Sunday, March 26, 2017
Whites as Amerindians.
A comment often made – frequently observed for example on Yahoo comments threads - by leftists in response to complaints about White American dispossession is to raise the issue of Amerindians – “You guys invaded the lands of the Native Americans and pushed them out and now you are being invaded and pushed out, ha ha, too bad” is a typical example of this genre of comment.
We should be gratified when opponents make such arguments – for not only do they reveal their anti-White aggression, but, more importantly, they are admitting that the displacement of Whites in North America is akin to the displacement of the Amerindians, and we all know how “well” that worked out for the Amerindians. Indeed, the response to such comments should be to thank the commentator for supporting the argument that White Americans are indeed being subjected to genocidal race replacement, and to note that Whites are under no obligation to let themselves be displaced and replaced. Indeed, the Amerindians did resist as the frontier “Indian wars” demonstrate – the problem for the Amerindians is that they lacked the numbers, organization, intelligence, and technics to resist White expansion. Whites, on the other hand, could resist displacement if only they would demonstrate the same fighting spirit as the Amerindians. Finally, another point in response to anti-White comments about “Native Americans” is to ask whether the commentator opposes the replacement of Whites in their native homelands of Europe, a situation that very well matches the Amerindian scenario. If the “they were here first in their homeland” argument is so important to aggrieved leftists, then they should be among the strongest supporters of the European Far-Right.
Saturday, March 25, 2017
Ethnonationalism is Atomized Individualism at the Racial-Civilizational Level
Listening to this podcast (transcript here) I find that I agree with 95% of what Greg Johnson said. As per the other 5%, some points are as follows.
There’s a widespread misconception that White Nationalism means just the idea that if you’re white, you belong in the same state. And I think that that’s a ridiculous idea, a parody actually, of what most White Nationalists believe.
That’s a parody of the pan-European perspective, but very few people actually promote this view. It’s as much as a strawman argument as saying that ethnonationalists all want to restart WWII.
The great conflicts of the twentieth century were largely between different white nations. And, largely, those conflicts came about because these groups were not respecting the autonomy of other white groups
And who wasn’t respecting that autonomy? Extreme ethnonationalists, each looking out for their perception of what was best for their nation, at the expense of the race as a whole. That explanation is nothing new, Stoddard in The Rising Tide of Color said as much about WWI, as he was correct about that.
There’s also of course the Chinese question and South Asia, Africa, and so forth. These are distinct groups of people, distinct geopolitical blocs, and it would be nice if we can have white nations coordinating their plans regarding them in order to survive, rather than what we have today, which is our leadership basically conspiring to replace our population with non-whites from around the world.
There are some positive points in that paragraph. Yes, the Chinese and South Asians should indeed be grouped with Africans as distinct geopolitical blocs that pose a question for Whites – a question of our very survival. And, yes, coordination among Whites is good, but “coordination” per se does not go far enough when faced with this Clash of Civilizations.
How to balance coordination with sovereignty? If a sovereign Ireland decides they want to import one million Negroes for cheap labor, would they have that right? If England wanted to make an alliance with China against Germany, should we respect English sovereignty? If so, racial coordination is impossible and White nationalism is a joke. If not, then there are clear limits to sovereignty, and coordination leads to a certain amount of integration - an integration that still respects national boundaries and ethnocultural preservation.
…is that they’re trying to swindle the native European peoples of all the European lands and also European colonial peoples like Americans, Canadians, and others of having a future, of having homelands where they can be confident that they will control the government, control their destiny, and have a country that they feel is like home…
Yes, and the Silk Road Asian imperialists are chief among these swindlers.
Our individualism, our kind of “devil take the hindmost” attitude, and our unwillingness to confront the fact that this game is rigged against us—and that the long-term trends are quite dire, and that we simply will cease to exist as distinct nations and as a biological race in a couple hundred years if we don’t stop this—so we’re individualistic, we’re guilty, we try and make our own peace with the system, we’re afraid of joining together and actually trying to change it....
Isn’t ethnonationalism analogous to the type of atomized individualism that is decried by WNs? In other words, as atomized individualism is to ethnic and racial nationalism, so is (narrow) ethnonationalism to pan-Europeanism. Ethnonationalism is atomized individualism at the racial-civilizational level. At the national level, we observe selfish atomized individuals who ignore the collective good of the national ethny; at the racial-civilizational level we observe selfish atomized national ethnies and ethnonationalists who ignore the collective good of the overall Race-Culture.
One point brought up in the podcast is that Whites tend to project their own mentality to other peoples.
