they inhabit.

By having a close-knit population of highly genetically-related individuals gathering up the same kinds of critical resources that specifically suit their general tastes, ALL the participating Hermit Crabs more readily find shells to live in – increasing overall survival at a much lower risk and energetic cost.

Humans are hardly different. The civilization built by your close relatives is going to trend towards your personal tastes and preferences more than those of completely alien people. By living in such a society built by, for, and of your own, you reduce your energetic costs of translating and interpreting the choices around you and free up that energy to get on with other, more complex social matters.

I agree with basically all of this.

I just don’t see how the analogy precludes a limited enclavist multiculturalism with some circumstantial accommodation for human interchange on the margins.

Not Blanda Upp—merely a friendly White boy tolerance for Apu and Mort Goldman.

---

Norm next challenges some specific points of my characterization of White nature:

Bismarck first notes of White exceptionalism is that we often express a strong desire for exploration and/or conquest. This is a point I wholly agree with… Whites have a long history as Horizon-Seekers.

…

But the Horizon is more than just the physical. For as much as certain Apollonian Nationalists out there like to reference Faustian Civilization in reference to conquest and exploration, Faust’s racially-familiar craving was intellectual and spiritual more than physical. Faust sought to know everything, and to expand on the very reaches of human knowledge and understanding.

It’s a drive so uniquely fundamental that it produces a special kind of terror in us. Icarus flying towards the sun in tragic abandon, the Oedipal horror of the inextricable quest for Truth, Knights errant plunging into the darkest monster dens, and even the Lovecraftian lore of soul-shattering revelations of encountering the Unknowable. Whites appreciate these terrors because they play on our instinctual draw towards unknown Horizons.

Spiritual revelation. Bodily mastery. Technological superiority. Literary encapsulation. Aesthetic ascension. Landed cultivation. Love. All these endeavors are pursued by many men, but few races pursue them so vigorously and obsessively as Whites. To appreciate only the outward and physical facet is to miss out on the whole unique gem of the White psyche.

Even those tired-Teuton Hobbits that Bismarck so despises form the solid backbone of White civilization. Indeed those Cathedral-builders were not pirates and raiders but humble peasant volunteers who indulged in the equivalent of his time’s sportsball when not humbly venerating God and tilling the fields.

I feel like Norm starts out this section with an entirely solid addendum to my original account but ends up taking it in a direction that doesn’t make much sense.

It rings entirely true to me that Whites are more drawn to introspection, naval-gazing, recursive meta-analysis, and intellectual / emotional boundary-testing than other races. But this impulse has literally nothing to do with sportsball-loving Hobbits.

Hell, if my experience in Nebraska taught me anything, it’s that sportsball-loving Hobbits tend to be the ones most ferociously hostile to those sorts of impulses.

And the data literally backs this up:

Moreover, if we take this line of reasoning to its ultimate conclusion it seems to me that Jews are by far the most capable race when it comes to exploring their inner frontier. Consider they literally invented psychoanalysis.

So there is actually a sense in which we could say that Jews are the most Faustian race—or even the most White—while stolid and reliable Teutons are more peasantish and Oriental in their temperament. And the Dissident Right is going to call me a Mischling either way, so fuck it, I’m actually fine with that conclusion!

…but are you?

It is because we have this powerful urge in many of us, like Cincinnatus, to humbly plow our own farms and answer the glorious call of history only when we absolutely must, that Whites are not obligate slavers of, nor kowtowing serfs to, other races. There is honor in humble cottages and pretty soils, whose inaudacious glory lies in the wind’s quiet whispers through wheatfields and the thumping of happy children rushing across clean-swept wood floors.

I doubt Bismarck would disagree much with this assessment, once reminded of the ways White man reaches out into the world and into his own soul. But his assertion that we have never been inward-looking as a race stands in stark contrast to the reality of the peoples who obsess over microcosms and minor differences in spiritual and intellectual opinion to the point of putting each other to the sword. Navel-gazing is in fact one of the greater flaws among capable Whites today!

Cincinnatus led Rome in its war against the Aequi… who were then conquered and colonized by Rome, alongside basically every other ethnic group in the Mediterranean over the following centuries. The story of Cincinnatus has literally nothing to do with idealizing Hobbit-life or pastoral non-aggression; it’s about respect for the rule of law and constitutional legitimacy against unchecked and arbitrary despotism.

Anywho, when I said Whites aren’t inward-looking I certainly didn’t mean to imply we aren’t especially prone to introspection—I’d obviously be a monstrous hypocrite for suggesting such a thing! I simply meant we get bored more easily than other races with a comparable IQ and require more novel stimulus to ward off ennui.

