The Big Lie

First, meet Terentius Neo.  Then we’ll get to the other lies.

The usual suspects in Der Movement (e.g., Kemp) have used the portrait of Terentius Neo to pontificate about non-European admixture in Roman Italy from “slaves and immigrants.” The usual paradigm is that Neo’s appearance reflects alien ancestry while his (assumed) wife reflects “native Roman-Italian ancestry.”  Evidence of such ancestries?  It is just that the fetishists “eyeball” the fresco and make a judgment based on their personal opinion?

Let’s consider what we know about this Neo family.  Emphasis added:

The fresco depicts a pair of middle-class Pompeians believed to be man and wife. Terentius Neo was a baker as the house had been modified to include a bakery, and the portrait shows the couple as equal members of a confident and fashionable mercantile class. The man wears a toga, the mark of a Roman citizen, and holds a rotulus, suggesting he is also involved in local public and/or cultural events. The woman is in the foreground and holds a stylus and wax tablet, emphasising that she is of equal status, educated and literate.

Neo was a Roman citizen during a time when the citizenship was not universal (the destruction of Pompeii was almost 150 years before the Edict of Caracalla).  Could he have been the son of a freedman?  Possibly, but what possible reason to assume so except that the Kempians don’t like his physical appearance? He was not only a citizen, and a professional for that era, but also someone likely “involved in local public and/or cultural events.” That does not prove anything, but it certainly is not inconsistent with being of native stock.  Or is the "Neo" that makes one assume a freedman assumed a Roman name?

See this.  Someone on the Internet vacillates between asserting a Samnite origin (native Italic stock) and about Neo being a freedman – a freedman in the first century AD who is not only a Roman citizen but is also likely involved in “local public and/or cultural events.” The Samnite hypothesis – itself speculation – seems more plausible. Indeed, it seems like the main rationale for speculating about an exotic origin here, besides the speculation about the name, is the idea that “gee, Terentius Neo doesn’t look like all those Anglo-Saxon actors playing Ancient Romans in the movies and on TV.” 

Bottom line – we don’t know the origins of the man (or his supposed wife, for that matter – maybe he’s the native and she’s the alien?  He could be a freedman, but it seems unlikely that a freedman would be a publicly active Roman citizen in the first century AD.  Was he the son of a freedman?  Anything is possible, but if the only criterion is – “he doesn’t look like Charlton Heston playing Marc Antony," then that’s not good enough.  For all we know, he was a native Italic.

Putting aside the ethnoracial provenance of Terentius Neo, there’s a more fundamental issue here.

The typical “movement” paradigm has been that the original peoples of Italy, including (and especially) the Romans, were fairer and “more northern” (Nordic) compared to modern Italians, thought to be darker and “more Mediterranean” due to “admixture with Afro-Asiatic "slaves and immigrants.”  

However, what if the opposite is true?  What if modern Italians, particularly North and Central (where the Germanic influx from late Antiquity through the Middle Ages was greatest), are actually fairer and “more northern” than the ancients? Even in the South, to a lesser extent, this may be true as well, given Norman inputs.

From the Roman genetic paper:

The Normans expanded from northern France to a number of regions, including Sicily and the southern portion of the Italian Peninsula (and even sacked the city of Rome in 1084), where they established the Kingdom of Sicily (3, 36).

Then there were the earlier Vandal invasions, and the settlement of Sicily by mainland Italians, including North Italians, as well as other Europeans, after the Muslim population was relocated to the mainland after the Morabit rebellion and its aftermath.  The key point is the possibility that the ancients were actually “darker and more Mediterranean” than the moderns, rather than the reverse. Let’s consider my summary of the functional gene analysis from the Roman genetic paper:

Figure S29 gives functional allele frequency data, which mirrors the general genetic data. For example, throughout most of Roman history, lactase persistence is low, and increases only toward the end periods, starting with Late Antiquity, precisely those periods that have samples exhibiting the most haplotype sharing with “Central and Northern Europe.” Blue eye color was highest in the earliest (Mesolithic) and latest (Late Antiquity and Medieval and Early Modern) Roman periods; Iron Age/Republic and the Imperial periods look similar.  Hair color was not studied.

The three skin pigmentation graphs show varying line curves, but the trend is lighter skin as one progresses through time, rather than the reverse - the fairest seems to be the Late Antiquity/Middle Ages period - there certainly does not seem to be any differences between Iron Age/Republic and Empire, apart from the previously mentioned trend that goes against "movement" dogma.

The functional data, combined with the ancestry data, are compatible with the idea that the ancients were at least as “dark and Mediterranean” as the moderns, if not more so.  There is zero evidence for the reverse – Der Movement’s idea of the ancients being “fairer and more Nordic.”  

These posts about Rome, Napoleon, etc., we have seen here and at Western Destiny recently, although interesting in their own right, are more a means to an end rather than an end in themselves. And that end is the deconstruction of the “movement,” to expose Der Movement, Inc. as intellectually, factually, morally, spiritually bankrupt, as a conglomeration of liars, grifters, sweaty fetishists, and pseudoscientists unable to ever admit being wrong, a stronghold of ineffective incompetents, affirmative action cases who hide their ineptness and intellectual vacuity behind a screen of slogans and fossilized dogma. The “movement” is a pathetic failure, a bunch of frauds and liars, and all of you should eschew it and help build a New Movement.

That’s the end.  All these posts are the means to that end.

Meanwhile, all you Type I Nutzis will continue getting lied to, and you’ll believe it all.

You will be told that Blacks have higher serum testosterone than Whites and other races, even though peer-reviewed scientific studies prove otherwise. You will be told that the Ancient Romans, Greeks, and even Egyptians (!) were Nordic, even though ancient DNA studies continue to disprove those ahistorical inventions. You will be told that Rome collapsed because of “racial degeneration” so that the people “didn’t know how the big stone thingy worked anymore,” while the reality is that as the Western Empire declined and fell the genetics of Rome moved in a more “northern” and “western” direction and that the “big stone thingy” was working fine until the Germans came in, destroyed the Western Empire, and plunged Europe into a centuries-long Dark Ages (and it is only in this post-Roman period, that was German-ruled, that we find a lack of piped water). You’ll be told that the original Romans were individualistic northern hunter-gatherers even though the genetic data suggests a mostly Neolithic farmer ancestry and an overall Mediterranean (mostly West Mediterranean but with some Central and East Mediterranean components) racial provenance.  The fact that the height of power of the Empire was associated with a shift in the genetics of Rome to the “south” and “east” (I’m not saying that this shift was good, it is true that maladaptive population replacement took place within the city of Rome itself and in immediately surrounding areas, but I’m just reporting the historical and genetic facts) is something the “movement” will NOT tell you. They will lie to you about individualism and collectivism in Europe, confuse amoral familism with collectivism, and tell you one minute that Sweden is highly individualistic and in the next minute that it is a collectivist “unimind” with a “shame culture.”  You will be told that Rushton is a truth-telling hero, while his fellow HBDer Dutton (himself a buffoon who calls others neurotic while he behaves like a semi-retarded five year old with attention deficit disorder) admits that Rushton was a fraud and a hypocrite. Lynn will lie to you about IQ with his absurd and unscientific “estimates,” while being out-argued by an African. You will be told that everyone on the Far Right was part of the Alt Right and all blindly supported Trump, even though I was openly attacking the Alt Right and calling Trump a “vulgar ignorant buffoon” and a “Negrophilic race cuck” as far back as 2016. You will see the “movement” agonize over MENA admixture in Southern Europe while either ignoring North Asian/Siberian/East Asian admixture in Northern Europe or labeling the latter as “a great benefit to all humanity.” It is LIE after LIE after LIE, distortion after distortion, endless fraud and grifting – they even have the nerve to lie to you that the only thing the “movement” needs is money, after wasting millions of dollars given to them by suckers like you.

