EGI Notes

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Answering Criticism, 2/26/17

Answering criticism.

Ted Sallis, in full embittered, jaundiced old crank mode, comments on Alt Right. Give it a rest Ted. If you can’t say something constructive, try saying nothing at all. Take a look at the stuff from your site that I have seen fit to reprint, and use it as a model.

Greg, you may or may not approve this through moderation, but I will nevertheless point out that perhaps you should share some of my concerns about the broader Alt Right.

Wallace writes:

A ton of people who were Alt-Right or White Nationalists voted for and supported Ron Paul.

In a past interview you stated:

Yeah, they’ll have sound money for the brown people. That’s what he stands for, and I think that’s madness. It irritates me to no end, and I’ll say it right now. I’m going to write something about this someday, but I’ll just get it out there on the air now. I am going to socially shun any White Nationalist I know from now on if I find out he donates another dime to Ron Paul.

A large portion of the current Alt Right are (ex?) libertarian Ron Paul supporters, precisely the types you didn’t want anything to do with.  Your attitude about that was quite correct – support for Paul is indicative of a mental weakness, poor judgment, and an ideological vacuity that makes such people suspect.  The Alt Right was in large part constructed on a foundation of those people you rightfully rejected.

My point is, and remains, that the Paul thing is indicative of an underlying problem with the Alt Right.  I have re-read my analysis and I can’t see anything there that is unfair.  I can also point out that you have fairly recently sharply criticized Spencer’s judgement over “Hailgate” (something that I didn’t think was that big a deal, although I agree it did exhibit a bit of poor judgment).  These things in general (forget about our different perceptions of specifics like “Hailgate”) are problems.  In general, I have supported Spencer and his ideas and I think he's a sharp guy with a solid future in activism - but the Alt Right is inherently flawed.  You can only go so far on millennial snark, trolling, and the like. Unless the Alt Right matures and sharpens up, it’s going to flame out.

Better sharp criticism from someone like me from the Far Right, who is in broad agreement with the Alt Right, than having those guys go down in flames and take all of us with them.   I’m not criticizing for the sake of criticizing.  I’m criticizing because I see warning signs and I want the Alt Right to change course before they drive right off the cliff.  I’ve seen Far Right projects collapse before (e.g., the implosion of the post-Pierce NA, the hopping of Duke from one failed organization to another, the fizzling out of the EAIF, etc., etc.) and it isn’t pretty.

I’ll add something else not in my original comment: I write for my own blog. Whether it is reproduced somewhere else is something I have no control over, or, better said, something I don’t want to have control over.

My focus has changed over the years as a result of a natural evolution. Observers tracking, for example, the field of population genetics may have noticed that not many (or any) (important) papers on European or Jewish genetics have been produced recently by academia.  That’s because all of the “low hanging fruit” (available with current methods) has already been picked AND that leftist academics do not want to do assays of global genetic kinship or analyses of human genetic integration/structure (after all, the findings would undoubtedly support WN ideas).  And, as well, I’ve said all I need to say about studies that have been already conducted.  And as I’ve said as well, constant navel-gazing about genetics at this point is missing the forest for the trees.  Everyone has chosen their ingoup and we need to move into politics, broadly defined.  I’d like to point out I never really had much interest in talking about population genetics; my work there was mostly to answer stupidities written by academics, leftists, and Nutzis. 

EGI is far more important – it is fundamental (and the only political utility of population genetics is to generate the raw data to use for genetic kinship analyses) but unless critics come up with new stupid attacks I need to refute or unless Salter comes up with additional analyses, there’s not much more to add (although who knows, I may think of something). 

I can’t keep on “beating a dead horse” forever.  Contra Silver, my purpose is not to be an “EGI maven.”  I have always had real political objectives; discussion about racial science and EGI was to inform the public/”movement” about these issues in order to further those objectives.  I still want to popularize EGI, but that is a tool, not the objective.

