Sunday, January 31, 2016

Some Advice To Phil Anselmo

Note to a wanna-be Nutzi.

Dear Phil, 

If you are going to apologize for doing something, then please do not do it to begin with. 

Thank you.

All White men on Earth.

Walter Oleg Gets It Right

A rare rational Counter-Currents commentator

“Squeezing all of Europe into one political/financial/military organization creates unnecessary tensions which could be avoided in a looser and less homogeneous association.” (leon) 
But without some such union the possibility of nationalist wars between European states increases. It would be a tragedy if after Europe was freed of the globalist yoke, it started warring internally. There’s a balance that must be found between complete sovereignty and total integration. 
I realize this is blasphemy to some White Nationalists, but I believe there is something beyond “the Jews” in the world that are just as much the enemies of Euro-kind (and all humans) than the Jews could ever be. Even after the Jewish power structure is neutralized, we must be watchful of forces manipulating nationalist energies against ourselves or using us to try to conquer the non-White world. 
One of the keys to maintaining harmony between Europe’s nations will be collective projects. The exploration and colonization of space is the major one. The other is environmental clean up projects of the earth (like the Pacific garbage patch). Another would be a major effort to grow only organic foods or as near as possible to organic foods while outlawing GMOs. 
But our major “great work” or responsibility is the cultivation of better people. And when I say “better people” I’m talking about bringing out the most positive character traits and virtues of the people (honor, humility, honesty, selflessness, discipline, manners, confidence, patience, inner peace, graciousness, appreciation of high culture, etc.). These character traits are what matters most. 
We could build an intergalactic empire, but if the people are selfish, materialistic, egocentric, nervous, envious, rapacious, duplicitous, etc then it could be potentially extremely dangerous. Even before we can start exploring the universe I think we need a few generations socialized under a “regimen of virtue.” 
But back to the original point. We must find a way to maintain as much sovereignty as possible while having an apparatus in place that would prevent inter-Euro conflicts.

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Ethnonationalism vs. The Pan-European Super-State

Why do folks pretend an alternative to this either/or hasn't already been proposed?

The recent Johnson-Spencer dust-up, and the subsequent breathless comments from the peanut gallery commentariat at Counter-Currents, is in a bizarre way fascinating, since this issue has already been discussed by Francis Parker Yockey, Norman Lowell, and I.

The answer to the question: Ethnonationalism or Imperium? - is, simply, both. 

A rough analogy would be the pre-Civil War America where a federal structure presided over states that had some degree of autonomy, real differences, and of course, there were strong regional distinctions in culture and the way of life. 

To avoid civil wars, Jackson vs. Calhoun stand-offs and creeping centralization, obviously one would not copy the flawed American model. I'm talking about general principle, rather than exact mechanism. 

A Europe of individual completely independent states brought us to this sorry mess through the two world wars, that shattered the White World and led to the current EU fraud. On the other hand, that fraud shows us the dangers of mindless homogenizing centralization. 

If Whites are the "superior race," then this would be a problem that is solvable, no? I mean, a people that racialists say will "one day reach the stars" should be able to properly arrange a balanced polity. shouldn't they? The question is whether we have the will to do so.

An Ethnonationalist Idiot

Behold an idiot.

An idiot commentator at Counter-Currents states:

Northern Europeans are better than Mediterraneans at creating wealth. Northern Euros aren’t going to want to prop them up.
Rephrased to be accurate:

Currently, Northern Europeans are better than Southern Europeans at creating wealth. Northern Euros aren’t going to want to prop them up.
There is no such thing as "Mediterraneans."

Now, comments such as those fall into the category of the Professor Michael Hart school of racial nationalism.  Hart envisions an American White Separatist (sic) State that is essentially exactly the same as the current America (including being multiracial!) except that it would have no Negroes. Retards like the above commentator envision a White Imperium exactly like the current Europe except that the aliens would be gone and nationalists would be in charge.

Well, that's not what I have in mind.

Any limited amount of internal national sovereignty would be predicated on each nation and people pulling their weight - economically, militarily, culturally, etc.  No one is going to "prop up" anyone else.  If anyone fails in their obligations, they lose their sovereignty until such time that they are straightened out, and during that period they will be run by the external centralized state.

But wait, some would say, these differences in performance are innate biological differences.  What can you do?  To the extent they are innate and biological (some of it is cultural, but then, what creates culture?), then this must be changed as well.  Eugenics is required.  The more degenerate any European stock is, the more dire need it is of the proper ruthless culling and selection for improvement.  Lazy, hedonistic, unproductive "Meds" will have no place in any Imperium; those types will be selected against in favor of their more productive co-ethnics.  The same goes for "Nords" like Merkel and those crying for joy at the sight of arriving refugees.  