---

Norman next addresses my point on Whites being more brutal than other races:

But first, a brief moment about Bismarck’s interstitial section on the special Brutality of Whites. This was a weaker point, maybe something of a filler-answer when challenged with the, “What makes Whites special?” bombard. It tends to shell-shock most White advocates, really.

The stuff about other races being not as creative in mass-slaughter as Whites, or that it’s just to contrast against the barbarities of Blacks in White societies, was fairly well challenged and put down in the comments by others. I’ll save you all the reiteration by just saying: Whites certainly don’t have a monopoly on creative violence in world history.

Maybe so—but you are utterly missing the point of what I was doing here!

The question of “who is most brutal” is at the end of the day entirely arbitrary—this is an exercise in competitive mythmaking and rhetorical judo. Think agree and amplify. In my original piece I was submitting a framework under which we could “own” nonwhite allegations of brutality from a high status position of abundance.

And no, that’s doesn’t mean being ghoulish or fedpoasty; it means saying to Xi:

“Yes, we ARE more brutal than you. We ARE imperialist roundeyes. And if you invade Taiwan we WILL obliterate the Three Gorges Dam and deluge half your fucking countryside. So if you don’t want another Century of Humiliation back the fuck off and free Hong Kong.”

It’s basically a sophisticated way of triangulating against the neoliberal, the antiwhite thirdworldist, and the wignat isolationist all at once.

There are numerous ways to creatively deploy non-cognitive statements of cultural posturing like this to forge novel and compelling rhetorical angles in pursuit of your goals. But to make this work for them WNs need to adopt a far less linear approach to argumentation; they must recognize that in certain situations morality and truth are tedious non-sequiturs and it’s nothing more than a brutalist dick measuring contest.

Wignats will call me Jewish for promoting this tactic, but that’s literally the point: Jews are powerful precisely because they know how to work angles like this. So instead of moaning about it, why not simply learn from them?

Some White Nationalists like to lean into the Scary White Man perception, giving rise to what could be called No Optics Activists who go straight for the cultural jugular. Aggressive Roman salutes from burglar-like balaclavas, bellowing creative variations of “nigger” at hecklers, and waving giant swastikas around every which way. There’s a whole fascinating psychology there, but they too appreciate the impact of Scary White Man and tend to get a ton of free attention for their verbal aggression.

But more normally the far more harrowing fantasies of violence come from your garden-variety Conservative, not most Nationalists. Ropes and trucks and trees and field dressings fill their vivid, idle fantasies… It is almost always the harmless prattle of consummate moral-losers who couldn’t even conserve a sandwich from a begging dog. A sound and a fury, signifying nothing. They just want to grill – and you must never get between a White man and his spices!

Precisely!

Basic bitch grillpill conservatives get away with being far more violent and hateful in their rhetoric than WNs because they do so in a way that doesn’t code as low status or overtly threatening to any member of a perceived ingroup.

White Globalism is simply taking this impulse to its logical extreme; if you are more bellicose in support of Leviathan, that gives you runway to be a lot more overtly racialist in your rhetoric while remaining inside the Overton Window.

Embrace the identity of Scary White Man, Norm.

The spices are your birthright!

---

Norm goes on to counter my call for a pluralist chauvinism:

It is our need to be “good”, that is to be emulating the Divine Plan and ways of our God(s), that allows Whites to subdue and employ even our bestial urges towards superhuman designs.

It is our greatest strength as a race, and our greatest weakness. A weakness that, I am afraid to say, is still being exploited even in Bismarck’s largely liberated mind. And I say this because no one has yet so earnestly and succinctly expressed support of the White Man’s Burden than Bismarck did in these bold lines:

“White boys will always be the main character. […] And at the end of the day it’s our job to protect them [non-Whites]. Because in truth there never was a real threat to our position. […] You can’t kill Superman.”

-Walt Bismarck

In this belief lies the festering core of the blinding moral cancer that has rotted out the soul of the White race. Appropriately enough, Rudyard Kipling glowingly coined the term that would bring The Stranger to every White civilization’s doorstep. It is the marriage between a racial hubris with the urge for nature stewardship that spawns this cancerous racial paternalism we call the White Man’s Burden.

Whites afflicted with this moral disease fundamentally believe that the White man’s divine purpose is to uplift all these lesser non-Whites from their pathetic ignorance into rightful “civilization” – our civilization. White civilization. And by bringing these helpless savages into our enlightenment and splendors, they will fall at our feet in worshipful praise and gratitude towards our righteousness, having become spiritually White themselves.

