EGI Notes

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Pro-Mixing Propaganda

Cheerios Revisited

Several months ago, I wrote about a particularly abominable commercial – an advertisement for Cheerios featuring a mixed-race family (Black male, White female, hybrid offspring).  I described why the promotion of miscegenation is destructive, particularly to Whites, and I observed that the mixed-race child represents a backward step in the evolutionary path of humanity. I also asked readers to boycott General Mills – advice that I myself have been following (and I do hope others are following this advice also).

I noted that there was some “blowback” to the ad, in the form of “racist vitriol” from the “knuckle-dragging bigots,” and I wondered then, as I wonder now, why General Mills was, and is, apparently uninterested in alienating their customers, and, seemingly, are willing to take the risk of losing profits in order to score some sociopolitical points with the anti-White Left.

Well, General Mills is “doubling down” on their pro-miscegenation propaganda, and they are, basically, giving White America an extended middle finger on the most important commercial night of the year: Super Bowl Sunday.

The new ad is described thus:

Cheerios previewed their new Super Bowl 2014 ad on Wednesday, which features an interracial couple and their biracial daughter. The new ad features an African-American father explaining to his daughter–using Cheerios–that she’s getting a baby brother, as her pregnant white mother looks on.

At this point, I could engage in some extreme vitriol, but I will not.  But, I will say that I do believe that this ad, and the behavior of General Mills in this instance, is absolutely disgusting and despicable.  And, true, I will state that, in my personal opinion, all the individuals involved in the creation and promotion of this ad, including the White actress playing the mother, are subhuman monstrosities, bereft of character, lacking in human decency, with a gaping void of soul and spirit; in other words, grotesqueries who are of less value to humanity than the most pathogenic bacterium.

But, I’ll take a different tack. 

One interpretation of this whole issue is that what General Mills/Cheerios, the ad company, and the actors and actresses, are doing here is nothing more or less than the promotion of genocide.  That’s based on the rationales described at this website; I would point that the U.N. definition of genocide includes activities designed to decrease the numbers of the targeted group.  When you have a demographically threatened, declining group, such as people of European descent, then the promotion of miscegenation involving that group does indeed fall under the description of activities resulting in decreased numbers of the group. Just because the U.N., for political reasons, does not fairly apply their description of “genocide” (or, for that matter, their definition of “indigenous peoples”) to European-descended people, does not mean the definition should not apply.  The definition should apply to all people, and, to my reading (and, in my opinion, any fair and reasonable reading), what these commercials are doing is promoting genocide. 

Noted womanizing plagiarist M.L. King famously declared “I have a dream.”  Well, I have a dream as well.  Actually, I have a number of dreams – one of which is that a future White ethnostate will feature legally convened tribunals to call to account all those promoting White genocide, including those involved in the creation and promotion of these commercials.  The Nuremberg trials can serve as precedent; after all, the System declares that those trials represent the high point of majestic and objective jurisprudence.  I would think that trials designed to address what should be considered the greatest crime in human history -  the destruction of Whites worldwide - would be most appropriate, and welcomed by all right-thinking people.  Indeed, only those bigots, spewing their hatred towards Whites, could possibly object to a judicial balancing of the scales of history.  So, I look forward to the trials and for a proper balancing of the accounts.

That is my dream, and I hope it is yours as well.


Labels: ,

Saturday, January 25, 2014

Of Pragmatism and Principles

This post is specifically addressed to Greg Johnson and all the participants in the blog Counter Currents.  Rather than fill up the comments thread there with an enormous post, I will collect my thoughts here, and then link to this post over there.  They can then discuss/debate it, as they see fit, at that venue.

The topic of this post is the issue of Andrew Hamilton’s sly ad hominem insinuation that we all must, at his command, debate the “who is White?” question, or else be considered akin to Jewish censors, “aping” the behavior of inferiors. The suggestion is that free speech is an important characteristic of Whites; therefore, specific obsessions must be the focus of constant discussion, all in the name of free speech and its place in the White character.

I will address this in two ways.

First, we can ask: are we a debating society or are we political soldiers fighting a battle to achieve particular goals?  If we are a debating society, then, yes, free speech is paramount, and, we have an obligation to discuss and debate whatever issue is put before us.  Here, the discussion itself is the end, it is the objective.  

Very well.