Eugenics is compatible with EGI, as Salter clearly stated that sub-optimal alleles should be replaced to boost fitness of the overall distinctive genome.

Why does anyone believe that an Imperium is going to tolerate national incompetence or liberal race cuckery?

Friday, January 29, 2016

Concentric Nationalism

Different levels of activism.

Following up on comments about a Counter-Currents podcast, I’d like to tie those comments in to a previous analysis of genetic interests across various degrees of ethnic relatedness. Note that the TOQ piece is essentially an extension of Salter’s work. In On Genetic Interests, Salter’s Fig. 6.1 shows scenarios of the various approaches to divide up investment in genetic interests along a continuum of Self-Offspring-Ethny-Humanity.  However, just as “offspring” can be made more descriptive by actually distinguishing between various gradations of extended family, so can “ethny” be more descriptive by distinguishing between levels of ethnic and racial gradations.  If Helmut is a Bavarian, what is his ethny?  Bavarian?  German? Germanic? Nordic or Alpine (whatever the case may be)?  Northern European?  Northwest European?  Central or Northcentral European?  Western European?  European?  Caucasian?  What?

Well, it depends on perspective.  Given the right context, his ethny can be any and/or all of those listed above.  Given, however, the cultural aspects involved (which directly affect genetic interests through influencing sociopolitical, military, historical, economic, and demographic decisions and activities), including the “clash of civilizations,” and given that it, really, are only European populations that are threatened (of those listed above), it would seem that the reasonable outer-limit for Helmut’s ethny would be “European” – with an ethny range of Bavarian-European for this hypothetical ethnic German.

Let’s consider again the Hagberg case.  I wrote:
We see a young Swedish nationalist who defines himself as a Scandinavian nationalist, who states "the European people are our brothers," who travels around Europe, who meets with and learns from nationalists in places as varied as France, Italy, Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states, and who understands that the problem is wider than that of any one European nation or area, and needs to be resolved at the level of Europe as a whole.

We can consider what Hagberg gains from his attitude.  He is able, as he explicitly states, to learn from European activists, and find out what worked for them and what did not.  This enables him to improve his activity in his own nation.  He may be able to give advice to these other people, and observe how approaches developed in Sweden work, or do not work, in other European nations.  He makes like-minded friends and allies who may be in a position to offer much-needed assistance to Hagberg and to Nordic Youth at some point in the future (and, of course, vice versa).  There is sharing of all sorts of information, warnings, and covert help, which could make a “life or death” difference to struggling racial nationalist dissidents.  There is the advantage of spreading memes and discussing and debating them, to strengthen one’s arguments and to evolve a more powerful position. Therefore, we see advantages gained by pooling ideas, assistance, and resources.  There is the morale boost in knowing one has comrades and supporters in other lands. If nationalists come to power in these other lands, they may be in a position to offer more concrete, large-scale support, or even just abstaining from interference – “liberal multicultural democracies” would no doubt attempt to crush any Swedish/Scandinavian nationalist government, while other nationalist governments would not.  Further, nationalist European governments may agree to the repatriation of any of their co-ethnics living in Sweden, if such is desired by Swedish nationalists.  As Hagberg states, the problems in Europe ultimately need to be solved at the broad European level, it won’t work in only one nation alone.  A one-nation-only solution is unstable and would be targeted for destruction by all the globalists still in power.  If nationalists come to power in one nation, then they must make it a priority to spread their good fortune, if for no other reason than self-preservation.  Of course, on the ultimate interest scale, Hagberg shares genetic interests – in the concentric manner – with other Europeans, so helping these others rebounds to one’s genetic interest.  On the proximate level, there is of course untold value in preserving Western High Culture and protecting the West from “the Rest.”

And what does Hagberg lose from his attitude?  Practically speaking, nothing.  It’s all gain and no loss.  It’s not like he is abandoning work in his own nation to help others.  The only “negative” would be that “movement” fetishists may criticize him for thinking that Europe exists to the East of Berlin and to the South of Vienna; if so, such criticism is a strong indication that Hagberg is doing something right.  Again, it’s all gain and no loss. 

More reading on related topics can be found here.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Voice of Europe: Kai Murros, 1/28/16

Good video.

I wish I could share his optimism; we'll see what happens.

Are European Men Feminized?

It sure seems that way.

The fact that a woman needs to be the one to speak the truth is more evidence supporting her thesis.

Now, the "game" crowd will offer the riposte that if women want men to defend them ("white knighting"), then the women need to act like more traditional feminine women, and not as man-hating feminist harridans, with colored-loving, alpha male-slavering, slut behavior.

There's some truth to that riposte, but at some point someone needs to make a stand, and it has to be men.  Their stand can be in defense of race and civilization, even if they believe that their woman folk are too degraded to be worth the effort. Indeed, the two go together: saving race and civilization by reasserting Western Male values will have a salutary effect on female attitudes and behaviors.

