Wednesday, February 28, 2018

The Curvilinear Effect of Intelligence on Perceived Leadership Behavior

Part of the explanation?

Why “movement” leaders tend to be, in general, incompetent mediocrities leads to a number theories.  There is of course Der Movement’s stringent ethnic affirmative action program. The dominance of Der Movement by Type I activists, who favor their own, for leadership, also is a factor.  Dissident movements tend to draw in marginal personalities, while the elevation of defective freakishness repels the less marginal; the lack of suitable candidates leads to marginal leaders. Leaders are almost always overt and public activists, typically attracting people who have “little to lose” IRL (unless they are trust fund babies or the retired wealthy).

Another mechanism is that even when other variables are controlled for, the perception (perception, NOT reality) of who is an effective leader is related to the leader’s IQ, but in a curvilinear and not linear fashion.  Thus, assuming an average IQ of 100, the peak for optimal perceived leadership is an IQ of 120 – not only are dumber people perceived as less effective, but smarter ones as well. One can theorize mechanisms for this phenomenon, but it is what it is.  Emphasis added:
Although researchers predominately test for linear relationships between variables, at times there may be theoretical and even empirical reasons for expecting nonlinear functions. We examined if the relation between intelligence (IQ) and perceived leadership might be more accurately described by a curvilinear single-peaked function. Following Simonton's (1985) theory, we tested a specific model, indicating that the optimal IQ for perceived leadership will appear at about 1.2 standard deviations above the mean IQ of the group membership. The sample consisted of midlevel leaders from multinational private-sector companies. We used the leaders' scores on the Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT)-a measure of IQ-to predict how they would be perceived on prototypically effective leadership (i.e., transformational and instrumental leadership). Accounting for the effects of leader personality, gender, age, as well as company, country, and time fixed effects, analyses indicated that perceptions of leadership followed a curvilinear inverted-U function of intelligence. The peak of this function was at an IQ score of about 120, which did not depart significantly from the value predicted by the theory. As the first direct empirical test of a precise curvilinear model of the intelligence-leadership relation, the results have important implications for future research on how leaders are perceived in the workplace.
This may be another explanation for “movement” failure.  120 IQ people are intelligent no doubt, but have limitations.  Most prominent “movement” leaders would tend to be in this range (Hello Alt Right!  Hello Alt Wrong!) and more intelligent and capable people are weeded out (and for other reasons such as those discussed above).

But, but, but…”what about William Pierce?” Der Movement mutters.  There are those other variables to consider: “leader personality, gender, age, as well as company, country, and time fixed effects.”  Pierce benefited from ethnic affirmative action, although not particularly charismatic he had certain alpha male personality traits, he was tall and physically imposing, people respected him for giving up his academic career to associate with Rockwell, and there was a time/era effect – he came to prominence in an America more appreciative of the science/technical men; today’s Beavis-and-Butthead “movement” is unlikely to value an “egghead” physicist.

And consider Strom, likely equally intelligent, but never considered as leadership material even before his legal troubles.  Although ethnically acceptable, Strom’s personality and other traits could not compensate for a high-IQ (and likely contributed to a more negative view).  Gliebe was much more acceptable to the rank-and-file: how did that turn out?

Historically: Hitler was likely less intelligent than Goebbels, Mussolini less intelligent than Gentile or Evola, Codreanu less intelligent than Cuza, etc.  Francis Parker Yockey failed as a practical leader, and a careful reading of Coogan’s book suggests reasons why, some of which relate to Yockey’s own personality quirks and personal failings, but also because of jealousy over his obvious genius as well as the inability for him to effectively explain his concepts to the Type I riff-raff.

Getting around this problem would entail the high-IQ leader compensating like Pierce if possible, or surrounding himself with high-IQ advisers and listening to them, or a fundamental change in the “movement” that would allow it to overcome the societal prejudice against the higher-IQ.

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Race and Der Movement in Der News, 2/27/18

Odds and Ends.

This is what the far-left ultracuck Donald Trumpamnesty wants to legalize.

MAGA indeed!  Perhaps MAFAUA would be more appropriate: Make America Fat And Ugly Again.

Well, not, not “again” – as the average American, of all races, Trump included, is already fat and ugly, so “Make” and “Again” are superfluous.

I note that the “work” of the despicable Andrew Hamilton is now being featured at the National Alliance’s National Vanguard site.  Well, what can one say?  Apparently, the new National Alliance is keeping close to the spirit of William Pierce and his ideology – and I do not mean that as a compliment.  The NA was always an iron-core Type I organization, so none of this should come as a surprise.  Let a thousand (plagiarized) flowers bloom!

It is unfortunate that an individual as intelligent as Strom so frequently displays bad judgment in his professional and personal lives.  As regards the former, trying to revive the National Alliance (which died with Pierce) is an error, and if you are going to go ahead and try and do so anyway, do you have to repeat all of Pierce’s mistakes, and enable the worst forms of freakishness and ethnic fetishism?  Isn’t there a better way?

Be that as it may, the new National Alliance once again proves it is just as unfit to represent White interests as was the old.

Brimelow is a Happy Penguin (LLC), not a White nationalist.

This is why I’m rich and famous.
Well, I don’t know about “famous” but while “rich” is subjective, news reports about “movement” funding – which Brimelow has never denied or argued against – show that the Happy Penguins must be quite happy indeed with the financial haul VDARE gets.

A Sicilian expresses his love of chicken.

