Wednesday, March 31, 2021

Sallis Xenophilia Theory Again

Why does it seem that Northwest Europeans are less ethnocentric?

My hypothesis, in contrast to MacDonald’s thesis about “primordialist individualism,” is something I have written about before, and will summarize again here. Northwest Europe is that part of Europe most geographically distant from non-Europe. Therefore, in the ethnogenesis of Northwest European ethnies, and throughout most of the histories of those peoples, group conflicts were almost always with other Europeans; in contrast, in the ethnogenesis and histories of Southern and Eastern European ethnies, conflicts occurred not only with other Europeans but frequently with Afro-Asiatic, non-European peoples. Thus, Northwest European ethnoracial evolution and ethnocultural identity occurred in the context of viewing other Europeans as “the other,” while for Southern and Eastern Europeans, group evolution and identity occurred primarily in the context of Afro-Asiatic aliens, peoples from other continents, other races, and other civilizations, as “the other.”

This can explain why Northwest Europeans tend to reserve their greatest hostility toward other Europeans while oozing with the milk of human kindness toward Coloreds, while Southern and Eastern Europeans tend to have, relatively speaking, a less sanguine view of the World of Color. This explanation seems to be more robust than MacDonald’s, which struggles to explain why “individualistic” Scandinavians are actually "Law of Jante" conformist collectivists. In my hypothesis, individualism vs. collectivism is secondary; instead, the main question  is: Against what outgroup has been the historical force of selective pressure?

So, it is not so much that Northwest European are much less ethnocentric, but that whatever ethnocentrism they do have usually targets other Europeans (as White ethnics in Der Movement are well aware), and does not focus too much on Coloreds - the latter being the real problem in White nations and the problem against which Northwest Europeans seemingly cannot generate much resistance to. Now, other Europeans are, for the most part, not really resisting either, but here we are talking about relative degrees of resistance.  All Europeans are not doing well, but some are worse than others.

Now, it is possible that both hypotheses are at work. It is possible that MacDonald's thesis has some limited validity (*) with respect to particular aspects of group behavior, and when combined with my thesis, which is more robust in its applicability, we observe the differences in group behavior discussed. But even with these various mechanisms possibly working in synergy, the differences in group behavior are not as great as some would believe. Last I looked, Southern Europe was being flooded with immigrants and migrants; the differences in group behavior seem more of a gentle cline rather than a sharp disjunctive barrier.  And there are characteristics to those differences that are better explained by my thesis, since the limited ethnocentrism of Northwest Europeans is to a large degree aimed at other Europeans (e.g., White Britons seem more disturbed about "Polish plumbers" than by "commonwealth immigration" of Negroes and South Asians), while the limited ethnocentrism of Southern and Eastern Europeans is aimed mostly at non-Europeans. The problem with Northwest Europeans seems less a lack of ethnocentrism, but instead a combination of xenophilia toward Coloreds combined with misplaced ethnocentrism against other Europeans.

*The manifest failures of MacDonald's thesis has been explored here previously, repeatedly, in detail. To summarize briefly, it ignores data demonstrating that individualism (as measured by papers in the literature) among European ethnies allegedly more collectivist is actually approximately the same (or greater) than that of ethnies allegedly highly individualistic, that the allegedly highly individualistic Scandinavians actually exhibit extreme "Law of Jante" collectivist conformity (causing one sycophant to write an incoherent piece trying to explain how extreme individualism leads to extreme collectivist conformity - essentially making MacDonald's theory an untestable hypothesis, since every case of collectivism where individualism is expected can be explained away by this "mechanism," hence making MacDonald's thesis unfalsifiable), the interpretation of genetic data and ancient identity are refuted by the literature including archaeogenetics, and it greatly inflates possible small differences that do exist into greater behavioral gulfs that are not actually observed in reality. It should be noted that the greatest example of collectivist action among Europeans in recent memory has been German National Socialism. One can find no more ethnocentric people than modern day Nordicists - and given that the hostility of that group is mostly aimed at non-Nordic Europeans, than would support my thesis more than MacDonald's. I would also like to point out, as has been done here before, that amoral familism is not collectivism, at least not at the level of the national ethny, and in fact opposes ethnic collectivism. Amoral familism seems to be an aberrant form of individualism that extends to the family, but which views everything outside of the family as "the other"- including co-ethnics. Indeed, the problems of ethnies characterized by amoral familism are to a large extent due to a failure to invest in common social goods, and a complete lack of collective ethnic social action. Instead of being atomized individuals, amoral familism is atomized families.

Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Der Mad and Der Sane

Sallis is der sane. What about the other side of the equation?

See this important Western Destiny essay.

Very cognitive, very elite.

Behold the female – intelligent medical care.

More raging retardation and pseudoscientific nonsense from the ludicrous Right.

Anglin is a turd:

Any of you people who want to accuse me of being a Chinese shill need to explain, specifically, where I am wrong. I am sick and tired of it. This is the biggest issue on planet earth right now, and I’m going to tell the truth about it. I’m not going to be silenced by a bunch of Jew-lovers who claim that China is a threat to America, while our entire country is literally run by Jews who are trying to go to war with China.

Yes – I do like Asian people. I’m not a fetishist, but in general, I like Asian people. I’ve never tried to hide that fact.

That's the Silk Road White nationalism ploy – if you don’t want to be doing “measured groveling” to Asians with a Chinatrix strap-on shoved up your ass, then you are a “Jew-lover.” God forbid anyone can be against both Jews and Chinese!

That’s from the Unz site, Ron Unz being the HBD Jew who supports Hispanic immigration to the USA and who has labelled White nationalism as potentially the biggest threat to America.  The allegedly “anti-Jew” Anglin apparently has no problem having his writing hosted by Jew Unz, joining the company of the likes of Durocher and Johnson.

Unz of course does more than just promote anti-WN, pro-HBD. Nordicism, and shilling for China (including Chinese government propaganda about The China Plague being an “American bioweapon”). The site is replete with anti-scientific nonsense (as linked to above), and, of course, continuous anti-vaxx hysteria now aimed against the covid-19 vaccination (Question for the curious: What is the vaccination status of Ron Unz?  Has he been vaccinated?  Or does he plan to be vaccinated in the future?).

Conspiracy theories are all around at that site (including the infamous “moon landing hoax” nonsense – one of the greatest achievements of the White man isdelegitimized; after all, we can’t let the goys think they’re smart enough to land a man on the moon, now, can we?).

Actually, conspiracy theories – including anti-Semitic conspiracy theories – serve Jewish purposes. After all, the goyim can’t be allowed to be thinking rationally now, can they?  Better to keep the Gentiles foaming at the mouth with all sorts of irrational nonsense, distracted by fantasies and ignoring hard truths. Let the goys believe that the vaccine is a “kill concoction” and the unvaccinated are "the select" “salt of the Earth” – Jews, like in Israel, will continue to get vaccinated and protected.  Funny though, how the God Emperor Trump was vaccinated and so was Putin. I suppose that was all part of the conspiracy as well – placebos to trick the masses!

I don’t’ know what’s worse – that Whites are so foolish as to fall for such transparent gaslighting, or that WN treasonous scum will write for the Unz site?

And we can see once again why Joyce is right and Cofnas is wrong – even when Jews are involved on the Right, they are always, always, ALWAYS promoting poisonous memes and disruptive ideas. They just can’t help themselves. When the Gentiles are rational, productive, healthy, and clear-thinking, then that’s bad for the Jews; however, when the White Man is irrational, confused, degenerate, misinformed, and disorganized, then that’s good for the Jews.

