Friday, August 31, 2018

Holding Whites Accountable

It didn’t “just happen.”


But here’s the problem with this complaint – which by the way I can 100% identify with, having lived through similar times myself (in that case, mostly with various types of Negroes and of mulatto Hispanics, rather than Mexicans) – how did this state of affairs come to pass?

That is not a rhetorical question, nor am I being facetious.  Let’s answer the question.  Whites have been – and continue to be – a majority of the American population, a majority of voters, and a majority of the population of places like Iowa.  Whites used to be a clear majority of the population of California.  Whites vote.  What happened?  Who elected the politicians who enabled this disaster to occur?  Who looked the other way for decades?  Who ignored the problem as long as it was in someone else’s backyard and not their own?  Who ignored the plight of urban Whites (particularly if those were “White ethnics”)?

All of this didn’t “just happen.”

Please study this video, and pay particular attention to the 40 seconds from 3:20-4:00 – McCain’s infamous “build the danged fence” campaign video, made when Amnesty John was facing some heat from his right on immigration.  I remember noting that video at the time, and thinking to myself: “the GOP voters of Arizona can’t be that stupid, can they?  I mean, it’s obvious – obvious – that McCain’s lying to them, and he’ll go back to shilling for amnesty, and against any enforcement, once elected.  I mean, he’s being playing that game for a long time; surely, they are wise to him now, right?  Indeed, the GOP as a whole does this, feinting right for elections, and then governing like liberal Democrats.”

Well, no, the GOP voters of Arizona were fooled once again, and even though they howled their betrayal, they still continued to support the evil scum McCain, and are crying bitter tears over his death.  

This has been the Republican playbook for decades.  They dog whistle implicitly on race - VERY implicitly – to gather White support for Necon agendas and for the same big business interests bringing in the hordes to begin with.  And the rubes fall for the scam time and again.

Here’s where I part company with Bowery and all the rest: Whites need to be held accountable for their stupidity, fecklessness, and painful naiveté.  

The key part of that man’s lament, from the short essay Bowery presented:
Am I racist? Jesus, am I becoming one of those guys. I sure sound like one of those guys.
“Those guys.”  You see, the only people who have a solution to the problem (let’s ignore for the moment that Der Movement, Inc. is a fraud; I’m referring to racial nationalism in general) are considered “those people,” as alien as the Latinos, freaks to be dismissed and despised.  This fellow sounds like he considers being one of “those people” just as bad – nay, even worse! – than what has happened to his town, his community, his nation.  “Jesus,” indeed.

One wonders who this fellow voted for.  McCain?  Romney?  Maybe even Obama?

Accountability?

Every time I read, or hear, a lament like this, every time some anti-White outrage occurs, every time the borders are opened even more, what I do – and what I suggest we all do – is trace things back to the beginning.  Why are these things allowed to happen?  Answer: Those in a position of leadership allow it to happen; in many cases, they support and promote it.  

Well, then, how and why are they in this position of power to begin with?  If elected, it is because an electorate that is majority White elected them (and the same applies overseas – who elected Merkel?).  If they are in a position  of power economically, it is because a consumer base that is majority White continues to purchase their goods and services; Whites being incapable of organizing boycotts on the basis of racial interests like any other group.  If the power derives from fame and celebrity, it is because a majority White population provides that fame and celebrity.

Oh, you will cry – “It’s the Jews!  The Jews!”   Trace that back.  Who let the Jews into America?  Who let the Jews rise to prominence and seize the media?  Who kowtows to Jewish interests?  Who serves as the Shabbos goy traitor class?  We’re back again to the White elites – the politicians elected by Whites, the moguls funded by White consumers, the celebrities whose fame derives from White fan worship.

The same applies if you want to scream about “moneyed interests” or “the managerial class” or “The Federal Reserve” or “the SJWs” or whatever pet peeve you have: these things didn’t “just happen.”  To paraphrase Pareto: if a wolf is eating you, it is because you chose to be a sheep.  If Whites choose to be a race of sheep, they should not be surprised about all the wolves gorging themselves on the white-flocked sheeple.

Trace things back to first principles.  Things do not “just happen.”  And screaming about “the Jews” is a crutch to avoid dealing with the need to hold Whites accountable for their own lowly position.

And I have to laugh at the Roissyite HBD Nordicist gamesters getting all hot and bothered about a single German (of course) rally – yes sir, “the Saxon begins to hate!”  How about “the Saxon” voting for even the milquetoast moderate right-wing Alternative For Germany (never mind the NPD), instead of putting Merkel in power over and over again?  Another example of Der Movement’s victory psychosis, and their Germans on White Horse Syndrome.

I suppose it’s another example of White fecklessness that they are “represented” by a “racial movement” composed of retards and fetishistic morons.







Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Moralistic Fallacy on Ancestry Testing

Responding to an unmitigated idiot.

