Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Calculated Misery

A general concept.


The blessings of free market capitalism: maximizing every cent of profit by lowering quality of services, lowering the quality of life, by purposely creating conditions of "calculated misery" to induce income streams to line the fatcats' pockets.

One wonders.  Where else is such "calculated misery" utilized? Rent-seeking behavior by elites who fatten themselves on the fiscal (and other) resources of the general population who attempt to escape the misery intentionally inflicted by laws/policies instituted by that elite?

Coloreds are used to inflict misery on lower and middle class Whites, who need to pay their way out of such misery by contributing to the System sufficiently so as to acquire the means to escape.  Or, to become part of the anti-White elite of the System themselves, eh?  Keep Whitey in line: breaking the law means the "calculated misery" of the prison system, in which Whites are victimized by predatory Coloreds; in addition, we have the "social pricing" invoked for ostensibly legal "transgressions."

A System that uses the "almighty dollar" coupled with social status (the carrot) and Colored savagery (the stick) to keep the White helots in line.  In other words: capitalism.

Answering Parrott on Conferences

I strongly disagree.

I would like to respond to Parrott’s essay at Counter-Currents, answering Greg Johnson’s original piece about “White nationalist conferences.”  Two points to begin with.  First, with respect to the actual debate, I agree with Johnson as regards the situation today; however, if at some point in the (hopefully not distant) future, pro-White activism sufficiently expands, then real-world analog conferences would be a good thing. So, I agree with Parrott regarding all the advantages of such conferences (and Johnson admits these as well), the problem is that as they exist today, such conferences do no good. And some do more “no good” than others. Second, similar to what Johnson wrote in his piece, none of this should be construed as being an attack against Amren or any sort of personal attack against Taylor. Amren/Taylor have done a lot of good over the years for pro-White activism. I appreciate Amren/Taylor for publishing a fair number of my own essays, particularly those that brought the work of Frank Salter to the attention of a wider audience. That’s all to the good. However, to answer Parrott, some honest and dispassionate criticism of Amren will be required, although this criticism is mostly aimed at Parrott’s misrepresentation of the facts. Emphasis added:


American Renaissance has been, and will hopefully remain, a tremendously useful ecumenical event where the ever-divergent and alienated factions and subcultures within White Advocacy can converge in one physical space for one magical weekend and network. Jared Taylor is an institution in himself, a unifying figure who even the most avid anti-semites and milquetoast mainstreamers respect.


This is absolutely incorrect. As someone with years of experience in pro-White activism, as someone familiar with all the intra-movement “flamewars,” how could Parrott write something so absurd?  There are a number of prominent “anti-Semitic” activists who have been extremely harshly critical of Amren/Taylor, up to and including the use of personal invective.  Parrott surely disagrees with those viewpoints, but it is the height of dishonesty to pretend they do not exist.  Many other activists are displeased with the perceived pro-Jewish outlook of Amren, although these others either keep silent and just ignore Amren, or express their views using more mild language.  On the other hand, some of the “milquetoast mainstreamers” (e.g., Auster, Jobling) have been sharply critical of Amren/Taylor for being insufficiently pro-Jewish.  In my case, I ended my association with Amren after the “Hippocrates” controversy and my perception that Amren was becoming a HBD, rather than White nationalist, enterprise.  For all the good that it has done, Amren has been as much a divisive and controversial entity as a “unifying” one.  The idea that Amren conferences are such an “ecumenical” event was reasonably refuted by the events of the 2006 conference and its aftermath.  Things were never the same for Amren after Hart’s vulgar tantrum; subsequent events, such as the Jobling split and the "Hippocrates" disaster, just added to the division.


And that’s why AmRen is so valuable. I’m fearful that the year he stops organizing AmRen (hopefully many years from now!), all of our disparate factions will file off into our respective Christian crusader, pagan revivalist, philo-semitic, dorky HBD, and wonky mainstreamer corners, never to converge and unite around White Identity in quite the same way again.

What fantasy land does Parrott live in?  All these “disparate factions” are completely divided today, and Amren conferences have had absolutely zero effect on breaking down these divisions. There is certainly no convergence or unity among these factions, inside or outside of such conferences.  They attacked each other at the 2006 conference. After that, the hardcore anti-Semites stopped coming and then the extreme philo-Semites broke away. It's now more or less a "mash-up" of southerners, HBDers, and mainstreamers.  There is no longer any sort of general representation of the "movement" there, certainly not among the speakers.  And are all the attendees, never mind the speakers, converging and uniting around "White Identity?"  Is that what Derbyshire does there? Really?

Greg proposed that we shift to a more localized and specialized model of meeting up. That’s all well and good, but it didn’t take the commenters on the article long to vividly describe from first-hand experience what a boondoggle that proves to be in practice. AmRen’s expensive and stuffy atmospherics and basic filtering for cranks (hopefully, I’ll still be allowed this coming year!) guarantee a safety and sanity which can’t be guaranteed in smaller regional venues.

Yes, tell Michael Regan all about the “safety.”  Tell the attendees of the 2006 conference about the “sanity.”

We belong to a broad array of subcultures, social classes, and ideologies, and that often devolves into a circus.

Er…didn’t Parrott just tell us how wonderfully unified we are all due to having Amren conferences?  How are the conferences helping to bring us together then?

AmRen is, to my knowledge, the only platform where a Zionist Jew, a professor with an Asian wife, a homosexual pagan revivalist, and a guy more comfortable in a Skrewdriver t-shirt than a dinner jacket can all converge on the same room to discuss racial issues without Yackety Sax background music.

