Saturday, February 28, 2015

In the News, 2/28/15

Two Items.

Two for one: showing the uselessness of the "manosphere" and also showing the anti-White hostility of NECs.

William Johnson of the American Freedom Party defines his American ingroup specifically in Northern European racial terms (note to Sunic: stay in Europe).  Johnson is of course perfectly entitled to do so.  Equally, pro-White European-Americans of Southern and Eastern European descent are equally perfectly entitled to eschew the American Freedom Party and take their business elsewhere.

To Be Fair, 2/28/15


To be fair to the mainstreamers, I'll admit that Orban's words sound good.  Will they be backed up by action? Who knows? Is any of this sustainable in the long term, with EU pressure and the possibility that leftist success in future elections can overturn whatever good Orban does?  Doubtful.  Will Orban screw things up in other ways and alienate the population, making a leftist electoral success possible?  Likely.  Would Jobbik do a better job? Probably, but then Jobbik would be more vulnerable to EU interference and subsequent electoral defeat.

The pressure that will be put on Orban by the EU (he already has been lectured by that White-hating harpy Merkel) shows that the pro-White crusade needs to be global and pan-European. Nationalism in one nation will be opposed by the globalism of all the others. The pressure also demonstrates the limitations of mainstreaming. The whole farce of democracy needs to be jettisoned as well. Is Orban's "illiberalism" for real?  Doubtful again.

We'll be watching.

Thursday, February 26, 2015

A Telling Admission

A small ray of disinfecting light.

Here we see Silver stating his disagreement with Greg Johnson's "overarching worldview."  Johnson's overarching ideology/viewpoint is that of a White racial nationalist, so opposing that worldview is disagreement with the fundamental tenets of WN.

What's particularly eyebrow-raising about the comment is that Johnson is a particularly moderate WN, far less extreme than, say, William Pierce (or myself for that matter).  In the past, Silver would frequently harshly critique the more extreme elements of WN, but Greg Johnson's ethnonationalist-oriented, non-genocidal, New Right, anti-"Vantard" form of "Left Coast Nationalism" is far from extreme.

So, here we have someone who opposes even a moderate and intellectual form of racial nationalism, and is a shill for predatory capitalism.  What's the battle cry then?  Jeb Bush in 2016!

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Greg Johnson vs. the Manosphere

I agree.

I’m glad to see Greg Johnson has taken on the PUA “manosphere” “dark enlightenment" crowd, with this fine essay.  I’ve been waiting for someone in the “movement” to join in with my months-long criticism of this sex-obsessed corner of the HBD jungle.


A healthy, well-ordered society punishes jerks and cads. Ideally, it should simply weed out people with severe personality disorders by preventing them from reproducing.

I understand the motivation and am in general agreement with such eugenic breeding.  But, one must be careful.  There may be a fine line between “severe personality disorders” as exhibited by “jerkboys” and the sort of ruthless leadership personalities necessary for any quality, high-achieving society.  I recall an episode of the original Star Trek, in which a “transporter” malfunction separated Kirk into “good” and “evil” halves. The problem was that the “good” half was unable to make decisions and to lead; absent the “evil” part of his personality, Kirk became an indecisive beta/omega milksop.

So, yes, we need to alter the dynamics so that the “jerkboys” do not dominate the sexual market, because a society of too many “alpha jerks” will be unstable.  However, I would not eliminate “evil” or “jerkiness” or “dark triad” traits completely – we may end up with a population of mild-mannered Last Men.  I always remember Nietzsche saying that you must have some chaos within yourself if you want to be a “dancing star.”


In sum, my concern is that the manosphere teaches young men to emulate anti-social and pathological traits. Women then reinforce these traits with one of the most powerful inducements of all: sex. And, over time, otherwise good men become the kind of men they would never allow around their own sisters and daughters. This is moral corruption. Namely, moral corruption by teaching men to conform to emancipated female desire rather than to correct it.

Yes, exactly.  The “gamesters” are fine with respect to “description” (about sex; when they get into race, it is merely warmed-over HBD nonsense); the problem is with “prescription.”  I would have no problem if “game” was peddled as a short-term tactic – e.g., “hey guys, here is how you can get laid while at the same time you spend most of your intellectual energy smashing the System.”  However, to these guys, “game” is a strategy, it is a way of life, and it is dedicating oneself to Last Man nihilistic hedonism.  Not only that, it is internally self-contradictory: it is a male-oriented “manosphere” that takes a justifiably dim view of female sexual behavior, and then tells men they have to dedicate their lives to altering their personas so as to appeal to the same “female hamster mental acrobatics” that is leading society to perdition.

The answer these nitwits have to Johnson is the juvenile nonsense about “sitting poolside” – as if the System is going to leave them alone to “sit poolside” when the times comes to hand over the “pool” to a bunch of feral Negroes, who will piss in it and walk off with the hypergamous females. The “game" crowd cannot escape the society they live in; if they want to “get laid” they have to interact with the general hellhole and as they try to “ride the tiger” the tiger will turn around a take a bite out of their ass.

You don’t ride the tiger gentlemen, you KILL IT.

So, we have taken the first step.  Very good.  Next, I hope that some folks (Greg?) in the “movement” will reevaluate the obsession with Judeophilic and Asiaphilic HBD pseudo-science, which makes a mockery of real racial science, historical scholarship, genuine psychometric studies, and population genetics.  When I start seeing some “movement” stalwarts attacking HBD, then maybe there’s some hope for the “movement” after all.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Yellow Leadership for a Rising Tide of Color

Facts are facts.

Excerpts, emphasis added:

The indictment has galvanized other Chinese-American leaders, but in a different way. To say that Officer Liang has been singled out misses the bigger picture, those leaders argue. Asians have also suffered at the hands of police officers, they say, and it is time for them to join the chorus of black and Latino voices calling for reform.

“Peter Liang being Asian only means that all cops need to be held accountable, regardless of skin color,” said Cathy Dang, the executive director of CAAAV Organizing Asian Communities, an advocacy group in New York that works with Asian immigrants from several countries. “We should use this indictment as fuel for us to organize even harder to hold the white officers who’ve killed accountable.” 
Councilwoman Margaret Chin, a Democrat who represents the Chinatown neighborhood, also called for Officer Liang to be indicted, saying the filing of charges would be a step toward reforming a police force that she said has unfairly targeted Asians as well as blacks and Latinos …Ms. Dang said she hoped to encourage Asian-Americans to find common cause with blacks. Her group had previously called for the indictments of the officers involved in the deaths of Mr. Garner and other unarmed black men. 
 “When the Peter Liang case happened, it did make it a little more complicated to navigate between our different communities,” she said, adding, “I actually think there’s a growing investment in the organizing, especially by young Asian-Americans.”

Here’s a photo that can be used a new cover art for the next edition of Stoddard’s Rising Tide of Color.

