Monday, May 14, 2018


How to leverage against the chosen ones?

Following up on this

If I may make a constructive suggestion, a bit of constructive criticism: analysis is good, but at some point, we need to have less of historical and theoretical analysis and more of current and practical analysis.

Consider: KMacD is the world’s leading critical expert on Jews and Jewish behavior.  His work and understanding constitute a crucial intellectual resource for Europeans fighting against the Jewish power structure.  So, instead of TOO’s current direction (*), wouldn’t it be more productive for KMacD to formulate strategies, based on an understanding of Jewish behavior, of leveraging against Jewish psychology to benefit Europeans and combat the Jewish power structure?  If not him, who?  If not now, when?

Learning about the Jewish “culture of critique” should not be an end in itself, but a means to an end: defending European ethnic interests.  We learn about Boas and Freud so as to better understand how to combat Soros.  It’s time for a bit less of the former and a bit more of the latter.  

Long time readers of my own work have no doubt noted that this blog has moved in a more practical direction over the last few years.  Although there is still some interesting and useful theoretical work to be done (and I recently looked at genetic integration of human population genetics data), the fact remains that, ultimately, the promotion and defense of ethnic genetic interests will have to be actualized out in the real world, in the rough-and-tumble of politics (in all its forms, including some of what is termed “metapolitics”) and in the cut and thrust of ethnic competition.  Rightist academics can be of most utility in the service of assisting in the development of cutting edge political, metapolitical, and social technologies to deal with the reality of our racial and cultural dilemma.


*Much of which is, unlike MacDonald’s work on the Jews, of limited predictive value.  All of the rambling about “northern high trust hunter gatherers” actually has little real world predictive value.  Indeed, taking all of that at face value, you would predict that, e.g., Italy and Greece would be blasting migrant invader boats out of the water, instead of meekly rescuing the migrants and welcoming them into the homeland. There also is no clear correlation in Europe between the Paleolithic Hunter-Gatherer vs. Neolithic Farmer divide and the success, or lack thereof, of ethnonationalist parties and politics within nations.  And while it’s true that Sweden is particularly “cucked,” one can argue that Denmark is healthier with respect to defending ethnic interests than are Italy, Greece, or Spain. One can further argue that a major reason Northwest European nations are further along on the road to race replacement is not so much that the native populations are more “high trust altruists” than the fact that those nations are more prosperous and orderly, and hence more attractive to immigrants, than the disorderly tragicomedies of feckless and lazy dumb dagoes.  Now, one can also argue that a reason why the northerners are richer (besides higher IQ) is precisely the fact that they are “high trust” nations and hence invest more in social goods, and can engage more productively in economic activity. Very well, but then, isn’t that more collectivist?  Granted, high trust is not necessarily orthogonal to individualism, but it strains credulity to argue that orderly, high trust societies are more individualistic than disorderly madhouses where atomized swarthoids are bouncing off each other like air molecules in a heated kettle.  More fundamentally, and getting back to the main point, the “high trust hunter gatherer” paradigm has little predictive value with respect to responses to race replacement and mass migration. And if this is so, why make it such a major focus of analysis?