Sunday, March 30, 2014

Ukraine and a Possible European Spring

Analysis.


Sure, the EU and USA are enemies of racial nationalism.  But despite any lukewarm alliances of convenience, all evidence is that Putin is as well.  Forget about Ukraine and the hysterical rantings about "Nazis" and "anti-Semites."  How about Russia itself? Nationalists are persecuted in Russia not much less then they are in the EU.

Diversity vs. Community

New paper.


That's more evidence for the negative aspects of diversity but, really, even if it boosted community feeling, it would still be maladaptive due to effects on EGI.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

The NeoCon Attack Against Ukrainian Nationalists Has Begun


So, the same Slav nationalists who braved the bullets to install the current Ukrainian regime are now being killed by that regime, which claims that the ones who put them in power are actually an irrelevant, negligible bunch of hooligans.

Boy, couldn't see that one coming!  And those schoolgirl Putinistas should realize that Trad Vlad's use of the "neo-Nazi" argument has helped hasten these attacks on the Ukrainian Right, attacks commencing before that Right has a chance to solidify its position in that country.

Once again, we see the perils of atomized ethnonationalism.  First, the Ukrainian nationalists were ill informed, without the knowledge and resources that would have been present as part of an integrated and cohesive pan-European nationalist movement. Hence, they stupidly joined with Necon EUites and viewed only Russia as the enemy.  Second, they can be picked off one-by-one - if they were part of an integrated movement, there would be more support, coordinated throughout the continent.

Those Svoboda guys had better watch their "allies" in the government real carefully.

Saturday, March 22, 2014

The Tribe's Hypocrisy

Good for thee but not for me.



It is no news to regular readers of TOO that Jews have been staunch and pivotal supporters of massive non-White immigration into America and other Western countries. The general Jewish attitude to the demographic crisis facing White America is captured in neoconservative Ben Wattenberg assertion that, “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” This attitude typifies the entire Jewish political spectrum, from the far Left to the neoconservative Right, and is grounded in a simple logic: the take home lesson of  the Third Reich and the “Holocaust” is that all White people are incipient Nazis, and mass non-White immigration consequently makes formerly homogenously White nations safer for Jews. Jewish activists pose as moral paragons and humanitarians when their logic is nothing more than self-interested ethno-politicking: demographically swamp White nations so that the political power of Whites declines, making the rise of an anti-Jewish movement among Whites less likely. The result of these Jewish anxieties and hatreds is to promote the swamping the West with tens of millions of non-White immigrants, making Whites a powerless minority in the countries they founded and built. 

Noting the outrageous hypocrisy involved in simultaneously condemning White racial consciousness and concern while defending the Jewish ethno-nationalist state of Israel and Jewish anxieties about rates of intermarriage, Kevin MacDonald observes in The Culture of Critique that: 

“Ironically, many intellectuals who absolutely reject evolutionary thinking and any imputation that genetic self-interest might be important in human affairs also favor policies that are rather self-interestedly ethnocentric, and they often condemn the self-interested ethnocentric behavior of other groups, particularly any indication that the European-derived majority… is developing a cohesive group strategy and high levels of ethnocentrism in reaction to the groups strategies of others. … A Jew maintaining this argument should, to retain intellectual consistency, agree that the traditional Jewish concern with endogamy and consanguinity has been irrational. Moreover, such a person would also believe that Jews ought not attempt to retain political power in Israel because there is no rational reason to suppose that any particular group should have power anywhere. Nor should Jews attempt to influence the political process … in such a manner as to disadvantage another group or benefit their own. And to be logically consistent, one should also apply this argument to all those who promote immigration of their own ethnic groups, the mirror image of group-based opposition to such immigration.” 

In truth, Lieberman’s support for the segregated education of all young Jews is really just a re-statement and extension of the longstanding position of Jewish leaders throughout the West. For decades Jewish activism has centered on three main objectives: to ensure the ongoing existence of Israel as an ethnically homogeneous Jewish state; to ensure the safety of diaspora Jewry by reforming Western immigration policies to promote racial and ethnic diversity (high levels of white racial homogeneity being regarded as potentially dangerous to Jews); and finally, to ensure the continuation of Jewish ethnic separatism and endogamy (and counter assimilation) in the West through establishing separate Jewish organizations — especially  Jewish day-schools. 