Crazed mestizo Nordicist Chechar, excited by McCulloch’s mild criticism of Johnson’s multiracialism, explains his own problems with Johnson:

….Johnson abhorred Nordicism and William Pierce’s exterminationist philosophy, explained both in his most famous novel and his only non-fiction book.

Putting aside that Counter-Currents has often dabbled in Nordicism, let us understand what Chechar is saying here. First, he tacitly endorses Nordicism, as he critiques Johnson with the (false) accusation that Johnson "abhors" that philosophy.  Depending how you interpret the wording, he may also be admitting that Pierce was a Nordicist – exactly what I have been saying for years. Thus, Pierce was dishonestly fooling all of the stepandfetchit non-Nordic shabbos sud and shabbost ost National Alliance members, who were hoodwinked into being extended phenotypes for specifically Nordic interests. Even if Chechar didn't mean to imply that in the statement above, it is still all too true.

That Pierce had an “exterminationist philosophy” is not really up for debate.

The key point here as well is that by criticizing Johnson in this regard, Chechar is essentially endorsing Pierce’s philosophy of (Nordicist) exterminationism.  Given that Chehar is a non-White, non-Nordic Hispanic, he is, basically, supporting and endorsing his own extermination and the extermination of his own family.

And Der Movement calls me “insane!” I support Universal Nationalism but I am “insane,” while folks who essentially support an "exterminationism" that may include themselves are the paragons of sane mental health!  And if I ridicule Der Movement for its raving lunacy, then I am the one who is a “paranoid piece of crap.”

To paraphrase an old saying – “in a mad movement, it are the sane who are labelled as insane.”


Monday, March 29, 2021

McCulloch Partially Addresses the Johnson Question

Let's take a look.

Readers of this blog know I admit when I'm wrong. So, my previous characterization of McCulloch as dishonest and/or incompetent, re: Johnson's embrace of multiracialism, was wrong (assuming that the second part of his essay was written in its present form before my post of earlier today). If that assumption is correct, then I do apologize for "jumping the gun" so to speak, and this is a lesson to wait for the entirety of a work to be published before commenting. 

That said, my criticism of McCulloch's lack of understanding of population genetics methodology and interpretation still stands, and, as we shall see, he ends his essay in such a way as to mostly invalidate what good he does in critiquing Johnson.

Here's some of McCulloch's criticism of Johnson:

This is where Johnson seems to falter and backstep on the program he advocates elsewhere. That is, he accepts “multiculturalism” (by which he means multiracialism, the real object of our concern, because without multiracialism there would not be enough multiculturalism to be concerned about) in a reduced degree with pro-White modifications to make it work better for Whites. He thus adopts a Fabian or “creeping” approach to eventually achieve an ethnostate. This is supposedly to minimize the difficulties and opposition entailed by a complete and more abrupt racial separation. In the previous essays in this volume Johnson has built a strong case for complete racial separation to attain his elsewhere expressed desire for what he calls “a nice white country,” as he did in his previous manifesto. However, in “Uppity White Folks” he materially deviates from that position.

Yet to gain their support Johnson proposes to accommodate their current ill-informed and misinformed racial, political and moral beliefs and values, however false and harmful they may be, by abandoning preservationally-sufficient 100% White nationalism in favor of preservationally-insufficient 90% White nationalism.

What would be the final goal, the final numbers or proportions of Johnson’s proposed solution, or how much would the non-White population have to be decreased to reach the solution? He addresses that question in the sub-section titled “Ninety-Percent White Nationalism.”

If an American identitarian movement were to propose reversing the demographic decline of white America, they would need a target number. If the public is not yet ready for homogeneously white ethnostates, that target number must be somewhere under 100%. As an American, I would choose 90%.

As for the ethnic breakdown of the non-white percentage, … I would … make it clear that it could contain representatives of all currently existing non-white groups. This is important to reduce opposition.

[M]any whites who are ready for some form of white identity politics will not accept it unless you leave some room for “based” minority outliers, mail-order brides, indigenous minorities, hard-luck groups like refugees and the descendants of slaves, and the purveyors of their favorite ethnic cuisines. (pp. 142–143)

Including non-Whites in our country because they purvey some Whites’ favorite ethnic cuisines? Johnson has elsewhere dismissed this objection to racial separation as petty compared with the White interests involved. Indeed, it is on a par with such objections as “who will pick up the trash” or “who will cut the grass.” Why is he now not just taking it seriously but actually accommodating it?...

…Here Johnson returns to his position in the first 136 pages, and again uses multiculturalism as a euphemism for multiracialism, as references to “white majority” and “suicide” make sense in the context of race but not of culture. But isn’t the idea of 90% White Nationalism nothing more than Whites being gaslighted into an even longer and more drawn-out suicide, and distracted from non-suicidal alternatives?..

…If we allow that Johnson’s target of 90% White Nationalism is achievable, whether desirable or not, the question then is how would it be maintained, or is it even realistic to assume it could be maintained, other than by a permanent continuation of the draconian measures which would probably be required to attain it.

OK, so far so good. Once again, if that was written before my earlier post - mea culpa, I was wrong. Now, here is where it goes "off the rails"- 

Johnson is to be commended for addressing the subject of solutions to our racial problem, something too few do. He might sometimes seem to get ahead of himself and neglect specifics that would clarify his multiple proposals, but this is all to the good as it both stimulates and provokes thoughtful, constructive, and hopefully fruitful discussion of this vitally important matter.

So, Johnson proposes an incoherent and racially destructive plan (and one McCulloch picks apart), but he's to be "commended for addressing the subject of solutions to our racial problem."  I recall McCulloch not being so gracious with Dr. Michael Hart; indeed, Hart was (justifiably) sharply chastised by McCulloch and, again if I recall, Hart was accused of an ulterior motive for sabotaging genuine racial preservationism.

The problem is that Hart's solution wasn't materially different from Johnson's in its broad outlines.  Yes, there are differences in detail, but Hart proposed a multiracial, majority White ethnostate, exactly as does Johnson.  Yet, Hart was labelled as some sort of "chess player" plotting moves to negatively affect preservationism, but Johnson is praised and commended. Yes, I suppose Jew Hart's armenoid phenotype may have offended the racial aesthetic sensibilities of McCulloch, while founding stock American Johnson is suitably "Nordish," but to attack Hart while commending Johnson seems to me the height of hypocrisy.  


Countering the Rancid Current, 3/29/21

More “movement” dishonesty?  In all cases, emphasis added.

First, before we get to the main points of this post, read this.  Haven’t I always told you that Asians are bizarre aliens, virtually akin to a different species?

Comment:

HT 

Races are different in more ways than just IQ. Asians are like little calculators but do not exhibit the independence or creativity to develop what whites have done in terms of discovery and inventions. Negros? Not sure what they have to offer.

Now to the main events:

Laugh at this:

Vagrant RightistMarch 28, 2021 at 4:20 am

I do have some questions and concerns about this and other recent changes. Rather than writing everything I could, I’ll stick to one question and ask, why is this is necessary?

The last fundraiser was a success as you’ve said and asking for donations did in fact work. You’ve made a case that nationalism, and nationalist publications needed to be supported and people listened.

Reply

Greg JohnsonMarch 28, 2021 at 5:28 am

This is necessary to raise money, to thank donors for their support, and to build donor loyalty and engagement

If Johnson’s answer had simply ended after the word “money,” it would have been both more succinct and more accurate.

It’s ALL about money with these guys. Der Movement, Inc., is a money making enterprise for folks who can’t or won’t do anything else.