It is THE BIG LIE.

And you’ll only see it exposed here.

Ward-Perkins: The Fall of Rome

Who killed civilization and what happened next?

The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization, Bryan Ward-Perkins

Quote from Amazon review:

Why did Rome fall?

Vicious barbarian invasions during the fifth century resulted in the cataclysmic end of the world's most powerful civilization, and a 'dark age' for its conquered peoples. Or did it? The dominant view of this period today is that the 'fall of Rome' was a largely peaceful transition to Germanic rule, and the start of a positive cultural transformation.

Bryan Ward-Perkins encourages every reader to think again by reclaiming the drama and violence of the last days of the Roman world, and reminding us of the very real horrors of barbarian occupation. Attacking new sources with relish and making use of a range of contemporary archaeological evidence, he looks at both the wider explanations for the disintegration of the Roman world and also the consequences for the lives of everyday Romans, in a world of economic collapse, marauding barbarians, and the rise of a new religious orthodoxy. He also looks at how and why successive generations have understood this period differently, and why the story is still so significant today

That very well summarizes the book; having read it, I strongly recommend it (you should be reading on this subject other than retarded “movement” propaganda), and would like to make some points about it here. The book is broadly divided into three parts. First, a historical overview, with the author’s opinions and interpretations as to what happened and why, and also insights into the cross-assimilation process between the defeated Romans and their new German masters. Second, a detailed analysis of the physical evidence for an actual catastrophic Fall, an end to civilization, and the suffering that spread in its wake. Third, a brief summary, with a final warning that what happened to the Romans in their complacency could happen to “our” current civilization (I put “our” in scare quotes because it has already been subverted by aliens - we are already in the process of a Fall).

The author is a self-described “Englishman,” and, although “he was born and raised in Rome and spoke Italian from childhood,” he explicitly states in his book that, personally, he dislikes the Ancient Romans. That is an odd thing for a historian to state about a people he is writing about, but, if he is sincere in that statement, and there is no reason to believe otherwise, then that demonstrates that he is not a shabbos nord stepandfetchit pandering to swarthoids. He is merely writing what he believes is the truth, based on his research. 

One negative about the book to get out of the way – the author writes: “There is no reason to believe, as people once did, that ethnic behavior and identity are genetically transmitted, and therefore immutable.” There is actually every reason to believe that, at least in the sense that a significant portion of identity is determined by biological affiliation and that much of behavior is genetically transmitted; where I part with Der Movement (apart from its constantly disproved dogma on such subjects) is with the idea that this is completely deterministic at the level of being 100% genetic. Phenotype is the combination of both genes and the environment; both are important (genes being more so), and the relative contributions of each inform as to whether the phenotype is mutable or immutable.

Another interesting and amusing part of the book is when the author describes how perceptions of the Fall of Rome have been shaped by ethnic and political considerations.  Thus, Italians and other “Latin” peoples tend to view the Fall of the Western Empire as a catastrophe, with savage and ignorant Germanic barbarians toppling civilization and ushering in a Dark Age. On the other hand, Northern Europeans, particularly Germanics, including the Anglosphere, propose the idea of “a largely peaceful transition to Germanic rule, and the start of a positive cultural transformation.”  And when, in the past, Germanics agreed that the Fall was traumatic, they asserted that it was all for the good, with one German philosopher quoted, with all the sweatiness of a typical Type I Nutzi, about how vigorous northerners rejuvenated Italy by toppling the enervated dwarfish Roman stock (one can imagine Humphrey Ireland as a Goth warrior, furiously attempting to stomp two foot tall scurrying Roman swarthoids, or Greg Johnson envisioning manlet Tom Cruise as an enervated Roman dwarf). On the other hand, the Scottish historian William Robertson lamented the destruction of civilization that resulted from the barbarian destruction of the Western Empire, and then there is Gibbon.

Politically, the view of modern Germans informs opinions on this matter; when WWI and WWII was fresh in people’s minds, the idea of rampaging barbarians was at the forefront, but with today’s more peaceful and influential (and cucked) Germany, the “peaceful transition” idea has more adherents. The author quotes harsh evaluations of the Germanic invaders by English and French scholars during the 1930s and in the immediate post-WWII period. 

More interestingly, the author claims that today’s pro-Germanic paradigms about the “peaceful transformation of the Roman world,” with the consequent prioritization of Late Antiquity, is being used by European Union elites to legitimize their German-dominated globalist construct.  Further, the de-emphasis of Greco-Roman culture is part and parcel of modern anti-Western politically correct “scholarship.” This is all consistent with my longstanding thesis that the System leverages Nordicism to prop up the anti-White multicultural system, not only by dividing Whites but, perhaps more importantly, pandering to Northern European sensibilities by making anti-White constructs such as the EU, and the equation (or dominance) of other cultures - including non-White ones - with that of the Classical Civilization (thus undermining the foundations of the West [regardless of Spengler and Yockey]), more palatable. Similarly, I have argued that HBD occasionally panders to Nordicism in order to make palatable memes that have as their objective raising Jews and Asians to dominance over Whites. The HBD-Nordicism (combination of both paradigms) peddled by MacDonald - with its lies about Rome - is part of this (even though that's not his intention, the outcome is the same).

The authors’ idea is that modeling the EU on the Roman Empire would leave out much of Northern Europe, but a German-dominated Late Antiquity period serves as an effective model for today’s German-dominated EU. Perhaps in a sense the EU elites are correct given Ward-Perkins’ thesis of Late Antiquity being associated with “the end of civilization.” This time it is the Western Civilization that is ending, with the same ethnic drivers of this catastrophe as with the end of the Classical Civilization. The first time as tragedy; the second time as farce.  In any case, the author of this book looks at the evidence and concludes that the catastrophe scenario is more accurate; the “peaceful transition” hypothesis is effectively falsified.

The author claims that the Eastern Empire survived while the West collapsed because of better geographical protections – the thin band of sea separated Europe from Asia, which allowed for the protection of Constantinople and the richer areas of Asia Minor and the Levant.  In any case, as I have written before, if Der Movement wants to blame biology for the Fall, and not other reasons and circumstances, how would they explain the survival of the  more “racially degenerate” (from a European standpoint) East?  If they invoke non-biological considerations, such as that put forth by the author, is it possible that such considerations apply to the West as well?  It is of course theoretically possible that the West collapsed for biological reasons (but remember that genetically the Western Empire was becoming more “northern” and “western” at that time) and the East survived for non-biological reasons, but it is more likely, and less cherry picking of explanations, to consider all of the practical reasons for the Fall without imposing “movement” dogma on it, and a desire to make self-serving racial analogies between then and now.  I also point out that the author is of the school that claims that the Western Empire was not in terminal decline when it fell, and was still powerful, albeit troubled. 