And, let’s be honest.  Most of my work on those subjects has been a complete waste of time and effort.  Population genetics?  Even if we were to say that the subject is relevant (which I would at least partially dispute), the fact is that both the Left and the Right continue to cherry pick, distort, misrepresent, and misunderstand such studies in order to promote their particular Narratives.  It may be nice to have refutations on hand to use against such stupidity, but it doesn’t really help if no one wants to listen.

EGI?  The neglect of Salter’s important work by the “movement” has been criminal.  And to the extent that a few people have paid attention, they’ve typically cherry picked and distorted EGI as well.  So, years and years of effort have been for what?  The only satisfaction has been effectively answering mendacious critics like GNXP and Jayman (although such trash would never admit they’ve been refuted and so the satisfaction is merely personal).

The point is, it’s time for actual real-world politics (which include metapolitics).  After Trump has broken the “glass ceiling” of right-wing populism, to ignore actual real world political objectives is race treason.  Part of that is reconstructing racial nationalism to get the job done and I will continue to pursue that objective.

My summary of the Alt Right was:

The Alt Right is a callow, superficial, moderate, intellectually and ideologically shallow version of pro-White activism; lacking seriousness and depth; oriented toward millennial snark, trolling, and social media; taking breathless excitement over discovering “rightist” truths that the rest of us knew long ago and which to a large extent are nothing more than plain fact and common sense; marked weakness with respect to science and other forms of empirical thought; prizing style over substance; and prone to exhibit, often in an enhanced form, all of the fossilized dogma, bizarre fetishes, and poor judgment of the “movement” as a whole.

If that is wrong, how so?  It may be “jaundiced” and “cranky” and a reflection of some old fart’s lack of understanding of youthful millennial energy and exuberance, but in what way is it actually wrong?  Factually wrong?

More to the point, I cite Greg Johnson here:

Second, in the battle of ideas, there is no sense in demanding that we present a united front, particularly on issues where there are real disagreements of principle. Again, our aim is the hegemony of pro-white ideas. We wish to change the whole cultural and political spectrum. Which requires that we engage the whole cultural and political spectrum. Which means that we cannot agree with each other on every issue, nor can we hide our disagreements. Indeed, declaring our disagreements is how we differentiate our approaches before the public.

It’s unclear why airing disagreement is wrong only when I do it.  It would seem that:

1. Only certain types of folks have “the right” to speak their mind, a state of affairs which would actually confirm some of my criticisms of American racial activism.

2. It is said that I criticize too much. There may be some truth to that. Although my disagreements are usually about ideas and direction, and much of the “movement” infighting I observe revolves around personality, envy, and/or squabbling over limited (financial) resources.  Note: as regards the latter, I would suggest focusing your ire toward the Alt Wrong, which has been soaking up most “movement” money these days.  As I’ve said before, the money would be better spent going to Johnson and Spencer (despite my disagreements with them [and with each other]) than to the “happy penguins” of VDARE or to the huWhite Jewish crowd.

3.  My criticisms hit too close to home, strike too deeply at the heart of “movement” dogma, and so are resented that much more.  I also understand that there is much invested in the “Alt Right brand” and there is a natural tendency to resist criticism of that brand.

By the way, I’m not personally offended by being called a bitter neurotic or a jaundiced old crank. I’ve been called far worse (another example of one-sided criticism, by the way), and I actually find it amusing.  There is some truth in these ad hominem attacks.  I don’t know about “neurotic” but I am certainly bitter (in my opinion, with justification), and my criticisms can be considered “jaundiced.” I am older than most in the Alt Right, and I am cranky.  So, why be offended about the truth?  That doesn’t change whether or not my criticisms of the Alt Right are valid or not.  The criticisms are either valid or they are not, independent of who makes them, or how old, cranky, and jaundiced such an individual is.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, February 25, 2017

What is the Alt Right?

A pseudo-zoological classification.

