EGI Notes

Saturday, October 31, 2015

Buying America

HBD dreams come true.

What's wrong with this?  Asians buying their way into America. Asians displacing lowly White latrine flies from their IT positions out west. Asians buying up the best Seattle real estate (like they do in Vancouver).  Asians electing Asian Marxists to office in what used to be America. Asian criminals and fraudsters using America as a vehicle for money laundering.

Come now!  According to HBD, these are our natural masters and superiors!  We must engage in "measured groveling" to them (Derb will illustrate the proper technique)!  How dare any puny White American dare complain!

Ah, these HBDers...a future White ethnostate will need to dust off old medieval torture manuals to re-learn the methods needed to deal with them.

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

Donald Trump: Pro-Immigration Beta Male

No worries, gamesters have explanations.


If Pedro, Patel, and Chen flood in illegally: bad.  If they flood in legally:good. Let's fantasize about a mythical STEM worker shortage that doesn't exist and replace Americans with Asiatics. Hey, maybe Charles Murray will stop picking on little beta-boy the Trumpening.

No worries, though. Panicked gamesters, their ardor temporarily dimmed by Trumps's explosion of sheer betatude, come up with varied explanations, and then eagerly grasp at some fumbling "no, I didn't really mean that" post-debate comments from "the Donald."  Gamester ardor restored. Let the onanism commence!

Some alpha male. Can't take "the heat" of a debate, and doesn't know his "own" (i.e, Sessions') policy positions.

Trump has done us a service by opening up American politics to right-wing populism. Can we now get a serious candidate, please?

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

Friday, October 30, 2015

Hitler: The Path to Power

A good book. 

I am re-reading Flood's book about Hitler's early years (up to his release from prison after the aborted putsch).

This is an excellent, reasonably objective (only a small bit of pointing and sputtering at Hitler's views and actions, although those instances, where they do occur, seem like the author desperately - and amusingly - trying to establish his anti-Hitler bonafides), well-researched book, and I recommend it to those interested in Hitler, history, and/or national socialism.

The book also truthfully describes Hitler's excellent record as a solder in WWI, in contrast to modern revisionist attempts to discredit Hitler's performance.  Say what you will: Hitler was a fervent supporter of Germany's entry into WWI, and he fought in that war. Contrast that to today's levantine Neocons, who love to start wars that other folks have to fight. I don't quite remember any of the Necons riding into Baghdad on top of a tank...

I have been critical of Hitler and of the "movement" Cult of Saint Adolf, and I will continue to be so. However, one must state an obvious fact: Hitler was a great man, a world historical figure, an interesting individual of great talents and high intelligence, and he was right about 90% of things. If only he had concentrated more on domestic German affairs and pursued in foreign policy a Fascist International approach rather than military hegemony, if only that 10% of error were not so glaring, then I would be able to have a more positive appreciation of his role in White history.

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

Thursday, October 29, 2015

European Ingroup

Answering anti-White trolls.

I note that certain concern trolls are starting their usual song-and-dance on certain blogs. In response, I’d like to make a few comments.

One can say this about a European ingroup: Europeans form a broad continental population group with respect to genetics/biology and they share a core civilizational history/High Culture.

That “and” is crucial; it is not one or the other in isolation, but both aspects of Identity in combination.

Let us consider the history of the EU. Let us put aside the fact that the EU as it exists today is a viciously destructive anti-White tool of Right and Left Globalists. Instead, let us consider the idea of a European Union, and how EU membership is viewed by the masses.

As regards the various diverse nations of Western Europe (e.g., UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, etc. - all the nations Yockey considered “the West”) there was never any racial or cultural concerns about including any of these nations. The only concerns were economic (e.g., underperforming “PIGS” countries) and political (grumbling about sovereignty and “diktats from Brussels”). 

With respect to expansion into Eastern Europe, apart from concerns about Roma and Muslim groups, there also were no racial or cultural concerns – the problems were economic (the idea that large numbers of Eastern European migrants would flood Western European countries and take jobs) and political (corruption, etc.). Concerns about Slavs, Hungarians, and Romanians were never essentially (or existentially) racial or cultural, and the legitimate concerns about economic migrants could be dealt with by ending the idea that EU citizens can freely travel between nations (a stupid idea to begin with).

In contrast, when potential expansion moved outside of Europe – Turkey being a major example (but even North Africans and other NECs have been mentioned) – then even mainstream politicians and the general population began strongly objecting, with racial and cultural undertones to arguments about “the death of Europe” and “the end of European civilization” and “they’re Asian (or African) and not European.”  Even the general population implicitly understands the line dividing Europe and non-Europe.  Even the mainstream implicitly understands the foundation of a European ingroup.  



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

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

HBDer Notices Another HBDer Attacking Trump

And the stupidity marches on.

Derbyshire, he of the East Asian wife, notices another HBDer and Euro-East Asian miscegenator (*), the "libertarian social scientist" Charles Murray, bashing obnoxious rightist buffoon Trump, he the darling of breathless HBD-oriented gamesters.

You can't keep the players (no pun intended, PUA pansies) straight without a scorecard.

Such is the state of the "American HBD Right."  Even the "movement" is not as pathetic as that.

*Suchart Dej-Udom and kids.

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

Jews, Intermarriage, Gene-Stealing, and the Trumpening

Andrew Joyce essay.

At TOO is a very interesting essay by Andrew Joyce. I’d like to reproduce a few excerpts (emphasis added) with my own comments interspersed.