Laugh at this. The “old boys network” takes care of its own (and perhaps other networks are involved as well), and we see praise of the execrable Johnson (as well as support for MacDonald’s discredited HBD Nordicism). Rather than waste time refuting this essay point-by point, let’s concentrate on the most egregious sin of omission:

Therefore, to advocate or accept a population that is part non-White, in whatever proportion, is to advocate or accept that the population that ultimately results from their blending will be that proportion non-White. To accept a population that is 5% non-White is to accept the White race becoming 5% non-White, and accepting a 10% non-White population would mean the White race would become 10% non-White, a 5% or 10% shift away from being us and toward being them. Such a genetic shift is racially destructive and hence anti-White. The European-American population’s current genetic average is 98.6% European, or 1.4% non-European, with 94% of European-Americans having no genetically measurable non-European ancestry. 

After a 5% mixture with non-Caucasians, we would not really have a White race in the European sense of the term. So if we don’t want our race to become 5%, 10% or more non-European then we must not allow our country to be 5%, 10%, or more non-European. That is why Enoch Powell’s 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech, made when Britain was still less than 5% non-White, had such an emotional impact.

I have already pointed out in a previous post that McCulloch’s use of, and understanding of, genetic data (never a strong point with him), is inherently flawed, and his use of numbers of dubious origin, taking seriously to-the-decimal point percentages derived from flawed methodologies, is laughable. But that’s a minor point for my purposes. The main point is contrasting McCulloch’s praise for Johnson’s “work” with McCulloch’s insistence on a 100% White ethnostate. Unfortunately, his bosom buddy Johnson has written expressing a somewhat different opinion.

But one will not be able to create a consensus supporting such policies until one announces a demographic target number somewhere under 100%. As an American, I would choose 90%. In 1965, before America abandoned immigration policies that were committed to maintaining a white supermajority, the US was about 90% white. Now the white population is about 60%, and every year those numbers get worse for white Americans.

As for the ethnic breakdown of the non-white percentage, I would leave that completely open. I would, however, make it clear that it could contain representatives of all currently existing non-white groups...

...I distinguish three senses of homogeneity:

Strict homogeneity — meaning there are no racial and cultural outsiders at all

De facto homogeneity — meaning that outsiders are present, but citizens are not forced to deal with them, so if one wants, one can live as if one inhabits a strictly homogeneous society

Normative homogeneity — meaning that if outsiders are present, they accept and live by the norms of the society.

Most white societies will reject strict homogeneity. European colonial societies usually have aboriginal relict populations. Others have descendants of slaves and indentured servants. Still others have long-established minority groups like Swedes in Finland. Strict homogeneity just seems unfair to these groups. Beyond that, most white societies are fine with small numbers of foreign residents, foreign students, foreign tourists, and assimilable immigrants.

However, the presence of such people is no threat to a society if it is committed to normative and de facto forms of homogeneity. A 90% Swedish Sweden can still be 100% normatively Swedish. A 90% Swedish Sweden can also allow Swedes complete freedom of association and disassociation, so that nobody is forced to deal with outsiders if he prefers to remain separate. Thus people in a 90% White Nationalist society can, if they so choose, live as if it is a 100% White Nationalist society, which should satisfy most people.

If McCulloch was less dishonest (or, at best, incompetent rather than dishonest), he’d admit that his hero Johnson has advocated for exactly the sort of multiracial “ethnostate” that McCulloch views as leading to:

...to advocate or accept a population that is part non-White, in whatever proportion, is to advocate or accept that the population that ultimately results from their blending will be that proportion non-White. To accept a population that is 5% non-White is to accept the White race becoming 5% non-White, and accepting a 10% non-White population would mean the White race would become 10% non-White, a 5% or 10% shift away from being us and toward being them.

Granted, there will be a Part II to McCulloch’s “contribution,” but I am less than sanguine that it will address such an existential difference between his position and Johnson’s. That difference should have been addressed right here, in Part I.

Do all you guys in the rank-and-file still have confidence in your fundamentally dishonest “movement” “leadership?”

Apologists for the Quota Queens will aver that McCulloch is simply reviewing a single work of Johnson’s and, hence, does not have to delve into these other matters. That is absurd. The essay starts with praise for Johnson’s entire history as an “activist” and his entire corpus of work, and McCulloch’s essay is not shy in bringing in other material, such as MacDonald’s bizarre theories or laughable genetic data derived from flawed 23andMe-style methodologies. No, there is no excuse.  If a major point of McCulloch’s argument is the importance of a 100% White ethnostate, then it seems absolutely essential to mention that the person he is praising advocates for a 90% ethnostate in which one in every ten people will be a racial alien. 

Another apologia would be that McCulloch is simply unaware of Johnson’s "ninety percent" essay, which I suppose is the “incompetent ignorance instead of mendacious dishonesty” defense. One would think that a writer focused on the work of an individual would be, and should be, aware of that individual advocating for the very thing the writer himself so adamantly opposes. It doesn’t boost confidence in the competence and judgment of the writer if they are so completely ignorant of the subject matter on which they write. Indeed, knowledge of Johnson’s advocacy for a Hart-like multiracial “White separatist state” (sic) would help clear up McCulloch’s confusion here:

One wonders why Johnson, who is talking about race, as made clear by the reference to “white” in the last sentence, uses the euphemism multiculturalism instead of multiracialism. This is not typical of his work. As these essays came from lectures, I suspect he considered the term more appropriate for his Norwegian, Swedish and Lithuanian audiences, where the racial threat is largely from non-European Caucasian (NEC) Islamic invaders whose cultural differences pose a very serious additional problem to their racial problem, but a footnote explaining this would have been helpful, as the difference between the two terms is important.

Yes, perhaps the “footnote” could inform us all that if a person advocates for a multiracial state then of course multiculturalism, rather than multiracialism, will be cited as the problem.

Of course, it is always possible that, consistent with his usual behavior, in the not too distant future, Johnson will write a new article, this time advocating for an absolutely pure, 100% White ethnostate, with the previous “ninety percent white nationalism” essay unacknowledged – and if any uncouth commentator has the temerity to bring up the inconsistency, then, why, they’ll simply be labeled “insane” and “paranoid" and be “banned.”  Problem solved!

I leave it up to the readers to decide for themselves if individuals such as Johnson and McCulloch have the judgment, trustworthiness, character, and competence to serve in any sort of leadership role in a "movement" dedicated to White survival.


Sunday, March 28, 2021

Odds and Ends, 3/28/21

In der news.

See this.

Growing up, I never thought about race. I was raised in a small, almost 100 percent white, town. My parents rarely talked about politics, but if you had asked me in my early twenties what political affiliation I had, I would have told you I was liberal. The only non-whites I saw when I was in elementary school were on television, and the blacks portrayed were likable, not dangerous. My parents never spoke to me about race, and I wasn’t curious about it.

Yes, I do believe that there is a correlation between "I was raised in a small, almost 100 percent white, town” and “if you had asked me in my early twenties what political affiliation I had, I would have told you I was liberal.” A causative correlation, I would think. My own life experiences would never have allowed such naivete. It’s a shame – on the one hand, exposure of White children to significant numbers of non-Whites, particularly Blacks and non-White Hispanics, is a form of child abuse; on the other hand, without such experience, painful and self-destructive racial naivete sets in. Perhaps some sort of educational paradigm where limited exposure to such racial specimens in a safe, controlled environment takes place would be suitable, but there really is no substitute for experiencing vibrancy “in the wild,” so to speak.