I have been thinking about how to define and distinguish the Alt Right from the non-Alt Right Far Right (NARFR).  It is easy enough to say about the Alt Right – “I know it when I see it” but that is not a very rigorous analysis (even if it is true).  I suppose I could make a list of those things in which my views and style differ from the Alt Right, but then that same list would apply to much of the NARFR as well.  It may be that the differences between the Alt Right and NANFR are mostly that of emphasis and of style, rather than being sharply disjunctive differences in fundamental ideology.  A few initial thoughts.

The “game” manosphere element is more or less a characteristic of the Alt Right, as is the linkages to Alt Lite civic nationalism, even if these are indirect.  The Alt Right has, in enhanced form, many “movement” weaknesses: a piss-poor understanding of science combined with an embrace of pseudoscience and gnostic traditionalism, the Man on White Horse Syndrome, all typical fossilized “movement” dogmas and fetishes, etc.

Let’s now take a look at what Hunter Wallace – now a writer for - has to say on the issue (in all cases, emphasis added).

The Alt-Right through its links to Gamergate and the Manosphere grasped the importance of memes, swarming social media, particularly Twitter, to discourse poison or push a Narrative. The Alt-Right moved and planted its flag on Twitter and learned how to roll with the news cycle. In contrast, Southern Nationalists retreated further into their own bubble and away from their audience. Southern Nationalists were becoming more militant, more open to violence, more alienated and thus more divided during this same period. The Alt-Right understood the appeal of being edgy, having fun, and smashing taboos to a younger audience. Southern Nationalists were becoming more dour, pessimistic, and angry. Overall, they were in a really sour mood, and that had a negative impact on the movement.
For the Alt-Right, the most striking development of 2016 was the rise of the Alt-Lite brands

So: An emphasis on juvenile jackassery (“being edgy, having fun, and smashing taboos to a younger audience”), social media, and a proneness to edge in the direction of moderation.   NANFR would never have become entangled with the Alt Lite (but to be fair, it did get entangled, and deeply, with the Alt Wrong).

And now, see here.

If you were “Alternative Right,” it meant you were not a George W. Bush supporting mainstream conservative. Instead, it meant you were reading a bunch of rightwing sites like Liberty Forum, VDARE, Lew,, Takimag, American Renaissance, etc. You were constructing, participating in and consuming a discourse of unorthodox rightwing ideas.
When I first discovered Richard Spencer, it seemed like everyone at Takimag was backing the Ron Paul presidential campaign. A ton of people who were Alt-Right or White Nationalists voted for and supported Ron Paul.

Ron Paul – the “sound money for brown people” candidate.  Here we see other characteristics of the Alt Right on display: ideologically shallow, moderate, prone to the same “Man on White Horse” stupidity afflicting Der Movement as whole.  In one sense, focusing on the moderating influences and lack of intellectual heft and ideological commitment in the Alt Right, one can say that the Alt Right is to NANFR what the Alt Lite is to the Alt Right.

To summarize: The Alt Right is a callow, superficial, moderate, intellectually and ideologically shallow version of pro-White activism; lacking seriousness and depth; oriented toward millennial snark, trolling, and social media; taking breathless excitement over discovering “rightist” truths that the rest of us knew long ago and which to a large extent are nothing more than plain fact and common sense; marked weakness with respect to science and other forms of empirical thought; prizing style over substance; and prone to exhibit, often in an enhanced form, all of the fossilized dogma, bizarre fetishes, and poor judgment of the “movement” as a whole.

Labels: , , , , ,

Behold the Female, 2/25/17

Some truths indeed.

Two comments from a Yahoo article about some Balkanoid athlete being berated by his wife:

Babe Truth

5 minutes ago
Females all think they have the right to berate and control men who took them from nothing to the good life. These controlling females over value their real worth just because they have breasts and a #$%$ and think men must be their whopping posts. It is no wonder men leave these monsters for peace and quiet. 