These are the glimmering delusions of Whites throughout eons, glutted on so poisoned a prosperity brought about during more enlightened and faithful times, that we seek the ultimate trophy of racial apotheosis by means of trans-racial Imperium. But it is a poisoned chalice, a glorious lie predicated on a fundamental hubris and misapprehension of what we really are and our rightful place in relation to other peoples.

Here Norm fatally misunderstands me—some might say by being overly charitable.

Because in truth I’m not advocating for a simpering / moralistic White Man’s Burden. I’d never suggest we should lead humanity per astra ad aspera purely for the benefit of nonwhites. I’m saying we ought to do it because it benefits us.

To be sure, empires have a way of crumbling; entropy is life’s one universal constant. But if you told a Roman under Trajan that the Empire was a bad thing for him or his standard of living he’d have looked at you like you were retarded, and rightfully so.

I obviously don’t want America embedded in Forever Wars. But I certainly don’t mind maintaining an unassailable flotilla to keep the petrodollar intact so we can export inflation to Europe and Asia and run up enormous budget deficits in perpetuity.

I obviously don’t want our streets awash with poopy foreigners. But it’s entirely splendid having reliable access to a caste of supplicative tropical peasants who make up for the shortfall in cheap labor caused by underclass wages skyrocketing during the Industrial Era—particularly when we can outsource our supply chain across the globe. I’ve also personally benefited greatly from having access to East Asian women who take notes for me during boring work meetings, as well as Jewish girls who…

Anyway, moving on!

---

Bismarck argues for a “certain level” of racial disharmony throughout White civilization to spur on a competition he believes leads to vigorous, vital White civilization. Like an early-stage Imperialist he believes that by racial pride and inherent meritocratic superiority, the White race will always end up on top of any hierarchy as naturally as cream floating to the top of milk.

To back this up he cites the Romans in their best times were, indeed, unshakably self-assured against the barbarian nations and races they crushed beneath their legions and lashed to their great twin-lived empire. He does not talk of the days of the waning empire when the Romans, at last effete and fat with Imperially-induced moral degeneracy, were conquered by the very barbarians they still, even to the end, believed could never truly harm them.

Sure, Rome ended eventually. Entropy etc. etc.

But it also lasted an insanely long time—far longer than any strictly homogeneous society ever has—and then if you count Byzantium it’s genuinely quite miraculous how antifragile the old girl was century after century.

Also Rome didn’t have a single “decline”—both halves experienced numerous ups and downs over the years, and each could have perished far sooner or persisted far longer had circumstance unfolded differently.

In the end he calls his whole program White Globalism, a name which has about the same appeal as the name National Socialism has to Conservatives - Knee-jerk repulsion. Audacious sure, but we hate Globalism. Globalism economically, morally, and spiritually disgusts the Nationalist. Globalism is the great, dull, worldwide Brownification of all of humanity, and the dream of tyrants and slavers the world-over.

Perhaps to some Nationalists. But I suspect that to a lot of them the White part is far more important and the nationalist part is more of a stubborn albatross they put up with because the only available modes of globalism are staunchly anti-White.

Alexander was a White Globalist… as was Caesar, Cortes, Pizarro, de Gama, Drake, and basically everyone interesting in our history.

To assume such a program entails “Brownification” is again to proceed instinctively from the scarcity mindset—why wouldn’t it mean bleaching?

---

Norm proceeds to contrast my proposal with a model of his own that he calls “National Interfacing:”

You don’t integrate foreign peoples. You digest foreign ideas, then reshape them after the fashion of your National soul.

As an example of this process he cites Japan’s Meiji Restoration, which was incontrovertibly a very impressive civilizational achievement.

Yet I fail to see why White boys should copy something that worked for Asians only a few paltry decades before 20th century America (perhaps the second best example of White Globalism after Rome herself) thoroughly castrated Japan as a civilization, leaving its modern incarnate a sclerotic husk full of hentai bodypillows and suicide.

Especially when we literally have Classical Rome to look up to as a counterexample. Or, you know, Alexandrian Macedon, Baroque Spain, Victorian Britain, America…

…all of which were actually White.

---

The last point I’ll address pertains to that ever-persistent Jewish Question:

You treated the topic of Jews with a combination of downplay, admiration, and even boasting of your associations with Jews. Oh boy, that’s a bold way to describe your relations with those the Dissident Right consider existential enemies!

Your Milleniyule audience are fairly knowledgeable about the role Jews play in the destruction of their societies. To downplay that role, to express naked admiration for their trickery and manipulation, and then to say you happily keep a few “good Jews” on hand are all massive red flags for that audience.

