Saturday, November 30, 2019

Please Watch This Video

I’ve been warning you about all of this for many years.

The price of affirmative action – if you watch anything, watch this.  It’s a must. You can find it on Amazon, for example.

It’s all there. The humiliating ease of the infiltration, and how quickly and seamlessly Hermansson rose within the ranks of the pitiful Alt Right. Note that, apparently, ZERO significant (if any) background checks were done on him. Note that no one bothered to check whether or not his false persona was real, whether or not that false persona was, in reality, actually a university student writing a dissertation. No, the “extreme vetting” was essentially: “Are you Swedish?”- literally.  Thus: "You’re Swedish…talk to Steadman.”  That was followed up with meeting with Stead Steadman at Steadman's favorite eatery…The Nordic Bakery.

I kid you not. You just can’t make this stuff up. Nor could you make up the “Odin Ceremony”- if I tried to invent a parody of Der Movement’s ethnic fetishism, I couldn’t do a better job.  If I tried to invent a scenario demonstrating how Der Movement’s extreme Nordicism has real-life negative consequences, I couldn’t do any better than this. A jug-eared, effeminate, pipe stem-armed Swedish homosexual, with a transparently false identity, is rapidly brought up in the "movement" to the point that he’s doing background checks on legitimate meeting attendees (and laughably warned about “Martin the HopenotHate infiltrator”), and giving a opening speech about the dangers of infiltration (!) at one of Johnson's meetings, all simply because of Steadman’s ethnoracial obsessions.  I’ll pass over the juvenile jackassery of the “Extremist Club,” the counter-productive provocations of Turner, and the delusions of Jorjani.

What an absolute train wreck. Don’t say you weren’t warned. At the same time all of that was going on, the “crazy and bitter” Sallis was denouncing the Alt Right, warning all of you about the Alt Right, denouncing Jorjani and the whole AltRight Corporation, warning about the “movement’s" ethnic fetishism and Nordicism, being skeptical about the “extreme vetting” – correct about it all.

All of the people who facilitated Hermansson’s joyride through the “movement” have NO business still being involved in racial activism in any capacity – but of course they still are. Of course.  Affirmative action works wonders, eh?


See this.  It’s so easy for them.

And let us not forget this great moment in “extreme vetting" operational security (emphasis added):
I e-mailed Dr. Greg Johnson, organizer of Northwest Forum, Seattle’s hottest closed-door white nationalist convention, asking for an interview on the latest in regional racism. He turned me down. Thanks to the internet, the far right no longer needs the mainstream media to get its message out. Print, television, and radio lose their relevance when everybody’s just a click away from Pepe the Frog, Disney songs dubbed with racist lyrics, and pseudo-intellectual essays that somehow try to bring ancient Rome into all this.
Also thanks to the internet, it only took me about an hour to change my identity from David Lewis, Seattle historian, to Dave Lewis, Neo-Nazi film editor and aspiring book critic from Charlottesville, currently living in Los Angeles. This Dave Lewis has never been to Seattle, but has always wanted to attend Northwest Forum.
My film editor persona dangled a giant chunk of cheese in front of Dr. Johnson. In addition to being a racist, Johnson is also a huge cinephile…Dr. Johnson bit the cheese. Entry into Northwest Forum typically requires “extreme vetting,” which means meeting in person and getting a beer with one of the Northwest’s white separatist organizations like True Cascadia. But I didn’t even have to send in a photoMy e-mail invite listed the forum for August 26th at noon…
Accountability?  Zero.  Consequences?  Zero.  Indeed, the “D’Nations” keep on flowing in.
Our goal this year is to raise $100,000. So far, we have received 367 donations totaling $92,489.93. This is an enormous outpouring of commitment and support.
Remember that the next time Hood scribbles that “the only thing we need is money.”

Santayana:
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
That is why you rank-and-file fellows need to be reminded, time and again, of the humiliating stupidity and collapse of the Alt Right, and of the practical consequences of the "movement's" ethnic affirmative action program.

Read this.  (Note: How about "HBD as anti-White pseudoscience?")  Emphasis added:
Krosch has a broad, testosteronized punim like that of the fanatical Swedish climate crusader Greta Thunberg. 
What?  Blasphemy!  Doesn’t he know that Thunberg is Swedish?  He’s going to get his Der Movement, Inc. membership card revoked!  What are Thunberg praisers like Durocher and Counter-Currents going to think?  For shame!  (Shame culture activated!)
Now, I was rebuked in the comments to my last article at TOO for “draw[ing] attention to minor deficiencies in [the] physical beauty” of the journalists Stephen Daisley and Tanya Gold, but I don’t think the rebuke was valid. As the great Chateau Heartiste has often pointed out: “Physiognomy is real.” The ugliness of leftism as an ideology is often reflected in the ugliness of leftists as people. I also agree with a fascinating article at National Vanguard arguing that “Jews themselves are an unattractive and, on average, ugly people” and that “Jews, as a group, oppose beauty.” In fact, the Talmud advises Jews not to regard physical beauty as important in marriage: “For ‘false is grace and beauty is vain.’ Pay regard to good breeding, for the object of marriage is to have children” (Taanith 26b and 31a).
This seems to be the article in question.  By the way, my own essay on the subject was written without knowing about that National Vanguard piece. The Talmud quote supports my theory.

Those conservatives – like folks who shill for capitalism?  By the way, note how Asians mirror Black and Hispanic voting and public opinion patterns – the same as Jews, it should be noted.  Colored is as Colored does.

Ethnonationalism marches on.  Hail Brexit!  Hail ethnonationalism!  Rule Britannia!


Counter-Currents marches on:
A possible objection bears discussion. All Indo-European beliefs, and indeed most traditional doctrines the world over, posit an inevitable end to this world. Whether it comes to a close with the Age of Iron, the Second Coming, the Age of the Wolf, or the Kali Yuga…
Rewritten:
A possible objection bears discussion. All Type I “traditionalist” beliefs, and indeed most traditional doctrines the world over, posit an inevitable end to this world. Whether it comes to a close with the Age of Aluminum, the Googolplex Coming, the Age of the Hamster, or the Yogi Bear…
Behold the Millennial “activist” Jeelvy:
I am a crotchety and aging millennial, with a self-cut undercut; my body is a hearty mix of muscle and . . . heh, insulating material; and my head is full of sanity-preserving copes, nightmares, and immature dick jokes. I’ve got a tenuous grip on a sinecure, I write for Counter-Currents, I lift weights and practice martial arts, and I hike with my wife on weekends. Her tits are only slightly bigger than my clenched fist. I have a Facebook page where I post photos of puppies and horses.
The entirety of Jeelvy’s writing can be summed up thus.