This may be the most scientifically illiterate piece on genetics I have ever read.
What worries me most, however, is that companies offering personal genetic testing customarily seem to report back to those sending along a sample of their spit that they are a mix of different “ethnicities.” This is more than simply statistical nonsense. I fear doing this can also be dangerous. Claiming that it is possible to map ancestry in this fashion may be giving discredited old ideas about ethnicity and race new visibility.
This is the moralistic fallacy: It would be a bad thing, very worrisome, if genetic tests can detect ethnic and racial differences; therefore, they cannot detect them.  This guy is either retarded or mendacious.
{snip} Despite the wars, border tensions, and other types of violence that stem from perceptions of human difference, we are approximately 99.9 percent identical to every other human on Earth in terms of our genetics. 
How much do we share with chimps (albeit some more than others, eh)?
In short, we are all cousins. 
Lie.
Even when you drill into the specifics of the remaining 0.1 percent to learn something more detailed about your biological ties, don’t get your hopes up that you can identify real ancestors very far back in time.
That’s an absolute lie.  Even with the flaws of these tests, they CAN and DO tell you what your majority ancestry is.  How come an Irishman will test out as Irish and not Pakistani?
Here’s the basic math. We inherit roughly half our genes from our mothers and half from our fathers. If one or both of them should be unknown to you, it is a safe bet gene profiling may help you track them down. But how far back across the generations can you go and have similarly assured success? Go back, say, five more generations to your great, great, great, great grandparents. Assuming there hasn’t been a lot of inbreeding in your ancestry (the further you go back in time, by the way, the more likely it occurred), you should have 64 of them. Only about 1.56 percent of your genes may come down to you from any one of these 64 ancestors. Good luck should you go looking for them many generations back—or their living descendants.
See below.  This “argument” is completely irrelevant in evaluating ancestral sources that have made a significant contribution to your genome.  Yes, possibly, that single “Indian princess” from centuries ago may not show up, she will be lost in the meiotic shuffle.  But no one is going to mistake a Dane for a Japanese, and that’s what this idiot is really worried about.
Now go even further back in time to the 17th or 18th century. The number of folks on average living then who could have contributed to your genetic endowment is so large (more than 1,000), and their possible genetic contribution so small (about 0.098 percent for 10 generations back), it would be smoke and mirrors to assert claims about who they were in person. In fact, most of these people left no trace of themselves in your genome.
So what?  The tests are not looking for particular ancestors.  They are evaluating a person’s genome and ascertaining what the ethnic mix represented in that genome (as it is) is.  Trace ancestry may be lost, but the major components will be present; obviously, some ancestors will be – must be - represented in your genome (or else you wouldn’t exist), and it is proportionately likely that what is represented will derive from those ancestors that make up the bulk of your genealogy.  If 50% of your ancestors were French and 2% were Chinese (and 48% something else), the Chinese ancestry may or may not be detected – the luck of the meiotic draw – but you can rest assured that a substantial amount detected (but obviously not precisely 50% of course) will be French (or whatever level of specificity a given test reads French as).
In short, while it can be hard to get your head around the statistics involved, go back more than a few thousand years and you are genealogically related to almost everyone on Earth. 
That’s true and why Der Movement’s ranting about “purity” is nonsense.  But – BUT! – you are going to be much more related, and more recently related – more recent common ancestors – with some groups than others.  Germans are going to have most, or all, of their most recent common ancestors with other Europeans, particularly Northcentral Europeans, and Nigerians will in turn share such ancestors with sub-Saharan Africans, mostly West Africans.  Sure, if you go back far enough, Germans and Nigerians will share ancestors.  If you go back even farther, both groups will share ancestors with mice and groundhogs.  People take ancestry tests to ascertain their ancestry in the sense that they differ from others; they want to know what makes them unique.  And that’s the level the tests, correctly, evaluate.  They are looking for your ethnic and racial family, and they WILL identify the major components of that.
Genetically speaking, however, very few of these very distant ancestors contributed something of themselves biologically to your genome.
Yes, but you are getting a representative sample, you mendacious dumbfuck.  When an American polling company performs a political survey, they do not poll every single American citizen.  They take a representative sample.  Think of a genetic test as taking a representative sample of your ancestral background.  There will be some statistical error, some noise, but if performed correctly, the “poll” of your genome will correctly ascertain - within reason - the likelihood of your ancestral mix.

As an example of the power of this representative genetic survey, it is possible to detect Neanderthal gene variants in modern Eurasians.  So, yes, if you are of European or Asian descent, that small and prehistoric fraction of your genome derived from Neanderthals can be identified.  And yet this low-life shitheel pretends we can’t distinguish a Swede from an Angolan - that it’s “nonsense” to estimate ancestral proportions derived from extant ethnic groups.  Really now, isn’t it time to call out bullshit when you read or hear it?

Of course, the reason why this turd is so hysterical is that the tests actually WORK, in the broad fundamentals.  Yes, I am critical of these tests and how they are over-interpreted, and how they ignore kinship metrics.  But those are details – important details, but still details.  While I would be suspicious about ancestral proportions less than 10%, and certainly less than 5% (and less than 1% is a bad joke), when it comes to majority ancestry, the tests are on target.  Don’t believe that?  Put it to the test (no pun intended).  If you know your own background, get tested.  If your friends know their background, get them tested as well.  Then observe how well the tests detect the bulk of your ancestry, and know that the deniers are lying to you.

By the way, all of this moron’s arguments would apply to the field of population genetics, you know, all those peer-reviewed studies that can distinguish race with close to 100% accuracy, distinguish German-, French-, and Italian-speaking Swiss, and identify people who are even just ¼ Jewish.  

What a despicable piece of lying filth this scumbag is.

Behold the Female: Sallis Right Again

Remember the Sallis term “Yeastbucket?”

It doesn’t get better than this.

Remember that picture the next time some “Alt Right” ditzy female airhead begs for money on YouTube.