The subtext of this piece is that it underscores the fundamental and close ties between Israel and Diaspora Jews.  That’s well known to anyone paying attention, but it is important to always emphasize this, since mendacious members of the tribe, like the late Larry Auster, would pretend that such a connection did not exist  - that it was “irrational” for White rightists to “unfairly punish Israel” because of the admitted racial liberalism (for us, not them) of Diaspora Jews in America (and elsewhere).  No, Larry, no.  There are not two separate and distinct entities there, but one entity that has a common core of interests.  It is one tribe, and must be considered as one.  If Diaspora Jews were to suddenly embrace and support White racial preservationism, then I’d be very happy to return the favor and support an ethnonationalist Israel. On the other hand, given the continued hostility of the Diaspora group toward White interests, why should any White support Israel?  There has to be “give and take” here.  I realize that the HBDers consider the tribe to be superior demigods, perhaps even superior to the big-brained Chinese supermen, but, still, high-IQ does not excuse rampant and obvious hypocrisy.

Saturday, March 15, 2014

REAL Russians Speak Out

Slavs speaking out for Slavs.


I'm no expert on RONS, or on the details of Russian ethnonationalism, but at first glance, these guys seem a lot better than Trad Vlad.

But, do these fellows get any consideration from the American "movement?"  No, they do not.  You see, they are merely genuine Russian patriots, they are not "macho men," riding horses shirtless on the plains of Tuvanic Siberia (Ah! The New Motherland!), thus appealing to the prurient interests of the shrieking schoolgirl weaklings and their "White Knight" fantasies.

RONS: Da; Putin: Nyet.

A Case of Unrequited Love

Defending "Russian-speakers" whoever and wherever they may be.



Putin, who already led Russia to sign a visa waiver program with Israel in 2008, said during his visit to Israel that he “would not let a million Russians live under threat,” referring sympathetically to the regional dangers facing Israel and its Russian-speaking immigrant population.

Let us consider together.  Putin’s Russia not only jails ethnonationalists and racial nationalists in Russia, but is now conducting “criminal probes” of such nationalists in other countries.  Yes, indeed, any leader or group threatening the interests of “Russian-speakers” is viewed as negative by Trad Vlad.  Very well.  Note that this includes Russian-speaking Jews.

Members of the American “movement” may be aware (or maybe not, if it’s not explicitly stated in any of the “movement’s” approved texts: Ostara-like science fiction masquerading as “racial history” and “racial science”) that there are lots of Russian-speaking Jews ("Russians" to Putin?) in the USA.  Will Putin defend them against the threats of “Nazis, neo-Nazis, and anti-Semites” in the USA?  Will masked Russian Special Forces land in Brooklyn to protect the “Russian-speaking population” there?  Will there be a Russian “criminal probe” of Duke?  KMacD?  Some of the schoolgirl Putinistas in the American “movement” themselves?

A case of unrequited love.  Have the schoolgirls gotten over their crush yet?

Friday, March 14, 2014

Yet More on the Ukrainian Tragedy

More on the mess.


Once again, I stress on the gross error in promoting atomized narrow ethnic nationalisms - eschewing participation in a more broad pan-European alliance.

The Ukrainian "ultra-nationalists" seem to be making many errors, using bad judgement (hey, are they part pf the American "movement?"), and also making the essential mistake of defining themselves by hostility toward another European ethny (Russians). They also are focusing on maximizing territorial integrity, rather than maximizing ethnonationlism - narrow ethnonationalists who aren't even pursuing an optimized ethnonationalist strategy.

These are all problems that could be for the most part avoided if these folks were part of a reasonably well integrated pan-European movement based on the principles of universal nationalism.

On the other hand, I have a somewhat different viewpoint than this article, when it comes to Russia/Putin. Putin may be defending the interests of Russia as an abstract national entity, but he certainly isn't defending the ethnic interests of Russians as a coherent people.  And although the Neocons have a historical grudge against Russia, that hasn't stopped Trad Vlad from becoming increasingly pro-Jewish.