Time for Jeelvy to get hysterical about “Boomer mate poaching.”  No Bueno!

Shallow and stupid: It's Jef Costello.  Isn't he thankful about Ann Coulter as well?  When's breakfast going to be ready?  Dinesh is getting hungry too.


Friday, November 29, 2019

Comments on the Clarke Interview

Three points.

As a final note, the story of these arrests, and of Andrew’s in particular, is an important corrective and admonition to those among us who have waxed eloquently with their “disavowals” of “terrorism” because it “undermines White Nationalism.” I have always had a problem with such disavowals, and for a few simple reasons. More often than not, they are simply exercises in preaching to the converted. Most disavowals are made by people “plugged into” the “movement”, while the very rare handful of extreme acts of White violence are carried out by isolated fringe individuals who never hear such disavowals or are least likely to be moved by them. Disavowals are thus, more or less, languid and effete acts of moral self-satisfaction. Second, disavowals simply add to, and increase the volume of, discourse critiquing the dissident Right, and they are divisive and demoralising. They implicitly assume a problem within the “movement” that needs to be addressed (where none in fact exists because the movement is already overwhelmingly non-violent), a pernicious trend that conforms very strongly to opposition narratives. They are, therefore, in terms of image management or “optics” undoubtedly worse than mere silence – we can’t correct criticism and image problems by making concessions to the opposition’s vision of our cause. Third, and related to the second, “right wing terrorism” is a largely invented phenomenon, embellished by falsified statistics, media tactics, and the steady production of propaganda by dedicated anti-White groups. It is a largely fictional opposition talking point that would be foolish to adopt ourselves. Fourth, and most important, by adopting discussions and perceptions of “right wing terrorism” we are easily corralled into fear and silence when entirely innocent activists are swept up in “terrorism” arrests. We allow ourselves to be pre-programmed to disavow these individuals and abandon them to their fate. I personally find this mode of conduct to be shameful, cowardly, and highly revealing. I reject it in disgust.
This is a fascinating paragraph because when looking at it from the perspective of a point-by-point analysis, I agree with all points (more or less) and have no strong objection to anything written.  However, looking at it as a whole, I cannot fully agree with it – it is as if the whole is less than the sum of the parts.  If I had to pinpoint a specific objection to the entire narrative of that paragraph, it would focus on that I believe something needs to be said about the issue of these violent attacks by pro-White individuals and what the deeper meaning of them is.  I agree with Joyce that the disavowals are not helpful and sometimes harmful, and I am myself tired of those “movement leaders” who trot out the same tired essay over and over again when an incident occurs. However, there is a difference between such disavowals and an honest appraisal of the problem. By take on these incidents has been two-fold. First, I criticize the System for causing the problem to begin with, with its anti-White policies, its persecution of pro-White activists, and its cordone sanitaire erected to inhibit pro-White activists from fully participating in the political process, equal to all others. Second, I criticize Der Movement because its constant humiliating failures and depressing ineptness induces despair in pro-White individuals and prompts some of them to carry out foolish attacks. If the “movement” was a credible outlet for racialist feelings and activism, then perhaps these people would not believe that their only option is to shoot something up. So, point-by-point, Joyce’s critique of the disavowals is fine, but the entire paragraph fails in that it doesn’t address what should be done, what should be critiqued, and doesn’t properly point the finger at “movement” failure as one motivator for the attacks.
However, by 2017 HnH had a mole inside a group of friends who used to be members of pre-ban National Action. Robbie Mullen was this mole, and Mullen used to be the regional organiser for what was National Action in the North West. The evidence shows that Mullen was playing people off one another as late as July 2017. His efforts were not working and he himself described the group of friends, supposedly a clandestine continuation of National Action, as like “an old man’s drinking club” with “not much going for it.”
At the end of April 2017, Mullen approached Hope Not Hate via email, alleging that NA continued to exist and that he was a current member. He said in court that it (“NA”) had discarded all of the symbolism of NA and was “going it alone” as a nameless entity. HnH activist Matthew Collins has since said that they began to publish articles on their website in the hope the media would pick them up — presumably in order to generate paranoia among former members.
Former NA member Christopher Lythgoe had, post-ban, taken out a private gym for himself in Warrington and that this, according to Mullen, was supposedly “NA” headquarters. I’d like to add that Michal Trubini, who was found not-guilty with me in April 2019, was the name on the lease for the property that the gym was situated in. There wasn’t a single shred of political literature or items found in that gym when the police searched it in September 2017.
Mullen had supposedly expressed to HnH that he wanted out of NA, but that he couldn’t leave because he was too embedded within NA and feared for his safety. HnH later said through Matthew Collins that they were slowly withdrawing him from the group. However, they contradicted this statement through Collins, their “Head of Intelligence,” stating that they persuaded Mullen to remain in the group to work as an informant for HnH, and that Collins would be his “handler.”
Third, it is interesting how the Right is always so easily infiltrated and compromised by the Left, while the opposite almost never occurs. And of course, HopeNotHate was the group that used Hermansson to leverage “movement” Nordicism so as to place him in a position of extensive infiltration. Der Movement is lucky that the Left (at least in this case) was so short-sighted and unimaginative, for they could have had this Hermansson fellow rise fairly fast and far in Der Movement (more than what he actually did) and do real long-term damage. Perhaps they already have such people already in place?  After all, many of our “leading activists” couldn’t do more damage if they were trying. Maybe they are.
The dissident ethno-nationalist Right must enter the democratic process and fight tooth and nail for every vote. 
Readers of this blog know I have been promoting the idea that electoral politics are important.  Not as the only strategy and not as the main strategy, but as one crucial component of an interlocking strategic plan, that also includes metapolitical education and community/infrastructure/organization.

Thursday, November 28, 2019

Happy Thanksgiving 2019

Odds and ends.