In other words, manjaw feminists cannot be used as an excuse to do nothing and just "sit poolside." By doing the right thing, the manjaws can be put into their proper place (preferably masked and out of sight) and a bright new day can dawn for the West.

But, guys, wearing miniskirts in public (or private, for that matter) just won't get it done.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

European Madness

You just can't make this stuff up.

A Danish teenager who was sexually assaulted near a migrant asylum centre has been told she will be prosecuted after using pepper spray to fend off her attacker. The 17-year-old told police she was targeted in the coastal town of Sonderborg by an English-speaking man, who knocked her to the ground and tried to undress her…However, as it is illegal to use pepper spray, the teenage girl is set to face charges. It is likely she will face a 500 Krone (£50) fine Local police spokesman Knud Kirsten told TV Syd: ‘It is illegal to possess and use pepper spray, so she will likely to be charged for that.’ The man who attacked the girl fled from the scene and has not yet been charged. It is unclear if the man was an asylum seeker or refugee.

It's difficult to keep pace with the hyper-masochistic worm-like weakness and pathetic inferiority of the festering biomass known as "the White race." If I had written several days ago a scenario in which a teen-aged European girl would be criminally charged for defending herself from a colored immigrant would-be rapist, while the attacker is not charged, the causal reader would scoff and say, "there's Sallis acting like a hyperbolic lunatic again." But, alas, it is all too true.

Once again I make the following scientifically accurate statement: From the objective standpoint of biological fitness, a single maggot eating its way through a pile of dog feces is infinitely superior to the entire White race, since the maggot acts to boost its fitness, while Whites act to suppress theirs.

Good NPI Video

Good work by Spencer.

Saturday, January 23, 2016

The European People Are Our Brothers

One of Greg Johnson's best podcasts.

First, I want to congratulate Johnson and Hagberg for a fine and informative interview.

Second, I'd like to point out to Hagberg or any Swedish readers that there is a Swedish language EGI essay here.  However, I am sure that native Swedish speakers can make a better translation and I would encourage them to do so.

Third, I'd like to point out how Hagberg and Nordic Youth represents an embodiment of exactly the sort of pan-European cooperation I've been preaching for the past fifteen years. Thus, we see no incompatibility between ethnonationalism or subracialism on the one hand, and pan-Europeanism on the other.  There is a ethnonationalist/subracialist core that then extends to a broader pan-Europeanism.

We see a young Swedish nationalist who defines himself as a Scandinavian nationalist, who states "the European people are our brothers," who travels around Europe, who meets with and learns from nationalists in places as varied as France, Italy, Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states, and who understands that the problem is wider than that of any one European nation or area, and needs to be resolved at the level of Europe as a whole.

Now, when I have said exactly that, I have been vilified and critiqued, with accusations of some sort of dastardly agenda, or the idea that people could have overlapping allegiances was considered "the most ridiculous thing I've ever read" (by an anti-racist troll of uncertain, possibly NEC, ancestry).

And yet, here we see a young Swede actualizing those concepts into reality, interacting with other European nationalists doing the exact same thing.  In contrast, it's "movement" fetishist keyboard warriors, with their dogmatic obsessions, who criticize the common sense that real world activists find useful and rational and helpful to their cause.

Is National Review All Wrong About White America's Savior?

No, they are not.

Let's look at the core of the argument that is relevant to race and culture. Emphasis added:

His signature issue is concern over immigration–from Latin America but also, after Paris and San Bernardino, from the Middle East. He has exploited the yawning gap between elite opinion in both parties and the public on the issue, and feasted on the discontent over a government that can’t be bothered to enforce its own laws no matter how many times it says it will (President Obama has dispensed even with the pretense). But even on immigration, Trump often makes no sense and can’t be relied upon. A few short years ago, he was criticizing Mitt Romney for having the temerity to propose “self-deportation,” or the entirely reasonable policy of reducing the illegal population through attrition while enforcing the nation’s laws. Now, Trump is a hawk’s hawk. 
He pledges to build a wall along the southern border and to make Mexico pay for it. We need more fencing at the border, but the promise to make Mexico pay for it is silly bluster. Trump says he will put a big door in his beautiful wall, an implicit endorsement of the dismayingly conventional view that current levels of legal immigration are fine. 
Trump seems unaware that a major contribution of his own written immigration plan is to question the economic impact of legal immigration and to call for reform of the H-1B–visa program. Indeed, in one Republican debate he clearly had no idea what’s in that plan and advocated increased legal immigration, which is completely at odds with it. These are not the meanderings of someone with well-informed, deeply held views on the topic. 
As for illegal immigration, Trump pledges to deport the 11 million illegals here in the United States, a herculean administrative and logistical task beyond the capacity of the federal government. Trump piles on the absurdity by saying he would re-import many of the illegal immigrants once they had been deported, which makes his policy a poorly disguised amnesty (and a version of a similarly idiotic idea that appeared in one of Washington’s periodic “comprehensive” immigration reforms). This plan wouldn’t survive its first contact with reality.

