Saturday, January 31, 2015

Libertarianism, Choice, Responsibility, and Vaccination

What's good for the unvaccinated goose is good for the vaccinated gander.

Following up my last post, I want to explore a bit about the libertarian view on vaccination.  My understanding of libertarian complaints is that they want:

1) People to have the choice to be vaccinated or not (for the most part, said choice already exists).
2) Vaccine manufacturers should not be protected from lawsuits; there should be an open and unregulated system in which said companies will be liable in civil court for damages resulting from their product.

Fair enough.  But that is incomplete. Let us expand the concept of choice and responsibility.

Choice. The vaccinated should have the choice to socially ostracize the unvaccinated.  Employers should have the choice not to hire the unvaccinated, businesses can refuse to serve them, doctors and hospitals (including emergency rooms) refuse to treat them, insurance companies refuse to cover them, neighborhoods and schools refuse to accept them.  Freedom! Choice!  No regulation!

Responsibility.  If the vaccine companies need to be held liable if someone has a side effect to a vaccine, so should the unvaccinated be held personally liable, in civil court, for damages resulting from them spreading disease to others, and be held personally liable for the costs incurred in treating those they have infected. 

I wonder if the libertarians would accept those terms of engagement, terms that would be most strictly enforced (e.g., if a medical facility refuses to serve the unvaccinated, they have the right to refuse the patient even if it results in that patient's death, with no criminal or civil penalties allowed, since everyone is merely exercising freedom of association).

I admit to being hostile to libertarianism.  However, I see my points as valid.  Just like the capitalist wants to privatize the profits and socialize the costs (of, say, immigration or outsourcing), so do the libertarians want to privatize their choices but socialize the responsibility and consequences (they can choose to be unvaccinated, but society has to bear the costs of their Typhoid Mary epidemics). That is in my opinion a selfish and childish view and they should be called out on it.

On Vaccination

Rationality to the rescue.

This may be somewhat off-topic, but since it deals with issues of free-riding and communitarianism, as well as science and logical thinking, it will be discussed here. Given the ongoing and completely unnecessary measles outbreak, caused by the ignorant and the paranoid, this is a topical issue.

Some general comments first. Vaccinations are not 100% effective. Few things in life are, and biology has so much variation that an absolute 100% efficacy is currently beyond our capacity.  I think we can agree that an approach does not have to be 100% perfect to have great utility.  Thus, in a small number of vaccinated people, immunity does not develop. Also, infants under the age of one cannot be vaccinated against certain diseases, for a variety of reasons, and there are other people with legitimate medical concerns (allergies, leukemia, etc.) that preclude vaccination. However, for the most part, these non-immune people are protected when the mass of the population are immunized, so-called “herd immunity.”  When there are too few people in the population to sustain ongoing transmission, the infection in the community ends, protecting those few who are not immune. When the proportion of the population that are immune drops below a certain level (the level is related to the relative infectiveness of the disease; for example, measles is highly infectious), then not only do the intentionally non-immune get sick, but so do those who are not immune for the reasons listed above.  And society as a whole bears the burden.

Vaccination does have a (very low) risk. Many things in life do. Getting a root canal has a low risk. People have died getting wisdom teeth removed; very rare, but it does happen. Certain cancer diagnostic tests carry a low risk. Getting an X-ray has some risk. So does women giving birth (some people still die from that, even today), driving a car, shoveling snow, walking down a flight of stairs. Rational societies, populated by rational people, weigh risks and benefits, and decide that, yes, they want to have children and drive a car, no, they don’t want polio or cancer, no, they don’t want deformed jaws and rotting teeth, yes, they want to do the normal things of life even though they cannot be given a 100% absolute guarantee that nothing will ever go wrong.

Now, let’s look at this comment and answer some points.  Comment in italics.

In any case, if vaccinations do what its supporters claim, then the vaccinated are automatically protected regardless of who or what they are exposed to. If not, why get vaccinated?

See above. Vaccinations are not 100% effective. Few things in life are. I agree that we need to work on enhancing the already impressive effectiveness and safety profile of vaccines (and other biomedical procedures).  The major reason such does not occur is the perils of free market capitalism (you know, that advocated by “Ron Paul and his Liberty Crusade”). If there is no financial incentive to do X,Y,Z, and/or if it doesn’t fit the capitalist-PC-multicult agenda, then it doesn’t get done, regardless of the costs incurred by society. “Government regulation” (so decried by the Paulsters) is a joke, since the wealthy (including “vaccine manufacturers”) and their lobbyists control the political process. All of that does not alter one bit the overwhelming benefit of vaccinations for individual and societal health. The dim, forgetting the horror of measles, polio, etc., mock fear of “microorganisms.”  I don’t know, I would think the peoples of the past, dying like flies from epidemics prevented by modern medicine, would have had a different opinion.

No such thing as “herd immunity”. They make it up as they go along because the world is full of suckers gibbering and trembling over micro organisms. (Not naming names, though.)

Juvenile insults do not change reality. Herd immunity is real. It is backed up by epidemiological data, by mathematical modeling, and by common sense: when a sufficient proportion of a population are immune, the infection will be unable to spread. Without enough vectors, the infection ends, protecting those who – for whatever reason – are not immune.  

What’s the conspiracy thinking here?  Dastardly doctors and scientists are being “paid off” by the “vaccine industry” to lie?  A mass conspiracy? No one is paying me off. I understand the science, I understand risk, and I understand probability. I don’t ask anyone to do anything I’m not willing to do myself. I note that all those “evil doctors and scientists” are getting vaccinated themselves and get their own children vaccinated.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but how much more dangerous is that road when the intentions are not at all good? You might want to ask why the vaccine manufacturers have protection from lawsuits.

So they can provide the needed service without fear of being facing lawsuits many of which will be trivial – “I got vaccinated and the next day I broke my arm, let me find a nice Jewish lawyer and sue, and hope an ignorant jury can be persuaded to give me a few million.”  Note that in the event it is discovered that these manufacturers have truly done wrong, they should be sued, but not because of an unforeseeable chance event if they acted in good faith. The actions of money-grubbing corporations in a capitalist economy is another matter independent of the utility of vaccination. Again, why do doctors, scientists, and others, people with NO connection to the "vaccine industry," strongly advocate vaccination? There's a degree of "reverse snobbery" here - people feel better believing the likes of Jenny McCarthy than all those "white coat Poindexters and their sliderules."  Score another victory for rightist anti-intellectualism and leftist science denial and fad-mongering.

Re your regime, Teddy. Go ahead. I will have to take those bullets because your form of government wouldn’t be worth living under.

I need to be harsh because of the consequences.  Remember smallpox? A plague on mankind, eliminated via vaccination. Do we need to revisit viral plagues, because people either are ignorant, cannot judge relative risk, or cannot understand the danger because the risk of the danger has been lessened by the same approach (vaccination) that they now decry?  But, fine, we can do without bullets.  Here’s another way: the unvaccinated can be quarantined, and can be made immune through exposure to the actual virus. Let all the “babies” of the anti-vaccine crowd come down with measles, polio, and what have you, give them the minimal palliative care, and let their families deal with the consequences of the infection.

