Wednesday, March 30, 2022

Johnson and Derbyshire

Two questions for Sir Gaslighter.

Johnson has written:

Derbyshire, by the way, is not a White Nationalist at all. He is a conservative cognitive elitist who is married to a Chinese woman and has two non-white children. Beyond that, he has attacked White Nationalists in the most scurrilous terms, referring to AmRen attendees as “latrine flies” and attacking Kevin MacDonald on the most swinish possible grounds. It is only when this sucking up to Jews and centrists failed to save him from the charges of racism that he began to associate with White Nationalists, who were all too willing to cross his palm with silver. Frankly it is disgusting that the donations of White Nationalists are being sluiced into the pockets of this opportunist.

So, I have two main questions for Greg Johnson.

First, do you still agree with your assessment of Derbyshire quoted above and, by extension, your assessment of those pro-White activists who “sluiced” donations “into the pockets of this opportunist?” If yes, move on to question two.  If no, then as a follow-up to question one, what does it say about your judgment and/or character that your initial assessment, reproduced above, has changed, since Derbyshire himself has not changed nor have his enablers?

Second, if the answer to question one is yes, then why do you associate with individuals who can be described as “White Nationalists, who were all too willing to cross his palm with silver” – Derbyshire’s primary enablers, who invite him to conferences (including Amren – the “latrine fly” conference) and who, presumably, pay him for his “work” and who also create the situation in which “the donations of White Nationalists are being sluiced into the pockets of this opportunist?” Let's consider some follow-up questions for question two, to determine as to why you associate with such individuals. Is it “political” expediency and convenience in Der Movement, to solidify your own status?  Is it Quota Queen solidarity as part of the “good old boys network?” Some other defect of judgment and/or character?  Please explain.

On a related note, I don’t want to be a “low information moralizer,” but I’m wondering - was Frank Borzellieri given all of the same assistance and opportunities after his “cancelling” that Derbyshire received after his own?  Maybe Borzellieri did, and it just did not work out, but I suspect that this was not the case.  If so, then why not, dear “movement?”

Monday, March 28, 2022

Gab's Free speech?

What really happened?

On 3/27/22, Gab moderaters were blocking anyone posting links from EGI Notes (blogspot version). This was done without any warning or explanation. I submitted a complaint, as this blog does not violate any of Gab's "terms of service." I did not receive any reply or explanation of any kind, but later that day linking to this blog again became possible. What happened?  As I get no input, who knows? How is Gab any different from Twitter or any of the other mainstream social media with their heavy-handed, mysterious, and user-unfriendly moderation?  You'd think that a bastion of "free speech" would be more transparent about their moderation decisions.

A question is who was it who complained to Gab about EGI Notes? The facts of the case must be determined.. This incident will not be forgotten. Count on it.

A more general lesson is that dissidents cannot depend on anyone, including self-styled "champions of free speech," to guarantee access to a public forum. In the absence of free speech law governing private entities, we are all at the mercy of those whose commitment to free expression is, at best, questionable.

Sunday, March 27, 2022

Russia, Ukraine, and EGI

Thoughts.

Idiots who don’t understand the ethnic genetic interests (EGI) concept, and who do not understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive, will use the Russia-Ukraine concept as an excuse to critique EGI. They’ll see these two genetically closely related peoples fighting, with each allied with genetically more distant peoples (Russia with China; Ukraine with Western Europeans [who are of course more closely related to Slavs than the racially different Chinese]) and believe that this somehow invalidates EGI (if anything it is more of a criticism of descriptive genetic similarity theory (GST) than it is of ethnic genetic interests).

And they have made similar arguments with respect to conflicts throughout history, breathlessly stating things like "Germans allied with Japanese against the British,” and then, in a self-satisfied fashion, as it no one has ever considered this point before, smugly proclaim that EGI is “invalidated.” Of course, once again, they don’t understand descriptive vs. prescriptive, and they also don’t understand how the scope of warfare and human conflict has expanded throughout history, being first neighboring tribes fighting, then nation states, then empires and/or alliances of states, and now we are moving more in the direction of a clash of civilizations. Indeed, with respect to the latter point, one could state that Ukraine is a proxy for “the West;” here the conflict is really Russia vs the West, fought indirectly, just like as in the Cold War, conflicts between the USA and the USSR were fought through proxy states rather than directly.