This is great; unfortunately, the way America is going, the typical “American” will be hanging from the trees by the time the Chinese set up (military) bases on the moon.

Apparently, Amren’s Munro films some Romanians dancing the Hora, long may it turn.

The beginning of the end: Gregory, Gregory, where art thou? A “full time staff writer” for the Alt Wrong.  How have the mighty fallen.

Monday, February 26, 2018

Camel, Lion, Child Redux

Nietzsche’s three metamorphoses.

I believe I already wrote about this, but for the benefit of new readers (and for cognitively deficient Type I established readers) I will repeat this concept, and its relevance to what the long-term objectives here are.


These are a metaphor for the three stages men have to go through, in their path towards moral self-sufficiency.The camel is a "beast of burden", that is, it carries a weight someone else has put on it. When the person is the "camel", they don't follow their own moral judgement, but have instead a set of external rules they've been told are right. "Thou shalt" and the dragon refer to the Ten Commandments and the Church.
Someone becomes the lion when they realise those rules they've been taught through their lives aren't necessarily immutable truths. The lion looks at the conventions and morals he thought were the only possibility and tears them apart. "There is no Good, there is no Evil"... This is that "sacred no"; the realisation that these are man-made concepts and the choice to reject them.
However, the lion can only destroy, it's just an act of nihilism. After the lion has done away with those morals imposed from outside, the child will be the one creating new values. Not out of duty to an external force or out of rebellion against it, but for itself. The child is pure creativity. That is his "sacred yes" to life.

The camel accepts established dogma and bears the burden of working within a constrained tradition. The lion rebels against that dogma and tradition, realizing that there is no reason to accept those dogmas and traditions as “immutable truths.”  The lion deconstructs, rejects, destroys.  Finally, the child enters the scene and creates new values, new traditions – “pure creativity.”  Over time, this process can repeat itself, if necessary.  The child’s creation may fossilize into a dogma, burdening camels, and leading to lions.

So, I spent many years as a “movement” camel, accepting dogma and following flawed “leaders.”  Much of the work of EGI Notes is the lion phase – what fossilized Type I activists call my “crazed bitterness” – deconstructing, rejecting, and opposing the “movement,” with the objective of destroying the Old Movement, to make way for the New.  And, finally, some of my work at both EGI Notes and Western Destiny is the child creative phase – creating a New Movement based on a fresh set of values – the Fundamentals.





Sunday, February 25, 2018

Racial Facial

Or is that facial racial?

Genes for facial shape identified in human (i.e., European) samples.  Emphasis added:

Genome-wide association scans of complex multipartite traits like the human face typically use preselected phenotypic measures. Here we report a data-driven approach to phenotyping facial shape at multiple levels of organization, allowing for an open-ended description of facial variation while preserving statistical power. In a sample of 2,329 persons of European ancestry, we identified 38 loci, 15 of which replicated in an independent European sample (n = 1,719). Four loci were completely new. For the others, additional support (n = 9) or pleiotropic effects (n = 2) were found in the literature, but the results reported here were further refined. All 15 replicated loci highlighted distinctive patterns of global-to-local genetic effects on facial shape and showed enrichment for active chromatin elements in human cranial neural crest cells, suggesting an early developmental origin of the facial variation captured. These results have implications for studies of facial genetics and other complex morphological traits.

A summary, emphasis added:
Scientists from KU Leuven and the Universities of Pittsburgh, Stanford, and Penn State say they have identified fifteen genes that determine our facial features. Doctors could use DNA for skull and facial reconstructive surgery, forensic examiners could sketch a perpetrator's face on the basis of DNA retrieved from a crime scene, and historians would be able to reconstruct facial features using DNA from the past….

…“We're basically looking for needles in a haystack," says Seth Weinberg, Ph.D., of the departments of oral biology and anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh. “In the past, scientists selected specific features, including the distance between the eyes or the width of the mouth. They would then look for a connection between this feature and many genes. This has already led to the identification of a number of genes but, of course, the results are limited because only a small set of features are selected and tested."
In the current study the team adopted a different approach. 
“Our search doesn't focus on specific traits," lead author Peter Claes, Ph.D., KU Leuven, explains. "My colleagues from Pittsburgh and Penn State each provided a database with 3D images of faces and the corresponding DNA of these people. Each face was automatically subdivided into smaller modules. Next, we examined whether any locations in the DNA matched these modules. This modular division technique made it possible for the first time to check for an unprecedented number of facial features."
The scientists were able to identify fifteen locations in our DNA. The Stanford team found out that genomic loci linked to these modular facial features are active when our face develops in the womb.
"Furthermore, we also discovered that different genetic variants identified in the study are associated with regions of the genome that influence when, where and how much genes are expressed," adds Joanna Wysocka, Ph.D., at Stanford University School of Medicine. 
Seven of the fifteen identified genes are linked to the nose, and that's good news, according to Dr. Claes. "A skull doesn't contain any traces of the nose, which only consists of soft tissue and cartilage. Therefore, when forensic scientists want to reconstruct a face on the basis of a skull, the nose is the main obstacle. If the skull also yields DNA, it would become much easier in the future to determine the shape of the nose."
The four universities are continuing their research using larger databases. 
“We won't be able to predict a correct and complete face on the basis of DNA tomorrow. We're not even close to knowing all the genes that give shape to our face. Furthermore, our age, environment, and lifestyle have an impact on what our face looks like as well,” points out Mark Shriver, Ph.D., of the department of anthropology at Penn State.