On this day, let us all be thankful that the Alt Right collapsed before it became even more intertwined with racial nationalism and dragged racial activism down into the abyss.

I would like to point out with respect to some of my recent harsh criticism of certain “movement” figures that it is not personal and does not deny that those people have made important contributions to the cause.

Take Hood for example. Much of what he writes I agree with, but the outrageous gaslighting about the history of the Alt Right and its support by those on the Far Right, and also about support for Trump, is unacceptable. His comment of "we just need money" is also unacceptable, as Der Movement has frittered away millions of dollars with nothing to show for it except for endless humiliating failure.  MacDonald had done good work, but the current HBD-Nordicist direction of his work delves into pseudoscience (for an example, see below).

I will continue to speak truth to power.  The power in this case being Der Movement, Inc.

Laugh at this prime Type Isim.
In Donaldson’s mythos, which is equal parts Joseph Campbell and J. R. R. Tolkien, ancient races of elves, dwarves, and giants represent elemental aspects of our world and our souls. Storm giants, for example, represent what is violent and destructive in men and also the great winters that caused the last Ice Age. Before the advent of men, these races often did battle, with the storm giants routing the elves in North America and sending their great prince, Boden, fleeing to Europe. There, the elves managed to defeat the storm giants (an allegory for the retreating glaciers after the Ice Age) with the help of humans.
My elf, my elf, my storm giant for an elf!  I don’t know – those silver age Tales of Asgard comic tales by Jews Lee and Kirby seem to me better than Donaldson

Next for Ash Donaldson – writing a sequel to The Iron Dream.
A Race for the North imparts above all else the great kinship shared by the white European peoples.
By “white European peoples” that is, of course, everyone who derives from the north of Vienna and the west of Berlin.  That may be a bit too inclusive though – how about from the north of Calais and the west of Hamburg?  Dat right!

Zman:
At some point, I decided to watch until I saw an ad featuring anything resembling normal people doing normal things. I gave up after about thirty minutes. If a space alien tried to understand America based on television, its conclusion would be that we are ruled by frizzy-haired mulatto lesbians and homosexuals.
What about Spencer’s octoroons?

With respect to the HBD-Nordicists, see this.  Emphasis added.
And in Sweden, public shaming and ostracism — punishments typical of a feminized society — are very powerful.
Sweden a shame culture? I thought that all of those high trust northern hunter gatherer Inner Hajnal peoples were individualistic “guilt cultures” and the collectivist “shame cultures” were what one would expect from two foot tall greasy Med swarthoids?

See this. Emphasis added.
In cultures that are more individualistic, one’s primary responsibility is to oneself. People make their own important life decisions (e.g., what kind of work to do and whom to marry), and have to live with the consequences of their choices. Thus, it is argued, guilt is a key motivator. (I don’t do something wrong because doing it would make me feel bad.)
In cultures that are more collectivist, one’s primary responsibility is to others—one’s family, tribe, religion or other social entity. Important others in their group make key life decisions for the individual (e.g., what kind of work to do and whom to marry) because they have the requisite knowledge and power, and one’s primary responsibility is to the group and to them because of their elevated position within it. Thus, it is argued, shame is a key motivator.
Back to Amren, emphasis added:
Swedes practiced collectivism long before the Social Democrats came to power in the 1930s…
Swedish collectivism?  Say it ain’t so!  What happened to the individualism of the high trust northern hunter gatherers?  The edifice of HBD-Nordicism continues to crumble.  I suppose they’ll engage in hand-waving spin to “explain” that Swedish collectivist shame culture is due to “egalitarian societal consensus.”  This demonstrates why HBD is not science, but is pseudoscience. From the perspective of the HBDers, their dogma is not falsifiable. Whatever theories and hypotheses the HBDers come up with, if evidence is shown to falsify those theories and hypotheses, the HBDers just create “spin” or lie or create bizarre misinterpretations in order to evade the fact that the falsification occurred.  They never admit to being wrong. If people refuse to accept that their hypotheses have been falsified, they are not real scientists. That is pseudoscience.

Listen to this. It is interesting that Taylor makes a distinction between “White countries” and Jews and Israel. I have no problem with that, of course, but I find it surprising.  

Taylor’s comments on racial differences in serum testosterone is based on what? HBD nonsense?  It doesn’t seem to be based on actual scientific evidence.  Quite the opposite.  See this as well.  There may be other issues involved, such as levels of androgen receptors and the gene expression response to hormones, etc., but that was not what was stated in the interview - the comments there were specifically about serum testosterone levels.

Wrong, wrong, they’re always wrong.

Do HBDers ever admit to being wrong?  Or is it more non-falsifiable (from their perspective) HBDism?  Overt pseudoscience.

I cannot stress enough how important it is to get these facts right. Making obvious errors such as this - obvious because a few seconds of online searching can find the current scientific consensus - gives the Left ammunition to smear all racial science as "pseudoscience."  Authentic racial science is not pseudoscience, only HBD is. Unfortunately in Der Movement, the two are intimately linked, with the latter trashing the reputation of the former.

More of the same outrageous lie.
The single greatest – but largely unmentioned and unstudied – ethnic conflict in America is that between Yankees and Jews.
The truth, emphasis added:
In part, Yankee concern for black rights was genuinely inspired by Protestant moral fervour, but it was also influenced by the same strategic principle which underlay the southern-Catholic alliance: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Indeed, other than their opposition to white southerners, white Massachusetts Unitarians and black Mississippi Baptists have almost nothing in common.
The history of US politics is little more than the history of these two coalitions: the southern-Catholic alliance and the Yankee-black alliance.
But the civil rights movement united Jews with blacks and their traditional allies, greater New England Protestants and Germanic Americans, against white southerners and northern white Catholics. Today, Jews are the most loyal white ethnic group in the northern coalition, which nowadays goes by the name of the Democrats.
The Yankee-Jew-Negro/Colored Alliance. That’s the truth – not Counter-Currents gaslighting lies.

Lie, lie, they always lie.

No, don’t spend money on Christmas!  Send in those “D’Nations” to Counter-Currents instead.  Remember, those who give live in the Golden Age today!

And if you give to VDARE you’ll live in The Happy Penguin Age today!