The author makes an interesting conclusion about Roman-German cross-assimilation after the Fall.  Thus, he writes: “…both groups moved ‘upwards’: the Romans into the political identity of their German masters; the Germanic peoples into the more sophisticated cultural framework of their Roman subjects.” Thus, the “Roman” population of various regions eventually (politically, and eventually ethnically, as those boundaries dissipated) identified as “Visigoths” or “Franks” (and in Italy, became “Italian” or identified with more local identities, so that only the inhabitants of Rome itself identified as “Roman”); meanwhile, the Germans attempted to adopt much of the “sophisticated cultural framework” of the civilization that they destroyed. Thus, the Romans politically became German and the Germans culturally tried to become Roman. This of course contrasts with much of “movement” propaganda of culturally pure noble Germanics sweeping aside all traces of degenerate Roman culture and civilization.  

However, despite the eagerness of some of the Germans – at least the rulers – to co-opt aspects of Roman civilization, they were not did not have the capability to sustain any of it long term, and the physical destruction (material, economy, contacts, the broader aspects of the Roman network) of the Western Empire by the Germans, which the author chronicles in great detail in the second half of the book, meant that no continuance of the Classical Civilization, of Roman culture, was possible.  Indeed, Der Movement likes to tell us that only the people who create a culture and a civilization can maintain it; thus, the descent into the interregnum of the Dark Ages after the German conquest of Rome was inevitable by the Der Movement’s own dogma. Of course, that suggests that, whatever demographic changes took place among the urban masses of the city of Rome itself, the overall Empire, and its leadership, was sufficiently stable, demographically speaking, in a broad sense, to maintain Roman culture until that culture and its civilization was killed, in the West, by the invading Germans. So, while the political assimilation of Romans into the Germanic identity was successful at least in some areas of Western Europe (for as long as those Germanic identities existed in those regions, before becoming superseded by more modern national identities), the cultural assimilation of Germans to Roman culture failed, at least initially. Only after the full cross-assimilation between the two groups (that took many centuries) did a rebirth of civilization become possible.

Indeed, one (most palatable for Der Movement, eh?) of the possible alternative histories broached by the authors, was of a continuance of the Western Roman Empire (in perhaps shrunken form). but under Germanic leadership, rather than of a collapse of that Empire. But that didn’t happen, did it?  The closest thing to a (very brief) revival was the Byzantine (the “degenerate” East) reconquest of Italy during the sixth century Gothic war – and the natives of Italy were so obviously pro-Byzantine that the embittered Goths massacred Italian civilians, including 300 aristocratic Roman children that were held hostage. Goths and Romans as “natural friends,” eh Jordanes?  (Apparently, “movement” lies existed as early as the sixth century AD).

Later of course, the synthesis between the contributions of the North and the South of (Western) Europe led to the creation of the Western Civilization (as Yockey recognized), although of course some in the “movement” believe otherwise.

The author contrasts the paradigm of “Romans politically becoming Germans and the Germans culturally becoming Romans” to that of the Arab conquest of MENA areas, in which the conquered peoples not only adopted the political identity of “Arab” but also adopted the Islamic culture of their conquerors.  The difference, as the author asserts, is that the Arabs conquered in the name of the militant new faith, while the “culturally flexible” Germans came with no cultural agenda; instead, they wanted to partake of the riches of Rome.  The author makes clear that the Germans did not intend to destroy the Empire but to exploit it, but destroy it they did; as the author puts it, they were guilty of manslaughter, not murder (lack of homicidal intention).

The second part of the book is an impressive, albeit somewhat dry (unless you are very interested in potsherds and such things), accounting of the physical evidence of the collapse of civilization, and the resulting drastic drop in living standards consequent to that. The physical structure of the Western Roman Empire was wrecked by the German conquest - and that applies to the entire Empire, even to those areas abandoned before the final Fall, Britain for example.  The author writes: “It may be hard to believe, but post-Roman Britain in fact sank to a level of economic complexity well below that of the pre-Roman Iron Age.” The author states that the (relatively) sophisticated economy of the Roman world destroyed small-scale autarkic local economies, and made everyone dependent on highly specialized interacting large-scale networks, which were very vulnerable to disruption. Hence, we observe the collapse of this highly integrated and specialized economy and the long period (many centuries) of rebuilding required to get back to least partly to what was present before. The author makes the obvious analogies to the highly specialized “Western” economies of today, which are equally vulnerable to disruption.

Of relevance to that, let us remember what the odious scum Zman wrote about Rome, accompanied by my replies:

Zman: …started to think about those people living in the Roman Empire wondering why the water no longer comes from the big stone thingy anymore. 

Sallis: Because invading Germans wrecked them?

Zman: Some may have remembered their ancestors working on them for some reason, but they no longer recall why. 

Sallis: What bullshit.  When the water stopped running, it was because the city was sacked by, and later mismanaged by, the Holy Ones.

Zman: The people who knew how and why those aqueducts worked were long gone. No one was around who could figure out how to make them work again, because they lacked the capacity to do it.

Sallis: Absolute, raging bullshit.  The water stopped flowing after the fall of the empire. Who was running the show then?  Maybe folks who never built aqueducts in the first place. Odoacer: “What’s that big stone thingy?  Can my horse drink out of it?” Hey, Zman, take your Kempian lies back to “Lagos.” By the way, the “Lagos” joke is so stale by now it’s starting to stink like one of Zman's South Asians.

Of course – surprise! – Sallis is right and Der Movement is wrong.  If one mantra, one paradigm, one meme can summarize Der Movement, Inc. it would be this – wrong, wrong, they’re ALWAYS wrong.

If anyone is to blame for the “big stone thingies” not working any more, it were the Holy Germans. Put that in your pipe and smoke it in “Lagos,” Zman, you insufferable idiot.  Indeed, the author specifically states a lack of evidence that in post-Roman Italy that rural and urban homes lacked the “under-floor heating and piped water” present in Roman times.  Piped water, Zman, which disappeared after your Holy Ones wrecked the Empire.

Whatever the faults of the later Roman Empire – and it had faults aplenty (as did the Roman Republic by the way, as did NS Germany, as did colonial America, as did, or does, every polity in history, albeit in different manners and to different extents – one cannot compare 1950s America to Idi Amin’s Uganda), it still was working, it still had civilization, it was still a working state with a higher standard of living, and technics, than the surrounding peoples. No, Zman, they didn’t forget how those “big stone thingies” worked.  No, the “big stone thingies” didn’t just stop running water.  Yes, it was your Germanic tribal heroes who wrecked everything, as Ward-Perkins - no swarthoid he – has pointed out in exquisite detail.

The genetics of Rome in the late periods – decline, fall, post-fall – when all those “big stone thingies” stopped working according to Zman, was moving in the “western” and “northern” directions.  Indeed, the settlement of Germans in Italy and the abovementioned assimilation no doubt explains much of these genetic shifts during this period, as well as pre-Fall immigration and political and military participation, and some assimilation even then (The Vandal-Roman hybrid Stilicho as an example).