You’d protect your avowed enemies from having to keep their traps shut but the people who supposedly matter in the first place would be shot because they don’t want their babies to receive 48 doses of god-knows-what

“God knows what” are vaccinations to prevent disease. Most sane people would not want “their babies” to get measles or polio either. Can you imagine going back in time a century and telling desperate parents that there was a way of avoiding those diseases with 95-99% certainty (on an individual level) or even 100% certainty (if the disease was eliminated like smallpox)?  The parents would be ecstatic about the possibility and then dumbfounded if you told them some people actually refused to protect themselves and their children in that manner.

in the arm by the time they are 5 years old. I can suddenly see the attraction of so many for Ron Paul and his Liberty Crusade. Dr. Paul is opposed to mandatory vaccinations but would not prevent anyone from receiving them if they wish.

Dr. Paul is an idiot. What he says or does not say has no influence over the reality of human immunity.

I know a woman (personally; I’ve met and spoken with her; not someone over the internet) whose daughter died from a vaccination when a baby. This was entered on the child’s death certificate.

Many of us know people who have been killed in car accidents. Don’t drive. People die in plane crashes. Don’t fly. Women die giving birth, then don’t have children. Everyone eventually dies, so don’t be born. Life is full of risks. People “gibbering and trembling” over the risks of normal life are not material for any sane and rational pro-White regime.

In my personal opinion, the anti-vaccine crowd are not only wrong, they are selfish and even evil. They are free-riding on the immunity of others. If everyone decided to be put off by a, say, one in a million chance risk, then no one is vaccinated, everyone gets sick, and some of the “babies” will die or be crippled by disease. But since the vast majority do the right thing for public health, the selfish few protect themselves from both the very small risk of vaccines and the much greater risk of the actual illness by taking advantage of those others do the right thing. Free-riding is the deadly enemy of collective action, of investing in the community, of building social goods (such as public health). Those who free-ride on society are in my opinion evil.

I see a lot of the anti-vaccine crowd as having opposition to vaccines as part of their personal identities, it is like a religion. Facts and logic mean nothing. Science means nothing. All of that is casually dismissed by insults, lack of understanding of how biology works, demands for absolute perfection ("the vaccine does not give 100% of the people 100% immunity, so it's worthless"), reliance on celebrities and gurus, etc.

Vanguard View of Counter Currents Radio, 1/31/15

Brief reply.

Johnson and Le Brun create interesting content (at least so far), and even when I disagree with their assessments, these podcasts have been useful.

Comments on this one:

Le Pen.  I do not agree with the Le Pen cheerleading, and as one of the "vanguardists" who have been critical of her (calling her a "piece of shit" can reasonably be seen as critical), I have a few words to say. Let's take the Golden Dawn issue. Look, I don't expect that Marine Le Pen, dressed in a SS uniform, will stride into a press conference, yell "Hail Golden Dawn," and gave a Nazi salute.  But there seems to me to be a middle ground between that and endorsing the pro-immigrant, anti-Greek, anti-European far-Left.  What if Le Pen said the following:

"Unfortunately, there is no one in the upcoming Greek election I can endorse. I certainly can never support the Greek Left, who stand for mass migration and the destruction of Greek and European identity. But the Greek Right also does not share our values and is completely different from us in the FN.*  So, I don't endorse or support anyone there. I am French, and not Greek, and it is not my place to tell the Greek people how to vote. However, I do hope that someday a FN-like party will arise in Greece with whom we can work."

*Note: This has the additional benefit of actually being true.

If she had said that, I would not be thrilled, but neither would I have labelled her a "piece of shit." The statement above would I believe be sufficient to satisfy mainstreaming needs, without having the dishonor (and the raised eyebrows on the international Right) of actually supporting Greek Marxists (while at the same time denying any solidarity with the Greek Right). If you can't take the right side, then don't take any side.

What happens if after all this mainstreaming, she never comes to power?  What benefit then the evisceration of a legitimate French far-Right?  Or what if she comes to power and governs from the middle?  The danger in depending on mainstreaming to get into power is that you depend on it to remain in power. If she's afraid of offending mainstream voters, the Jews, the European intelligentsia, and all the rest, what guarantee is there that if elected she isn't going to jettison function for expediency?  

Entryism. The whole idea that moderate racialism, like Amren, serves as an entry point for more hardcore activism is not backed up by any hard data.  This would seem to be a topic that mainstream anti-fascist scholars like Griffin should take a look at. He does the running and we slipstream behind him, and use his findings for our benefit.

WNs teaching their children.  Greg Johnson asserts that older WNs intentionally avoid passing their ideology to their children. That be true in some cases, but in other cases, people may do in fact try to pass on their ideology but fail since they cannot compete with the concentrated propaganda of the educational system, the media, pop culture, and peer pressure. It would be helpful if the "movement" could produce materials useful for the education of modern youth. Of course, such material should not include such "movement" staples as:  Aryans from Atlantis, King Tut as Dolph Lundgren, any mention at all of Savitri Devi or Julius Evola, "Meds" and Slavs as cringing subhumans, anyone as a "man above time" or "man beyond time," obsessions about cephalic indices or admixture coefficients, Hyperborea and Madame Blavatsky, bizarre conspiracy theories - in other words, 99% of "movement" material would be inappropriate.

Anti-Zionist parties in France.  Regardless of the utility of that approach, if the Jews and their fellow travellers continue restricting speech in Europe, that approach would be off the table, Even the Le Penite mainstreamers should beware that even their moderate platforms become criminalized. Therefore, I will continue speaking out on the free speech issue, snide remarks from Counter Currents commentators notwithstanding.

Other issues. I agree with Johnson about right-wing populism and freedom of speech. Unfortunately, no one in America seems interested in the former, and no one in Europe with the latter.

Thursday, January 29, 2015

The Emperor Has No Clothes

Relevance for both the System and the "Movement."

We are all I am sure familiar with the story The Emperor's New Clothes, which describes a crucially important concept, pluralistic ignorance, as well as a form of free riding.

I believe that the majority of Whites are pathetic, useless, and worthless, masochists who revel in their own racial dispossession. But even so, that leaves a minority of Whites who know better, who have healthier instincts - millions of Whites who, if they only acted, if they only spoke out and organized with each other collectively, could wreck the System and push the currently useless mass in a productive direction.

Why don't they do so?  Two related problems: they behave like the people in the fairy tale - they know the Emperor is naked but are afraid to speak out; in some cases, they are not even sure if others are seeing the same things they are.

Let's take the second problem first, the fact that they are not sure that there are many others who share the same beliefs: pluralistic ignorance.  A given atomized White person may well be displeased with the System from a racially aware standpoint. But do others feel the same?  By "others" I do not mean random bloggers or lunatic Nutzis, but other Whites in that person's social circle, at school, at work.  Are all the other Whites who seem to be accepting the System, are they really happy?  Is it possible that only a tiny number of people think as does the White person we are considering?  Can he trust others to understand him if he spoke out, to agree with him, or will they be horrified, and "turn him in" for some "attitude adjustment" from the System's social pricing repression?  So, there may be, every day, numbers of interacting White people who are racially aware and think alike but are unaware that they share these beliefs, each uncertain whether the other is friend or foe. Thus, possibilities for collective action never come to fruition, as each of these millions of Whites who think alike are ignorant about the beliefs of the others, and this pluralistic ignorance of pro-White attitudes is a barrier to progress.

What about the other problem, the fear, the free riding problem? Maybe the person in question is not quite so ignorant as they may first appear.  Maybe he at least strongly suspects others share his beliefs. But he is afraid to speak out, afraid of being wrong about his assessment of the beliefs of the others (so pluralistic ignorance feeds into the fear factor), afraid of the consequences of speaking out, afraid of social pricing. Each person therefore does not want to be the first one to speak out, they want someone else to be the first, and since everyone is waiting for "someone else," all remain quiet and nothing happens.  Each person wants to be a "free rider" on the courage of someone else, they want to reap the benefits that they will all accrue if "someone breaks the ice" and gets the process going, but each person refuses to invest the effort and sacrifice to be that first one.

So, either people are ignorant as to whether others realize that the System "has no clothes" and/or they refuse to be the first one to speak out, and so the pluralistic ignorance and selfish free-riding cowardice prevents anything from being done.  Racially aware Whites, deeply unhappy with the System, may be interacting on a daily basis with other Whites who feel exactly the same, but they do not know it.  And the System's social pricing approach is designed to feed into this, to make each person afraid to be the first to speak out, and, by not hearing any similar beliefs, each person is, in addition, ignorant about just how widespread these beliefs actually are.

Solving this problem requires someone to be the first to realize others feel the same and to be the first to speak out. One benefit of "democratic multiculturalism" is that it "breaks the ice" of Whites speaking out, and does so in a manner (i.e., complaining about discrimination as part of working within the context of multiculturalism) that is safer, less threatening, and more socially acceptable than an immediate foray into hardcore racial nationalism.

Unfortunately, The Emperor Has No Clothes paradigm applies to the "movement" as well. I cannot believe that no one else has the same complaints about the "movement" as I do, yet they remain silent, because they are not sure how widespread this discontent is, or they are afraid. They may be afraid that if they violate the "movement's" fossilized memes that they will be ostracized. They may feel unsure of themselves, and they may fear offending "movement leaders," they fear committing the crime of lese majeste against certain august "movement" personages. I myself do not care about being popular or not; I speak my mind and hope others will join in once I say that "there are no clothes."

Indeed, blindly following dogma and worshipping leaders is not healthy and is not truly Western. People in the "movement" criticize (with justification) "Jewish intellectual movements" which are rigidly dogmatic and follow some "god-like" guru in a slavishly cult-like manner.  Well, I have a newsflash for them: that describes the "movement" as well, and, ironically, some of the same people who critique Jewish gurus are in danger of becoming gurus with cult followings themselves. This is unhealthy.  The "movement" and its "ugly sister" HBD are both small-scale mirror images of the System, with rigid dogma and taboos, "rock star" gurus who are beyond criticism, and all the other manifestations of a sterile and moldy closed thought system.  The emperor indeed has no clothes. Does anyone else notice?

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Crush the Infamy, 1/28/15

Pathetic and painfully embarrassing.

And the other shoe drops:

...I am an admirer of HBD Chick...

In contrast, I am NOT an admirer of the pitiful freakshow that passes itself off as the "American racial nationalist movement." This "movement" ranks among the biggest enemies of White survival worldwide and must be ridiculed, deconstructed, and eliminated, so that some sanity can enter on gusts of fresh air and build a new movement that can serve European ethnic interests.

Posts about the execrable and ethnically dubious "HBD Chick" as well as related HBD matters can be found at my ridicule-oriented anti-HBD blog here.

Last Stand of the Weird

Important insights.

I strongly recommend reading this analysis of the European racio-cultural situation (which also delves into topics as the victory of Cultural Marxism throughout the "West," especially America) written by someone more "mainstream" and not a racialist in any way.

There isn't much I can disagree with, re: description and prediction here.  When the "ball drops," so to speak, and befuddled Whites look for leadership, who will step up?  Can we, by that time, purge the "movement" of the Nutzis and morons, and be ready with intelligent, rational, and strategic-thinking individuals?

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Another One for the Schoolgirls

Now they are blushing with embarrassment.

Leftist multiracialist Trad Vlad, looking remarkably Asiatic in the picture accompanying the article, is apparently once again playing his "deep game" that only the blushing schoolgirls in the "movement" can discern: somehow secretly being a racial nationalist while at the same time being openly radically pro-Jewish, hostile to national socialism, and an advocate of a multiracial Russia.

A cunning chess player, indeed!

A Free Speech Primer

Against speech restrictions.

Long time readers know that I am very interested in issues of free speech, and strongly oppose “speech laws” such as exist in Europe, and particularly abhor the hypocrisy of the high priests of democracy pontificating about “freedom” as they restrict the most basic freedoms to support regimes of totalitarian multiculturalism and multiracialism.  I recently read where Jews are pushing for yet MORE speech restriction in Europe, which is remarkable, since free speech there is already outlawed and I’m not quite sure what more can be done, unless they want to make it illegal for a European to refuse to grovel in the dirt when a Jew walks by. Regardless, I want to summarize some arguments against speech restriction; I see this as important, and I hope that champions of free expression, particularly in Europe, read this and utilize whatever arguments here that they find useful.

General statement of principle: You cannot criminalize dissident opinions and call that tolerance; you cannot restrict the right to expression and call that freedom. It’s very easy to make clich├ęd statements such as “there can be no tolerance for intolerance,” but who is it who decides what “intolerance” is?  Those in power can very easily eliminate their opposition by labeling opposing viewpoints as “intolerance” and “hate;” thus, legitimate expressions of sociopolitical opinion and of genuine interest become outlawed.  That is not democratic, it is not tolerant, and it is not freedom, it is a blueprint for totalitarianism. In a fully functioning democracy, you cannot draw a line around topics that constitute some of the most crucial issues that face a nation (e.g., the future demographic and cultural makeup of that nation) and declare that certain viewpoints on these fundamental issues are beyond the pale.  You cannot expect members of the national community to accept the legitimacy of decisions about these issues when those members have been excluded from the discussion. Any decisions made without open debate and consideration of the full spectrum of viewpoints are completely illegitimate from the standpoint of any honestly democratic state. And this goes beyond politics; one cannot have open and honest scholarship when it is actually illegal to question details about particular historical events.  This is madness, it is a turn to the dark ages; it is a total and complete disgrace, it is the modern equivalent of burning witches and heretics at the stake.