Shriver…Der Movement’s least favorite physical anthropologist (cue heavy breathing, re: DNAPrint Genomics).

In any case, this interesting work has implications for race, genotype-phenotype correlations, and other topics of at least peripheral interest to biologically-minded racialists (however genetic kinship is still fundamental and this other data, although interesting, is secondary).

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Community Activism Needed

Things to do.

A comment from AltRight.com brings up a subject I’ve been discussing ever since I was interviewed by Robert Griffin for his book – the need for “movement” activists to get involved in the community, help “normal” White folks, and thus build strong fundamental ties to Whites that will prove fruitful in both recruiting and drawing general support from the population when such support will be required.
Golden Dawn, a Greek nationalist movement, does a lot of community outreach for Greek people. The young women and men both see to it that no vulnerable Greek is without assistance. A drive to the doctor for an elderly person, a medicine or eyeglass campaign, a roof repair or a lawn mowed for an elderly man, new mothers assisted, etc. I understand Hezbollah does a similar outreach for their people. Builds love and tribal identity. Enforces bonds among the young and solidifies self-worth.

Friday, February 23, 2018

Behold the Female: An Alt Right Observation

It's true.

One of the best Alt Right comments is this, about the "Fall 2017 Sexual Harassment Moral Panic" - 

This begs the question: Do women have objective standards of morality, or do they simply take their cues from TV and social media?  Do I need to even answer that question?  If women were more independent-minded, they wouldn’t need to wait for a hashtag to proliferate in order to bring their stories to the public.

Thursday, February 22, 2018

The Ethnic Genetic Interests of Imperium

Optimizing European EGI.

By Imperium, I obviously mean Yockey’s overarching idea, not his book. In the debate between “Big Europe” pan-Europeanism, as exemplified by Yockey, and atomized ethnonationalism, where do ethnic genetic interests (EGI) fit in?

First, let us clear up misconceptions about Yockey, misconceptions that assert he advocated a complete European panmixia in which all distinctions between Europeans would disappear.

English, German, French, Italian, Spanish -- these are now mere place-names and linguistic variations. Like all of the other rich products of our great Culture, they will continue but they are no longer political terms. Local cultures in Europe may be as diversified as they wish, and they will enjoy a perfect autonomy in the European Imperium, now that the oppression of vertical nationalism is dead. Anyone who seeks to perpetuate petty-statism or old-fashioned nationalism is the inner enemy of Europe. He is playing the game, of the extra-European forces, he is dividing Europe and committing treason. 
Treason now has only one meaning to Europe: it means serving any other force than Europe. There is only one treason now, treason to Europe. The nations are dead, for Europe is born.

“Local cultures in Europe may be as diversified as they wish, and they will enjoy a perfect autonomy…” – hopefully that clarifies the dishonest “Yockey wanted to eliminate all intra-European particularisms” argument.

We also need to keep in mind that Yockey wrote this several years after the end of WWII; faced with the undisputable poisonous fruit from the ethnonationalist tree, Yockey championed a militant pan-Europeanism, an ideal which he would likely have championed anyway (even without the war and its aftermath) – although perhaps with less stringent rhetoric – because he saw a United Europe as the next step in the organic evolution of the West. But no doubt his ill-concealed rage toward those who questioned, in any way, his vision was in part due to the devastation he saw around him – although I must say I agree with him that those who continue to try and divide Europe are indeed traitors (intentionally or not).

Small-minded and short-sighted “activists” today, who have forgotten the lessons of two world wars, instead look at the EU and recoil at any idea of European unity.  One cannot just look at what’s right in front of them, but also look toward the ages. That’s something that today’s “movement” pygmies are incapable of doing. In any case, Yockey suggests eliminating European nations as political entities, with Europe itself being the only political entity with real sovereignty; on the other hand, Yockey allows for local autonomy in this scheme, preservation of local cultures and, presumably then, preservation of the ethnic stocks actualizing those cultures.

There are of course EGI costs and benefits to Yockey’s imperial scheme.  Let’s consider EGI, in a qualitative sense, along the ethnonationalist/pan-European continuum.  What are the options? We need to find the “sweet spot” where maximum genetic interest can be obtained at the ethny level by balancing interests and investments at both the racial and ethnic levels.  Of course, there is not (as of now) any calculable metric to give us any definitive answers here, even if we accept that answers may change in a context-dependent manner.  As noted above, the arguments will necessarily have to be, at least for now, qualitative rather than quantitative.

Now, Yockey’s vision (and the somewhat similar ideas of Mosely) are not the most extreme manifestation of pan-Europeanism   Probably von Hoffmeister’s ideal would be classified as such; read this:
The mixing of different European nationalities should therefore be encouraged. We must support sexual unions between Russian women and German men, Spanish men and Swedish women. Only by radically breaking down the artificial barriers dividing Europe can we create the new breed of man…

(Constantin von Hoffmeister, “Our Motherland: Imperium Europa,” in Norman Lowell, Imperium Europa: The Book that Changed the World (Imperium Publishing, 2008), 24)

One can envision then a continuum in which at one end we have von Hoffmeister’s panmictic vision of pan-Europeanism; on the other end we have the Counter-Currents scheme of extreme ethnonationalism, in which balkanized European nations and regions guard their sovereignty from their neighbors, and are ready to go to war – including ethnic cleansing! – against fellow Europeans who in any way offend them.  So, the endpoints of the continuum are here:

CC--------------------CvH

...and I’ll fill in some other viewpoints in a qualitative, impressionistic fashion.