The last part of the book summarizes the evidence and gives the warning described near the beginning of this essay, with the author saying that we can experience the same collapse in our complacency as the Romans did in theirs.  It’s already happening.

To summarize the main thesis of this book: There was no “gradual evolution” of the Western Roman Empire after the fall. It was crushed, ended, and there was an interregnum of the Dark Ages. You may say, hey, it ended one tired civilization and brought forth a newer, more vibrant Western civilization (Spengler saying that the Classical and the Western are two separate entities – let’s assume that for now, although one can argue both ways). True, but the same outcome could have been achieved, with less horror and without the long interregnum of backwardness, if the “gradual evolution” actually occurred, as I wrote:

Was the destruction of the Western Roman Empire by the Germans good or bad?  If we take the traditional (and “movement”) view that the (later) empire was completely degenerate, then it was undoubtedly good; however, if we take the view, discussed above, that the later Western Empire was actually more morally sound than it ever was, then the question becomes more interesting.

Rather than frame it in the form of “good” vs. “bad” perhaps a counterfactual analysis would be useful.  What if the Roman Empire, the Western Empire, was able to act from a position of strength in the fourth and fifth centuries AD to reform the European situation to one of a power-sharing confederation mode? What if Rome has won the Battle of Adrianople, and had corrected certain deficiencies and regained some degree of vigor.  What if a wise Emperor had realized that maintenance of a far-flung centralized Empire was no longer feasible (note that the division into Western and Eastern halves was the beginning of this realization) and had reformed the Empire into a Confederation of Peoples – Romans, Germans, Gauls – with cooperation, considerable local autonomy and various common objectives (e.g., eastward expansion, defense against the Huns [Chalons as a crude example of what was possible], etc.).  That may have been unworkable given the attitudes of people of that time; on the other hand, the Gauls were Romanized after exhibiting such resistance centuries before; and, and, at this time, the Germans were no longer the same “barbarians” as in the past, some degree of “Romanization” had taken place, at least to an indirect degree. 

Rome could have at some point attempted to cut its losses, preserve itself as an independent "Mediterranean" power, and come to an accommodation with other European peoples.

Would that have hastened the development of the West, bypassing the Dark Ages?  Or would it have inhibited the development of the West by preserving the fossilized remnants of the Classical past its expiration date?  These are all interesting questions, ones that are never asked by a (itself fossilized) “movement” steeped in inflexible dogma.”

And then we have this:

We can consider the 1942 classic The Roman Commonwealth by English historian Ralph Westwood Moore. With respect to the idea that Rome went from a virtuous city-state to a degenerate empire, Moore classified that as a “pious myth” and further stated: “Morality in the large sense was a thing which Rome achieved as she grew, not a Garden of Eden from which her destiny expelled her or a state of innocence from which she fell.”  Blasphemy!  That doesn’t accord with “movement” dogma so it must be wrong, wrong, wrong – or Moore was secretly Moori, a swarthoid with a Medish agenda!

The point of this essay is not to mimic the “movement” (in the opposite direction) and take sides in ancient conflicts. The Goths and other Germans may have wrecked the Classical Civilization but they were instrumental in founding the modern “Faustian” Western High Culture – Western Civilization.  The point of the essay is merely to demonstrate to readers that there is genuine scholarship on these subjects and you do have to depend on the “movement’s” retarded dogma. The “movement’s” cartoonish view of noble godlike Germans and degenerate devilish Romans needs to be eschewed. The lies about the "degeneracy" of the Roman Empire and the changing demographics need to be interpreted in the light of facts, including that the maximal corruption of Late Antiquity and the subsequent Fall of the Western Empire took place at precisely the same time that the genetics of Rome were moving more in the "high trust northern hunter-gatherer" direction. We need to consider serious scholarship.  Shameless liars like Kemp and MacDonald peddle falsehoods about Rome to push their radical Nordicism, but you are not obligated to digest that nonsense as long as real scholarship exists to set the record straight.

Odds and Ends, 12/10/19

Various issues.

UPDATE - the post now credits "Robert Hampton" for the low quality review.

Robert Hampton (not Greg Johnson?)  unburdens himself:

Most World War II films like to portray America’s fighting force as an ethnic melting pot. In Midway, nearly all of the characters are Anglos and heartlanders who don’t reminisce about Brooklyn. 

As opposed to reminiscing about Brokeback Mountain.

The one clear exception is Gaido, an Italian from New York. 

That damn wop!

The historic American nation fights for itself.

Like John Basilone. No, wait….

Basilone – the extended phenotype of guys like Johnson, who clearly exclude “Manila John” from possibly ever being accepted into “the historic American nation.”  No affirmative action for you, paisan.  Gaslighting Greggy and Raunchy Richie want to keep it all for themselves.

Gaido is captured by the Japanese after his plane is shot down. He’s thrown into the sea when he refuses to give the position of the American ships.

Ah…he’s expendable.  Why shouldn’t he sacrifice himself for real White men?

It’s dangerous to show heroic whites defeat evil yellow men.

Derbyshire may get offended.

Question: Do dumb dagoes still send "D'Nations" to Counter-Currents?  After all, Greg needs to fund going to the movies, so it's all good!  Close to $100,000 for the latest fundraiser - remember, those who give live in the Golden Age today!  Just not in Brooklyn.    

Hood again.

Unlike Rand, I’m not going to imply Jack Merritt had it coming. His father’s grief must be immense. Yet he is waging an online political battle immediately after his son’s death at the hands of a Muslim.

We’ve seen this before. University of Iowa student Mollie Tibbetts disappeared in 2018. After police arrested an illegal immigrant, her father rather bizarrely defended Hispanics. “As far as I’m concerned,” he said, “they’re Iowans with better food.” He also attacked politicians who call for stricter border control, saying Mollie would have called their views “profoundly racist.” Her mother let an illegal immigrant who was related to the alleged killer stay in her home.

Kevin Sutherland was killed, apparently at random, by a black man on the Washington D.C. Metro on Independence Day 2015. He was stabbed repeatedly; no one tried to help.

The late Sutherland worked in liberal politics and had been an intern for Congressman Jim Himes. Sutherland’s Twitter feed was filled with attacks on the Confederate flag, Christianity, and conservatives. Then presidential candidate Chris Christie blamed “liberal policies” for the murder. Congressman Himes condemned him, accusing Governor Christie of “fearmongering and thinly veiled racism.”

In 2015, two black men raped a pregnant woman named Amanda Blackburn and shot her in the back of the head. Her preacher husband Davey Blackburn said he “forgave” the killers and hoped he could “get the opportunity to share the Gospel with these guys.” He also said, “Jesus takes what the world says is a tragedy and makes it beautiful.”

That same year, Islamic militants killed 129 people in Paris. In a video the New York Times called “moving,” the husband of one of the victims said he didn’t hate the killers. “I will not give you the gift of hate,” he said. “Even though it is what you were hoping for, responding to hatred with anger would be to fall to the same ignorance that made you the people you are.”