Donald Trump: ignorant buffoon. Donald Trump: racial liberal. Donald Trump: fan of non-White legal immigration.

Racialist supporters of Trump: affirmative action recipients whose leadership roles wouldn't stand a chance in an open marketplace of ideas sans ethnic preferences.

Idea that Trump is the last hope of White America: absolutely ludicrous.

HOWEVER: I still advocate (at least as of today) voting for Trump, for reasons outlined in previous posts. There is a public perception of him as a White supremacist anti-immigrant proto-fascist hater. Now, that perception says more about how far to the left America has drifted, rather than being any sort of reasonable description of Trump himself. Nevertheless, the perception exists, and it must be exploited instrumentally to increase balkanization in America.

The objective is to increase the following in America: balkanization, distrust and hatred across racial and cultural/civilizational lines, alienation, "bowling alone," chaos, disregard for "making the system work," cynicism, inter-group conflict, despair, lack of confidence for the future of America, anger toward political correctness, hatred for the Establishment, acceptance of far-Right memes, acceptance of radical measures, hostility toward diversity, infiltration of multiculturalism for pro-majority purposes, group identity politics, inability of different types of people to work together, societal dysfunction, intolerance of all sorts.

In my opinion, the perception of Trump, coupled to his continued success, promotes all those good things. Therefore, despite the fact that he is a racially liberal ignorant buffoon: Trump 2016!

What If Hillary Is Not Indicted?

More chaos on the horizon?

The most obvious part is that the rule of law will have, for all intents and purposes, ended in the United States. Equal justice flew out the window. How does the public react to that? A good portion of it will roll over, but a certain percentage will not. Their reactions will be contingent on a number of things -- whether Clinton is elected anyway (unlikely at this point, but possible), the steadfastness of opposition politicians and media, etc. 
But in the final analysis, a democracy cannot exist without the consent of the governed. For that percentage in opposition, consent will have broken down pretty much completely. Then what? Civil war? That's perhaps a bit excessive, but civil wars can be of various types and evolve in different ways. All kinds of things could break down, which could result in anything from general disobedience to the law to mass tax refusal. Millions would no longer respect the system. 
Loretta Lynch, Obama, et al, are actually facing a giant tinderbox, whether they know it or not. This is not your average Yogi Berra fork in the road. People fixate these days on the Black Lives Matter movement or on "social justice" activism on campus that is dominated by self-described "progressives" appalled by "microagressions" and such like. But what if the American heartland rebels? Left-wing rebellion in our culture has always been dependent on the center holding; it's a kind of play rebellion, college kids taking over a park while daddy pays their allowance. But suppose daddy started to rebel? That would be, as the saying goes, a whole other ball of wax.

Friday, January 22, 2016

Three Reasons to Vote for Trump

Hold your nose and vote for the ignorant fraud.

Readers of this blog know I am highly skeptical of the Jew-connected, Negrophilic, affirmative action-loving, "man on white horse" savior of White America, Donald Trump.

I see him as an American Putin - superficial aspects appealing to a hero-worshiping far-Right concealing inner convictions that are anathema to that same far-Right.

Nevertheless. I would promote folks voting for Trump for reasons also previous explained here - that the (mistaken) public perception of Trump as a far-Right hater means that increased Trumpian success destabilizes the System and promotes chaos and racial-cultural-social balkanization.  

Here are three articles supporting that view; three reasons to vote for Trump:

National Review cuckservatives denounce Trump.

Hollywood degenerates somehow believe Trump supporters care what the Left "thinks."

Putting aside Buchanan's wrong-headed embrace of a reactionary worldview, his essay is the most important, as he predicts, as I have here at this blog, that the Right Populist phenomenon will not end with Der Trumpening.  It is only the beginning.  Davos, cuckservatives, and the Hollywood Left can cry all they wish, but Trump has let the genie out of the bottle or, if you prefer, the toothpaste is out of the tube and cannot be put back in.

And, by the way, the Davos and National Review reactions underscore why conservatism, free-trade, and the whole mainstream Right must be utterly destroyed.

What we need is ultra-radical pan-European national socialism, not "capital gains tax cuts" or whatever other nonsense cuckservative mewling faggots believe is "political red meat" these days.

That Deep Chess Game Continues!

Cunning Trad Vlad fooling everyone!