And as for the “gamesters” – this is what they want you to worship, what they want you to modulate your every word and action, your every personal nuance, to appeal to (emphasis added):
…your uncle is being a sexist piece of garbage, you have to do something to regain control and remind yourself that you’re a badass bitch who no one can fuck with. And there’s no better way to do that than serving an asshole a slice of truly homemade bread...leavened with the yeast of your own vagina. 
But does such a recipe even exist? Yes, it does, thanks to feminist blogger Zoe Stavri, who, after getting a pretty bad yeast infection, had the inspired idea to turn her discomfort into delicious baked goods. 
“Waking up on Saturday with the familiar itchy burny fanny, I giggled to myself, 'Maybe I could make bread with that,’" Zoe writes on her blog, Another Angry Woman. “And that ticked into, ‘Well, I’ve always wanted to try making my own sourdough anyway,’ and then a ‘Fuck, would that even work?’ And then I got curious, and the next thing that happened was I was scraping white goop off of a dildo into a bowl of flour mixed with water.”
Sallis: always correct

Der Movement: always wrong

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

Bowery is Right about This

Responding to Griffin.


My view is somewhere in between that of Griffin and his critics.  I agree with the critics that Griffin underestimates the immense pressures and restraints imposed on White men, particularly young White men trying to make their way in a vehemently anti-White, Colored Privilege America.  On the other hand, Griffin is correct that there are options other than a quixotic and suicidal gesture such as that of “Sky King.”

James Bowery has, I believe, a good perspective on this.  After citing this publication, Bowery states:
Young white males are well advised NOT to “suck it up and buckle down to serve the economy and social stability,” as Dr. Griffin does, but rather to organize in such a way as to destabilize society and do so identifiably as young white males.
This is consistent with my call for approaches that enhance societal and demographic balkanization.  Remember Salter’s dictum: the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is a multiculturalism that does – since the latter efficiently and quietly, without much fuss, manages the race replacement of native White populations.  If multiculturalism does not work, it may produce enough societal pain to induce cowardly and feckless Whites to begin to understand the problem and do something about it.  

So, young White males should destabilize society and they must do so in a racially identifiable manner so as to heighten the contradictions, provoke responses, and balkanize society along racial lines.

To paraphrase that Batman movie – “some people just want to watch the world burn.”  

Indeed.

Monday, August 27, 2018

The Six Percenters

Lost opportunities.


Consider the condition of White America today and the continued deterioration of the White racial position.  6%?  Six?  It should be, at least, 60%.  What kind of pathetic maladaptive sick losers are White people?  Whites are positively subhuman in their lack of adaptive fitness, in their pathological altruism, in their demented and disgusting self-abasement.  And even if the 6% is a low figure, because “people are afraid to give honest answers in the survey,” would it really speak better of Whites if it was, say, 8% or 9%?  And do you really expect people who are afraid to even answer a survey honestly to be useful potential recruits for an activist cause?

However, even if the 6% figure is shockingly low, it still translates into millions of people, as many as 11 million.  How is Der Movement utilizing this potential pool of recruits?  Consider if Der Movement was just able to mobilize 10% of those people to start with.  That’s 1.1 million White Americans – a considerable activist force if properly utilized and motivated.  If each of those contributed just $10 per year (just $10!) that would be $11 million added to “movement” coffers (putting aside that current “movement leaders” would waste the money).  If each gave $100 per year – that’s $110 million.  If these activists and their donations were in part utilized to recruit more of the remaining group of the “racist 6%” then all these numbers would grow dramatically.  

All this potential, all this opportunity: wasted.  Instead we get prancing quota queens with their Unite the Right cosplay rallies, their bizarre fossilized dogma, their errors and stupidities and obsessions, their complete lack of security, their Jew-worship and Yellow Supremacy, everything designed to repel and repulse potential recruits.

Only new leadership, with fresh ideas, strategic vision, and a commitment to long-term planning can win over the six percenters.  The “movement” has had its chances, and failed time and time again.

Sunday, August 26, 2018

Not Dead Yet

Still around.

As what will no doubt be a disappointment to “movement” ”leaders,” the “crazy” and “bitter” Ted Sallis is not dead; the lack of recent activity here has been due to digital problems, stemming from the decaying infrastructure of Third World America.

Never forget: America is a dead country with no future.

And, no, voting for the likes of Trump is not “going to save us all.”  Even if Trump was really an “American Caesar who is going to save White demographics” the fact remains that a subsequent President could undo all that good; further, a significant change in the political representation in Congress could very well lead to a Trump impeachment.  Thus, even if a pro-White President was elected, but with the rest of the System in place, do you really believe anything racially useful could get done – and stay done?

No; instead, electoral politics are for three main purposes:

1. Propaganda, education, and recruitment, as well as a focal point around which to build infrastructures that could also be used for other, more fundamental, purposes.

2. Promoting chaos and balkanization – heightening the contradictions.

3. If any Far Rightists get elected, they can use whatever power and status they have to provide some support and “cover” for more “vanguardist” metapolitical activism.

Meanwhile, getting back to the main point of the post – I’ve been away, but I’ve still been around.  This enforced break has been useful to get away from “movement” stupidity for a while, and some reorientation hopefully can result, a “silver lining” so to speak.

One last note: Burn in hell, John McCain, rot in hell for all eternity.



Thursday, August 16, 2018

Rallies vs. Conferences

When should the protection of the System be reasonably expected?

There is a fundamental difference between a private activist conference and an activist rally (a category that includes [public] mass meetings), a difference which informs my opinion why police protection, etc. is appropriate for the former but not (in most cases, although there can be exceptions) for the latter.

A conference is a private affair, involving (often academic-style) discussion, that typically has no direct immediate impact on public spaces or on anyone not involved. The types of people attending conferences can include intellectuals, the middle-aged and elderly, and others who cannot reasonably be expected to get involved in “street fighting,” nor should such violence be reasonably expected at any sort of private meeting. Hence, it is quite reasonable to expect protection by the police or other authorities against crazed thugs who wish to break up your private meeting, although such conferences and various other types of private meetings may consider providing their own security to supplement that of the authorities (Type Is – make yourselves useful).