Why imagine?  You people were supporting him for years.  MAGA!  Pepe!  Kek!  Hail Trump!




Wednesday, November 27, 2019

More Testing Follies and Other News

More 23andMe fails and other news.

As background, read this.  Also read this.

Prepare for an unexpected shock – Sallis is proven right once again.

Over the last year or two, companies such as 23andMe have been updating their customers’ ancestry results; in almost all cases that has been as a direct result of expanding their parental (reference) population sample database with all sorts of non-European samples. They do this (concentrating on the expansion of samples from outside Europe) even though they have grossly insufficient coverage from various parts of Europe (particularly the South and East) and even though most of their customers are of European descent. 

In the months since I posted the above linked criticisms, I’ve been studying online forums in which customers discuss their results, including the more recent updates, as well as looking at statements by the companies themselves, and also material forwarded to me by correspondents.  

The problems accompanying these updates, combined with the pre-existing problems of the tests, essentially completely confirm my previous criticisms and interpretations of these ancestry tests, particularly with respect to the issue of “parental privilege.”

In these updates, in general, the changes in ancestral proportions perfectly mirror the additions of parental population samples that are likely inappropriate for the customers in question (based on their actual, proven genealogical ancestry). Thus, customers who have poor parental population coverage of their actual ancestry exhibit increased ancestral proportions for precisely those (genealogically non-ancestral) parental reference populations that had their numbers increased in companies' databases.

Therefore, and 100% consistent with my past criticisms, the results are completely dependent upon the choice of parental populations, and the degree to which particular parental populations are represented in the databases. More of a certain parental population shifts ancestral proportions precisely in that direction, causing customer results to fluctuate wildly dependent on the parental population choices.

In addition, with these updates, the "unassigned" percentages for the conservative estimate (90% confidence) markedly increased for these same customers (in these cases specifically 23andMe, which provides confidence levels and "unassigned" portions of the genome - other companies do not generally do so), clearly demonstrating that the updated results are less accurate than the preceding. 

As a model of this, look at the first example here. Consider a scenario in which  the testing company refuses to add (more, if they have any) “green” parental population samples, but significantly increases the representation of “yellow” (but not “blue”) samples in their database. What happens? “Green” individuals are suddenly shown to exhibit a much greater percentage of “yellow” ancestry – which is purely a consequence of the shifting representation of different groups in the parental population database.  What if the number of “yellow” was decreased, and “blue” increased?  Then the “greens” would be more “blue.” But, here’s the rub – if significant numbers of “green” were introduced, then the “blue-yellow”” “greens” would – presto! – be represented as mostly “green.”

Again, my criticisms have been 100% confirmed as legitimate by the direct correspondence between expansion of certain parental populations in the databases and the increased ancestral proportions for those same populations among customers who lack proper parental population representation.

An equally valid conformation of my criticisms is that for many of these customers, the updated ancestral proportions have been accompanied by an ever-increasing “unassigned ancestry” percentage when considering results at the (more proper) “conservative” (“90% confidence”- which itself is a bit too low) estimate levels – often increasing to ludicrous levels. If “updates” markedly increase the amount of unknown ancestry at reasonable confidence levels, then this is strong evidence that the updates are providing ancestry estimates that are less accurate than those preceding.  How could it be otherwise? By introducing parental populations that are more distant from customers’ actual ancestral backgrounds, in the context of refusing to increase the appropriate parental population representation for those customers, of course the results will be less accurate, with less of the genome being reliably assigned at higher levels of confidence. The more the parental populations are unrepresentative of the customer, the less likely they will fit the data at the highest confidence level – hence, “unassigned ancestry.”

Anyone getting over 20-25% “unassigned” at the 90% level should view their results with extreme skepticism.  What if it is over 40%?  That is in my opinion essentially useless.  And what about levels exceeding 50% (!) – and some of them (believe it or not) do?  That is in my opinion a tragicomic embarrassment. That’s what one could expect if one tried to represent, say, Russians using some English reference samples and an increasing Japanese reference database. That the company actually releases data with such high “unassigned” levels is shocking.  If person A has an “unassigned” (at 90% confidence) of, say, 5-15% (or less) and someone else has 40-55% (or more) – how can you possibly equate the validity of those two sets of data?  In some cases, the differences are at the level of an order of magnitude.  

Note to testing companies: More references samples from Europe. Many, many more, covering ALL areas.  Most of your customers are of European origins.  You need high level coverage from throughout Europe, all of Europe, before you do your SJW sampling of other areas to satisfy the diversity-mongers.  Get all of Europe covered before you handle those Egyptians, Tibetans, Nepalese, Martians, Neptunians, or whatever. Your customers are your customers, not SJWs screeching about “diversity” in reference populations. You want “diversity?”  First start with Europe.

ALL of your customers should have “unassigned” in the low range at 90% confidence - not just those with “parental privilege.” And even for those latter customers, who are much better off than the others, the results are still suboptimal.  Consider Derbyshire’s data, which is not fully matching his actual ethnic ancestry; however, at least Northwest Europeans fall within the correct sub-region, even if national-ethnic affiliations are not always on target. The swarthoids and slavoids often do not get even that.

For now, 23andMe may be useful for the raw data (that can in theory be used for kinship analysis, which is biopolitically relevant) as well as the health data. The ancestry testing is laughable.  And, by the way, the “timeline” feature is a bad joke, based as it is on the flawed “chromosome painting” and consequent ancestry estimates. Note to company geniuses: Just because you model someone’s ancestry with your limited and inappropriate reference parental samples, does NOT mean their actual ancestry derives from those sources, so that you can “time” when that non-existent ancestry entered their ancestral line (shown to be ludicrously - and objectively mistaken - recently).