There’s also Amy Biehl, a young Fulbright scholar who traveled to South Africa to register blacks in the first all-race election in 1994. She was murdered by a black mob, despite her pleas that she was a “comrade.” Her parents showily forgave the killers, who were released without punishment because the Truth and Reconciliation Commission determined the murder was “political.” Indeed, her parents took the opportunity to honor those who “lost their lives in the struggle.” They gave jobs to two of the murderers.

How can we explain this? I believe it’s something beyond pathological altruism.

Yes, it’s those “high trust northern hunter-gatherers” in action. If the “movement” really believes all of that in the genetically deterministic sense (and apparently it does), then everything that Hood wrote is a warning not to put all our eggs in the “high trust” basket. Maybe we should have some input and leadership from some “low trust Neolithic farmers” to balance things out.

If even half our readers sent in ten dollars a month, let alone 10 percent of their income, I have absolute faith we’d triumph — and quickly.

Once again, Hood peddles the outrageous lie that all we need is just more money.  If you give that money to the “movement” as it currently exists, it’ll just waste it, just as it wasted the millions of dollars it already ran through, generating nothing but endless failure.

See this.  It’s already dead.

See this.

Richard Lynn, the stalwart defender of the race hypothesis, issues a challenge from on high to find a single instance in which Africans have higher IQs than Europeans and then claims that under such circumstances, “the evolutionary and genetic theory of these differences would be falsified.” Chanda Chisala then says, “Game on!” and manages to find one instance in which a small subset of black children outperform a much larger subset of white children on a series of exams.

Does this mean that Chisala refuted the race hypothesis in IQ? No. It means he refuted an unwise and arrogant statement made by Richard Lynn.

Putting “unwise and arrogant” and “Richard Lynn” in the same sentence seems to me to be a redundancy. 

True enough, finding exceptions does not disprove the clearly observed general trends of racial differences in intelligence. But that is not the point here. HBDer Lynn put forth a falsifiable hypothesis. The hypothesis was falsified. By Lynn’s standards – derived from his moronically unwise and pathetically arrogant statement – the hypothesis is incorrect. In reality, the real hypothesis, that of general trends in intelligence due to racial differences, has not been falsified.  But Lynn’s retarded, completely genetically deterministic, cartoonish views on IQ were falsified.  Yes, it was falsified in a somewhat unconvincing manner, but that is the fault of Lynn for framing the hypothesis the way he did.  I do agree with this:

Does this mean that Chisala refuted the race hypothesis in IQ? No. It means he refuted an unwise and arrogant statement made by Richard Lynn.

But we need to put Lynn ns the same category as Rushton – a fraud and a hypocrite.  It’s not enough to cover up Lynn’s manifest deficiencies by merely saying he was “unwise and arrogant” in one instance. That one instance is a reflection of the hand-waving, pseudoscientific, never admitting to being wrong, nature of HBD. This one instance is a peek at the rotten underbelly of the HBD travesty.

Spencer expresses himself.  And whose fault is that?  The "movement's" affirmative action "leadership" - of which Spencer is a prominent member.

Counter-Currents comments: 

Svea Svensson

Posted December 7, 2019 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

Even if most whites generally prefer a partner of their own race, many of them will choose someone of another race if he or she is younger and more attractive. They trade their whiteness (and sometimes money) for youth and beauty – at least as long as it is socially acceptable.

The most common example of this is probably white men marrying Asian women, which explains why 12% of the white men, but only 10% of the white women, marry outside their race.

This constellation also seems rather normalized among racial nationalists. The American Renaissance Conference even invited one of these men to give a speech on “The Arctic Alliance” earlier this year!

Of course.  The HBDers promote the grand Jeurasian future. Derbyshire, an Englishman married to a Chinatrix with mixed-race children and who is a Judeophile – is the leading proponent of this. So, of course, he’ll be featured prominently at Amren.

Another Ghost

Posted December 7, 2019 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

I agree with you. There was an article I believe on this website that stated white men whom date outside their race often do it out of lack of confidence.

Derb – “awkward squad” - so designated by his own mother.

"Movement" solipsism on display as follows.  A Counter-Currents commentator links to scientific research - real science, not 23andMe junk - clearly showing extensive New World admixture in the Argentinian population.  The "movement" peanut gallery responds thus:

Phineas Eleazar
Posted December 8, 2019 at 12:52 pm | Permalink
Argentina is the worst Latin American example for you, because its white population is largely descended from recent immigrants from Europe, in about the 1900’s. That is certainly the reason they still have sizeable numbers of nearly pure whites.

Who cares about dat dere science?  Someone writes something on the Internet, so it must be true.  Every thought, every comment, every post from Der Movement instantly creates reality!  The Lathe of Heaven Syndrome.

Laugh at this:

Greg Johnson
Posted December 8, 2019 at 11:21 am | Permalink
You are painting with a very broad brush here. There is an edge of hysteria to this sort of MGTOW apocalypticism. I can’t help thinking that communicating such attitudes, even subliminally, must make a man less attractive to women.

Certainly, Greg is an expert on this matter.

After everything that's happened, after the complete and humiliating collapse of the Alt Right, we still get this in December 2019.  Remarkable.  And, of course, rattling the tin cup for "D'Nations" - also in the name of the utterly discredited Alt Right:

Gifting TOO—We’re a Central Cog in the Populist, Alt Right Surge

Astonishing.  

Lee Priest White Power t-shirt.

Predicting eminence.

This investigation examined whether math/scientific and verbal/humanistic ability and preference constellations, developed on intellectually talented 13-year-olds to predict their educational outcomes at age 23, continue to maintain their longitudinal potency by distinguishing distinct forms of eminence 35 years later. Eminent individuals were defined as those who, by age 50, had accomplished something rare: creative and highly impactful careers (e.g., full professors at research-intensive universities, Fortune 500 executives, distinguished judges and lawyers, leaders in biomedicine, award-winning journalists and writers). Study 1 consisted of 677 intellectually precocious youths, assessed at age 13, whose leadership and creative accomplishments were assessed 35 years later. Study 2 constituted a constructive replication-an analysis of 605 top science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) graduate students, assessed on the same predictor constructs early in graduate school and assessed again 25 years later. In both samples, the same ability and preference parameter values, which defined math/scientific versus verbal/humanistic constellations, discriminated participants who ultimately achieved distinct forms of eminence from their peers pursuing other life endeavors.

That’s in Northern Italy and thus an assault against those blonde, blue-eyed, ultra-Aryan, Hallstatt Nordics there – like this fellow – and we can’t have that!

Nietzsche, Napoleon, and the Overman

Western Destiny essay.

An important Western Destiny essay can be read at this link.  That essay analyzes real scholarship on Napoleon and Nietzsche’s views on Napoleon, which contrasts to the “movement” nonsense previously discussed here.

Hainan at America and Jeelvy

Chinatrix calling Whites “foreigners”...in America.

Read here. Emphasis added.

Thus, when, a week into the crisis, it looked as thought the U.S. was going to stand firm, I got into a spot of bother with my suggestion that perhaps George W. Bush should counter the Chinese demand for an apology by demanding an apology from them. After all, I pointed out, the U.S. plane was over international waters, and the F-8s must have been flying awfully close for the accident to have happened — close enough to fairly be accused of harrassment, whatever the precise details of the mishap.