Key:

CC = Counter-Currents
CvH = Constatin von Hoffmeister
FPY = Francis Parker Yockey
TS = Ted Sallis
NL = Normal Lowell
C = Center
OGI = On Genetic Interests discussion of “civilizational blocs” as one political approach to EGI (this is not meant to be a comprehensive and/or current summary of Salter’s views, which may well be slightly more in the ethnonationalist direction, although I cannot speak for him)
BSS = “Black” SS – as per Coogan, the more Nordicist and Germanocentric portion of the SS 
WSS = “Waffen” SS – as per Coogan, the more pan-European faction of the SS (not necessarily the same as the Waffen SS proper)
AH = Adolf Hitler
MC = Montreaux Conference of 1934

Thus:

CC -AH/BSS------WSS/MC-C-OGI---TS/NL---FPY---CvH

Note that is not the final word, it is my interpretation, and things may certainly change with more data.  But that is a reasonable starting point for discussion.

Thus, Mosely may be around where Yockey is, or perhaps a bit toward the left, Spencer the same. 

Note two things.  First, this is a Far-Right continuum along the ethnonationalist/pan-European axis.  The Far-Left EU is discussed below.  Second, as this is a two-dimensional spectrum, the fact that two points are near each other does not mean they agree on other issues.  For example, I (TS) favor the pan-European approach, but one that allows for national/local sovereignty to some extent, and the definitive preservation of ethnicities and their cultures.  Lowell, with his Imperium vs. Dominion dichotomy (large-scale Imperium vs. local rule Dominion) is similar, although we may disagree on other issues.  I favor an authoritarian national socialist regime; Lowell favors libertarian capitalism.

Is it fair to describe Counter-Currents as more extreme than Adolf Hitler and the “Black” SS? The Nazis wanted to dispossess the Slavs and reduce them to the level of serfs; Counter-Currents publicly endorsed the idea of European nations ethnically cleansing each other in particular circumstances.  As genocide is more extreme than enslavement, the placement on the continuum is in my opinion justified.  

The “Waffen” SS and the Montreux conference is on the ethnonationalist side of the equation: although these SS men were more pan-European, they were still Germanocentric followers of Hitler, and they promoted the idea of a Europe of nations (led by Germany of course).  The Montreux conference promoted a Fascist International ideal of pan-European cooperation, but cooperation amongst ethnonationalist movements, each retaining their full sovereignty.  In OGI, Salter discussed the idea of civilizational blocs that are fairly permeable internally but closed to the outside, yet EGI is fully compatible with ethnonationalism and no clear cut definitive recommendations were made there.  Thus, that discussion in OGI is slightly to the pan-European side of center.  Those further to the right on the continuum have already been discussed.

Where would the EU fit in this scheme?  Actually nowhere, as this continuum is for pro-White, rightist planning, while the EU is orthogonal to all of this an anti-White, leftist creation of globalist elites. If we were to judge, however, strictly on the criterion of relative sovereignty, then the EU would be in between my ideal and that of Yockey.  The EU is less extreme than Yockey in that in retains European nations a political entities, but it is more extreme than my vision in that it dictates even local matters, it promotes migration between EU nations, and essentially today the entire enterprise can be summarized by the vision of the harridan scold Merkel, standing astride Europe holding a rolling pin, grinding down opposition to her radical race replacement agenda.  I would certainly suggest more national independence than that!

Extreme ethnonationalism would attempt to maximize EGI at the ethnic level, while foregoing racial European EGI as a whole in the global context.  Extreme pan-Europeanism would do the opposite: maximize racial EGI of Europe vs the Colored World, while sacrificing ethnic EGI, which would be significantly degraded through the proposed process of panmixia.  Of the two, I would argue that extreme ethnonationalism is actually more self-contradictory, since extreme ethnonationalism can actually damage the specific ethnic group practicing it.  Salter talks in OGI how Hitler’s extreme ethnonationalism damaged the German people as a result of his wars, and the reaction of other nations against him.  Also, since European ethnic groups are relatively similar genetically (some more than others)  with some kinship overlap between neighboring states, an extreme ethnonationalism would harm the people practicing it, from an EGI standpoint, because they would be in opposition to people fundamentally similar to themselves, while more alien peoples of other continents may well benefit from intra-European strife.  Extreme ethnonationalism, by attempting to maximize narrow gross genetic interests, can backfire on those practicing it and result in a net loss of genetic interest.  The Germans had Hitler; now they have Merkel.  Their extreme ethnonationalism boomeranged into suicidal Universalist altruism.  Perhaps if Hitler was a dedicated pan-Europeanist, and one without a “zero sum game” ethnonationalist attitude, the German people –and all Europeans – would be better off today.

That said, both extremes are sub-optimal for European EGI.  For example, I cannot see a logical argument as to why a European panmixia is necessary to actualize an Imperium capable of safeguarding the interests – ethnic genetic and otherwise – of all European peoples.  If it is not necessary, then the foregone ethnic-specific EGI is wasted for no reason.  Indeed, one can argue that the prospect of a panmixia that eliminates ethnic-specific particularisms would spark an ethnonationalist backlash as groups attempt to safeguard their uniqueness through a “narcissism of small differences” campaign against their fellow Europeans.  Occam’s razor for civilizational planning: do not multiply complexities beyond necessity.  In the absence of a convincing argument in favor of panmixia (if there is such an argument I would like to see it produced and fairly evaluate it), it is an unnecessary complication.  But those who would critique that threat to European ethnic diversity are hypocrites if they do not equally denounce the “ethnic cleansing” of Europeans promoted by the extreme ethnonationalists.  Such genocidal lunacy obviously is detrimental to the EGI of all Europeans.

