Silk Road Spying

Another helpful Silker.

Meet “Jerry” – 

The Justice Department announced today that Jerry Chun Shing Lee, 53, of Hong Kong, was indicted by a federal grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Virginia with one count of conspiracy to gather or deliver national defense information to aid a foreign government, and two counts of unlawfully retaining documents related to the national defense…

…Lee is a U.S. citizen who speaks fluent Chinese.  According to the indictment, Lee was a case officer for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) until 2007.  After leaving the CIA, Lee resided in Hong Kong.  The indictment alleges that in April 2010, two Chinese intelligence officers (IOs) approached Lee and offered to pay him for information.  The indictment alleges that Lee received taskings from the IOs until at least 2011.  The taskings allegedly requested that Lee provide documents and information relating to the national defense of the United States.  According to the indictment, the IOs provided Lee with a series of email addresses so that he could communicate covertly with them.  The indictment further alleges that Lee prepared documents responsive to the taskings, made numerous unexplained cash deposits, and repeatedly lied to the U.S. government during voluntary interviews when asked about travel to China and his actions overseas. 

In August 2012, Lee and his family left Hong Kong to return to the United States to live in northern Virginia.  While traveling back to the United States, Lee and his family had hotel stays in Hawaii and Virginia.  During each of the hotel stays, FBI agents conducted court-authorized searches of Lee’s room and luggage, and found that Lee was in unauthorized possession of materials relating to the national defense.  Specifically, agents found two books containing handwritten notes that contained classified information, including but not limited to, true names and phone numbers of assets and covert CIA employees, operational notes from asset meetings, operational meeting locations and locations of covert facilities.  Agents also found a thumb drive on which was stored a document later determined to contain information classified at the Secret level.  During voluntary interviews with the FBI, Lee admitted preparing the document in response to taskings from the IO.

What’s the problem, Amren?  Lee is an East Asian cognitive elitist?  Who would you rather have working in US national security – greasy Romanians dancing the hora (long may it turn) or even greasier low-IQ Afrowops?

Jordan Peterson: Man of the Left

Gravel-voiced hypocrite and fool.

Read this.

Dr. Peterson cautioned, however, that we have no right to take pride in European cities just because you “happen to have the same skin color as some of the people,” who built them. Of course, race is not just a matter of skin color. [iv] Dr. Peterson even briefly acknowledged group differences in IQ—but said he is “hesitant” about discussing implications and then ignored them. [v] Needless to say, they have enormous consequences, and low-IQ groups could not possibly have built our civilization. East Asians are the only other race with a high enough average IQ to build something approaching Western civilization, but racial differences go beyond IQ. Asians appear to be more sensitive to criticism in a way that reinforces conformity, [vi] which may explain why they are underrepresented in scientific innovation. [vii] These differences predict a Martin Luther as opposed to a Confucius. Asians may be predisposed to hierarchy [viii] and to see wholes while whites see details. [ix] It is unlikely that East Asians, would have developed the individual rights that Dr. Peterson sees as a world miracle. 

Dr. Peterson continued: “It’s not even so clear to what extent [Western civilization is] European. I mean, it came out of the Middle East, you know?” Even if this absurd statement were true and something essential to our civilization came out of the Middle East, Europeans built our civilization, not Middle-Easterners. If Dr. Peterson was talking about Christianity, it has been Europe’s religion for more than 1,000 years and has received a thick overlay that is distinctly Western. Moreover, as Dr. Peterson noted, Islam—a truly Middle Eastern religion—may not be compatible with Western civilization. [x] 

Dr. Peterson concluded on a smug note: “There we go, dispensed with the radical right wingers in four minutes,” adding that any racial argument is “so muddleheaded that you hardly know where to start.”

So, after making superficial “arguments” against peripheral (*) aspects of Far Right views, Peterson concludes that he has dispensed with the “radical right wing” despite never addressing any of the core tenets of the Real Far Right, and he asserts that racial arguments – you know, the ones he never actually gets around to really addressing – are “so muddleheaded” (pot calling the kettle black?) that “you hardly know where to start.”  Well, that last bit is actually an accurate self-description on Peterson’s part, as he truly doesn’t know where to start, and hasn’t actually done so.