The Russian President added that the situation of Russian Jews was currently the best of any place in Europe. 
This would be far from the first time that Putin has made such comments at a Jewish gathering. In July of 2014 he thanked a gathering of prominent Israeli and European rabbis for what he categorized as their “help in Russia’s fight against the revival of Nazism.” In fact, Putin’s magnanimous offer was the latest gambit in the contentious leveraging of the issue of anti-Semitism in the continuing Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

Why, if we all didn't know better, one would think that Putin was a pro-Jewish, anti-national socialist, anti-racist, multiculturalist.

But that couldn't be right! After all, Der Movement worships his bare-chestedness, so it must all be part of that really, really, really deep chess game.


Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Europe Is An Identity

European Identity.

Last Hope For White America?

More lack of foresight from "movement" "leadership."

A common theme this electoral cycle is for some in the "movement," including "leaders," to claim that Trump's candidacy is the "last hope for White America."

In my opinion that is an extremely short-sighted and irresponsible thing to say, for two reasons.

First, as I've already discussed here, it is more of the "man on white horse" syndrome, a search for quick-fix saviors, reading into people what they are not, raising unreasonable expectations, and setting activists up for the inevitable disappointment.

Whatever his virtues, Trump is an old man with no political experience, a man who not so long ago was liberal on immigration (the Trump who criticized Romney on "self-deportation" in 2012 would be considered a "cuckservative" by today's standards) and who apparently is still liberal about affirmative action today.  Sure, I say "vote for Trump" in order to destabilize the System, but let's be realistic.  

One can argue that there is balkanization benefit for some White racialists to openly support Trump. The more successful Trump is while at the same time being "linked to White supremacism" then the more this increases racial distrust and chaos in America - all good things.  Therefore, racialists need to toe a fine line with Trump - support him sufficiently so as to make the public associate Trump with a pro-White attitude, but not so much support that it lessens Trump's electability.  From the standpoint of optimal balkanization, an equilibrium needs to be achieved of just the right amount of far-Right support, so as to create the public perception of a politically successful "hater."

But that's perception.  To actually state to activists that Trump is "the last hope of White America" goes too far.  It invests too much into the man, and it is not necessary to link him to racialism.  In other words, instead of using Trump instrumentally, in a dispassionate manner, to advance specific racialist goals, the "movement" is becoming emotionally attached to Trump, and is taking its own rhetoric about him and his candidacy too seriously. The "movement" is thus setting itself up for a fall.

Second, if you say Trump is the "last hope" then what happens if he is unsuccessful (or if he is elected and then disappoints)?  What then? Do you say "it's all over for White America?" Do you admit that your previous statements were wrong or merely melodramatic hyperbole? Or do you pretend like nothing happened and hope the "movement" rank-and-file forgets all about it?  Any of that is a recipe for cynicism and disillusionment.  How many times can activists get "burned" by all these would-be-saviors before people get disgusted and give up?

How about saying Trump is a "great opportunity" rather than a "last hope?" Isn't it obvious that apocalyptic language can be overused?  Or is the affirmative action "movement" "leadership" unable to understand this, being elevated to their position for reasons other than merit?  Or maybe they see Trump as benefiting from the same affirmative action within the "movement" that they do themselves?

To quote a Nutzi who apparently is a supporter of the "movement's" ethnic affirmative action program: lulz.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Giving Credit Where It is Due


Someone else came up with a diversity-autism theory several years ago, albeit somewhat different from my theory and without speculation of mechanism (apart from "pesticides").  I don't know if there is evidence of "sub-racial" mixing leading to increased autism (other than anecdotal evidence); however, on this blog we have already looked at evidence that mixed-race (at the continental level) individuals have higher autism rates.

Also, James Bowery has to be given credit for pointing out interesting correlations between autism rates in certain populations (e.g., Finns) and exposure to South Asians, although he favored an infectious pathogen theory for the mechanism, while I favor the amygdala and neural networks.

2016 Politics: Requiem For America

Pathetic America.

The current leading candidates for the 2016 Presidential election can be described thus:


1. A real estate billionaire/reality TV star who is beloved by White racialists and right-wing gamesters despite: being an ignorant buffoon, defending affirmative action, promoting "touchback" immigration into the USA for Mexican illegals, and having Jewish family connections.

2. A hawk-faced half-Cuban born in Canada and thus ineligible for the office he seeks, who supports large-scale increases in legal immigration, and who lies to the lemming-like White masses about his pro-immigration views and his support from "New York values" wealthy establishment figures.

3. A Miami-Vice-style Cuban who was, and still is, a prime mover for illegal alien amnesty, a Neocon-puppet who manages to be more of a plastic phony than even "strap the dog to the roof of the car" Romney.

[We will pass over Jeb Bush, the "man" with the appearance and aura of a sleepy wombat, and his Hispanified family, as his level of support is barely in the positive range]


1. A Wall Street-financed ultra-leftist harridan, champion of mass Third World immigration and of Colored Privilege, an advocate of "women's rights" who is widely reputed to be a lesbian and who is "married" to an ex-President who is an alleged rapist and who is known to have been fellated by a Jewess intern in the White House, a decaying harpy being investigated by the FBI for arrogantly and stupidly using a home server to handle secret and sensitive government documents during her undeserved tenure as Secretary of State, a corrupt reptile who is alleged to have sold favors to foreign governments for donations to her family's finances.

2. A socialist Brooklyn Jew, an ultra-leftist with documented past communist connections, a groveler to Negro radicalism and to Open Borders immigration, a lying imbecile who misreads the meaning of the angry electorate and who tries to "whitewash" (no pun intended) the racial and cultural reasons for that anger, a decrepit fool who stands by sheepishly while "Black Lives Matter" simians seize his microphone at an electoral event, a Levantine alien whose ancestors should never have been allowed on American shores.

In summary: Where is the national sense of embarrassment for this travesty?

It Has To Be Earned

Self-defense is a minimal criterion for superiority

Typical Nutzi types on forums trumpet the "superiority" of certain European ethnies.  Well, it's certainly good to have high self-esteem, but the bottom-line is that superiority is not a birth-right, but needs to be earned - earned by each generation in turn.

In our time, European women are disrespected and sexually assaulted in broad daylight and in the middle of the street and no action is taken. It’s not because European men are not willing to defend them. It’s because European governments, with their guns, laws, and police, are on the side of the migrants.

Some More Evidence What They Really Think About Us


You colonize a nation founded by another race.  You then proceed to spew hatred toward that race. This followed by claims that that other group hates you, despite the fact they let you into their country.

Just a few random comments?  It's being actualized at the level of high politics, an international alliance of color.  A quite interesting slide show indeed.

Monday, January 18, 2016

Do I Maintain That Jews Are White?

Clarification of some extreme confusion.

Some of my critics have been recently asserting that I have an agenda to "make Jews White" so as to allow them to enter "movement" circles.

I think anyone who has been following my work over the years would consider that ludicrous.

I'd like to point  to a TOO essay, in which I painstakingly make the argument that Jews are not "White" if by "White" one means indigenous European.

The confusion may stem instead from a more recent Counter-Currents essay, in which I do not in any way refute my earlier assertions, but merely state that the argument is irrelevant from a broad standpoint. "White" can be defined in different ways.  Officially, in America, Middle Easterners and North Africans are considered "White."  The general population would likely consider Jews to be "White" although I think most people also recognize that Jews constitute a minority group ethnically and culturally distinct from European gentiles. Even IF one were to accept that definition - which I, by the way, do not - there would still be good reasons to separate European "Whites" from these NEC "Whites."

The Counter-Currents article very clearly advocates rejecting Jews regardless of whether they are considered "White," because of the differences outlined in the linked articles, and also because they identify as their own, separate group, with their own interests.

That is in no way some sort of subtle ploy to obfuscate differences, as I am accused of.  In fact, completely the opposite: I state that a group that is not indigenous to Europe (so defined by my standards) cannot be part of our ingroup no matter how others try to parse the genetic and phenotypic data.

To summarize:

I have never considered Jews "White" if one means by "White" "ethnically European." 

I have in fact consistently taken that "not White" line for the last 15 years.

I have always been a strong supporter of KMacD's work on the Jews, and find nothing to differ on the subject from, say, Strom (although I may differ from those gentlemen on other issues - in fact, Strom's pro-Putin attitude is one of those issues)..

I have been critical of people like Professor Hart and have long criticized Hart's agenda.  I believe I even had a post on that on Majority Rights, ironically enough.  I do admit writing in TOO:

No doubt, there are some Ashkenazi Jews and part-Jews (e.g., “White Advocate”) who self-identify as White, Western, and European, and who sincerely wish to promote Western survival. We can welcome them and their contributions. 

But, today, I think that is mistaken, so I am in fact moving in a more excluding direction.

Merkel's Murder of Germany

When have so many suffered for the stupidity and treason of so few?

The grotesque acts that occurred on New Year's Eve were not isolated incidents, but happened nationwide with the earmarks of single intentioned flash mobs operating in numbers too large to control and overtaxing the law enforcement personnel available to deal with it. 
Some of the ones who were detained told police that they couldn't do anything to them, that they had been invited into Germany by Ms. Merkel, as if that was a license to harass and abuse the girls without consequences. 
A million people from another culture, who practice another religion, who have no regard for women's rights and who believe that Western Society is decadent, who refuse to assimilate and don't believe they are bound by the laws of the host country, is a lot to turn loose on any society at one time, and New Year's Eve was just a small harbinger of things to come. Even if the troublemakers represent just 2 percent of the population of refugees, that is still approximately 20,000 people that can cause a lot of problems for Germany. 
This is before the terrorist component has made itself known. Merkel, in her rush to out politically correct other world leaders has imported the agents of death into her country. The genie is out of the bottle, and German children will suffer the ramifications of Angela Merkel's folly for generations to come. In rejecting a 200,000 limit on the number of refugees entering the country, it seems Merkel plans to allow even more refugees in 2016. 
It's too late for Germany. They have opened the zoo, and lions walk among them. Soon the terror attacks will begin, and the Muslim population explosion will, in relatively few years, create a significant voting block that will grow exponentially. Unlike native Germans who abort millions of their unborn each year, most Muslims don't practice abortion, and their tradition of having multiple children per family only accelerates the process.

More MR, 1/18/16


Since there are some important issues to discuss – particularly about Asian colonization – I will attempt to be serious and professional here, and skip the ad hominem.  Note I also address the Salter issue, as well as the podcast offer, in which I present a fair alternative.

I’m not aware of any ‘yellow supremacy’ going on here. Furthermore, this is the second time you’ve asked me to remove it, if I count your first request as being the one that was sent via Thorn in a comment here that has since been removed.

In a previous blog post, I stated: “I asked GW years ago….”  Therefore, in general, I have asked a number of times over the years.  But, if you want to keep it, keep it.  It just doesn’t make sense to do so, if I am such a lunatic.

But wait, you don’t know who Thorn is, I thought?So you don’t know Thorn, but he’s carrying messages for you?

There is such a thing as “copying and pasting” on the Internet.  One selects text from one site and then pastes in into a different site.  A person I do not know (Thorn) reads my blog and copies material from there onto your blog, presumably because he (or she) disagrees with your stance on Russia (as do I).  That does not constitute “carrying messages.” 

I said that I do not know Thorn.  If you and Daniel have had previous interactions with him/her, that is independent of my own concerns about the content of Majority Rights. 

Of course, because of the way that the world has developed, we can’t spend our time constantly trying to kill each other for frivolous reasons, when co-operation in areas of shared interest is so much more lucrative. The threat to the integrity of European population groups is a serious threat with implications that stretch beyond Europe’s borders, and so it’s only natural that many Asian people would have an interest in working with Europeans. I have a feeling that you won’t quote this paragraph when/if you respond to me, but surprise me and do it.

It is duly quoted.  I would like to note that I have no problems with Asians in Asia.  Cooperation between racial blocs, each in their own homelands?  A possibility.  Cooperation when one group believes it has the right to colonize the other?  No.

And where is the support of Asians for Whites?  They instead identify with the world of color.

I don’t seem to recall anyone at Majorityrights arguing in favour of Chinese colonisation of white lands either. 

Daniel (emphasis added):

Sacrosanct European territories in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand will likely need to become smaller at any rate in order to be maintained and defended. But with the increased manageability of defense will come an opportunity to offer cooperation to Asians to have some sacrosanct territories of their own in these places. 
We already have Chinatowns. Now there could be some intermittently disbursed along the borders of the Mediterranean and among European cities with border and migrant control an explicit part of their mandate.

That is not simply saying, “Better Asians than Blacks.” That is saying to have Asian colonies in: Americas, Australia, New Zealand, European cities, and Mediterranean borders.   It’s there in black and white. 

And this is precisely my objection.  I absolutely reject any scenario that includes Asians having “sacrosanct territories” in White lands and/or maintenance of “Chinatowns” or any other invasive colonies in White “borders” or in “European cities.” 

Yes, the UK’s leadership deliberately and consciously siding with international motherfucking Jews… 

I honestly believe it is language like that which influences decisions of people to come and do interviews there. Palmgren may have radical views but they are expressed in professional language.
Or, we ‘craftily’ realised that after the undeclared border war in 1938—1939 in Manchuria, it was going to be impossible to actually win against the Soviet Union unless Japan could first carve out and secure an economic zone to the south, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, which necessitated the removal of the United States Navy and the myriad British installations in that region, so that the liberal international cunts couldn’t just shut down all of Japan’s productive capacity in a day.

“Liberal international cunts.” Question: has Palmgren at Red Ice ever used that language?  Do you believe that an academic scholar wants to be associated with a site that discusses “liberal international cunts?”

As to your point: if the Japanese had good reasons to avoid war with the USSR, then they should have told the Germans that.  As far as my reading of Irving goes, they did not do so – betraying the trust of their allies.  Indeed, all indications are that Hitler was surprised and disappointed by Japanese actions, re: the USSR.

Are you fucking kidding me?

More of the same.  Can’t the same be expressed without cursing?

We already do know what the ‘right choice’ is. The USSR was destroyed, and then it degenerated into a capitalist restoration federation staffed by a collection of bloated ex-Stalinist thugs, who we will also systematically destroy. 

The right choice from the White perspective remains to be determined.  If you believe, as I do, that China is a bigger threat than Russia, the choice was wrong. 

and you are hyperventilating about the tiny to negligible number of business-orientated and well-educated Asians who are inside the western world right now?