And this is good how?  This demonstrates an identity crisis.  Are Amren conferences “HBD/race realism” meetings?  White nationalist get-togethers?  Both?  Neither?  Maybe one reason why things never got accomplished at the meetings is that they used to mix together disparate and non-unified groups, often hostile to each other, with nothing in common. Dedicated anti-Semites with Zionists? Radical national socialist racialists with miscegenating White nerds and their Asian wives?  Traditional Christian conservatives with homosexual pagans?  “Wine and cheese” elitists with “chips and beer” skinheads?  That is all better than more narrowly defined local meetings how?



Monday, December 29, 2014

Learning from Anti-Fascist Liberal Democratic Triumphalism

The smug Payne and Griffin.

Reading some of the work of Stanley Payne on fascism, I note that he is very similar to Griffin in trumpeting liberal triumphalism: “neofascists” will always be disappointed and will never obtain any political success whatsoever in Western nations because the West has been “inoculated against fascism,” and today’s fascists are a pitifully small and weak group, etc., etc.  On the one hand, it’s a good thing that these liberal ideologues (not objective scholars) have such smug overconfidence. On the other hand, though, specifically for those on our side, we need to clear up some misconceptions and, after all, an acceptance of liberal triumphalism certainly isn’t good for fascist morale.

Certainly, “fascist” and “Nazi” have become pejoratives, and as the book Suprahumanism points out, opposition to fascism seems to be the underlying foundation of the entire liberal democratic and multicultural system.  Certainly, in this milieu, the populations of Western nations are not open-minded about the revolutionary far-right.  This is to a large extent due to the equation of fascistic ideologies with “blood, death, imperialism, hatred, racism, genocide, Holocaust,” ad nauseam.  However, as an opponent of “mainstreaming,” I do not believe that those on our side who are truly fascists and national socialists should deny the label.  In the end, it does no good.  If even non-fascist authoritarian rightists are labeled as “fascist,” and, in some cases, even pro-multiculturalist (pseudo-)conservative Republicans are so labeled, it is obvious that real “fascist Nazis” won’t escape the label, regardless of whatever hand-waving twists and turns and “spin” they attempt to put on the subject.  Further, (unsuccessfully) denying one’s real political identity projects weakness.  However, there are those – such as exemplified by this blog – who are “fascist Nazis” but who differ VERY significantly from the European political movements of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s that were of that creed.  Some of these differences are noted in Greg Johnson’s distinguishing the Old Right from the New Right.  A new national socialist fascism that eschews disjunctive intra-European racism and militaristic imperialism, while embracing pan-European racialism and Salterian universal nationalism needs to be articulated.  At the same time, the mammoth edifice of the System’s liberal democracy needs to be critiqued.  Indeed, if our creed is allegedly so “tainted” by historical misdeeds so as to constitute an “inoculation,” what about the history of liberal democracy, and how that could be objectively perceived by the ever-so-sensitive White masses desperate to be “on the right side of history?”

Indeed, one can induce cognitive dissonance in the liberalized (American) White masses by pointing out that the liberal democracy they so cherish has been responsible for enslaving the Negro, dispossessing the Amerindian, disenfranchising the Female, and discriminating against the Homosexual.  The response would be, of course, that these unpleasant historical events were due to the “White male racist” imperfections of the system, and now liberal democracy is being “perfected.”  We would be told that the imperfect past should not taint the future. The same applies to any other political philosophy. The past imperfections of fascism/national socialism – the petty nationalism, the unscientific hyper-disjunctive biological racism, the ultra-militarism – all these will be eliminated through the same process of “perfection” that the White masses believe enables liberal democracy to get “on the right side of history.”  Granted, people are irrational and the masses well-brainwashed but that is, theoretically, an argument we could make.

A practical objection to what I have written is that our side lacks any access whatsoever to the “megaphone” required to reach the masses as to explain our point of view. This is true. However, it clearly demonstrates why Griffin and Payne are misleading (dishonest?) to their readers. For, the reason – the ONLY reason – why the West is “inoculated against fascism” is that the ruling elites are anti-fascist, and utilize the resources of the mass media and the educational system to propagandize against fascism and in favor of multicultural liberal democracy.  And all this obtains because old-style fascism, with its petty nationalism and militarism, provoked a war it could not win and thus handed world rule over to elites of the Left.  But, there is no deep, mystical aversion of Western populations to fascism. It is simply mass propaganda inculcated from elites representing the winning side of a military conflict. One can envision a theoretical scenario in which, in some fashion, the ruling elites embrace fascism and start pro-fascist propaganda to the masses. Suddenly, one could say that the West is “inoculated against liberal democracy.”  Of course, I see no path at this time to such a scenario; however, my point is that the Griffin/Payne school look foolish when they imply that Western populations have somehow become inherently hostile to fascist memes, independent of a continuous, overt, and relentless stream of rather crude and ill-disguised propaganda. It is quite clear that Griffin and Payne are no more disinterested scholars of fascism than I am – they are subjective, politically motivated anti-fascists that are part of the anti-fascist ruling elite responsible for the “inoculation” they gleefully crow about.  The difference is that I am open and honest in my support of fascist ideals and don’t pretend to exemplify objective scholarship (although to give Griffin some credit, he’s made it clear that his work has an anti-fascist agenda, a curious admission for one so adamant that “neofascism” is hopeless – why work to oppose something that has “zero chance of success?”). 

The Old Movement is a major impediment to developing the new manifestations of fascist national socialism appropriate for the 21st century. We need to first articulate, and then actualize, a fresh permutation of our basic ideals. 

Sunday, December 28, 2014

Three Faces of Authoritarian Nationalism

Clearing up misconceptions.

If there is one thing I hate (among many) it is the tendency of ignorant drooling retardates to conflate fascism - a revolutionary movement that aimed at remaking society and which functioned as a secular religion - with the varied para-fascist authoritarian conservative regimes whose aim was to fossilize in place established societal structures so as to serve the narrow interests of political, military, business, and/or religious elites.

Stanley Payne's table is of value here in distinguishing varieties of authoritarian nationalism.