On the other hand, a rally is a public event, meant to occupy a public space, and which therefore does impact public spaces and affect people present in those public spaces. While this does not justify attacks against the rally, it nevertheless separates a public rally, and its expectations, from a private conference.  I’m not talking about legality here – from a strictly legal standpoint, a lawful rally (e.g., with a permit) should have the same protections as a private conference. However, from a practical, political, moral, social, and “public image” standpoint – a realistic standpoint – there is an expectation that attempts of a controversial (rightist) group to occupy a public space may well be met with opposition from those who wish to contest that occupation. From this realistic standpoint, activists who want to occupy public spaces should be prepared to defend themselves and their occupation, and not hide behind police or other authorities (who are in many cases hostile to the rally to begin with). A public rally is not the same as a private speech in, e.g., a hotel meeting room.  Of course, the authorities should not interfere with your legally convened rally – which they often do – but on the other hand, expecting the System to provide caring support for a rally dedicated, ultimately, to overthrowing that System is (even if legally reasonable) a bit much.

The Far Right does have one legitimate claim for police protection at public rallies and similar events: fear of selective prosecution and lawfare if they do in fact defend themselves.  This is the idea, based on some experiences (e.g., Unite the Right I), that if the Left attacks, and the Right defends itself, it will be the Right (only) that is selectively prosecuted (and possibly subject to civil suits as well), while the Left gets off scot-free. While this does not occur in every case, it does occur often enough to be a concern.  This, however, does not justify a long-term dependence on the police, not only for reasons of politics and image, but, practically, because in some cases the police and other authorities conspire with the Left to “set up” the Right to be attacked (e.g., Unite the Right I).

The ultimate solution to the problem of selective prosecution and lawfare consist of two components:

1. Rallies for which the Right plan to defend themselves need to be in jurisdictions in which there is a reasonable chance of some degree of legal fairness.  In contrast, if you enter the belly of the beast, expect to be digested. In SJW enclaves, selective prosecution, at minimum, is almost certain.

2. As I’ve said over and over again, the Far Right needs to march through the institutions, it needs followers and fellow travelers in positions of influence, in elected office, in areas that can affect public opinion and public policy.  It needs an infrastructure of dependable legal help, a committed legal team, and it needs articulate spokesmen and “connections” to get a fair hearing.  Before you say “easier said than done,” consider the endless decades of failure, the wasted millions of dollars, all of the lost opportunities.  It is not my fault that the “movement” and its “leadership” has lacked the vision and the ability to do the things that needed to be done, and that still need to be done.  You need new leadership.


Tuesday, August 14, 2018

A Tradition of Success

It is lacking in racial nationalism.

The “movement” lacks a Tradition of Success.  This problem cannot be over-stated.  Success breeds success. Yes, it is true that you can learn from failure – although the “movement” seems incapable of doing so – but an excess of failure is poison to the growth of a dissident movement.

In contrast, success brings confidence, success brings followers (people love a winner), success brings resources, success provides a margin of error that allows the successful to take calculated risks (which is not the same as foolhardy risks) – the sort of high-risk/high-reward approaches that yield further success.  It is important, absolutely crucial, to nurture success.  When the “movement” “plans” things stupidly, when they set themselves up for failure, when they do things that you know in advance are going to fail, this leads to disillusionment, loss of morale, despair, a culture of failure.  Just as success breeds success, failure breeds failure.  Sometimes it seems like racialist activists are just going through the motions, doing things that they – and everyone else – know is going to end in failure, because they don’t know what else to do and despair of actually winning at anything.  And the failure has been endless.

Revilo Oliver talking about 50 years of “movement” failure… 50 years ago.  Consider David Duke leading and abandoning one organization after another – KKK, NAAWP, EURO (originally NOFEAR, which had its name legally challenged, which is another typical “movement” defeat paradigm – remember the Church of the Creator lawsuit name defeat); Duke’s legal problems (and that of Strom); Richard Spencer jumping from one failed project to another; Spencer forced to cancel his college speaking tour; cancelled conferences (Amren, VDARE, NPI, etc.); Spencer and others being physically attacked in public with impunity; Spencer’s Budapest meeting fiasco; public rallies in which the rightists are typically outnumbered, attacked, and ritually humiliated; Johnson deciding to focus on YouTube just as YouTube is censoring the Right; all the feuds and fall-outs; the outrageous embarrassment of the “extreme vetting” infiltrations – including having a (transparent) infiltrator invited to give a speech on the “dangers of infiltrators” and being allowed to participate in the vetting process; the destructive stupidities of Kessler; the Heimbach-Parrot comedy; the Man on White Horse Syndrome error repeated again and again; the failures of overt neo-Nazis like Rockwell and Pierce, defeats, losses, back-tracks, and social pricing; Derek Black turning on the “movement” and against his father’s ideals; the deplatforming; the failed gamble on mainstreaming in Europe. When is the last time the “movement” – particularly in America - had a clear success?  I suppose that Amren occasionally holds successful conferences – as long as the police do their job and as long as judges don’t impose conditions inimical to the conference (e.g., allowing violent leftist thugs direct access to the venue).  But that small-scale sporadic success – which has not been consistently reproducible – is not enough, not by a long shot.  And no, the election of the fraud Trump is not a “success” of the “movement”- and even if Trump is sincere, his election was due to forces independent of the Pepe/Kek crowd.