The failed "movement" with its too-narrow particularlisms loses again - both the Ukrainian and the Russian nationalists are being defeated by the forces of globalist multiculturalism, while they define each other as the primary enemy.

As Yockey pointed out, if you misidentify who your enemy really is, and fight someone not really your enemy, you will ultimately lose long-term, regardless of what short-term "victory" you apparently achieve over that "enemy."

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Even Sailer Sees It

The multiculturalist empire.


What does it say about the "movement" than, unlike "WN activists," even an anti-White HBDer like Sailer can recognize that the increasingly pro-Jewish Putin is aiming at a multiculturalist empire (Eurasian Union) and is in no way a supporter of any form of ethnonationalism whatsoever?

Sailer of all people!  The American "movement" is a pathetic joke; the fact that it has tolerated pitiful estrogenic Putin worshippers with their schoolgirl crushes on "macho man" Trad Vlad is all the proof you need that bad judgment, irrationality, and an inability to deal with facts are all innate characteristics of this "movement."

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

A Thought Provoking Question

Perhaps one day we'll know the answer.


Question:

With its multimillion-dollar budget and cozy relationship with corrupt law enforcement officials — and with intelligence agencies and their unfathomably deep pockets — how many undiscovered agents does the ADL employ, and what might their functions be?

Possible answer to the last part of the question: posing as racial nationalist bloggers and commentators, to promote intra-White division, derail progress, and alienate sincere and thoughtful contributors.


Tuesday, March 11, 2014

The Ukrainian Tragedy Continues to Unfold

Heads they win; tails we lose.

So far, the Ukrainian situation seems to be as follows.  On one side, we have Ukrainian patriots - the "ultra-nationalists" - manipulated by the Necons, the USA, the EU, and other negative forces.  Thus, Slavs braved bullets, and sacrificed themselves, to put in power non-Ukrainian elements with an agenda that may well include the racial dispossession of the native Ukrainian peoples.

On the other side, we have the multiracialist Putin, accusing the "Ukrainian coup" of being the work of dastardly "Nazis, neo-Nazis, and anti-Semites," Putin and his hybridized Siberian Defense Minister, and his dreams of the "Eurasian Union" - a multiracial counterpart to the EU, in which Slavs would be race replaced by Asiatics.

Heads they win; tails we lose.  It's always the same. The "tribe" always seems to get its way.  And, the naive "movement" - in this case in the Ukraine - is caught in the middle, working against its own interests.

We can hope that groups like Svoboda end up triumphant. However, one wonders.  So far, it seems like the Ukrainians are being squeezed between two mirror-image opponents: the "West," which accuses the multiracialist Putin as "being like Hitler;" and the Putin/Russia faction, which accuses the "Nazis" as being responsible for the anti-Russian political actions of the multiracialist Neocons pulling the strings - blaming the Ukrainian Right for a coup initiated by groups with the same racially liberal mindset as Putin himself.

It's multiracialists of one flavor vs. multiracialists of a slightly different flavor, and since each side cannot truly expose the agenda of the opponent - because the opponent's racial agenda is similar to their own (the only difference: who's in charge) - they pin the blame on "haters" and "racists" and "Nazis" and "people acting like Hitler."

Why is the "far right" so easily manipulated?  Must it be inevitable that the tribe always wins and Europeans always lose?

Saturday, March 8, 2014

The Hitler Question and the Cult of Saint Adolf

The Hitler question answered.

These days the only websites/blogs I check regularly are The Occidental Observer (KMacD and others there always have something interesting to say), and VDARE (solely to find Steve Sailer posts to mock over at my anti-HBD blog).  However, given the crisis in Ukraine, I decided to checkout Counter Currents.  I did see (and previously commented on) Greg Johnson’s criticism of Putin, of which I approve.  But I also saw the following, which deserves commentary on the Hitler Question.

