Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Fascist Typology

Bardeche’s Type I and Type II

Coogan’s Dreamer of the Day includes a quote from Bardeche’s Suzanne et le Tandis (Suzanne and the Slums), in the chapter: “Le Fascisme International” that seems more complete and accurate (and free from spelling and grammar errors) than the version popping up on the Alt Right.  This quote includes:

I have known, after Clarence, very many “fascists,” for the race is not dead. Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors. The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches. All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.

The precise translation is less important than the general point being made; an important distinction between different fascist archetypes, even though it is made in a bemused fashion, in jest, and even though I’m sure Bardeche didn’t mean to focus on that distinction in his quote.  Nevertheless, regardless of intention and style, there is food for thought here.

Bardeche correct identifies two archetypes of fascists; thus:

Type I: Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors.

Type II: The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches.

To translate into a context more familiar to the racial nationalist “movement” of today: Type I would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: ethnonationalists, Nordicists, Traditionalists, ethnic fetishists, and Hitler worshippers; while Type II would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: pan-Europeanists, Futurists, and Imperium-oriented Yockeyites.

Type I, in its purest representation, would tend to be an extroverted, action-oriented mesomorph; Type II would be an introverted, intellect-oriented ectomorph (not sure where endomorphs would fit in, as so many of them tend to be leftists to begin with).

That is not to say that Type I activists are never intellectual, nor that Type II activists are devoid of action, simply that on a spectrum, Type I are relatively action over intellect and Type II are relatively intellect over action.

Bardeche classified both types as: All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.  That may be true, although I think the “they detested lying and injustice” part applies mostly to Type II.  It are the Type II activists who would tend to be more of the Moralpath type.  Type I activists would tend to be more pragmatists, being as they are more action-oriented in any case.  While both types include Vangaurdists, Mainstreamers are almost exclusively Type I.  Type II activists, with their severe affect and furious speeches (or, today, blog posts – “crazed and bitter,” eh?), are hardly the Mainstreamer type.

While most activists would tend to have some traits of both types, they would be skewed in one direction or another.  

Some more or less “pure” types exist.  Your host, Ted Sallis, is a more or less a pure Type II. Francis Parker Yockey himself was a Type II.  Most Anglosphere activists in Der Movement are definitely Type I, certainly in the USA. The Alt Right, with all its intellectual pretensions, is actually heavily represented by Type I activists, at least among the rank-and-file.  In general, Type Is will outnumber Type IIs, the latter being a distinct minority.

Leaders are a mixed bag, and historical fascist leaders have shown mixed characteristics of both types.  Most interesting is when there is a distinct mismatch between ideology and personality; the person has the ideology of one fascist type, but the personality of another.  This is a crucially important point.  While Bardeche’s quote delves mostly into personality, it bleeds into ideology: those boot-wearing activists obsessed with runes, ancestral songs, and the solstice (as well as Viking horns and mead, eh?) would tend to gravitate toward ethnonationalist and/or Nordicist ideologies, and be enamored of “traditionalism,” while those idealists with their skinny severe reformer heads, furious speeches, glasses and other introvert tendencies (card-collecting being a metaphor for introverted intellectualism) would tend to gravitate toward pan-Europeanism, Futurism and other manifestations of avant-garde politics, and visions of Imperium.  

Personality and ideology are often linked, but when the linkage breaks down, all sorts of strange fascistic hybrids are observed.  For example, Hitler politically was Type I, but his personality was more Type II.  Certain Alt Right ethnonationalists mimic Hitler to the extent that they are ideologically Type I but have the “bookish” and intellect-oriented Type II character.  Conversely, some pan-European Alt Righters are the opposite: politically Type II but with Type I personalities. 

On the other hand, when personality and ideology more or less perfectly coincide, then from that synergy you get the “impossible” extreme Moralpath types – a Ted Sallis or a Francis Parker Yockey.

There is no doubt more to analyze on this topic but this is a useful beginning.


Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Ethnoretardation

More “movement” stupidity.


So, with all the heroic ethnonationalist parties in Western Europe, nothing gets accomplished to save race and civilization, and Western Europeans have to flee to the east and “colonize” Hungary.

Der Movement, being what it is, can never let a story about Eastern or Southern Europe go by without commenting on how racially degenerate and inferior the natives of those lands are (*); thus:


We who live in Western Europe know what's going on: We're being flooded by eastern Europeans! Hungary is a corrupt Turanic-Turkish country ruled by the gypsy Victor Orban,

The guy who wrote the article is a 100% moron.

And since Eastern Europeans are feistier than slothful and hedonistic Southern Europeans, they fight back:


How long before Hungary collapses under the weight of parasitical West Euros? These Invaders are not healthy, nor are they strong. They have no closeness to the Hungarian people, no Ethnic identity. Will they stand and fight with the East Europeans? Doubtful. A backbone and determination to preserve heritage is necessary which the Hungarians have.

What can the Hungarians gain from having these toxins drip fed into their homeland?
Dilution or confusion? More likely dissolution. Better revulsion and rejection now before destruction.

Meanwhile, Europe continues to be overrun by the Global South.  Thus, the wages of ethnonationalism, a failed and expired brand of petty nationalism for which we should have ZERO TOLERANCE.

This is the outcome of Brexit.  Ethnonationalism on the march!  All hail the UKIP!  Free of the EU, just in time to become a colony of India.  Very good!  Spencer was right in his skepticism about Brexit.  The rest of us. including myself, were wrong.  Although, in my defense, my support of Brexit was simply to destabilize the EU and upset the globalist status quo - I was always deeply suspicious of the ethnonationalist scum getting all breathless about "sticking it to the Polacks" while at the same time singing the praises of "Commonwealth immigration."  But still, I was not suspicious enough; I was too tolerant of the ethnonationalist plague.  Spencer's initial instincts were healthier; I must admit that.  