Now, I understand that sometimes calculated (not foolhardy) risks need to be taken.  I understand that sometimes a dissident movement can benefit from a “glorious failure” - a practical defeat that serves as a rallying cry, as a moral victory to galvanize support.  Pierce spoke of Mathews and the failed crusade of The Order as such an example.  Yockey’s own personal crusade ended in jailhouse suicide.  And there is the end of WWII, with remnants of the SS – including the French Charlemagne division – making a last stand in the ruins of Berlin.  That’s true.  But, first, one cannot build a successful movement on endless failure, even “glorious failure,” and, second, most examples of “movement” failure are not inspiring moral victories. Unite the Right (I or II) was not a heroic defense of the Fuhrerbunker; Patrik Hermannson’s infiltration was not Francis Parker Yockey’s lonely last decision; Spencer getting elbowed in the face was not Mathews’ last stand on Whidbey Island.  So let’s get real here.  There comes a time when success needs to be “baked into” the plans, to pursue prudent courses of action that directly channel activity in successful directions.

Three tenets:

1. Most activity, particularly at early stages of development (where racial activism is still stuck at, due to decades of endless failure), needs to be designed so it has a very high probability of success.  While low risk/high reward is of course optimal, such scenarios are rare (short-term).  I would suggest frequent low risk/low reward activities to build up a tradition of success and a “habit of winning” (with as many low risk/moderate reward activities as are possible).  All those “low rewards” can build up into something substantial; constant small (net) gains are helpful. With such success achieved, consistently and reproducibly, moderate risk/moderate reward approaches can then be advanced.

I’d like to point out that while low risk/high reward activities are rare in the short-term, the ability to leverage risk to reward increases with a long-term time horizon.  Community-building and infrastructure-building activities can in the long run be high reward, but can be achieved with relatively low risk (or at least low-to-moderate risk) when performed slowly over time.  One needs to be patient.  Rome was not built in a day.  Not everything needs to be immediate gratification.

2. Avoid foolhardy activities; avoid like a plague those activities with a high probability of failure.  Most of all, avoid activities in which the reward is always lower than the risk – e.g., low to moderate rewards coupled to moderate to high risk. Unite the Right is a perfect example of a negative imbalance of risk to reward.

3. Eventually, when one builds up a sufficient “store-house” of success, one can spend some of that capital on calculated (not foolhardy) risks – activities with a high reward that may have moderate to high risk.  But these must be planned very carefully, and never should be “all or nothing.”

In all cases, risk mitigation should always be practiced and all reasonably conceivable contingencies planned for.

Postscript

Perhaps not surprisingly, Greg Johnson believes the embarrassing Unite the Right II fiasco was a “triumph”

To summarize his “argument” - Kessler and his merry little band “triggered” the dastardly Left into exposing their distorted selves to all the “normies.”  Sorry, I don’t buy it, Greg, and here is why.

Healthy-minded people already know the Left are hateful freaks.  That’s not the major issue.  The major issue is that normal people have either lost hope or they think that “voting Republican” solves the problem.  What the Far Right needs to do is:

1. Show that the Left is not invincible; they can be defeated.  Victory is possible, so the healthy masses should not give in to apathy or despair.

2. Demonstrate that the Far Right, and only the Far Right, is capable of defeating the Left.  The GOP, Trump, cuckservatives, civic nationalists, etc. cannot do so.  Only the Racial Right can provide victory.

What Quota Queen Kessler achieved with Unite the Right II is to strengthen the appearance of the power, inevitability, and invincibility of the Left, and the pathetic powerlessness, isolation, and “representing the dead past” sad aura of the Far Right.  Unite the Right II may have emphasized leftist freakishness, but that only serves to increase White despair, as the freaks emerged dominant and triumphant, while the Right scurried away, tail between their legs, protected by the police.

Unite the Right I was a disaster, but at least there the Far Right was represented by the System as a dangerously powerful – albeit sinister – force.  Unite the Right II just made pro-White racial activism look weak and pathetic. To paraphrase Saint Adolf: the masses are like women, they respect and crave (male) strength, and despise (male) weakness.

In summary: exposing the Left as deranged freaks does not weaken them.  They and their supporters – which includes the System apparatus – revel in the freakishness, which they consider “being on the right side of history.”  As stated above, healthy-minded “normies” already know what the Left is about, and are tired of seeing the Left always win and the Right always lose.  Standing up to the freaks with a show of strength, determination, numbers, and vigor would have been a success for the Far Right, breaking the Left’s aura of inevitability.  Even a “glorious defeat” – going down fighting – would have been something positive. But this?  This?  A tiny hapless group shepherded by police?  It was just another typical failed “movement” rally, no different from the endless parade of failure that has made American Nutzis into a laughingstock, a punching bag for the Left.  

And by the way Kessler and Johnson, the “Gandhian non-violent” movement in India engaged in mass passive resistance and civil disobedience, and they were not afraid to suffer attack by their opponents. They did not hide behind the police; they did not beg for help from the same System they wanted to overthrow.  If you want to be “Gandhian” then act “Gandhian” – not Rockwellian, which is more the truth of the matter.  I do not support the Gandhian approach, but if that’s your “grand new idea,” then at least be honest about it; be authentic.

Finally, I can’t help but think that if Kessler was a Spencer ally – or, even “worse,” if Spencer himself was involved in the action – then Johnson would be denouncing Unite the Right II as a failure.  But, alas, Kessler and Spencer had a falling out, so Kessler is “good” – blah, blah, blah.  Plus, there’s some solidarity among the quota crew (excepting the cases of major feuds) – it does no good if activists recognize Kessler as an affirmative action product – after all, if they recognize that, maybe others would be also recognized as such as well?  And we can’t have that!