We see the fascists (which includes national socialism) - the revolutionary secular religion, wishing to remake society via a paligenetic "irrational" vitalistic movement of both individual (New Man) and collective transcendence; the nationalist radical right - the para-fascists who would sometimes ape superficial features of fascistic political theater but who were profoundly conservative and wanted no alteration of society whatsoever and who depended upon elite manipulation and not popular support; and finally the conservative nationalists - the more mainstream electoral right with moderate objectives of solidifying a right-of-center sociopolitical consensus, lacking the revolutionary objectives of fascism and also lacking the rigidly ultra-authoritarian, narrow elitist, and militaristic focus of the traditionalist far-right.

One has to be a real idiot - or at least a dishonest imbecile - to confuse these political manifestations.

How's That Mainstreaming Doing, Swedish Version

Another fail.


The Sweden Democrats are the "good guys," relatively speaking, but they are more of the "moderate far right" mainstreaming party type, not the hardcore radical type supported here. Yes, indeed, "mainstreaming" can gain you a few more votes, but look how easy it is for the System to simply cancel an election with a bit of behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing.

After all, the Swedish "center right" is likely confident they can swoop in and gather up those Sweden Democrat voters if they can wait long enough for those weak mainstreamed Sweden Democrat supporters to drift away and vote for "electable" conservatives.  That's what you get from "mainstreaming" - the System still won't accept you, you are still a pariah, but on the other hand, a fraction of your support is a mile wide and an inch deep, and if you are perceived as not much different from "mainstream conservatives" (the whole point of "mainstreaming," eh?), then it is real easy for that inch deep support to melt away once the System frustrates the ability of your lukewarm supporters to cast an immediate vote for you.

What's needed are hardcore, disciplined supporters who would refrain from supporting the center-right, and thus demonstrate to "mainstream conservatives" that they have little to gain, politically speaking, from frustrating those farther to the right. Those conservatives may still act the same way, but at least you won't have the spectacle of them being rewarded with the votes of those they are frustrating.

Those who support "mainstreaming" are either too stupid to be useful or are actually enemies: either way, they need to be ridiculed and then ignored.

Saturday, December 27, 2014

A Bit of Physical Anthropology

Let's sink our teeth into this, so to speak.

This bit from Strom is good, although some of the genetic data he uses are somewhat dated. It doesn't change the interpretation, which is correct.

I wonder if Strom knows about some interesting work on racial dental patterns (emphasis added):

Assuming that phenetic expression approximates genetic variation, previous dental morphological analyses of Sub-Saharan Africans by the author show they are unique among the world's modern populations. Numerically-derived affinities, using the multivariate Mean Measure of Divergence statistic, revealed significant differences between the Sub-Saharan folk and samples from North Africa, Europe, Southeast Asia, Northeast Asia and the New World, Australia/Tasmania, and Melanesia. Sub-Saharan Africans are characterized by a collection of unique, mass-additive crown and root traits relative to these other world groups. Recent work found that the most ubiquitous of these traits are also present in dentitions of earlier hominids, as well as extinct and extant non-human primates; other ancestral dental features are also common in these forms. The present investigation is primarily concerned with this latter finding. Qualitative and quantitative comparative analyses of Plio-Pleistocene through recent samples suggest that, of all modern populations, Sub-Saharan Africans are the least derived dentally from an ancestral hominid state; this conclusion, together with data on intra- and inter-population variability and divergence, may help provide new evidence in the search for modern human origins.

In case there is any confusion what "derived" means in terms of physical anthropology, see this (emphasis in original):

The definition of primitive and derived characters. Primitive characters are those that were present in the common ancestor of a group of animals. Derived characters are those that are shared by only a subset of a group of animals, all descended from a common ancestor.

In other words, "derived" traits are the opposite of "primitive" traits - the "derived" traits are those that have further evolved from the original primitive state. Therefore, the work on the Negro dental complex demonstrates that Negro dentition is most similar to that of extant and extinct non-human primates as well as that of "earlier hominids."  Thus, Negro teeth are the "least derived" from the original dental complex, they are similar to the teeth found in "an ancestral hominid state," in contrast to European and Asian teeth that are more "derived" and, hence, more evolved and specialized compared to those of Negroes. This is mainstream science, not Nutzi or HBD ranting.

This is a remarkable finding, which torpedoes the sinking ship of race-denial and false equality.

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Demarest: Decline and Fall of the West

Some interesting points by Arthur Demarest. 


I comment in between excerpts:

Leaders may recognize that they are not addressing the real problems, but they rationalize their actions with the argument that they must first politically survive in order to later address the hard problems and sacrifices. Of course, they usually don’t ever actually get around to addressing the fundamental problems later, either because they don’t make it through the initial crisis or because, even later, they are not willing to risk sacrificing their own position (or “career”) with needed measures that usually require tough sacrifices by the population.

Those are good points. They are applicable to the “movement” as much as anything else: even those “movement” “leaders” who have the good sense to recognize the problem of the dysfunctional Nutzis don’t want to make the hard sacrifices to alter the “movement” at its foundation – after all, doing so may threaten their “high and mighty” status of “leaders.” This is also an argument against “mainstreaming” – emphasizing pragmatic political survival over principle. Over time political survival itself becomes the principle, and no one is willing to advocate the tough choices that are necessary, but which threaten pragmatic politics and which make a lazy and hedonistic population unhappy.

It is short-term thinking and decision-making that is the most universal factor leading to collapse. Yet, such short-cycle evaluation is a fundamental characteristic, and a basic strength, of both democracy and capitalism. In democracy, the competition which “short-cycle evaluation” generates in government, and the limited tenure of leaders, assures responsiveness to the needs of the people and a protection against oppression. 
However, such competition, and the expensive campaigning that it entails, has led to an unrealistic evaluative process that consistently sets aside long-term problems and consequences in order to try to achieve some short-term successes, so as to survive reelection in two, four or six-year cycles. The result is a growing burden of multiple long-term problems in the decades to come.