You might as well have told a Tolkien-loving Britain, “Fuck Hobbits!” - which you also did, to a similar effect!

That said, one should be able to accept the baby swirling around the bathwater of your point: If Whites wish to out-compete Jews, we have to learn about how Jews achieve success. Maybe some of those techniques, like racial networking, are things we too should practice to gain similar success.

But here’s the hard part – you need to make the moral argument defending your emulated practice. Nationalists are very, very morally-concerned people, to a fault you regularly take umbrage with. They need to feel and believe they are not doing evil, and they tend to hate what they consider underhanded or dishonest tactics.

The tide of opinion in the Milleniyule appearance began to turn on you when you were describing outwitting HR catladies as “blackmailing” them. Blackmail wasn’t really the right word perhaps, but rather petard-hoisting: running them aground on their own anti-White policies. It’s quite the opposite of illegality, its system-gaming. But describing it in “immoral” terms is enough to make Nationalists tense up. They don’t want to become evil or consort with monsters just to get the better of their enemies.

There’s a whole debate here about what constitutes good and evil, the extents to which virility vs ethics must inform virtue, the extents and criteria of mercy, and the treatment of foes as fellows. Power has a certain amount of “sausage-making” to be done after the fashion your namesake described, Bismarck. But to summarize its conclusion: You can sell a Nationalist on becoming Robin Hood, but not George Soros.

The thing is I’m not especially interested in “morality.”

Understand I don’t mean that in some edgy Patrick Bateman way—I simply don’t have any interesting thoughts on questions of “morals.” I prefer thinking in terms of honor.

I elaborate on this point in Women Don’t Have Agency:

I’ve never trusted people who talk a lot about “morality.”

To me moralizing language has always seemed like a despicable impulse to obfuscate messy power dynamics and deter people from Taking Their Own Side, which to my mind is the most basic and universal human impulse.

I’m personally a lot more interested in the idea of honor, which allows for a workable system of norm enforcement and group coordination without relying on any sort of retarded schoolmarmish universalism. It also allows you to game around the easy assumption that others will act in accordance with their own rational self-interest.

Under this framework as I conceive it social order requires us to adhere to duty-bonds extended through concentric circles of relational proximity. You owe the most to your children, and then to your spouse, your extended family members, your friends and close collaborators, your “tribe” (coworkers or members of voluntary associations), your coethnics and coreligionists, and finally to your countrymen and species.

Then when operating outside your ingroup honor becomes mostly a matter of transactional negotiation and reputation management, with the principle of reciprocity as the underlying ideal. It’s a “repeated prisoner’s dilemma” dynamic where the end goal is to nurture confidence you’ll follow through on your promises while brutally punishing your enemies and dispensing largesse to your friends and followers.

The most egregious way to defect against this system is to treat your ingroup badly—an abusive father or husband probably can’t be trusted in any domain of life—but it’s very nearly as bad to break a transactional understanding with someone on the outside. One reason for this is it makes you unreliable to future counterparties and ghettoizes you within your ingroup. Another reason is that it prevents your initially transactional arrangement from evolving organically into an ingroup duty-bond (such as between longtime business partners) that expands your personal network and facilitates a less cold and strictly mercantile approach to value exchange.

Anyone who approaches me charitably will see this isn’t just a brutally transactional or sociopathic way of looking at things. But I admittedly don’t care about anyone’s pretensions of universal moral truth, and if anything tend to find such sentiments obnoxious when publicly vocalized. I simply believe in helping my ingroup, harming my enemies, and transacting honorably with everyone else.

This proclivity will likely place me at odds with a lot of dour Teuton sorts in “the movement.” And at the end of the day I suppose I’m comfortable with this; it’s not my job to make these fellers trust me, and if they’re gonna call me a Mischling faggot theater kid anyway then I’ll not go out of my way to extend them an olive branch.

If they want to work with me to improve their lot in life I’ll always be here.

And if not that is also OK.

You telling Nationalists that Jews are ruthless and manipulative, have backstabbed you personally, and that the good Jews in particular backstabbed you, is endlessly amusing! From the Jewish-Question purveyor’s perspective, you have more reason than most to keep Jews at a long arm’s reach away from anything you hold precious.

Are Jews responsible for all of society’s woes? No, just a surprising majority of the worst ones. Is it possible to mediate between Jews and non-Jews? Perhaps. But is the juice worth the nigh-inevitable sting? Not really, most of the JQ-astute tend to conclude throughout history.

The JQ should no more be the core of one’s worldview than crime statistics or IQ charts. It should be accessory to whatever your worldview is, like any set of highly-elucidating facts that make sense of world events. Which is why it’s so bemusing to me, and aggravating and suspicious to others, to witness you striding again and again onto the same rake and defending it more vigorously every time it thwacks you in the face.