Going back to the Russian (23andMe) customer scenario, let's model it differently for the sake of illustration. In one scenario, there are no Russian reference (parental) samples, only Germans and Central Asians.  At 50% confidence, the Russian would likely be represented as mostly German but with a significant Central Asian ancestral component.  At the low level of 50% (!) confidence, some chromosome fragments would seem slightly more Central Asian than German and would be assigned thus - it's only at the coin-flip level of confidence, remember.  At 90% confidence, likely 40-50+% of the chromosome fragments, and hence the ancestry, would be "unassigned" - since at that more reasonable level of confidence, many of the chromosome fragments do not at all match either German or Central Asian. Of the remainder, most would be German, with a small minority of Central Asian. What if the Central Asian reference population was suddenly increased with more samples - increasing the chances that at 50% confidence a match was more likely with some new Central Asian sample than with the original German parental samples?  The Central Asian proportion of the Russian customer's "results" would be increased at 50% confidence, and the "unassigned" would increase at 90% confidence - the latter occurring because these new results are actually less accurate than the preceding. Thus, at 90% confidence, the chromosomal fragments are not matching these new Central Asian samples. What if the parental populations were Sardinian and Central Asian? Likely the Central Asian component would be larger at 50% confidence than with the German and Central Asian parentals, since Russians are more genetically distant from Sardinians than they are to Germans. And here, with Sardinian parentals, the "unassigned" at 90% confidence would be even larger than with the German parentals.

Now, let's do another scenario.  Here, there is a large and very comprehensive Russian parental population - many reference samples from ethnic Russians from all parts of Russia. What happens then? This same Russian customer - the same individual with the same genome - is now represented as being overwhelmingly Russian (and since Russian would be considered "European" by the company labeling, the customer would be so labeled), with only smaller amounts of other ancestries (since the customer may not be an exact fit to the co-ethnic reference samples). Note that the results from the two scenarios would be completely, utterly different. Also, in the latter scenario, at 90% confidence, the "unassigned" percentage would be low, since there would be a good fit between the Russian customer's chromosome fragments and a large and comprehensive Russian reference population.

Consider another scenario.  Imagine if "German" was defined only by samples from North Germany. A Bavarian at 50% confidence might be mostly German but with a strong minority of other ancestries, with a hefty "unassigned" at 90% confidence. If "German" was subsequently redefined to also include many South German/Bavarian samples, then the Bavarian would see his German results greatly increase and his "unassigned" decrease.  

This isn't rocket science or nuclear physics.  When you identify ancestral components by comparison to reference samples, then the composition of those references will of course determine the outcome of the ancestry determination. The accuracy of that determination can be ascertained by how much of the ancestry is "unassigned" at higher levels of confidence.

Can you believe this petty, puerile, and utterly childish attack on Spencer, coming from – surprise! – the obsessives of Counter-Currents.  That’s an embarrassment.  I suppose though it is a useful distraction from the real criticisms of Spencer and of the Alt Right that would hit too close to home to those currently attacking Spencer for talking about hamburgers.  After all, those screaming “Kek” (figuratively and/or literally) three years ago would like to pretend it never happened.

Comments on the comments: 
Ivan White
Posted November 26, 2019 at 11:17 am | Permalink
Spencer might not be a great leader…
Better: “Spencer might not be a leader…”
…but he is certainly a brave man that has risked his money and personal safety for Our People. He deserves some recognition for that.
I agree.  I have never questioned his physical courage. As far as money goes, I don’t know his personal circumstances – indications are that he is from a very wealthy family, but who knows what he has personally.
I do not know the writer of this piece…
All you have to do is click on his name on the side-bar.  Is that so difficult?
…but I get the feeling he has a personal grudge against Spencer.
Welcome to Counter-Currents.
Maybe the writer is a Groyper…
Groper maybe…for all those young lads in “rainbow thongs?”
…which is ironic considering Greg Johnson is one of the few people in the movement that uses the term “White Nationalist”. Isn’t that bad optics?
Ah…he’s a “white advocate” now.
John Wilkinson
Posted November 26, 2019 at 3:45 am | Permalink
I’ll have a Faustian burger with a side of pan-European fried potatoes, please.
No, I’ll have a Traditionalist burger with a side of ethnonationalist fried potatoes, please – in Hungary, even though I’m not Hungarian.  Chow down! (Morgan salivates)
Samuel Nock
Posted November 25, 2019 at 11:43 pm | Permalink
It appears to have been flushed down the Internet memory hole, but a few years back there was a quite funny meme consisting of the below-linked photograph with thought bubbles above each person as follows:
Brimelow thought bubble: image of Ronald Reagan
Derbyshire thought bubble: image of a young Asian woman
Taylor thought bubble: ‘they look Hwhite to me’
Sam Dickson thought bubble: image of a frosted donut
Richard Spencer thought bubble: image picturing himself as Bond in tuxedo with gun
That’s about right…but Brimelow would be more appropriately thinking about depositing money into a Happy Penguins account.

See this.  Emphasis added:
…universities threw open the gates, admitting Jews, women, blacks, other races, cripples, and sexual deviants. Since these people do not belong at university…He goes out of his way to bemoan the fact that as women become professors, the profession becomes devalued. He notes that there’s a general pattern that as women are pushed into jobs previously done by men, the market devalues those same jobs – almost as if the market were correcting for falling standards.
But, but, but…Joan of Arc!
Real professors ascend through a hierarchy and are eligible for tenure, which means job security for life. 
Actually, real tenure is becoming increasingly scarce in academia.  It may exist in some tangible form at some of the top universities, no doubt, as well as at some lower level institutions desperate to attract and retain anyone, but, in general, it’s becoming more and more an empty honorific, and in those cases certainly does not mean “job security for life.”

See this.  But it is not only about adjuncts. Full time faculty either are being not offered tenure track or the “tenure” offered is the equivalent of “job well done, here’s another title for you” but has zero practical meaning.

Once again: Wrong, wrong, they’re always wrong.