Jewish intermarriage into non-Jewish power elites is a significant but under-researched aspect of Jewish strategies to maintain and expand influence… …Even in ancient times there is evidence that “some gentile-derived genes were being selected for their effects on resource-obtaining abilities within the Jewish community (PTSDA, 41).” By targeting the rich and powerful for intermarriage, Jews could obtain significant and immediate material resources, an improvement in social status, and also useful genetic material…
 
An important point. Picking up genes for high intelligence, picking up genes that would reduce the phenotypic (physical appearance, not behavior) gap with the host, all that could be useful for an essentially parasitic Diaspora minority. On the one hand, Jews prize endogamy, to preserve themselves and their essential nature while living among others, to prevent total assimilation. On the other hand, they are not so strict about this when it comes to their overall identity. White Gentiles tend to value a high degree of ethnic or racial integrity for identity; Jews have been more flexible.


Widely separated Jewish communities are more genetically related to one another than to the peoples among whom they live. No, Jews are not a “pure” race. They have picked up a good deal of foreign blood in their wanderings. But Jewish identity does not require purity. All it requires is a taint.

Jews require for Jewish identity some degree of Jewish bloodlines (preferably maternal). Thus, we have varied Jewish types, all considered Jewish, and actually more genetically similar than would appear at a casual phenotypic glance, since they all retain a Jewish ethnic core. It’s that minimal core, which allows for genetic similarity when the other elements are not too divergent (i.e., all greater “Caucasian”), which defines Jewishness. Meanwhile, we would consider a person half European and half Jewish to be Jewish. On an ethnic level, a person half Dane and half Greek would be considered neither Dane nor Greek, but rather generic European. The flexibility of Jews in this regard is somewhat in between the more restrictive White Gentile attitude, and that of American Negroes, who have no problem calling the likes of Colin Powell or Obama “Black” to the same extent they would an unmixed Nigerian.

Joyce continues:

Those Jews who drifted into the non-Jewish gene pool were indeed, according to Endelman, “swindlers, drunkards, whores, schlemiels, schlemazels, nudniks, and no-goodniks” whose “social, cultural, and even moral level was low.” By contrast, those non-Jews welcomed into the Jewish fold were from the very highest social levels, and the efforts taken to entice young princes, landowners, or heirs of industry to take Jewish wives were remarkable for their long-term, premeditated nature…

We get their worst genes; they get our best. Note this part “we get” is not contradictory to what I wrote above. Absolute racial purity is not the same as racial integrity; one is a myth, the other a practical reality.  If a European happens to have one of those “no-goodniks” has their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather, in the midst of an otherwise normal ancestry, that’s not any blow against racial integrity.  In an old ADV broadcast, I remember Pierce arguing against those who claim that “well, Whites cannot be 100% racially pure, so racial preservation is pointless.”  I can paraphrase Pierce’s riposte thus: “no matter how well you wash yourself, you will still have bacteria on your skin. That doesn’t mean you give up and don’t practice a healthy hygiene. You do the best you can.”  That’s the White attitude.  On the other hand, Jews seem to practice just enough endogamy to preserve the broad outlines of their racial integrity, but will absorb high-quality alien blood if it will promote the interests of their core Jewish bloodlines (what Johnson calls the “taint”).

Jews historically have tirelessly engaged in efforts to position themselves either in elite positions or in positions that place them between the elite and the great mass of people. Jews have sought these positions of power and influence in order to pursue their goals and interests — goals and interests which are very often at odds with the interests of native populations. This conflict of interests is the root cause of what has been termed “anti-Semitism,” and one of the main strategies Jews have employed against “anti-Semitism” is that of crypsis. Cryptic strategies have involved insincere conversions to Christianity and the abandonment of phenotypic characteristics that provoke hostility. The argument here is that Jewish intermarriage with native elites should be seen, partly, as a more extreme example of Jewish crypsis.  What better way for a foreign elite to occupy powerful positions in a society than to do so in a manner which gives the impression that the foreign elite is nothing more than the traditional, native elite? By inter-breeding so acutely with the native elites, and blending their interests so tightly, the strategy also places further distance between the native elite and the people it leads. As Pine suggests, the native elite can no longer act on behalf of the people and against foreign influence because intermarriage has ensured that any Jewish loss would in fact be “mutual.”…

Jews are masters of crypsis indeed.  I think the language of biology is relevant here, including the use of the much maligned (but useful) phrase “parasite and host” as well as Bowery’s novel approach for evaluating Jewish virulence.

The Trump and Clinton intermarriages should be seen as part of this greater strategy of expanding power and influence cryptically, and “normalizing” or blurring the image of Jews at the top of our society. Also, in the same way that one injects small amounts of microbes in order to immunize oneself against a disease, by taking in small amount of the “best” genes or personalities Jewry “immunizes” itself against the threat of a reaction from the financially and politically powerful. To be clear, although it is clearly helpful, the argument here is not that intermarriage is any longer essential to the expansion of Jewish power and influence. It’s continuance in the present is in part merely a symptom of the geriatric, decayed, and increasingly alien nature of our existing elites… 
…A couple of weeks ago, during a conversation with a White advocate of many years’ service, I was asked my opinion on the monarchies of Europe and their future. I replied that although I have a lingering respect for centuries of tradition, the time has come for the decrepit old elites to be swept away. In the course of the ongoing invasion of foreign peoples into Europe, the remaining aristocracies will not survive long anyway. The invaders will not respect the history, tradition or authority of people who are no more than relics of past European glories. The inbred, quasi-Jewish denizens of Europe’s crumbling manorial estates may lock the doors of their palatial residences, but if push came to shove, they would be no more spared the ravages of a racial conflict than the humblest member of society. Nor should we mourn the passing of these people and their toppling from power and influence. These older elites have had centuries to prove that they deserved their positions through service to the folk and concern for the collective material well-being. Time and again they failed. Their corporate and political successors are failing even more rapidly, and much more profoundly…

The old elites and their equally corrupt successors should be (literally) drawn and quartered by a White ethnostate…after a fair and public trial of course.

