EGI Notes

Sunday, April 27, 2014

More Plagiarism

The Aryan ideal?

An individual bereft of character writes:


Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, South West Africa (Namibia), Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and Siberia (Russia-in-Asia) should all be fully reclaimed by, and reserved exclusively for, whites as part of a Greater Europe or White Imperium, with the exception of set-asides for native inhabitants such as Amerindians in North America and Aborigines in Australia.

That's great.  You know, if I wrote something like that I would, out of decency, mention that Norman Lowell has been proposing a virtually identical White Imperium for years and, of course, then there's Yockey.

But that's me.  Others apparently take a different view of questions of decency.

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

No Bad Thing

Conserving co-adapted gene complexes.



The suggestion is that a little inbreeding is no bad thing, because it preserves useful combinations of genes that are adapted to your environment. 

Ethnies that number in the millions (most of them) would contain sufficient genetic diversity so that one could on the one hand preserve parental kinship and EGI, and conserve co-adapted gene complexes, but on the other hand, find a mate sufficiently different so as to avoid excessive inbreeding.

Certainly, choosing a mate within the same continental racial group is sufficient to meet all criteria.  The idea that one needs to engage in inter-racial miscegenation to avoid excessive inbreeding is a complete falsehood, perpetuated by those with an anti-European genocidal agenda.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, April 21, 2014

Implications of White Minority Status

New KMacD analysis.

Read here.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, April 20, 2014

By the Way....

A suggestion.

While I believe ideas are more important than personalities, it's also true that the moral and ethical thing to do - the Aryan ideal! - is to give credit to the originator of ideas, and to those who first broach a subject later copied by others.

Thus, folks writing about "racial dominance" and using terms like "virulent" to refer to the behavior of certain groups need to cite the prior work of James Bowery on those topics.  Bowery had been writing about racial genetic dominance and Jewish virulence long before current plagiarists (the same who refer to the "Pareto Principle" and discuss racially charged Cheerios commercials without acknowledging my prior writing on those subjects at the Occidental Observer) submitted their own rambling interpretation on racial dominance.

Didn't Martin Luther King plagiarize?  Is that something a White Man would do?

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Movement Moving On, 4/20/14

More of the same.

I've noticed a lot of internal churn and drama in the "movement" recently.   Some of it derives from the Miller fiasco, complete with comments thread flamewars, gossip, and name calling between "movement" personages: the same old tired scene, replayed for the amusement of the "watchdog groups," endlessly without hope of a glimmer of self-awareness by any involved.

However, some of the turmoil is of a more substantial nature - partnerships broken up over significant and fundamental issues: pan-Europeanism vs. pan-Germanism, White nationalism vs. Hitlerian fundamentalism and a strictly Germanic nationalism, and the endless "Who is White?" nitpicking debates and self-indulgent analyses on such issues.

The fundamental definition of any group revolves around the definition of who's in and who's out.  This isn't a side-issue open to debate and endless discussion, this is fundamental, this is something that needs to be established at the beginning of any endeavor, of any partnership.  If folks can't even agree on the absolute basics, then ending the partnership (which should never have been established in the first place), is the correct and proper thing to do.

There are some issues that can never be resolved in the sense that there is going to be a general consensus on it. The issues mentioned in the second paragraph of this post are such issues. While third party observers, without any strong opinions and ideals, may be influenced by debate, those people with strong ideological worldviews, the leaders, are not going to have their outlook altered.  It's a waste of time.  And the masses will simply follow whatever leadership that they choose, or under whose authority they find themselves.

Divisions on fundamental premises cannot be glossed over, the parties involved need to go their separate ways and develop their own endeavors based firmly on their guiding principles.  Others can then choose which endeavor fits best for them, and each endeavor can either succeed or fail based upon its merits.

There's no point to belabor differences when these differences are obviously irreconcilable.

Another underlying theme is the differences between the Old Movement and an alleged New Movement. The latter does not exist.  Gossipy comments thread flamewars, the politics of ad hominem, Hitler worship, the inability to separate away from "popular" bloggers/writers who slyly promote violence (all the time knowing that the "watchdogs" are watching) and engage in the "Who is White?" melodramas - that's all part of the Old Movement. Taking sour swill and relabeling it as fine wine doesn't alter the fact that it remains swill.  A New Movement will need to be actualized as a real and revolutionary change from the past Old Movement, it will need to manifest itself as something completely different - it must have NO COMPROMISE with the antics of the Old Movement, it cannot value short-term pragmatic value ("but blogger X writes weekly essays that get so many hits!") over long-term rock-solid integrity and moral courage.