But, if we are political soldiers, then any approach, including free speech/debate, needs to be judged with respect to achieving our aims.  At times, discussion and debate are useful.  At other times, it is not.  When fighting a war, does one constantly question the friend/enemy disjunction?  It would seem that this should be done before the hostilities commence.  When one is in the foxhole with what one believes are comrades-in-arms, one hopes that they are “shooting” with you, not at you.

In warfare, there definitely is a time for discussion and debate of the friend/enemy axis.  That time is before the war begins. Once it begins, and the objective is to fight for a particular objective, then the discussion/debate should be, at that point, how best to achieve that objective.  If you are constantly going to be questioning the parameters of inclusion of your own forces in the middle of the battle, the probability of victory is nil.  Of course, certainly, issues come up.  A Benedict Arnold may be discovered as a traitor.  Things happen.  But that’s somewhat different than the Continental Congress suddenly debating in 1777 whether or not New York or Massachusetts should or should not be included in the endeavor.  A bit late perhaps? A bit late after New Yorkers and New Englanders have already fought in the battle (see the discussion on honor/integrity, below)?

Of course, we have concern trolls who insist we need to discuss these issues, endlessly (and the discussions will be endless if the end result of the debate is not to their liking), because if we don’t, our opponents will. That is a ludicrous argument. Of course opponents will bring up issues designed to cause fissures in any dissident movement (think of the implications of that for a moment). The fact is – ANY group, ANY ideology, and ANY set of principles can ALWAYS be questioned by opponents at ANY time.  What does this mean?  It means that we should DEFEND the group and its principles – and if the definition of the group was carefully considered from the outset (a minimum requirement for any sound group and its leadership), then there is a definition based on principles that can and should be defended.  And you defend the group by actually defending it, not by publicly attacking it, and not by joining the opponents in a fervent effort to deconstruct the group you allegedly belong to.

If Counter Currents is a debating society, then everything and anything should be open to debate (not just those issues that obsess particular individuals).  We can debate whether or not the White race should be preserved, and whether or not Counter Currents should exist or not. Why not?  Question everything!  On the other hand, if Counter Currents is a community of individuals, based on certain criteria, aiming to achieve specific goals, then we can ask why members of that community are required to constantly defend their inclusion in that community when that inclusion is continuously questioned by other members of that same community?  Something is not quite right there.

Second, is the matter of principle.  I can imagine some people stating that principle trumps pragmatism, and that certain aspects of the White character are inviolate and cannot be compromised in the pursuit of victory.  Very well.  Are there White principles of importance other than free speech?  I believe there are, and will discuss two of these.

We can start with the principle of integrity/loyalty: honoring the social contract.  A group is formed following a set of criteria.  Individuals join the group based on those criteria (and here I mean those who join in good faith and not the traitors and trolls), and they then contribute to the group’s collective goods, helping to build up that community’s social capital.

At that point, it is dishonorable in the extreme for the group criteria to be changed mid-stream, to exclude members after the fact, after the expenditure of effort and the construction of the group social capital.  That is disloyalty to members of the group so targeted. If we value principle, and assert a primacy of principle over pragmatism, then the character flaw of disloyalty is unforgivable, and any leader or group that exhibits such a grave defect of character can never be trusted.  These are things essential to the White character: loyalty, honor, the bond of the social contract, integrity and trustworthiness, and the interconnected rights and obligations between a community and its members.  It is unWhite, unAryan, and aping the behavior of inferior groups, to cavalierly break the social contract once it is established. 

Then there is the principle of freedom of association.  While members of a community have the right to question the community’s direction, the community has rights as well.  Fundamental to community rights is the minimum of defining who or what the community is and what it represents, and that members of the community, also at minimum, respect the basic foundational basis for the community’s existence.  Those who cannot in good conscience agree to that definition of community should have the right to go elsewhere, to join another community or found one of their own. They should do so before complicating the issue of their contributions to the group social capital.  It’s essential therefore for the group to explicitly define itself from the outset (a recurring theme of this post), and for group members to understand this definition, before joining the group and investing in it.  If one has a change of heart afterwards, then that person can voluntarily relinquish their connection to the group, forfeit their social capital, and start elsewhere.  That should be their free choice; as discussed above it is dishonorable (and destructive to pragmatic group cohesion) for the community to redefine itself mid-stream.  However, it is reasonable for individuals or subgroups in the community to decide to invoke freedom of association if they so choose. 