The key tenets of Real Far Right though are: (1) racial preservation (and advancement), genetic continuity, and ethnic genetic interests – what we can call the Salterian view; and (2) what we can call the Yockeyian view – actualizing a High Culture, not merely “being proud of it,” but going forward as members of that Culture and building upon it (in Yockey’s view, the fine points of which we can debate, that means creating the Imperium).

Now, in order to argue against those tenets, one needs to basically take the view that all peoples are interchangeable, all ethnies are fungible, that there are no essential differences between any human groups.  One can take that view literally – race-denying, science-denying absurdity (which Peterson actually tips his toe into by making the imbecilic implication that racial differences merely conflate to skin color) - or you can take the view functionally – that differences may exist but these are of no import and nothing any individual should be concerned about (e.g., the “who cares” argument about EGI).  These are, of course, the views of the Left as applied specifically to Whites (Coloreds are allowed to recognize and celebrate difference) and, as we know, Peterson’s real target audience is Whites (particularly all those young White men he is “saving” from the Alt Right).

On the other hand, a view from the Right – not necessarily “radical” Right but the Right in its fundamental essence – recognizes human difference and human hierarchy, and if you recognize difference, an intellectually honest person will also recognize the legitimacy of the Salterian view, and, whether or not they agree or disagree with Yockey's prescription for the West, must also at least recognize that the Yockeyian view is one possible and fully legitimate option for Western Man.

So, either Peterson must agree that the fundamental tenets of the Far Right have validity, based on the concept of fundamental human difference, or else he is a Man of the Left (and it is on the Left, by the way, that one properly classifies the Neocons, the civic nationalists, and all else who delegitimize racial arguments and White racial interests).

The clear evidence that Peterson is a Man of the Left is shown here as follows:

However, Dr. Peterson has explicitly denounced white consciousness. At a recent talk at Lafayette College, a member of the audience asked what he thought about taking pride in European ethnic identity. He replied, in part, “The West has got some things right, we got the sovereignty of the individual right,” and he noted that this has resulted in worldwide wealth. But, he continued, “Am I proud of that? It’s like, I didn’t do that. What the hell? Pride! What’s that? That’s not the right response.” [i] 

“Pride! What’s that?” It is odd that Dr. Peterson should ask. In the first chapter of 12 Rules For Life, he explains that pride helps lobsters and birds guard their territory and determines which survive disease and reproduce. [ii] He also notes that self-respect helps people resist oppression. [iii] Therefore, according to his own logic, European pride is vital to the West’s survival.

The most fundamental tenet of the Modern Left is hostility to White interests.  Race has replaced Class as the focal point of Leftist struggle, and here we see Peterson make a classic unprincipled exception in order to attack the legitimacy of White interests.  Pride and self-respect is vital and important to all things – EXCEPT when it applies to Whites and White racial interests.  Pride is important for lobsters and birds, but NOT for White folks.  Self-respect helps people resist oppression, but obviously that cannot apply to dastardly Whites who may want to, for example, resist the oppression of mass migration, race replacement, political correctness, speech restriction, racial double standards, Jewish dual morality, and the despicably hypocritical cant of leftists like Peterson himself. 

The key to the Left is that anything that benefits Whites as Whites, as a race, is BAD, even if in any and every other circumstance it is good (hence, for example, the United Nations definition of “indigenous peoples” mysteriously does not include the native populations of Europe, since that inclusion would benefit White interests, and White interests go against the Fundamental Premise of the System).  It is therefore clear that Peterson is as far to the Left, once you clear away superficial rambling, as is any blue-haired SJW hysteric.

Therefore, according to his own logic, European pride is vital to the West’s survival.

That’s true, but Peterson is a leftist.  His ultimate logic is that any “racial argument” that benefits Whites must be “muddleheaded” and hence “dispensed” with.  Consistency goes out the window if it specifically is applied to benefiting Whites as a race.