Both democracy and capitalism are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Both must go.

No society can sustain unlimited growth – none ever has. History demonstrates that expectations of infinite growth lead to collapse. Unfortunately, millennia of evidence also indicates that needed attempts to stabilize such societies run counter to the expectations of the populace and of interest groups. For that reason, such attempts at stabilization frequently fail. 
With apologies to the green movement, “sustainability” is a myth. History and archaeology show that societies are always moving to the edge of crisis, “falling forward” through growth, but then responding (often successfully) to the problems created. 
What we can hope for is that with a somewhat more controlled level of growth, and with longer-term preparations for change, we can keep responding to the inevitable smaller crises, as they arise, and continue to postpone until later and later the (perhaps ultimately inevitable) end of our civilization.

No!  Instead of delaying the inevitable, the collapse of a decayed civilization, we need to “fall forward” to the next High Culture.  We need to “lance the boil” and get on with it. Here, Demarest is falling into the trap of the same “short-term thinking” and inability to make the hard decisions he decries in others.  Trying to milk every last drop out of the walking corpse of the West is not visionary thinking. That is not getting to the fundamentals. Fundamental change means complete civilizational palingenesis.

The answers and specific policies will only begin to emerge after voters and workers, as well as politicians and CEOs, lower their expectations a bit for prosperous societies to a somewhat lower level of growth (and opulence). As voters and stockholders, we need to expect less of our leaders and we need to begin thinking in terms of longer periods, and slower processes, for judging success.

You won’t find that in ANY democratic capitalist system. Only highly ideological authoritarian-totalitarian systems have even tried to think in terms of centuries.

Such an ideology of long-term thinking and lower expectations — a change in world “attitude”— seems to me to be the only way out of the 21st century giant and precarious “bubble” that now is Western civilization.

Part of the problem – Demarest is completely economically-oriented.  “Expectations” should not be predominantly, much less solely, about economic growth.  How about the task of actualizing a High Culture? Reaching the stars? Improving the race?  Why must it always be dollars and cents?

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

More Durocherite Rambling

More of the same.


To be fair, when he eventually gets to it, Durcoher's preferred vision for the future of Europe is not bad; it is at least minimally acceptable, although I may do things a bit differently (a somewhat greater degree of integration; having integrated large scale projects be the norm, rather than ad hoc).

But is it necessary to ramble on for endless paragraphs to state an opinion that could be reasonably summarized in one compound sentence?  I would summarize Durocher thus:

Europeans should be ethnocentric enough to resist alien immigration but not so ethnocentric as to fight among themselves; that said, I'd prefer a confederation of sovereign nation states as compared to a monolithic single-state "empire" like the EU.

I guess that the ability to summarize complex thoughts in a succinct fashion is a sign of intelligence (and vice versa).

I do disagree with his contention that China would not pose a threat to a future nationalist Europe. That assertion is not surprising coming from someone who wishes to promote Asia-fetishist "human biodiversity and IQ studies," but is nevertheless absurd.  China has good reasons for hostility:

1) As an outlet for their overpopulation. China is crowded, the "high IQ" Chinamen have wrecked their nation's ecology, they have a severe male-female imbalance that can cause societal strife that they wish to avoid, possibly by pointing those excess males to overseas colonization (backed by military force?).

2) To force open foreign markets for Chinese goods and services, which they require for the economic growth to keep their teeming population from getting too restless.

3) Competition for raw materials and other resources that may become increasingly limited in the decades ahead, a demand for which overpopulated China with its economic requirements will always have.

4) Competition in the exploration and possible colonization of outer space.

5) Racial and civilizational animus, historical grievances (real and imagined), prestige, etc.

I note that possession of nuclear weapons has not prevented Russia from having its far east become increasingly colonized by Chinese invaders, and has not prevented America's industrial demolition for Chinese benefit.

I do realize however that the HBDers have a vested interest in downplaying the Chinese threat.  After all, we can't have anything threaten the ability of semi-autistic White male nerds from having sexual access to flat-faced and flat-chested Chinese "women" now, can we?
German protests.

Of relevance to my last post, see this.  Now, that some Germans are taking to the streets is good, the German trying to shake of his betatude!  But 15,000 - while wonderful by the standards of any other White nation - is not enough.  More to the point, will this be sustained?  Even more to the point - will it translate politically?  Or will the anger subside and will the good beta Germans go and vote for the "conservative" harridan Merkel (*) - the same piece of despicable filth denouncing the protesters and saying the Germany "needs" race-replacement immigration?  Will they - as White Americans do - vote for the evil, anti-White, pro-immigrant, anti-native "conservative" because they can't have a "leftist" elected, said "leftist" having virtually identical views on immigration as the "conservative?"


* My take on Merkel: an incredibly evil genocidal lunatic, who wants to see Germans race-replaced by immigrants, who would thrill at the thought of Germans as a minority in Germany, subaltern despised Germans humiliated by newcomers.  By promoting alien immigration, Merkel is, objectively speaking, from a scientific EGI standpoint, guilty of crimes against humanity.  Do Germans want to have this criminal as the leader of their nation?

Salter: Hosing Down White Reaction

The Sydney Siege


The key point in Salter's analysis is that not a single voice is heard in the controlled media discussing the interests of White Australians. That's how it goes worldwide.

But that comes as part of the cost of Whites being the beta race. Question: if a far-right anti-immigration party were to come onto the ballot in Australia, would a majority of White Australians vote for it?  No.  Would a large fraction so vote?  No.  Do White Australians take to the streets in protest?  No.  Do they boycott companies that support immigration?  No. Do they boycott media outlets that ignore White interests?  No.

And it is the same with Whites the world over.