See this.  While I agree with the basic premises of the article, this is absurd:

Greg Johnson and Richard Spencer are both intellects of extremely high quality…

Is that meant to be a joke?

Any critique of Jewish power has to come from a place of love and understanding…

Wha?

Comment:

Counter Current is an counter intel front, probably for DHS (Homeland Security…

Yawn. How about calling Greg Johnson “a Jew” next? I despise Counter-Currents, but making defamatory accusations based on zero evidence is not the way  to oppose Johnson.

I’m no Hitler fanboy, and I have some of my own objections to Nutzis, but I object to Liddell’s characterization of “neo-Nazi” types as typically “sub-White” and/or “sub-masculine.” Really? Pierce?  Rockwell?  Carto? What about Will Williams? I would think that a Green Beret war veteran is at least as “masculine” as some Scottish blogger living in Japan. What about Roper? And all of those aforementioned gentlemen, with the exception of Carto (who I believe was at least of partial French ancestry, and thus Western European), were/are all of “British” extraction. And even if Liddell wants to make comments about Duke’s alleged “plastic surgery” and the “sub-masculine” implications of a focus on self-appearance, still, Duke is a heterosexual Anglo. Whatever Liddell thinks of Strom, he’s a heterosexual of Norwegian ancestry. So, none of them are “sub-White” and are not queer (alleged “sub-masculinity” aside). Johnson and Spencer are not the "be all and end all" for activism, past or present. Those two "heroes" are just the meritless affirmative action creations of the Virginia/Beltway-Georgia-Florida "movement" mafia axis, of which some components allegedly (according to "movement" accusations and warnings from the early 2000s) may have had/have "streaks of lavender."

Speaking of Counter-Currents and Johnson - I note that the Turko-Albanian "Macedonian" Jeelvy uses the platform stupidly given to him by Gaslighting Greg to engage in balkanoid feuds with ethnic Albanians. While the latter are called "not culturally European" and are termed a "biracial nation," Jeelvy, with his Borat characteristics and "culture" of promoting 14 year old brides and woman-beating is, of course, the paragon of the Western soul.

And then we have commentators pontificating on who in the Balkans "is White" - judged of course by "blonde hair, blue eyes, and fair skin." How about judging "Whiteness" by the lack of mongoloid features? We can consider Bromstad and Bjork and ask if North Germanic peoples are "White" or not. Or maybe they're simply "biracial" nations like Albanians, eh? - we have a "White" population and a Hapa population, the latter represented by the two aforementioned "celebrities."

Mendacious stupidity:

"White Nationalist," which has a fairly healthy currency here on the Whadda-We-Call-Ourselves Right, strikes me as even more problematical. What is the nation to which "nationalist" is the referent? "White" isn't a nation, nor likely to become one.

What an idiot – and note how he’s mimicking a leftist talking point with the “White isn’t a nation.”  There’s a difference between a nation and a state:

A state is an independent political entity with clear geographic boundaries. Nation is a large body of people united by common origin, history, culture, ethnicity, or language.  The main difference between state and nation is that state is a political and legal entity whereas nation is a socio-cultural entity.

I of course would alter that to a nation being a biological-socio-cultural entity.

I’m always fascinated by the utter imbecility of the Derbyshirian-Leftist argument – as if White nationalists actually believe that there is a nation of “Whitetopia” or “Whiteia” or “White” somewhere on Earth, and it is up to the likes of Derbyshire and other pro-multiracialist leftists to break to us the dire news that such a nation does not exist.

Basques are a nation, despite not having a state. Jews were always a nation, even before Israel. If there are Whites, worldwide, who conceive nationhood on the basis of race, superseding ethnicity, that is perfectly rational, as are plans for nation-building, or federation-building, based on that racial-national identity. One is not required to have a ready-made state with the name of your national group in order to have legitimacy as a nation, Derbyshire, you mendacious scum.

Of course, there’s a likely reason why Derbyshire doesn’t like White nationalism, and eagerly grasps for alternatives that would allow for the inclusion of non-Whites: Rosie and the kids. The rest of us are of course not obligated to care about that concern, which likely also informs his gaslighting about “The Arctic Alliance,” also mentioned in that execrable essay. In fact, the only real concern I have about Rosie and the kids is that I do not want to live in the same polity as them.


Saturday, March 27, 2021

Some More "Movement" Stupidity

What else is new? In all cases, emphasis added.

Pathetic money grubbing. Even people who support Counter-Currents should oppose that, which is the naked commercialization of “movement” material. If you are pro-Counter-Currents, ask yourself – if the paywall material is not important then why must you pay to see it, and if it is important, then why is it being hidden for financial reasons, instead of being immediately widely disseminated for the good of our people?

Yes, full time activists need to be supported, but not by holding important and useful (in theory, but perhaps not in practice, eh?) material hostage to “D’Nations.” If Der Movement had been doing what it should have been doing all along to build infrastructure, and if millions of dollars were not wasted, then we could have a scenario in which productive and useful efforts (if such exist) are rewarded by consistent support. One would not need have paywalls for online material, like some sort of cheap huckster.

What are you paying for? The highbrow material of the new Counter-Currents:

Please, for fuck’s sake, let the music industry be a known quantity motivated by greed.

And it is not only "the music industry" that can be so described, eh?  

This is an example of the raving lunacy of the ultra-retarded Right:

And speaking of fully human, if indeed mRNA vaccines do alter one’s genetic make-up granted by the Creator, God, and one chooses to have one’s genetic make-up altered by an mRNA vaccine (as opposed to being forced to get it), then when the person passes on and is in front of the Judgment Seat, even if one calls oneself a “Christian,” will Christ answer their plea with the following line (since their DNA has been altered), “I never knew you”?

How will Christ answer you when he discovers that you have a Chinatrix strap-on shoved so far up your ass that it’s tickling your cecum?

Note to the incredibly ignorant stupid bastards – an mRNA vaccine is not going to “alter one’s genetic make-up.”  The vaccine is not a “kill concoction.” Stop acting like five year olds.

See this.

These idiots  talk about not getting the vaccine “as a matter of principle.”  I say, as a matter of my principle, that anyone who refuses the vaccine is a selfish and cowardly turd afraid of being “jabbed” and afraid of a day or so of feeling sickly. This nightmare – created by your ugly, alien, scabrous Chinese gods  - is never going to end, because of YOU.

Don't like the vaccine? Afraid of "mRNA operating systems?" Fearful of a "Jew doctor" hurting your delicate arm by "jabbing" you with that covid sodomy needle?  Don't like lockdowns? Are you screaming like Ramzpaul over "face diapers?" Here's what you need to do: BLAME CHINA. Blame the Chinese. I know that's a bit difficult to do in the midst of all of your "measured groveling," but give it a try.  

Speaking of "measured groveling," guess who wrote the following fascinating self-admission (Note - this conversation took place in the USA. Good to see all of those assimilated "Arctic Alliance" Orientals with their allegiance to America and their good will to Whites):
Rosie: "Nonsense! China give an apology to America? You're mad! What was that plane doing so close to our shore? Spying, that's what! You foreigners think you can just do as you like in China!" In less time than it takes to hit the Mayday button on an EP-3 control panel, we were into the Opium War and the suppression of the Boxers. Dialectical materialism may have passed undigested through Rosie's alimentary canal, but the xenophobic stuff went direct into her bloodstream. 
It's okay. In the style of Mao Tse-tung, who was fond of comparing crises in the Party with earthquakes, this is no worse than a 4 on the Richter scale. It certainly doesn't compare with last Aug. 6, a Sunday, and a day that will live in infamy, when I woke early with the horrible realization that it was our wedding anniversary, crept out of the house, spent a frantic hour trying to find a card store that was open, and got home...too late. Harmony will reassert itself. I just have to follow the President's example: be patient, and do some measured groveling.