And underlying that, though, is the same grandiose notion that really we’re the only people who matter, for good or evil, in the world, and other people are somewhat negligible as agents, and that assumption is very deep and a sort of bedrock assumption in a lot of Leftists.
And really, I stopped the projection and decided I need to try and understand the world as these people see it, and I came at a certain point to realize that a lot of peoples, in fact the majority of peoples on Earth, do not have a sort of transparent and trusting relationship to other groups. In fact, they have suspicious, hostile, and manipulative relationships to other groups, and that what’s going on in white countries is we’re inviting in people on the assumption that they’re going to be just like us; that we’re going to be generous to them and open to them, and they’re going to be open and generous to us.
Quite right, but WNs don’t realize that they do the same thing. Many WNs believe in “universal nationalism” applicable to all peoples, and they assume that nationalists of other races believe the same, and would allow Europeans to exist in their own homogeneous ethnostates.
This is not the case. Jewish nationalists are often Jewish supremacists. Asian nationalists are often Asian imperialists, who believe they have a God-given right to colonize White lands. There are also people involved in the “movement” who grovel to Jewish supremacism and Asian imperialism; if “White racialists” are willing to do so, imagine how supine “normies” would be to aggressive Jews/Asians. These non-European peoples will always be a threat to our race, for as long as we and they both exist, and we’ll need an integrated defense against them for our survival, in addition to the known threats from the general “Global South.” This goes beyond mere “coordination.”
And in fact their attitude is that we are incredibly weak and naive, and they will dissimulate belief in our ideas when they want something from us, but when we want something from them, they’ll say, “Oh yes, yes,” but what they’ll end up doing is practice very ruthless ethnic nepotism.
That describes Asians in a nutshell - both the Silk Roaders and well as “cognitive elitists” who preach atomized individualism for Whites while practicing “very ruthless ethnic nepotism” for themselves.
Thursday, March 23, 2017
The Two Faces of Trump
The buffoon and the victim.
First, let’s take a look at what Spencer has to say about the floundering moron Touchback Trump (emphasis added):
The fact that Trump allowed himself to be tricked into supporting the current healthcare proposal reveals his own naiveté and reminds us, once again, that the Beltway advisors who have surrounded him are objectively bad at politics. Rather than focus on immigration—the issue that defined his candidacy—Trump got sucked into a whirlpool of regulations, arcane policies, climate-change debates, and taxes. This is a shocking waste of political capital, and it is not why his supporters put him in office.
Looking beyond the hysteria of the past two months, if Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush had won the presidency instead Trump, each wouldn’t have acted much differently in terms of policy, aside from the “Muslim bans,” which weren’t actually Muslim bans and have been tossed out anyway. Trump’s fights with the media are hilarious—and serve the strategic purpose of delegitimizing these old-line institutions and the Left as a whole—but they do little in terms of concrete change.More important, the substance of Trump’s healthcare plan is a fucking joke. What Trump partisans call “Ryancare” or “Obamacare 2.0”—but which everyone else calls “Trumpcare”—will increase costs on Trump’s core constituency of White working-class voters, as even Breitbart points out.
The “movement’s” Man on White Horse fetish is collapsing once again as it always does. I’ve been consistent on Trump. Thus:
1. I supported Trump and his candidacy because I saw Trumpism as opening the field to right-wing populism and therefore stretching the scope of American politics in ways amenable to racial nationalist ideas and also promoting racial chaos and balkanization. I also approved of Trump’s overall foreign policy worldview: pro-Russian and anti-Chinese.
2. I have always considered Trump as an ignorant vulgar buffoon, Negrophilic, Jew-connected, superficial, lacking in an understating of priorities, a juvenile jackass who believes that half-assed tweets can substitute for mature leadership and the pursuit of long-term objectives.
But the “movement” with its Pepe-Kek lulzing and “Trump is the last chance for White America” delusional “thinking” worship the buffoon.
Next, we’ll look at what Pat Buchanan has to say about the Deep State conspiracy against King Tweet:
The Obamaites seeded the U.S. and allied intel communities with IEDs to be detonated on Trump’s arrival. This is the scandal, not Trump telling Vlad to go find Hillary’s 30,000 missing emails.
We need to know who colluded with the Russians, if anyone did. But more critically, we need to unearth the Deep State conspiracy to sabotage a presidency.So far, the Russia-connection investigation has proven a dry hole. But an investigation into who in the FBI, CIA or NSA is unmasking U.S. citizens and criminally leaking information to a Trump-hating press to destroy a president they are sworn to serve could prove to be a gusher.As for the reports of Lynch-White House involvement in this unfolding plot to damage and destroy Trump the real question is: What did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it?