Rosie: “Nonsense! China give an apology to America? You’re mad! What was that plane doing so close to our shore? Spying, that’s what! You foreigners think you can just do as you like in China! …” In less time than it takes to hit the MAYDAY button on an EP-3 control panel, we were into the Opium War and the suppression of the Boxers. Dialectical Materialism may have passed undigested through Rosie’s alimentary canal, but the xenophobic stuff went direct into her bloodstream.

Keep in mind that “Rosie” was living in the USA at this time (as she does now).  If I am not mistaken, “Rosie” is now a “American citizen” who votes. “You foreigners,” indeed.  Thanks, Derbyshire.

It’s OK. In the style of Mao Tse-tung, who was fond of comparing crises in the Party with earthquakes, this is no worse than a 4 on the Richter scale. It certainly doesn’t compare with last August 6, a Sunday, and a day that will live in infamy, when I woke early with the horrible realization that it was our wedding anniversary, crept out of the house, spent a frantic hour trying to find a card store that was open, and got home … too late. Harmony will re-assert itself. I just have to follow the President’s example: be patient, and do some measured grovelling.

The last five words = the role of Whites in the “Arctic Alliance.”  And also a summary of HBD.

The ethnocentrism on display here is also reflected in all the spying scandals involving ethnic Chinese living in America spying for their ethnic homeland, reflected in the mind-numbing knee-jerk hatred of Whites and of Western civilization, and is also reflected in networks of ethnic nepotism, including in the professions. Keep on groveling - in a “measured” fashion of course – Whitey.  Kneel down in abject subservience before the Altar of Asia. Hail HBD!

No Nut Jeelvy!

Pathetic. Jeelvy:

I’m pretty sure you’ve heard by now of No Nut November, which is a challenge for all who take it upon them not to commit the sin of Onan – i.e., masturbation – in the month of November. As it happens, most of the people taking the challenge are young men, most of them white and, if not quite on the Right, then at the very least not allergic to our ideas. Of note is also that No Nut November has been countersignaled by the smut merchants at VICE, which I consider to be a glowing endorsement.

I am glad to tell you, my friends, that I have passed this challenge. My mind is at ease, my soul feels clean and pure again, and my body is a weapon fit for the Archangel Michael. I could also offer you details concerning some of the other psychosomatic effects, but as Counter-Currents is a highbrow webzine, the traditional Slavo-Mediterranean braggadocio about sexual prowess and genital size should be used sparingly.

I’m no stranger to addictive behavior, or to the cessation of addictive behavior. In my life, I’ve been seriously addicted to three substances: risperidon, nicotine, and sugar. Two of those I’ve completely dropped, while sugar I’ve learned to consume in moderation. I’ve also had my fair share of problems with video game addiction…

Isn’t this the guy with the fist-sized-breasted wife?  So...what?  He was masturbating regularly before “No Nut November?” Yes sir, that “traditional Slavo-Mediterranean braggadocio about sexual prowess” really fits when a married Millennial finds it necessary to pull a “no nut.”  Counter-Currents is really hitting new heights of “highbrow” erudition with the new crop of writers Johnson has pulled out of the Alt Right sewer.

As someone who used to write for both sites, I have to say that there are some remarkable parallels between Majority Rights and Counter-Currents. In my opinion, one major reason why Majority Rights declined is because of Guessedworker’s inability or unwillingness to exercise quality control over his site, to realize what is or is not appropriate for the site. While Greg Johnson, unlike Guessworker, actually moderates the comments section of his site (too much in my opinion), apparently he is not exercising quality control over the actual contributors to his site (Jeelvy being a perfect example). And thus, the sad decline continues,  Remarkably, the "movement's" marching morons continue sending in the "D'Nations."

Odds and Ends, 12/4/19

Various issues.

Greg Johnson describes how he attacks those on the Right:

principled intellectual disagreement vs. personal invective (It is not “divisive” to sincerely disagree with someone.)

defending oneself from attacks vs. launching attacks on others

calling out people for harming the movement vs. pointless personal vendettas

The problem is that this is exactly what Ted Sallis does, but when Ted does it, he’s “crazy and bitter” and to be “banned.”

Type Is on the march.

Zaremski was an emergency medical technician who frequented white supremacist forums online and had a trove of neo-Nazi literature. He was caught only because he sent a photo of his ex-girlfriend wearing parts of a Nazi uniform to her employer, officials said…He also affixed a “Right Wing Death Squad” patch to his EMT jacket.

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.

Look at this naïve buffoon presenting ancestry testing results to the decimal point for Gabbard, including percentages of 3.8, 1.1, and 0.8.  Depending on the test and the parental populations used, I would question even the percentages in the 20s.

Let it not be said that the “movement’s” affirmative action “leadership” does not come up with brilliant ideas – this is one!  Heil Der Movement!  Heil!  

No, actually the Alt Right should just continue on the glorious path already established.

Andrew Fraser wanna-be and "Wilmot" lover Morris the Liar is back again with the same old shtick. Question – wasn’t it the grand old WASP foreign policy establishment that gave us American involvement in WWI and WWII (and don’t start braying about “Pearl Harbor” with respect to the latter, with all the grand work Der Movement has done over the years uncovering the FDR administration’s perfidy regarding that)?

Oh you’ll say – the Jews were manipulating there.  If that is the case, as far back as WWI, then when did the USA have an authentically Humphrey Irelandish foreign policy apparatus?  The Spanish American War perhaps, brought to us by grand fellows like Hearst (journalism leading foreign policy) and the reason we have so many Puerto Ricans and Filipinos in American today.  What?  Do we gave to go back to Polk and the Mexican American War?  Or perhaps Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase?  Or Washington’s Farewell Address?

Der Movement likes to pontificate, but cannot back up all of the hot air with historical reality.

If you believe that in the past that American foreign policy was run by the “Majority,” then this is relevant.  Fiction mirroring reality. After all, if Der Movement loves the Pesci scene so much, they can also consider the content of the remainder of the movie as well.

Now, I did state:

A case can be made that folks like the Wilsons founded and built America and so they have the right to pull the strings…

Very well.  But if so, at least have the honesty to admit when the Wilsons screw things up, instead of pretending those were halcyon days – the Golden Age of foreign affairs from which we’ve sadly fallen to the Yogi Bear (“Kali Yuga”). But then, the concept of accountability is not very well accepted by Der Movement and its “leadership,” is it?

My response to this nonsense is this EGI Notes post.  Fact is, Rushton was exposed as a fraud and a personal hypocrite by a fellow HBDer.  That Johnson blithely ignores the facts about his hero and continues to peddle him as some sort of admirable figure is unfortunate but not (to me) surprising.

Democratic Multiculturalism and Title VI

Title VII and Title IX as well.

See the definitions of these “titles” here at this link.