Peterson is a typical System apparatchik posing as a free-thinking dissident in order to fool gullible Whites and steer White men away from the racial thinking they need to defend their interests.

Peterson is the enemy.  And any morons, like some idiot writing at VDARE, who believe that Peterson is somehow useful and “on our side” are either stupid or deluded or are enemies themselves.

*Granted, for the Alt Wrong, and much of the Alt Right, the points Peterson attacks actually are the core.  But, the Alt Wrong are a bunch of pro-Jewish self-described “yellow supremacists” and the Alt Right (to the extent it still even exists) is essentially Beavis-and-Butthead White nationalism.  So, if Peterson wants to tilt at windmills by going after the laughingstocks of the “radical right wing” then that only proves he is both an idiot and a coward (as well as being a hysterical SJW leftist).

Bunker Syndrome Redux

An example of leftist hypocrisy as well.

Some time ago, I wrote about “The Bunker Syndrome,” an affliction that characterizes many Whites of rightist inclinations. You have White folks with healthy instructs about race and culture, but they are unwilling to actually do anything productive about it.  Rather than attempting to actualize their beliefs in the real world, and engage in activism, they’ll just spout some “bigoted” remarks, or “act out” in public, accomplishing nothing except making themselves (and others who share their beliefs) look bad.

Let’s consider this situation.  Yes, a New York lawyer named “Aaron Schlossberg” raises questions as to his ancestry – or should we say (((ancestry))) – but that’s irrelevant to the main issues at hand.  Ignore that Levantine possibility for the time being, and let’s look at this through the paradigm prism of “a ‘White’ person making rightist, politically incorrect comments.”

Now, the persecution of Schlossberg is wrong, but his behavior is a perfect example of The Bunker Syndrome – lots of loud “acting out” of “bigoted” opinions but no actualization of his views in the real world.  Indeed, we read, emphasis added:

The website for Schlossberg says he is a lawyer with a focus on commercial and insurance law and notes that he speaks Spanish and some French, Mandarin Chinese and Hebrew, in addition to English. His law office advertises that it can take phone calls in four foreign languages, an irony that was not lost on many commentators on social media.

If Mr. Schlossberg feels so strongly about the sanctity of public English speaking, then perhaps his law office should only have accepted phone calls in that language?  More to the point, if he feels so strongly about immigration, illegal immigration, immigration enforcement, rightist politics, and cultural preservation, then, instead of public displays of Bunkerism, he could have used his legal training to help those on the Right, instead of practicing “commercial and insurance law” for a “vibrant” clientele.  Even if he didn’t want to help any “anti-Semitic Nazis” there are those on the Right who would welcome him – indeed, the Alt Wrong would much prefer a New York lawyer named “Aaron Schlossberg” over some greasy low-IQ Afrowop or some Romanian dancing the hora (long may it turn).  Then there is the whole Alt Light, the Paleocons, and the Donald Cuck administration.  There’s a wide range of opportunities for someone with legal training to help the Right, instead of acting like a jackass in a restaurant.

This is the problem with all the “Bunkers.” They’ll say this or that but not actually DO anything productive in the political or metapolitical sphere to advance their beliefs.  In fact, their "acting out” typically has the consequences (apart from harming themselves) of delegitimizing their beliefs and generating (undeserved) sympathy for the targets of their ire.  They are not even helping to promote racial balkanization, since their behavior is a dead end resulting in the aforementioned sympathy for their targets, and embarrassment for those who share their basic beliefs.  There is no real “heightening of the contradictions” here.  That Black guy who walked into a restaurant with a MAGA hat and got harassed actually did more to promote balkanization than did Schlossberg yelling about calling ICE on some Spanish speakers.