Wake up White man. Asians hate, hate, hate Whites. Asians are, by their own words, part of the world of color, organizing along with Blacks and Hispanics against Whites.  White HBDers who praise East Asians, who label themselves as “Yellow Supremacists,” who advocate an “Arctic Alliance” – these are RACE TRAITORS, the lowest of the low.  Some of them are pathetic filth, socially awkward psychosexual degenerates who have sold out their race for sexual access to Asiatic females.

And it’s not only the HBDers who are going to be targeted for criticism at my blogs.  Those WNs who enable HBDism – and now they have no excuse about not knowing the truth – will also be equally targeted.

HBD is the “fifth column” of traitors within a racially aware White community, diverting racialism to the interests of Asia and those sell-outs who live their lives in the dust pitifully groveling before the Altar of Asia.  The White race will be free only when HBD has been completely discredited, and a White Ethnostate executes leading HBDers, to the universal joy of an enlightened citizenry.

Sallisian Radicalism?

Or just good common sense?

I look forward to the day when my views on HBD are adopted by a reformed and renewed real Movement.

I look forward even more to the day when the White State's tribunals find the HBDers guilty and they are all stringed up on the gallows, a fate so very richly deserved.

Mainstreaming News, 2/24/15

Orban's decline.

Well, well, well, will you look at this: decline for Orban's rightist Fidesz party, with concomitant gains for the more radical Jobbik party. 

But, but, but....I thought that mainstreaming was necessary to gain and hold practical political power, and that Orban was so very wise to cancel the NPI conference in Budapest, at the behest of the globalist System.

I'm no big fan of Jobbik (which also betrayed NPI), but there is nevertheless a lesson here. The "benefits" of mainstreaming will be less than its proponents suppose. Orban can grovel all he wants, but he'll still be considered a "Nazi fascist racist anti-Semite" by the System.  He still won't win over that fraction of the Hungarian population that masochistically yearns for its own destruction. By the time we get mainstreaming out of our system, exposed as a cowardly and juvenile fad, yet more precious time would have been wasted.

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Diversity,Trust, Individualism, and Collectivism

Diversity inhibits its own opposition.

For background, read this.

Putnam's work on diversity revealed that increasing diversity not only lowered levels of between-group trust, but also decreased the levels of trust between individuals of the same group.

If one considers that it is precisely collective group action that is a necessary component of a group's resistance to the corrosive effects of diversity and multiculturalism, then one observes that diversity has the ability to disarm its own opposition.

One can consider a majority ethny subjected to increasing levels of diversity within their nation-state. This diversity directly damages the interest of the native, majority ethny through negative effects on ultimate interests (e.g., EGI decreased through race replacement immigration, differential birthrates, and miscegenation) as well as important proximate interests (socioeconomic, political, cultural, etc. displacement, as well as legal and illegal acts of aggression by the newcomers against the natives).  

The long term interests of this endangered native ethny will require an organized resistance to diversity.  This organized resistance will require collective action, a sense of group identity, and must be proofed against excessive free riding.  All of this requires reasonably high levels of trust between group members. But the very diversity they wish to oppose erodes inter-group trust and makes a more collectivist mindset ever more difficult to create and maintain. Instead, diversity would tend to promote atomized individualism, derived from a sense of mistrust and alienation ("bowling alone"), that would sap the strength of any organized resistance movement.  

While this process of group disarmament could in theory occur in any group subjected to diversity, it would have the most harmful effects on groups already relatively high on individualism and low on collectivism.  A very collectivist group may well be more resistant to the ingroup mistrust promoted by diversity, and even if diversity caused this group to move in the individualist direction, if they had started high on the collectivist scale, they may be able to maintain a sufficient level of collective group action to protect themselves and their interests.

On the other hand, a group already individualist, with weaker abilities to engage in collective action, such a group would be pushed into pathologically radical atomized individualism by diversity, and lose whatever ability for collective action they had previously possessed.  Europeans are relatively low on collectivism, while being high on individualism, and are thus exquisitely vulnerable to the effects of diversity on ingroup mistrust.  Jews and Asians, being more collectivist, would be far more resistant to diversity; even if they were to move toward a more individualist direction, they may still fall within a "safe" range that maintains the ability for group collective action.

For example, imagine a 0-100 scale, with 0 being maximum individualism, and 100 being maximum collectivism.  Imagine that the position of different groups on this scale is fixed within a range, by both genes and deeply ingrained cultural and historical influences.  A group may have some ability to move around within their range, based on circumstances, becoming a bit more collectivist under threat and a bit more individualist during times of peace and plenty (the magnitude of these shifts may also vary between groups, but we need not concern ourselves with this detail here).

Let's say that the threshold for collective action is at a rating of 50 or greater. Europeans may fall within the 30-55 range, with the 30-45 range being the default position, and levels of collectivism of 45-55 observed in times of stress (as a historical example, National Socialist collective organizing of the German people against Jews and other enemies).  Jews and Asians would be, normally, in the 65-90 range.  If diversity causes a 10 point slide toward individualism, then Europeans would have their ability for collective action eliminated (they would now have a 20-45 range), while Jews and Asians, now in the 55-80 range, would still maintain the ability to act collectively.

Of course, these numbers are merely for the sake of illustration and are not meant to represent any objective, quantitative reality.  Nevertheless, the point is clear.  Given that it is the White world that is predominantly subjected to increasing diversity, and that is are Whites who are, generally speaking, skewed toward individualism, it is obvious that diversity is a potent memetic-biological weapon in the war to destroy the White world.

This is a large hurdle to overcome.  Enhancing inter-group trust through honorable and ethical behavior, should be a "must" for the "movement" - but I see little evidence of this actually occurring. This underscores why "free-riding" (from everything from politics to vaccination) is so deadly; if one sees others taking advantage of the group's collective social goods while making no contribution to those goods themselves, this will further erode ingroup trust and make further collective action impossible.

We need to understand our place on the individualism-collectivism continuum, also understand the need for collective action, and further understand the pernicious effects of diversity. To not do so is folly and will lead inevitably to our final defeat.

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Diagnosing the post-Rotherham Pathology

Analyzing pathology.

In Rotherham, between 1997 and 2013 — for more than sixteen years! — more than 1,400 White children, most of them girls and some of them not yet in their teen years, were abducted, raped, tortured, prostituted, and passed around for sexual entertainment by Pakistani men, many of whom acted as if they literally “owned” their young White victims. And that figure of 1,400 is now considered — even by the very Politically Correct authorities in Britain — to be a “very conservative” estimate.  
When complaints were made to the authorities, again and again — for years — the investigations went nowhere. They went nowhere not because of lack of evidence — for evidence there was in abundance — but because the investigators and those charged with protecting children in Rotherham were afraid of being perceived as “racist,” a sure kiss of death for a political or bureaucratic career in the new Britain. Years later, an official investigation discovered that pleas for help from White children and parents were sidelined “for fear of ‘giving oxygen’ to racism.”  
When a 13-year-old girl bravely reported what was happening to her to police, the response was aloof derision, and nothing was done. An investigator into the scandal reported that White victims were routinely “treated with contempt.” Also treated with contempt was a delegation of White mothers, each of whom had a daughter or daughters being routinely raped by this organized non-White gang. The mothers’ delegation pleaded with the authorities to do something because the police were unresponsive. This was in 2002, after five years of such abuse. Still, nothing was done — for some eight years. And now that this horrible abuse network — and its official enablers — have been exposed, after almost twenty years have passed, not a single official has been charged with a crime, and most of the perpetrators are still walking the streets freely.

What can one say about a race, a people that allows this to happen and then does nothing about it?  Newsflash: ANY other race, even the vaunted “high-IQ, law-abiding, k-selected” Northeast Asians, would have rioted, lynched those responsible, thrown the vermin out of Parliament, and instituted a new government. 

Now, I don’t want this to degenerate into yet another diatribe about the pathetic worthlessness of the White race.  That worthlessness is an objective fact and plain for all to see.  It may be useful though to list some possible reasons for the lack of reaction, so we can better understand the pathology. This cannot be a complete list; when faced with such deep sickness, it is difficult to provide a comprehensive diagnosis. But let us at least begin the process.

Not my problem, upper class version. As long as it is not their family suffering, an upper class ‘elite” Englishman may shrug this all off as “someone else’s” problem.  Hey, if lower class Whites cannot insulate themselves from savage brownsters, that’s their fault and their problem. The elites are riding the crest wave of globalist multiculturalism; their careers are advanced by adhering to the System, they make much money and derive much power from the suffering of lower class Whites.  Isn’t that what O’Brien said in Orwell's 1984: the way you know you have power over someone else is by making them suffer.  As long as they themselves don’t suffer blowback from diversity, influential White elites will continue promoting it. This is pathological atomized individualism, it is free-riding on White society and White continuity, and it is also short-sighted, since the children and grandchildren of the elites may not hold the same high status in the Brown Britain of tomorrow.

Not my problem, lower class version. More atomized individualism and selfishness on display here; essentially, as long as the chips and beer, the TV shows, and the sports games continue to be available, the lower class Whites will put up with someone else’s children being abused, as long as it is not theirs.  We begin to see amoral familism rear its ugly head, raising the possibility that this social pathology is not the sole province of greasy dagos but, given the right circumstances, may afflict the more civilized and socially altruistic peoples farther north.

You got to break a few eggs to make an omelet. Some folks may regret what happened, but believe that it is a small price to pay to build a “diverse, multicultural, socially just” society. This may include some of the people who ignored the tragedy when it was unfolding. This I guess fits more into the HBD narrative of northern pathological altruism and universalism.

They got what they deserve.  Even more pathological are those Whites who so actively hate their own kind, who so much love “the other” that they do not even believe Rotherham is anything at all to be concerned about, from the White perspective. The only concern is the well-being of the brownsters. Some White folks may get a psychosexual masochistic thrill over the humiliation and degradation of their racial kin.

I care, but I’m afraid. There may be people genuinely upset, but they fear speaking their mind. In a “tragedy of the commons” scenario, each person hopes someone else speaks up first, but they themselves don’t want to be the ones to do it. “Anti-hate” race laws threaten them with jail for speaking their mind, they also fear social ridicule and ostracism, and other various forms of social pricing. With all these coercive forces, with the politicians and media on the other side, with each atomized White unsure about the beliefs of his fellows, everyone wants someone else to take the first step, so no one does.

I care, but what can I do? The person may care but believes they are powerless (yet they won’t even vote correctly when given the chance).

I care, but it is hopeless. They believe it as all over, their race is doomed, their nation is lost. So even though they are enraged, they see no point in endangering themselves over a lost cause.

I care, but I trust the system. Whites are nothing but not naïve, and they will continue to hope, against all reason that the System will actually act in favor of White interests.

I care, but I’m too busy and then I forget.  Too busy, too stressed, too self-absorbed, so many other things going on.

I care, and I did something – I wrote a comment on a blog and/or I cursed at an immigrant.  Whites who have no idea, who confuse private opinions and a passing comment with real life, long term, committed useful activism.

Most likely all of these possibilities, as well as others not mentioned, contribute to varying degrees. Note that only a fraction of these people - and those only in the minority “I care” categories – have any potential to be reached, and even for these, long term success is doubtful.

Friday, February 20, 2015

The Bunker Syndrome

Lack of political maturity.

I was recently reading in the news about a group of English soccer fans who, while chanting "we're racist," refused to allow a Negro to board a train in Paris. This was, as one can imagine, inflated into an international incident, plastered across newspapers and websites, certainly more important to the System than those mild shenanigans in Rotherham (completely forgotten about by now).  Let us for a moment forget that a Negro has no business being in Paris to begin with, and consider the deeper meaning of this incident.

When such things occur, I wonder about the perpetrators.  Of course, we do not know who they are, but I very much doubt that these are any sort of real racial nationalists or ethnonationalists. I wonder who they vote for back in England, who they support. Maybe the Conservatives. Maybe even Labour (do you doubt it?). Maybe - "at best" - some support the UKIP.  If Nick Griffin was running for office how many of those "racist" soccer fans would vote for him, as opposed to the mainstream conservatives?  Most likely, not a single one. The "bigotry" of these soccer fans is personal, not political. There may well have been alcohol involved. Typical of the juvenile and feckless creatures Whites have become, displeasure over race replacement does not manifest in practical political action, but in carefully hidden disquiet that will rarely erupt in a silly display of (drunken?) hooliganism.

There used to be a TV show popular in 1970s America, All in the Family, with one of the most famous characters in television history: the blue-collar White bigot Archie Bunker.  This being a Jewish-created show, Bunker was of course shown as ignorant and buffoonish, no surprises there. But, that said, he did - and still does - represent something about Whites that remains a serious problem for nationalist progress.

Despite all of Bunker's anger and frustrations toward minorities (and also White ethnic Catholics), he was - what?  A neo-Nazi? No, not by a longshot.  Bunker was a supporter of Richard Nixon, the Republican President who promoted affirmative action and busing. Bunker gave his ardent support to a politician who enacted policies that were complete anathema to Bunker's fundamental racial beliefs.  Thus, the problem: Bunker's racialism never expressed itself in practical politics, it never manifested in a manner that could influence public policy or in any way modify the historical currents to which he objected.  Like White "bigots" the world over, Bunker's racialism was private, manifested in "venting," and bluff displays of "politically incorrect" verbal bravado (and even that is forbidden today), not in any sort of useful activism, not even in making the right choice on election day.  

White "bigotry" is childish, useless, sterile.  It accomplishes nothing but to energize the anti-White Left, and give more ammunition to the forces of White dispossession.  I've had Bunkers in my family; I've known their behavior well.  You the reader may have had the same experiences in your family. Folks who sputter with venom about "the niggers and the spics," and yet go on to vote for Nixon or Bob Dole or George "Open Borders" Bush or John McAmnesty or any of the others.  These are folks who are deeply upset about illegal immigration and who will rail against "dem wetbacks crossin' the border" but then they'll flock to the polls and eagerly vote for a Jeb Bush or a Marco Rubio. Their bigotry is all "hot air," it is "sound and fury signifying nothing."  And as their world crumbles around them, they begin to find that even this harmless venting, this juvenile name-calling, even that is no longer allowed. it is "hate speech," and they has better learn to just "shut up" and vote for whatever White-hating, immigrant-loving, far-Left GOP candidate is being championed by FOX news.

There are some who would make excuses for the Bunkers. Why, they say, there's no choice on the ballot!  Better Nixon than McGovern!  Putting aside the issue of why the Bunkers allowed their nation to be stolen from them, so they are constantly presented with such non-choices, the fact remains that, even why a small level of choice is in fact presented to them, they don't take advantage of it.  David Duke ran for President several times. He did very poorly. What fraction of "White bigotry" supported Duke?   A small fraction indeed.  Pat Buchanan is a moderate paleoconservative and no racialist, and it is true he was part of the Nixon administration. But compared to other Republicans, Buchanan at least represents a sliver of difference compared to the neoconservative juggernaut.  How did Buchanan's Presidential aspirations fair?  Also poorly.  Republican primary voters, far more "conservative" than the general White population, favored the likes of Bush Sr. and "civil rights Republican" Bob Dole over Pat Buchanan.  If even someone like Sessions, a System Republican who takes a hard line against immigration, were to run for President, do you doubt that the Archie Bunkers would still vote for Jeb and Marco, all the time muttering under their breath about the "illegals stealing our country?"  

Europeans are not much better.  Significant fractions of Europeans express strong opposition to mass immigration in opinion polls, and then these same people cheerfully go to the ballot box to vote for a Merkel, a Sarkozy, a Cameron, or worse. I have no doubt that in, say, Greece, the fraction of the population vehemently against immigration is significantly larger than the fraction who vote for Golden Dawn.  But these "bigots" will instead vote for pro-immigration conservatives or even for Syriza. 

The problem is not just that we need to "wake more White people us," it is that those who are at least partially awakened refuse to act upon their beliefs and upon their "awakened" status.  Like Archie Bunker, they'll mutter and complain, shout racial slurs at soccer games, prevent Negroes from boarding trains, leave comments on Internet blog threads, but they won't even vote the right way in the complete privacy of the ballot.

This "Bunker Syndrome" represents a major impediment to progress: even when Whites know,  they do not act.  Even when they know, they will not vote for the far-Right.  Even when they know, they remain complicit in their own dispossession.  So, the "movement" had better be aware that it is not enough to educate and "awaken," one must somehow instill political maturity and seriousness into a population that behaves like a bunch of semi-retarded children. That will not be an easy task.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

A Danish Native Son

Not quite.

Another day, another violent terror attack on our native soil of Europe by your friendly neighborhood NECs.  No worries though, it's all covered and controlled by our masters in the usual manner. For example, the American mass media refers to the killer as a "native son" of Denmark, as if he were a Nordic Scandinavian, a Viking berserker, or perhaps a brooding introspective Hamlet, rather than a Levantine Semitic Arab, who, of course, hadn't the slightest business living in Denmark to begin with.  Reports indicate a specifically Palestinian ancestry which, if true, would further explain his radicalization, with Israeli treatment of that ethny contributing to much anger in the Islamic world.

Indeed, the role of Jews in the ongoing low grade civil war in Europe is quite interesting, apart from the usual tinfoil hat conspiracy theories that I will not dwell on here.  On the one hand, Israeli dispossession of the Palestinians, and the West's (particularly, America's) reflexive support of Jewish behavior, enrages Muslims the world over.  Then, the Jews strongly support immigration of Muslims into Western nations, as part of the grand objective of diluting the racial and cultural patrimony of the European peoples.  Further, Jews also strongly support "hate speech laws" which criminalize native European objections to their genocidal race replacement.  But, alas, a few Jews suffer some "blow back" from Islamic immigration, as the newcomers do not show appreciation toward the Jews who have helped unlock the gates of Europe to the alien invasion.  And this you see is a big problem.  The Western leadership accepts - nay, advocates! - the demographic and civilizatitional eclipse of Europeans by immigrants, they cover up immigrant crimes up to and including the mass rape of native children, they look the other way when ordinary Whites live lives of quiet desperation over the loss of their neighborhoods, cities, and nations, but - but! - let one Jew come to harm, let Israelis call for a Jewish exodus from Europe, and the leaders of the West collapse into paroxysms of agony and anguish.

Indeed, the idea of a large scale migration of Jews out of Europe, the possibility of which should be met with universal joy and ringing celebration, is instead treated with horror by the same elites who shrug off Rotherham with cheerful insouciance.

And as far as the immigrant invaders themselves?  I've written here, a number of times, that the Western, the European leadership reaction to these events, to these massacres, would be to call for more immigration, a greater alien flood, more race replacement, more speech laws.  To those who would label me unduly pessimistic, I refer you to this.

But are the White masses any better? Let us not underestimate the weakness, stupidity, masochism, and cowardice of the White race. You'd think that after Rotherham, Charlie Hebdo, and now this, you'd think that there'd be some sort of reaction, some sort of sign of puissance, some expression of outrage. But, no. Nothing. Now, let me make a disclaimer.  Of course - of course! - I advocate for legal and peaceful activism to promote European survival, and let there be no doubt - none whatsoever! - that I unequivocally denounce and reject any violent responses.  That said, one can consider what a healthy people would have done in response to these outrages (never mind that a healthy people would not have allowed any of this to occur in the first place, but never mind that for now).

With the exppsure of Rotherham, what would have been a normal reaction of a sane people?  One could envision mobs of outraged Englishmen, their breasts burning with anger -  a rage building for years, for decades - crashing into the prisons, dragging out the accused, and lynching them.  Then, the mob, just getting warmed up, would find those officials of their own race who turned a blind eye to the years of outrages against English children, they would find those officials and string them up as well.  And, just like the storming of the Bastille, these actions would precipitate a  nation-wide revolution, and the streets of London would run red with blood (amazing enough, this time NOT the blood of Englishmen slaughtered by immigrants).  And about the "refugees" that Europe must joyfully accept?  Those boats in the Mediterranean? Torpedo them.  Or, if advanced naval armaments are considered too valuable to waste on such vermin, then just let them die at sea and, if they try to land on European soil, open up with the machine guns, bullets being somewhat cheaper than torpedoes. And for those aliens living in Europe, regardless of citizenship or place of birth: give them a defined time frame to get up and leave, to go back to their homelands, or suffer a less pleasant fate.  That's what normal and healthy people would do.  But, I repeat: I do not advocate that.  Let us be humane. Let us use the political process. But do Whites do even that?  Are White flocking to the polls to vote in real leadership? In Greece, a pro-immigration far-left party has come to power, with the support of the alleged "far-right" Marine Le Pen of France.

We live in a age of madness.  And the way things are going, the West will die in an age of madness as well.  Don't say we never told you so.  We did.  But you all just are not listening.

Monday, February 16, 2015

Marine's Allies in Action

News from Greece.

Well, who knows?  Maybe if Mainstream Marine comes to power she will also promote increased participation of immigrant/non-White populations into the French police force.  After all, one must be pragmatic!  How can one win elections without mainstreaming?  Indeed, it would be prudent for Marine to appeal to France's growing immigrant Muslim population. She may consider converting to Islam and increasing immigration quotas from North Africa.  Pragmatism, gentlemen, pragmatism.

Sunday, February 15, 2015

The Yellow Elephant in the Room

Immigration hypocrisy.

White nationalists of a more, shall we say, “anti-Semitic” streak often complain about Jewish attempts to infiltrate and influence the “movement” in a manner conducive to the Tribe.  That complaint is not the subject of today’s post, but, rather, a related issue: infiltration by Asiatics and by those Whites obsessed with promoting Asiatic interests.

Derbyshire, and his “Arctic Alliance” agenda, is well known, as is his reason for promoting such nonsense; one look at his family tells us all we need to know.  Alas, he is not alone.  The whole putrid ideology of “Human Bio Diversity” (HBD) is about promoting the interests of “high-IQ” Jews and Asians over that of Europeans, and we have so-called “race realist/racialist” meetings, organized by, and attended by, Whites, who label themselves as “Yellow Supremacist” (their words, not mine).  And there are more specific and recent examples to choose from.

We’ve had an individual calling itself “Chinese Nationalist Maiden” posting a diatribe over at Duchesne’s blog, calling for a Euro-Chinese nationalist alliance.  This same individual, now labeled as “Chinese Nationalist,” was promoting the same meme over at Counter-Currents(1).

Then we have the HBDer (2) Peter Frost, an anthropologist who originally posted at his Evo and Proud blog, but who is now part of the Jew Unz’ stable of anti-WN philo-Semitic White writers.  Frost has been banging the drum about the oh-so-serious problem of alien immigration into East Asian nations, for example, sub-Saharan African immigration into China, and the influx of Southeast Asians and others into South Korea. Ostensibly, Frost’s fascination with this issue is, as he states, due to the hope that the “push-back” against globalism and mass migration may start in these nations and could therefore benefit all nations, including those of the West, similarly threatened.  All well and good, but, given the well-known preferences and obsessions of the HBDers, one wonders whether the primary concern is with the East Asians themselves rather with those others who may benefit from Asiatic intransigence to fully accepting  the globalist agenda.

Although I may occasionally make snide remarks about sub-Saharan African women being the solution to China’s gender imbalance (remarks prompted by frustrations over the issue to be discussed next), I will say that, despite my negative views about Asiatics, I really do not want to see any civilized nation over-run by Negroes. But there is a problem here – the “Yellow Elephant in the room.”  That problem is Asian immigration into White nations.

For example, East Asian nations like China and South Korea rank high among the sources of immigration to the USA.  There is significant Chinese immigration to Canada and Australia, and there are even some “Chinatown” enclaves in Europe itself.  The Chinese are also infiltrating into the Russian Far East. If we include “Brown” Asians in the mix, then India is a leading source of immigrants to the USA and to other majority White nations.  Neither Ms. Maiden nor Dr. Frost feel it appropriate to discuss, much less denounce, the Asian invasion of White nations.  Indeed, one wonders about Ms. Maiden herself. Is someone who openly criticizes the communist regime of the PRC, which monitors and punishes Internet dissent, really living in and posting from that nation?  She could be from Taiwan, but I’m skeptical.  One sees the problem, I hope.  Not to put too fine a point on it, and not wanting to seem too harsh, but the reality is that I would be a bit more sympathetic to the plight of Asiatic loss of homogeneity if I didn’t have arrogant and pushy Asians in my face all the time. One would be more prone to speak out against, say, African immigration to China if one didn’t have to deal with Chinese immigration to America.  The fact is, charity begins at home, so I am more concerned about the migration of Asians to the West than I am about the migration of Africans into Asia.  As they say, “strong fences make good neighbors” and “familiarity breeds contempt” – therefore, any sort of Eurasian “Arctic Aliiance” is going to need to be minimally predicated on the repatriation of Asians out of the West.  Until that is seriously discussed, any talk about “alliances” is moot.


1. Interesting that the “Maiden” part was dropped at the latter site. Does he/she/it believe that the Counter-Currents crowd is less likely to listen to an ostensibly female voice, in contrast to the commentators at Duchesne’s website?

2. I’m tempted to say “dishonest HBDer," but isn’t that redundant?  For one example of many, in this case involving this individual, see this and then see this follow-up.

Friday, February 13, 2015

Chaos Theory

Western Destiny post.

Read here.

More on Advice for Young White Men


This was another excellent Johnson-Le Brun podcast.  I have already critiqued many of the ideas presented here.  A few further comments, some of which overlap with my past analysis.

I found the last part of the talk the section for which I had the most agreement.  We need collective action, we need tribalism, we need networking, we need reliability, and we need to eschew the defectives.  The problem with all of that is no one actually wants to do it: culling the anti-racist trolls, conspiracy-theorists, Aryans from Atlantis types from being taken seriously, from being allowed to comment on blog threads - that would be a small start, a tiny step, but no one wants even to do that. And the only folks I see trying to community build are the “neckbeard” types and you are not going to have fully functional communities with the “top 20%” with that leadership, more likely you’ll get the “bottom 10%.”  Also, the “ethnic affirmative action policy” of the “movement” needs to end, but that would necessitate jettisoning the whole Gunther-Pierce-Kemp sci-fi/fantasy school of racial thought, and the “movement” seems to have too much invested in those memes to make a clean break.

Other points:

As advertised, the talk is aimed at young White men.  Older folks will not gain anything very useful from this advice.

Unlike Brun, I am no fan of Greene’s work, which I find internally inconsistent, too abstract, and not realistic for many real-life situations.  I have already written on this in detail, so I need not repeat myself. It's real utility is to identify manipulative techniques of others (in that way it is useful in some real-life situations), but I would not use it as a primer for your own behavior.

Also, if we are to find niches to suit our strengths and personalities: some people are, by nature, introverted, highly moralistic, sarcastic, grouchy, etc.  There are indeed careers and activities well suited for such types, dismissing them as “Debbie Downers” is casually juvenile, particularly when such people can provide valuable insights and harsh truth-telling when such is required.  Rather a reliable and intelligent and productive pessimist than a cheerfully moronic and useless optimist.

Certainly, in most circumstances, one should not mix politics with work, in the sense of an offensive (in the military, not moral, sense) direct promotion of White nationalism.  But, in the name of “democratic multiculturalism,” there may be ways of “monkey wrenching” the System independent of openly declaring racialist views.  If you are being racially abused and discriminated against AND you are in a position to (relatively safely, even in some cases anonymously at first) protest against it, then do so.  You are not doing it as an open and declared opponent to multiculturalism, quite the contrary, you are basically challenging the multiculturalists to take their own rhetoric at face value and to take their ideology to its logical conclusion: everyone is obsessed with their “identity” and everyone is “discriminated against” and everyone “has a problem that needs to be solved.”  The point is: do not make yourself the problem, instead very patiently and very carefully spin your web so as to make the multiculturalists the problem.  Imagine: the high priests of diversity at “Company X” revealed as “hateful racist and sexist bigots!”  Of course, to be successful, one needs to have the “right touch,” extreme patience (it may take months or even years of slow and careful effort), one must be a clever counter-puncher, and one must have the sure instinct of how far one can go and when one should back off.  It’s not for everyone and not for every situation, but the same can be said of the Johnson-Le Brun advice. If your situation falls into the category in which “democratic multiculturalism” is possible, do so.

I wonder if some of Le Brun's comments on strategic thinking and cunning subterfuge was meant as an endorsement of Le Pen's mainstreaming; however, I think Le Brun would agree that the "proof the pudding" here is the outcome.  If Le Pen succeeds in genuinely advancing racial nationalism (even if indirectly) one could in part forgive (but not forget) some of her "transgressions;" however, in the absence of such success, then this "mainstreaming" would be a pragmatic failure in addition to being a moral disgrace.

In general, however, the Johnson-Le Brun advice is sound.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Gene Wolfe on Greek Genius

Food for thought.

In his 1990 essay, Secrets of the Greeks, author Gene Wolfe concludes:

Greece was, in short, so full of geniuses because it had no solitary geniuses. Each idea and every action had to withstand the probing questions of interested bystanders who could bring writers and philosophers, artists and architects, generals and statesmen to book. It made those people very careful, and it forced them to think. I recommend it to you, just as from time to time I recommend it to myself.

And I recommend it to the "movement" and to the HBDers. Imagine!  If the "movement" was full of activists who were careful and would think - actually think - it may well lose the scare quotes and become a genuine Movement.  And the HBDers, following the same precepts, can go from being pathetically dogmatic fraudsters to serious race scientists.  Not much chance of either happening.

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

In The News, 2/10/15

Thoughts for today.

Why we need democratic multiculturalism.  The System is banking on a smooth, relatively painless genocide of Whites, peaceful race replacement with little polarization, as Whites cheerfully assist and applaud their own dispossession.  It's imperative we "monkey wrench" multiculturalism, get involved in a pro-White manner, using the methods discussed here previously.  We need chaos and more chaos. Racial chaos will breed polarization, distrust, alienation, and balkanization.

Of course, Whites are so useless, one wonders if they can muster the will to defend their rights even in the context of the multicultural system.  This photo essentially represents the White race of today.

Individuals whose emails to Bush were revealed should sue.

East Asians organizing "people of color" anti-White protests in Minnesota. These are the wages of HBD. Again and again, I call for a future White ethnostate to execute the HBDers for race treason.

A Manichean Mindset

Pan-Europeanism vs. Ethnonationalism.

Re: the recent debate at Counter Currents, re: "Grandiose nationalism" (political Pan-Europeanism) vs. "Ethnonationalism" (political petty nationalism), I object to the Manichean mindset that seems always present in "movement" discourse. Things are always black/white, yes/no, A or B (but never C), etc.

Take a German racial nationalist.  Should this person have some strictly German ethnic concerns? Yes, of course.  Should this person also have concerns on the racial/civilizational level?  Yes, as well. Are these two layers of interests, these two sets of concerns, always in conflict?  No.  In the cases when they are in conflict, is this an insurmountable problem?  I do not believe so. Is conflict between the two sets of interests always to be resolved in favor of the same side (whichever that may be)?  No, I do not believe that is necessary.  When conflicts exist between different narrow European ethnonationalist interests, can compromise win out?  I hope that would be so.  Is such compromise more likely if the racial nationalists of each European ethny are as much pan-European as they are ethnonationalist?  I would think so.

The lower masses may be currently incapable of handling both concepts at the same time, but, on the other hand, let's not sell White intellect short.  This is the race that put a man on the moon, after all. With respect to leadership, obviously one would expect the ability to balance both concepts - the broader and narrower interests.

However, given the sordid history of ethnonationalism and fratricidal conflict, one must be very careful not to "feed the dragon" too much.  There seems to be still too much of this reflexive, default narrow tribalism, especially in Europe, and it does not need to be encouraged.  Don't worry, it is there. The danger is - and shall be at least in the foreseeable future - too much ethnonationalism, not too little.  If you want a proper balance, you need a bit more of encouragement of the big picture, the big canvas.  The small canvas mindset will always be there, running in the background.  It's the same with the individualism vs. collectivism spectrum in Europeans. Do we really need to encourage individualism at this point?  Should we denounce collectivism, when our problems are in part due to insufficient collectivist feeling?  If Whites have a natural tendency toward individualism, and that is becoming pathological, atomizing Whites, should we justify even more individualism? Should we justify more universalist altruism?  What individualism and universalist altruism are to Whites on an individual basis, is what ethnonationalism is on a group basis.  It's an inner tendency that has gone too far, that is exploited by our opponents, it is not something that needs further development, it is the default pathway and we in fact need a bit less of it, not more.

This Is Probably True

Greek endgame.

From the comments of the link I posted yesterday (spelling corrected):

Actually what is holding this back more has to do with NATO and the Zionistic powers than simply Turkey.

The plan our enemies have is to tie the loans to the promise of letting them use our natural resources as collateral. They know the loans cannot be paid back.

Eventually, they want to replace the Greeks with various races of pakistanis,afghans and africans who will become the slaves and hotel workers. They can not only pay these people less, but it eliminates any possibility of them losing Greece and it’s resources to a nationalist uprising.

They want to turn it into a banana nigger country where Germans and Brits will be served drinks by these monkeys and the Jews will handle all the draining of the resources in Greece.

Monday, February 9, 2015

Golden Dawn Update, 2/9/15

Some people speaking up for what's right.

I'll give Griffin credit here for speaking up for what is right; Fiore as well.  They contrast to the despicable Marine Le Pen, siding with the forces persecuting the Golden Dawn movement.  Le Pen had better hope she gets elected, governs as a hard nationalist, and triggers a nationalist chain reaction throughout Europe - because that would be the only practical (not moral) justification for her contemptible behavior.