Freedom of association cuts both ways – the fact that someone is dissatisfied with a group they freely chose to join does not give them the right to break the social contract the group has with its other members.  The onus is on the dissatisfied individual to make their free choice.  This is what Jim Bowery terms “sortocracy,” and while I have disagreed with Bowery on a number of things over the years, I do agree with him on the importance of freedom of association, on the importance of groups being able to define themselves as they see fit, and for those who disagree to vote with their feet and move elsewhere.  I myself have done so.  When it has become clear that I was not welcome at certain blogs, websites, or print journals, I left and took my business elsewhere.  However, I do note that in each case, it was an example of the community dishonorably altering its definition mid-stream, and therefore, I was not obligated to move; i.e., it was not fully “free choice.”  Nevertheless, I did so, and allowed the communities to (dishonorably) follow their new direction.  Therefore, those who, in contrast, decide for themselves that a consistently run community is not to their taste have a more pressing obligation to invoke freedom of association – in their case, a pure free choice decision.

These are all issues relevant to the case at hand.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, January 11, 2014

Racial Nationalists Beware - Silver/Verlis

Racial nationalists need to be aware that the anti-racist, anti-nationalist, and anti-preservationist troll/infiltrator "Silver" is attempting to spread his Sunstein-style "cognitive infiltration" to various nationalist blogs, sometimes using (pathetically transparent) alternative pseudonyms - an example being "Verlis" at Counter Currents.

As a public service, information on "Silver" dating back to 2009-2010, and which is still very relevant today is stored at the mothballed "Western Biopolitics" site and can be reactivated when necessary.  But, don't worry - an excellent summary of Silver's agenda is here, linked to from the EGI Notes blog, and that is permanent.

Update:


Recent quote from Silver on the blog Majority Rights, from this comments thread:



Too true.  What a damnable fool GW turned out to be.  Even as early as 2005 and 2006 some were wondering whether he didn’t have a screw loose, but a great deal of quality material was being turned out in those days so the danger didn’t seem so obvious.  The arrival of DanielS on the front page unquestionably signaled the end; I hope there’s a special circle of hell reserved for that lunatic.

That's interesting on many levels.  First, it's pure chutzpah.  More than any other commentator at Majority Rights, the trolling fraud Silver is himself heavily responsible for the decline of that blog. I don't know much about this "Daniel S" one way or another, but if there is any lunatic with a special circle of hell reserved for them, it's Silver.  Indeed, it was Silver's arrival as a commentator at Majority Rights, and Guessedworker's damnably foolish decision to tolerate Silver's Sunstein tactics, that really signaled the end. Which leads us to the second point: ingratitude.  Guessedworker wrecked his blog in order to welcome and accommodate Silver; Guessedworker chose Silver over other commentators and actual regular bloggers; Guessedworker, for some bizarre reason that escapes the rest of us, made Silver into that blog's cherished pet.  So, once the inevitable happens and the blog descends into terminal decline, Silver turns on his benefactor.


The only thing in the comment I agree with is that Majority Rights is indeed in terminal decline and that it had reached its peak in the 2005-2006 period (or perhaps, stretching it, 2005-2007). But, as stated, Silver, and Guessedworker's tolerance of Silver, greatly contributed to the decline.  And, now, Guessedworker is, in Silver's words, a "damnable old fool" for letting Silver destroy Majority Rights.  And when another commentator calls out Silver for his dishonorable behavior, Silver claims that he doesn't "owe" Guessedworker anything, since he (Silver) merely contributed to the blog's discussion.


An example of Silver's contributions:


Who cares what that shiteating asshole thinks? Are you that goddam thick, Dave Johns, that you can’t understand what a pure, unadulterated asshole that vermin is? Are you that damn thick that you can’t realize the only reason he can’t fairly characterize my position is that I mock his absurd attempts to whiten himself with his“tests”? That the whole reason he’s such a grouch is that he feels vulnerable about his whiteness and feels compelled to savage and ridicule anyone and everyone even a smidgeon less white than what his exacting standards require, even though doing so is not remotely required for advancing a pro-white agenda (*), and is, in fact, counterproductive? Are you that damn thick? Sadly, I think the answer is yes, you are that damn thick. Try this, Davey boy: think for yourself. If you can pinpoint anything I say (now, not one year ago—which is the only thing shiteater has to go on) which you think compromises white interests, let’s have you bring it up. Otherwise, pay attention to what I actually say; not to what self-interested shiteaters claim I say.
I don’t discuss that here because nutzi dumbfucks like Braun and Rienzi are the greater problem. I don’t care what label these assholes give themselves. They are the purest of human shit imaginable, to me. 