8 minutes ago
No matter how hot a woman might be...somewhere she is making some dudes life miserable.

By the way, "Babe Truth" is a hilarious moniker.  The actual Ruth was an extreme alpha male by the way.

Female sluttiness. The real sexual harassment is women prostituting themselves for promotions and pay raises.  The imaginary sexual harassment is men doing anything.  It’s all female hysterical projection.

And by the way, it doesn’t have to be all actual sex.  I’ve seen women, if they are attractive enough, get their promotions, etc. merely by flirting with older male bosses.  Now, this happens more in academia and biotech, where the older male bosses tend to be more “beta” and nerdish than in the business world where the more alpha bosses expect actual sex in exchange for the promotions and pay raises (yes, biotech can be business but let’s consider the smaller sale, more science-oriented ones here).  A few blouses with the top buttons left open, a few hair tosses and fake giggling, and watch those careers get turbo-boosted!

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, February 24, 2017

John and Stephen vs. Sir Desmond

Reality vs. Lies.

We may all remember the great and good Sir Desmond Jones saying that “the White race is a 20th century Jewish construct.”  In other words, his idea is that the White race as a Race-Culture entity of the peoples of Europe and their cultures does not exist and never existed, no one ever thought of or recognized a White race before the concept was invented by dastardly 20th century Jews to undermine Anglo-Saxons.  

Now, I have already pointed out how as far back as 1790 America a White race was (of course) recognized.  At another blog I cited John C. Calhoun, which I reproduce below:

I know further, sir, that we have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race. The greatest misfortunes of Spanish America are to be traced to the fatal error of placing these colored races on an equality with the white race. That error destroyed the social arrangement which formed the basis of society. The Portuguese and ourselves have escaped—the Portuguese at least to some extent—and we are the only people on this continent which have made revolutions without being followed by anarchy. And yet it is professed and talked about to erect these Mexicans into a Territorial Government, and place them on an equality with the people of the United States. I protest utterly against such a project.

That’s from a 19th century founding stock American, not a 20th century Jew.  Now, we can look at another such American, Stephen A. Douglas, who said:

I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity for ever; and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians and other inferior races.

Let’s take a look again, now with emphasis added:

I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity for ever; and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians and other inferior races.

Rabbi Douglas?

It’s quite clear that Jones was lying to you, another fantastic invention by crazed ethnic fetishists.  

Now, it is true that some people in the past did not consider Irish or Italians or Poles as “White” and that Ben Franklin considered only the English and Saxons as “White” – to him even Scandinavians were “tawny” coloreds.  But those opinions were outliers; the common view always was that Europeans are “White” and that a “White race” – as opposed to Coloreds – existed. Douglas talked about “men of European birth and descent” as being “white men.” Calhoun clearly included the Spaniards and Portuguese as “the free white race” as compared to Indians and mestizos.

Now, I am not perfect, sometimes I make errors of fact, of interpretation, of judgment – but I never lie to my audience.  That is where I differ from some of my ideological opponents like Jones, who invent outright fabrications and try to pass them off as “reality.”  That’s a big difference – between someone who is sometimes wrong but well-intentioned and others who are fundamentally dishonest.  

“20th century Jewish construct,” my ass.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Yet Another Alt Right Mess

Milo is the tip of the iceberg.

Milo is not doing very well these days.  See here as well. Unfortunately, as the Alt Right has so closely associated themselves with the Alt Lite (and Alt Wrong) as part of their “big tent” approach – based on a “gateway hypothesis” that has NEVER been subjected to rigorous evaluation – then the problems of Milo are also the problems of the Alt Right, since Alt Lite and Alt Right/Alt Wrong are equated in the public mind. And you have no one to blame for that but yourselves.  It’s not like non-Alt Right activists didn’t warn you, repeatedly, for months on end, about this.