If there's a New Movement out there, it has apparently escaped my notice.  And I want nothing at all to do with the Old Movement.  It is  a complete and utter waste of time and energy. Worse than a waste - a net negative.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, April 19, 2014

A Few Passing Thoughts on Miller

Another pathetic and disgusting episode in the history of the "white racialist movement."

Glenn Miller appears to be the perfect representative of the American "white racialist movement."  An individual who apparently has the physical appearance and behavior of  a rabid opossum, the epitome of the "tough street activist" who just happened to testify against his comrades to cut a better deal with the government he "declared war" against, an apparent beneficiary of the "movement's" ethnic affirmative action program, a person arrested for shooting up Jewish centers - presumably to kill Jews but killing only White Gentiles.

What more can one say?  Just that the American "white racialist movement" as it currently exists, and has existed for quite some time, must rank as among the biggest enemies of White racial survival that there is.  Instead of pointing the finger of blame at "ZOG," a look in the mirror may be more appropriate for these "activists" when it comes time to assign guilt for the current grave racial prospects for European-derived peoples in American and throughout the world.

Some precincts of the "movement" have been quite critical of Miller, and justifiably so.  But those criticisms would carry more moral authority if the folks making them did not associate with bloggers who have promoted violence through thinly veiled "interesting thoughts."  That's part of the same problem, the same Old Movement.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Racial Polarization in Politics

We need to increase, not decrease, racial polarization.



What we need to do is study the work of these leftist "researchers" and just flip the script and do the opposite of what they suggest: hammer home the demographic changes therein, as Dr. MacDonald advised.

And we need explicit White politics: "implicit Whiteness" is a bitter enemy of White racial interests.


Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Russia and Europe: The Putinista View

An important subject with no easy answers.

A certain blog has, in recent weeks, featured essays by a writer attacking the notion that Russians are "White."  We are told that the Russian Identity is non-Western and anti-Western, non-European and anti-European, and that any Russians who are sincerely pro-White and consider themselves "White" (i.e., European) have to explicitly reject a specifically Russian identity.



"Russia must be viewed as a unique and original civilization that cannot be reduced to 'East' or 'West,'" reads the document, signed by Deputy Culture Minister Vladimir Aristarkhov. "A concise way of formulating this stand would be, 'Russia is not Europe,' and that is confirmed by the entire history of the country and the people."
Russia's non-European path should be marked by "the rejection of such principles as multiculturalism and tolerance," according to the draft. "No references to 'creative freedom' and 'national originality' can justify behavior considered unacceptable from the point of view of Russia's traditional value system." That, the document stresses, is not an infringement on basic freedoms but merely the withdrawal of government support from "projects imposing alien values on society."

A rejection of multiculturalism and tolerance (not characteristics of the true West, but of its modern , deracinated degenerate form) would be good things, if they were actualized in policy. Unfortunately, Putin is a dedicated multiculturalist aiming at a mixed, Eurasian Russia.  Further, if Putin's Russia was to truly follow the independent Third Rome path of a unique Russian High Culture, then there wouldn't be this agenda to worship at the altar of Asia, and promote a "Eurasian Union."

Well then, the Putinistas would argue that the "Eurasian Union" is just pragmatic politics.  Fine.  Let's be pragmatic.   Let's start by accepting the theoretical premise that Russia is neither East nor West, but its own "unique and original civilization."  The problem is - pragmatically - Russia could actualize that "unique civilization" only if the nation had booming demographics, racial homogeneity and a commitment to maintain that homogeneity, as well as a robust civic culture that could maintain and promote Russian interests as an original, independent civilizational entity.

None of those attributes hold.  I'll agree that Russian Identity is not Western (despite the fact that ethnic Russians are racially European), certainly not in the sense of those Western European nations Yockey identified as the West: Germany, England, France, Italy, Spain, etc.  And, not even Western in the sense of those westernizing (in a modern sense at least) ex-Warsaw Pact nations of Eastern Europe.  We can agree on this.

But, again, pragmatically, Russia doesn't seem to have the stamina and bright demographic/racial future to make it alone.  I do think that eventually Russia needs to choose between West vs. East.  Here, West = the true West, what was, and what could be in the future with a new High Culture.  As a nation that was a pioneer of space exploration, as a people that are racially European, the Russians can be partners in building the Overman High Culture.  Therein, their existence would be secure - and the unique aspects of the Russian civilization can exist alongside that of the traditional Western, as a whole greater than the sum of the parts.

But if Russia chooses East, then Russia is doomed, and the Russians are doomed.  They'll be swallowed up by the Yellow and Brown tides of color.

A choice needs to be made.  West or East.  Survival or Death.

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

Dual Morality and Immigration

KMacD essay.

Important reading, mentioned at my anti-HBD blog.

Labels: , , , , ,