Lesson learned: Never trust an ethnonationalist.

*The official anthem of Der Movement was written long ago by Belloc:

Behold, my child, the Nordic man,
And be as like him, as you can;
His legs are long, his mind is slow,
His hair is lank and made of tow.

And here we have the Alpine Race:
Oh! What a broad and foolish face!
His skin is of a dirty yellow.
He is a most unpleasant fellow.

The most degraded of them all
Mediterranean we call.
His hair is crisp, and even curls,
And he is saucy with the girls.

Sunday, November 26, 2017

The Long Term Solution for the Meeting Problem

Do it yourself.

I was reading about this.

And the same has happened, or will happen, to others on the Far Right.  What to do?  Short-term options include small scale informal meetings that piggyback on the meetings of others (e.g., using a mainstream conservative conference or even some non-political event to have activists meet up; this assumes that if “movement” leaders use their real names in registering there will no problem, and also assumes that something productive can be achieved via this awkward arrangement), suing the Feds to force them to fulfill their hosting obligations, or somehow finding a private venue that won’t reject Far Rightists.  It’s also interesting how private businesses can be forced to bake cakes for gay couples, but businesses and even the Federal government (with its obligations in this arena) have the right to stifle free assembly by denying use of facilities for political reasons.

The only long-term solution I can see is for the Far Right to purchase (or build) their own meeting hall facility (or facilities).

The characteristics required:

1. Large enough and well equipped enough to handle Amren-sized meetings or even larger.

2. Should NOT be out in the middle of nowhere.  It should be within relatively easy access of a major airport and nearby various hotel facilities.

3. Obviously it would need 24/7 security, trained personnel, cameras and other electronic security, and, of course, there needs to be solid property insurance.  The security aspect is going to be perhaps the major practical hurdle, but what other options are there?  You either hold no meetings, hold meetings hosted by others and these others have the obligation for security (I doubt hotels or government facilities would accept Far Rightists providing the security in the hotel property or Federal facility), or do it yourself on your own property.  If you want meetings, then it comes down to outsourcing or insourcing.  If no one wants to accept your patronage, then the choices conflate down to one: do it yourself.

4. The property would need to be protected legally as well as physically, to protect against lawsuits designed to strip the property from you as “payment for damages.”  The Far Right needs a cadre of legal help, including people versed in property law and the protection of assets from liability.

5. The facilities should be made available to anyone in “this thing of ours” who wants to use it, regardless of “movement” feuding (e.g., if Spencer’s people own the property, they should let, e.g., Johnson rent it out if desired), for a reasonable fee.  This could be both national as well as international users.  Fees charged could help defray the cost of the facilities. The facilities could also serve other purposes, such as being a headquarters, storage facility, and temporary living space for activists in need, etc.

And, no, I do NOT want to hear “there’s no money for this.”  There is.  Stop wasting money on happy penguins living the good life in blue state suburbs, stop funding “Radio Derb,” stop funding the rest of the Alt Wrong and their pro-Jewish and pro-Asian HBD, and stop funding other tin cup panhandling nonsense.

Even if it requires different factions of the Far Right to overcome their differences and pool resources, it would be worth it.  Eventually, more than one facility could be actualized (maybe one East Coast and one West Coast, for example), but there needs to be at least one.

If this is considered another “crazy” and “low information moralizing” Sallis idea, then please come up with something better.  At least I’m making suggestions that have a degree of plausibility (assuming even the smallest amount of “movement” competence, selflessness, and discipline).

If any "movement" leaders read this blog, they should consider the suggestion.  I assume they've already thought about it, perhaps dismissing it because of the financial and security issues.  My answer is that the money is there if properly directed and utilized, a properly run facility can bring in a cash flow, and security is a necessary part of holding meetings: either you do it or trust others to do it for you.  What's your alternatives?

The Alt Righters believe they can still use public buildings in DC.  I hope that is the case, but I wouldn’t put all my eggs in that basket.   Then I heard that Spencer wants to own his own meeting place.  Having written this essay several days ago, after I first read about the meeting problem, I was gratified to hear that he’s thinking along similar lines. It’s basic common sense, after all.  And as I’ve suggested the money is there, it just needs to be redirected away from parasites and grifters and into productive pursuits and projects. Lack of financing?  Face facts: you are in competition with the parasites and grifters.  There’s limited niche space and if you can’t face those facts, you’ll be outcompeted financially.

And, no, this post is not incompatible with my previous (and continued) calls to "defund the movement."  I've made clear that while Der Movement, Inc., and all its associated stupidities, should be defunded (to clear the way for a New Movement), and, certainly, particularly stupid and useless precincts of the "movement" should be defunded, I've also supported targeted funding of important projects that would benefit racial nationalism as a whole, such as a "legal defense fund" to help build a cadre of pro-White lawyers.  Here, in this post, I suggest a solution to the "meeting problem," a solution that can be of broad benefit for activists worldwide (as one criterion is that the meeting hall needs to be broadly accessible to activists who wish to use it).  This solution - or some other alternative that is equally capable of solving the problem - is worthy of financial support.  Activists should use the "power of the purse" to steer the "movement" in the proper direction: defund incompetence; fund competence.





Friday, November 24, 2017

Der Race and Der Movement: Several Items

Several items.

Look at the pictures.  E-E-E-qualityee!

The “science” of Der Movement, particularly HBD and ethnic fetishism, is about at the level of this.

So much for those wonderful Polish “ethnonationalists,” huh?  Just as good as the Hungarian ones.  Ethnonationalists are filth.

And I also like how the mendacious media always use the same picture of Spencer in which he looks like a ranting lunatic.  They do the same with Touchback Trump.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

The Nazi Next Time, Part II

Further analysis.