I have previously written about, and advocated for, Salter’s idea of “Democratic Multiculturalism” – that White majorities should demand a seat at the multicultural table and use the System’s mechanisms of multiculturalism to advocate for White interests. Multiculturalism is defined (as Salter reminded us) as a system in which minorities are empowered and are encouraged to mobilize for their interests, while majorities are disempowered and demobilized. If that is so, then forcing the multicultural system to allow for majority mobilization will, by definition, make that system untenable, destabilize it, and heighten the contradictions, and lead, eventually, to its demise. There is a saying – “if everyone is my brother, then I have no brother.” Likewise, if every group tales advantage of multiculturalism, then there is no multiculturalism.

Always remember Suvorov’s Law of history – revolutions do not typically occur during the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed. That is why it is imperative to put pressure on the System, at its weakest points, to force concessions and force relaxation of the repression.  Exploiting the “titles”- VI, VII, and IX – is an excellent place to start.

I will concentrate on Title VI here, but what is written applies equally well to the others.  All are ripe for exploitation by a properly leveraged attack of Democratic Multiculturalism.

Read this.  That is open anti-White hatred and discrimination at an academic institution that no doubt falls under Title VI (as well as VII and IX).

See this.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. All federal agencies that provide grants of assistance are required to enforce Title VI. The U.S. Department of Education gives grants of financial assistance to schools and colleges and to certain other entities, including vocational rehabilitation programs.

Examples of discrimination covered by Title VI include racial harassment, school segregation, and denial of language services to English learners. A fuller list of Title VI issues OCR addresses appears here. The U.S. Department of Education Title VI regulation (Code of Federal Regulations at 34 CFR 100) is enforced by the Department's Office for Civil Rights.

The Title VI regulation prohibits retaliation for filing an OCR complaint or for advocacy for a right protected by Title VI. Title VI also prohibits employment discrimination, but the protection against employment discrimination under Title VI is limited. As a result, most complaints OCR receives raising race, color, or national-origin discrimination in employment are referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

A fair and just reading of Title VI clearly shows that White students are being targeted for repression at Western Connecticut State, and a legal case can and should be made that that institution is in violation of Title VI and should have all federal funding and assistance cut.

If an institution attacks Whites to such an extent that they would attempt to expel a student for saying “it is OK to be White” then this can be construed as a Title VI violation against Whites.  One can think of a myriad of other anti-White academic activities that constitute a hostile environment for White students, and for which the institution should be sued under Title VI.  There are lawyers and legal foundations who have in the past taken on academia from a rightist legal standpoint, we need more such persons and foundations, ones even more “vanguard” in their outlook, willing to begin and sustain an unrelenting legal assault on academia on this issue.  It doesn’t matter if, in the short term, such legal actions will meet with defeat.  The actions, and the resulting publicity, will put pressure on the System at a weak point. It will mobilize Whites. It will heighten the contradictions. It should be supplemented with political, social, and economic activism targeting the academic institutions in question. There should be a multi-pronged assault on the issue, continuous and unrelenting.  Why should these institutions get federal aid if they are so openly violating Title VI for Whites?  No more assistance!  No more financial aid for the students of such a racist institution!  The very act of filing these Title VI suits – regardless of the initial outcome – will be a step in the right direction, a step toward majority mobilization as part of Democratic Multiculturalism. The time to start is now.

Again, remember Suvorov’s Law – revolutions do not occur at the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed.

Worse is not always better.  

There are of course mighty obstacles. The System with its legal apparatus has already tried to define anti-White discrimination as “non-discrimination” and thus acceptable. Let us look at this, returning at the end to discuss how all of it can be leveraged against the System. 

Thus, let’s consider what Whites are up against, how “non-discrimination” is utilized to viciously discriminate against Whites, particularly White men – a tactic successful mostly because feckless, cowardly Whites refuse to fight back, refuse to sue, refuse to protest, and refuse to utilize whatever social, political, and economic power they do have to exert force for change.  

Principle 4: Financial Aid To Create Diversity

America is unique because it has forged one Nation from many people of a remarkable number of different backgrounds. 

America is certainly unique.  It is also in terminal decline – and for the reason stated.

Many colleges seek to create on campus an intellectual environment that reflects that diversity. 

Now, how does “different backgrounds” affect the “intellectual environment?’’ Only if that “diversity” leads to diversity of thought and ideas.  But the exact opposite occurs.  As schools become more demographically diverse, intellectual diversity dwindles to nothing – it  is in fact actively suppressed – to reach the real goal of a demographically diverse student body who share exactly the same social and political beliefs.

A college should have substantial discretion to weigh many factors - including race and national origin - in its efforts to attract and retain a student population of many different experiences, opinions, backgrounds, and cultures - provided that the use of race or national origin is consistent with the constitutional standards reflected in Title VI, i.e. , that it is a narrowly tailored means to achieve the goal of a diverse student body.

Who defines “narrowly tailored?” Why is a “diverse student body” desirable?  What about political diversity?

There are several possible options for a college to promote its First Amendment interest in diversity. First a college may, of course, use its financial aid program to promote diversity by considering factors other than race or national origin, such as geographic origin, diverse experiences, or socioeconomic background. Second, a college may consider race or national origin with other factors in awarding financial aid if the aid is necessary to further the college's interest in diversity. Third, a college may use race or national origin as a condition of eligibility in awarding financial aid if this use is narrowly tailored, or, in other words, if it is necessary to further its interest in diversity and does not unduly restrict access to financial aid for students who do not meet the race based eligibility criteria.

Laugh – “does not unduly restrict access to financial aid for students who do not meet the race-based eligibility criteria.” They can’t get the aid, but, hey, they are not unduly restricted by that. The argument will then be that schools have unlimited financial resources, so there is no zero sum game, which is an outright lie.

Among the considerations that affect a determination of whether awarding race-targeted financial aid is narrowly tailored…

Again, "narrowly tailored"  is never defined.

…to the goal of diversity…

Why is that a goal?  What kinds of diversity?

…are (1) whether race-neutral means of achieving that goal have been or would be ineffective…

Of course they are ineffective, because some groups are less intelligent and less competent than are others.

….(2) whether a less extensive or intrusive use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid as a means of achieving that goal has been or would be ineffective; (3) whether the use of race or national origin is of limited extent and duration and is applied in a flexible manner; (4) whether the institution regularly reexamines its use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid to determine whether it is still necessary to achieve its goal; and (5) whether the effect of the use of race or national origin on students who are not beneficiaries of that use is sufficiently small and diffuse so as not to create an undue burden on their opportunity to receive financial aid.

If any of those criteria were fairly considered from the perspective of Whites having legitimate interests as do all other peoples, then such programs would not pass the Title VI test.

If the use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid is justified under this principle, the college may use funds from any source.

Sure!  Not for you, Whitey!

Principle 5: Private Gifts Restricted by Race or National Origin

Title VI does not prohibit an individual or an organization that is not a recipient of Federal financial assistance from directly giving scholarships or other forms of financial aid to students based on their race or national origin. Title VI simply does not apply.

The provisions of Principles 3 and 4 apply to the use of race-targeted privately donated funds by a college and may justify awarding these funds on the basis of race or national origin if the college is remedying its past discrimination…

Who decides whether there was past discrimination?  Answer – those getting the money and those eager to give out the money.

…pursuant to Principle 3 or attempting to achieve a diverse student body pursuant to Principle 4. In addition, a college may use privately donated funds that are not restricted by their donor on the basis of race or national origin to make awards to disadvantaged students as described in Principle 1.