Friday, March 26, 2021

Worse is Better Reconsidered

Thoughts.

Long time readers of this blog know that I am opposed to the paradigm of "worse is better" with respect to pro-White activism and with respect to prompting Whites to defend their own racial interests. Whites seem to be able to take abuse unlimited; in addition, ever-increasing repression leaves little room for dissidents to maneuver. Instead, I believe that Suvorov's Law has more validity and historical support - typically, revolutions do not occur during the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed.

However, using Suvorov's Law, I can see one scenario in which "worse is better" could work out - the specific case in which a time of worsening repression is followed by a period of a relaxation of that repression.

Thus:

First, there would be a period of worsening conditions, increased repression, that would make even "we can take more and more abuse" Whites angry and frustrated, and then, following this, a period in which the repression is suddenly relaxed, allowing all of that pent-up anger and racial rage to boil over and find avenues for release.

If  worse conditions are simply followed by further worsening conditions, with no end in sight for the constant, and often increasing, repression, then worse is simply worse and it is doubtful that Whites would stand up in the teeth of that repression and fight back. But worse can be better if the worse period is followed by a better period that allows the energies built up during the worse period to be released in the direction of "game-changing" racial activism.

Right now, we are in a worsening situation. If the above analysis is correct, then we need to get to the better period at some point so as to productively use the anger being generated today. Too much constant repression can wear our people down and induce despair. We need to apply pressure, such as democratic multiculturalism, to get to the next phase, allowing for Suvorov's Law to come into play. Repression creates the conditions for revolution, but the (sudden) relaxation of repression allows the revolution to actually take place.

In summary, I continue to be an opponent of the general idea of "worse is better." I merely note here that the one scenario where that approach could work out is when "worse is better" is coupled to Suvorov's Law, as described above.

Francis Parker Yockey:

The canaille never breaks loose until the ruling elements permit it...

Now, Whites are hardly the canaille of America, but the basic principle still holds, a version of Suvorov's Law - revolutionary forces succeed when the established elites become too weak to prevent it, and thus permit it. The anger of the canaille is generated during their "worse" period and the ruling elements permit the expression of that anger during the canaille's "better" period.

Thursday, March 25, 2021

Bioleninist Hierarchy

Thoughts. 

People comment about how the System says that people can arbitrarily choose their sex (“gender”), but when it comes to race, that is taboo.  Thus, a man can suddenly decide he is a “woman,” and we all must accept that self-identification, but if a White decides they are Black, then that is an unacceptable appropriation and a scandal.

I see bioleninism explaining this. The “most bioleninist” categories jealously guard their freakish uniqueness, and, in the bioleninist pecking order, the more “other” you are, then the more priority you get with your identity. Thus, trans freaks are more “other,” higher on the bioleninist freak hierarchy, than are women; thus the trans get to choose whether or not they want to be women (or men, or whatever) and we must all accept it.  On the other hand, non-Whites, particularly Blacks, are the highest “other” in the racial category, and are highest on the bioleninist freak-ressentiment category, so they get priority, and Whites, are more “normal” and “less bioleninist” cannot access non-White racial identities.

So, in all of these controversies, the more freakish and “other” the identity, the more priority is has to choose, and the less open it is for others to join.  Black transsexuals are really high on the bioleninist hierarchy and god forbid any straight White man who pretends to belong to that sacred group!

Covid-19 facts and truth vs. HBD lies.

The HBDers need to be investigated.

See this.

HBD is treason.


Wednesday, March 24, 2021

Odds and Ends, 3/24/21

In der news. In all cases, emphasis added.

To be fair to Counter-Currents, this is a good essay. What it should also include is that Matthews is being promoted by Amren.  Why is that I wonder?  Why promote the idea of non-Whites in a pseudo-White “ethnostate?”  Rosie and the kids, perhaps?

This is generally useful.  But, see this:

I’ve wondered how much of the notorious backbiting from our (?) side is the usual jealousy, gossip-mongering, and purity spiraling by armchair dictators, and how much is deliberate sabotage and disinformation by various opposition sources. Either way, don’t do the enemy’s work for them! It seems that anyone on our side who rises to prominence and starts doing something effective will get buckets of “friendly fire” criticism. Sadly, some of it comes from major figures on our side. It’s time to cut that out! One thing I have to say for Leftists is that they do a fairly decent job of settling disagreements outside of public view and standing together where it counts.

I’m sure that the post's author and Johnson look at intra-movement backbiting and view it as all those dastardly people who dare criticize Johnson. What about Johnson’s criticisms of Spencer, accusations against Friberg, and defamation of Sallis? It goes in both directions.  

I really cannot stand the “movement” characteristic of labelling people they don't like as “Jews” or “Feds.” Yes, some people are Jews and some people may well turn out to be Feds. But this knee-jerk stupidity of making accusations, or sly implications against opponents, with no evidence, is reflective of poor character.

The whole “he’s a Jew” stupidity reached the ultimate low when some idiot called Pierce a Jew – “Rabbi Pierce.” I think that Pierce (who was of English and Scots-Irish heritage) must be the least Jewish person I ever met. I don’t know who is or who is not a “Fed,” and since I do not know, I do not accuse. There are some people who I’m 95% sure are not “Feds,” but how can anyone be so sure to that someone is a “Fed” so as to make a public accusation? Have you ever noticed that the "insane" and "paranoid piece of crap" Sallis never makes these "Jew" and "Fed" accusations?

I believe that the overwhelming proportion of intra-"movement" criticism is sincere. Whether you think that the criticism is cogent or misguided is another issue.

High trusters gone wild!  Hyper-individualism! Or is it individualized collectivism? Or collectivist individualism?

Joyce responds to Cofnas:

Andrew Joycesays:

March 23, 2021 at 3:08 pm

A commenter earlier stated that Cofnas seemed like a “nutcase,” which is something I’m slowly coming to agree with. He seems emotionally uncontrolled.

It does appear that I linked to the wrong site. I intended to link to the 2020 results, and had discounted Rathner due to lack of clear biographical information. There are no other Jews among elected NRA board members.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2020/7/10/2020-nra-board-election-results

Of course I’m fine with there being a handful of Jews on the NRA board because such numbers aren’t enough to rescue his default hypothesis. The disparity is too great, and Cofnas knows this which is why he’s stopped linking to my article and is instead playing to a small group of fans with screenshots from the comment section.

It’s worth recapping Cofnas’s major errors, which he’s avoided mentioning to his own audience.

He’s claimed MacDonald has omitted data, when the data is clearly in MacDonald’s text.

He’s failed to test his own default hypothesis.

His default hypothesis fails every test it’s subjected to.

He relies exclusively on anecdotes, using a single 1994 conference to make the argument that Jews throughout “recent history” have been over-represented in non-anti-Semitic white nationalist movements.

He’s claimed American Jews are interbreeding themselves out of existence, when professional demographers insist the Jews in America are marrying among their own at “surprising” levels compared to other groups.

He says American Jews are approaching near disappearance when demographers show American Jews will experience only minimal decline in the context of global growth.

He says American Jews aren’t hypocrites on race when their major organisations haven’t bothered with the Ethiopian Jews in decades.

He claims Jews have no relationship with multiculturalism when Jews are clearly linked to the historical evolution of multicultural concepts of citizenship, and continue to be massively over-represented in Western refugee and migrant lobbies.