Let’s take another look at my The Nazi Next Time essay from 2015.  How does all of that look now from the perspective of Trump’s election and all the events from the year (and more) since that election?

Before we look back at the main points of that “Nazi” essay, let us consider that now, approximately two years later, certain elements of the System Left are beginning to reach similar conclusions.  Read this Frank Rich piece.


However common the ground of Democrats and Trumpists when it comes to economic populism, they will still be separated by the Trumpists’ adamant nativism, nationalism, and racism. The liberal elites who continue to argue that Democrats can win by meeting Trump voters halfway don’t seem to realize that those intransigent voters have long been hardwired to despise them.

The pot calling the kettle black?  Who despises who?  It was the Democratic Party’s abandonment of the White working class, in favor of Colored Identity Politics, which set the stage for right-wing populism to begin with.  Working class and middle class White Americans rightly perceive that the Democrats despise them, so why not return the favor?

Looking to the future in his 60 Minutes White House exit interview, Bannon said, “The only question before us” is whether it “is going to be a left-wing populism or a right-wing populism.” And that is the question, he added, “that will be answered in 2020.” Give the devil his due: He does have the question right. But there is every reason to fear that our unending civil war will not be resolved by any election anytime soon in the destabilized America that Trump will leave behind.

But the long-term threat is bigger than the potential arrival in the Capitol of radicals like Moore or the conspiracy theorist Kelli Ward, a possible inheritor of Flake’s Arizona seat. By illuminating a pathway to power that no one had thought possible, and demolishing the civic guardrails that we assumed protected us from autocrats, Trump has paved the way for far slicker opportunists to gain access to the national stage. Imagine a presidential candidate with Trump’s views and ambitions who does not arrive with Trump’s personal baggage, his undisciplined penchant for self-incrimination, and his unsurpassed vulgarity. 

Yes, I can imagine it: that’s why I wrote the “Nazi” essay; the vision was clear in my mind…and still is.

Finer-tooled instruments — smarter and shrewder demagogues than the movement’s current titular head — may already be suiting up in the wings.

Oh, we can only hope.  I do believe eventually, we’ll see that.

In any case: Sallis was prescient once again.

Now, back to the 2015 Sallis piece.

The hysterical angst of the Republican Establishment concerning the rise of Trump is glorious to observe.  Of course, the interesting thing is their complete lack of self-awareness, their lack of understanding that they themselves are responsible for the predicament they find themselves in.

I was I believe too kind to the GOP then.  Or, perhaps, I realize now that the Republicans don’t care about winning; they only care about being part of the System’s anti-White agenda.  Trumpism in the 2016 election gave the GOP sweeping victories at every level, leaving the Democratic Party in complete disarray.  2016 was a stunning confirmation that right-wing populism is the path for continued Republican electoral dominance even in the face of the changing demographics that the GOP itself has been complicit in promoting.  Trumpism can build a solid White voting bloc, with strengths among demographics (working class Whites, White ethnics) who were part of the Reagan coalition, but who have been straying from the GOP after decades of Neocon-corporate-cuckservatism, as exemplified by the Bush family, “plastic man” Romney, and execrable filth like John McCain (and the pink-frilled Lindsey Graham).  And how has the GOP reacted to this good fortune?  By doubling down on their anti-Trumpism, by obstructing what little the Grand Cuck Trump (this revealed after the election) wants to accomplish in a positive sense, by joining in with the absurd moral panic over “Russian interference,” by cucking to an extreme degree, by doing everything possible to throw away the fruits of the 2-16 electoral sweep an alienate and discourage Trump’s base.  So, now, I believe that they have awareness and understanding – it’s just that they are part of the same corruption, and always have been.  It’s always been a fraud, a scam, a con game run on the White American voter.  The GOP really isn’t in any predicament at all; they are simply playing the role assigned to them, playing it with relish.

Of course, all else being equal. The GOP would prefer to win elections, as they would like to enjoy the power and perks of elected office.  They also want to convince the rubes of the viability of the “two party system” and they want to keep the political donations and campaign contributions flowing in.  But winning is not an existential issue for them, but being anti-White is. If given a choice between winning with an explicitly pro-White agenda and losing as pandering cucks, they’d pick the latter every time. When the choice is put into those stark terms, the real Republican agenda comes into sharp focus.

Consider: after the startling electoral success of 2016, GOP cucks still pretend that association with right-wing populism will somehow damage the party – they will be ‘”toast.”

Still think they really want to win?

One reason is that the GOP has been complicit in the demographic changes that have put them “in between a rock and a hard place,” politically speaking. On the one hand, Republicans look at America’s growing colored population and see the need to appeal to that demographic. On the other hand, the GOP base of support is conservative White Americans, particularly right-of-center White men.  To pander to minorities runs the risk of alienating the base; to secure the base runs the risk of alienating the coloreds. Up to this point, the GOP strategy has been to pander to the colored minorities, while throwing “bones” to the base in the form of phony “implicit Whiteness” and “dog whistling” rhetoric with no real-life political consequences. Heretofore, the GOP has mastered feinting right during the primaries, running centrist in the general election, and, in the rare cases of GOP Presidential victories (since Ronnie Raygun, we have had only the two failed Bush men being elected), governing from the left. Base anger has been silenced by “they have nowhere else to go” “lesser of two evils” electoral considerations.

But now, the rise of Trump is an ill wind blowing in the direction of the GOP elites: the base is starting to awaken and will not be forever willing to “vote for lesser of two evils” and support anti-White leftist Republican candidates.