In comment threads in articles about Schlossberg, one sees the typical leftist mantra that spews forth when anyone with rightist sympathies is subjected to oppressive social pricing: “free speech has consequences” and “free speech protections of the First Amendment only refer to a lack of government persecution and have nothing to do with private consequences” etc.  These same leftist hypocrites (redundancy) were silent however when Fresno State claimed an inability to discipline NEC land whale Jarrar due to…drum roll please…free speech and the First Amendment.  And keep in mind Jarrar’s antics not only included the public comments about “amazing racist” Barbara Bush but also the incident with the ASU hotline number.  Consequences for any of that?  Absolute zero. Consequences for Schlossberg expressing his private opinion in a private setting?  Kicked out of his office and having elected officials submitting complaints for him to be disbarred.  

There are some on the Left who call those on the Far Right “hypocrites” on the free speech issue because, as they say, “if you guys were in charge, you wouldn’t allow free speech.”  Of course, leftists accusing others of hypocrisy is breathtaking….well, hypocrisy, as well as an insane level of projection.  But as to the “accusation?”  Fair enough…if I were in power, I wouldn’t allow free speech for the Left; they would be silenced just as they now silence the Right.  But it is not “hypocrisy” because a Sallis State would not pretend to be a “democracy” with a “First Amendment” and would not engage in dishonorable cant about “freedom” to justify interfering with the sovereignty of other nations. A Sallis State would also not cherry-pick law enforcement nor would it engage in cowardly techniques of social pricing (also applied in a cherry-picked, inconsistent manner) in order to evade the letter and spirit of the law.

The Left does not respect freedom of expression in the context of a “democracy” centered on a “Bill of Rights” (and Europe is even worse).  So, why should they expect the Far Right to respect freedom of expression in a national socialist authoritarian state?  Are they delusional or merely retarded?

In any case: if there are rightist lawyers (or other useful professionals) out there, please learn from the Schlossberg case.  We don’t need more Archie Bunkers.  The Bunkers didn’t save America from being transformed and destroyed.  We don’t need you spouting off in a restaurant, we need you in a courtroom (or wherever your skills can be best utilized) advocating for the Right.

They Are Not Just Like Us

Silk Road follies.

Remember, GNXP says we must import hundreds of thousands of these cogelites per year!

Very cognitive, very elite.  Hail the bear!

Read here, emphasis added:

Women born in the U.S.A have by far larger breasts than women in any other country, while women born in Africa and Asia, particularly in the East Asian countries, have the smallest breast volumes.

A typical Caucasian woman born in the U.S.A. has a breast volume of 1 668 ml and the highest quartile of Caucasian U.S. women has a mean breast volume as high as 2 986 ml. In the Philippines, the mean breast volume is only 111 ml and even the highest quartile of Filipino women has a mean breast volume of only 179 ml.

…a bra intended for the Asian markets can be made of inexpensive materials with using very light and simple structures. Virtually a bra for the Asian markets is to be considered more like an esthetic product…

I’m sure we are all shocked – shocked I say! – by these findings about East Asian females.

On a related note, note this news story and the accompanying photo. One could almost imagine the presentation being given topless and someone in the audience thinking: “who is this 12-year old boy talking to us and why is he in our classroom?”

The Scorpion and the Frog

Europeans are the Frog.  Guess who the Scorpion is.

A summary.

A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was in its nature to do so.

Read this – Quinn’s finale on the MacDonald-Cofnas dustup.

See this article from 2010, which is relevant to the questions and criticisms of Quinn.

Ultimately, in a sense, Quinn is correct in that whether the Jews are, or are not, acting on behalf of their own evolutionary group interests is irrelevant from the perspective of the victims of Jewish behavior.  Maybe the Jews hate Whites more than they love themselves.  Maybe the Jews are dooming themselves by their embrace of, and promotion of, the poisons they are using to undermine European survival.  It could be irrational; it could just be their nature, as like the Scorpion in stinging the Frog.  In Mein Kampf Hitler asserted that if the Jews succeeded in destroying Aryans, they would turn on each other next, in hate-filled struggle.  Of course, whether or not the Jews will destroy themselves does not obligate Europeans to allow themselves to be destroyed as well.  For the victim of murder, a murder followed by the suicide of the murderer is not more palatable than murder alone.