Dan:

…Your comment on Germany’s intentions in World War II for the Ukraine should make every pan-European reconsider any undue love for the Third Reich. I recall seeing a picture of a sign held by National Socialists at rally, reading “Der Russe muss sterben, damit wir leben.” “The Russian must die, that we might live.” This flies in the face of pan-Europeanism and white unity, and makes me wish fellow white nationalists would look to better models than such a divisive role model like Adolf Hitler.

Greg Johnson:

Hitler was right on almost everything, and if Ukrainians of all people can see past his errors and give him serious thought, what’s your excuse? What’s anybody’s excuse?

Dan:

My excuse is that I value the nations of Europe, and don’t support subtracting from them due to petty nationalisms. You’ve observed yourself, within the comments of this very article, that some of us hate Jews more than they love their race. The same situation can happen within the Ukraine. The most anti-Jewish leader in modern history is inspiring them to forget that the same man would have erased the Ukrainian nation from the Earth. What did the Ukraine do to deserve this from Germany?...

…I am not saying we cannot give Hitler “serious thought,” but given his wishes to do away with whole European nations, Hitler does not deserve the reputation he holds among some white nationalists. Part of that serious thought is recognizing vital flaws in his designs for a post-war Europe.

In this exchange (excerpts of the original reproduced above), I side 100% with Dan. The American “movement” is fossilized by rigid dogmas: certain European ethnies/subraces are “good” and “pure” and “white,” while others are cringing admixed swart subhumans; all great civilizations and accomplishments came from those “good” groups, etc. – and of course, the slavish worship of Saint Adolf is one of the most rigid dogmas of all.

Before the Hitler admirers have apoplexy over my blasphemy, let me say a few things in favor of the “man against time” (or whatever it was that crazed old hag said about Uncle Adolf).  If forced to decide on a “good guy” vs. “bad guy” Manichean label for Hitler, I would choose “good guy.”  The basic principles of national socialism are excellent (I myself am a national socialist, but not a Hitlerian) and Hitler’s domestic policies were sound.  Of course, there are problems: much of Mein Kampf reads like the unbalanced ramblings straight from Ostara magazine (or from typical modern “movement” texts), and the “Fuhrer principle” put too much despotic power in the hands of one man (in On Genetic Interests, Salter rightfully critiques the defective political institutions of historically fascist regimes).  But, that said, with respect to Germany itself, Hitler does deserve the high reputation he enjoys in the “movement.”

The basic problem occurs when we extend our analysis to the broader continental and global racial and civilizational spheres. While there was a dim undercurrent of a broader “White nationalism” in Hitler’s thought, he was, at essence, a German Imperialist, and a pan-Germanic Nordicist.  For people who like that sort of thing (e.g., most of the American “movement”) that’s all well and good.  But for pan-European activists such as myself (and, apparently, this “Dan” fellow as well), Hitler’s narrower racial focus was and remains a serious problem.  It’s not a peripheral issue, but it is central to Hitler’s views on race, and central to his actions in the sphere of foreign policy.

Hitler’s foreign policy was as bad as his domestic policy was good.  Yes, I know, the apologists will say, “but he had no choice.”  That is not true.  Reading Hitler’s War, by David Irving (who cannot be viewed as harboring any anti-Hitler bias), one can easily see that Adolf had several opportunities to change course – WWII was not inevitable had he given up his fixation on territorial expansion within Europe and had, for example, agreed to the British offer of overseas colonies and integration into the Western European colonial arrangement. 

Then there is the “Icebreaker” argument: that Hitler’s invasion of the USSR forestalled Stalin’s offensive against Europe, and saved all of Europe from being submerged into the Bolshevik morass. To the extent this is true, it was serendipity: after all, Hitler had been planning a German colonization of the East from the start of his political career, two decades before Stalin began massing troops on the USSR’s western frontiers.  Hitler’s idea to dispossess the Slavs and turn them into a helot race was a fundamental part of his grand racial-geopolitical vision – it wasn’t merely a reaction to Soviet troop buildups or derived from an altruistic desire to “save Europe.”  One can point out as well that by dividing Poland with Stalin, Hitler brought the USSR closer to Western Europe, and, of course, starting WWII over the Polish Corridor wasn’t exactly part of any “grand plan” to forestall a Soviet invasion.