Cofnas is an excellent example of his ethnic group, and a quintessential pseudo-scholar.

Ah yes, but I attached an incorrect link. I guess that makes me dim-witted with a fake PhD. Whatever helps him sleep at night I suppose.

This is a disappointment:

Ricardo DuchesneMarch 23, 2021 at 8:37 am

Don’t think you are being fair to Lipton Matthews’s argument. I understand you are relying on a short article. He has other articles out there, a few in American Renaissance. Matthews needs to explain what he means by “cultural nationalism”, but my sense is that he means more than civic nationalism. I certainly do, and sometimes I also advocate cultural nationalism, both classical liberal values AND Western culture, languages, history, religion, symbols, writers, heritage, and ethnicity. Imagine our schools framing their curriculum in Western cultural terms, and our politicians expressing love and dedication to this heritage? It would go a long way in the protection of the civilization whites created.

Lipton is very well read about the West and has read my book. I noticed this in an interview/conversation we had last week, posted in TOQ.

Is the Negro being defended by Duchesne because he read Duchesne’s book? And what about this – “It would go a long way in the protection of the civilization whites created.”  That’s great, but what about protecting Whites themselves?  White EGI? I don’t care about a “white civilization” that is actualized by Jamaicans.

How’s that “Arctic Alliance” coming out, Derbyshire?

Get this:

Greg JohnsonMarch 22, 2021 at 1:51 pm

Anyone descended from old stock American settlers descends from the survivors of an Indian massacre. But most don’t know it. Simpy grasping that fact should be enough to dispense with most of the spurious guilt trips laid on whites about the poor red man.

“Simpy” – the Herrenvolk don’t need no stinkin’ spelling!  The laws of language adjust to the Herrenvolk, not the other way around!

“Anyone?”  So, consider someone whose ancestors settled in, say, colonial Boston, and that family has lived in that urbanized milieu from colonial times to the present. Do they descend from “the survivors of an Indian massacre?” 


Tuesday, March 23, 2021

On Jeelvy and Cofnas

Odds and Ends. In all cases, emphasis added

Counter-Currents advocating violence and illegality:

Nicholas R. JeelvyMarch 21, 2021 at 1:50 am

Women, whether they’re wives or daughters, will test your patriarchal resolve until the choice is between abdicating mastery of the house or beating the woman.

You don’t have to enjoy it, but yeah, at some point, beatings may become necessary.

Is it really necessary to point out all of the problems with that, not only on its own merits as an idea, but also with respect to "optics" and the status of a Far Right website in today's sociopolitical climate? The deeper problem here is not so much Jeelvy's absolute stupidity and immaturity (already well established) but Johnson's horrifically poor judgment (I suppose that is also already well established).

I view these comments from Jeelvy to be akin to Derbyshire's comments about child porn - a line has been crossed, after which anyone who associates themselves with Counter-Currents is tainted by the stink, just like those who continued to associate with VDARE and Derbyshire after the child porn comments were also, in my opinion, similarly tainted.

Comments from Counter-Currents:

OnlookerMarch 21, 2021 at 6:41 pm

Beat women. Marry girls at 14. Women can’t give consent. Are you a satire, a la The Onion, or a chuckling troll? Please tell me you are. Otherwise you are a deeply mentally and emotionally troubled misogynist who needs serious help.

threestarsMarch 22, 2021 at 5:01 am

Jeelvy’s opinions are in the minority, even within our thing. For starters, the average marriage age in Wester [sic] Europe for the last thousand years or so was 25 and 21 respectively for men and women, with a maximum of 26 for gals in 17th cent London. Maybe backward cesspits like Macedonia were different.

threestarsMarch 21, 2021 at 3:19 am

lol

In better times, she’d already have a husband at 14

The average marriage age for men and women in the Western world was 25 and 21 respectively for the last thousand years. So it’s clear where this guy’s coming from.

outclassedMarch 22, 2021 at 9:37 am

It used to be widely known and understood that the 1350’s abuse and beat their women for various reasons including for the reasons you seem to promote in this article. Apparently this type of domestic violence is rampant in the lgbtq community as well.

Advocating to emulate this behavior appears counterintuitive to the continued mandate this site and others of the same ideological compass advance.

We are supposed to be better.

These commentators obviously haven’t figured out yet that Counter-Currents these days is all about maximizing page views and “D”Nations” (after all, “Trevor Lynch” needs your shekels to go to the movies).  If “shock jock” tactics boost page views and get sweaty Fullmoon Ancestry types in their mothers’ basements to send in money, all the better, amirite?

Look guys, it may sound egotistical, but the record shows that Sallis is typically right about most things. If you read this blog you’ll know that I identified Counter-Currents as being in decline (*), and on a Majority Rights-like downward trajectory.  I identified Jeelvy as among the worst writers I’ve ever encountered in Der Movement, and then Fullmoon Ancestry came along who, if anything, is worse. Jim Goad is simply an embarrassing disaster, whose "contributions" are for “shock jock” value only. Counter-Currents is now middlebrow at best. That Johnson wanted to recruit Roissy tells you all you need to know what the long-term strategy is there. Following up on that strategy, Johnson should get over his feuds and recruit some of his Alt Right enemies to do Beavis-and-Butthead Counter-Currents livestreams, alcohol consumption during livestreaming being mandatory; consumption of other substances can be voluntary. 

*I’m talking about quality, its trajectory, and its long-term future. I acknowledge that for now that the “Howard Stern” tactics are boosting page views and donations, but can the site's quality and seriousness be compared to how it was, say, ten years ago?  Or even five?

Whatever my disagreements with Joyce, and they are significant on certain topics, he is still orders of magnitude superior to the juvenile retards who write for Counter-Currents. Let us consider his Cofnas critiques.

Countering Cofnas, part one.

Countering Cofnas, part two.

Cofnas remarks that “four-out-of-ten invited speakers at the first American Renaissance conference in 1994 were Jewish (Lawrence Auster, Michael Levin, Rabbi Mayer Schiller, and Eugene Valberg) (American Renaissance 2017), and many of its most prominent supporters were Jewish.” He furthermore argues that this is evidence that “Jews have been overrepresented in non-anti-Semitic white nationalist movements.” But the logic here surely breaks down when given even the briefest of considerations. These speakers were not representational, but invited. Their mere presence at the conference reflects in large part the tastes, preferences, and, I would argue, anxieties of the person or persons who invited them. In this regard, I believe it’s been a longstanding position of Jared Taylor that he not be seen as anti-Semitic, and Taylor has himself on many occasions expressed hostility to anti-Semitism. In his own words, Taylor has maintained that “American Renaissance has taken an implicit position on Jews by publishing Jewish authors and inviting Jewish speakers to AR conferences.” Could his selection of these speakers have been an over-compensation to fend off accusations of American Renaissance being anti-Semitic? I believe so… All four figures are primarily concerned with race and IQ, a preoccupation of the almost explicitly philo-Semitic Jared Taylor (and one I personally find both distracting and overplayed in the context of broader civilizational collapse), rather than having ties to broader White nationalist ideology. Schiller was an almost comical inclusion given his lack of academic credentials and attachment to certain crackpot fringe ideologies.

Always remember – HBD “race realism” is a political movement designed to privilege the interests of Jews and Asians over those of Whites.

Cofnas suggests, or implies, that Jews are forced out of pro-White activism merely because they are Jews, because of irrational anti-Semitism, and that Jews are being unjustly accused of sabotaging nationalist efforts. Let’s look at the actually history of the Amren Jews, which include such low points as:

1. Promoting the idea of a multiracial, racially diverse “White separatist state” [sic!] that would include “Asians and others.”