Perhaps Europeans should worry more about defending themselves against Jewish behavior rather than worrying whether or not that behavior is, or is not, evolutionarily beneficial to Jews.  We need to shift the focus on us rather than on them.

Jew-Jitsu

How to leverage against the chosen ones?

Following up on this

Quinn’s latest.

If I may make a constructive suggestion, a bit of constructive criticism: analysis is good, but at some point, we need to have less of historical and theoretical analysis and more of current and practical analysis.

Consider: KMacD is the world’s leading critical expert on Jews and Jewish behavior.  His work and understanding constitute a crucial intellectual resource for Europeans fighting against the Jewish power structure.  So, instead of TOO’s current direction (*), wouldn’t it be more productive for KMacD to formulate strategies, based on an understanding of Jewish behavior, of leveraging against Jewish psychology to benefit Europeans and combat the Jewish power structure?  If not him, who?  If not now, when?

Learning about the Jewish “culture of critique” should not be an end in itself, but a means to an end: defending European ethnic interests.  We learn about Boas and Freud so as to better understand how to combat Soros.  It’s time for a bit less of the former and a bit more of the latter.  

Long time readers of my own work have no doubt noted that this blog has moved in a more practical direction over the last few years.  Although there is still some interesting and useful theoretical work to be done (and I recently looked at genetic integration of human population genetics data), the fact remains that, ultimately, the promotion and defense of ethnic genetic interests will have to be actualized out in the real world, in the rough-and-tumble of politics (in all its forms, including some of what is termed “metapolitics”) and in the cut and thrust of ethnic competition.  Rightist academics can be of most utility in the service of assisting in the development of cutting edge political, metapolitical, and social technologies to deal with the reality of our racial and cultural dilemma.

Note:

*Much of which is, unlike MacDonald’s work on the Jews, of limited predictive value.  All of the rambling about “northern high trust hunter gatherers” actually has little real world predictive value.  Indeed, taking all of that at face value, you would predict that, e.g., Italy and Greece would be blasting migrant invader boats out of the water, instead of meekly rescuing the migrants and welcoming them into the homeland. There also is no clear correlation in Europe between the Paleolithic Hunter-Gatherer vs. Neolithic Farmer divide and the success, or lack thereof, of ethnonationalist parties and politics within nations.  And while it’s true that Sweden is particularly “cucked,” one can argue that Denmark is healthier with respect to defending ethnic interests than are Italy, Greece, or Spain. One can further argue that a major reason Northwest European nations are further along on the road to race replacement is not so much that the native populations are more “high trust altruists” than the fact that those nations are more prosperous and orderly, and hence more attractive to immigrants, than the disorderly tragicomedies of feckless and lazy dumb dagoes.  Now, one can also argue that a reason why the northerners are richer (besides higher IQ) is precisely the fact that they are “high trust” nations and hence invest more in social goods, and can engage more productively in economic activity. Very well, but then, isn’t that more collectivist?  Granted, high trust is not necessarily orthogonal to individualism, but it strains credulity to argue that orderly, high trust societies are more individualistic than disorderly madhouses where atomized swarthoids are bouncing off each other like air molecules in a heated kettle.  More fundamentally, and getting back to the main point, the “high trust hunter gatherer” paradigm has little predictive value with respect to responses to race replacement and mass migration. And if this is so, why make it such a major focus of analysis?

A Brief Note on the Recent KMacD Controversies

On the Jews, MacDonald is correct.

Read this.

And this.