Tuesday, November 26, 2019

Hood’s Faith and Purpose

Analyzing Hood’s analysis

Read this. Excerpts, emphasis added:
Considering my long involvement in conservative organizations, I must start by clarifying something. President Ronald Reagan said shocking things about African leaders, even calling them “monkeys.”
Monkey see, monkey do.
Thus, I would like to say that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Reagan conservative. I disavow “mainstream” conservatives and their offensive Reagan cult. After all, it’s important to maintain respectability.
Amusing.
What President Reagan said was very revealing. The federal government pushed integration in the South because it wanted to win newly independent African states to “our side” in the Cold War. In these particular remarks, Ronald Reagan was criticizing African delegates to the UN, who, in his words, were “monkeys” and “still uncomfortable wearing shoes.” They had voted to recognize Communist China and expel Taiwan from the UN, thus incurring Reagan’s wrath.
That’s the same Reagan who agreed to the MLK holiday and didn’t get rid of affirmative action at the federal level. Note that Reagan wasn’t wrathful about anti-White Black crime, but about voting about Taiwan. All Asia all the time.  Was Reagan a HBDer?
The federal government enforced integration at bayonet-point to win Third World allies. Freedom of association, property rights, and many Southern cities were destroyed — and we didn’t even get any allies.
Rewrite:
The race realists enforced HBD yellow supremacy at meme-point to win Asian allies. Freedom of association, property rights, and many White cities were destroyed — and we didn’t even get any Arctic allies.
Back to Hood:
In this recently revealed conversation, Ronald Reagan was talking to Richard Nixon. Jared Taylor always objects if I attribute motives to other people in my writing. 
Why?
Yet based on Richard Nixon’s recorded conversations over the years, I can safely say the President had politically incorrect views on many subjects. However, Richard Nixon also imposed anti-white racial discrimination, i.e. affirmative action, on the United States.
Nixon – one of the original “man on white horse” heroes.
Nixon’s personal views were far more extreme than my own. In one notorious conversation, he bemoaned the state of American culture with the well-known evangelist Billy Graham. Graham could fill stadiums around the country. The President of the United States and America’s most famous and influential Christian leader blamed cultural collapse on Jews. Yet these two immensely powerful men both agreed there was nothing they could do about it. In fact, they agreed they couldn’t even talk about it.
Bunker Syndrome – plenty of bigoted talk, but no action.
Forget the specific claim. 
It’s Amren after all.
What does this story tell us? It shows that ideology and education aren’t enough. “Red-pilling” people doesn’t necessarily lead to action. Just because somebody “knows” something, it doesn’t follow that he will do anything about it. Worse, sometimes somebody “knows” something but acts like he doesn’t. Cowardice, self-interest, and political gain are often more powerful than conviction.
That’s why metapolitics without practical politics is a dead end. Politics without metapolitics is a dead end as well. You need both the theory as well as the will and ability to actualize that theory into reality.
Many Republicans know demography is destiny for the GOP. They know how this movie will end.
After all, they wrote the script.
Look at their actions. Most oppose giving felons the right to vote. Most support Voter ID laws. These have the effect of reducing the Democrat vote.
Yes, look at their actions. Supporting mass immigration for cheap labor, opposing abortion of Negro fetuses, opposing White nationalism – these have the effect of increasing the Democrat vote.
What are elections anyway? They’re demographic contests. Each side tries to assemble the largest coalition. You increase the turnout of groups that support you and suppress opponent turnout. During campaigns and on Election Day, everyone believes in identity politics. Bill Kristol recently admitted, “We’re running a census every two years as much as an election.”
Many years ago, I was discussing my views with a well-connected Republican. “You know, I agree with you about the way this is going to turn out because of immigration,” he told me. “I’m a short-term optimist and a long-term pessimist.” He shrugged, as if to say, “There’s nothing we can do about it.”
A self-fulfilling prophecy.
They know, but they think demographic change won’t hurt their own careers. They may think they don’t have the moral right to oppose demographic change. What happens to the country in the long run is not their concern.
My friends often joke about my pessimism. However, that pessimism is short-term. I’m a long-term optimist.
We are going to win. 
You do not know that, and cannot know that.
We must have faith. It must be something completely unquestioned. It must be something as self-evident as your love for your children. It can never be subject to doubt. That’s the spirit required if we are going to get anywhere.
The problem is that being overly optimistic is just as destructive as being too pessimistic and giving up in despair. If you are so unquestionably convinced you will win – on blind faith – then why bother making sacrifices?  It’ll all work out!  Just have faith!
Yet we know “education” won’t lead to victory. Education, after all, is just a means. What is the end? What are the intermediate goals that we have for this movement?
Promoting yellow supremacism? Being front men for Jewish interests? Spewing HBD pseudoscientific lies?
One is that we must be an independent political force. Whether you want to call us white advocates, the Dissident Right, nationalists, whatever, we are not a political force right now. One proof of that is that we can’t even agree on what to call ourselves.
There was a time when we could. 
Absolute, raging bullshit.  Here comes the WN 2.0 gaslighting.
In 2015, the “Alt-Right,” a label even people like Mike Cernovich and Steven Crowder were claiming, was an independent political force. Donald Trump, an insurgent candidate opposed by the conservative movement and the Republican Establishment, was our vehicle.
This is the problem, Hood. All you “jump on the Alt Right bandwagon” guys completely ignored dissident voices like mine warning that the Alt Right would end badly and that we should not tie White nationalism to the Alt Right (as Johnson promoted). Now, guys like Hood engage in lying gaslighting, pretending that everyone on the Far Right was on the Alt Right train back then.  An absolute lie, and very convenient for avoiding accountability, eh?  Also - some of us were calling Trump a vulgar, ignorant buffoon; he was not my “vehicle,” liar.
What happened? By winning, we lost.
“We” didn’t win.  Trump won.  If Trump is, and was, a fraud then he is not, and never was, “we.”
President Trump was co-opted. When he became the incumbent rather than our wrecking ball, we were left in the cold.
He co-opted himself.
Steve Bannon said the Trump Administration’s “original sin” was embracing the Republican Establishment he had just defeated. President Trump has suffered from leakers, traitors, and saboteurs ever since. Ultimately, that’s his own fault, because personnel is policy. 
No kidding.
The Alt-Right’s response was to assert its independence by occupying space. That was what led to Charlottesville, something we can’t avoid talking about. “Unite the Right” backfired massively. I’m not scapegoating organizers. An independent review clearly proved that city and state officials wanted, and got, violence.
The organizers should have anticipated that.
Perhaps that demonstration was a chance worth taking. However, if it was a gamble, it was a gamble the Alt-Right lost.
And where is the accountability for that?  The Quota Queens just go on blithely forward.
Where does this leave white advocates today? When you are marginal, it’s difficult not be co-opted because of the desire for “mainstream” relevance.
Some believe we should align with Democrats such Andrew Yang or Tulsi Gabbard. 
Idiots like Spencer and Duke.
In truth, I support some of their policies. 
Reparations for Negroes?
Perhaps it is worth promoting these policies online.
Sure, go ahead. Waste your time.
However, it won’t be like the Trump campaign in 2016; you won’t be let into their rallies and you won’t find much support among their backers.
Because those candidates are anti-White, as are most of their backers.
There was a brief time when many supported Andrew Yang and tried to meme neon pink hats as a symbol of his campaign. The campaign, of course, disavowed it and that was that.
Gee…and who was it who said – from the very start – that this support of Yang was a bad idea and would end badly? Ted Sallis. But, hey, keep on following your affirmative action leadership.  Endless failure is very attractive, right?
Though I hate to say it, I think we are stuck with the GOP simply because that’s where our potential constituents are.
Perhaps - but quality, sane third parties have never been tried on the Far Right.
Studies indicate massive political polarization. Internal disagreements within the parties are disappearing. Members of both parties have a “racialized” view of the opposition. In one study, the authors found that race was the best predictor of attachment or hostility to a party. “Racial animosity, perhaps more than any other identity cleavage, has defined and structured American politics,” it concluded. Racial polarization mirrors partisan polarization.
How do we reach the GOP constituency? Frankly, with whatever ideas that work. Reaching the constituency is the important part.
American political parties, unlike European parties, are very “loose” ideologically. The platform is irrelevant. The GOP, in and of itself, doesn’t support or oppose anything. This is also why trying to “take over” random party positions isn’t very rewarding. The candidates are what matter. The party shifts according to what those candidates believe.
If that is true, then the imperative is to have explicitly pro-White candidates involved in politics, as I have been writing here for years.
We see this happening today. Within the past few years, President Trump has managed completely to reverse the position of Republican voters (if not Republican elected officials) on issues such as free trade and tariffs. Personality matters more than platform.
Yes, but, contra Johnson, if the Trump personality was pushing a Jeb Bush platform, he would have gotten nowhere. Both matter.
It’s going to take new candidates to change the political landscape. They will probably be people we don’t know about.
Certainly none of the comically inept “leaders” of Der Movement.
In 2013, “President Donald Trump” was a television punchline. Now it’s reality. Already, liberal pundits are fretting about a more competent version of President Trump coming along, someone who will deliver on the economic and national populism Trump hinted at.
Ultimately, that’s not under our control. There’s a more important issue than partisan politics. Our limited resources, time, and energy should be focused on building sustainable networks off-line, in the real world. Our primary challenge is economic.
No, the primary challenge is the failure of "leadership"- and that failure ultimately derives from the "movement's" ethnic affirmative action policy.
It used to be that our ideas were very hard to find. Now you can find them easily, even with deplatforming and demonetization.
It used to be that you paid a terrible social cost when you were associated with these ideas. That’s still true to some extent. 
Some?
However, I’ve found if you’re involved with this, you have more friends than “normal” people do, whose most meaningful relationship is either with Netflix or boxed wine. A recent survey found one in five millennials say they have no friends at all, with more than one in four saying they have no close friends. Among ourselves, if you get sick, if you get married, if you have a child, there’s a whole community that cares.
Laughable.  Der Movement is full of feuding lunatics who spend a significant amount of time attacking each other.
What’s holding us back is just money.
That’s absolute nonsense, a pure lie.  Der Movement has always had money.  Sure, that money is only a tiny fraction of what the opposition has. But it still exists, and the fact that the “movement” has squandered millions of dollars, producing nothing but endless failure, strongly suggests that if the “movement” did have more money then the affirmative action "leadership" would simply squander that as well.  You would just get more of this.