Nation states have various national interests, including geopolitical strategic interests, often based not only on current events, but on issues of history and national identity. These do not always strictly correlate with prescriptive EGI, a descriptive fact that does not invalidate EGI or its prescriptive value. Let’s consider the current conflict, first from the descriptive standpoint and then from the prescriptive. The tragic history of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people is to a large extent directly and indirectly due to Ukraine’s association with Russia.  It is therefore not surprising to observe the reality of a historical tension between closely related Russians and Ukrainians, even though much of the suffering of Ukrainians has been due to Jews and not ethnic Russians (but, still, even then, the problems were mediated through Russia/USSR). Poland also has had an unpleasant history with Russia.  Indeed, Ukrainian and Polish identity is to a large extent associated with hostility to Russia or, if not hostility, then it is defined as being distinct from Russia and Russians (hence, we can see why Putin’s formula of trying to equate Ukraine as an integral part of Russia would be rejected by ethnic Ukrainians as an existential attack on their national identity).  This all being so, it is therefore not surprising that genetically closely related groups like Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles had, and still have, serious conflicts.  After all, we interact with our neighbors more than with those far away, and we typically interact with our family most of all, and with all of these close interactions comes the possibility of competition and conflict.  Aren’t family feuds common, despite blood relations and the adaptive interest we have in the well-being of family? If strong proximate concerns can turn family members against each other, even if it may not be in their strict adaptive interest (unless closer family is set against more distant family), then we cannot be surprised that something similar may occur at the ethny level. In neither case does the descriptive reality delegitimize the prescriptive truth of adaptive interests.

Conversely, Slavic groups like Bulgarians and Serbs, South Slav groups, are genetically more distant from Russians than are Poles and Ukrainians, but because of historical reasons, these more distant groups are typically better disposed toward Russia and Russians than are the groups more genetically similar. These are descriptive realities. So, proximate interests can push groups apart or pull them closer together. Of course, in the global context, there isn’t much of a difference between all of these groups; nevertheless, the pattern still exists.

Also, genetic similarity is not identity, and even with kinship overlap between closely related groups (some members of one group may be actually a bit more closely related to some members of the other group, complicating genetic interests), one can still argue that each national group has its own genetic interests, so if a conflict is geographically focused on neighbors, then conflict between those neighbors is not necessarily incompatible with even a prescriptive view of EGI. So, just like family conflict can be adaptive if one defends the interests of closer kin against those more distant, so can conflict between closely related peoples be adaptive, if the net result of the conflict supports the interests of those with the highest concentration of genetic interest. That said, from the view of long term EGI stability in a global context, amity between closely related ethnies is generally preferable, particularly with the possibility of kinship overlap. We’ll consider prescriptive below but first we will summarize the descriptive.

There are a number of reasons why descriptive reality may not correlate with strict prescriptive EGI. The players may not have an understanding of their genetic interests or understand what their genetic interests are in a particular case. They may not care even if they do know (Salter in On Genetics Interests notes that a “who cares” attitude toward adaptive interests, as an expression of values, may not be objectively answerable [other than to state that people who display such an attitude may eventually be replaced by those who do care about adaptive interests and act accordingly]). It may well be that net genetic interests, at least in the short term, are served by focusing on narrow concentrations of genetic interest even at the cost of more general and dilute interests (this is usually not a sound long term approach, and often backfires even in the short term – see the two world wars, for example).  It may be that history, culture, national identity and other strong proximate interests (that can overlap with EGI) may affect national policy and the actions of a people so strongly that they may pursue “national interests” that run contrary to EGI; the same holds for geopolitical considerations that may seem sound but can be maladaptive in the long run.  Going back to national identity, a fictive civic nationalist identity can certainly harm genetic interests, if one values the interests of a genetically alien co-citizen, and/or a nation full of such alien “fellow citizens," over that of the interests of those genetically closer. Religion, which can cut across genetic lines, fits into the cultural and identity explanations. Certainly, in general, people tend to have more frequent conflicts with their neighbors and, particularly in looking at conflicts in the pre-globalist age, it was infrequent to have conflicts with those on the other side of the globe (although we have been moving in that direction as the “world as gotten smaller”). This is not meant to be a fully comprehensive list, but you get the idea why actual reality may not always fit adaptive prescriptions.

I would like to point out even if you want to look at the current conflict in terms of GST, (not my purpose here), rather than EGI, you can say that the more warm welcome of Ukrainian refugees into European nations compared to that of Colored aliens, is indicative of GST. The idea that the Russians didn’t want into the Ukraine at full force, at least at first, so as to not alienate the native population, but may have been a bit due to GST, but also general “hearts and minds” objectives as well as to display restraint to the international community.