Which is why folks strongly advised Guessedworker, repeatedly, to rid his blog of this anti-racist troll.  And when he didn't, folks left - not because of Silver himself (who is an obvious fraud for anyone with a triple-digit IQ), but because of frustration at Guessedworker's foolishness for tolerating Silver (and the rest of the peanut gallery).

So, to summarize: Silver comes to Majority Rights with the intention to disrupt (admitted in his first comment posted there).  He ingratiates himself with the naive Guessedworker, in order to be given free reign to cause maximal damage.  And then, once the blog is a wreck - and, contra Daniel S, it is a wreck - here along comes Silver, to give his one-time benefactor Guessedworker the twist of the knife.  No worries - Silver (or Verlis) has already been attempting to metastasize on other blogs, where the same scenario will be repeated.

Of course, there were times Guessedworker was sorely tempted to ban Silver - see the following quote.  And I believe that at one time he may have actually tried it, or at least more seriously threatened it. But, alas, despite provocations that even the overly tolerant Guessedworker couldn't fully accept, the ban was never enforced and Silver was allowed to come back, again and again, like a recurrent tumor:


silver, 
You do yourself nor your arguments no honour by that kind of display of bile. I really wonder, sometimes, what is going on in Nordicist’s heads. Very disappointing. 
An apology to Fred wouldn’t go amiss, if you are at all troubled by your own excess. And one to the readership too, for making them plough through such dross. 
I won’t ban you unless you abuse our hospitality like that again. But you can be sure what will happen if you do. 
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, July 7, 2008 at 08:37 PM #


Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, January 10, 2014

Tarnished Silver

The following is a summary (written in 2009) of Silver's early "career" as a disruptive influence at Majority Rights.  Since that time, he has gone through many more anti-White incarnations; nevertheless, the following gives a good idea of what Silver really is about:

The following should be of interest only to readers of the blog “Majority Rights," who are familiar with the events and personalities there. Other readers can bypass this post.

I would like to say a few words about the controversial "Majority Rights" commentator “silver,” who has been causing dissension and critiquing me and others. In general, I believe he is best ignored. But given his recent spewing of nonsense, including stating that certain European groups - including his own alleged ethnicity - are not "white," and his renewed mocking of yours truly, I'll just dust off an old essay I wrote about this despicable piece of filth and run it as follows.

Both silver and his critics assert that his history can be summed up as “he came onto the 'Majority Rights' blog as an ‘anti-racist,’ hostile to the blog, but then changed his commentaries to be more sympathetic to the agenda there.” That’s quite an over-simplification; in actuality, one can discern at least four distinct incarnations of silver:

1. Silver, Mk 1. In his initial set of comments, silver stated that he was a South Asian living in England (a Pakistani living in London, I believe) and was extremely hostile to "Majority Rights," the agenda of that blog, and most of the bloggers and commentators there. He exulted in white racial decline, crowed about his plans to miscegenate with white women, and, in general, was as hostile to racial preservationism as any person could be. In what was perhaps his most honest statement in all of his time commenting on "Majority Rights," he stated that he had discovered a "weakness" in “white nationalist” thought, which he would proceed to exploit to undermine the mission of "Majority Rights."

2. Silver, Mk 2. Having been met with derision, silver then reappeared in his new guise as a “Serbian living in Australia.” Now less hostile to "Majority Rights" and racial nationalism, silver proceeded to explain his “dilemma.” As a “Serbian” living in Australia, he is caught between two opposing impulses, you see. On the one hand, he acknowledges the threat that exists to the West and its peoples. On the other hand, he asserted that his greatest fear was that rising white racial consciousness would lead to an enhanced Anglocentric and Nordicist feeling among Australia’s Anglo-derived majority, and that this would negatively influence his own standing as a citizen of that nation – he, being of course, a “Serbian,” with a distinctly “balkanoid” appearance. He stated that living in Australia was very good to him, he had a number of Anglo-Nordic friends and associates and no real problems; however, he feared that these friends may turn against him in a “Nordic backlash.” He also stated that Southern European “white nationalists” were being exploited by Nordics as “useful idiots,” and that the purpose of his commenting on "Majority Rights" was to warn these “S. Euros” of the dangers inherent in their position. Silver MK 2 was also very hostile to the Anglocentric commentator Desmond Jones (who I at least can respect for being honest in his opinions and agenda, unlike the mendacious silver), and in general, this version of silver was anti-Nordicist and a self-declared defender of “S. Euro” interests. This version of silver also demonstrated a fairly thorough knowledge of "white nationalist" writings and controversies.