More fundamentally: were there any other ways to deal with the Soviet threat to Europe?  Everyone knows that Yockey dedicated his book Imperium to Hitler, the “Hero” of the Second World War. I disagree with Yockey – there were no heroes in that war, only greater or lesser villains.  But Yockey had something else to say in Imperium about another leader of that era, one considered by most in the “movement” to have been nothing more than a blustering buffoon:

The end of capitalism and nationalism was symbolized by the creation and the genius of Benito Mussolini, who proclaimed in the teeth of the apparent world-victory of 19th century ideas, the organization-will and Inner Imperative of the 20th century, the Resurgence of Authority, and Ethical Socialism. Precisely when the materialistic ideologists were playing logical exercises with international politics, and creating a stupid and useless “league of nations,” this herald of the Future defied the still born nonsense of Geneva, and re-embodied the will-to-power and heroism of Western man. Over the paeans of democracy,” Mussolini spoke of the corpse of democracy.

The Duce was aware that the lazy, hedonistic “Med” Italians were too inept and degenerate to impose their will on Europe by force, unlike the more dynamic and disciplined “Alpine-Nord” Germans. Thus, Benito chose a more political route, which most likely was the correct approach.  He maintained diplomatic relations on good terms with the Western democracies - until the Ethiopia war - while beginning the process of trying (unsuccessfully) to build a Fascist International (e.g., the Montreux conferences).

Those conferences had their problems, but those problems could have been dealt with if Hitler had been willing to “play ball,” had Mussolini not been annoyed over Austria and if he didn't have the need to fear Hitler and German expansionism (which he did, one reason for his eventual alliance with Hitler), and had all involved understood the need for a more generalized definition for “fascism” (a topic for another day). The potential was there, it just needed proper leadership and it needed a spirit of cooperation instead of the usual rightist fractiousness.  It needed, in the last analysis, someone willing and able to fuse the racial and socioeconomic aspects of fascism.  Hitler alone could not do it, and Mussolini alone failed.  Together, they may have succeeded.

An alliance between Fuhrer and Duce to build a Fascist Alliance in Europe, supporting groups like the Romanian Legionary Movement (with strong backing from Germany and Italy, Codreanu could have come to power, rather than be murdered by state authority), could have built a strong anti-communist alliance throughout Central and Eastern Europe - a blockade to Soviet expansionism. Perhaps, not fearing European German expansionism, Great Britain and France could have joined some sort of anti-communist alliance.  If not, the situation may have evolved into a three-way Cold War of Fascism vs. Marxism vs. Liberal Democracy.  Or, perhaps, other options, for better or worse, could have been on the table.  But, instead, the absolute worst outcome happened: another world war that, after the damage done 1914-1918 in the first Great War, completely wrecked the White World.

It wasn’t like any of this couldn’t have been foreseen: in The Rising Tide of Color, Stoddard warned of the consequences of yet another round of fratricidal intra-European conflict.  But Saint Adolf was intent on his hegemonic eastern expansion. Hitler cared for Germany and not for Europe; he cared for Germanics and not for Europeans.  And because of that, ALL Europeans, including the Germanics, are suffering for it.  For that, above all else, Hitler deserves to be critiqued and condemned.

That the “movement” cannot readjust its views on Hitler to incorporate the bad along with the good means that: (1) they can’t get over their fanboy man-crush on Hitler – the Cult of Saint Adolf, (2) they have incredibly bad judgment, and/or (3) they essentially agree with Hitler’s views on race and agree that the cost/benefit ratio of German expansionism and colonization at the expense of other Europeans was worth it.

Regardless, that’s not my view, and another reason I believe that the American “movement” has got to go.

It’s time for an objective racial-historical-political reevaluation of “the meaning of Hitler” – a man who was neither a demigod nor a monster, but an interesting, dynamic, world-historical leader who had profound effects on the course of White history, and the future that we face.

The Old Movement, decrepit and fossilized, adhering to rigid dogma with religious fervor, is incapable of such an assessment, as much as they are incapable of anything else.  A New Movement, one would hope, would be different and better.