…This discussion is aimed primarily at moving us away from references to “our” elite, as opposed to the Jewish elite. If anything resembling the old WASP elite still exists in America, it is either moribund, corrupted, or beyond saving. The salvation of our people will not come from throwing our support behind an imagined non-Jewish group already possessing some wealth and power. As discussed above, interests and bloodlines have been intertwined enough for any such group to view a decline in Jewish power as a decline in its own. “Our” elite isn’t really “ours” at all. There is simply one, heavily-Jewish, elite, and we are in ideological, material, and spiritual opposition to it. How excited, then, should we really be about Donald Trump? For all his bluster, Trump is a creation and product of the bourgeois revolution and its materialistic liberal ideologies. We are teased and tantalized by the fantasy that Trump is a potential “man of the people.” But I cannot escape the impression that he is a utilitarian and primarily economic character, who seeks a social contract based on personal convenience and material interest. In his business and political history I see only the “distilled Jewish spirit.” In his family tree I see distilled Jewish blood. Time will tell how useful his “drawing attention to the immigration issue” will be. Time will also tell whether, if he is successful in reaching the White House, he would do anything to reverse the decline of White America.

As someone who detests the “movement’s “man on white horse” syndrome, I view positively this skepticism about Trump, which contrasts with the girlish shrieks of excitement about “the Trumpening” emanating from PUA pansies. In the last analysis, Trump is an obnoxious buffoon, with a mixed family, he is not “one of us.” and I am highly skeptical of his sincerity (*).

Having said, that, I still strongly believe his campaign is of great value, and I would even consider voting for him if he were on the national ballot.  Why?  One must understand that in politics, as in economics, perception merges with reality. Hence, the perception of the multiculturalist Putin as some sort of secret White hero; in America, we have Trump and his right-wing populist (or imitation populist) campaign creating the perception that he is some sort of pro-White anti-immigration xenophobe.

Thus, Trump is legitimizing such views, he is paving the path for future, more authentic, right-wing populist campaigns, he is creating political chaos, and he is destabilizing the careful Demoplican/Repblocrat status quo we’ve had for far too long.  Trumpian success agitates the Coloreds, and promotes the racial balkanization of American politics. The more of that, the better. Better an insincere Trump than a sincere Jeb, Marco, or Miss Lindsey.

One final note: I do wonder: how much of this Jewish behavior is consciously planned, and how much is instinctual, or woven into Jewish culture. Do Mom and Pop Yarmulke plan their children’s’ corruption of the Gentile Elites, or is it more of “hey, we wish Moishe and Sarah would marry Jewish, but if they don’t, well, then they might as well marry some rich, smart, powerful (White) goys, and we’ll see what we can get out of it.”

*I would love to see Trump get, and read, a copy of Salter’s On Genetic Interests. What would be his reaction to that, I wonder?  Even if the skeptics are right about Trump, any promotion by him of Salterian memes would be helpful. If the skeptics are wrong, and Trump is indeed sincere, then he should jump on Salter’s thesis like a hungry wolf on a lamb chop.

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

Repressing Free Speech in the UK

From TOO.


We need to be thinking hard about an awful possibility —  a future without the internet and without outlets like the Occidental Observer. We desperately need to be looking at other ways of linking up with each other and if this pushes us away from our keyboards and out onto the streets it may be no bad thing.

Several points. I have been strongly advocating,. for many years, that European nationalists make the fight for free speech an integral part of their political platform, right up there with immigration or anything else.  I have addressed this directly to certain (low-level to mid-level) nationalists, raising the obvious point that it is difficult to speak out on issues fundamentally important to your movement (in Europe, real movements) if honest discussion of the topic is illegal (*)

I got a "yeah, yeah...you Yanks don't understand that Europe never had a history of free speech," as if that means anything. Hey, guys, Europe never had a history of mass Third World migration either, but you got it now. Change with the times....

It's good that the author of this piece is looking ahead, asserting that contingency plans need to be put in place in the event of total Internet censorship. That's a good idea, but I doubt the "movement" (with scare quotes) is listening.

The part about "may be no bad thing" is something I agree with as well. The Internet is a net (no pun intended) good, but it has costs as well as benefits. Too many people think posting and commenting is "activism," we are fragmented and cut off from the real world, where the race crisis is happening. Our loss of genetic interests is taking place "out onto the streets," not in Cyberspace, and, eventually, it is out onto those streets that we must go.

*With all of this, as I've said elsewhere, in many ways, Europeans have more freedom than American in expressing dissident views, given that American social pricing represses expression more than does on-the books laws. With laws, you at least have at least an approximate idea where you stand (although such laws can be vague and inconsistently enforced based on who? whom? questions). However, Americans constantly self-censor themselves, as any comment, even if uttered with a completely inoffensive and apolitical intent, can be construed as "bigotry" and cause all sorts of pointing and sputtering.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, October 26, 2015

More Asian Whining

Colored is as colored does.

Move on , move on, nothing to see here....


Labels: , , , , ,

More on Salter/Proofreader, 10/26/15

A few more comments.