Hood’s argument is actually internally self-contradictory. If what is holding us back is just money, then that implies that we have everything else we need – including competent, imaginative, and strategic-minded leadership. But if we has such leadership, then they would have already built up sufficient infrastructure that would have enabled us to have the extra money we need. The millions of dollars I alluded to above could have been used to build the infrastructure that would have led to the sort of really big money Hood wishes us to have. Instead we have pictures of Brimelow and Derbyshire sitting on lawn chairs.
Media have the power to isolate and target individual activists so they will be fired. You can perhaps get another job, but that sword is always hanging over your head. That’s the main problem. If we can get past that problem, we will advance very quickly.
I’ve been saying for years that we need to defeat social pricing.  Good to see that Hood is just realizing that now.  Better late than never.  He should be asking why the Quota Queens haven’t made any effective attempt to deal with the situation.
It’s horrible, but “doxing” is forcing us to built networks and institutions that didn’t exist before. Maybe it must happen this way. There was no other way than the hard way.
Absolute nonsense.  Nothing stopped the “movement” from building these "networks and institutions" years ago, decades ago, as some of us were urging, such as what I said to Griffin in my interview with him.  Endless years, endless decades, completely wasted.
There are models to follow. Some groups are already providing jobs and resources to one another, becoming “anti-fragile.” Look at how Mormons work together. They have a network that operates for the financial well-being of everyone in the group.
Look at the Left. Worker-owned enterprises, syndicalism, the early unions, communes — these are all things we can learn from.
What I said to Griffin long ago:
The Nation of Islam may be an example of the kind of thing I’m talking about. It was founded in the 1930s, but it wasn’t until the early 1960s that most white Americans ever heard about the Black Muslims. They spent decades building a base of support in the black community by helping black people with whatever they were doing in their community. So when they started becoming vocal and white people in the early 1960s started saying, “Hey, these people are a problem, what are we going to do?” it was already too late. The Black Muslims were already firmly established and had become an integral part of black society. In a similar way, a white nationalist movement has to grow like a plant, with its roots firmly in the soil.
But I was, of course, ignored. I didn’t have the right “credentials,” so to speak, you know, what Spencer and Johnson have.
Of course, one obstacle is that we are spread out all over the country. You probably have comrades closer to you than you think, but you can’t openly organize because the media will target overt activists. Geographic concentration is necessary. The problem is that everyone thinks where he lives now is the perfect place for everyone else to go. Where we should gather is a debate we’ll need to have.
Need to have?  Future tense? For godssakes, this has already been debated for decades. All these Johnny-come-lately Alt Righters believe, with their solipsism, that the “movement” came into existence the moment they became “red-pilled.” How much effort was spent debating about the “Northwest Imperative,” over the years, for example?
We need to discuss these questions because what’s coming is occupation. We already live under occupation, but it will be more visible and physical in the years ahead. I’m not optimistic about President Trump’s re-election prospects. Whatever happens, he’ll be out eventually, and Texas, Florida, and Georgia will flip because of demography, and then national politics will essentially be over.
And why didn’t Der Movement take advantage of the demographic situation that existed up until that point?
At that point, our opponents will circumvent the First Amendment. Certain speech will be called “ethnic intimidation,” not deserving of legal protection. The most violent and threatening language towards whites will still be allowed. People won’t be afraid just to act or demonstrate; they’ll be afraid to speak or write.
Blame the Quota Queens for that, for wasting untold time and untold opportunities. Hood really should be speaking out against the “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action program, but that’s apparently a bridge too far.
How do we survive as a people? Too many are still in that 2016 mindset where we debate mass politics.
What we need to discuss now:
How do we ensure physical safety?