2. Getting into a verbal altercation with David Duke at the 2006 conference, causing chaos and national and international reporting on the incident, after which Amren conferences started having all the problems with cancelled venues, etc.

3. Being involved in sending a pushy and threatening letter to Amren about “anti-Semitism.”

4. Stating that we should all accept the “racial status quo” of anti-White policies, alien immigration, affirmative action, forced integration, etc. because we cannot hope for anything better.

5. Asserting that the White public equates White nationalists with child molesters.

6. Asserting that racial preservation for its own sake (rather than for some phenotypic IQ hierarchy) is “insane.”

7. Asserting (contrary to Yockey and just about every other student of history) that Spain (and I presume Portugal as well) is "not really part of the West," while, of course. Jews, for endless centuries ghettoized and separate from host European nations, and derived from a non-Western "Magian" High Culture, are, of course, completely Western.

8. I strongly suspect, but have no direct evidence, that the “latrine flies” slur against Amren conference attendees, so enthusiastically promoted by Derbyshire, originated with one of the Amren Jews, but, again, I have no evidence and may be wrong about this one specific point.

And of course, in general, "rightist" Jews, whether associated with Amren or not,  have been prominent promoters of the HBD fraud.

Now, Jew apologists would counter-argue that it is understandable that Jewish “pro-White” activists would reject “anti-Semitic” rhetoric and would oppose Duke, and would insist that Jews are White and should be accepted in any White ethnostate. Very well. Let’s then remove #2 and #3 from the list above. Consider what remains. One example - promoting multiracialism as part of “White separatism!” While it can be understandable if a Jew insisted that Jews be part of a “White ethnostate” (although we may object), “Asians and others” is inexcusable. What about telling us we should give up and accept the “racial status quo” since we are viewed no better than child molesters and the current racial dispensation is the best that can be hoped for?  What about rejected racial preservationism that is based on race, kinship, and EGI and instead insisting on “IQ nationalism?” Why do Jews ALWAYS promote corrosive memes, even within the ranks of “race realists” and “White advocates?” Even putting aside the issue of “anti-Semitism,” Jews will ALWAYS promote diversity, multiculturalism, aracial nationalism, IQ over kinship; even in the context of an Amren meeting, they promote, in an attenuated form, the same poisons that their more obviously leftist co-ethnic brethren disseminate throughout the broader society.

Then why shouldn’t they be distrusted and forced out?  As Joyce writes:

In short, Jews have been accused of “scheming” to subvert nationalist movements because they are very often proven to be doing just that. 

Can Cofnas, or anyone else, point to one prominent Jew involved in overt pro-White activism who behaves in good faith and doesn't promote some sort of destructive agenda?  I cannot think of a single one. 

If we expand the scope to the broader Alt Right and paleoconservative Alt Lite, Gottfried may be the best of the bunch, but even he has said some dumb things over the years. If we further expand the field to include the broader Right, which encompasses Trumpian populism, then Stephen Miller would be an example of a Jew who seems to be doing the right thing. That's just one person of course, and there we are talking about mainstream politics, not the overtly pro-White "movement."

If any group is actually being unjustly forced out of pro-White activism it is White ethnics, who are actually rejected solely due to their ethnic origins; none of these peoples poison the well of discourse as did Jews like Hart, Weissberg, et al.

Countering Cofnas, part three.

About intermarriage, some time ago I analyzed ethnic intermarriage data (from Alba, etc.) and demonstrated that, compared to European American ethnic groups of similar size, Jewish Americans actually have a suppressed intermarriage rate.  Thus, if Jews intermarry at about 50%, White groups of similar size intermarry at about 70-80%.

In addition, Joyce adds:
It is also worth pointing out that in both cases, Jewish males have taken non-Jewish wives, a direction that dominates the overall picture of intermarriage in North America. Since Jewish identity is traditionally perceived as following the maternal line, it should be clear that this tendency is yet another factor mitigating intermarriage somewhat from the perspective of Jewish ethnocentrism.

I’m not interesting in Cofnas sufficiently to do a deep analysis of him and his political views, other than to note that some on the SJW Left accuse him of being on the Right.  So, instead of Cofnas specifically, let us consider a pro-White, rightist Jew in general.  Now, it can be somewhat understandable if such a person would want Jews – at least pro-White, rightist Jews – accepted on the Right, and it is also understandable that they would reject many anti-Semitic tropes. They have the right to criticizes errors and excesses in MacDonald’s work (after all, I do so here, with respect to his later HBD-Nordicist assertions), although Cofnas’ “refutations” seem to me to be mostly nitpicking and misrepresentation.

But, you know, a sincere pro-White Jew would acknowledge that MacDonald makes good points about the Jews, that much of that work is sound, at least in its general conclusions (even if some minor details are off), and that the anti-Semites have a point. Even more importantly, the Jew in question would be better served doing some positive good, rather than constantly negatively focusing on MacDonald or on anti-Semites.  

I look at Stephen Miller – there is someone doing good work on the immigration issue. If Miller has been spending time obsessing about “anti-Semites on the Right” then I must have missed it. If there are sincere Jews on Der Right, they would be better served demonstrating their sincerity through their actions on behalf of Whites and the West, rather than doing what Cofnas does. Certainly, those Jews have the right to promote the view that Jews should be considered part of the White West (I’m not saying I agree with that view, merely stating that the Jews in question are well within their right to include their own interests in their activism – why should they sacrifice themselves for other folks?). But if they believe this, if they believe that they belong, then do something of value. I don’t consider misrepresenting the role of Jews in White decline to be of value, promoting the HBD fraud is not of value, promoting multiracial “White separatism” (sic) is not of value, telling us to accept the “racial status quo” is not of value.  If you don’t want to be accused of sabotaging the White Right, then the first step is to actually stop doing it.

We are all not just imaging the war of ethnic aggression of Jews against Whites. If Cofnas is correct,we should be seeing plenty of Jews heavily involved with promoting Der Right, and with the Jews' power, influence,wealth, cunning, etc.,the Right would be doing much better than it is.  But, no. Jews are overwhelmingly on the Left, and most of those that are on the Right do more harm than good.

If pro-White Jews want to criticize someone, Hart or Weisberg would be better choices than MacDonald. The antics of the Amren Jews have convinced many activists that MacDonald's work on the Jews is 100% correct.

See this.  The parents targeted by this harassment should take proper legal actions.

Monday, March 22, 2021

The Cost of Lies

Food for thought.

We know that politicians are known for lying and that “dark triad” traits are said to be a benefit – nay, even a prerequisite – for leadership. I know many examples IRL of leaders in business and academia who constantly lie, lie freely, lie without shame or remorse; therefore, complete dishonesty seems to be a characteristic of leadership in many fields. I see the same in Der Movement as well.

What can we say about fundamentally dishonest leadership?

One argument would be that if these lies are deception to benefit the leader’s group, then the lying is justified. Fine - but many of the lies are purely self-serving for the leader’s personal interests, and sometimes harm the group. Another, more sophisticated argument, would be that while those lies may be sometimes harmful, they’re characteristic of a personality type which is otherwise a net benefit for the leader’s group. Perhaps - but those lies have a cost, a significant cost, and maybe the "net benefit" is not really a benefit at all. Maybe all of those lies led to the downfall of America and the West, and maybe all of the constant lying led to constant failure of Der Movement.


Sunday, March 21, 2021

3/21/21: Follow-Up on Yesterday

Comments.