Some of the arguments there are reasonable, in the sense that, yes, this is a first step in an anti-Trump attack.  Where I differ is that WNs should never have had anything to do with Milo, specifically, and the Alt Lite in general, to begin with.  Having tied your cart to tired horses like them, now you’re stuck (as is Trump/Bannon).  This is all poor judgement, for whatever you may say, in the public mind Milo=Bannon=Alt Right=WN.  They don’t make any fine distinctions and that’s in large part because of the error made in associating with these people to begin with, for the sake of expediency. Compromise on core essentials for the sake of expediency always backfires. There’s a difference between voting for a beta race cuck like Trump and supporting the Alt Lite.  Trump is a mainstream political figure who ran (an won) elected office, he was and is never an activist directly associated with dissident sociopolitical movements; the Alt Lite on the other hand are activists promoting a particular memetic structure and a particular worldview.

To clarify my position so there is no misunderstanding:

1. I have repeatedly written that it is a mistake to so closely associate (American) White racial activism with the Alt Right.

2. I have also repeatedly written that is a mistake to in any way have the Alt Right proper associated with either the Alt Lite or the Alt Wrong.

3. Having made (typically) both of the aforementioned mistakes, the American “movement” now finds itself affected by the trials and tribulations of Milo.  Attacks on Milo are not only (and perceived as such) attacks on the Alt Lite (as well as on Bannon/Trump) but on the Alt Right (Alt Right proper and Alt Wrong) as well.  Worse, since in the public mind American WN is tied into the Alt Right, then non-Alt Right WNs (such as myself, for example) are indirectly affected by this whole mess (hence, our understandable resentment toward the Alt Right and Alt Right pretensions to “movement” supremacy).

Given all of this, I have to agree with Greg Johnson’s basic conclusion that while I wish Milo would go away I do not want it to happen like this. Preferable that he simply be ignored by a Right that has grown away from him.  Where I disagree with Johnson is that there should never have been any connection, direct or indirect, between Milo and the (more hardcore) “movement.”  Errors 1 and 2 above should have been avoided.

More evidence of the deep inherent flaws in the Alt Right can be found in this “hit job” article.

This article well represents why I distrust the Alt Right and have zero confidence in their judgement and long-term potential.  Why talk to a scumbag like this?  To make it easier to write hit pieces about you?  To satisfy your ego?  Or do you think you’re going to get lots of new recruits from Huffington Post articles like this?  The Alt Right is more “same old, same old – the same types of quota queens repackaging the tired old nonsense in millennial snarl undercut packages, making mistake after mistake.  Further, I am frankly mystified that someone who wishes to maintain pseudonymity would agree to a public face-to-face meeting with a hostile reporter.  The mind boggles.  What was he thinking?  Assuming this is a sincere and serious activist, and not a LARPER doing it for “shits and giggles,” then this displays a quite advanced state of extreme naiveté and absolute bad judgment.  These are not the type of folks you want in the trenches or foxhole with you, not the fellows you want leading you into battle.

To compare the mindset activists should have to that which unfortunately exists today, I suggest that you read the book Angels in Iron and then read the comments thread on atypical blog post at Chateau Heartiste,, the various The Right Stuff shows, etc.  Then reflect upon which of these comparisons is the appropriate mindset for political soldiers fighting a battle against overwhelming odds.

Is this just criticism for the sake of criticism?  No it is not.  There is a definitive purpose.   

Let’s consider the “Pareto Principle.”  A small fraction of activists are the ones producing the majority of the good work. For the sake of argument, we can say 20% of activists produce 80% of all of “good stuff.”  That 20% is buried under the 80% nitwit morass that makes up the bulk of the “movement.”  If a healthy portion of that 20% can be convinced to free themselves from the fever swamp of Der Movement, and coalesce with each other in a New Movement (which itself of course can be ideologically diverse to a point and be composed of several groups/groupuscules), then efficiency would be thereby augmented.  If that New Movement would be committed to quality over quantity, and be stringent about weeding out defectives, then it could quickly supplant the moribund remains of the 80% left-over detritus of the Old Movement.  My objective is to stimulate such a scenario.  Do I believe it has a good chance of happening?  No, I do not.  Most likely, the attempt will fail, but it needs to be attempted nevertheless, because it is the only hope for moving forward.  A quixotic attempt, a long shot, is better than no attempt at all.