One can envision charting on the x-axis the ethnonationalist-pan-European continuum (ethnonationalist on left, pan-European on right) and on the y-axis the net effects on both ethnic-level EGI and racial-level EGI as two distinct lines.  In general, the ethnic-level EGI line would start highest at the ethnonationalist side of the continuum, although I argue (see above) that extreme ethnonationalism is corrosive of even narrow ethnic interests; however, for the sake of argument, let’s consider a simple downward slope moving from left to right on the graph (from ethnonationalist to pan-European).  On the other hand, the racial line slopes upward as one moves rightward in the pan-European direction.  Of course, things are not that simple even here, given how ethnic and racial interests overlap; the racial is composed of the ethnic, and kinship overlap confuses ethnic interests with that of other ethnies in the racial.  But again, for the sake of argument, we can consider a simple mode.  We can then envision a graph like this.

Envision the ethnic line as blue and the racial line as red.  There will be a point of intersection – the “sweet spot” – in which there is an optimized balance of ethnic and racial genetic interests (and, likely, interests in general, including the important proximate interests, particularly High Culture). The question remains, where is this spot, and or course it is unlikely we will agree on an answer, although most people would likely agree that the spot is not at either of the extremes (although, theoretically, it could be). Again, this is a qualitative, impressionist argument (similar to Salter’s genetic interest plots in OGI), but one needs to consider it nevertheless, even knowing that without the (impossible) option of side-by-side testing of alternatives, we are making educated guesses, or, more optimistically, informed and logical estimates.

There is always going to be a trade-off between narrower and broader genetic interests.  Of course, it goes without saying: context is important.  The “sweet spot” is obviously going to change based on context and circumstances.  If the overall race is secure, but your particular ethnic group is threatened then, obviously, the cross-over point at which the genetic interest lines intersect will fall closer to the ethnonationalist direction.  On other hand, race-wide crises would necessitate shifting the intersection point in the pan-European direction.  In particular, if your ethnic group is relatively secure, but the race as a whole – that includes ethnic groups relatively similar to your own, for whom you share some (somewhat more diluted, but still substantial – particularly given the numbers involved) genetic interest – is threatened, then the intersection point needs to be far to the pan-European direction.  If both race and ethnic group are secure, more investment in self and family is prudent’ if humanity as a whole is threatened, one must look toward that (while still giving preference to your own people, so defined).  In the current situation, both ethnic group and race are threatened for all Europeans, so a balanced approach is best.  What’s optimal then?

I would propose that my vision of a balanced pan-Europeanism, formulated with EGI in mind, in which local sovereignty is retained and intra-European differences are preserved, while enfolding all the peoples of Europe in an Imperium to safeguard their existence, actualize a High Culture, and reach the stars, is the sweet spot” between the extremes.  Lowell’s Imperium Europa has many of the same advantages.  Although we cannot know this for sure, without an actual side-by-side testing of schemes that is impossible, it is logically reasonable to conclude that a balanced approach would preserve European EGI than both panmixia as well as lunatic ethnonationalist schemes in which atomized Europeans ethnically cleanse each other in bloody warfare.  Although the OGI point, not far away from mine, may also serve.

Again, a balance is needed, which I believe my scheme exemplifies.  Ethnic and local particularisms (biological and cultural) are preserved, intra-European borders are preserved, intra-European demographic flows are restricted, but, at the same time, one has an Imperium, which cuts off all flow from the outside, and sufficiently integrates Europe – for defense, foreign policy, racial matters, top-level cultural and science/technics issues, etc. – so as to safeguard the entire and prevent EGI-corroding intra-European feuding.  There’s no ethic cleansing in my scheme, nor any panmixia.  It is certainly a reasonable and viable candidate for the “sweet spot.”  The bulk of both ethnic and racial genetic interests are conserved, some compromises are made, and political mechanisms would need to be put in place to ensure the long-term maintenance of the balance between ethnic and racial level interests.

This is the beginning of the analysis, and I see it a good start.

And what about Yockey's Imperium idea?  Assuming he was serious about the commitment to local autonomy and preservation, then his authoritarian Western state could do a reasonably good job at balancing ethnic and racial European EGI, although other ideas may be more optimal (or not).  We do need to remember Salter's warning that a permanent solution to preserving and defending EGI is likely impossible.

We do the best that we can.


Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Behold the Female, 2/21/18

Women: less self-awareness than a retarded slug.

Don’t forget: we should not objectify women!  After all, they are all chaste, discreet, and conservative, and how dare male brutes undress milady with their eyes!

“Using her body.”  Is there any other way?

Fresh from tearful courtroom testimony.  Don’t objectify milady (Jewlady) though, it’s uncouth!  Those pictures are art, high art, just like the Mona Lisa.  And don’t you forget it, you vulgar patriarchal bastards.  You Go Grrlll!

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

In Der News: Doncuck Trumpamnesty Endorses Romney, the Chinese Threat, It’s Howdy Doody Time (Again)

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.

If Romney is a sociopath, what does that make TrumpCuckadoodledoo!