The Old Movement, and its Cult of Saint Adolf, needs to die, so the White Race can live.

Thursday, March 6, 2014

My Vision for Russia

An alternative viewpoint.

I've been critical of Putin/Dugin  and their "Eurasian" future for Russia.  What then do I propose for a Russian future?

I propose an ethnically homogeneous, Slavic Russian nation, run according to racial nationalist and national socialist principles, affiliated with Europe, while maintaining its own unique cultural/civilizational Identity.  The Slavs need to be part of the greater European Imperium.

All of those non-Slavic (predominantly Muslim) states on the periphery of European Russia should be given their complete independence, and all individuals of such backgrounds should be repatriated to their homelands.  There are some Putin apologists who claim that giving these peoples their independence would be "dangerous" to Russia, since the Chechens and others would somehow form powerful radical states that would be some sort of threat.  That's ludicrous.  Russia is a huge nation, with a large and increasingly modernized military, and it has a large nuclear arsenal. These states would pose no more of a threat, even at their maximum power, than, say, Iran does now.  Any attack on Russia would be met with a devastating response. The truth is that these peoples are a threat to Russia now, precisely because they are part of Russia, live and travel within Russia, and hence threaten Russia with terrorism and insurrection.  As separate states, in a nation-to-nation relationship with Russia, and with their peoples not allowed within Russia, they would pose no threat whatsoever.  Russia could be a threat to them, but never the reverse.

Needless to say, there would be no other aliens allowed in Russia, no Jews, no "African immigrants," no Chinese pouring into the Russian Far East, none of it.

The only remaining problem is with the Russian East, Siberia, Russia east of the Urals.  There live non-Russian, non-Slavic, indeed, non-White and non-European native peoples.  What about them?

The Asian natives of Siberia should be allowed to live in their homeland as they have for thousands of years. Perhaps they could be granted a degree of local autonomy.  The would NOT be allowed into European Russia, Russia west of the Urals.  The natives and Russians living in the East would be strictly segregated; there is enough room in that vast territory for both groups to live, each without interfering with the other. There certainly should not be any miscegenation between the two groups.

Therefore: a strictly homogeneous European part of Russia, consisting only of Russian Slavs; in the East, Russians and native peoples existing in completely segregated communities, each group preserving their genetic and cultural uniqueness.

That's a vision a whole lot better than the "Eurasian" nightmare imagined by Soviet wanna-bes.

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Remember: You Can't Spell "Vlad" Without A-D-L

What's behind the "rampaging neo-Nazis" remark?

Further comment following up my last post.  There are two likely reasons behind Trad Vlad's "neo-Nazis" comment.

First, he's a committed multiracialist, a pro-diversity pluralist, an anti-White Asiaphile (in more ways than one?), who has an agenda to use Brown and Yellow Asiatics to bolster Russia's demographics and restore the USSR ("Eurasian Union").  Essentially, an advocate for race replacement of native Russian Slavs, destroying Russian EGI, to follow the dream of a rebuilt multicultural empire (a mirror image of America and the EU, eh?).

Second, and here's a point no one has made yet: his comments seem to be a thinly veiled appeal to Western liberals, to the American media, to the Jews:

"Hey guys!  I'm not really a bad fellow!  Stop comparing me to Hitler, please!  It's those guys in Kiev I'm against - they're a bunch of Nazis! Haters! Racists!  Anti-Semites!  I'm really on your side, I want  a pluralistic Russia, I want to integrate the Muslims, the Asians. I crack down on the Russian Nazis too!  Hey, and all that anti-gay stuff is just to placate the Orthodox Church, so they don't give me a hard time when I import millions of Muslims and destroy the Slavic and Orthodox character of Russia!  I'm building the Brown and Yellow Russia of tomorrow!  I'm tolerant and against all those nasty rampaging neo-Nazis!  I'm really, really, really one of the good guys!"