A major advantage of Salterism, and one that can help bridge the gap between racial nationalists and more healthy elements of immigration-skeptic mainstream paleoconservatives is the ability to identify ultimate interests and cut through the morass of self-defeating arguments on immigration (or any other issue).

For example see this, which is informed by my understanding of, and acceptance of, the EGI concept.  Even vocal immigration skeptics, such as Saint Viktor Orban or Pat Buchanan put the issue in cultural and civilizational terms. That’s fine as far as it goes, but that’s not the underlying problem. If you concentrate on that, you get the likes of Richard Lynn proclaiming the death of Europe with his calm confidence that, why it’ll be all right, since East Asians will carry on our culture for us (actually, they won’t, but that’s not really the point, is it?). Then we also have the likes of Lynn with the IQ fetish, others who talk about “law abiding and productive immigrants,” leading to arguments that put immigration in starkly economic terms, viewing peoples as fungible economic units.  We have American conservatives who care only about “legality,” painting themselves in a corner since, if the only issue is legality, then genocidal race replacement can be made A-OK simply by the stroke of  a pen, signing a new law into existence (see 1965 for an example).  Even people in the “movement” get confused, and get all hot and bothered over some rare fair-complexioned Kalash or Iranian or Turk or Hapa and believe that genetic extinction is fine as long as their replacements sort of “look like us.”

Putting the issue in the context of kinship goes beyond all of that.  Putting a Salterian argument forward absolutely forces ethnicity, race, and racial preservation to be at the forefront of any argument. You cannot preserve genetic kinship, genetic interests, through any sort of aracial scheme. Civic nationalism and a “shared culture” does not work. Economics are irrelevant. Phenotype has no meaning without a genetic foundation to back it up. Surely, all these other things are important and must be considered, after the genetic foundation is taken care of.

A real Movement based on a reasonable Salterism (and not the idiots who use chants of “EGI” as a talisman to explain everything from bad weather to the price of milk) can promote memes that have real explanatory power, and satisfy the deep yearnings of people for demographic preservation without mealy-mouthed “implicit” “dog-whistling” on race. 

Weaponizing discourse empowers our side. Salterism gives racial activists a form of discourse lacking in other areas on the Right, on a subject which reaches deep into peoples’ sense of identity, and a half-realized, dimly acknowledged sense of ethny=extended family. The “movement’s” blithe dismissal of Salter’s work is highly destructive, as an important memetic weapon is discarded without a proper consideration of its potential. Never mind that Salterism has fundamental importance beyond its instrumental use in politics: how can we understand how different sociopolitical options affect our ultimate interests if we have no idea that these ultimate interests even exist, much less be able to (at least approximately) quantify them?

A real Movement needs to distinguish itself from the aracial Right while, at the same time, offering those on the aracial Right some insights that they obviously lack. Salterism has vast potential for clarifying issues and focusing attention in the right direction. Espousing Salterism also “separates the men from the boys” and allows healthy-minded but as-of-yet ill-informed Whites to see exactly who it is who has the answers to the deep questions that these Whites didn’t even know they were supposed to be asking.




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

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Initial Answers to Proofreader

A cursory and somewhat superficial initial answer.

A few comments answering Proofreader’s original comments/questions. This is by no means a comprehensive response or the final word.  Just a few thoughts to open up the discussion of these issues.

Proofreader in italics, my comments in plain font.

I think the following items might be key considerations with regard to promoting and popularizing Frank Salter’s work:

1. A detailed stocktake or study of Salter’s work as it now exists and of its reception among White nationalists.

This can be useful. Most analyses of Salter’s work have been relatively brief positive reviews (mostly written by myself at American Renaissance, The Occidental Quarterly, etc.), some positive reviews that get things drastically wrong (asserting that Salter promotes a “genetic stasis” and is against eugenics), and the negative reviews, which are all ideologically motivated and that exhibit misunderstandings, distortions, subjective “pointing and sputtering,” as well as straw man arguments.

I don’t want to get into the situation of simply repeating what I have already written, so if others want to tackle this, please go ahead.  I certainly can help, if needed.

 2. Summarizing Everett M. Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations, Scott Berkun observes that “new ideas spread at speeds determined by psychology and sociology, not the abstract merits of those new ideas.” (Scott Berkun, The Myths of Innovation [Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, 2010], p. 65.) Berkun also notes that Rogers identifies five factors that influence the diffusion of innovations: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. He comments (p. 66): “While there’s a lot to be said for raising bars and pushing envelopes, breakthroughs happen for societies when innovations diffuse, not when they remain forever ‘ahead of their time.'”

Berkun is likely correct. My experience has been that appeal to logic, re: EGI has failed to make a significant impact. On the one hand, I will continue to try and diffuse Salter’s ideas; on the other hand, it is not clear to me what sociological change will trigger greater receptivity to his ideas. Certainly, most clear thinking on race seems to be triggered so far by proximate proxies of genetic interest – for example, the behavior of alien immigrants, crime, cultural incompatibility, triggers native backlash that supports native genetic interests. But the genetic interests are always in the background. Perhaps, as has been suggested by some, a greater interest in genetics, including the popularity of personal genetic analyses, would trigger a greater acceptance of the political value of understanding genetic interests and biological fitness in human interactions.  I wish that genetic testing companies, as well as population geneticists, would focus more on measurements of kinship/relative gene sharing, rather than on the less biopolitically relevant metrics heretofore evaluated.  Perhaps they avoid measuring kinship for ideological reasons, because they understand its potential to alert people of their relatedness to different peoples and hence the relative assimilability of peoples in a polity?  In other words, the “guardians” of genetic information understand what needs to be hidden from people to prevent their acknowledgment of their genetic interests.