Whatever else Trump is or does, this alone justifies supporting his 2016 campaign, which I did.  Even if he is a completely self-interested phony, his reliance on right-wing populism “let the toothpaste out of the tube” and the System, however it may try, cannot get it all back in again, long-term.  They may win some battles here or there, tactical successes, but the tides of war will go against them.  By this, I mean the war to make multiculturalism work smoothly, and have White blithely accept their own dispossession.  The System may still win in the end, but their victory will be a Pyrrhic one, a bloody mess that will leave a nation essentially ungovernable long term as any major power on the world scene.  They may suppress right-wing populism short-term (and likely, not even that), but, like a bed penny, it’ll keep on popping up again.  Trump is a catalyst, a “John the Baptist” foreshadowing things to come.

But there is something else. The problem with Trump is seemingly not only his ideology of right-wing populism (real or fake), it is also because the Republican Establishment – with some justification – see Trump as an ill-informed, vulgar, obnoxious, childish buffoon, with no self-control and an embarrassing lack of gravitas.  Very well, but in response to those concerns I have two words: Pat Buchanan.

Like Trump, Buchanan ran for President as a right-wing populist Republican. In fact, there is considerable overlap in overt ideology between the two men’s campaigns. While lacking Trump's “alpha jerk-boy” charisma, Buchanan has certain advantages that you would think would endear him to the GOP elites: Buchanan is a well-informed, articulate, religious man, with strong Establishment connections, and prior political experience in previous Republican administrations. Buchanan has always been an “inside-the-Beltway” man, and is not an obnoxious buffoon.

And how did the GOP elites deal with the more polished and political Buchanan?  With the same disdain and hysteria that they now reserve for “Der Trumpening.”  The Elite made it clear that they would never accept Buchanan as the nominee, they panicked over his early successes, they sabotaged his campaign (as I recall, they even prevented him from being on the ballot in some states), etc.  So, the case of Buchanan proves that the problem with Trump is not so much his repellent personal aspects, but his core of right-wing populism. Anything that appeals to Whites is anathema to the GOP, which is of course self-destructive given the nature of the GOP base (it is not for nothing that Sam Francis labeled the GOP “the Stupid Party”).

As stated above, the GOP would rather lose as anti-Whites than win as pro-White.  It’s a well-established trend dating back decades.

The point is that the GOP lost anyway with Bush and Dole in 1992 and 1996. While it is understandable that the incumbent would be favored in 1992, there was no excuse for favoring the “living mummy” “civil rights Republican” Dole over Buchanan in 1996. Favoring Buchanan would have solidified the GOP base and could have put the party in the direction of a right-wing populist track that could have genuinely benefited White Americans.

That is anathema to Establishment Republicans.


But, no. The elites sabotaged Buchanan and they suppressed right-wing populism for several electoral cycles. Now it has erupted in a more “virulent” form with Donald Trump. Instead of learning their lesson and understanding that the base cannot be taken for granted, instead of understanding that they need candidates that appeal to the base, the GOP elites are hell-bent on sabotaging Trump and suppressing right-wing populism for another couple of electoral cycles.

They may succeed but they are playing with fire.

They couldn’t stop Trump from winning, but they are fairly successful in teaming up with Democrats to block Trump’s ostensible agenda. Here, they are getting help from Trump himself, who betrays his base at every opportunity.  xxThere are some who say that there is evidence that Trump is sincere in his right-wing populism: he gave up his easy billionaire lifestyle to run for President. But that in and of itself means nothing.  It ignores issues of ego and the lust for (political) power. By analogy, we can ask why billionaires all don’t just ease up and enjoy the “good life,” why do most of them continue to strive, “wheel and deal,” obsess over money, and engage in rent-seeking behavior, including political lobbying, designed to further increase their wealth and power?  That’s the nature of the rich and powerful: they are never satisfied; they always want more (and that is one reason that they become rich and powerful to begin with).  If such people are given the opportunity to go into the history books as US President, would they eschew that opportunity?  Trump’s Presidential ambitions tell us nothing about his sincerity.  The fact that Trump ran as a right-wing populist may reflect his real views, or it may simply reflect his realization that the only way he could stand out from the established field of GOP cucks was to give the base the “red meat” that they were craving.  If Trump is really the shrewd businessman his admirers says he is, then he must have noticed the open political niche space to the political right of the GOP candidate field.  Trump’s sincerity would be better displayed by an honest and consistent effort on his part to fulfill his campaign promises.  That he is not doing; instead we get jackass tweeting, half-heated measures, backpedaling, a disgraceful waste of political capital, and waffling on issues like DACA.  If there is sincerity there, it is awfully hard to see.


Who will come after Trump?  Who will be the next right-wing populist?  As even worthless and weak Whites become more aggressive out of sheer desperation, who will they turn to next?  Someone more extreme and firebrand-populist compared to Trump to the same degree Trump is compared to Buchanan? 

It won’t be “the fire next time,” but it may well be “the Nazi next time.”  The GOP elites had better hope that their country clubs are well fortified indeed.

Will Trump’s constant betrayals and failures discourage his base?  Or, as Rich suggests, whatever the outcome of Trump, the base will only become more energized?  The latter, we hope.  But we must realize that the trauma of Trump has immunized the System against the “virus” of right-wing populism; they’ll be on their guard against it, and will try and nip any further manifestations in the bud.  Where they will fail, I believe, is that the System is, at its heart, anti-White; they cannot muster up any real “red meat” to satisfy a growing sense of White Identity Politics that will become ever more resistant to Democratic attempts to divert race with economics or GOP attempts at implicitly White “culture war” dog whistling.  The toothpaste is out of the tune, so to speak.

But, the System may not be able to win over the Trump base, but they’ll use their power to sabotage future political manifestations of right-wing populism.

In the movie The Day of the Jackal, the Jackal tells the OAS leaders: “Not only have your own efforts failed, but you’ve rather queered the pitch for everyone else.”  One can say that about Trump perhaps (and about the “movement” more generally, certainly).