Monday, August 13, 2018

Jason Kessler: Quota Queen Failure

These affirmative action bastards are killing our race.  They have got to go.

In all cases, emphasis added.

Another pathetic humiliation: the Tradition of Failure continues.
A white nationalist rally in the heart of Washington drew around 20 demonstrators and hundreds of chanting counterprotesters on Sunday, the one-year anniversary of racially charged violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Dan Haught, a 54-year-old computer programmer from Washington, was attending his first protest at the White House holding a sign that said “Back under your rocks you Nazi clowns.” 

“We wanted to send a message to the world that we vastly outnumber them,” Haught said.
Gee, what a surprise!  It’s not like, you know, that’s ever happened before, right?  Seriously though, Der Movement really has this scenario worked out to perfection: rallies in which the racialists are greatly outnumbered by protesters and require police protection from the mass of protesters – exhibiting weakness and a hypocritical dependence on the System, and a comical lack of foresight and self-awareness.  EVERYONE knew – or had to know – that the “rally” would turn out like this.  Then why do it?

You know what?  Kessler is more the enemy than is Haught.  Much, much more.  It are guys like Kessler who are killing what could be a real movement and making it into a pathetic joke.  As long as The Quota Queens Inc. are the “leadership” of Der Movement Inc. (a money-making enterprise for the Tin Cuppers) nothing – absolutely nothing – will ever be achieved.

A handful of members of right wing, white supremacist and neo Nazi groups holding a Sunday rally near the White House were vastly outnumbered by massive crowds of counter protesters. 

Dubbed “Unite the Right 2,” the white supremacist rally was organized by Jason Kessler…But Sunday’s rally did not draw the turnout Kessler might have envisioned, with only approximately 20 of his allies joining him. They traveled to the event on the Metro train from suburban Vienna, Va. Kessler’s group arrived in downtown D.C. at about 2:30 p.m. They were flanked by police as they walked a few blocks through downtown D.C. to the park, which is across the street from the White House. 

Large crowds of counter protesters encircled the group and tossed objects at them as they marched from the train. At the Lafayette Park, police kept Kessler and his followers far from the protesters, who had them surrounded. 

The counter protesters included members of a wide variety of groups including socialists and Black Lives Matter organizations. Maurice Cook, the co-founder of March For Racial Justice, which helped plan the count-protests, told Yahoo News turnout was “more than we expected.”
Greg Johnson: Jason Kessler is a likeable, sincere, and intelligent guy.

Ted Sallis: Jason Kessler is a moronic stupid bastard, an embarrassment whose all-too-easy-too-predict failures are killing American racial activism.

Who is right?  Who is wrong?

Consider that Johnson wrote:
The people at Unite the Right who were doxxed, injured, arrested, harassed, fired from their jobs, shunned by their families, and in one case driven to suicide had a lot of illusions stripped away from them. A lot of them are understandably bitter. 

A huge number of people who attended and who watched the disaster from a distance simply disappeared from the movement.
After all of that, with Kessler planning a sequel to that (which turned out to be the tragicomedy described above), Johnson still writes “Jason Kessler is a likeable, sincere, and intelligent guy!!!!!!”  Oh, but he “can’t admit defeat” you see, that’s the problem.  No, the problem is that ALL these guys, the Kesslers and Johnsons and Spencers et al. HAVE NO ACCOUNTABILITY because their “leadership” positions are a result of a de facto affirmative action policy rather than on merit.

At the extreme end of the spectrum in having a lack of self-awareness, Greg Johnson edition:
There’s an animus in the movement against realism and honesty when it comes to our failures…
Yeah, Greg, like “banning” people from your blog when they honestly and realistically talk about your failures.  Der Movement Inc. is parody of itself.

But, hey, keep on supporting failure, all you Type I Nutzis out there.  Keep on supporting people because they have Anglo or Germanic surnames, keep on with the complete lack of accountability, keep on following “leaders” who comically make the same mistakes over and over and over again (while gibbering about “low Negro IQ” – while said Negroes are capable of organizing rallies that dwarf in size and success anything the quota queens have ever put together).

Another example of Type I retardation is here.
President Trump, who seems to have far less power over this country than do the media and technology conglomerates, must act forcefully to guarantee freedom of speech and to ensure that the objective rule of law is reestablished.
Hey, imbecile, Trump signed a document last year stating to use the resources of the federal government against the Right.  Jeff Sessions went out of his way to indict Fields on “hate crime charges” while praising Heyer.  Don’t you stupid bastards, with your pathetic lickspittle worship of the Big Mac-gobbling porn star-rawdogging turd Trump, understand yet?  HE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU AND YOUR "RIGHTS."  Trump’s daughter, who he listens to more than to losers like you:
…there is no place for white supremacy, racism and neo-nazism in our great country.
You DO know she’s a convert Jew with an ethnically Jewish husband don’t you?  

Hey, don’t you know that at Kessler’s failed DC rally, the Antifa were allowed to wear masks without fear of arrest?  Who knows?  Maybe if you stripped off one of those masks, you’d see this face staring back at you.

Remember: Donald Trump is President and Jeff Sessions is Attorney General. Wow, how lucky we are!  Imagine if Clinton had been elected – then right wingers would have been deplatformed and physically attacked in the streets with impunity.  Oh, wait…

All of this is not – as the juvenile Alt Righters would say – “blackpilling.” It is reality.  To quote one of your grand “leaders” - There’s an animus in the movement against realism and honesty when it comes to our failures…

Don’t blame the messenger for the message.  How about blaming yourselves instead?  YOU – look in the mirror now, Type I losers – keep on supporting idiots who fail time and again, YOU keep on supporting people who MAKE THE SAME GODDAMNED MISTAKES OVER AND OVER AGAIN, and YOU keep on enabling approaches that are guaranteed to fail even before they commence.  