3. What factors might advance or retard the spread of Salter’s ideas among White nationalists?

Salter’s ideas would be advanced among WNs by them having a more empirical mindset, valuing kinship and biological fitness, etc. A general increase in interest in genetics among the population will “trickle down” (or up) to WNs. Conversely, Salter’s ideas are impeded by “old school” emphases on “traditional physical anthropology” or an anti-scientific neo-Ludditism. Activists adopt an attitude of not caring about theory or ideology, they think science is irrelevant, or above and beyond them. They shut their minds to new ideas, even when these are worded in ways understandable to the layman. European nationalists think all they need is their narrow ethnic particularisms, and see no need to invoke deeper interests.  These latter issues are all impediments.

What does Salter’s work mean for White nationalism and White nationalists?

It is a quantitative evaluation and identification of ultimate interests. It demonstrates that ethnocentric behavior is adaptive, including at the individual level. It presents a method to determine costs and benefits of different political scenarios by identifying the benefits and costs to society or to any individual actor, based for example on “child equivalents” of genetic interest gained or foregone based on one choice or another. It clarifies thinking on interests, and why ultimate genetic interests are more fundamental than the proximate interests most people – including WNs – value instead. It provides a clear path to racial solutions to problems. Thus, a person who bases policy on culture or IQ or economics or even physical appearance runs the risk of having a “solution” foisted upon them that will lead to their dispossession. But since Salter’s work is based on genetic kinship, on relatedness, following Salter’s prescriptions will necessarily lead to solutions consistent with ethnic and racial preservationism. You can’t sidestep genetic interests by invoking the “high IQ’ of an alien group, or that group’s “economic value” or their cultural assimilability or even appearance (“I saw a fair Kalash, so let’s let them all in, they’re ‘White”).  The genetic data are what they are. You can use the resulting child equivalents as a form of “currency” to determine the relative worth of any decision. Is that Chinaman’s ‘high IQ’ worth the damage he does to your genetic interests?  Salter’s work allows you to ask the question. HBD merely says IQ trumps all and kinship is worthless. Traditional physical anthropology measures kinship indirectly, and often inaccurately, based on traits that show overlap between genetically distinct populations. Salter’s work directly attacks the race problem at its most fundamental level – who is more related to who?

What can it contribute to White nationalism, by itself and in combination with other things?

See answer above. It can complement other activist memes, such as Yockeyian High Culture or traditional phenotypism, by identifying and quantifying ultimate interests, and allowing for a comparison as to how these other proximate issues affect and/or overlap with ultimate interests. Also, Salter’s work can help identify – what needs to be done to ensure a general pursuit of ultimate interests so that, once this is satisfied, we can move on to other issues (such as actualizing a High Culture).

Salter’s work helps us cut through “movement” bullshit and focus on what’s most important – genetic kinship, NOT Kali Yuga or cephalic measurements or admixture percentages or Ostara-like racial histories or any form of civic nationalism.  It is instead – how similar or different are individuals and groups based on the relative sharing of distinctive genetic information, and how does that affect their biological fitness, which is based on gene sharing and genetic continuity. Salter’s work allows us to determine if and when we have at least minimally satisfied our adaptive fitness, after which we may concentrate on the bullshit, or, better still, on proximate issues that are not bullshit, such as those things that concerned Yockey.

What is the scope of Salter’s work, and to what degree is it compatible and interoperable, so to speak, with that of others? What would be its proper place in White nationalism? What does it challenge and what resistance (in the largest sense of the term) might it generate?

The scope of the work is that it is a universally applicable (for all people, actually for all evolved organisms, but of course acting upon it requires sentience) description and prescription to how to act adaptively in a complex world.  The work covers science, politics, and ethics, and while by no means the comprehensive final word (as Salter himself admits at the end), it is a comprehensive first word on the subject.  What are our ultimate interests?  What scientifically objective and quantifiable argument can be made in favor of racial preservation (the argument is objective, whether or not anyone values acting adaptively is subjective, a matter of values).  It is compatible with works that utilize empiricism to answer racially relevant questions. It could even be compatible with ostensibly unrelated “cultural” works such as that of Yockey, who eschews or even dies the significant value of “zoological” biological racism – if one is willing to take a critical view of Yockey’s flaws and agree that the Yockeyian view needs modification by biological realities. Salter’s work is not consistent with race denial, with those who concentrate solely on proximate biological issues such as IQ, and/or the mendacious who deny the existence of genetic interests for political reasons. Salter’s work challenges the mindset that empirical science is not important for activism, it challenges the existential/spiritual description of “race” as independent of “zoological” considerations, and it challenges and opposes viewpoints that exalt proximate interests and ignore the primacy of the ultimate.  Salter’s work has definitely generated resistance in those who oppose Whites defending their interests. It has also generated mild resistance from pro-White activists who mistakenly believe Salter rejects eugenics in favor of a racial-genetic stasis, and among those uninterested in genetic kinship because it distracts from their obsessive fetishes.

I have the impression that you see the work of Salter and Yockey as having an architectonic function and value (i.e., “of or pertaining to construction; directive, controlling; pertaining to the systematization of knowledge”).

Not sure what this means exactly. I view Salter as describing what our ultimate interests are (genetic continuity), while Yockey describes our primary proximate interests (actualizing a High Culture and engaging in High Politics [the Empire of the West – Imperium]).  Salter provides the fundamental foundation, the essentials that need to be taken care of first. Yockey describes to us what we should be doing after we have secured our genetic interests. The two are synergistic: without racial survival (Salter), there will be no one to build Yockey’s Imperium.  In turn, that Imperium will help secure, maintain, and advance our genetic interests.