What would be the EGI prescription in the current conflict? It is more or less obvious and accords with what some White nationalists, particularly those without a strong emotional attachment to either side, have suggested. The quicker the conflict ends, the better. National boundaries should follow ethnic boundaries and this can apply even with closely related groups, particularly when the groups have had a difficult history (Russians vs. Ukrainians, Serbs vs Croats, etc.). Closely related groups should try and maintain friendly relations, resolve problems without armed conflict, and try to avoid situations in which they are forced into alliances with the genetically distant against their ethnic close kin.  They should respect each other’s sovereignty. They should engage in fruitful trade and other expressions of amiability, and assist each other to the extent possible (without compromising national interests). It would be helpful if their nations were as homogeneous as possible, and it would be best to avoid having influential minorities who have interests that can lead to conflict between closely related nations. The leadership cadres of nations should come from the majority population and serve majority interests, and these leaders need to have an understanding of biopolitics, including the adaptive interests of EGI. From a prescriptive EGI standpoint, the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a maladaptive event and a tragedy. 

The conflict needs to end. Ukraine should maintain its independence, but should cede majority Russian areas to Russia. Alternatively, those ethnic Russians can assimilated (since they are genetically close to the Ukrainian majority) or, if assimilation is not possible for various reasons (including history and culture) then they can be repatriated to Russia. Ukraine should have ethnic Ukrainian leadership, certainly not Jewish leadership, and the nation should not be a pawn in Russian-Western conflicts. Russia needs to understand that the existential threat to is genetic existence (culture and politics are other issues of course) comes from the South and East, not the West, and there needs to be an understanding nor only between Russia and Ukraine but between Russia and the West as well. I’m not saying any of that is likely (descriptive), but that is what should occur (prescriptive).

Saturday, March 26, 2022

Counter Laughter

Give dem shekels!

Laugh at this.

This year, Counter-Currents aims to raise $300,000 to sustain and expand our work. 

“Trevor Lynch” needs to watch more movies to write up for the anti-White HBD Jew Unz site, and, of course, Jimmy “worst week yet” Goad needs his well deserved salary.

We have raised $10,441.67 thus far. Thank you to all our donors! 

Yes, all you imbecilic suckers!

Last week, we announced a $3,000 matching grant. We are now at $1,532, more than halfway there.  

Ditto.

I do not at all enjoy asking our community for money. 

That’s why you and your fellows do it non-stop.

But our cause is too important to give in to such feelings.

But of course.  It pains them – pains them I say! – to ask you for constant handouts so they, your fearless leaders, can live better than you, their hapless followers.  But, hey, mophead is doing it, so why not them?  Executive compensation!

Without a thriving philanthropic culture, we cannot influence politics in America. 

Influence it in a negative direction. And, by the way, forgetting for a moment whether their influence is good or bad, how have they done so far with the money already bestowed upon them?

Thus we must think of charity as a sacred calling.

Yes, sacred that you give and they receive.  It’s holy even!

Greg Johnson is building a staff of seasoned professionals. 

Just read posts by Jeelvy, van de Camp, and Goad and that should be immediately obvious.

We have come a long way with dedicated amateurs. 

A long way down from the point where Counter-Currents was ten years ago.

Wait till you see what we can accomplish with dedicated professionals.

Down to the sewer. They’ve utterly failed as “dedicated amateurs.”  Wait till you see how they will fail as “dedicated professionals.”

There is no better contribution to our people’s future than a gift to Counter-Currents 2.0. 

Counter-Currents 2.0!  Part of WN 3.0!  Rosie and the kids!

We are a mature institution…

Mature!  Just read Jim Goad.

…run by capable people…

Greg Johnson's constant errors of judgment, gaslighting, and tragicomic errors are chronicled here.  If that is “capable,” I’d hate to see what incompetent looks like.

… pursuing the best possible strategy.

For taking your money.

Thank you for your faith in Counter-Currents’ mission to empower white identity politics. 

And enrich their bank account.

Please make a gift between $50 and $500 now to fulfill its promise.

Suckers.

Thursday, March 24, 2022

A Descent into Genetic Descent

More on EGI.

The following analysis is based on autosomal DNA, which constitutes the vast bulk of the genome and is the focus of what we typically consider to be ethnic genetic interests (EGI), and is not concerned with NRY and mitochondrial DNA, which are mostly irrelevant to EGI.