Some specific issues:

The “fire” argument. An over-used argument is that restriction on speech has always existed, and the analogy of “you can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theater” is usually invoked.  I agree that is morally objectionable to maliciously yell “fire” when you know that such a fire does not exist. However, it is even more morally objectionable to NOT yell fire when there is evidence that a fire really exists, when you see the flames and smell the smoke. Most objectionable of all would be laws that prevent people from warning others about the existence of fires, laws that prefer to see the innocent burn rather than have them properly warned.  Given that there are legitimate reasons (whether you agree or not) for people to view immigration, multiracialism, diversity, etc. as dire threats to the native population, equivalent to a “fire,” it is therefore morally objectionable to prevent these people from bringing these threats to the attention of their fellow citizens.

The “fighting words” argument.  We are told that “fighting words,” speech that could incite violence, have always been prohibited; thus, the analogy is made to whatever opinions those in power want to suppress.  Besides the danger of having those in power having the authority to outlaw speech that threatens their own power and authority, there are three basic problems with the “fighting words” argument. First, who decides?  What should be the definition of “fighting words?”  After all, what one person believes is a mild and rational statement could be viewed by someone else as outrageous and justification for violence.  In Europe today, adherents of a particular non-European religion have been killing cartoonists because they view satire against their beliefs as “fighting words.”  Yet, most Europeans, including those on the Left, find nothing objectionable about the satire. Who’s right?  Who’s wrong?  Why?  Truth be told, virtually any statement could be found objectionable and offensive by someone; therefore the “fighting words” argument potentially holds any opinion, any comment, any belief hostage to the objections of anyone in the community. Second, we have hypocrisy.  It is mysterious indeed that the System seems to only find Rightist memes to be “fighting words, and never those of the Left.  Indeed, when the Left heaps the most vile abuse on the West and its traditions, that is simply “protected free expression,” but when the Right defends those traditions, then those are “fighting words.”  Thus, the problem of hypocrisy and that of definition go hand-in-hand. Third, there is the problem of self-contradiction.  Indeed, there are many who would label the very idea of speech restriction itself as “fighting words.”  Therefore, support for speech restriction should itself be….restricted?

Then we have the mindless chants of “racism is not an opinion, it is a crime.”  Very well.  Can we extend that theme to other memes?  Anti-religiousness is not an opinion, it is a crime. Support for abortion is not an opinion, it is a crime. Criticism of Europe and the West is not an opinion, it is a crime.  Marxism is not an opinion, it is a crime. Mass immigration is not a policy, it is a crime. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, it is a crime.  Oh dear, it seems like we do have a problem now, don’t we?

Getting back to “racism” – racism is at its most basic simply freedom of association writ large. It is a perfectly normal human reaction to racial differences. Criminalizing racism is criminalizing human nature.  It is the equivalent of the government telling you who you should have as friends, who you should marry, this is the most overt totalitarianism, it is outright madness for any state claiming to represent “democracy.”  This is thought control at its most Orwellian.

Legitimacy: getting back to a theme noted in the general statement of principle: decisions made in the name of the people have legitimacy only so far as that the people – ALL of them – are allowed to express their opinions on the subject, freely debate it, and be allowed to protest what they object to about that subject.  If the multiculturalists want “bigots” to accept the verdict of elections that impose multiracialism, then those “bigots” must be allowed to freely contest that election, speak their minds, and have their opinion included in the mix.  Individuals disenfranchised from the process will not accept the legitimacy of the outcome of the process.  Given the growing support for the “far-Right” in Europe, the numbers of people so disenfranchised will become an increasingly large fraction of the population, making democracy untenable.  You end up with ludicrous scenarios such as a political party in Greece being the third largest political force, while its leadership languishes in jail for expressing the same opinions that are winning them votes. We have the bizarre scenario throughout Europe of popular political parties being banned, and the mainstream right and left joining forces to exclude from power nationalists who are supported by a sizable fraction of the nation’s population.

And this goes beyond politics. Why is the Left so afraid of having their ideas debated?  Why are they afraid of a free marketplace of ideas?  If they are confident they are right, and the Right is wrong, why are they so intent on making sure the Right is muzzled and far-Right ideas never see the light of day?  The basic ideas and memes of a society, as well as the products of academic scholarship, have merit and legitimacy only to the extent that they are freely discussed, debated, refuted or defended, and proofed for logical rigor and consistency with known facts.  Speech restrictions dispense with the Western idea of free thought and bring us to the dark ages of rigid dogma.  Intellectuals today sneer at the “close-mindedness of the past” - Socrates and the hemlock, the martyrdom of Bruno, the persecution of Galileo, and the Salem witch trials, but they behave exactly the same.  They are unable to see that they have become in the present that which they mock from the past.

More Mainstreaming News, 1/27/15

More surrender.

What's next?  Promoting African immigration into Hungary? Joining with Marine Le Pen to support pro-immigration hardcore leftists in Greece, Spain, and other EU nations?

Mainstreaming in nationalism is similar to the degeneration of conservatism in the USA: "being elected" becomes the end, not the means to an end.  In mainstreaming Rightism, one does not strive to win election in order to implement a program, instead one actualizes a worldview merely to achieve the objective of winning elections, of getting and staying in power.

I declare "mainstreaming" the enemy of racial nationalism. The reason is that, as stated above, it is not a means to an end (which would be acceptable as long as there is evidence the "end" is being achieved), but the end in itself.  In Europe, we see the same pattern as the USA: politicians prancing around the Right to garner support from the base, but quickly shifting Left once elected (Le Pen is getting a head start on the process, by shifting hard Left before election, but that's just "Marine being Marine," so the fanboys continue drinking the FN "kool-aid").

Orban has been elected.  He is in power.  He is the government. I'm just curious when he's going to, you know, actually enact a hard-Right program?  Closing down racialist meetings (e.g., Spencer), praising Jews and attacking WWII-era Hungarian nationalism, getting cozy with the multiracialist Putin; that is not what I would classify as a hard-Right program.  Here are some suggestions, my dear Orban: take Hungary out of the EU, end all immigration, start repatriation of aliens (including Hungary's mass Roma population, who belong in India), tell the Jews they are not welcome in Hungary, denounce the non-proliferation treaty and state that Hungary claims the right to a nuclear deterrent (you know, like Israel has), get rid of all "hate speech laws," embrace racial nationalist conferences, embrace Hungary's rightist history, and ridicule the moronic "Turanism" of Jobbik, another group of Magyar jackasses.

But hey, he "can't" do that. He may not be "re-elected."  Instead, a "leftist" may be elected, and that no-good leftist may do all sorts of nasty lefty type things, like closing down racialist conferences, denouncing historic Hungarian patriots, kowtowing to to avoid that, no doubt!

Monday, January 26, 2015

Practical Advice: Democratic Multiculturalism

Practical advice.

Some practical advice on the democratic multiculturalism tactic for real-life activism, in these the early stages of the process (later on, one could be more aggressive if other Whites join in).  Be careful, restrained, slow, and patient. NEVER invent anything, always be truthful and utilize real problems and actual incidents. Keep track of things that happen and document if you can.  This works best if you have already established that you, in your "public persona," are fair and equitable to everyone, including minorities.  Needless to say, if you honestly believe that this activity will cause you serious trouble, that you are vulnerable and dispensable, then do NOT do it. Be prudent. However, if your position allows you more leeway to speak your mind, then proceed.

You may need to be patient, waiting months or years for the appropriate opportunity. Use this time to study your opponent, to document instances of anti-White discrimination that has been done to you at your school if you are a student, or at your place of employment, or whatever the institutional setting is.  Wait until the diversity-mongers are vulnerable. Perhaps an incident – not involving you of course – has taken place, people are shaken, and the diversity-mongers are under pressure to “put out the fire,” rally everyone around inclusion. Or, perhaps, maybe the diversity-mongers themselves have erred and need to get everyone on board, get everyone placated, in order to quiet things down.  Maybe there will be some “diversity training.”  Or, whatever the case may be.  Then lay some of your cards on the table.  You say, with all due respect, that you need to discuss offensive incidents that have happened, how you were discriminated against (remember: be truthful).  Assert that the incidents make you “feel uncomfortable” in that it creates a "hostile working environment” for you and “damages diversity efforts” and “makes the environment more exclusive than inclusive.”  Use their own language against them.  Suggest that they themselves, the diversity-mongers, are biased and bigoted.  Suggest that THEIR “spewing of hatred” has created a climate of intolerance and that we need to change this (maybe they should resign?) to create a harmonious environment of tolerance, inclusion (for White folks), etc.  The general idea is that the diversity-mongers, by being biased against you and your group, are damaging their own efforts toward inclusion and diversity, that THEY are the problem, that THEY are the fount of hatred and bigotry. You are the innocent and offended victim, who is made to feel excluded.

The mindset you should have is of a clever counter-puncher boxing an opponent who is more powerful but is slower, stupider, and clumsier. Prod them, make the “swing and miss,” tire them out, force them into making errors, while you dance around and throw your jabs.  Slow and steady. Be patient. It will take time. Think in terms of months and years, a slow torture for them, drip, drip, drip.  You would be surprised how these smug mediocre types, never before being challenged, will get flustered and will make mistakes. Document those mistakes. If they put things in writing, so much the better. That’s solid evidence, and can be legally actionable.

Always keep and document everything, save that for your next round of counter-punching. Never let them feel comfortable. Remember the strategic objective of insurgency – not to directly overthrow the opponent (but if it happens, they’d take it), but to force the other side to make errors, to provoke the other side toward repressive over-reaction counter-measures that alienate the masses, to show the masses that the System is weak and cannot protect them. Thus, your role is to poke and prod and make these folks get so tangled up in their own web of stupidity that they end up delegitimizing themselves and what they represent.

Reversing the Mainstreaming Logic

What's good for the mainstreaming goose is good for the radical gander.

Read this, and when reading it, remember that Marine Le Pen has come out in support of the Greek far-left, and against the far-right Golden Dawn. Although I disagree with Golden Dawn on some issues (e.g.,their idea of a Russia-China strategic turn),  I am a strong supporter of the Golden Dawn movement. They are doing in Greece the sorts of things nationalists should do throughout the West: going into communities and helping their people and building up ground-level support. The fact that Golden Dawn finished third, despite their leaders in prison and their supporters attacked in the streets (with police connivance) demonstrates the worth of that movement and its supporters.

Now, back to Le Pen. Marine's logic here goes something like this: "There is no one on the right in the Greek election who is exactly like us in the FN, therefore we reject them and support the far-left."

Now, what if heavy-breathing radicals such as myself turned that around and said: "There is no one on the right in France exactly like us, therefore we reject them and support the far-left."

I'm sure we radicals would be condemned for that, while Marine's sweaty fanboys (the same types who got sticky stains on the fronts of their trousers over lantern-jawed, could-pass-as-transgender "Sister Sarah" Palin) give her a pass on her disgusting and dishonorable display of nationalist disloyalty.

I'll be patient though. Let's see what the mainstreamers can do. I won't support them, but I won't support their leftist supporters either. What would justify mainstreaming dishonorable behavior?

I say that Marine Le Pen needs to come to power AND then needs to enact a real ethnonationalist agenda AND then that needs to set off a nationalist chain reaction throughout Europe AND that would need to lead to sustained change leading to racial nationalism, repatriation, and a new order. After all, that's what the mainstreaming apologists suggest will be the payoff.

Hey, if that happens, great, and I'll admit I was wrong. On the other hand, will the mainstreamers admit their error if that series of outcomes does not occur?  Their error would be more damaging than mine. After all, I'm no public figure, politician, or leader. I'm just some grouchy, ill-tempered blogger, so if I end up looking like a fool for doubting Saint Marine, who cares?  My ranting and rambling isn't going to have any effect whatsoever on the French political scene.  I'm a nobody.  On the other hand, Marine Le Pen is, like it or not, currently Europe's leading nationalist politician. What she says and does has great importance for the future of the White race and Western civilization. If she is wrong, the consequences will be a lot worse than she merely looking like a fool.  It could be wasting what may be our last major chance of reversing the current disaster.

So, the mainstreamers had better be real sure they know what they're doing. They won't be forgiven if they are wrong.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Two Pieces of Filth

What's the difference?

First, Jeb Bush, who has to rank among the most absolutely disgusting pieces of execrable filth in America today. Yes, Jeb, we know all about your mestiza wife and your mongrel children (the "little brown ones" as Patrician Sr. would say), but, you know, we no good White Americans don't like having them around, thank you very much. So, why don't you crawl back into the sewer from which you came?

Then, another comment about yesterday's post on Marine Le Pen. I don't like the mainstreamers, but, as I've said here, in the absence of a better alternative in France, I was skeptically supporting Le Pen there. But I've changed my mind.  It's one thing for the mainstreamers to sit on their hands and refuse to support those more radical, more to the right to them.  It's another thing entirely to actually attack those on your right, to the extent of endorsing far-left open borders neo-Marxists.

I for one give to Marine Le Pen the same consideration and support she's giving Golden Dawn.

Marine Le Pen and Jeb Bush: two of a kind.

Indeed, both represent the failure of dynastic nepotism.  Where would each be without their famous fathers?  Jeb Bush, with the appearance and aura of a wombat, would be, at best, some sort of small businessman, living a life of quiet desperation. Instead of giving speeches to car dealership owners, he would himself be such an owner, out competed by "immigrant entrepreneurs" with their unrelenting ethnic nepotism and their race-based federal small-business loans.

And the skull-faced Marine Le Pen would be an aging, frumpy French housewife, concerned with matching the correct vintage of wine with the proper brand of cheese, a talentless nobody whose opinion would be of no interest to anyone, including her bored and long-suffering husband.

That such empty vessels have been thrust into the limelight, into the cut-and-thrust of history, due to the accident of birth, is a tragedy.  It is also indicative of the worthlessness of the loser White race. No one is obligated to vote for Bush, to support his Presidential aspirations. As he goes around making speeches unfavorably comparing lazy native White Americans with those dynamic hard-working colored immigrants, the fact remains that his political future depends solely on the support of the same conservative White Americans that he so obviously despises. That they support him is more of an indictment of them than him. And the FN did not have to accept Ms. Skeletor as the heiress apparent to the throne of Big Daddy. They could have refused, and instead chosen a competent man who, even if he believed he needed "moderation," would have had enough character and dignity not to throw fellow nationalists "under the bus."

But, no.  Whites are worthless, so they support worthless politicians, one set of embarrassments mirroring the other.

Saturday, January 24, 2015

Mainstreaming Filth

"Far-Right nationalists" supporting pro-immigration neo-Marxists.

Le Monde reported that voicing support for Syriza also allowed Le Pen to separate her party from Greece’s neo-Nazi Golden Dawn, whose members have been accused of violent attacks against immigrants and who have also enjoyed growing support among voters.
Le Pen, who has worked hard to soften her party's image in recent years, told Le Monde that in countries like Spain and Greece, where “there is no equivalent of the National Front, it is the far-left that gets our support”

Someone has to say it, and since the cowardly mainstreaming fanboys of the "movement" won't say it, I will:

Marine Le Pen is a piece of shit.

Thank you.

The System vs. Democratic Multiculturalism

Further analysis.

I would like to further explore some aspects and implications of the idea of "democratic multiculturalism" - the idea supported by Salter and Duchesne that Whites need to play the multicultural game by demanding a "seat at the table" while resolutely demanding that White identity and interests be taken seriously by the regime.  My contribution to the debate was advocating that Whites become as loud and obnoxious in this regard as are the Others, constantly pushing memes of anti-White discrimination and forcing the diversity-mongers to take their ideals at face value instead of as a thinly disguised grab for Other-Power.

This has of course prompted the usual outcry from the peanut gallery of the pathetic "movement" - this strategy is "weak" and it "dishonors our ancestors."  As if the current "movement," with its decades of unending failure, tragicomic buffoonery, complete infiltration by System operatives, and unrelenting stupidity, is something that "our ancestors" would be very proud of. Those complaints demonstrate that the complainer is too stupid to discern that the strategy outlined is "means" not "ends" - it is, simply put, a form of sociopolitical ju-jitsu to undermine the multiculturalist system by forcing that system to live up to is own ideals down the slippery slope to chaos, or be exposed as hollow and hypocritical.  Stating this openly is not a problem, since the System will know it anyway; the point is to press the issue in such a way as to create a "heads we win, tails they lose" scenario so that the System fails regardless of how they attempt to address the issue.

Consider that multiculturalism is based on the "ideal" of minority collectivist mobilization and majority atomization and passivity. Minorities will continue to be mobilized; that is the first principle of multiculturalism, even more fundamental than majority passivity.  Minority mobilization is a given (and we would wish it so, since minority passivity would lead to full assimilation and miscegenation even faster than currently, and would lull Whites to sleep even more than now). Therefore, the key to destabilize the System is majority mobilization. To mobilize Whites, one needs to give them something to get mobilized about. Like it or not, in today's Last Man society, the White masses will not get mobilized to "honor their ancestors" or to "actualize a High Culture."  The far-Right pro-White elites may be so motivated today, and, in a future state run according to our principles, the masses would follow the path of honor and greatness.  But today? Today, Whites need to be mobilized through grievance, through racial self-interest, through anger, through exposure of anti-White discrimination, through the entire immersion of Whites in a self-discovery of identity through the same paths followed by other groups in the morass of multiculturalism.

At this point, we need to consider some of the possible ways the System may attempt to derail the strategy of democratic multiculturalism. The following is in no way a comprehensive analysis, but a brief survey, to stimulate further thought, analysis, and refinement.  Please note this applies mostly to the American situation, the situation in Europe is quite different. Europe has rigid speech control laws (which activists there need to overturn), while, at the same time, having relatively weak social pricing.  In America, we have the opposite:  de jure free speech, coupled with de facto control due to intense social pricing.

The System would either Refuse or Accept the place of Whites as full partners at the multicultural table. Refusal is more likely than acceptance, at least at the early stage.  Both refusal or acceptance can be turned to our benefit.  However, at the same time, the System would attempt to manipulate both refusal or acceptance in ways beneficial to their side.  How could they do so and what could be our response?

With respect to Refusal, there could be: Ignoring, Ridicule, Argumentation, Social Pricing.

Ignoring is the easiest to deal with in the long run, although it may seem daunting in the short run. If we are to believe our own propaganda, then the situation for Whites will become more dire, more unpleasant, with the passing of time. We must persevere in our attempts to speak out, to ask Whites why their legitimate concerns are ignored.  We should look at "ignoring" as an opportunity: an empty niche to fill with our own voice.  Granted, that voice has to be reasonable, and not full of "movement" Nutzis ranting about cephalic indices, 0.15% "admixtures," Evola and Savitri Devi, Atlantis, Hitler as the man above time, or other crackpot stupidities.

Ridicule is a potent weapon, since we live in "the age of snark." We should expect the System to mobilize its celebrities, comedy routines, quick-witted levantines, smug politicians, etc. to mock the idea that "privileged Whites" could possibly have any problems. They would prey upon right-wing insecurities about "looking weak," "being beta," or "dishonoring our ancestors," as if a stoic "stiff upper lip" while your race and civilization is being destroyed, as if "sitting poolside," as if doing nothing - as if all of that is somehow "strong and honorable."  Winning honors our ancestors; losing disgraces them.  Do what you have to do to win.  Persevere through the ridicule.  Again: if we believe our own propaganda, the situation for Whites will deteriorate to a point that I guarantee that, eventually, they will not find anti-White ridicule funny at all. We can ask why is the System mocking your legitimate suffering?  Why are your legitimate interests ridiculed?  Why is your identity a joke? And, most important: we absolutely must use the weapon of ridicule against our opponents. They are far more vulnerable in that regard, objectively speaking. It's just that they have the "megaphone" and we do not.  Getting our message out will be a challenge.

Argumentation will be used, the standard leftist boilerplate about "White privilege" and the usual sociological nonsense.  In a "fair fight," we could easily defeat our opponents in any such debate (provided we keep the Nutzis gibbering among themselves in a corner, where they belong). The problem is inherent in the other components of Refusal: having the power and the "megaphone," the System could Ignore or Ridicule our Argumentation, or subject our representatives to Social Pricing. So, we can win Argumentation only to the extent that we can solve these other issues and create a more level playing field.  In any sort of "fair fight," intelligent and rational racialists would wipe the floor with their opponents; the System knows this, which is why such a "fair fight" is not allowed. We must struggle to obtain it.

Social Pricing is in the long run the most difficult problem we face. Le Brun stated as much in a podcast, talking to Greg Johnson. In Europe, the social system does a better job of protecting folks from social pricing, while in "free market" America, such protection does not exist. Ultimately, we need to build an infrastructure of sufficient breadth and depth so as to make social pricing a weaker weapon of the System. Unfortunately, the pathetic "movement," with its incompetent affirmative action leadership, shows no signs of doing so or even of acknowledging that such is necessary. Decades of time, money, and support have been wasted by "movement" trash and their "Der Tag" apocalyptic fantasies.  The truth is far more mundane and less "heroic."  The "movement" won't want to hear it. I'll say it anyway. In my opinion, the real "turning point" will NOT be when "Whites storm the ramparts" or whatever other doomsday scenario whets the onanistic fantasies of the "movement" - instead, the turning point will be when overt pro-White activists can safely and securely live a comfortable middle-class existence while simultaneously being public far-Right representatives of White interests.  I can only imagine the "movement" reaction to that.  All the keyboard warriors will get lathered up into a frenzy over the "dishonor" and "pettiness" of such a statement.  By golly, we need to "head for the mountains" and "smash the System," while playing "Rambo" and eating twigs and branches.  That'll show 'em!  I hope sane and rational minds will consider my proposed "turning point" and realize I'm right about that. 

What about Acceptance?  What if the System says, yes, White Identity and Interests can be part of multiculturalism?  What then?  If they do so, it will be for the purpose of co-opting our strategy, from putting forth bogus "White leaders," masters of the "implicit Whiteness" game, to lead Whites into a sterile cul-de-sac in which mild complaining will be allowed, System representatives  will pretend to listen, and all else goes on as before.  Thus, Co-Opting/Selling Out is the major System ploy I expect in the event they at same point choose the Acceptance option. They would try to defuse White anger by faux concessions, transparent ploys that would be accepted by the fake leaders and thus also accepted by the not-too-bright masses (the same masses routinely hoodwinked by the GOP).  The answer here is to have disciplined, sincere, vetted, visionary leaders who know how to expose the phony leaders, who would demand that only genuine pro-White leadership be representatives of Whites at the multicultural table, leaders who understand the difference between means and ends, and who have their eyes fixed on the endgame - destabilization of the multicultural system.

For White mobilization under genuine leadership will be the death knell for multiculturalism, the harbinger of chaos.  Minorities, nurtured in an atmosphere of self-righteous racial-moral posturing, who believe they have a birthright monopoly on racial mobilization, these folks would never accept White mobilization. Whites standing up for themselves as Whites is the ultimate blasphemy for Coloreds and White Leftists, the Original Sin (which is why the System would, I think, prefer Refusal if they could get away with it).  And the more angry the Coloreds/Leftists get, the more White Identity will become hardened, the more the societal divisions will fossilize into balkanization, the more untenable the whole situation will be.

Chaos!  Our ancestors would be honored by that; the conflict would inflame their blood.  Let's do it.

Thursday, January 22, 2015

How's Vlad's "Deep Game" Going These Days?

The growing Israeli-Russian alliance.

Read here.  Note also the accompanying photo, who is confidently doing the talking, and who is glumly and very obediently doing the listening.

If we are to be charitable, we can excuse the blushing schoolgirls for their early infatuation with Trad Vlad and for their fantasies that Putin is a masterful racial nationalist "chess player" hiding his true Russian/White racialist agenda.  We could chalk that all up to well-meaning but weak-minded people desperate for some sort of external validation by a powerful public figure.

But now?  After everything we've seen?  Are there still people who would deny that the bare-chested hero of the Siberian wilderness is a liberal, pro-Jewish multiculturalist who aims at a multiracial Russia and whose "traditionalism" is used in a purely instrumental fashion, so as to bolster support for his regime from the Russian Orthodox Church?  Are there any more of such pitifully delusional imbecilic specimens?

Even if the blushing schoolgirls would now renounce their "crush" (which many of them still are not doing), they have already tainted their reputations by clinging to the fantasy long past the point that it had any reasonable plausibility.  We cannot trust their strategic judgment nor their political acumen. If they have been so wrong about this, what other dangerously incompetent errors of judgement will they make?  We can call this the "Trad Vlad blushing schoolgirl litmus test of leadership suitability." And some in the "movement" have failed that test, miserably.

Why Palingenesis is a Practical Necessity

Destroy and renew.

One school of "movement" "thought" is exemplified by the Amren/Hart crowd: keep things more or less as they are today, but with some racial reforms. Thus, we will continue to have a free market capitalist America, with all the economic-obsessed sociopolitical agendas that come with that, everything the same, but with enhanced racial homogeneity.  Other activists, more extreme, still foresee maintenance of the current cultural and social system, except that it will be "all White."

My perspective is completely opposite.  I advocate a complete palingenetic rebirth of the West, the so-called Overman High Culture, I advocate - similar to the Romanian Legionaries - the creation of the New Man, a superior form of human that transcends selfish economic individualism, an optimized mental-physical-spiritual - ethical being.

And I clam that this is an absolute necessity - not only from the ideological and aesthetic standpoint, but also from the purely pragmatic standpoint.  And not only because the objectives we have will require such upheaval and sacrifice that only a revolutionary goal can serve as the foundation for our activity. But, also, and ultimately, because that any new state built on the old system is destined to fail.

A new state built upon selfish individualism, Economic Man, free market capitalism, etc. will inevitably degenerate into a plutocracy, as free-riding selfish individualists accrue more wealth, with which they will amass more power, with which they will redirect the state toward their own self-serving interests, which, historically speaking, has involved globalism, mass migration, cheap labor, allegiance toward transnational elites rather than one's own countrymen, and a money-obsessed anti-heroic society unable and unwilling to actualize a High Culture and achieve racial and civilizational destiny.

Putting together an ad hoc set of laws and imposed customs to try to prevent the descent into plutocracy will not work.  How to balance the sort of reasonable economic incentives for productivity and excellence with the need to prevent gross inequalities and atomized individualism?  How to precisely balance those benefits of the free market with the organizational imperative of Yockey's "Ethic Socialism?"  Forcing these disparate memes together in the context of a failed societal structure is a blueprint for disaster.

Only a New Man, operating in a New Society, built upon a foundation of radically national socialist Racial-Cultural Values, can properly balance these opposing forces, and have the INNATE desire to do the right thing, to serve the Race rather than be enslaved by the "almighty dollar."  The superstructure of  new state and new society will be stable only when built upon the rock-solid foundation of a fresh, palingenetic, futurist, avante garde system of racial and civilizational ethics. Palingenesis is necessity. Continung failed memes and failed systems ensures failure.  Only the new can serve as the building blocks for the future.

All else is folly.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Political Test

Useful tool.

This online political test is not perfect, but it (the longer, 50 question version of the test) is by far the best such evaluative tool for political orientation that I have yet seen.  As a "3-D" test, it is in my opinion far superior to the "2-D" "Political Compass" and infinitely superior to the "1-D" crap put out by the execrable John Ray, an apologist for mainstream kosher conservatism.

The thing about the "Political Test" is that, as far as people I know who have taken it, it works fairly well.  It evaluates a broad range of political ideals and places people close to where they would seem to belong.

Certainly, it can be improved, made more fine-grained, more accurate and precise.  But for people tired of seeing national socialists binned with aracial capitalists or with anti-racist communists (which often occurs with  the "1-D, 2-D" tests), then this newer test is quite welcome.

What's Good For the Leftist Goose... good for the far-Right Gander.