With respect to the Alt Right, let’s be fair – there is still time for them to “right the ship” and correct their major problems.  They can streamline their operation, have all their best people coalesce around sane policies, and be more serious and professional.  However, I do not believe they have it in them; I do not believe they have the critical mass of quality human material to do the right thing; in fact, I doubt they know what the right thing is, or even if they understand what their problems are or if they acknowledge they even have problems.

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, February 20, 2017

Movement Madness, 2/20/17

More “movement” cluelessness.

Someone at Amren asks why it’s considered bad to say “I’m proud to be White.”  There’s a number of reasons for that, some touched upon in that essay and some not.  One thing’s for sure: Der Movement’s enthusiastic embrace of freakishness and hypocrisy of all kinds is not helping.

Speaking of hypocrites and Amren, here’s someone embraced by the Amren crowd.

Derbyfogle has the nerve to ask:

Well, all that is a problem for Chinese people. But why is it any problem for us?

And answers it:

I’ve been living among Chinese people for forty-five years. I’ve been married to one for thirty years.

Yeah, Derb, it is a “problem for us” because we have Chinese living in this country.  You’ve contributed to the problem by bringing “Rosie” – who you yourself have admitted is an ethnocentric Chinese – to the USA.  This guy’s mindnumbingly clueless hypocrisy is simply astounding.

But I love my country…

If you’re talking about England, then go back (sans “Rosie” and the kids, who can go to China or Taiwan) and try to help.  As for America, you’re a former illegal alien who has contributed to the Chinese problem you are posting about, so “my country” should not apply for the USA.

German madness – Germany is “not a Western nation.”  What stupidity is this?  Some sort of “Red Fascism/National Bolshevik” nonsense to identity Germany to the East as a “young, non-Western” nation?  As sane people are aware, Germany is one cornerstone of the West (along with the other major Western European nations identified by Yockey); indeed, Germans may have contributed more to Western culture (as defined by Spengler/Yockey) more than any other people.

I really do think Germans had a mass national nervous breakdown after losing WWI and the subsequent period of revolution, instability and inflation, and Weimer degeneration, and have been more or less crazy for the last 100 years or so, veering off from ultra-narrow hegemonic ethnonationalism to ultra-universal pathological altruism, with random nutcases in-between reinventing Western history.  Der Movement had better get over its extreme Teutonophilia until such time that Germany recovers the mental equilibrium it had before November 1918.

Yeah, the Alt Right can “distance themselves” from Milo all they want, but it’s too late.  Milo and the Alt Right are one in the mind of the public, and the Alt Right can blame themselves for that, with all their talk about “a big tent” and “the usefulness of Milo and the Alt Lite” and “let’s not turn people away from us.”  Net result: more people will end up being turned away than being attracted.

Then we have Roissy:

As a White man, I sense that war has been declared on me and my kind. When my enemies bring war to my doorstep, what am I to do? 

Well, he has previously answered that for himself:

damn, i’m torn. do i want a thriving society or easier access to sex? yeeeeah… i’ll take the latter and leave the self-sacrifice required of the former for the anti-poolside chumps

Milo and Roissy are two sides of the same coin, one homo and the other hetero (with the exception of Roissy’s comically homoerotic fixation on Donald Trump).  Both are sexual hedonists, snarky and juvenile “shock jock” types, on the periphery of Der Movement, generating self-aggrandizing controversy by flirting with Far Right ideas, but ultimately standing for values anathema to any sane ordering of White society.  Both have influence because of the “big tent” stupidity of Der Movement, which sacrifices standards on the altar of expediency.