How do we earn a living?

How do we support the activists and platforms we still have, especially if we can’t use payment processors?

How do you ensure that when the journalists come for you and your family, you will have support?
We need to figure this out.
I agree 100%. I’ve been saying this for years. Even my interview with Griffin, so many years ago, touched on these practical matters:
I think the challenge is to heighten whites’ racial awareness—especially the sane, honest, hardworking, law-abiding whites—and convince them to form voluntary, private organizations in their own communities. These organizations would exist to do practical things. The problem now is you have racialist organizations and they say, “Join up and send us your membership dues,” and you get a little membership card and a newsletter once a month. But the members stay isolated and everything stays divorced from reality. We need racial nationalist organizations that help children with homework, and help old and infirmed people, and that clean up neighborhoods, and where everybody stands together when some outside force tries to push them around. Maybe these organizations could have youth auxiliaries.
As it is now, we have white people thinking, “What am I going to do? I have got to send my children to the local school and it’s full of minorities and they are going to be taught all sorts of nonsense and they are going to get attacked, and my neighborhood is deteriorating, and my life is going to hell.” An activist comes up to them and says, “Let’s go protest against the United States’ foreign policy in the Middle East.” That’s great, our foreign policy in the Middle East should be protested, but there is still the question of what is going to be done to help the person scratching his head trying to figure out what he is going to do about what is happening in his life. At a very basic level we have to protect ourselves physically.
Back to Hood: 
It’s been said good generals study tactics, great generals study logistics. All our conversations need to be about logistics. There’s work to be done in terms of ideology. 
You had better believe it.
However, if we don’t figure out the supply questions, none of it matters anyway.
I agree 100%.  The greatest ideology in the world will get you nowhere if your opposition can completely suppress expression of that ideology.
If James Fields had taken a left instead of a right two years ago, we’d be in a different world. Things can break for want of a nail. 
Also for want of real, merit-based leadership.
Instead of trying to predict what’s going to happen, we need to have people capable of acting when opportunities arise. People talk about an economic crisis, a military conflict with Russia or China, some unforeseen political development. It could be all or none of these things. We can’t predict what kind of crisis is going to come. We just know that one will.
I do think something is going to happen. The political system can’t contain the tensions that are building up. Many Americans speak openly about civil war. I think that’s extreme, but there are some parallels.
Before our first Civil War, it was the Southerners who were the nationalists. They were the ones who were the most expansionist, most patriotic, most warlike. John Calhoun was a nationalist when he started out in politics, while New England flirted with secession during the War of 1812.
However, control of the political system “switched.” The people who thought of themselves as being in control, who thought of themselves as being the real America, realized they were politically powerless. They headed for the doors.
If Hood really understood the dynamics of revolutionary change, he would be talking about Suvorov’s Law here.  But, alas, it is only at EGI Notes that you’ll hear about that.
What does American nationalism really stand for? Clearly, it stands for something. The Left sure hates it. Clearly, most white people still believe in America. We must articulate what Americanism really means in a more developed way.
It means nothing any more.  
This brings us to the most important question. What exactly are we doing here? In recent weeks, journalists and antifa have doxed people and cost them jobs and careers. We’re called evil, terrorists, or Russian agents. It’s a tough life, but this is the business we have chosen. 
To some extent, we are forced into this. You can’t simply hide and hope “they” don’t get you. Ask the students from Covington Catholic. Every week, it seems some poor unfortunate becomes the “Nazi of the week” after he is caught in a manufactured controversy. Racial consciousness can help you avoid these situations because you see them coming a mile away and can sidestep them.
Yet white advocates unquestionably lead a difficult life.
Especially after the Quota Queens squandered fortunes and decades in order to live off of “D’Nations” while accomplishing absolute nothing of value.  The only infrastructure built by them are Brimelow’s lawn chairs. So, yes, “white advocates” (stupid term) lead difficult lives.
I’ve read the journalists and sociologists who claim what animates us is the search for “meaning.” That’s like saying people are immigrating to America for a “better life.” 
Or John Morgan invading and occupying Hungary for a “better life.”
Has anyone ever done something to get a worse life? Of course we’re searching for meaning. So is everyone else. It’s a human universal.
The question is what meaning, what purpose?
Some may say the memory of our ancestors and the future of our descendants. I’d say it’s something even bigger. Journalists and academics have made “whiteness” into a social construct. They’re projecting onto us their own actions.
What is whiteness? Think of the protests when Apollo 11 launched. Black leaders said we shouldn’t be going to the moon while there was still poverty in America. Think of the anarchists who say beauty standards are fascist. Human achievement, greatness, beauty — all of these things are associated with “whiteness.” This is why so many non-whites celebrated when Notre Dame burned.
Racial envy.
I do think of our people as the torchbearers of the human spirit, the Faustian civilization, people who carry something essential that nobody else does. We carry light into the darkness, even into outer space. “People of light” seems appropriate.
Hood apparently hasn’t been to a local Walmart recently. “People of light!” “Destiny of angels!”  Four hundred pound land whales on motorized scooters – the torchbearers of the human spirit!
For me, I do this because it’s the way I justify being alive. If I didn’t do this, there would be no reason for me to exist. We’re people of light. This is our purpose and our faith is expressed through loyalty to each other.
Loyalty to each other should start with loyalty to fellow activists.  Good luck with that.

If Hood is unable to understand the real underlying problems with the “movement” and/or is unwilling to discuss them, then he is part of the problem.