Some readers may wonder about my criticism of Jeelvy yesterday, given my own frequent negative comments about milady.

Was that just knee-jerk criticism of Counter-Currents from the “insane” and “paranoid piece of crap” Sallis?  No. 

First, Jeelvy is one of the pitiful current crew of Counter-Currents writers who I find childish and stupid, and so this is just another example of his juvenile jackassery. Second, and more importantly, I see Jeelvy’s post as a form of Bunkerism, which I oppose.

Bunkerism I define as politically irrelevant and ultimately futile or counter-productive expressions of racial, ethnic, religious, etc. bigotry by a White right-winger, conducted as an atomized individual or as part of a group of private citizens, which has no positive effect in advancing the views of the “Bunker” in the real world.

Jeelvy’s comments about women are sexual Bunkerism, all sound and fury signifying nothing. Only political action that accomplishes the attainment of real world objectives matter; gibbering about “beating women” on a pink-frilled pseudo-intellectual rightist webzine accomplishes nothing to practically advance rightist social policy.

Bunkerism of course has a foundation in truth, and Jeelvy’s opinions on women have a foundation of truth as well. But the descriptive truth of Bunkerism can be expressed more optimally, and there is no real political prescription there.

There are a number of sociopolitical policies one can propose that could alter social sexual mores and be pro-natalist: Changes in divorce laws, subsidies for stay-at-home mothers, cash payouts for the right kind of people to have children, production of cultural artifacts that promote traditional masculinity and femininity and that push back against feminism and all other social pathologies, changes in the education system (including Title IX) and in the workplace, etc. Talking about “beating women” and about anti-female violence in general, while it may excite the incel crowd, is not in any way a serious and helpful contribution to the discussion. Supporting MGTOW at least would be better – force women to work to attract quality men instead of having men focus their entire existence around women (like the “game” crowd preaches). But, no. Counter-Currents is no longer a serious endeavor, it is all about “shock jock” tactics for page views, it is all about “D’Nations,” so don’t expect anything useful from that source.

Someone else gets Johnsonian hypocrisy (emphasis added):

HobocopMarch 20, 2021 at 1:55 pm

Greg Johnson Counter Currents podcast AMA March 2021: “You know, there are lots of people with strong opinions about pair bonding. Sometimes I find myself banning and blocking them at Counter Currents because they’ll write in and say, ‘The problem is all women, they’re all whores,’ and I don’t want to write that, I don’t want to publish that at Counter Currents. It’s too unnuanced, its too sloppy.”

Nicholas R. Jeelvy Counter Currents article March 2021: “Absent patriarchal society’s relentless shaping of females into the eusocial category of woman, which here means wife and mother, females become whores, jumping from cock to cock in their quest to secure ever-grander alpha male attention for themselves…There is a nurturing instinct in women, but it has to be nurtured and reinforced. The opposite instinct — the instinct to whoredom and hypergamy — must be violently discouraged (and by violently, I mean beatings).”

There is no way out but through Johnson.

And that is a serious matter. It’s not just another example of Johnson’s mind-numbing hypocrisy, self-unawareness, ineptness, and gaslighting. This underscores the low quality of “movement” “leadership,” it underscores the lack of seriousness, consistency, and intellectual rigor in Der Right, and it once again demonstrates why giving “D’Nations” in that direction is equivalent to flushing money down the toilet.

Business as usual, eh?


Saturday, March 20, 2021

Odds and Ends, 3/20/21

In all cases, emphasis added.

Welcome to Spring! All of the Winter-loving, cold-weather-is-in-the-(Northern)European-soul-pontificating, "movement" "activists" are mourning, as they weep bitter tears - weeping in their places of residence in California, Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Arizona, Washington, Virginia, Maryland, etc. Not one in, say, Alaska or North Dakota. Mysterious, it all is!

See this. The following is a sample of the juvenile Boratism that passes for intellectual discourse at Counter-Currents. 

After all, we’ve transcended the era of housewives and we simply love conservative women with big tits in MAGA hats, brandishing guns and spouting libertarian boilerplate. 

The reality, however, is that Simone de Beauvoir is right. 

Female gender roles are manufactured by society and imposed upon females, thereby making them women, the second sex. Natural woman isn’t, as the conservative would have you believe, a mother or a loyal wife, nurturing, submissive, and meek. No, she is a rapacious and hypergamous sex demon, consumed by a narcissism rarely seen in men. Absent patriarchal society’s relentless shaping of females into the eusocial category of woman, which here means wife and mother, females become whores, jumping from cock to cock in their quest to secure ever-grander alpha male attention for themselves.

Here’s the thing – if Sallis, or anyone else Johnson dislikes, wrote things like that (more intelligently, of course), then they are “insane” and “paranoid” and “MGTOW incel woman haters” – “don’t let the bastards get you down,” milady.  But, if Borat writes that – it’s perfectly fine, no problem.

…the instinct to whoredom and hypergamy — must be violently discouraged (and by violently, I mean beatings). 

Try to imagine Johnson’s reaction if one of we “insane” people wrote that. Promoting violence on a Far Right blog, and that being anti-female violence after the Georgia shooting - what could go wrong?  Absolute zero judgment.

Question: Does Jeely beat his (small-breasted, by his own admission) wife?

I don't know how things are done among the Turko-Albanians, but in the USA, beating women is a sure ticket to prison. Incitement to violence is also. Putting aside the legalities, the idea itself seems stupid. Is woman-beating part of "tradition?" Did the Founders need to beat their wives to prevent "whoredom and hypergamy?" I can't seem to imagine George Washington beating Martha, or John Adams beating Abigail.  

Commentators know better:

Wilburn SprayberryMarch 19, 2021 at 12:44 pm

No – you found the guy who knows a lot of munchkins who live off parents, can’t hold a job, find a girlfriend, but see themselves as Viking warrior-kings

Mike RicciMarch 19, 2021 at 1:59 pm

You got that right. These sorts of articles are cringe and don’t help at all, but unfortunately the dissident movement itself is too incel to notice.

Where's "Lexi?"  No comments yet? Do Mr. Sprayberry and Mr. Ricci ("Ricci?"  Wrong website!) contribute "D'Nations" to Counter-Currents?

Jeelvy, Goad, and Ancestry are all doing a marvelous job destroying whatever credibility Counter-Currents still has (if any) as an "intellectual" webzine. These days it is all about page views and "D'Nations" for that lousy site. Quantity over quality, eh?

Speaking of which: Bad news.

See this.

Mr. Cozzens points out a fundamental Indian weakness in their fight against the whites: “Not only did the Indians fail to unite . . . they also continued to make war on one another. There was no sense of ‘Indianness’ until it was too late.”

So, that’s the Indian equivalent of White ethnonationalism, narrow tribalism that causes the group to be defeated by more organized peoples. 

Not a happy ending.  No doubt she “worked tirelessly.” Did the customers have the same levels of precious bodily fluids after the tireless work as before? Just asking a question. I make no assumptions, no accusations.

See this. The alleged killer was apparently motivated because of “sex addiction” and the need to “remove temptation."  So, why did he target folks who were innocently “working tirelessly?” Just asking a question. I make no assumptions, no accusations.

Next, Putin will challenge His Fraudulency Biden to a live, on-air, stair climbing contest.

Der Right continues to grovel to China. This is reality. But, you see, Der Right is in bed with China, and in more ways than one, eh?

Never forget, never forgive.  Remember, there is no statute of limitations on homicide; an investigation could in theory be re-opened at any time. I make no assumptions, no accusations; I simply state a fact of law.