Now, right-wing populism, essentially civic nationalism, is not the answer.  It is best a precursor or at least a stop gap, and at worst a diversion, a cul-de-sac, a competitor to what is needed – which is explicitly prop-White racial nationalism – White nationalism.  At this point in time, we can work to ensure that right-wing populism serves positive functions, as a precursor to White nationalism (the membrane separating the two is thin; it is one step from civic nationalism to racial nationalism, but an big step many do not make), or at least as a stop gap as racial nationalism begins to develop (Trump is in a sense a stop gap; one other benefit of his election, besides all “breaking the ice” for more extreme politics and increasing balkanization an chaos, is that he prevented a Clinton election that could have led to more repressive conditions for the development of racial nationalism – worse is not always better).

I would suggest that at this point, right-wing populism is best suited for Presidential campaigns and also for Senate and Governor races, and for lower level races in areas in which the White population is not sufficiently “prepared” for more radical approaches.  However, in selected areas and selected times, we should begin to consider explicitly White candidates – even racial nationalist WNs – ranging from school board elections all the way up to the US House of Representatives. Some successes there can lead to consideration of WNs for the higher level races.  The value of political WN campaigns exists regardless of the electoral outcome: promoting balkanization, recruiting, propaganda, organization, normalization of racial nationalist discourse and “pushing the envelope,” forcing the civic nationalists to get off the fence in one direction or another, a whole host of advantages.

Political campaigns would benefit from effective local organizing and vice versa.  It’s been said, and I believe it to be true, than in some locales, WNs love near each other but do not know of each other’s existence. Even if some fraction of these are kooks, freaks, defectives, Nutzis, fetishists, etc. there may still be a critical mass of useful like-minded people in certain areas.  The trick is to get them together, to work together, and to organize, safely, without the threat of infiltrators exposing them all.  How to do it is uncertain.  Existing meetings with their “extreme vetting” are ludicrous jokes; real extreme vetting would help, but I’m not sure that Der Movement has the competence or discipline to pull it off.  Anyone who is able to put together an effective plan for local organizing is going to be at an enormous advantage.  In the competition for racial nationalist leadership, those who can perform effectively will rise, and those who are laughably inept will fall.  

WNs cannot depend on a “man on white horse” civic cuck “hero” to save them.  The Nazi Next Time is not going to descend from Valhalla, complete with blessings of Saint Adolf; instead, the “demagogues” of the future will come to the fore as a result of hard work, discipline, and commitment.

This will, I believe, likely require a New Movement that replaces the clown show that currently exists.  I’m not sanguine about that, but this blog will continue to play the role of “loyal opposition.”  Racial nationalism is the future, but that future will only become actualized if we make it so.  

Future installments of this topic will be forthcoming when events and new ideas warrant; note as well there is overlap with the concept of Political EGI, as any pro-White leader who is worthwhile must incorporate (even if indirectly) the concept of genetic interests into their memetic toolkit.

Race and Der Movement in Der News

In der news.


Was this ever an issue for any other President?  Essentially, Trump is being stripped of his Presidential powers, a sort of de facto impeachment.

Good Taylor video.  Taylor would be of optimal benefit for White advocacy by concentrating on media like this, or running for public office.  

The Amish election lie being promoted here.  For reality, see this.  Der Movement’s fervid hatred against White ethnics is revealed by their promotion of the Amish Lie.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Ethnonationalists Stumble Along the March

A point to make.


This was my first trip to Ireland, and I was struck—just as I was during a 2014 trip to Hungary—by the strength of lingering intra-European rivalries. It is hard to know just how seriously the Irish nurse their grievances, but many still seem to think of the English as hereditary oppressors.

The same attitude that led to two wold wars and the wrecking of the White world - the attitude promoted by ethnonationalists today. Ethnonationalist shills will say it doesn't matter; Europeans can hate each other as long as it motivates them to preserve themselves.

Really?  What about this:


Sinn Fein, which many see as a “nationalist” party because of its opposition to England, but which pushes an inexplicable refugees welcome/open borders policy.

Typical of ethnonationalists: scorn fellow Europeans, while embracing the World of Color. The same with Brexit, with "Polish plumbers" being anathema, while those good sturdy yeoman "Commonwealth" Hindus and West Indians are the veritable salt of the earth.


Racially conscious Irish nationalists of course understand that their country now has far more important things to worry about. 

Indeed they do.  And ethnonationalism is one of the things they need to worry about.

Conquest of a Movement

More of the same.

As part of a paen to Nordicist Madison Grant on a typical Alt Right blog, we read some fascinating comments.  For example:


Grant was uniting Dutch, Huguenot, Irish, British, Scandinavian, and to a lesser extent, German…

What happened to “ethnonationalism?”  It dissipates upon crossing the Atlantic?

Ditch the Irish and emphasize German more than Huguenot, and that’s a good encapsulation of Der Movement’s affirmative action program (or at least who can attend an Alt Right meeting sans all the “extreme vetting”).

Grant’s biographer tells an anecdote that when Italians claimed that non-Nordic Italians were capable of great things, Grant and his colleague Henry Fairfield Osborn declared that Christopher Columbus da Vinci, Galileo, Raphael, Donatello, Botticelli, Petrarch, and Dante were Nordic. Poles Kosciusko and Pulaski were Nordic too.

Oh, yes, of course they were. Each and every one!  If it were possible to do genetic testing on those individuals, they’d overlap perfectly with Dolph Lundgren (or Patrik Hermansson).  Julius Evola was too!  And Michelangelo!  And, quite obviously, the fair-complexioned, Celto-Germanic, finely chiseled features of Benito Mussolini reflect a pure Nordic ancestry!

One needs to separate Grant’s concerns about changing American demographics – concerns that were certainly legitimate – from assertions that virtually any Southern or Eastern European that accomplished anything of value was “Nordic.”  Even if the all the aforementioned individuals were “Nordic” (which they were not), that would still leave a large number of important Wop/Polack, etc. historical figures who were “Mediterranean” and “Alpine.”  Racial and ethnic preservation does not require that every important historical figure belonged to your favorite racial type.