The students who get aid, and who are also given preferences in admission, are “disadvantaged.”  Those being actively discriminated against are “advantaged” and "privileged."  Got it!

Finally, the burden on those who are excluded from the benefit conferred by the classification based on race or national origin (i.e., non-minority students) must be considered. 

Laughable. In reality, the only consideration made is that if Whites suffer, that is good.  White suffering is an essential feature of the system in play here.

Id., at 171. A use of race or national origin may impose such a severe burden on particular individuals - for example, eliminating scholarships currently received by non-minority students in order to start a scholarship program for minority students - that it is too intrusive to be considered narrowly tailored. See Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. at 283 (use of race in imposing layoffs involves severe disruption to lives of identifiable individuals). Generally, the less severe and more diffuse the impact on non-minority students, the more likely a classification based on race or national origin will address this factor satisfactorily. However, it is not necessary to show that no student's opportunity to receive financial aid has been in any way diminished by the use of the race-targeted aid. Rather, the use of race-targeted financial aid must not place an undue burden on students who are not eligible for that aid.

Who defines “undue burden?” That’s right – those in favor of handouts to Coloreds.

A number of commenters argued that race-targeted financial aid is a minimally intrusive method to attain a diverse student body, far more limited in its impact on non-minority students, for example, than race-targeted admissions policies. Under this view, and unlike the admissions plan at issue in Bakke, a race-targeted financial aid award could be a narrowly tailored means of achieving the compelling interest in diversity.

“Compelling interest.”  Laughable.  How come there is no similar “compelling interest” for intellectual and political diversity?” Why is the “compelling interest” only to have a demographically diverse group of students all of who have – or pretend to have – exactly the same sociopolitical views as each other?

The Department agrees that there are important differences between admissions and financial aid. The affirmative action admissions program struck down in Bakke had the effect of excluding applicants from the university on the basis of their race. The use of race-targeted financial aid, on the other hand, does not, in and of itself, dictate that a student would be foreclosed from attending a college solely on the basis of race. 

Sure! After all, if a poor White cannot afford college but is not eligible for race-based financial aid, that doesn’t preclude them from college!  Take out ruinous loans, Whitey!  Rob a bank!  That’s the ticket!  And if a wealthy Negro gets race-based financial aid, why that’s too bad on you, Whitey!  It’s “narrowly tailored” and all!

Moreover, in contrast to the number of admissions slots, the amount of financial aid available to students is not necessarily fixed. 

Sure! Schools have unlimited funds! Or perhaps they would, if they didn’t pay (anti-White) administrators bloated salaries that far surpass that given to the President of the United States.

For example, a college's receipt of privately donated monies restricted to an underrepresented group might increase the total pool of funds for student aid in a situation in which, absent the ability to impose such a limitation, the donor might not provide any aid at all.

Certainly!  If the money can’t be given to Coloreds, don’t give it at all!  Let Whitey pump gas for a living!  If a wealthy Negro can’t get financial aid, then no one can!

Even in the case of a college's own funds, a decision to bar the award of race-targeted financial aid will not necessarily translate into increased resources for students from non-targeted groups. Funds for financial aid restricted by race or national origin that are viewed as a recruitment device might be rechanneled into other methods of recruitment if restricted financial aid is barred. In other words, unlike admission to a class with a fixed number of places, the amount of financial aid may increase or decrease based on the functions it is perceived to promote.

Please read the above paragraph very carefully.  What it is saying is this: Even if you were to strike down as unconstitutional giving race-based financial aid, the schools - in their hate-filled animus toward Whites – would not rechannel that money into race-blind financial aid. They would simply invent new programs to skirt the law so as to enable Coloreds, rechanneling the money to Colored pockets, anything to avoid giving Whites a fair chance for a college degree. It’s the same with admissions. “Holistic review” is just a fundamentally dishonest way of enabling racial (and sex) quotas in admissions in an indirect fashion, to comply with the law in a strictly legal manner, but not in spirit. Anything to screw The White Man is acceptable!

In summary, a college can use its financial aid program to promote diversity by considering factors other than race or national origin, such as geographic origin, diverse experiences, or socioeconomic background. 

Right!  So if you come from a predominantly Black city, come from a high school that is 100% Black, are a member of your high school’s Black Student Union, etc., then, by golly, that’s race-blind admissions!  Holistic review!

In addition, a college may take race or national origin into account as one factor, with other factors, in awarding financial aid if necessary to promote diversity. Finally, a college may use race or national origin as a condition of eligibility in awarding financial aid if it is narrowly tailored to promote diversity.

Again: Who defines “narrowly tailored?”  Answer: The school administering the program.  As well as the leftist judges who rule in favor of viciously racist outright discrimination against Whites.

All of that may be disheartening, but let is take a “glass half full” approach. All those negatives mean that there is much to criticize, much to attack, much “low hanging fruit” for concerted legal, social, and, above all, political methods to be employed to leverage these anti-White policies against the System.  Vulnerabilities for the System abound, if only there was a crafty and strategic opponent willing to exploit those vulnerabilities. Consider Title Vi and academia – coupled to the whole affirmative action scam about admissions – all tailor-made to infuriate White students and their families. It is no coincidence that a major focus of “reverse racism” lawsuits have centered on the educational system.  In addition to what Title VI can do, Title VII can bring the focus of anti-White discrimination and hypocrisy to the broader arena, and Title IX can focus on anti-male discrimination and hypocrisy. The three “titles” together constitute a weak point for the System, a chink (sorry, Derbyshire) in the System’s armor.

Salter stated that – from the standpoint of a majority being displaced and replaced – the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does, thus ensuring the relatively painless race replacement of the majority.  However, as stated above, Democratic Multiculturalism is not stable for the System in the long run, as the whole idea of multiculturalism is empowering minorities and disempowering the majority. A concerted effort of the majority to demand fair treatment under multiculturalism, according to its own standards, would destabilize the entire multicultural system and heighten the contradictions. If the System tries to deny Whites relief under the multiculturalist ethos, the contradictions can be heightened to a point of complete System illegitimacy – and although the System can attempt to maintain the repression, there may be a breaking point at which they’ll have to give in.  If they attempt to relieve the pressure by giving in to some White demands, in the hope of appeasing White demands, then Suvorov’s Law comes into play, particularly if there are legitimate White leaders (and not System ringers – always a concern, something we must avoid) who will never be satisfied and will continue upping the demands. Once concessions are made, the floodgates will be opened, and the legitimacy of White interests confirmed. 

Getting back to the idea of the System trying to maintain repression – the reason why Suvorov’s Law has been actualized so many times in history is that repression is difficult to maintain at a high level for long periods of time, particularly when the repressed group is the majority – or at least a plurality – of the population. That’s why it is important to get started with Democratic Multiculturalism now, with Whites still a majority, and the “titles” are a good place to start.  And remember, I am not saying Title VI legal actions alone, but a concerted effort, including Title VII and IX, as well as all other aspects of anti-White discrimination in society, also using political, social, economic, and other forms of protest.  The struggle must be on a wide front, but it needs to start somewhere.