Essentially, it’s not exactly inspiring confidence among the nervous would-be crew when the captain regales them about the backstabby Jew, then brags about the Jews he keeps close behind him. Maybe in your mind it constitutes a certain kind of boldness, like sticking your hand into a lion’s mouth. Most of the JQ-aware just wonder why you are so adamant on feeding yourself to a lion.

At long last, my dear Norman, we reach the juncture where you misunderstand me most damningly!

As I said in my original piece: Jews are a tribe of high highs and low lows. That means when you piss them off or scare them (which, yes, is annoyingly easy) they’ll come at you with all the vindictiveness of an ancient desert blood feud. But in my experience they’re also an insanely generous people when it comes to their time, friendship, love, emotional energy… and even money once you’re solidly in their personal ingroup.

Have Jews backstabbed and manipulated me in the past? Without question.

But you missed an incredibly crucial detail in my essay—the part where I highlighted that I always gave it back to them just as good. You can be sure I deployed my roguish Celtic swagger just as ruthlessly to flatter, beguile, misdirect, and intimidate them into getting what I wanted—be it money, connections, or sumptuous khazar milkers.

At times I emerged on top. Sometimes they did. Most often we ended up in relative parity—a beautiful equilibrium between an Honest Liar and a Deceptive Truth-Teller. But I was never just Schlomo’s Victim in a straightforward way, and I wouldn’t be half the businessman or an eighth the propagandist if it weren’t for those very experiences.

Yeah, the Jews who hurt me the most are also the individuals with whom I’ve shared the most meaningful connections. And I actually don’t think this is all that uncommon—a lot of guys could probably spin such a tale about the bro who didn’t have their back when it mattered or the ex-gf who took a cheese grater to their heart. What’s really interesting is why so many of the significant people in my life have been Jews.

I suspect it’s because on some level they’re the only ones who can handle me.

See, I’m a little… I don’t know… “much” for most people. They find me exhausting, argumentative, excessively introspective and performative… most of the time people don’t interpret such behavior in its proper context and can’t see its value, and even when that’s not the case I often just wear people down—particularly stolid cishajnals!

But this hasn’t really been the case with Jews. They may find me annoying or abrasive, but half their family’s like that so they usually don’t make a big deal about it. And the ones who get me tend to *really* get me—the empathic bond is just immediate.

Often we fight. Sometimes that involves theatrical power plays, and at times this leaves us enemies for life. But throughout this we maintain the shared understanding that this is simply the nature of conflict and power, and just a basic facet of existence.

Frankly I prefer this to how WASPs and Prairie Teutons operate; to my mind their games are overly mediated and obfuscated and they often punish you unfairly for merely speaking the obvious truth about power dynamics and status hierarchies.

And if I’m being honest I’d much rather step on a million Jew rakes than deal with the torches and pitchforks of an intransigent mob of Runza-Hobbits.

For many Nationalists, working with Jews is a danger they want no part of, and if Jews are involved they automatically suspect foul play is, or will soon be, afoot. As a blind heuristic it works out more often than it leads people astray. But we can agree that the instinct to shut one’s mind completely the moment anyone starts exploring the topic of how Jews developed themselves successfully can be unduly stifling.

But, really, it’s better for those unwilling or incapable of sparing with Jewish trickery to just follow the heuristic in the spiritual fashion of Louis IX’s knight in Cluny did. In a world where too many Midwits get bamboozled into destructive beliefs by engaging where they personally shouldn’t, a well-based grug approach has its useful place. That place just isn’t usually at the discussion table though, and grugs should recuse themselves from it and just go find a nice rock.

Look—I understand finding Jews annoying, finding me annoying, not trusting me or Jews or whatever. But the simple fact of the matter is that refusing to do business with Jews wholesale is a great way to stay poor and uninfluential.

A superbly wise and big-brained lad once observed to me that it’s best practice to build your organization such that zero trust is required, and that’s how I run Tortuga.

Because I don’t believe in “trust.”

I believe in incentive structures.

---

I’ll close this tract by saying I thoroughly enjoyed this exchange and highly encourage everyone reading to subscribe to

Norman Eckart

’s publication.

I’d also like to issue Stormin’ Norman a gentlemanly challenge:

Let’s publicly debate all of the above topics. Live or pre-recorded, your choice. You can also decide the format and moderator (provided it isn’t LampshadeDenier1488).

Man to man, Aryan to Mischling-coded Potatoid, the two of us shall litigate before Gods and Men the ultimate question in life: