From the Horse's Mouth

The Pope speaks.

Read here.

The link between Christianity and communism made plain.  Crush the infamy!

Phenotype vs. Genotype in Crows

Science article.

See here.

Two lessons:

Small genetic differences can result in maintenance of speciation, putting lie to the assertion that "there is no such thing as race because genetic differences are too small."

On the other hand, phenotypic differences can exist even in the face of widespread hybridization, demonstrating uncoupling of phenotype and ancestry, given that the phenotypic differences can result from selection on a relatively small number of alleles. Thus, the best way to gauge ultimate interests is to evaluate genotypes, not phenotypes.

Cargo Culting

Insightful essay on cultural borrowing.

Read here.

The Leftward Drift

Why the constant move to the left.

Read here.

The Dabney quote is particularly useful.  And now we have the abomination of "neoconservatism" - the Establishment Right is an enemy, not an ally.

Franco and the Failure of Para-Fascism

Hood article.

Read here.

The fanboy call-out to the "dark enlightenment" aside, that's a good article, and underscores the fundamental differences between real revolutionary fascism and reactionary para-fascism.

Anyone who asserts that Franco was a fascist is an unmitigated idiot.  Anyone who thinks that any of the Latin American military dictators were fascists is also an unmitigated idiot.

The Moderateness of the Far Right

Duschene article.

Read here.

Game and the Race

Useful comment.

Read here.

That's good and similar to my views on the subject.  Teaching White men how to be more successful with women - for the purposes of family formation and reproduction - is all to the good for the race, and the typical weak, soft White male milksop can stand to have some "alphamalizing" to his personality.

But the typical hedonistic, nihilistic "game" attitude is not racially progressive - it's juvenile, vulgar, and regressive.  It's the newest fad among activists, a sort of hormone-charged version of HBD, which stimulates the prurient interests, but, in the end, accomplishes little of long term racial use.

"Game" as tactics, a short-term approach - fine.  "Game" as some sort of long-term strategy, as a holistic worldview - pathetic.

Rephrasing Hood

Some rephrasing.

Hood defends "game" here.

And makes a comment likely directed to people like me:

And regardless of what White Nationalists think about “game,” the System perceives game as a threat.

Well, I have no big animus (with the caveats below) towards "game."  I think it juvenile, but its analysis of male-female relations is 100% correct, and I have no problem with (White) men using that analysis for their benefit if they so wish.

However, I do have a general problem with the "ride the tiger" mentality endorsed by Hood, and preached by the "gamers."  No, instead of "riding the tiger" - kill it.  Yes, use "game" to improve your personal life, but don't have that as the end-game of your existence. Instead of "sitting poolside" hitting on sluts and "shiving" the left, how about working to actually replace the rotten System with something better?  I also have a minor problem with "game" because it is internally self-contradictory: it is for men, by men, and takes a justifiably jaundiced view of female (self)-deception, and argues against "pedestalizing pussy."  But they do just that: they make the pursuit of women the end-all and be-all of a man's existence, they preach that "beta-males" need to completely alter their personas and actions to appease the distorted appetites of women - everything revolves around women, what they really want, and how we must all change to suit them.

Anyway...

Getting back to more serious matters, I would like to rephrase Hood in a more productive manner:

And regardless of what ethnic nationalists and sub-racial nationalists think about pan-Europeanism, the System perceives pan-Europeanism as a threat.

Duchense, Salter, and Democratic Multicutlturalism

Some good points.

Duchesne makes many great points here.

That's consistent with Salter's idea of "democratic multiculturalism" put forth in the Red Ice interview discussed in a previous post here.

I also endorse this approach, leveraging the multicultural system to advantage Europeans.  That is of course not an endorsement of multiculturalism itself, which I oppose 100%.  But, we need to use multiple political tools, and a form of sociopolitical ju-jitsu, turning the System's ideological weapons against it, can be productive, as explained by Duchesne.

Salter Interview on Red Ice Radio

Salter interview.

Listen here.

Some Truths on Putin/Dugin

A Ukrainian nationalist speaks out.

Thus, we see an equivalence between the EU and Putin's Russian Federation.

The EU supports the rights of everyone living in Europe except ethnic Europeans; Putin's Russian Federation supports the rights of everyone living in Russia except ethnic Russians.

European Colonialism as the Empire of the West

Speculative interpretation.

As previously noted, I'm skeptical of the full Spengler/Yockey theory of cyclical history and highly specialized High Cultures (e.g., Classical and Western being completely unrelated) - particularly Pessimism and Inevitability (the basic problem with all memes of inevitability: if accepted, they become self-fulfilling and are therefore essentially tautological and unfalsifiable).

However, I do believe that Spengler and Yockey had a point with the very basic premise of cyclical High Cultures.  Let's assume that Yockey's interpretation of Spengler's philosophy of history has merit.  We then run into a problem.  We are clearly in the Winter of the West, terminal decline.  What happened to the Fall season of the West, of Empire and Caeserism?  What happened to that Authoritarian Empire of the West promised and promoted by Imperium, that golden age that would precede Winter?

Yockey, I believe, miscalculated, perhaps due to an optimism inconsistent with his slavish adherence to Spenglerian Pessimism. Thus, by the time Yockey wrote Imperium, the Age of Empire was already over, and Winter was dawning.

What I am saying is this: the Empire of the West was nothing more or less than the age of European Colonialism, the European overseas colonies in Africa, Asia, and the Americas.  That's it.  Done, finished, and over with, destroyed by the world wars.  Just as the French Revolution and Napoleon mark the dividing line between Culture and Civilization for the West, so do the World Wars and Hitler mark the dividing line between Empire and Winter.

It makes sense, really.  The West had long been compromised by petty nationalism and by the Spirit of Money.  Therefore, the Empire of the West was a pathetically haphazard series of colonial adventures, for the most part motivated by mercantilism and national rivalries.  Built on a house of cards, it all came to a swift and premature end, as that same petty nationalism and defense of commercial interests led to the England-Germany rivalry, two world wars, and the collapse of the West.  Poor Yockey, looking forward to an era that had actually recently ended.  Dreaming of an Empire of a United West, when the real Empire was the competition of the colonial offices of the nations of Western Europe.  Yockey, dreaming of an Age of Authority, when instead money and commercial interests ruled.

Well, it's over.  We need to save the Peoples of the West, so these Peoples can begin the process of building a new High Culture on the foundation of the ruins of the West.  But to do so, we need to learn the lessons of the past.  Any idiots who think that the future can be built on the same petty nationalism which led to our downfall - these are indeed idiots, or perhaps traitors.

But, to summarize: Yockey's expected Empire never took place because, if we accept the cyclical history that his views are based upon, then that Empire had already been actualized in the insipid form of the European overseas colonial system.  

The Liberation of Europe

Brief Kai Murros speech.

See here.  It all sounds good to me.

Invading Their Own Country

Hood essay.

I would like to congratulate Gregory Hood for this fine essay, which sums up the truth about WWII and the "greatest generation."  It also puts the spotlight on the execrable scum Churchill, who has to rank among history's biggest fools.  Imagine that: sacrificing your nation's empire, shedding your people's best blood, so that in coming decades quoting your own words will be grounds for arrest in your own nation.  Good going there, Winnie.

More Hood and less Hamilton, please.

On Commenting

Commenting not good.

As I have made clear over the years, I am opposed to blog comments.  I find it ironic that a “movement” that is typically (and justifiably) skeptical of democracy and of mass/quantity, and which believes in hierarchy and the importance of elite quality, is so tolerant of the idea that the imbecilic ramblings of any idiot with an Internet connection is the equal of the carefully considered writing of a main blog post.

Of course, there are some positives about allowing commenting.  Every once in a while, a comment is interesting and useful.  Commenting can create a sense of community (although community is more properly built in real-life, rather than online), and can project a sense of “power,” in that it shows that the blog has built up a cohort of followers.  Further, sometimes the rare thoughtful commentator can be recruited to be a blogger themselves.

But the negatives outweigh these putative positives.  The majority of comments tend to be of poor quality, and drag down the tone of the blog and taint the original post with the whiff of typical “movement” stupidity and freakishness.  At best, the comments will be mediocre rambling; at worst, they will be factually incorrect, illogical, destructive to the memes promoted by the post and by the blog, incitement to “flame wars,” or, at an extreme, ripe for trolling or even the more serious problem of Sunstein-style “cognitive infiltration.”  It is a rare event that a comments thread elevates the discussion of the original post; it is a very common event that the comments thread degrades the post, and may “turn off” potential readers and recruits.

Moderation is an option, but that has costs: quality moderation is time-consuming, it opens the moderator up to accusations of bias (e.g., only allowing comments supportive of one point of view), and a skilled and determined troll/infiltrator can do a lot of damage to the blog and its objectives before the moderator “wises up” to what is going on. I’ve seen all of this play out before: unmoderated commenting is a disaster that ruins the blog through a form of “Gresham’s Law” – the bad commentators drive out the good; moderated commenting is a bit better, but it’s very difficult to maintain the proper control, particularly when confronted with those skilled at disruption.

One particularly asinine argument I have heard is: “Well, if people don’t like the comments, they don’t have to read them, they can just ignore them and stop complaining.”  Certainly, any individual can ignore the comments.  But they will still be there – and our target audience will be reading them; after all, the purpose for having the comments is for them to be read, isn’t it?  When destructive comments go unanswered they attain a degree of legitimacy.  It is obvious that they cannot be left ignored (and certainly not by the person who wrote the original post!) because uncorrected error may eventually be accepted as truth.  Therefore, ignoring comments is obviously not a stable option, and one can question the intellectual seriousness of anyone who asserts otherwise.

On balance, therefore, I see commenting as a net negative.  Possibly, with very strict moderation this could be overcome, if the moderator is able to effectively deal with the potential problems of moderation listed above.  But, even so, if time is limited, and moderation is not feasible, better to have no comments than the type of sewer flow that characterizes unmoderated commenting on some blogs.

One other possible solution is to have multiple blogs – a “sandbox blog” for the nitwits, nutcases, and trolls to comment on, unmoderated, to their heart’s content, and a serious blog with no comments (or very strictly moderated) at which the important matters are discussed. Trying to mix important discussion with unmoderated commenting will lead to the “behavioral sink” taking the blog down the drain.  It’s a terrible mistake.

On White Privilege

An analogy or two.

Of course, it's not surprising that someone surnamed "Rosenberg" has an anti-White man bias.  You wouldn't know it from listening to the HBD filth, but a certain group has historically been motivated by a genocidal, vicious animus against European Man ("Whites").

We need to put this moronic concept of "White Privilege" to rest. I'm not sure how a group that is officially discriminated against by law, is subject to genocidal race replacement migration the world over, and is also subject to myriad examples of de facto bigotry, is in any way "privileged."  Nor is it "privilege" to simply enjoy the fruits of your own labor.

An analogy would be thus.  Imagine you come up with a brilliant business idea and start your own company. You make enormous sacrifices to make your business successful.  Naturally, you are the CEO of your own company and own most of the stock.  Does your status within your own company mean you are "privileged" compared to others outside your company?  And what if envious others, led by fast-talking levantines, attempt a hostile takeover of your company, the business you've built up with your own genius and your own "sweat equity?"  Who's right?  And it these others are increasingly successful in stealing what you've created, aren't they they ones who are truly unfairly privileged?

This could be looked at another way.  Let's say we compare two individuals. Joe has 10 units of wealth and Tim has 5 units.  Well, is Joe "privileged?"  That's the output.  What about the input of work?  What if Joe has contributed 20 units of work for those 10 units of wealth, while Tim has contributed 0 units of work - no, say Tim has actually been destructive and is at a -5 work units (negative "contribution") - for his 5 units of wealth.  Who's privileged?  Tim, not Joe.

Sallis on EU Vote 2014

TOO article.

Read here.

Reparations?

A better idea.

Taylor discounts the idea of reparations for Negroes here.

That's good, but doesn't go far enough.  We need to demand reparations for European-Americans.

For example:

- Insurance companies put dollar values on the worth of a human life.  We can find a reasonable estimate, and then calculate all the "child equivalents" lost by European-Americans' EGI by the migration of alien peoples, a race replacement genocide immigration fostered by the Establishment.  Thus, some estimates go as high as $7 million per life.  Given that, each and every European-American is owed many trillions of dollars in reparations.

- Reparations due to the discriminatory effects of affirmative action and other programs, as well as that of Asian ethnic nepotism.

- The destruction of our major cities by Negroes and other minorities, and the costs in lives and money from minority crime.

We can continue, but you get the idea.