Madison Grant’s writings are surprisingly sympathetic to Northern Italians, who he claimed were Alpines with much Nordic blood.

Like Il Duce!  Of course, contra the solipsist fantasies of Muscleman Mangan, Northern Italians were a distinct minority among Italian emigration to the USA, said emigration being something one would presume be of interest to Grant and his followers.


Unless a Pole or Italian’s skull was measured by calipers by an expert, they could plausibly claim to be of Nordic heritage.

Since both “Nordics” and “Mediterraneans” are equally “dolichocephalic” I fail to see how the Der Movement Caliper Test would be of any use here for the Wops.  The Polacks maybe – but, really, are even long-headed Italians and Poles really considered akin to Swedes?  Would they get free access to all those (strictly secret!) Alt Right meetings, for example?  Would a greasy swarthoid Wop or gook-eyed Polack be considered “Nordic” even if they passed this caliper test?

Madison Grant’s theories of three races of Europe have been altered by science because new discoveries related to DNA. The data related to race is now organized in a different way, but not too different from Grant. The following article describes three “races” in Europe...

Another outright “movement” lie, hoping that people won’t actually read the article, which contains statements like this:


Two years ago, Reich's group uncovered genetic evidence that most present-day Europeans are a mixture of groups related to southern Europeans, Near Easterners, and a third group most closely related to Native Americans. “That was a crazy observation, but it's very strong statistically,” Reich says. “We argued that this is because of the contribution of an ancient north Eurasian population some of whose members contributed to the peopling of the Americas more than 15,000 years ago, and others of which later migrated to Europe.”

That’s “not too different” from Grant?  Are you mad?  Or just another typical fundamentally dishonest Der Movement apparatchik?  This does not mean we need to agree with the interpretations of Reich (or of the article itself, and whether or not the article actually accurately describes Reich’s findings) – that’s not the point.  The point is that the article’s conclusions do not support the contention of the Counter-Currents post.  It’s as ludicrous as AltRight.com fetishists pointing at recent Ancient Egyptian DNA evidence – showing a Near Eastern genetic background with a Negro minority admixture - and stating that those findings “prove Arthur Kemp right” – when Kemp instead promotes the idea of Ancient Egypt as a “Nordic desert empire.”  Der Movement is literally the dictionary definition of the phrase “fundamentally dishonest.”


…Grant was a scientist – not a pseudoscientist. He was conducting research experiments that were repeatable, and they adhered to the scientific method.

Please explain this. What’s repeatable?  What “research experiments” were being conducted?  Hint: discussing historical events or expressing opinions about the relative merits of ethnies – even if those opinions turn out to be absolutely correct – is not “conducting repeatable research experiments.”  More evidence that the Alt Right knows absolute zero about scientific research, what it actually is, and how it is “conducted.”  What do you expect from a “movement” that confuses solipsism with reality?  

For those who believe the “whites and Asians” as allies meme, I offer this quote from our wise past elders. The Asians haven’t necessary bought into “whites and Asians” are allies idea. I even believe that the “higher” IQ of Asians is also largely a myth.

But we should all still embrace Derbyshire, HBD, and the Alt Wrong.

While David Hackett Fischer treats the Quaker and German/Pennsylvania Dutch settlers with great reverence, Madison Grant writes about them quite coldly. Grant argues that the Germans of the American Midlands were Alpines whose clannish ways made them an impediment to national unity. Grant could have extensively covered the extensive Irish (but Nordic) pathologies manifest throughout the 19th century, but we see here how current events can cloud the minds of the most scientific and unsentimental of white advocates. Madison Grant lived at a time when his Patrician Class collogues were strangely in favor of American intervention in World War I against Germany. As a result, he exaggerates Midwestern German differences.

First, what is a “collogue” as a noun rather than as a verb?  Second, all this talk of the Irish as “Nordic” would come as a surprise to Grant’s associate Stoddard who, as I recall, made a big deal about alleged “Mediterranean” elements in the Irish population.  Third, and most important, note that when Der Movement has to deal with Grant being “cold” to Germans (blasphemy!) excuses need to be made.  “Current events” clouded the mind of this “scientific” activist.  Can’t we then say the same about other issues: the large influx of Southern and Eastern European immigrants “clouded” Grant’s mind and led him to “exaggerate” White ethnic differences.  What’s good for the Kraut goose should be good for the Wop/Polack gander, no?

Der Movement, at least its American branch, hasn’t generated a genuinely new idea since WWII apart from those of Yockey, and Der Movement (including Yockey worshippers and peddlers of cheap kitsch like “Yockey commemorative plates” – something an elitist like Yockey would no doubt despise) essentially dismisses and rejects Yockey’s chief idea.  I don’t know: probably Yockey would be more interested about whether someone agreed with his Imperium idea rather than whether they were hawking plates with his likeness on them.  How about a Francis Parker Yockey Commemorative Tin Cup?  More appropriate, I think.

And what would well-educated patricians like Grant and Stoddard think of the Alt Right, clowns yelling about "Pepe" and "Kek" and milling around in the streets like rejects from a cosplay convention?  Tell me again about how superior "White nationalism 2.0" is compared to "White nationalism 1.0."  Seems much the same to me, except version 2.0 has better street activism, worse "optics," and more shameless panhandling.

Sunday, November 19, 2017

More Genetic Structure and DifferInt Analysis

An important topic.

I have been looking a bit more at the DifferInt program (currently unable to find anything better), testing some model genotypes to better understand the relationship between different levels of integration with respect to the amount of differentiation.  One finding which is clear that it is when genetic differentiation – at the lowest genepool level - between groups is shallow is when the program is scalable at the level of the highest level of integration.