“The moment somebody says, ‘Yes I believe in free speech, but,’ I stop listening,” he continued. “You know ‘I believe in free speech, but people should behave themselves. I believe in free speech, but we shouldn’t upset anybody. I believe in free speech, but let’s not go too far.’ The point about it is, the moment you limit free speech, it’s not free speech. The point about it is that it is free. 

The question is whether this NEC would support free speech for "haters, racists, and neo-Nazis" as well, or would he say, "Yes I believe in free speech, but..."  Rushdie: sincerity or hypocrisy? Free speech for those who believe that NECs like Rushdie have no place in the West?

Monday, January 19, 2015

Men and Women in Science, 1/19/15

More System lies.

Therefore, we see that this “study” does not contain any hardcore psychometric data but merely is a “survey” of opinions and attitudes.  Is it any wonder that the “politically correct” conclusion is reached?  Also interesting is how the authors casually dismiss more likely hypotheses. For example, from their paper, emphasis added:
Is natural brilliance truly more important to success in some fields than others? The data presented here are silent on this question. However, even if a field’s beliefs about the importance of brilliance were to some extent true, they may still discourage participation among members of groups that are currently stereotyped as not having this sort of brilliance. As a result, fields that wished to increase their diversity may nonetheless need to adjust their achievement messages.
Are women and African Americans less likely to have the natural brilliance that some fields believe is required for top-level success? Although some have argued that this is so, our assessment of the literature is that the case has not been made that either group is less likely to possess innate intellectual talent (as opposed to facing stereotype threat, discrimination, and other such obstacles)…
Note: “our assessment of the literature…”  That’s an unbiased, objective analysis?  This “study” is laughable, and its inclusion in an ostensibly prestigious publication like Science is indicative of the sorry state of politicized “science” in what used to be the “West.” 
For such people, no counter-arguments would be unbiased.  For example, psychometric data (IQ, etc.) would be dismissed as “biased and inaccurate” – a charge unfortunately helped by the all-too-real pseudoscience and incompetence of certain well known researchers in that field (I do not mean that IQ studies are invalid, merely that the field has been tainted by politically-motivated and inept HBDers). Data that show that women/minorities are less successful at grant applications has also been considered as “proof of bias” rather than evidence of relative scientific incompetence (anecdotal data about affirmative action in grant awards notwithstanding).
Since all is “bias,” then my own “biased” personal anecdotal observations are equally relevant to this question. My observations have been that the large majority (not all, of course) of Negro STEMers are shockingly incompetent by White/Jewish/Asian standards, and the “accomplishments” of Negro STEMers is to a large extent a product of racial preferences in their favor.
As regards non-Negro female STEMers, it is more complex.  On average, I observe that they are less brilliant, creative, insightful, and productive than their male counterparts. While some of this is due to “raw intelligence,” I believe other factors are more important, and that these differences would still exist when men and women are matched via IQ. 
Both male and female STEMers are more “masculine” in thought than their sex-counterparts in the general population – by that I mean more analytical, less emotional, more toward the apolitical “autistic” scale, etc.  However, the relative male-female gap remains within STEM.  Thus, female STEMers are less analytical, less disciplined, more emotional, less focused, etc. than their male counterparts. They lack male “force” and creativity.  Female STEMers do particularly poor jobs in leadership positions – again based on personal anecdotal observation.  They lack gravitas, they don’t accept criticism or even suggestions well (particularly from men), they lack vision and any sort of forward-looking strategy, they are reactive rather than proactive.
Crude stereotypes unfortunately turn out to be all-too-true.  It is not unheard of to see high-ranking female STEMers burst into tears at meetings if they are even mildly questioned or if they “feel unappreciated.”  Some women piggyback their careers on that of their husbands.  Some women “charm” men into doing their work for them, or to give them resources/promotions that are undeserved.  That minority of female STEMers who are reasonably attractive – or are at least perceived to be so by beta/omega male STEMers – ruthlessly use their “sex appeal” (or what passes for it) to gain favors from male colleagues and higher-ups.  One can see more of their fair share of unbuttoned blouses as female STEMers attempt to influence men in their favor.  Women of course benefit from affirmative action gender preferences in their favor.  With all these advantages, they of course still whine about “discrimination” and excuse their incompetent performances by invoking “misogynistic bias” (while these women are openly androgynist).

It would seem that my ‘biased” views are as valid as any other.

The Freedom Loving West

More hypocrisy.

Read here.

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Merkel Must Be Happy About This

Absolutely disgusting.

So, essentially, Germans in Germany are being dictated to by foreigners and aliens on what they can or cannot do in their own nation. Instead of being outraged by this, the German elites side with the foreigners and aliens against their own people.

We need at this point to come up with a new term to describe Whites, since "omega race" is infinitely too mild.  As it exists now, the White race must be the lowest form of life on Earth, the most degraded, pathetic, self-annihilating, weak, flabby, pathetic bunch of sorrowfully pitiful specimens ever assembled.  This race is an embarrassment, just watching, or reading about, White behavior is so painfully tragicomic, one cringes in disgust.

The most useless omega male, some pathetic creature who fantasizes about shooting his wad in the flapping fat flabs of some grotesquely obese landwhale, that omega male is an endless number of orders of magnitude more powerful, self-respecting, and dynamic than what passes for the White race.

I guess next, Germans and other Europeans can ask their NEC masters for permission each and every time they need to use the toilet. I mean, we can't have these uppity Whites thinking they can have the temerity to even take a leak without getting the go-ahead from their obvious masters and betters now, can we?

Saturday, January 17, 2015

Why Culture Is Important

I can't disagree with Taylor about this.

Granted, there is substantial overlap between race and culture here, since most Muslims are non-European.  But, above and beyond that - and putting aside the fact that culture directly affects race (e.g., Muslims, even White ones, would support mass migration of non-White Muslims into White nations) - culture itself is crucially important. Every race has a High Culture which is its natural ecology, its racial niche, and a foreign culture would destroy a people and its identity as well as would foreign genes. Thus, differences of culture/civilization alone can be grounds for exclusion, even if there are no significant racial differences. That race and culture often overlap makes the exclusion easier, and even more necessary.

Of course, what I would say goes beyond Taylor's video: Judaism/Jews is foreign to the West just like Islam/Muslims, and should be excluded as well.

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Free Speech in the UK

It doesn't exist.

Robert Mathews has apparently risen from the ashes to write an informative summary of the sorry state of free speech in the UK.

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Merkel: Islam Belongs to Germany

Pessimism is justified.

After everything that's happened, after coming back from the "Hebdo" rally, after herself declaring fairly recently that "multiculturalism is a failure," here we have Merkel denouncing mild and moderate immigration-skeptics, and promoting Islam, immigration, and a multicultural Germany.

We can say that Merkel is an indescribably evil piece of lowlife filth, and we would be right. But who elected her?  Who continues to support her?  "Conservative" Germans, among them I am sure plenty of PEGIDA marchers. The elites are openly hostile to the native majority, while that same native majority feverishly supports the elites who hate them.

And why is pessimistic disgust wrong with respect to the objectively worthless White race?