That's why Whites are the beta race: they are the put-upon, weakling providers, doing for others, having their own needs and interests ignored (including by themselves!), and NEVER once standing up and saying "enough!" and then following through with action. They just shrug their shoulders like some sort of "incel" beta or nagged husband and go back to work driving the economy and providing the support for the multiculturalist System that hates them.

Whites: weak, beta, flabby, cowardly, pathetic, humiliated, subaltern, held in contempt by others.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Jeb Bush: Prototypical Republican

Contempt for the base.

Read here.


And so the Republican Party has come to this–a candidate whose only discernible idea is contempt for the party’s own base.

Jeb Bush: the perfect candidate for the beta/omega White race, aka the Loser Race.

Beta to Omega: Amnesty Treason

GOP sticks it to the White voter once again.


Once again, the GOP exposes its dark side, its seething hatred and contempt for its own White base. No worries though, the White voter will dutifully go to the polls and vote for the guy with the "R" next to his name.  After all, voting Republican is a White racial obligation.

And we need a Jew to tell us about this, while the flabby GOP White Gentiles in Congress sell out their patrimony without end. Perhaps Whites are not the beta race, but rather the omega race?

Sunday, December 14, 2014

On the Nature of Fascism

Palingenetic Ultra-Nationalism.

Some words on fascism.  There have been many stupidities spewed forth about fascism - that is, fascism as a political movement and not "fascism" as a pejorative - with bizarre definitions, confusion between genuine fascism and reactionary para-fascism, etc.

Now, true enough that political definitions are subjective, not objective.  One cannot define a political movement with the same definitiveness as one can define some natural phenomenon. Nevertheless, some definitions have more explanatory power than others, and it are these more powerful explanations, which do a better job illuminating reality, that deserve to become paradigmatic memes.

I reject definitions of fascism that are mere lists of alleged characteristics, lists that confuse surface manifestations with underlying core belief.  I reject definitions that do not understand the revolutionary dynamism of fascism, and I also reject those definitions that are based on obvious bias (Marxist definitions are particularly odious, non-explanatory, and self-serving). Definitions that reject obvious manifestations of fascism (such as national socialism) while including obvious non-contenders (such as Franco's Spain) are also rejected.

Instead, I follow Roger Griffin's simple yet incisive characterization of fascism as palingenetic ultra-nationalism.

The palingenetic component captures the revolutionary essence of fascism, it defines the spiritual core of the doctrine, and it clearly distinguishes fascism from para-fascism.  Thus, Franco's Spain - a reactionary authoritarian regime focused on maintaining a traditional status quo - was in no way, shape, or form fascist. Franco had no overarching, palingenetic vision for Spain, he did not promote any rebirth of Spanish society, did not strive to create the New Spanish Man, did not promote any new strain of ideological current for Spain, Europe, or the West.  Instead, he was a military dictator, anti-communist, with an agenda of promoting the interests of the military, church, business, etc. The same applies to all the other "strongman" (usually military) dictatorships labeled "fascist" by the Left and by nitiwits on the moderate Right.  Without an underlying aim of national rebirth, of overturning the old order, of a futurist rather than rigidly traditionalist worldview, whatever a political movement is, it is not fascist.

The nation being defined in particularist terms as a specific people, a specific ethny, a specific culture, then the ultra-nationalism component excludes from consideration any regime, scheme, or movement that is universalist in scope, regardless of whether or not it has palingenetic aspects. Therefore, various messianic visions of the Globalist Left are not fascist - not American multiculturalist globalism, not the various permutations of Marxism (including the New Soviet Man), or schemes (including those that are Marxist) that divide based on class - class is not a nation; the proletariat is international and hence universalist and non-particularlist.  A purely religious focus cannot be fascist if the religion is, like Christianity, universalist, although it is possible to fuse ethny with religion in genuine fascism as was the case in Romania.

Having excluded false "fascisms" we now must admit that fascism is a rather protean beast, a sociopolitical philosophy that can be actualized in many manifestations.  The palingenesis can differ, and, as history shows us, the specific defintion of nation can differ, as long as the nation has a particularlist, non-universalist focus that has some sort of ethny-basis and can be defined in an "us vs. them" manner.

Thus, Italian Fascism was People-State; German National Socialism was People-Race; Romainian Legionaryism was People-Faith.  These are all different definitions of nation, but are all opposed to universalism, and also are all palingenetic in one form or another. The more radical forms of (national socialist) White Nationalism are also obviously fascist, as the Race component in People-Race is a bit expanded compared to the Hitlerian version, but still sharply particularlist, distinguishing the "White Nation" from the various non-White peoples of the Earth.

This definition of fascism has greater explanatory power than other versions, and provides a useful model for moving forward.

Video Clip Showing the Future of the White Race

Beta race in action.


The White future: an elderly minority, tormented and humiliated by younger coloreds who have been allowed to steal the Whites' nations from them.

You know, if the American  "movement" had any worth, they'd do practical things (as in Europe), down-to-Earth activities that helped White folks in their everyday lives, like helping out old Whites (a majority of our population these days) get through their routines without being attacked by coloreds. Who knows? Maybe if so helped, these old White farts would care about something other than "social security payments" and giving donations to "starving African children" and would do something better with their time and money.

But we can't have that.  No, the "movement" has more important concerns.  For example, does Group X have a cephalic index that is 0.1% less than Group Y?  Important!  Does Group A have 1% more "genetic admixture" than Group B?  Crucial!  What was the racial history of 3,545 years ago?  Relevant!  How many times did Julius Evola urinate in a given day, and what does that tell us about the "Kali Yuga?"  Hardcore political work!

The White race: pathetic.  The (American) "movement": even more pathetic.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

What If This Was a Camp of the Saints Moment

The surrender race.

Today's "march on DC" and talk of colored "revolutionary" activism leads me to present the following thought experiment.