YOU HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND IT IS YOU 

Live with it.

Sunday, August 12, 2018

Welton: Absolutely Despicable

Welton the fraud.  In all cases emphasis added.

Sallis right once again: Der Movement Inc. whitewashing Rushton the Fraud.

I like how this turd makes it seem like Dutton’s book is wholly supportive of Rushton and Rushton’s “theories.”  If that is the case, why are Rushton’s hysterical fans attacking Dutton and his book on Amazon, eh Welton you despicable mendacious dishonest scum? But what do you expect from fundamentally dishonest HBD?

Here is the liar Welton again trying to make it seem that Dutton (*) was supportive of Rushton and was giving explanations to explain “anomalies”:
Dutton’s book makes sense of anomalies with the model, arguing that as a group becomes more K-selected, it becomes more evolved to an extremely specific niche.
Is there any way of accounting for these counterexamples to Rushton’s theory? Michael Woodley and his colleagues have argued that as a race or species adopts a slower Life History Strategy, the traits that make up that strategy will correlate less closely with one another. In Dutton’s words:

Under conditions of intense selection—of the kind experienced by Northeast Asians—you end up with a very high-K group and thus extreme specialization and a weak relationship between K traits. So, we would expect them to be less K than Europeans on some measures. It is likely that, in a very harsh ecology, a group which was highly cooperative but also hostile to outsiders (breeding with whom would only be maladaptive because the children would be less adapted to the harsh ecology) would have been more likely to survive. Foreigners also potentially undermine community trust, particularly crucial for extreme K-strategists. 
So the anomalies Dutton reports are by no means beyond the possibility of evolutionary explanation, but Rushton neglected to mention them altogether. Dutton considers this cherry-picking of the evidence on Rushton’s part, whether conscious or unconscious. 
Dutton occasionally overstates his case: e.g., when describing Rushton as a “pathological liar.” The examples of Rushton’s dishonesty he cites appear motivated either by bias in favor of his theory or a desire to conceal the less creditable aspects of his personal life or family history.
Contra Welton's indirect implication, others like Woodley tried to explain Rushton’s errors using “just so” stories and other spin; Dutton himself was generally critical, hence the hysterical attacks against Dutton by Rushton's supporters.  And as regards the arguments of “Michael Woodley and his colleagues” together with Welton’s screed – notice how Welton cherry picks dementia findings to support Rushton, but when other traits don’t fit the theory, we get hand-waving hypotheses of “intense selection” causing a “weak relationship between K traits.”  

Well, if there is a “weak relationship” between the very traits that define Rushton’s theory, then what is the point of the theory to begin with?  Any and all anomalies can be explained away in this fashion.  Therefore, Rushton’s hypothesis is not falsifiable and therefore it is no longer science – in other words, when data fit the theory, then the theory is supported, and when data contradict the theory, that also supports the theory because of, in this case, “intense selection” causing “weak relationships.”  That’s the essence of HBD – a pseudoscience that refuses to even acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, a pseudoscience impossible of falsification because even contradictory data – when not overtly ignored – is “spun away” as more support of the very hypotheses the data actually refute.

HBD is merely politics supporting Whites being enslaved by Jews and Asians. And Rushton was, according to Dutton, a race-mixer, a cuckolder, an adulterer, and a cherry picker (at best; and a "pathological liar" at worst) of data.  To Welton to excuse that by saying “that’s what geniuses do” and then, in the grand HBD fashion, cherry picking data to cite a few examples (Rushton – the HBD Einstein), is laughably stupid and morally obtuse.

*Technically, yes, "Dutton's book" makes the case by citing the opinions of Rushtonite spin doctors, but let us be honest: casual readers pf Welton's article will assume that Dutton himself was supportive, rather than just quoting those others.  Welton's whole piece is misleading.

Saturday, August 11, 2018

This is What a Monopoly Looks Like

Saturday Movement Roundup.  In all cases, emphasis added.

There are various forms of rent-seeking behavior that revolve around suppressing competition, such as raising barriers to entry, monopolization, etc.  These tactics of course lead to inefficiency, stagnation, and eventual ineffectiveness, as accountability for poor performance is removed from the equation, and as the adaptive process of selection is thwarted and failure is institutionalized.  Thus - the “movement” “leadership.”

Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents unveils a bold new direction:
In May, I had dinner with several movement colleagues, and I asked how I could improve Counter-Currents’ reach and effectiveness. Everyone at the table told me to invest more time in our YouTube channel, CounterCurrentsTV, because it has the most potential to amplify out message and reach new audiences. They were quite emphatic, actually, and the whole discussion took on the air of an intervention. I was convinced, though, and began planning to take Counter-Currents in a new direction.
That’s the ticket!  Refocus Counter-Currents in the direction of YouTube, and similar social media platforms!  What could go wrong with that?  Well, readers likely know that Johnson’s grand announcement was not only made right after Alex Jones was censored from YouTube, but after yet another example of Jared Taylor – who is significantly less radical than Counter-Currentsbeing censored as well.  This is all a continuation of the censorship and deplatforming of Taylor and other so-called “Far-Right” figures.  If and when Counter-Currents’ YouTube presence becomes more popular and influential, why wouldn’t the plug will be pulled on that as well?