Are we dealing with C. P. Snow’s “two cultures” here (i.e., a split between the humanities and the sciences)? You referred above to a split between “the more scientific and empirical Anglosphere tradition and the more existentialist and ‘spiritual’ continental European tradition.”

In a sense, yes. Salter represents an empirical, objective, materialist, rational, and scientific quantitative perspective well developed in the Anglosphere. Yockey represents a more subjective, irrational, spiritual-cultural-political “existential” viewpoint (“humanities” oriented) more at home in continental Europe. Although usually antagonistic, I believe the two worldviews should be compatible and cooperative.

I think the ideal would be to create a tradition that can draw upon both traditions you refer to, and that would have a thoroughly political teleology and teleonomy. (By the way, both Lothrop Stoddard and Dominique Venner advocated a humanism informed by the life sciences, which they respectively dubbed “scientific humanism” and “virile humanism.” Their humanism was secular, civilizational, and racial, rather than religious or universalist.)

I agree.

This is off-topic, but I wonder to what degree the prestige accorded to Thomas S. Kuhn’s celebrated work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is attributable to (1) the merits of Kuhn’s works; (2) the fact that Kuhn was a Jew and could therefore benefit from Jewish ethnic networking; and (3) the utility of Kuhn’s thesis for rewriting the narrative (one might say that the narrative is rewritten from right to left, just like Hebrew).

All three, I think.

4. What changes does Salter’s work call for with regard to White nationalist ideology and discourse?

I believe I have discussed this above. The “movement” needs to drop all the fossilized dogma, all the old obsessions and fetishes, all the fake “racial histories,” all the old connections to HBD and other proximate measures, and adopt a more empirical and kinship-based view toward ultimate interests.  Of course, genetic interests are not everything. They are necessary, but not sufficient. First, we take care of EGI. Then we can move on to the objectives of Yockey.

What work does it call for?

Besides the obvious: how to popularize his ideas, I see the following follow-on projects:

1. An update/revision of the work to account for genetic structure.
2. A comprehensive defense of the work from critics.
3. A more detailed analysis of the practical consequences: how would a real-world polity incorporate Salterism in its policy?
4. How is Salterism compatible with Yockeyism?
5. Long range future of Salterism through the projected future of human existence/evolution/advanced technology.

Some of these things I  have already commented on in different forums; that material, added by new work, can be integrated and expanded.

By what means could and should Salter’s work be developed and popularized among White nationalists, inside and outside the English-speaking world?

I’m at a loss here. I have so far failed in my attempts. Anyone else have ideas?

What does it call for with regard to theoretical development, doctrinal articulation, and cultural diffusion? How might Salter’s work be adapted to discourse (which can range from complex theoretical systems to simple slogans and soundbites)?

I’ve commented on some of this above; but to a large extent these are questions that I do not have the answer to, since my attempts so far have failed to excite interest. Fresh ideas, anyone?

The distinctions between theory, doctrine, and discourse are worth noting. At present, Salter’s work is effectively a theory, not a doctrine or a discourse that one can readily encounter and easily assimilate, and On Genetic Interests is just one book among many.

True in a sense, but Salter’s position on universal nationalism forms the basis of a doctrine, and we cannot forget that the last third of OGI was on ethics.

5. What exactly do you mean when you refer to “the nationalist leadership”? Adapting Salter’s work is more metapolitical than political, which means that the relevant leaders and cadres will consist more of thinkers, writers, translators, editors, and publishers than the leaders of nationalist political organizations.

It might be better to focus more on the receivers and amplifiers, so to speak, than the loudspeakers.

Perhaps. My meaning is that it would be helpful if, for example, the leadership of European nationalist parties became acquainted with Salter’s thesis, and began to formulate policy, and utilize rhetoric, to promote racial interests in ultimate terms (genetic interests).  Putting ethnic and racial interests in proximate terms risks being manipulated in aracial ways.

6. What does it mean to weaponize doctrines and discourse? I should outline my considerations on this matter later, addressing discourse in static and dynamic terms.

I hope to see this analysis. I would think that one meaning is that one designs memes to achieve specific policy objectives. For example, discussion of EGI is not for polite academic interest, but to promote the idea that ethnic and racial interests are important, are fundamental to each individual’s interests, and can be (approximately) quantified in a genetic sense to represent a “biological currency” that constitutes value for individuals and groups.

In the end, other people need to step up to defend and extend Salter's work, as well as to popularize it. If it is just me, along with a few other people here and there, that won't do, and exposes a problem - a problem either in the work itself or in the "movement."  The methodological and scientific aspect of the work is sound, the only "problem" it would have is that it may be too "dry," too academic, not inspiring enough to interest the broad range of relevant activists. The problems of the 'movement" are all to well known.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, October 23, 2015

A Bit of Diversity in Italy

Very vibrant.


But, but, but...I thought that, according to the great and good Desmond Jones, that Italy is 100% ethnically and racially homogeneous, and completely demographically secure, to the ends of time, forever and ever, amen.

Is it possible?  An obsessive "movement" ethnic fetishist might be...wrong?

Perish the thought!  It is all a medish lie, a lie I say!  

In reality, the "movement" in the Anglosphere is a pathetic joke, racial nationalism in the Anglosphere is a stupid embarrassment, and the entire thing needs to be deconstructed and built up anew from scratch.