Then we have the Silk Roaders, who are becoming increasingly unhinged with their anti-Trumpism. They’ll be addressed in future posts – the only thing to say now for those of you who haven’t been paying attention is that their anti-Trumpism is ALL about Russia.  The Jew/Israeli card is being played to try to appeal to Der Movement’s knee-jerk anti-Semitism. It is hypocrisy, because it we are to criticize everyone groveling to the Jews and Israel, this must include China, India, and all the other lands of the Asian gods.  

I for one long ago identified Trump as a Negrophilic ignorant vulgar buffoon with strong Jewish family connections.  But, he’s not part of Der Movement, is a public mainstream figure, so in this non-"movement" case expediency actually is justification.  What effect does Trump have on White racial interests?  He can be a useful tool.  I’m certainly not going to be anti-Trump solely because Asian nationalists covet the Russian Far East.

The solution to “movement” madness?  How about starting here?

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, February 19, 2017

From Germany to the Silk Road

More stupidity.

Flipping through a new issue of Military Heritage magazine, which I decided to purchase, I came across this quote:

The Teutonic Order did not help itself in the 15th century by allowing bickering between northern and southern Germans.  Northern Germans seemed to believe that they were more worthy than those from the Rhineland, Bavaria, or Swabia, and this further eroded support at a time when every financial contribution or new recruit counted.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?  

Speaking of Germany, I can’t say I’m surprised by this, the anomaly of Europe. Der Movement weeps.

Amusingly, we now have different groupuscules – including this one – positioning themselves as “the alternative” when and if the Alt Right falls flat on its face.  More amusingly, the Silk Road White nationalism crowd think they can be such an alternative. Don’t they know that “Yellow Supremacy” is already part of the Alt Wrong ideology, and the Alt Wrong is a faction of the Alt Right?

Speaking of which, we read this.

The reasons include some Derbyshire mention: some in the System yearn for a continuation of the old Cold War, others see Putin as a Russian Trump, an anti-globalist civic nationalist with a soft spot for real European nationalists.  Of course, there’s another reason that Derbyshire dares not mention: the Jews.  

And here is one reason I see the Silk Roaders as absolutely and fundamentally dishonest: they completely invert reality to promote their anti-White, pro-Asian agenda.  Contra the Silkers, the reality is that Jews, especially the Neocons, hate Russia and the Russian people, while their attitude toward China, India, etc. ranges from benevolent neutrality to outright sycophancy.  The dishonest Silkers can post random articles showing Trump/Putin with Netanyahu/Israel, but the same can be done with China, India, etc., such as here and here and also here.  The Asiatic Jews, having ruined the West, now look with longing to their fellow Asiatics in China and India; together they can finally destroy the hated White man.

Meanwhile, the Silkers try to rile up dumb WNs with the Jew/Israel card; like waving a red flag in front of a bull - let’s use Jews to distract Whites from the Yellow Fist of Hatred.  Fact is, both Jews and Asians are enemies, a pox on both their houses.

And the Silk Roaders’ hatred of Putin is particularly ludicrous, as Putin is a pro-Asian civic nationalist who raises Siberians high in his councils and who does nothing to stop the Chinese infiltration into the Russian Far East. Indeed, Putin himself has tried to develop closer ties to China.  The problem, you see, is that Putin, being a civic nationalist, wants to maintain the territorial (but not ethnic) integrity of Russia, and the Asian nationalist irredentists of the Silk Road covet Russia’s Far East.  Not content to wait for the fruits of slow infiltration, they want it all and they want it fast.  Also, of course, Asian Silk Roaders – sharing their race’s existential hatred of Whites - also want to derail WN and foment internal divisions among Whites.  Why some Whites go along is a mystery, and raises the question as to whether the mocking suggestions I made at another blog are in fact true, rather than being just joking ridicule.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,