The grand solution to that problem?
Greg Johnson

Posted August 11, 2018 at 12:39 am | Permalink

Then we move somewhere else.
Where?  If there is a safer place available now, why not use it?  If it is because such a place is virtually unknown compared to YouTube, then being kicked off YouTube is functionally equivalent to being deplatformed and censored.

To declare an intention to focus on a strategy that has already failed is daylight madness. It’s at the level of parody.  Then, in response to the obvious objection brought up by Counter-Currents readers, the answer essentially is: “if our obviously flawed strategy eventually – and inevitably – fails, we’ll think of something else.”  If I had accused Counter-Currents of planning a YouTube-public exposure-based strategy I would be accused of being an “unfair bitter blackpiller.”  But that's what it is.

Likewise, after the fiasco of the Unite the Right and its aftermath – violence, death, doxing, lawsuits, hate crimes indictment, collapse of the “Alt Right brand,” people dropping out of the “movement,” Jeff Sessions supporting Antifa, etc. – if I were to sarcastically joke that “Der Movement is probably going to plan Unite the Right II,” I would also be accused of being “crazy and bitter” with “nothing to contribute.”  But, alas, the joke’s on you, dear reader, since Unite the Right II is a reality, not a Sallis parody (hard to tell the difference these days).

Once again: ultimately, I blame the “movement” rank-and-file for this. They enable it.  They support it.  They can end it, but choose not to.

And what about those “movement colleagues” of Johnson whose “intervention” consisted of “put videos on a forum from which you are almost certainly going to be tossed off from?”  The blind leading the blind.

I know that one riposte from the fundamentally dishonest “movement” will be “the crazy and bitter ‘blackpilling’ Sallis is always complaining, but never offers solutions.”  Long time readers of this blog know that this is a shameless lie, but for newer readers, I’ll just point out five – of many – instances in which I have outlined, in greater or lesser detail, things that I believe need to be done:


Agree or disagree, but do not pretend such input was never given.  The problem is that so-called “metapolitics” is not enough.  If not backed up and supported by community, infrastructure, and, above all, “friends in high places,” your metapolitical agitation can be suppressed when it becomes too successful.  There’s a reason why the deplatforming is occurring now: Trump’s victory, the Alt Right getting too “uppity,” the fear that too many Whites are being exposed to too many “hateful” ideas.  Politics is required in addition to metapolitics – you need people in positions of influence who, if not explicitly on your side, will at least “provide cover” for you on the pretext of “protecting free speech” or some other rationale.  Over time, if you are successful with such implicit protection, it can become more explicit later on (of course, if explicit support can be given early in the game, so much the better).  In turn, the metapolitical activism can assist the political, which in turn provides ever more explicit protection for the metapolitical – a positive, self-reinforcing “feed forward” mechanism.

And as to why these supportive infrastructures are not already in place – blame the previous generation of quota queens.  The preeminence of Pierce in the American “movement” was a disaster, because his viewpoint was that reflected in his Turner Diaries, and actualized in abortive form by Mathews and company – revolutionary cells “acting out” with violence for a Der Tag scenario.  The idea of a slow “march through the System,” of infiltration, of patience, of a multi-tier approach including electoral politics, all this was rejected because “the System will collapse in the next five years” – a prediction repeated for at least for the last 50 years or so.

Next: It appears that the EGI Notes tin cup paradigm is somehow filtering out to the “movement” - in this podcast, when soliciting donations, Taylor mentions that he does not want to appear to be “rattling the tin cup.”

I find it hard to believe that any of the “movement” leadership reads this humble blog, particularly since acceptance of criticism is not a strong point; this may just be an amusing coincidence, or perhaps some third party mentioned that criticism of tin cupism takes place here.

My view on this issue is clear: I have no problem whatsoever with full time activists living off donations IF such activists are earning their “salary.”  If they do important things to advance the cause – things that “amateurs” cannot do for “free” – then certainly they should and must be supported by the rank-and-file.

I for one would like to see Salter get supported; writing books like On Genetic Interests is a full time job and support for possible future works of that nature would be money well donated.

On the other hand, I’ve criticized VDARE because, according to past tax records published by the media and discussed here, they’ve been absorbing a very large fraction of “movement” donations, and for what?  Running a blog?  

As regards the podcast itself, apparently, Taylor believed the NY Times would dump Jeong once its (not “her”*) comments came to light.  Taylor has been at this several years longer than I have – doesn’t he know by now that Jeong’s comments were a reason to hire, not fire, it?  Hatred of Whites is the bedrock foundation of the System, and isn’t the NY Times – classified at this blog as an overt hate organization – a leading mouthpiece of that same System?  The NY Times is likely to hire Eric Clanton for their editorial board.  If not them, someone else will give him a mouthpiece. I mean, if he had actually killed someone, he would be more marketable, but still, assault and battery is sufficient for his System bonafides.

In summary: the quota queens and their “movement” use their affirmative action policy to restrict entry to leadership positions, forming a monopoly for the Pierces, Spencers, Johnsons, Taylors, and Kesslers – leading to inefficiency, error, stagnation, endlessly repeated mistakes, and tragically lost opportunities.

*Looking at the various photographs of Jeong accompanying the articles about it, it is not clear to me how the physical appearance differs from that of, say, a 12-year old male Korean.  Secondary sexual characteristics are not, at least to me, readily apparent.  Therefore, in the absence of a karyotype demonstrating two X chromosomes, the word “it” seems a more prudent descriptor of that anti-White racist fanatic.

Related gamester comment:
Space Viking
Not sure how you can tell the difference between the g00k and -ette either. Very low sexual dimorphism.