Crush the infamy!

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Breezy and Merkel's Boner

Affirmative action keeps on rolling along.


Once again, Sailer is outspoken and correct in his criticism of the genocidal lunatic and criminal Merkel, while the "movement's" silence is deafening.

As much as I dislike Sailer, I must be fair: his coverage of the current European "refugee" invasion has been accurate, hard-hitting, and very useful.  The "movement's" reaction to it has been dishonest in its omissions and in its contortions to avoid pointing fingers in unwanted directions. Instead of criticism of Merkel, all we get is fanboy breathlessness over Saint Viktor and his chicken-wire fence.

I disagree with Breezy on one thing however.  He uses the term "Merkel's boner" to refer to her great error in inviting the colored flood into Germany and Europe.

Instead, the term "Merkel's boner" is better used to describe the "movement's" physiological reaction to Merkel's ethnicity.

In a future White ethnostate, it shouldn't only be race traitors, HBDers, gamesters and others who face the gallows. Some of the feckless "movement" leadership should have the opportunity to "play the piano" as well.

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

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Breezy Exposes Dubya

Trump is right: Bush at least partially responsible for 9/11.

Read here.

Labels: , , , , , ,

The "Movement's" Moral Capital

A question of credibility.

Greg Johnson writes:

White Nationalism is a tiny movement. Compared to our enemies, we lack money, organization, talent, and supporters. Our only real advantage is telling the truth about race, multiculturalism, the Jews, etc. Our credibility is a precious commodity. So it is deeply disturbing to me that so many White Nationalists in the West are willing to burn up that small capital of credibility repeating insultingly crude and dishonest Russian propaganda about Ukraine.
The same applies to any other "movement" meme. People already consider WNs as defective solely for championing White interests. Don't add another layer to that, don't squander whatever small credibility and moral capital we have by defending Putin, by championing bizarre racial theories and histories, by foaming at the mouth about "moon landing hoax," "vaccines killing babies," "smoking doesn't cause cancer," "man above time," "Aryans from Atlantis," "admixture coefficients and cephalic indices," etc.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Predatory Capitalism Exploits White American Individualism

Manipulating middle class and working class White voters.

Individualism requires ethics and moral principles. Thus, it fails when invaded by ethnocentric tribalists. But it can also fail for other reasons – such as being exploited by fatcat capitalists and their rent-seeking behavior, to influence the political system to amass more wealth and power.

In America, a lot of the whole “individualism, libertarianism, small government” meme derives from the wealthy exploiting the natural tendencies of White Americans to favor such things, in order to establish big market capitalism, outsourcing, and mass migration. Chamber of Commerce cabals are “playing unfair” with individualism just as do, say, Jews. All this talk of “let’s make the country safe for the small businessman” really means “let’s make the country safe for the Koch brothers, let’s make the country safe for Gates and Zuckerberg, let’s ship the jobs to China and import Mexicans and Asians to do whatever jobs can’t be shipped out.”
When Democrats assert that the White middle class and working class vote against their own economic interests by supporting Republicans, they are right. But they betray their own racial interests even more by voting Democrat. 

Labels: , , , , ,

Missing the Meaning of Trump

Even Buchanan does not get it.


The major issue is not whether he wins, but why is he getting so much support.  Putting aside all the girlish shrieking about "the Trumpening," the reality is the Trump is a fairly lousy candidate: an obnoxious buffoon, a realty show star, ill informed, whose views on legal immigration are questionable, whose daughter is married to a Jew, etc.

But he is by far the best of the bunch, and the only one who can be called a "right-wing populist," despite his pro-fatcat economic views.

Thus, the real meaning of Trump is that the GOP White voting base is beginning to stray off the reservation; the natives are getting restless.

Sure, the base is still stupid and feckless: see the support for Carson, and note that most of the base will rally to whoever the GOP nominee will be, even if Jeb or Marco.  But, still, the enthusiasm for Trump, which puzzles the Establishment, is a clear sign that the base is at least beginning to wake up, although this process may take altogether too long (and could become channeled in counter-productive directions).

Nevertheless, it is NOT business as usual in American politics. One wonders - if Duke was running this year, how much support would he get?  

And all the talking heads who assert that "the GOP could win the national election in 2016 by shifting left on immigration" still don't get it. Yes, most of the stupid base may still come out to support that, but enough may stay home to ensure a Democrat victory.

At some point, even dumb Whites can't continue to be fooled all of the time.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, October 19, 2015

Liberal Bias in Academia

MacDonald article.

This summarizes the plight of rightist academics in America and, in fact, most of the "West" as a whole.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Why Is Only Breezy Criticizing Merkel?

The pitiful "movement."

Let's give Sailer credit for keeping attention on the monstrous harridan Merkel, who is single-handedly trying to destroy Europe - first by aiding the "refugee" invasion, and now pushing for Turkey in the EU, with the huge Turkish population having full access to European lands.

Now, strictly speaking, Sailer isn't the only one on the "Right" who has critiqued Merkel.  I've done so, and there may have been a few other comments at VDARE as well. But given the enormity of Merkel's crimes, the sheer brazen genocidal fury of her anti-European animus, the lack of commentary from the "movement" has been very interesting, very instructive indeed.

What does it say when an anti-White HBDer like Sailer is more aggressive in defending European interests than is an allegedly more radical "movement" ostensibly aimed at "saving" the very Europeans Merkel is attacking?

Perhaps it says that the "movement" is so steeped in its ethnic fetishes, so immersed in its affirmative action program, so obsessed with its Manichean view of "good" vs. "bad" European ethnies, that it cannot bring itself to hold to account a German leader, even when the first and foremost victim of her policies is the German people themselves.