Contrary to the idea that I am always critical, I will point out that Quinn’s writing, re: the MacDonald vs. Cofnas issue, shows maturity and reasonably good analysis.  That is similar to some of the things I was writing 10-15 years ago, when I was defending or opposing various “movement” memes.  These days, while I will still defend Salterism, given its importance and solid scientific legitimacy, and while I may occasionally still dive into certain debates, I’ve grown cynical over the utility of some of these online arguments.  For example, on the issue Quinn writes about, when all is said and done, and regardless of what arguments are made in both directions, the Far Right will still, by and large, support MacDonald, and the rest of the political spectrum will oppose MacDonald and support Cofnas and Peterson. People “choose their teams” on these issues for reasons based on subjective rational interests as well as irrational (yet wholly legitimate if they affect Identify and pursuit of interests) impulses; I have yet to see any significant “changing of teams” based on objective rational arguments. The same holds for, e.g., pan-Europeanism vs. Nordicism or pan-Europeanism vs. ethnonationalism.  I haven’t seen much movement in any of these directions based on arguments; people defend their ideas and that of their ideological “tribe,” and there really isn’t a big pool of third party observers to be swayed one way or the other.

That said, there is still some utility in speaking truth and defending truth (although Pilate would ask: “what is truth?”) and if a person early in their activist career, like Quinn, wants to “cut their teeth” on such topics, that’s fine as far as it goes.  However, he’s preaching to the choir at Counter-Currents (as MacDonald is at TOO), and no one is likely to be converted.  Of course, there is some value to have these refutations of Cofnas and Peterson online, just so they can be linked to, to deflate the claims of the Left (just don’t expect to convert many people, as I said).  People may of course change their mind on these issues, but they will most likely do so after either joining or leaving Der Movement for other reasons (mostly irrational, I suppose).

Obviously, I support the MacDonald view in these debates; Cofnas is a ludicrously non-objective “scholar” (and thus no better in his irrational and/or subjective interests as any “movement” activist) with a parcel of poor arguments; Peterson is a gravel-voiced over-rated bore, who pretends (LARPs to use Alt Right language) to be some sort of cutting-edge dissident, while actually being just another water boy for the System and for anti-White interests.

I read MacDonald’s Trilogy when it first came out, and although I have serious issues with the direction TOO has gone in the last few years, I nonetheless value MacDonald’s core contributions, his work on the Jews, and on diaspora peoples and on group evolutionary interests in general.

The best way to understand who is right or wrong in this debate is to ask: which view, which explanation, has predictive power?  If you follow MacDonald’s view, you will be able to predict, with reasonable accuracy and precision, general Jewish behavior (of course, there will always be outliers and exceptions); on the other hand, those who follow the Cofnas/Peterson direction, ignoring obvious patterns and the ethnic interests that underlie them, will be wrong more often than they will be right.  A default setting of “Jews as a group in general behave to defend their interests in an ethnocentric manner, typified by a dual morality, and they are very successful in doing so, and Jewish group interests are typically incompatible with those of European-descended people; hence, Jewish activism as a net outcome will be harmful to Europeans” will typically (not 100% of course, that’s not how the world works, but the vast majority of cases) lead you to the right prediction. Following the Cofnas/Peterson direction will make you as easy mark, as you’ll be unable to accurately and precisely predict and understand Jewish group behavior.

I’d like to point out it is safer for Whites to err on the side of caution; it is safer to be unfairly suspicious of Jews even in cases where Jews are ethnically disinterested and not hostile to White interests than it is to be childishly naïve and ignore those cases where Jews are being destructive.  False positives are safer than false negatives when core group interests are at stake.  Better safe than sorry.

Further, the argument can be made – and has been made by some activists over the years – that spotty Jewish “universalism” actually serves ethnocentric Jewish group interests by diversifying their ideological/sociopolitical portfolio.  Thus, the Jews are hedging their bets by not putting all their eggs in one basket, infiltrating intellectual movements in order to bend them to Jewish interests (look what happened to conservatism, or even look at the Alt Wrong in Der Movement), and obfuscating the destructive role of Jewish activism in order to fool the dumb goyim.  As regards the last, think about all the nitwits who agree with Cofnas and Peterson and who let scattered Jewish ideological outliers (who typically have little power to reverse the damage done by their more typical co-ethnics) fool the goyish latrine flies into thinking: “see, see – not all Jews are like that, Moshe Finkelstein is a conservative, he even reads Amren.”  

I’ll be checking out how Quinn completes his series.