A test model was devised with two populations of eleven individuals each.  Six loci were considered.  Initially, the two populations were constructed to be genetically identical. Four individuals of the second population had alleles at one lock rearranged so that four heterozygotes were made into four homozygotes (two of each type), without changing the total number of each allele type for that locus in that population.  After this change, the genepool differentiation was 0.0303, but the multilocus genotype neglecting elementary genic differences (MGNEGD) was 0.3636 – a twelve-fold increase in differentiation.  In this simple model of shallow genetic difference, a discrete representation of genetic structure (MGNEGD) is seen to exhibit sharply increased (and quantitatively scalable) differentiation with even a small change in allele structuring in genetically similar (model) populations.

However, when differentiation at the genepool level is already fairly high, then MGNEGD rises to complete differentiation quickly, and the ability to evaluate genetic structure becomes non-scalable using this program.  It could be that the SNP database I utilized for my initial human study was enriched in SNPs that sharply differentiate between ethnies and so all levels of differentiation were high in the analysis; perhaps completely random SNPs would be better? On the other hand, we are most concerned about the distinctive genome (with respect to EGI).  

In a more realistic model of human genetic differentiation, two populations were set up, each consisting of ten individuals, each assayed over 100 loci.  90 of these loci were absolutely identical between the two populations and 10 loci differed between the populations with respect to the frequencies of alleles at the loci.  In some cases, it was 100%  of one allele pair compared to 100% of another; in other cases it was more subtle - for example one population having 20% AA, 60% AT, and 20% TT while the other population was 20% AA, 50% AT, and 30% TT for the same locus.  The genepool differentiation between the two populations was 0.0370; the MGNEGD was 1.000 - complete differentiation.  This again shows that with enough loci studied and differentiated populations, analysis of discrete sets of multilocus genotypes (see my definition of genetic structure below) will reach complete differentiation.  The implications for genetic interests should be obvious.

It might be a good idea to review my idea of genetic structure again here.

Genetic structure as per my definition can be viewed as a form of linkage disequilibrium of alleles over all the loci in the genome, or this distinctive genome, of at least whatever number of loci that were assayed.  Each specific permutation of multilocus genotypes is a discrete entity, so that one would expect, of course, district genetic structures between any set of individuals who are not identical twins; there would be differences in genetic structure within families, never mind within ethnies.

However – and this is the key point that separates my idea from the run-of-the mill evaluations of genetic structure - I envision genetic structure to be defined by specific ranges of multilocus genotypes.  Therefore, while there is going to be, naturally, individual variation of discrete multilocus genotypes within families, there will be a family-specific range of multilocus genotypes, a range within which all the individual genotypes, of that family will fall within.  Likewise, there will be ethny-specific ranges of multilocus genotypes, so that members of an ethny will exhibit genotypes that – while they differ on an individual level – will fall within a range, a set, of genotypes characteristic of that ethny.  

It then follows, that while multilocus genotypes will be differentiated from each other, the extent of that differentiation will differ.  Different families will exhibit different ranges, or sets, of possible multilocus genotypes, but families belonging to the same ethny will exhibit ranges that are more similar to each other than that of families of different ethnies (the same goes for individuals of course, across families or across ethnies).  Ethnies belonging to the same continental population group (i.e., intra-racial) will exhibit more similar ranges of possibilities of multilocus genotypes than that of inter-racial comparisons.  One could think of it also as frequency distributions of multilocus genotypes, of all the alleles possibilities at all the relevant loci considered together as a discrete entity, and one can compare how similar the frequency distributions are, with more overlap from those more similar.  

One would also expect a solid correlation, or association, between the differentiation as measured by an allele-by-allele genepool/beanbag approach, single locus genotypes, and multilocus genotypes. The relative extent of differences should correlate in at least a qualitative sense between these levels of “genetic integration.”  Hence, as previously noted at this blog, “complete differentiation” at the multilocus genotype level should differ in extent dependent upon how similar or different the genotypes are from each other.  One should in theory be able to quantitate this in a continuous fashion, rather than just having a binary yes/no undifferentiated/completely differentiated choice.

This is obviously an important topic.  If we are to make decisions based on genetic interests, don’t we need to have a better understanding about what those interests actually are, quantitatively speaking?

It’s true that we know enough right now to justify taking action in defense of genetic interests; even at the lowest levels of genetic integration, and even with estimates of child equivalents based on Fst, we already know that mass migration of alien peoples is genocide.

So, yes, I’m sympathetic to the argument that in general, qualitatively speaking, it is more important to actualize a defense of the interests we already know about than to fine-tune our understanding of these interests. But why not both?  Nothing stops us from both organizing on a political and metapolitical level while at the same time continuing to refine our understanding of this topic.  While most of my work now concerns the political and metapolitical implications of defending EGI and of actualizing a High Culture, surely there is also a place for a better understanding of EGI and for a better understanding of Spenglerian cycles and how to control them foe civilizational benefit.

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Born Neandertal

Biological realities.

Read here.  Neandertals were born, not ”made.”  

Neandertal and modern human adults differ in skeletal features of the cranium and postcranium, and it is clear that many of the cranial differences—although not all of them—are already present at the time of birth. We know less, however, about the developmental origins of the postcranial differences. Here, we address this deficiency with morphometric analyses of the postcrania of the two most complete Neandertal neonates—Mezmaiskaya 1 (from Russia) and Le Moustier 2 (from France)—and a recent human sample. We find that neonatal Neandertals already appear to possess the wide body, long pubis, and robust long bones of adult Neandertals. Taken together, current evidence indicates that skeletal differences between Neandertals and modern humans are largely established by the time of birth.

That’s interesting.  More relevant to issues of interest to this blog is the following from the same paper:

Adult European Americans and African Americans differ, on average, in the shapes of their long bones, with European Americans having thicker shafts and larger articulations relative to shaft length.