Critics of EGI from the Left and the Right (e.g., HBD) often focus on (unjustified) distinctions between genetic relatedness based on direct genealogical relationships (identity by descent) and genetic relatedness independent of direct genealogy (identify by state), such as belonging to the same ethny. Of course, as I’ve stated previously, identity by state is usually just a form of identity by descent that is based on very distant descent, but for the sake of my initial argument here we can consider them to be separate entities. 

Critics of EGI aver that adaptive fitness, and related inclusive fitness (what we do to achieve adaptive fitness; e.g., by assisting kin), only applies to (close, familial) kin, thus only applying to identity by descent, and does not at all apply to identity by state (i.e., to unrelated co-ethnics).  Salter refutes this by citing Hamilton’s modification of the original formulation of inclusive fitness, but let us evaluate the problem from another perspective.

Consider the genetic relatedness of a person, such as yourself, with their descendants. How do you relate, in this genetic sense, to your posterity? With each subsequent generation removed from self, not considering effects of independent assortment and recombination in meiosis, genetic relationship (identity by descent) with genealogical kin is halved. Now, properly considering the aforementioned meiotic processes complicates the situation, so actual relatedness may be somewhat greater or lesser than a two-fold change; however, the reality of a continuous diminishment each generation remains. Thus, at some point, after several centuries, genetic relatedness by genealogical kinship descent (identity by descent) will approach zero. That’s assuming your familial line continues; if it does not, obviously identity by descent will be cut down to absolute zero at the point the line of familial descent ends. But, in any case, at some point, identity by descent in the genealogical sense will become vanishingly small (if it exists at all). However, and this a key point, identity by state will remain, assuming your familial line has not suffered significant admixture with genetically alien stocks. And, even more important, this identity by state will be approximately equivalent to that of unrelated co-ethnics (assuming such co-ethnics exist and have also not suffered significant alien admixture, and also taking into account normal processes of genetic drift and selection that are expected events that occur with all evolved organisms).

Thus, if we assume no significant ethnoracial admixture of your genealogical line of descent, or of your ethny, and if we simply consider overall genetic relatedness, now without making any unnecessary distinctions between identity by descent and identity by state (after all, identical gene sequences are identical, regardless of their origin), then, at some point, your genetic relatedness to your distant posterity will be equivalent to that of a random, unrelated (non-kin) co-ethnic. If your line of descent actually suffered from significant admixture (and your ethny did not), then your distant kin may actually be less genetically similar to you than a random co-ethnic. But in either case, a random (unmixed) co-ethnic will not be any less genetically similar to you (in any meaningful sense) than is your distant genealogical kin (if any exist). This endpoint may be delayed by familial inbreeding (which would depress fitness by other mechanisms), but, eventually, this ultimate endpoint will be reached.

So, does adaptive fitness, and related inclusive fitness, simply “peter out” after several centuries and thus only applies to genealogical kin close to you in time?  Is adaptive fitness therefore self-limited and thus one should only care about a few generations of posterity and ignore what happens after that time (*)?  What justification is there for that view?  What is the specific endpoint?  When kin relatedness reaches that of the background population? Does that mean you have no adaptive interests at all at that point? Really? Why are identical gene sequences from descent at that point privileged over identical gene sequences by state? Does that make objective sense? Or can we dismiss the artificial distinction of identity by descent vs. identity by state and recognize that you would still have adaptive interests (for your posterity and for your co-ethnics) at that time? These would be your interests in (unmixed) co-ethnics to whom you are more genetically similar compared to other populations, and thus this identity by state allows you to exercise inclusive fitness on behalf of these future co-ethnics (that would include any [unmixed] distant kin who would be genetically more or less indistinguishable from the co-ethnics) by engaging in activity in your lifetime that will secure the well-being of your future ethnic kin?  And if the well-being of your ethnic kin in the future is important, then their well-being today certainly is as well (the former depends on the latter, does it not?). Even if today's unrelated ethnic kin are a less concentrated store of genetic similarity than are your immediate kin, there are many more of the former group, and if you want their future well-being to be assured, you need to act on their behalf today.