China, India, and the Philippines rank high as the major sources of immigration to the USA.  Asians are, I believe, the fastest growing minority group in America.  My blog well documents Asian animus toward Whites.  Even if all Asians are well-disposed toward Whites, the whole point of racial nationalism is….racial nationalism.  It’s not a multiracial state.  I do not want any Asians, “well-educated” or not.  I fail to see why that is so difficult to understand.

I don’t know if you fucking noticed… 

Again with the vulgar language.

…but there’s a literal swarm of crazed Arabs and Africans rampaging around in continental Europe right now like diseased gibbering monkeys, and you are meanwhile complaining about Asians? 

Yes, I do notice.  That is an issue of gave concern, and one I blog about frequently. However, while you may not understand this, or may be offended by it, I do not want Asians any more than I want “crazed Arabs and Africans.” 

I do not know if you have noticed that West Africans are increasing in number in Chinese coastal cities (a situation which causes agony to Peter Frost).  Perhaps you should worry about that.  Get the Chinese girls with guns to protect their own people, and White folks can do the same in their own countries.

Now, about the podcast: people may have reasons to eschew participation other than being “chicken” to debate with you.  If you cannot discern reasons for such prudence, then I suggest you think more carefully about it.

If you believe it so important to have such a "direct" interview/discussion, then in theory it can be done in writing (note: not as an attachment, but in the body of an email), for example, submitting questions through a third party intermediary at least to start (Johnson, MacDonald, Spencer, Sunic, etc.).  I do not wish to be interviewed via podcast, and it is not only for you; I've refused previous offers to do so by other people. However, I would be more than willing to address your questions/concerns in a written format, which indicates a good faith effort on my part - if for no other reason than to underline our profound differences in worldview.  I have previously conducted written interviews with others (e.g., Norman Lowell), and I believe the results were satisfactory.

To summarize:

1. I have no basic problem with Asians in Asia
2. I do not want ANY Asians living in White areas whatsoever. I am not interested in multiracial states – that is precisely the whole scenario to be opposed
3. Cooperation between Euro and Asian groups is possible, as long as these groups are strictly separated in their own nations and continents.
4. It is quite possible that Russia may have to give up the Far East for demographic reasons – their population is crashing.  That is regrettable – however, I support Russians in their ages-long battle against the Asiatic hordes.  I do NOT want to “inflict harm” or “systemically destroy” them.  Please note that I do NOT support the Putin regime nor do I support Duginism.  I do support genuine Russian Slavic nationalism.
5. Commentator “Tom” was correct. If Whites get to the point that they would be willing to defend their “EGI” then they would not require Asian assistance to do so.  Europe could stop the migrant invasion immediately – if they wanted to.  The problem therefore is not technical but political-moral-spiritual: they do not want to. 

As far as Salter goes, since obviously you people will not give up on the idea that I am responsible, and since you believe that my correspondence with GW is fair game, I will reproduce the relevant excerpts of the messages I still have (if there are others, I do not have them and may have deleted them).

Me to GW:

To make a long story short - I can't speak for Salter, but my impression is that he wants to appeal to more mainstream and conservative elements.  So, I don't think it's optimal to have him on a more radical site like MR. 

GW to me:
Thank you very much.  I understand what you are saying.  We are going to proceed with contact with Dr Salter, but with great care for his own interests.  Reason being that there are a couple of serious questions that should be put to him, and will not be by anybody else.  I want him to judge the issue of his contact to us on the intellectual merit of the subjects under discussion, as well as by our repute.

That is not a malicious attack against anyone.  If some misunderstanding took place later, or if there is subsequent correspondence I am missing, or if I later got pissed off about something (constant attacks against me on your blog by Silver, Jones, etc.), that is unfortunate.  However, the bottom line is – obviously – that I have absolutely no control whatsoever over what Dr. Salter decides to do.  Can anyone really believe that I do?  You can’t be serious. Give it a rest already.

If it makes you feel any better, I openly call for Salter to do an interview with Majority Rights. 

As far as Daniel saying that I’m not a sincere player for European interests: whatever.  But, learn how to take a joke, man, for godssakes.  You called me a troll faggot who sucks Jewish cock – so what?  It’s funny. I poke fun at you and Kumiko?  Big deal.  You post pictures of Chinese women with guns as Western border guards – you have to expect a bit of humor in response.  Stop taking yourself so seriously.

I’ve never had any personal problem with GW, and always liked him personally, so I do not want to continue having a “pissing contest” with his blog.  So…whatever.  I still oppose the ideas expressed in the original post, though (as did other people commenting there).

I am willing to professionally discuss these differences, as indicated above (so there is no ulterior "Jew" motive), but not in a podcast setting.