The Chinese threat. Emphasis added:
Wray pointed to China's use of unconventional intelligence sources as an example of its reach.
He said "collectors" — what the intelligence community calls people who collect intelligence on behalf of agencies or governments — had infiltrated US universities.
"I think in this setting, I would just say that the use of nontraditional collectors — especially in the academic setting, whether it's professors, scientists, students — we see in almost every field office that the FBI has around the country," Wray said.
"They're exploiting the very open research-and-development environment that we have, which we all revere, but they're taking advantage of it," Wray said, adding that there was a "naiveté" among academics about the risks posed by foreign nationals at US universities.
The Institute of International Education found that US universities admitted more than 1 million international students in the 2015-16 school year, nearly 329,000 of which were Chinese students.
That’s all true, but the infiltration of Chinese – and in general Asian – interests is not restricted to academia, or business.  As I have repeatedly warned here, they are infiltrating the “movement” through several weak points – “chinks in the armor” so to speak – including HBD and, of course, the sexual weakness of beta male Type I activists for the East Asian women who are pimped off on them.  Indeed, over the past few years, there have been an increasing number of East Asian and Hapa females (of course, females) settling down in various “movement” precincts, as well as White males (not men) in the “movement” not even bothering to hide – nay, at times, even celebrating – their yellow fever.

And getting back to academia, don’t forget the cogelites at GNXP telling us we need ”hundreds of thousands” of “high-IQ” Asian immigrants per year.  After all, who’s going to do STEM and staff our universities?  Certainly not low-IQ White lulzers, hiding out in their parents’ basements, engaged in fervent onanism to Asian porn.  

Will Sessions do this?  But, no.  He’s too “busy” uselessly standing around looking like a dumbfounded Howdy Doody. Trump had other (non-quota queen) choices for Attorney General, people who, while they were politically inferior to Sessions, would have actually done something, and that something would have been whatever Trump wanted.  Instead, we get Howdy Doody time, except the ventriloquist is missing and the dummy just flops around lifelessly.

Monday, February 19, 2018

Fisking Derbyshire, 2/19/18

A brief fisking.

So why was opium smoking so devastating among China’s poor? Adulteration, says Midler. In the extreme, a cheap variety named Hankow Cake contained no opium at all, only sesame seeds.  Midler:


Historians are so hell-bent on blaming the West for everything that went wrong with China in the nineteenth century that they have no room for an investigation into the serious possibility that the nation may have actually poisoned itself.
I would like to see some rigorous historical research on that, but it’s not implausible, and fits very well with the tiresome Chinese bellyaching about the wrongs done to them by foreigners.

How does it differ from Chinese fraud and mendacity today?
Chinese people acknowledge that an individual fellow-countryman may be wicked, but China as a nation can do no wrong.

National self-esteem is of course not an exclusively Chinese phenomenon. We Americans—well, some of us—treasure our “exceptionalism.” Chinese propagandists take it to the extreme, though.

Midler calls it “collective narcissism”  and quotes Lucian Pye, writing fifty years ago:
Nothing can be wrong with the Chinese spirit and their inward identity. All problems must lie outside and therefore be the work of “foreigners.”

But, of course.
Leszek Kolakowski in Main Currents of Marxism described Mao Tse-tung Thought as “a naïve repetition of a few commonplaces of Leninist-Stalinist Marxism.” He allows, however, that Mao was “one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, manipulator of large masses of human beings in the twentieth century.”

So Maoism was a cheap Chinese knock-off of Marxism-Leninism.

Copy, copy, copy, steal, steal, steal…what else is new for the race of human photocopiers?
Why are so many of us so forgivingly fond of this exasperating, paradoxical, unstable place?  

Pathetic White nerds have Yellow Fever, that’s why.  The “awkward squad” wants to get laid.
Paul Midler quotes from the answer given by Progressive sociologist Edward Alsworth Ross in 1911.

Chinese are extremely likable and those who have known them longest like them best. Almost invariably those who harshly disparage them are people who are coarse or narrow or bigoted. They are not a sour or sullen folk. Smile at them and back comes a look that puts you on a footing of mutual understanding. Their lively sense of humor is a bond that unites them to the foreigner.

Substitute “Chinese” with “Negroes” and Derbyshire would rightly mock this quote, rife as it is with smug moral posturing: all you Chinese haters simply don’t know them.  Excuse my language, but…bullshit.

Ross (1866-1951) is an odd person for Midler to quote in this context.  He would himself be denounced as the worst kind of bigot today. He was a race realist, nativist, and eugenicist who strongly objected to race mixing—so strongly, he was fired from his professorship at Stanford in 1900 for his views.

In 1900!  Well, anyway, what’s the surprise?  A Nordicist HBD type who liked East Asians. Who would have ever guessed?
Much as he liked the Chinese, Ross did not want them settling in the U.S.A. This is a perfectly tenable position, although intolerably shocking to present-day orthodoxies.

Yes, it’s tenable.  Can the Derbyshire family please leave then?

Ross got the likability right, though, and “those who have known them longest like them best.” (Rodney Gilbert may have been an exception.)

Right…the usual SJW song and dance about how “only Whites who don’t know Coloreds are the ones who are bigoted against them.” Derbyshire himself would scoff at that regarding Blacks, why can’t we similarly scoff about Yellows?  I know Chinese very well.  I don’t like them.
And to the further collective credit of the Chinese must be added this: Unlike the nations of the West today, they have no intention of opening up the borders of their nation to tens of millions of foreigners.  Stupidity on that scale is peculiarly Western.