So, either the critics of EGI have to assert that adaptive fitness only applies to a certain number of generations of kinship, and thereafter is meaningless – which in the long run of evolutionary time means it is completely meaningless (which would go against neo-Darwinian theory and make inclusive fitness activity a long term waste of effort) – and that identical gene sequences are somehow different based on their origin (even though they are identical) OR the critics need to admit the validity of EGI. They need to admit that adaptive fitness, exercised through inclusive fitness mechanisms in pursuit of genetic interests, can apply to co-ethnics (present and future) as well as to genealogical kin. They need to admit that genetic interests apply to genetic identity by distant descent (identity by state) as well as genetic identity by close kin (recent descent; i.e., identity by descent). They need to acknowledge that at some point, genealogical relatedness becomes so dilute that (unmixed) genealogical kinship conflates to co-ethnic relatedness (and if the genealogical kinship is heavily admixed it may exhibit genetic relatedness less than that of unrelated unmixed co-ethnics).

Again, EGI is self-evident. I state that because it is objectively true.

*Another related issue – consider how the Left and Right would respond to someone who states – “I don’t have children and I don’t care what happens after I die, so I don’t care about the environment or anything else that affects the future of humanity.” The Left and Right would respond that this self-centered person has a common interest in humanity; the person is human and is in this manner linked to the interests of humanity as a whole. Putting aside that this view is inconsistent with Left/Right “song and dance” about identity by descent vs. identity by state, we can ask – if we have common interest in the well-being of humanity as whole, then why don’t we also have a common interest in the well-being of our particular ethny? Why do we agree that we have interests in self, family, and humanity, but are then supposed to skip over our interests at the level of ethny? Are all these anti-EGI arguments simply a tactic to ensure that Whites do not organize to defend and promote their collective group interests? It does seem to be the case. I do not see why Whites need to accept such a transparently obvious attempt to delegitimize their group interests.

Wednesday, March 23, 2022

If You Notice Then You Are Paranoid and Insane

Shhh!  Don't be "paranoid and insane!"

See this.

Time is running out. The Great Replacement is at our nation’s doorstep, and white America must act now or become a minority.

Time is running out, we must act now!  Immediately!  We cannot wait!

Then see this.

There is, moreover, no hurry. Our enemies planned to eliminate us over generations. We can take a few decades to set things right. 

Well now!  There's no hurry!  What's a few decades here and there to set things right? 

And this (yes, Sweden is not America, but the Great Replacement is the same).

Once those policies are in place, the creeping decline of Sweden will be replaced with a creeping renewal. It took half a century to make Sweden into a multicultural dystopia. It might take half a century to fix it. In the meantime, Swedes can go about their business as usual, but with the optimism that comes from knowing that their progeny have a bright future ahead, not decline and extinction.

Time is running out, you Swedes, so you better get your act together in half a century. 

If you point out these contradictions, then you are obviously "paranoid and insane."

Another example:

See this.

If Europe is to be preserved, every single African, Middle Eastern, and South or East Asian immigrant must leave, and all their descendants too. 

Every single non-White must leave!  No exceptions! 

And now this.

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...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.

"Small numbers" of aliens - up to 10% of the population! - are fine! 90% preservation should satisfy most people!

 Shhh...if you question that, then you are "paranoid and insane."

This post is not nitpicking criticism. It instead importantly demonstrates the complete lack of intellectual consistency, coherence, and honesty in the "movement," particularly at the pitiful catastrophe known as Counter-Currents.

Tuesday, March 22, 2022

Odds and Ends, 3/22/22

In der news.

Laugh at this.  Rome had "immoral decadence." In contrast to all those clean-living, honorable Germanics with their genes for altruism. Indeed, even today, the word "vandal" connotes the type of high-trust constructive altruism to which we all aspire.

Unz commentator:

The time for debating what percentage is White, etc… is after we have the actual power to make those decisions on our own...

Undoubtedly a racially smug High Truster who believes he has the God-given right to decide upon, and bestow, "whiteness."

100% WRONG. You do not get to retroactively define your "army" after the war is won. The battle lines are drawn before the conflict, and everyone involved must know exactly where they stand and who and what they are fighting for.

If you can't even define your group before you expect group members to fight, then you are not worth fighting for to begin with.

I said the same thing long ago.

Leaders and organizations who are vague as regards what Euro-ethnies they do or do not represent and who are contradictory as to what is their actual “ingroup” need to be replaced by those who are honestly “transparent” on such questions. After all, if a person of group x supports an organization which is really hostile to the ethnic genetic interests of that group, this would be a significant loss of ethnic genetic interest for the activist. Comments such as “these issues will be resolved after a total white victory” are completely inappropriate; people need to know now where to invest their activist energies, and they need to know now where and how their specific ethnic genetic interests will be met.