If you think that too harsh - consider what the great "anti-globalist traditionalist" said:


"We have a request of the legitimate President Yanukovych to protect the welfare of the local population,” he said. “We have neo-Nazis and Nazis and anti-Semites in parts of Ukraine, including Kiev.”
Oy vey!  Sounds just like it came from an ADL press release.  Anyone in the "movement" who supported Putin before this is merely discredited for bad judgement; anyone supporting him after this is simply deranged, or themselves anti-White.  

If you are interested in what the future face of Russia is, check out this “close and trusted friend” and “heir apparent”of the anti-Nazi liberal Trad Vlad – the Tuvan/Russian hybrid Sergei Shoigu, who puts a human face on the policy of “Eurasianism.”

Truly, Trad Vlad is eager to sacrifice Russian EGI on the altar of Asia.  With his vehement pro-Jewish and pro-Asian attitudes, is Trad Vlad a closet HBDer?  He certainly is anti-White enough to qualify.

So, when are the pathetic nancyboys in the American "movement" going to get over their estrogenic schoolgirl crush on the great traditionalist?  Is he still the shining "White Knight" to fulfill their omega male fanboy yearnings? Will they continue to praise Putin as Trad Vlad denounces "anti-Semitic Nazis" and grooms a Siberian hybrid to be the next leader of Russia?

Enough is enough.  The American "movement" is a joke and has to go. 









Rampaging neo-Nazis

Trad Vlad or the ADL?

Putin is all upset about “rampaging neo-Nazis” in the Ukraine.


Hey!  Was that Trad Vlad who said that, or the ADL?  Kind of hard to tell the difference, you know.

At Counter Currents, Greg Johnson writes:

Putin is not a White Nationalist but a Russian imperialist. Dugin is not an ethnonationalist but a transparently dishonest apologist for Russian imperialism...


...There is something deeply silly about White Nationalists who are all a-tingle for Putin, who, for all his macho charm, does not stand for what we stand for. This silliness is strictly analogous to the White Nationalists who got excited about Ron Paul, or the Tea Party, or Rand Paul. These people are such born followers that they will jump on board a movement that is going in the wrong direction, just for the thrill of being part of something happening. They are so wrapped up the superficial that allow themselves to be cuckolded over and over again by politicians with fundamental ideological disagreements, who are all too willing to cash their checks but otherwise ignore them.

I’ll agree with Greg Johnson here.  That’s what I was saying on his blog long before this Ukraine crisis erupted.  It was OBVIOUS that Putin and Dugin are hostile to racial nationalism and the genetic interests of the Russian people.  Just as obvious that the “libertarianism” of Ron/Rand Paul flies out the window when the subject of race comes up.  Do you REALLY believe that Rand Paul running for President is going to endorse the idea that folks should be allowed freedom of association to discriminate and segregate based on race?

Do you really believe that Putin cares whether Russia in the future is populated by Russian Slavs, or by the flotsam and jetsam of Asia? 

Unfortunately, there are some, including regular writers for Johnson’s blog, who are “movement” activists who are “all a-tingle” for Putin.  So, it’s not only the likes of Dugin who have been totally discredited in this crisis.  

All those in the “movement” onanistically foaming at the mouth over the great Trad Vlad have also been discredited, they should be ashamed of themselves, and do us all a favor and take their piss-poor judgment and quit the “movement” before they mess things up even more then they are now.

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

An Incomplete Sentence

Let's help him finish that sentence.

Silver's incomplete sentence:

Decades from now when, God willing, I'm an old man someone may ask me, "Silver, when the white race was on its last legs, what did you do?" And I will be able to tell him, "I did the right thing."


Now fully completed:

Decades from now when, God unwilling, I'm an old man someone may ask me, "Silver, when the white race was on its last legs, what did you do?" And I will be able to tell him, "I did the right thing: I helped knock it off its last legs, kill it and bury it."

Monday, March 3, 2014

My Other Blog

Critiquing HBD

I do not know if readers of this blog are aware of my other blog, Richard Lynn's Pseudoscience; the link is given here.

Sunday, March 2, 2014

The Eurasian Union

The American "Movement" - a Pathetic Disaster

What's really going on in the Ukraine?  Why, it's the Eurasian Union, brought to you by that wonderfully pro-White traditionalist, the new White Knight of starry-eyed "traditionalists" infesting the fever swamps of the pitiful circus known as the "American racial nationalist movement."