Yes, but having Jews around poisoning the well of sociopolitical discourse does not help.
What’s wrong with us?

We let former illegal alien Dreamer Derbyshire stay in America, bringing in his alien wife and producing mixed-race children.

Here’s the solution to the whole problem.  People who don’t like China and the Chinese should not live in China (likewise, Munro should get the hell out of Romania).  But, please, can we remove all people who posses Chinese descent – part or full – and those married to them from America?

Thank you.

Sunday, February 18, 2018

A Positive Critique

Dominique Venner.

This book has already been reviewed at Amren, so instead of just repeating what has already been done, I’d just like to cite a few relevant points from this excellent book (highly recommended) and how these points fit in to some of the opinions promoted here.

Venner begins with outlining “the flaws of the nationalist opposition” (if he did so today, he would be termed “crazy and bitter,” as “punching right” is only allowed for affirmative action panhandlers); these flaws include (today’s equivalents in parentheses): ideological confusion (of course, the entire “movement”), conformism (Der Movement’s fossilized dogma), archaism (Nutzism, Traditionalism), opportunism (all Chiefs, no Indians, and all Chiefs with the tin cup out), mythomania (conspiracy theorists), terrorism (acting out), and anarchism (lulz lulz).

The section on “Revolutionary Theory” is standard fare and all good, and a wakeup call for those who believe that no firm ideological underpinning for activism is necessary.  Basing activism on vague ideas and “acting out” leads to the sort of weak-minded Type I activists who turn traitor as soon as they meet that “one nice Black person” they heretofore stupidly believed could not exist (when you have a childish view of reality, all people are binned into rigidly Manichean categories of all good vs. all bad).

“Young Europe” – Venner calls for pan-European cooperation, against the division of narrow ethnonationalism. “Unity is indispensable to the future of European Nations.” Indeed, and that’s a key feature of my work over the last 20+ years, as opposed to the ethnonationalists and their publicly proclaimed dystopian vision of European nations ethnically cleansing each other.

The section “For a Man or an Idea” is an attack on what I call the Man on White Horse Syndrome, and is highly relevant in this the Time of Trump.  Venner writes: “Passive herds, expect their miracle men to fix everything. Even the smallest groups have their idols. The inevitable disappearance of the great men leaves the naïve embittered and discouraged.”  Sound familiar?  And then: “The Nationalist does not need followers but militants who are defined by their doctrine, not in their relation to a man.”  Indeed.  Anyone listening?

Venner criticizes the “Theatrical Revolutionaries” who are “enemies of the revolution.”  The part about “costumes” I will address below, but in general, this criticism is relevant to all the Nutzis who ruin us all – Type I dimwits.  Venner talks about “Zero plus Zero” – in other words, grouping zeros together just gives you a bigger zero (the history of Der Movement, Inc.).

With respect to Venner’s criticism of “costumes”-  I both agree and disagree.  It depends upon context and what kind of “costume” one is talking about. Should activists dress up like Nazis?  Strut around with swastika armbands and SS uniforms?  Of course not.  Should they take the Alt Right and Alt Lite course of action, and appear at rallies like refugees from a cosplay convention, aping Captain America and Batman?  Certainly not.  Should they wear uniforms when simply interacting with normal people or going “undercover?”  Of course not.  Compare Joe Tommasi, who stopped dressing up Nazi like he did at first and “went native” as part of his guerilla war program, to the costumed Nutzis who eventually killed him.  

Having said all of that, there is nothing wrong with uniforms per se, when attending certain types of meetings, or attending public rallies, or when engaged in more overt action.  There are benefits of wearing uniforms: for esprit de corps, discipline, professionalism, etc., and these benefits are well known, which is why they have been used for military and paramilitary groups throughout civilized history. There is a history of uniformed paramilitary political solders in virtually every (ex)-Western nation, including America and the Silver Shirts.  Tasteful, utilitarian, culturally endogenous, and non-nutty uniforms are fine – better than the cosplay crew, better than the Nutzis, etc.

Lastly, Venner talks about “Division of Labor and Centralization” – people should do the tasks to which they are most fit, and propaganda needs to be local if possible: “...the propaganda branch should be able to rapidly supply material adapted to local groups, rather than over-generalized and locally irrelevant material.”  In relation to this, see some of my criticism of the National Alliance here.

Yes, you can have, as Venner suggests, a centralized leadership, but the actual “field work” has to be properly local and decentralized.  When activists need permission from “the National Office” to use the rest room, then nothing gets done.  The unwillingness of Pierce to allow local units to create and distribute their own propaganda, specifically suited for local conditions and local current events, was a terrible error, as much strategic as tactical.  All sorts of explanations were given (“quality control” and “we want to recruit people who understand the big picture and who are not merely emotionally excited about some local event”), but one suspects it was as much about maintaining tight control and the exercising of power, as well as maximizing National Office income (local units actually had to purchase the propaganda material they were to distribute!) as about anything else. You know, it would still have been possible for the National Office to (quickly) review and approve (or suggest changes in) locally produced material – so the first objection falls flat.  As far as the second objection goes – there is nothing wrong with leveraging local conditions and current events to bring your group and its ideology to the attention of prospective recruits, one can always cull the herd once people are initially brought in, most likely only the truly dedicated will join an overtly public racialist group anyway, and by focusing on local conditions and events, you let the people in that locale know that you understand them and their problems, and that you are there to help – it’s a two-way street, not merely a bigwig somewhere trying to pad their membership rolls in order to boost monthly dues income.  So, the second objection falls flat as well.  Venner was correct: propaganda should be both general and local; if it is just extremely generalized it becomes stilted and stale, and puts too much of a distance between the prospective activist and the organization.  Idealism is great and should be paramount, but one cannot eat Idealism, and Idealism alone will not protect a community from the Colored hordes and their Levantine masters.  Idealism has to be built upon a foundation of pragmatic activity and real-world concerns.  Once you take care of the latter, then you can indulge the former.