Let's say a "Camp of the Saints Moment" took place today, Dec. 13, 2014.  Coloreds rise up in America, in Europe, Australia, and decide to completely wrest control of majority White lands from the weak and flaccid hands of the degenerate and worthless White majority.

Question: would Whites resist?  When faced with a final, existential threat requiring an equally final decision, would Whites "wake up" as the "worse is better" crowd always hope?

My answer: NO.  If I had to bet, I'd bet that the soft and weak beta race would surrender, not fight, would just stand by and let their world be taken from them with complete cowardly passivity. That would be analogous to what Whites are doing anyway, except it would happen in a historical instant, instead of being a process dragging on for many decades.

All of the "movement" Nutzis and "you can take my guns from my cold dead hands" conservative survivalist types can sputter in angry denial over my answer as to the outcome of my thought experiment, but it doesn't alter in any way that my answer is, by far, the most realistic outcome.

Which of course not only underscores White worthlessness, but the utter failure and worthlessness of the "movement," which is at least partially responsible for the current state of affairs, by tainting the idea of White Resistance with the stink of freakishness, unsavoriness, stupidity, and failure.

Why is the thought experiment scenario not actually taking place (yet)?  The coloreds are too stupid and disorganized, they are physical cowards who would rather wait until White proportions dwindle further (in contrast, Whites are moral cowards, which is far worse), the Jeurasian/Leftist powers that be would rather be patient and let demographics and sociopolitical trends do the work for them. and the plutocrats don't want anything to get in the way of short-term profits.

But, IF those groups wanted the coloreds to take it all today, Whites wouldn't lift a finger to stop it. And, if I'm wrong about that, I'd wish I'd see some sign of moral courage among Whites for defending their own racial interests.

Another Poster Child for Christianity

A pathological disease indeed.

Read here.

Friday, December 12, 2014

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Good Sense on Putin

Counter Currents commentator

Emphasis added (and a few corrections made):

Hadrian
Posted December 10, 2014 at 8:50 pm |
“1. You westerners are looking for a messiah. A redemption from zog. Someone to save you -Putin didn't and now you're angry on him.”
If you’re a Russian, you too should be “looking for a messiah.” Your birth rates are plummeting, your male population is sickly due to rampant alcoholism and smoking, your women are sold around the world as sex slaves, and your country is in the hands of largely Jewish billionaires who hate you.
“2. I see you all here are Nazi sympathizers.
No mention to the crimes of Nazi army, the rapes etc.”

Any “crimes” the National Socialists committed during the invasion of Russia were no different or numerous from what any other army committed in any other war. The only armies that committed systematic murders, rapes, and atrocities on the explicit orders of their commanders were all Allied armies.
The German army mostly adhered to the Geneva Convention, which is something the USSR did not even formally agree to. The Germans even had the Red Cross travel with them as they moved east. People across the Baltic nations, Ukraine, and even Russia greeted them as liberators. As for the millions of Bolshevik dead, it was mostly due to Stalin’s government that was waging a terroristic war on the Russian populace while the Germans were advancing.
“33. Your cosmotheasis, your world view , is anglosaxonic, thus, you criticize Putin via anglosaxonic eyes of course. Now, your racism is that you demand , the leaders to be like your anglosaxonic mentality in order to like them. Well, Putin, isn't anglosaxon. Russians aren't anglosaxon. They can be friendly or hostile at times but arent like you. And this is smth that you have to understand.”

Putin doesn’t have to be Anglo-Saxon. He can be a good Slav and promote policies that help Russia’s Slavic populace and bring the Jewish criminals to justice for their abominable crimes against Russia and surrounding Slavic nations in the past century. He can stop whining about the Holocaust and promote understanding of the nature of Bolshevism, its Jewish roots, and its death toll of about 60 million Slavs. He can apologize to Germany, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, and many other nations for the crimes of the Soviet regime and show some solidarity with them. He can use his intelligence agencies to root out the Jewish mafia and their role in sex slavery. He can end Muslim immigration into Russia and promote the Slavic birth rate.
Putin does none of this. If you’re Russian, why do you support him?
“The extinction and degeneration of whites is at the gates. We agree on that. But instead of moaning and being hostile to leaders who look for sovereignty, isn't the way to go. The white survival needs allies and self realization. Bashing instead of creating ties is suicidal and unfortunately will lead to the end that we are all aware of.”
We’re hostile to Putin because he’s a puppet, like any western leader.  There’s nothing sovereign about him.

Answering an Incredible Stupid Bastard

Moron in italics, sanity in regular font.