3. Silver, Mk 3. The Mk 2 version not having achieved any of its goals, and being increasingly ignored by the "Majority Rights" commentariat, silver then launched the “Mk 3” version of his persona. Now, instead of the Nordicist backlash being something to be feared in the future, he stated that he has been harassed presently by “Australian racialist nationalists.” He stated that he had tried to assimilate into Australian society, but had failed because of his distinctive “phenotype,” often commented on by said “racialist nationalists” (what happened to all of his Nordic friends?). This version of silver, trying to ingratiate himself with the "Majority Rights" rank and file, started to increasingly support basic "Majority Rights" viewpoints, even debating with some “antis” (i.e., those similar to silver Mk 1) who appeared on the threads. He toned down his anti-Desmond Jones attitude and acknowledged that the Nordicists had some points in their favor, but he hoped that they would be “reasonable.” He also accused Jared Taylor of being a hypocritical “closet Nordicist” – which prompted a comment by Taylor in response (a denial). Of interest, this version of silver could be induced, virtually at will, to suddenly reappear at "Majority Rights" with commentary, simply by another party making harsh critiques of the blog “Gene Expression” (which silver claimed never to have had heard of – this despite his admission of having studied "Majority Rights" for some time, which means that the “Gene Expression” “question,” oft discussed at "Majority Rights," should have come to his attention).

4. Silver, Mk 4. This version of silver, almost a mirror image of Mk2, is now a supporter of Nordicism. From being a “defender of the S. Euros” against “Nordicist perfidy,” silver now mocks the “S. Euro” Rienzi while praising Richard McCulloch. Desmond Jones is no longer really attacked (after all, silver Mk4 is now a more of a Nordicist than is Jones); instead Rienzi and Fred Scrooby are the subject of silver’s critiques (silver admits to “hounding” Scrooby). Apparently, the hostility to Scrooby is due to Fred’s justifiable skepticism about silver and his motives. Silver Mk 4 now promotes everything that silver Mk 2 asserted he was fearful of, and wanted to “protect S. Euros” from. Having a person of stated English descent merely say “thank you” to silver gives Mk 4 an opportunity to describe how gullible Nordics are in sacrificing their interests to people like him (note: compare to Mk 3 and that version's complaints of ethnic harassment by racially aware, non-gullible, Anglo-Australians). Of course, unless prompted by the commentariat, the intensely “Serbian” silver has no opinion about the Kosovo crisis; when forced to comment due to direct “calling out,” he says “there isn’t anything to be done.” Obviously, given that the Kosovo crisis doesn’t give silver Mk4 a clear opportunity to promote “The Racial Compact,” it isn’t really all that important to him.

Now, who knows, perhaps we will next see the development of silver Mk 5. The mind boggles. Will silver now claim to have been privy to a vicious “Medicist” plot – perhaps spearheaded by unassimilable "balkanoid" Australo-Serbs – to exterminate the “Nords?”

It is clear that I believe that silver has been acting in bad faith at "Majority Rights." My impression is of someone inherently hostile to the nationalist agenda at the blog and who has been fishing around for some sort of formula to disrupt the blog and alienate key participants, usually by attempting to inflame the “Nord/Med” divide (which I presume is the “weakness” silver Mk 1 was referring to). Having tried, and failed, to do so as an “anti-Nordicist Med,” his latest shtick is to be a “pro-Nordicist honest Med,” who must “speak the truth” in defense of the “good hearted gullible Anglo-Australians” who, without his “help,” would not know what their interests are.

Until he has the honesty to discuss his real views and real agenda, he is not worth any further comment or effort. I’ve made my reasons for skepticism clear, and I hope that others at "Majority Rights" will understand that “feeding the troll” in this case will only make him hungry for more.

Labels: ,