Note to the "movement" - when you've been out-shouted and out-radicalized by Breezy Steve the Citizenist, it's time to hoist the white flag of surrender and dissolve yourselves.

You and your obsessions have failed. It's time for something different.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Anti-Lewontin Analysis

Any human group will always have "more genetic variation within" than between it and any other human group. So what?  It's meaningless.

Lewontin’s infamous paper on the apportioning of human genetic variation is well known, while Edwards’ excellent debunking of certain misinterpretations of Lewontin’s work is unfortunately less well known.

I’d like to analyze “Lewontin’s fallacy” from a different angle, to demonstrate why it is meaningless even if taken at face value. First, some caveats.  I’m going to stress apportioning genetic variation within or between “groups” rather than specifically invoke race - race here is simply one type of possible group. I’m also not going to focus on particular numbers, but rather look at the big picture – the greater amount of genetic variation within as compared to between groups.

These caveats are for two reasons. First, to explain the concept as generally as possible. Second, because there are politically-motivated hacks who attempt to defend Lewontin’s meme by making fine distinctions between “race” and “population” and who claim that only 5-10% of the 15% is inter-racial variation, and the other 5-10% is due to variation between populations that compose races. Amazingly enough, these same clueless hypocrites critique Harpending, Sarich, and Miele for dividing the intra-group variation between groups vs. individuals, etc. - we are told this is an obvious error since the variation of each subgroup is simply part of that of the larger group and cannot be separated from it. At the same time, they try to reduce the amount of inter-racial variation by separating from it the inter-population variation (as per Lewontin), populations being a sub-group of races. You can't have it both ways. See this.  What stupidity.

Back to my own analysis. As stated, let us generalize the concept. If genetic variation is divided up as per Lewontin, here I assert the following will always hold. Take any human population and divide it into any number of groups. The amount of genetic variation within any of these groups will always be greater than that between any of the groups. This is because most human variation (at the locus by locus level) is distributed in an unstructured manner between all people.  It is NOT specifically a feature of ethnic or racial population groups and certainly does not mean – as some have suggested – that members of the same population group are more genetically distant than are members of different groups!

As an example, take the population of the United States and divide it between right-handed and left-handed people, each of those two groups being multiracial. Let’s apportion the genetic variation of the total US population. There will be more variation within each group than between. If you were to compare a multiracial group of right-handers vs. a very homogeneous monoracial group of left-handers, there will still be more variation within each group than between, and the same holds true if the left-handers are multiracial and the right-handers are all of the same race.

Let’s apportion the total genetic variation in some other populations. If you take a single ethnic population, say, Germans, the same principle holds. You can divide them up any way you please – right vs. left-handed, blond vs. brunette, tall vs. short, fat vs. thin, male vs. female, whatever – and there will always be more genetic variation within each group than between groups. You can then mix these groups up and divide them into new groups completely at random and the same Lewontin “finding” will still hold.  Imagine the entire human race was composed of Nigerians. Let’s apportion the total genetic variation of that population between, say, Nigerians born on weekdays and Nigerians born on weekends.  What will you find?  You guessed it, more variation within each group than between. How about apportioning genetic variation in Russians – Russians who have ever had an ingrown toenail and those who have never had one. Surprise!  More genetic variation within than between.

The point is that you can take any human population – starting from the entire human race to some fraction thereof – and then create any subdivision of that population, regardless of how arbitrary, and you will always find more genetic variation within the group than between. This is simply a byproduct of the unstructured nature of such variation.  Folks with access to various population genetics data can – and should – confirm this empirically, as a fact that emerges from the inherent nature of genetic variation.

Lewontin’s “finding” is therefore not specific to race, although it of course does apply to race, since race is one (non-arbitrary!) way of dividing humanity. However, since there are political points to be made trying to delegitimize race, then Lewontin’s meme is applied to race, not to any other subdivision.  For example, there is no vested interests who want to use the apportionment of genetic variation to deconstruct the meaning of the group “Russians who have had an ingrown toenail.”  When it comes to race, however, the race-denying crazies do come out in force.

Thus, even above and beyond Edwards’ cogent criticism, Lewontin’s meme is meaningless because it is ubiquitous. It can tell us nothing about the validity of the race concept since it is not specific to race. It is simply a measure of the unstructured nature of most human genetic variation. Of the total amount of genetic variation that exists, the majority of it will always be found within any reasonably sized group of people, regardless of how that group is chosen.  In fact, as pointed out by Dr. Harpending in the appendix of On Genetic Interests, a significant portion of the total genetic variation exists within single individuals

On the other hand, the genetic variation that exists between ethnoracial groups is highly structured, and that fraction of the variation is specific for defined inter-group comparisons and, hence, highly relevant for human classification. Identifying the structured genetic data important for human classification among the more random bulk of human genetic variation is in a sense analogous to trying to identify an important but faint radio message among a large amount of background static. Regardless that the message is fainter, it is nevertheless more important.



Labels: , , , , ,

Ostojic Unwittingly Gives the Answer

That's what your military is for.


Nobody can stop this flow without shooting," Ostojic said

Then shoot them, you stupid bastard. What do you think your military is for? To just stand around and look good in their uniforms?  No, they are to protect the nation for invasion. They should shoot and shoot to kill.

Meanwhile, it does seem that Orban's chicken-wire fence is enough of an inconvenience to spoiled "refugees" that they are taking another invasion route.

Labels: , , , , , ,