Dunnyveg
December 9, 2014 - 1:05 pm |
Mari, I’m going to disagree with you on two counts: First, that it is possible for whites to stick together. 
Sounds like the Sailer argument.  More "movement" solipsism - it is because he says it is.
White, goyish liberals, as well as white Jews,
Jews are not "white."
are our enemies, and always will be. 
Guess what. Christian conservatives are our enemy, too.
Further, whites from, say, Russia or Albania have little in common with, say, rednecks from the American South.
On a global basis, they have a lot in common. More locally, does it matter? How many Russians or Albanians are there in the American South? How many American "rednecks" are there in Russia or Albania?  What relevance then are the cultural differences? What stops cooperation and confederation and a sense of racial brotherhood that accepts difference? How about this: "Christian conservatives from the North have little in common with, say, redneck Christian conservatives from the American South."  Is that not as valid? Ask Lincoln and Robert E. Lee.
This is Jared Taylor’s huge mistake. 
Of all things, this?
Taylor is a liberal who merely wants to replace a brotherhood of man with a brotherhood of whites. 
If by "whites" you mean Jews, East Asians, and NW Europeans, then yes. Otherwise, I don't see it.
Both are liberal pipe dreams. 
Sort of similar to John Ray.  Just call something "liberal " or "leftist" and it doesn't matter if it's a good idea or not.  Similarly, labelling something as "conservative" or "rightist" means it is A-OK.  The Republican Establishment needs to learn from this. All they need to do is label amnesty as "conservative" and immigration restriction as "liberal" and they have it made.
We need to be advocating for white Americans, or other white ethnic groups. They are hardly interchangeable because of genetic affinities.
What is this?  "White Americans" are of a large variety of ethnic groups and the "genetic affinities" among such "Americans" are as equally varied as comparing "Americans" to "Europeans."  Unless, of course, this individual has a more narrow definition of "White American."
I would further take issue that Christianity has played any part in our downfall. The West came to dominate the world under Christianity, and it’s hardly coincidence that the less Christian we become, the less strong we become. Our downfall can be summed up in one word: Liberalism.
Dat right!  Liberalism!  Those dastardly leftists!  That Christianity is by its very nature liberal escapes this moron. Fact is, Christianity was "Aryanized" and as long as the West had confidence in itself, and genuine spiritual belief in Christianity, that Middle Eastern poison had no major effect in hampering Faustian Western dynamism. But science and rationalism "killed" the Christian God, there's no going back, and Christianity, bereft of an underpinning of supernatural Belief, has become secularized, and secular Christianity is just one small step from Bolshevism.
Christian conservative imbeciles like this moron, adding intra-White division to the mix, rank among our leading opponents, and should be treated as such. There will be no place for them in a future ethnostate, except perhaps in the trial dock or swinging from the gallows.


Tuesday, December 9, 2014

For Those Blushing Schoolgirls

Checkmating the "chess master"


A pro-Jewish, pro-Israel, anti-Nazi, anti-racist, Stalin-apologist multiculturalist. And the "movement" worships him. Once again: the (American) racial nationalist "movement" must die so that the White race can live,

Yes, Yes, A Thousand Times, Yes!

Jews are not "White"


Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Yockey was correct: the Jew/Gentile divide is one of Totality of Identity, encompassing biological, cultural, historical, spiritual, and other parameters.

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Addictive Pathological Altruism?

The following is a hypothesis, not "movement" solipsist pontificating.

Both the “movement” and HBDers often discuss the pathological outgroup altruism extant among Europeans, and relatively lacking in other groups.  The HBDers would stress clines of this within Europe itself, with meta-Germanic NW Europeans being more prone to this than other groups (topics discussed at, e.g., Evo and Proud as well as The Occidental Observer).  So, one can view  a major dichotomy with respect to pathological altruism being Europeans vs. non-Europeans, with the Europeans being further divided between NW Europeans and other groups, and the non-Europeans being divided as well (e.g., groups like Jews and East Asians likely being particularly ethnocentric and non-altruistic). Thus:

Northwest Europeans > Other Europeans >>> Most non-European peoples > More extreme non-European ethnocentric types.

Of interest are the mental processes occurring as one moves to the left of that spectrum, in the direction of more maladaptive outgroup altruism. I theorize that the “rewards” are not only social approval or avoidance of “guilt” but, importantly, positive feelings experienced as a result of these behaviors – feelings of euphoria, bliss, calm, lowered stress, etc., possibly mediated by endorphins, varying neurotransmitter levels, decreased stress hormones, etc.  I speculate that ethny-abnegating actions cause a biochemical brain reaction that is experienced positively and may be, in a real sense, addictive.  This may be an aberrant signaling due to imprinted mental feedback that would be more adaptive in a homogeneous society.  For example, in the homogeneous context, a muted form of outgroup altruism, allowing for alliances outside the extended family, would allow for the type of disinterested politics essential for building social capital, to enhance social harmony and, perhaps, to boost individual fitness through adapting the individual to “fit in” better in complex Western societies.  However, in racially diverse, heterogeneous societies, particularly societies in which altruists live among highly ethnocentric non-altruists, this addictive behavior is maladaptive, both on a group and individual level, as it has spiraled out of control.  Being addictive and easily manipulated by a certain Levantine Tribe, the outgroup altrusim is no longer muted, but excessive, and is no longer confined to extra-familial co-ethnics, but to peoples of widely divergent genetic origins.  Indeed, given globalism, even homogeneous nation states can be harmed by excess outgroup altruism, as they would invest heavily in those outside their nation at the expense of those within.  The maladaptive nature of excess outgroup altruism in the context of globalism and multiculturalism is a serious problem for Western Man. 

Of course, unlike the HBDers, I do not propose that these behaviors are purely biologically determined, there are important cultural influences as well. But, there is likely predispositions in different populations to becoming physically addicted to excessive outgroup altruism, and the biological underpinnings of this contribute to the hypothesis presented here.

Hence, racial liberalism can be seen as a form of mental illness, an addiction to certain mental stimuli that, in current environments, decreases fitness. I would predict that the same mental modules that find “release” in acts of ethnoracial masochism would also tend to favor a similar “release” in acts of sexual masochism – the same patterns of abnegation and pleasure in self-denial would obtain.

This analysis (see page 141) suggests that sexual masochism is predominantly a Western phenomenon.  The author proposes certain theories for this, and for the fact that such practices started becoming noticed around 1500 AD.  Those theories may or may not have validity; however, the author's observations also can be interpreted according to the hypothesis presented here.  Thus, the Western localization of masochism is consistent with the ideas presented in this post – that European peoples are more prone to achieve mental “release” through thoughts and actions that are self-abnegating.  Further, the 1500 AD time point may have biological as well as (as the author suggests) cultural significance – if one accepts Frost’s theories about genetic pacification.  If Westerners were becoming increasingly selected for altruistic, pacified types starting around half-a-millennium ago, then it would not be surprising that submissive and (at least symbolically) self-destructive sexual practices would become more prevalent.  This would tie into the idea that Europeans are prone to become “addicted” to the positive mental feelings induced by acts of self-abnegating outgroup altruism.