But, but, but…aren’t racial differences all “skin deep” – just about color – and that other than such trivialities, we are all “exactly the same?”  You mean, there are actual anatomical differences between the races (never mind the genetic gulf)?

Race denial is a farce.  Real racial science is caught between the laughable lies of the Left and the HBD pseudoscience and crazed ethnic fetishism of the Right.  Fighting the former doesn’t mean we have to accept the latter.  Both are wrong (but, admittedly, the former is more dangerous).

And speaking of the Left, and getting back to the main article, did anyone truly believe that extreme Neandertal robustness was somehow the result of lifestyle?  Is anti-genetic leftism so entrenched in science that it goes to that extreme of ludicrousness?   Were the Neandertals constructing makeshift barbells out of boulders and tree trunks and engaging in Ice Age powerlifting routines?  Granted, yes, I understand (unlike Der Movement) that things need to be demonstrated empirically, and not just assumed.  But still, one cannot pretend that a demonstration that Neandertal robustness was an inborn trait is any sort of grand discovery.  Only leftists would be surprised by this finding.

Friday, November 17, 2017

Meet Shah Jorjani

Madness.

Let's take a look at some "movement" stupidity from several weeks ago.  I've been busy with the DifferInt analyses over the past few weeks, but will get around to evaluating Der Movement' s more recent antics when I have the time.

We can start with the following.

Since Greg Johnson quoted excerpts from Jorjani to, I presume, take another swipe at Spencer, let’s take a closer look at some other points Jorjani has to make.  When you read this, please remember that Jorjani has been taken seriously by BOTH Johnson and Spencer; he’s spoken at Counter-Currents events, and he was high in the councils of the Alt Right corporation (never mind Arktos).


….Croatia is a part of Iranian civilization. During Tito’s rule, which imposed a Slavic identity on all of Yugoslavia, scholars were actually prosecuted, imprisoned, and even tortured for researching and writing about the Iranian origin of the Croatian people. Specifically, they are part of the Scythian branch of Iranians – cousins of the Persians who rode deep into Europe.

Yes sir, Croatians are actually Iranians with a dastardly fake Slavic identity.  No doubt – no doubt whatsoever! – population genetics studies will place Croatians right there with Iranians and distant from those alien Balkan Slavs!  And if such studies don’t yield that result, then, by golly, it’s the ghost of Tito imposing an anti-Promethean contamination, falsifying the genetics!


Steve Bannon was known to be a reader of Arktos books and Michael’s plan was to send me into the White House to cultivate a relationship with Bannon, and through him, to influence President Trump. My main reason for wanting to have such influence was to help determine Iran policy.

As the Iron Sheik used to say, “Iran number one!”

…the funding for a capital investment that would have established me as the majority shareholder of the Alt-Right Corporation…

Very, very, very carefully consider the ramifications of this delusional Persian supremacist intimately involved with the Alt Right, a “movement” ostensibly representing the interests of indigenous Europeans.


This is about the reorientation of the trajectory of geopolitics in the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. It is about aborting a Renaissance of the Persian Empire…

And at the heart of this world historical mission is…Jorjani.

Except that we are not Germans. 

No, you’re not.


Through the Scythians (i.e. the Saxons) and the Alans, we lent the Germans and Goths our Faustian (i.e. Zoroastrian) genius and chivalric spirit but those northern Barbarians never understood the essence of our cosmopolitan humanism.

Err...isn’t “cosmopolitan humanism” the very thing all the grand “traditionalists” of the Alt Right allegedly oppose?  Cosmopolitan humanism?  What would Evola think? Savitri Devi?  Oh, the Kali Yuga of it all!  The men who can’t tell time!  The Age of Iron!  Oh Guenon, where are thou?

Al-Ahwaz and a Kurdish nation have nothing but Sunni fundamentalism and barbaric tribalism to offer the world, whereas our Persian civilizational heritage has not only held Iran together for centuries it has, repeatedly, offered all of humanity the best chance at forming a world order based on innovation, compassion, and social justice.

Social justice?  I guess that goes along with all of the “cosmopolitan humanism.”  How about multiculturalism?  The wonderfully cosmopolitan Persian Empire was multicultural, no?  Let’s have the Alt Right fight for multicultural cosmopolitan humanist social justice!  

We know that you do not really have a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” You are oppressed by a rogue dictatorship. Rest assured that after we liberate ourselves and secure our future, we will bring the ever-living fire of true freedom to your bountiful continent as we once brought it to Greece. Far be it from us to leave your resistance movement in the hands of the Alt-Right or comparable culturally impoverished and regressive reactionaries. We are coming to save you, America. So speaks the living spirit of Xerxes, King of Kings, Light of the Aryans...

Once again, both Johnson and Spencer think/have thought that this Jorjani is someone that needs to be seriously listened to, someone who needs to be high in WN councils.

The essential problem here, I believe, is the strong need, the strong desire, the strong craving, of the Far Right for affirmation and approval.  And when such affirmation and approval comes from someone with some sort of credentials, such as Jorjani's academic status, then the craving becomes too intense to resist.  Caution is thrown to the winds, which is one major reason that the Far Right is so easily infiltrated, betrayed, hobbled by defectives, and infested with all sorts of bizarre flotsam and jetsam.  Further, since most in the Far Right lack any sort of formal scientific training whatsoever, they are unable to distinguish between what's valuable and what's not (hint: the HBD cult falls into the latter category).  Therefore, someone with a solid scientific background would have been less apt to become impressed with Jorjani's esoteric techno-babble, and would have looked with prudent skepticism on taking anything else the fellow had to say seriously.

When oh when will the Alt Right darkness be dispelled from the land so that sane racial nationalism can come into the light?