Who first proposed the idea?  

…but was first proposed as a concept by the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, during a 1994 speech at a Moscow university.

Central Asians.  But of course.  Why would they want to become "subservient" to Moscow? Answer: they are well aware of the demographic collapse of the Slavic East, and are ready to engage in a campaign of race replacement immigration conquest, aided by power-hungry Russian politicians ready and willing to sell out Russian/Slavic EGI with their dreams of a rebuilt Soviet Empire.

And then we have this, shades of Dugin:

…since the member countries have a comparable level of economic development, as well as common history and values.

The racial future of Russia as part of this Eurasian Union can be seen here:


Yes, indeed, the Eurasian Union is analogous to the European Union - both have as their underlying agenda the genocidal race replacement of racially European peoples.

And we have people in the American "movement" who foam at the mouth in favor of Trad Vlad, the grand traditionalist, a multiracialist who'll flood Russia with Central Asians, Turks, and Vietnamese.

These people are so incredibly moronic, we all need to be spared their imbecilic naivete; can they please retire from the "movement" and spare us the tragicomic embarrassment of their stupidity?

Better yet, can the entire American "movement" be dispensed with, so we can start over again with mature adult rationality?


Saturday, March 1, 2014

The Ukraine, 3/1/14

Good news, bad news, and a shot of reality.

The good news: the "coup" included "ultra nationalists" and "neo-Nazis."  In other words, genuine Ukrainian patriots.

The bad news: these nationalists are so ill-informed that they actually want to be part of the same EU that nationalists throughout Western Europe are desperate to get out of.  This is a perfect practical example of the need for cooperation between Euro-nationalists.  Obviously the Internet, and the global information network, was not sufficient for Ukrainian nationalists to break out of their short-sighted Ukraine-Russia shell and realize that the EU's endgame for the Ukraine is open borders, mass Third World immigration, miscegenation, and the transformation of the Ukraine into the Dominican Republic East.  If the Ukrainian Right was integrated into a pan-European nationalist movement, then they would have known the "score" about the EU, and would not have exhibited wild (and admirable) Slav bravery in order to fight for a System to ensure a Negro male for every Ukrainian girl.  

The only use for the EU is to be infiltrated by nationalist MEPs, which is what Norman Lowell wants to do. Unfortunately, that's not what the Eastern Europeans want; they actually believe that the EU, as it currently exists, will help them, rather than destroy them.  It's a shame.

More bad news: If the coup stabilizes and is not overturned by Putin (see next), then it is likely that the USA/neocons will push aside the "ultra-nationalists" and make sure some real "kosher" politicians are running the show. In other words, mass immigration sooner rather than later.

Trad Vlad: and then we have Putin and his invasion of the Crimea, and threats to move into eastern Ukraine.  In his message to the "American President," that grand traditionalist Putin, superhero to starry-eyed Kali Yugaists in the American "movement," justified his action as a response against Ukrainian "ultra nationalists" (those nasty haters!).  Political analysis rightly cites the fact that the "coup" threatens Putin's plans for a Russia-headed "Eurasian Alliance" - in other words, a Moscow-led multiracial empire.  That's some traditionalism right there; that's respecting the Ukraine's right to be an independent  nation, that's showing sympathy for nationalism, that's showing concern for the genetic interests of the Russian people (hint: those interests are not served by Eurasianism)!  That last sentence was sarcasm, in case the "movement" fanboys couldn't grasp that on their own.

Anyone in the "movement" who thinks Putin is some sort of White savior is an unmitigated idiot.  Putin's agenda = Dugin's vision = hostile to racial nationalism and to what all the traditionalists profess to believe.

The American "movement" needs to be flushed down the toilet, where it belongs.

And I won't even mention those uninterested in any of this, because, you know, those "Ukies" are "not their people" and anyway, anything to the east of Berlin and the south of Vienna is all irrelevant and equivalent to Timbuktu or the rice paddies of southeast Asia.