Herein is the problem: having tied themselves to Trump, the “movement” finds itself having to defend this clueless buffoon from an anti-White System that believes by attacking Trump they harm the Whites these globalists hate so much.
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Amplifying the importance of EGI.
How do the papers on social epistasis and social genetic effects affect our understanding of EGI?
This would greatly increase the importance of EGI. Not only do we need to be concerned with differences in gene frequencies and with genetic structure/integration (this latter concern a significant increase in genetic interest compared to the original formulation) between individuals and groups, but now we need to understand and, if possible, quantify the interests inherent in how these genetic difference interact epistatically in a social genetic fashion. Thus, not only do we have to compare and contrast distinctive genetic information between, say, groups A,B, and C but we need to understand how the genepools of A,B, and C actually dynamically interact with each other – as described in the social epistasis and social genetic effects papers – to affect the fitness (and hence genetic interests) of these groups. This represents an enormous increase in the importance and impact of genetic interests, and one can speculate that these interactive networks of genes would represent genetic interests that would increase exponentially, and not merely linearly, with increasing genetic distance, given that each unit of distance affects a wide array of overlapping epistatic interactions. Not only is the original formulation a tip of the iceberg compared to considerations of genetic structure/integration, but even this latter concern is a tip of the iceberg compared to the possible full ramifications of how genetically distinct populations can interact, influencing fitness and hence ultimate interests.
Thus, three levels of genetic interests:
1. The original version involving gene frequencies in isolation ("beanbag genetics").
2. Genetic integration/structure.
3. Social genetic effects including social epistasis.
Thus, three levels of genetic interests:
1. The original version involving gene frequencies in isolation ("beanbag genetics").
2. Genetic integration/structure.
3. Social genetic effects including social epistasis.
More analysis to come in future posts.
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Australia: Another Mainstreaming Fail?
It would appear that Le Pen in France is the last stand - for now - for the mainstreamers. So far, they have, at least in Western Europe, and now in Australia, an uninterrupted record of failure.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: politically speaking, the mainstreamers are "between a rock and a hard place" - instead of mainstreaming being a "sweet spot" of politics, it is a sour and bitter spot indeed.
On the one hand, by mainstreaming, moderating, and moving to the center, the Mainstream Far-Right (MFR) becomes too similar, too indistinguishable, from the Mainstream Right, hence not giving voters a real, clear-cut choice based on actual policy and rhetoric. On the other hand, the MFR is still smeared as being "extremist," scaring away voters. Those same voters, fooled by the Mainstream Right feinting right (which they always do at election time and the rubes keep on falling for it), decide that since the Mainstream Right will (apparently, but of course not in actuality) give them 90% of what the moderating MFR is saying and promising, then why not vote for mainstream conservatives instead of bothering with "extremists?"
If the MFR is going to be labeled as "racist, Fascist, extremist Nazis" whatever they do, they may as well project strength and principle, and clearly distinguish themselves from mainstream conservatives. The Far-Right in electoral politics should take positions which are reasonable and have appeal, but are so far to the "right" that mainstream conservatives will be unable to cop-opt those positions. The Far-Right should be leaders and not followers: instead of following the voters to the center, they need to lead the voters to the hardcore right. This leading will become ever easier as the racial and cultural situations in (previously) White nations continue to deteriorate.
The whole point of mainstreaming was to make the parties electable and achieve power, while shedding the "extremist" label. They have failed, and failed again. It's time to package hardcore Far-Right memes into articulately presented and attractive political platforms.
Monday, March 20, 2017
Spencer, Abortion, and Sallis
Thoughts on a video.
Some notes on this:
First, I believe Spencer has a bright future as a spokesman and representative of the Far-Right and, perhaps one day, can ride the tide of right-wing populism to elected office of some type. But, he is eventually going to need to cut ties with the failed stupidity of Alt Right, Inc. – both the Alt Right “movement” as well as the AltRight.com flotsam and jetsam. Perhaps as he gets older, and reflects back on recent events (including being “thrown under the bus” over “Hailgate” by Alt Right ad Alt Wrong figures), he’ll see the folly in his current path. A natural evolution of his position would be a pan-European materialist futurism, but articulated in a down-to-earth and Americanized fashion.
I agree with his points about abortion and contraception, some of which overlaps with material on Counter-Currents (by Le Brun I believe). Is abortion the killing of human beings (or at least of hominids)? Yes it is. But so what? So is capital punishment, so is warfare, so is policing. So? Huge numbers of high-quality Germans were killed in WWII Allied bombing raids, and I’m supposed to get all worked up over future gangbangers and carjackers being aborted? I think not.