The author suggests that there are differences in the predisposition to masochism even within Western societies, with the upper classes demonstrating this more than the lower. Again, these differences can have biological as well as cultural explanations: upper class Westerners, as a group, are likely more pacified, outgroup-altruistic, "over-civilized," etc. compared to the lower classes. Consider the stereotypes of (1) the effete limousine liberal, the SWPL-style progressive upper-class White oozing with concern with coloreds, contemptuous of other Whites, physically non-aggressive; and (2) the lower class blue collar "White bigot" who displays a more healthy attitude of ethnocentrism and a down-to-earth physicality. Which is more likely to be involved is self-abnegating sexual masochism? Which is more likely to be involved in ethny-abnegating sociopolitical masochism? I would suggest that a similar difference in brain chemistry (albeit possibly of lesser magnitude) would obtain between upper/lower class Whites as between Whites and non-Whites: upper class Whites would experience positive mental feelings as a result of ethnoracial-abnegation, while lower class Whites would more likely feel angry, threatened, and otherwise upset and at unease. There must be differences between people beyond ethnicity and class: hence, racial nationalists would be "constructed" to react to ethnoracial-abnegation with anger and disgust, while racial liberals would feel bliss. Whether these differences extend to interpersonal relations and to the sexual sphere remains to be determined.

A question would be how to deal with all of this.  It would be helpful if biocultural/societal mechanisms can be put into place that would release these positive feelings for adaptive within-group altruism, rather than of the outgroup manner. 

I have no solutions at present, but hope that these theories can evolve into more testable hypotheses, producing data that can be utilized to formulate therapeutic approaches for enhancing European ethnocentrism and a more strictly ingroup altruism.

Indeed, in a perfect world, sufficient funding, coupled to a lack of sociopolitical restrictions, would allow for hard science (not Lynnian pseudoscience) research on neurobiology and biochemical psychiatry to determine the neurological pathways underlying the mechanisms outline here (assuming they exist as proposed).  The objective would be to design methods to repress negative outcomes such as excessive outgroup altruism and to promote positive, healthy, and adaptive outcomes, such as increased ingroup altruism, intolerance, ethnocentrism, and racism.

Friday, December 5, 2014

The Solipsism of the "Movement"

Another "movement" defect.

This post was inspired by this comment - an attempt by a commentator to inject facts into typical “movement” nonsense. That reminded me of my own endless attempts, in years past, to do the same, after which I became all too familiar with the solipsism of the “movement.” 

"Movement activists” believe that empiricism, evidence, facts are all unimportant.  Only their opinions matter; they behave as if they believe that their opinions shape reality, that their opinions are reality.  And, if not their own opinion, then some other opinion expressed by an anonymous online commentator, or by some “movement” author or “leader.”  Thus are “movement” dogmas born, from the fossilized solipsist memes generated from the ignorant and fevered “minds” of Nutzis and other assorted imbeciles.  Many in the “movement” have a “God Complex” – that they can create reality from mere thought, their Internet ramblings being a manifestation of their delusion of omnipotence.

These are people who don’t acknowledge an objective reality that exists outside of their own thoughts (or the thoughts of other nutcases – sort of a “group solipsism,” if you will).  They pretend that they believe in an objective reality, but they really do not – the test being when they are confronted with evidence that goes against their fossilized memetic dogmas, and react by ignoring or decrying that evidence.

There are endless examples of this, exemplified by a certain self-satisfied, middle-aged, “1/4 Irish,” whey protein-chugging Manganite idiot and his 100% assured, confidently declared assertion that the majority of Italian-Americans are of Northern Italian descent, a tragicomic whopper that stands as much to facts as an astronomer claiming that Mars has a greater diameter than Jupiter. We have all the sci-fi/fantasy texts that pass as “racial science,” all the endlessly repeated blog comments that regurgitate the same non-factual memes again and again; the Marxist “race realist” who responded to my posting of population genetics data that refuted his ideas with “I’m not going to look at your pictures;” the half-Jew hybrid inventing the most bizarre racial typologies and resorting to tantrums when anyone knocks over that house of cards; a cherry picking mestizo who accuses people of “sophistry” but who can’t specifically define what about the “sophist” arguments are “wrong;” the distortions and “just so” stories of the HBDers…all people who believe that reality is created by their opinions, that, like an omnipotent god, their thoughts manifest in the structure of reality.  Attempts to reason with such individuals are typically a waste of time, and if actual reality ever does intrude into their solipsist dreaming, the resulting cognitive dissonance results in them trying to alter actual reality – for example, vandalizing the Wikipedia pages of celebrities - to match their thoughts (rather than the other way around).

The “movement” justifiably attacks the Left for being unrealistic about issues of Race, Culture, and History.  Unfortunately, the “movement” is no better.  Perhaps the “movement” is actually more delusional: I suspect that the Left knows that they are lying, but believe it is for a good (sic) cause; in contrast, the “movement” is unable to separate fact from fantasy, to them it is all one and the same.  More reason for the mentally deranged (American) racial nationalist “movement” to be destroyed and replaced by a sane, rational, and empirical alternative.

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Make the Cost High

Another insightful comment, emphasis added.


And I have the same attitude about Jews. I think that even though in the long term I want Zionism to triumph in the sense that I specifically defined it, namely I want all the Jews to be in Israel and for Israel to be a little Jewish Switzerland at peace with its neighbors and unable to make the United States fight its battles, even though I want that, I want the cost of Zionism to be very, very high to them. Why? Because the more energy that they’re putting into maintaining that, the less money and energy they’re spending on suppressing my people and my interests.
 
So, even if somebody like Dieudonn√© might not be on board with my White Nationalist agenda or something, more power to him. I want him out there. I want him bedeviling these people because they’re my enemy right now, and the more bedeviled they are from all sides, the weaker they are in bedeviling us and bedeviling me. I look at it in just that way. The more mischief the merrier in this kind of setting.