Otherwise, if it's all for naught, I doubt hardcore nationalists would ever forgive, much less forget, what she has done.

Sunday, February 8, 2015

The Chinese Threat

Long term view of the Yellow Peril.

In contrast to racial nationalists who casually dismiss the central importance of China as a fundamental threat to the West, I note this important article.

Of the article itself, I have little to add, it is self-explanatory and detailing its contents would be superfluous.  I do urge readers of this blog to read that article and ponder it carefully.

What I would like to comment on are China's Western "enablers" and subtle Chinese methods of distracting the West from the looming threat.

First, this guy Pillsbury should be executed for treason, after, of course, a proper trial. His "mea culpa book" is sufficient confession; regardless of whether it was done out of stupidity and naivete or from malice is irrelevant: the damage has been done. What?  He should enjoy a comfortable retirement and derive proceeds from book sales?

Then we have all the people on the "Right" who worship at the altar of China and who intentionally turn a blind eye to the Chinese threat.  This includes conservatives enamoured of the "model minority" in the USA and thus project this fetish toward the Chinese state.  We have all those who call for more Chinese immigration to America, more students, more STEM workers, more H-1B visas - when it is clear this is a tactic to infiltrate America and steal our technology.

Then we have the traitors at the periphery of the "movement" - the HBDers and their Asian-IQ fetish. At my other blog, I have been advocating that a future White ethnostate put the (White) HBDers on trial for race treason and then execute them, and this article here underscores the necessity of that.

Then we have the sexual fetish of White beta/omega males for Asian (especially Chinese) women, including HBDers, conservatives, and others on the Right.  I note that a number of instances of Chinese spying on America have been characterized by female Chinese agents seducing White men. The broader "Yellow Fever" sexual fetish is a more generalized approach: not for the specific goal of spying, but for the more overarching goal of infiltrating American society and influencing the White cognitive elite in the bedroom.  Thus, we have the Derbyshire types advocating an "Arctic Alliance" - an alliance with the same race that has been tricking us for decades and bleeding us dry economically, technologically, and strategically.  Men will do anything for sex it seems, including selling our their race and civilization.  And now we have Chinese - females of course, since they know the White man's weakness - infiltrating the "movement" itself, "Chinese Nationalist Maidens" promoting intra-White division and suggesting we should get funding from a rich Chinese sugar daddy.

The entire White race, particularly men, and including the Right, has some sort of self-destructive fetishistic fixation on the Chinese and other Asiatics and I hope it ends soon before they end the West.

Saturday, February 7, 2015

New H-1B Idea

An interesting expansion.

I don't know - why should such visas always be for the STEM field?  Here's a fresh idea: H-1B visas for lawyers, CEOs, media executives and personnel, politicians, economists, conservative think tank staff, etc. Why, if that was the case, I'd guarantee that the H-1B enthusiasm evaporates overnight.

Why shouldn't we outsource our political class to foreigners? They couldn't be any more destructive than what we have now.

Friday, February 6, 2015

Updated Complete Disagreement

I say no.

I disagree with this essay.  First, why should anyone take the incoherent rambling of von Hoffmeister seriously?  On the one hand, he writes lunatic pan-mixia proposals for Lowell's book, on the other hand, he promotes ultra-Nordicist works like that Raciology book produced by a Russian wanna-be-German. Does he have any overarching ideology, or is it just a series of romantically radical poses? Spencer is a bit more sound, but after the Hungary fiasco, these aren't exactly the kinds of folks who should be representing the "grandiose" worldview.

In his various works, Yockey specifically stated that the regions of the Imperium could have full local autonomy and Lowell has stated similarly in his works.  One could have both the narrow nationalism and ethnocultural preservation, as well as an overarching Euro-Imperium dealing with "High Politics" issues: foreign affairs and defense, scientific progress, High Culture, space exploration, etc.

One can look at the pathetic infighting of European euronationalists, who have learned nothing after two world wars that wrecked the White world, and see all the evidence you need that some sort of political unification is required - one that is sufficiently decentralized to prevent the problems inherent in the complaints of the anti-grandiose crowd.

Now, I'll answer a few specific excerpts:

The threat of non-white blocs should not be exaggerated. France, the UK, or Russia alone are militarily strong enough to prevail against anything that Africa, India, or the Muslim world can throw at us — provided, of course, that whites are again morally strong enough to take their own side in a fight. A simple alliance of European states would be able to deter any Chinese aggression. Thus a defensive alliance between European states would be sufficient to preserve Europe from all outside forces, whether they be armed powers or stateless masses of refugees and immigrants.

It’s curious how some blithely dismiss the threat from, say, China.  I’m no fan of the Chinese, but let’s be realistic. They are an intelligent (albeit not creative) and disciplined people, they hate Whites (that’s the truth, despite what miscegenating nerds and their dreams of an “Arctic Alliance” may tell you), they have advanced technology and nuclear weapons, a strong economy, and a massive population – hundreds of millions more Chinese than all the peoples of Europe combined.  India – with an equally massive population and nuclear weapons – has a much lower quality population, but is still a threat.  As regards nuclear deterrents, yes, Whites have them – but would they use them knowing the other side would retaliate?  And the other side has a greater capacity to sacrifice population in any such exchange.  Why should we tempt them to undertake such adventures by presenting to them a fractured and disunited White world?  And what happens if these two Asian giants decide to end their feud and ally against the hated White man?  Well, you can say that we need to use diplomacy to prevent that from happening.  Very well.  But don’t you think they will be using diplomacy against us?

Yes, indeed, how will “paper treaties” and/or ad hoc defensive alliances hold up against, say, Chinese pressure? If the Chinese decide they want Russian territory, including European Russia west of the Urals, maybe Ukraine and Poland too, they can go to the nations of Western Europe with the Carrot and the Stick.  The Stick is obvious, as explained above. The Carrot: a non-aggression pact and alliance, economic and trade concessions, exchange of technology, and maybe a steady stream of Chinese females for the socially awkward “Derb” types – you know, to cement the “Arctic Alliance.”   They can ask the ethnonationalists of London, Paris, Berlin, and Rome: “Why die for Warsaw, Kiev, and Moscow?”  Why indeed?

And as regards an “equivalent to NATO” – the pathetic spectacle of opposition to Russian aggression to Ukraine should give one pause.  Yes, Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but strict guarantees were given to compensate for Ukrainian nuclear disarmament.  I’ll also be curious to see what sort of enthusiasm for armed conflict will exist if Russia starts bullying actual NATO states such as in the Baltics.  When “push comes to shove” – with “shove” backed up by nuclear weapons - I don’t think these “alliances” between “sovereign states” will be worth the paper they are printed on. In contrast, if all territories are part of the same overarching political unit, then an attack against any part is, by definition, an attack against all – not by treaty, but by reality, the same as an attack against Kentucky is also an attack against Wyoming, in contrast as how an attack against Latvia is not the same as an attack against the UK or Germany.