I think Spencer is going to be disappointed by Lahren, but we’ll see.
While I agree with Spencer on abortion, I do not support Lahren’s feminist “it are the women’s bodies” argument. Yes, it is the woman’s womb, but the fetus is a shared resource, genetically half the father’s (and not even getting into extended family and ethnic interests). I’m talking here purely objectively – from a subjective racial standpoint, yes, let’s abort more Blacks and Hispanics and if feminist arguments get that job done, fine, but from a purely objective argument (and one which subjectively can help inform the broader issue of White men’s rights), there is a problem here.
If the father is going to be on the hook for child support if the infant is born, then he sure as hell has the right to participate, as an equal partner, in decisions of abortion (or contraception for that matter). The fetus is not the woman’s to decide what to do with as her estrogenic whims lead her. Now, some would say – “What if the father wants the child and the mother wants to abort. Will she be forced to carry it to term?”
To which I say – she should be given a choice. Either have the child and give it to the father, or have the abortion and pay reparations to the father, a regular payment equal to whatever the father’s child support would have been otherwise. If the father was to be on the hook for $X per month, then that’s what the woman would have to pay the man in the scenario described above. Cue the feminist shrieks of outrage.
Spencer is right about the “Deep Cuck” commitment to policing the conservative movement and enforcing conservative (cuckservative) dogma. What I would like to see next is Spencer – or someone else other than me – speak out against the racialist “movement” and its own fossilized dogma and its tendency to police itself (*).
* Don’t kid yourself that the ignoring/opposition to this blog is all about my “crazy, erratic behavior” or “excessive negativism” and that’s for two reasons. The lesser reason is that the “craziness” is/was not only obviously tongue-in-cheek but I’m on record of openly stating as such. The more fundamental reason – and this gets to the heart of the “negativism” – is that it puts the cart before the horse, it reverses cause and effect. It’s not that the “movement” is hostile to my message because my message has always been “negative,” but rather that the message has become increasingly negative because the “movement” – or at least important precincts thereof – have always been hostile to both the message and the messenger. I’ve been involved in this activity in one form or another for over 20 years. Those who remember the early 2000s can remember my work with Legion Europa, Amren, TOQ, etc. And then with later with MR (when it was more sane). Was that work – presented sans “craziness” and “negativism” - generally well received? No it was not. Did it have any lasting impact? No it did not. Was anyone really paying attention? No, not that I could see. Then, to say the current opposition is a reasonable response to my “grumpiness” is disingenuous.
Sunday, March 19, 2017
The Two-Tiered Threat To European Survival
Two fundamental threat levels.
Let’s take a look at the racial situation from a high point, in its broadest view, and outline, briefly, the dangers facing our people.
The major existential threats to European existence come at two levels – the more immediate and the long-term. These would be:
1. Immediate: The Jewish-White globalist-Third World alliance subjecting White lands to race replacement migration and the creation of anti-White social and political institutions (i.e., “multiculturalism”) in White lands to oversee this replacement and to stifle dissent. Combined with low White birthrates (which in isolation would be self-correcting over time and not a fundamental existential problem), this problem #1 constitutes the major immediate threat to European peoples worldwide ("the White race”).
2. Long-term: The Yellow Peril, more accurately, The Yellow and Brown Peril, the teeming hordes of Asia, historically enemies of the West, technologically proficient and reasonably intelligent, seething with anti-White hated and denial of the West. This constitutes the major long-term threat assuming Europeans survive Problem 1.
Now, Problems 1 and 2 are not completely separate, and it is foolish to think of them occurring in a strict order. Indeed, Asians pose a threat today for a number of reasons including the fact that Asian immigration and anti-White Asian activists living in White lands contribute to Problem #1. Further, even if Problem #1 is solved, we can assume the Global South – and maybe even the Jews – will still be around and can always reemerge as a threat, particularly if these are mobilized against Whites by Asians in a grand Alliance of Color.
That said, as a crude model, one can consider these are separate problems in the sense that we talk about what is the predominant and existential threat at any given time. Problem 1 is well-known, but what are the broad outlines of Problem 2?
A. The Clash of Civilizations between West and East, between Occident and Orient. Asia is part of the non-Western world that Yockey rightfully claimed exists as “a denial and rejection of the West” – their aim is subjugation of, and destruction of, the West and its peoples. There is an underlying racial hatred underlying this, most – but not all (see “Riki” below) – Asians hate White people. The pretensions of the Chinese toward preeminence and Middle Kingdom racial superiority were shattered by the facts of European accomplishment and the ability of Europeans to humble the arrogant Chinese; now, seething with hateful feelings of revenge, the Chinese harbor revanchist objectives and wish, out of racial envy, to bring down the hated White man. It’s the West against the Rest, and Asians are part of the Rest.