In summary, the problem with important books like this is that they get no serious attention from the “movement.” I’ve seen this again and again.  Yes, sometimes such books are discussed and favorably reviewed.  Some people say, yes, yes, we need to follow this advice, and then with the short attention span of the Type I retards, all is forgotten, and all just falls back to “business as usual” – the default setting of “movement” dysfunction wins again.

Expect more of the same with this book.

Was Venner’s suicide at least in part motivated by a realization of the utter failure of the “movement?”  It was about 50 years from his book to his death – what had been accomplished?  Did anyone listen to what he wrote?  What has happened since his death?  We have now the Alt Right making a mockery of serious nationalism, flouting many of the suggestions Venner made.

Perhaps it is time for a Negative Critique?










Saturday, February 17, 2018

Lulz Lulz Lulz

Yes…tell me again how much better ‘White nationalism 2.0” is than the “Boomer 1.0 version."


1. ADL Publishes false information about the shooter without police confirmation and based on a 4Chan prank.
2. Everyone calls the shooter a white nationalist.
3. Turns out that information was false.
4. No one will ever see the correction, will continue thinking he's WN.

Here’s the thing: you cannot base a real social and political movement on trolling, lulzing, Pepe, and Kek.  No one is going to man the ramparts for cheap laughs or a cartoon frog.  When people are activists just to be offensive, for the “lulz,” to be “edgy” or whatever, these are the same individuals who’ll turn traitor once they “get a nice Black friend” or “find a nice Asian girlfriend” (albeit the last bit seems compatible with the Alt Right in every sense).

But, to be fair: the rise of the Dolt Right is in direct proportion to the monumental failures of “White nationalism 1.0.”  The problem is that the “cure” is exactly the same as the disease: stupidity, affirmative action quota queen leadership, freakishness, a complete lack of any long term vision or strategic plan, “acting out,” fossilized dogma, etc.  It just has a superficial veneer of Millennial nonsense crudely brushed on top.  Underneath it’s the same rusted pile of junk.

So, yes, have your fun.  Let it backfire again and again.

Lulz.

Friday, February 16, 2018

Race Fraud

Marital crypsis.


Who is the victim?  The “racist” father – the one his scum daughter wants to portray as a villain.  Look, the man thought he was marrying, living with, and procreating with a woman he perceived as White, was misled (by her) to think as her being White, while she was actually a light-skinned (mixed race) “African-American.”  The man had one life to live, he married and reproduced with (insofar as I know) one woman, and he wasted his life, and wasted his genetics, on an indescribably evil race fraud.  Evil?  Yes.  If she knew her husband was an anti-Black racist, how could she fool the man, in the most intimate manner possible, for their entire married lives?  It’s at least as bad as cuckoldry, passing off another man’s child as his own.  She was passing off someone else’s racial identity for her own, and passed off the offspring of an inter-racial marriage to the husband as if they were a product of an intra-racial marriage.

Evil.  Disgusting. Horrific.

However, the father can’t get off without criticism.  He was a victim, but was also victimized by his own stupidity.  I cannot image marrying someone without having a very clear idea of their ancestry and without meeting their family (or even seeing pictures of said family).  The fraud looked, as Grant said about Argentinians, “suspiciously swarthy,” so the man should have looked more deeply into the genepool he was going to dive into.

But, even with that, he’s clearly the victim in this story – defrauded into destroying his pre-existing genetic lineage, foregone parental kinship, lost European progeny.

If you allegedly “love” and “care for” your life partner, how could you willfully defraud them in such a callous manner?

Thursday, February 15, 2018

New York Minute: Oppose Donald Cuck’s Immigration Plan

Stop the far-left, White-hating obese cuck from destroying America.


Trump’s offer is an obviously bad deal. Not only are a million more illegal aliens given Amnesty under the proposal than the number protected by Obama’s unconstitutional Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, the bill would also not end chain migration for another 15 years. Immigration would have to wait another generation to see any significant reduction, and many things can happen between now and when Barron Trump will be old enough to run for office. Additionally, mandatory e-Verify is left out of the legislation, giving immigration patriots even less of a reason to support such a gargantuan Amnesty.

Yes, many things can happen, as outlined here: the amnesty is forever, enforcement is never.  And if there is any doubt about that, read this.

The slightest attempt at enforcement will require going all the way up to the Supreme Court, and as soon as the Democrats take back the Presidency and/or Congress even these attempts at enforcement will stop. The Trump amnesty will go down in history along with Reagan’s as another cuckservative failure. The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce, and the vulgar ignorant buffoon Trump is well suited to bring us farce.

So while the gamesters post (literal!) Valentine's Day cards to their homoerotic man crush Trump, the rest of us know that the obese baboon’s adipose tissue is churning out so much estrogen that he’ll sell out White Americans in a New York Minute – that must be the “New York values” that Cruz critiqued in the primaries.