Grandiose nationalists oppose anti-EU sentiment because, they dream, nationalists might actually “take over” the EU someday.

That would be an honest statement if the sentence began with “Some.”  Yes, I know Lowell and others think this way, but I for one have always been vehemently against the EU.

The answer is to build upon the pan-European consciousness that already exists in the leadership cadres of “petty” nationalist groups across Europe.

Building nationalism upon petty ethnonationalism is not going to yield any “pan-European consciousness.”  Look at the reality on the ground. Ethnonationalists in Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are at each other’s throats (I won’t even mention the Serbs and Croats).  You have folks in the BNP, as well as Fraser in Australia, who don’t want anything to do with a general “White” group, and in some cases deny it exists.  German and Polish nationalists squabble over territory.  There’s division in Spain, Italy, Belgium, and elsewhere.  There’s the Scots and the English (never mind the Irish).  Russians and Ukrainians obviously get along real well.  Certainly, people should have the right to break away to form more homogeneous units, but even Lowell supports that, an Imperium of regions.  So, that’s not the issue. The issue is one of mentality and vision.  You can’t make the “silk purse” of pan-European consciousness out of the “sow’s ear” of squabbling, animus-filled ethnonationalism.  Where's that consciousness in the leadership cadres of ethnonationalist European groups?  Who displays it?  Certainly not the top leaders who command our attention.

The ethnonationalists had their day and gave us two world wars and wrecked our civilization. The anti-nationalist globalists rule now and are wrecking our blood and soil.  Maybe we can give the “grandiose nationalists” a shot at it?  Should we condemn them from the outset?

Advice for Young White Men

Generally sound.

In general, I approve of this essay by Le Brun.  Given that social pricing is one of the System's most powerful weapons - at least here in America - any sort of practical advice as to how to evade its effects is helpful.  Of course, as the title suggests, this advice is targeted to younger White men who are more or else starting out, not for those who are older and for who "that ship has sailed."  

Of course, in addition to this advice, and of use for Whites of all ages, is to build socioeconomic structures that can protect our folk in times of stress (including social pricing).  The two approaches can be complementary: Whites who use Le Brun's advice can first make themselves more impregnable, and then link up with others to begin to form a network.

The only real issue I see with the essay is the promotion of Greene's book.  Now, if Le Brun is, as is probable from my reading of the essay, suggesting that Greene's book is a useful outline to learn how others may try to manipulate you, all well and good. But I would be hesitant to recommend it as any sort of serious blueprint for self-actualization, based on my reading. This has nothing at all to do with "moral" concerns.  I care not about that, as my own moral standards differ fundamentally from that of the general society. Instead, I have some practical and intellectual objections. Three basic problems:

1. A fraction of the suggestions in the book are fundamentally contradictory to other suggestions in the same book.  The lack of internal consistency turned me off to the author; the book reads like a crude first draft, one never proofed for consistency, style, etc.

2. If a person tries to follow the book's precepts as if it were an instruction manual (essentially, the book's tone), I think their efforts and agenda will be a bit too transparent for their more intelligent colleagues and competitors.  Fooling the rubes and masses is one thing; fooling those who are more relevant to "politics" is another.  Amusingly, I once knew a fellow who was enacting the book's instructions (I actually discovered he was reading the book at the time; he left a copy where an observant individual could see. A paranoid person may say he did that on purpose as a form of deep manipulation; I believe he was just careless).  His transparency and rigidness left him open to counter-manipulation, which afforded to me many days of amusement.  Eventually, the situation evolved to one in which mutual self-interest was discovered (one of the book's pieces of advice that are sound), and further "games" became superfluous. A warning: just because those in your circle seem to be ensnared in your web of "48 powers" doesn't mean that at least one of them isn't just "giving you enough rope" and waiting for you to slip up. Or is just "jerking you around" for their own agenda or amusement.

Which leads to a related objection: humans being humans, even a relatively successful "politician" will muck things up, and when things go off script, it can be messy.  Master politician Bill Clinton couldn't keep his pants on. Nixon was paranoid and self-destructive.  Eschewing the path of pure sociopathy is not for "moral" purposes - it is wise as well.  Following the precepts of the book will create for its disciple dedicated enemies, waiting for the inevitable slip-up.  One needs to be able to think on their feet and have an instinctive feel for the possibilities; when the inevitable slip-up occurs, following Greene's script may not help.

3. Some of Greene's advice is highly context dependent.  During Stalin's purges (to use an extreme example), drawing attention to yourself and taking credit for the actions of subordinates would likely lead to a bullet in the base of the neck, while riding out the storm in relative isolation would be more prudent (to a paranoid like Stalin, the fact that a person would have a cohort of friends/supporters would make them more, not less, likely targets of persecution, since they would be more likely competitors).  At a more mundane level, there can sometimes be advantages to crafty isolation, combined with clever counter-punching.  At times, one can fake an emotional response, in order to draw out an opponent.  Many times, creating chaos (especially if done anonymously or with plausible deniability) is useful: stir things up and sit back and watch reactions of friends and foes alike.

I've seen many people using Greene's tactics (not saying they necessarily read the book like the case discussed above, but that they use some of the tactics Greene describes), have temporary success, but then it backfires for the reasons I discuss here.

I'll refrain from going to much into the ad hominem direction, but one can ask why Greene hasn't parlayed his knowledge of power into greater personal success, and why he finds it necessary to share the knowledge with others (for pay, as I assume he has earned money from the book), rather than rising up to high political office, CEO, etc.

Thursday, February 5, 2015

Odds and Ends, 2/5/15

Two stories from today.

The next time some "conservative Republican" starts talking about our great need for "highly-skilled labor" because we have a "STEM worker shortage" and that we need more H-1B workers to "fill the gap" please remember this story.  Now, it's quite understandable that these hate-filled Asiatics want to displace the White man; after all, the Asian is the deadly enemy of the European. But, the fact that White politicians are aiding and abetting this invasion is something that needs to be carefully considered, and long remembered.

Then, it seems like Putin must have had his MMR vaccines as a youth.  See what happens when you inject "god knows what" into your veins?

Seriously though, this seems to be nothing more than some juvenile psy-ops against Trad Vlad.  Could a socially inept Asperger's case rise to the pinnacle of world power, and maintain his position against his rivals, at home and abroad?  I'm no fan of Vlad, but it's obvious that he's an intelligent and competent leader (I just despite his leftist, anti-White, multiculturalist politics).

What does America have?  Our current President is a mediocre mulatto who cannot give a speech without a teleprompter, and who does the "pose" whenever possible - you know that thing he does, with his chin lifted up and gazing into the distance.  The President before him was a White man who was (reasonably) compared to a chimpanzee.  Before that was "White trash" getting fellated by a Jewess in the White House.  And they talk about Putin?