B. Competition for resources, prestige, land, the space race, etc. Political, military, economic, scientific, and exploratory competition.
C. As part of solving Problem 1, Whites will need to take action that will antagonize Asians, including and especially expulsion of Asians from White lands and, of course, preventing subsequent Asian immigration. As the hysterical historic reaction of Asians to America’s Asian exclusion acts show us, Asians believe they have an inherent right to colonize White nations.
Related to Points A and B is the excellent post at Counter-Currents by Riki, a Japanese teaching in China. I have discussed it here, and some relevant points from Riki are below, emphasis added:
It is also an incontestable fact that China has been working with international Jewry hand-in-glove for decades in order to further their joint objective of compromising, taking down, and eventually finishing off the white race and Western civilization. The Chinese and the Jews, both being races of shrewd and unscrupulous merchants, have long admired and felt affection for each other.
White people all over the world need to take a clearer and steel-minded approach to China and all its deceitful and flattering propaganda, most especially when they adopt a spuriously friendly, conciliatory, or sympathetic tone to our cause. It’s all subterfuge and intended to serve their own aims of eventually defeating and replacing the white race…While China may not hate whites on the same racial and religious grounds as Jewry does, its vast global ambitions, coupled by an equally supremacist ethnic egotism, derived as it is from a twisted need for vengeance based on the humiliations it has experienced in its past, drives an irresistible and collective national urge to defeat and conquer the West. All these grave and alarming facts behoove me to sound this warning bell to all those who care about the future of the white race, but who are currently in the fog concerning the China question.
That does not sound like the kind of folks Whites would want to form an alliance with. That does not sound like the kind of folks you want to have military colonies in White lands. And I must say that Riki’s experiences with Chinese in China matches my own experiences with Chinese in America. Even the pro-Asian race-mixer Derbyshire has written about China’s “Sino-Fascism” and even about his own wife’s extreme ethnocentrism (while living in the USA).
Further, in his book Hitler’s War, Irving notes that Hitler was disturbed by the fall of Singapore, and quashed a triumphant German Foreign Ministry announcement praising the victory of Germanys “ally” Japan against the besieged British forces. As Hitler noted, perhaps the Yellow Peril would one day be the biggest peril for the German people (and for Europe as a whole).
And let us not forget that besides the Asian-Jew alliance there is a more general South-South Tropical Alliance of Coloreds against Whites, with East Asian leadership.
Note the similarities of behavior between Asians and Jews. Jews adjust their identities as it suits them. When it is convenient to be “White” then they are “White.” On the other hand, when, more typically, it benefits them to be a whining minority distinct from the White majority, then Jews do that, and they always like to take positions of leadership among anti-White Colored groupings. Similarly, when it suits them, Asians present themselves as a First World “northern” people, akin to Whites and with pro-White attitudes. However, the default position, when more typically convenient, is for Asians to portray themselves as People of Color, opposing Whites and the West, in common cause with the World of Color, and indeed positioning themselves as leaders in the anti-White Colored Alliance.
Solutions? Dealing effectively with Problem 2 will of course require first solving Problem 1. A multiracial, multicultural West – itself full of White-hating Asians – is not going to be in any way capable of dealing with the Asian threat. However, while dealing with Problem 1, and focusing on Problem 1, we cannot lose sight on Problem 2, and not only because Asian immigration is part of Problem 1. Problem 2 always percolates in the background; Asians such as the Chinese (see Riki’s comments above) and the Indians make common cause with Israel and the Jews; and, more concerning, Asians – particularly Chinese “maidens” and Japanese female anime-pseudonyms – are trying to infiltrate into White nationalism and distort its directions to satisfy Asian interests – shades of the Jews! While dealing with Problem 1 we need to hold the line against Asians: to limit the growth of Asian numbers and influence within the West in general and within the “movement” in particular. If we don’t do this, we’ll “solve” Problem 1 and then find our societies compromised by Asians and Asian infiltration. We can of course make common cause with folks like Riki who seem more sincere, while opposing with full force the Silk Roaders and all their ilk. And as part of dealing with Problem 1 we need to have rapprochement with Russia (what direction will a post-Putin Russia go in?) and stand fast together against the teeming Yellow and Brown hordes of Asia, and the burgeoning Asia-Jew alliance.
Stay tuned for further analyses as well as the ongoing Silk Road News feature here at EGI Notes.