See this. Some things never change – the High Truster love of Coloreds (as compared to their hatred toward White ethnics) as how this love is never reciprocated.

One English leader, George Thorpe, was especially insistent on kindness to Indians, and even publicly hanged dogs whose barking had frightened them…Indians carried out a carefully-hatched extermination plan, turning on the colonists with whom they worked, killing as many as they could. In some areas, they lost the element of surprise and therefore killed only 400 of Jamestown’s 1,200 whites. For Thorpe, the special friend of the Indians, they reserved a particularly cruel death and elaborate mutilation.

Surprise!

….British reformers redirected their zeal overnight to putting down the “ungrateful wogs."

Ungrateful wogs? South Asians, or Patler and Tommasi?

Another 17th century Englishman wrote of Africans that “the men and women go so alike, that one cannot know a man from a woman but by their breasts, which in the most part be very foule and long, hanging downe low like the udder of a goat.” One Caribbean planter wrote that when African women bent over to tend crops, their breasts touched the ground, giving the impression from a distance that they were six-legged creatures. It would be hard to find such harsh descriptions of people of other races.

Well, not much has changed with the Negro, except they are fatter now.

I have to think of the howling Societies at home who have sympathy with all black men whilst they care nothing for the miseries inflicted on their own kith and kin who have the misfortune to be located near these interesting niggers.

White SJWs today come to mind.

…prominent people split over the Amritsar action, with men who knew India backing the general. Churchill condemned the shootings…

But of course. Only Europeans should be shot at, right Winnie?

One incident from the final days of the Raj showed just how far the former rulers had fallen. While the last viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, was negotiating the final withdrawal, his wife Edwina was carrying on an affair with Jawaharlal Nehru, the most prominent nationalist after Gandhi, and India’s future prime minister.

We can always depend on milady!

And what to make of this:

Indians appear to have been reasonably content to be ruled by the British, but wanted their culture and religions left alone. Men like Kipling, who spent years in India, understood that “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet….

Doesn’t that imply a rejection of Neil Kumar?

Please see footnote 64 here. This nonsense has been going on a long time. Are the endless decades of utter failure any surprise? Footnote 67 is also of interest. High Trust homosexuals vs. White ethnics has been going on since the early 1970s. Nothing new under the sun.

China is watching the conflict in Ukraine not only, re: Taiwan, but, re: Siberia, which they also covet. The Russian military has exposed its conventional ineptness. Based purely in conventional forces, China can take the Russian Far East, no problem. Russia would then be in a position of having to threaten with nuclear weapons, meaning Chinese nuclear retaliation against European Russia. Would Russia endanger its core to defend Siberia? Meanwhile, having alienated the West, Russia couldn't depend on Tom Clancy-novel-like scenarios of help against China. Putin's invasion is a strategic blunder of world historical proportions.

Whatever the final outcome of the Russia-Ukraine war, the White man will lose. The White man has been losing, non-stop, since August 1914.

Thanks, ethnonationalists.

Note: The reason I harp on being historically correct about fundamental issues such as the Alt Right, mainstreaming, Trump, Putin, etc. is not because of arrogance or ego. It is to point out how destructive Der Movement's ethnic affirmative action program is, which is made worse by Der Movement's blacklist.

Sunday, March 20, 2022

System Entropy

Strengths and weaknesses.

Putting aside the issue of relative competence, I have compared Left vs. Right with respect to the ease by which each accomplishes its sociopolitical objectives, and proposed an analytical approach based on the thermodynamic law of entropy. Thus, see this:

The Left has an easier of time of things than the Right, given that the Left’s objectives run alongside the flow of increasing entropy, while the Right’s objectives run in the opposite direction. This underlying fundamental difference explains why attempts at “mainstreaming” and “working within the system” are doomed to ultimate failure, and also explains why the Left has been so easily winning all the battles of the last three-quarters of a century.

We can look at entropy not only with respect to the physical sciences, but also from the standpoint of race, civilization, society, and the sociopolitical milieu of any nation and people. The Left traditionally works to increase entropy: increasing dissolution, disorganization, heterogeneity, cultural degradation, miscegenation, breaking down barriers, and eliminating more compartmentalized distinctions.  Just as physical entropy is the default direction of flow, so too is sociopolitical entropy.  Within the “West” (broadly defined), the Left finds its goals supported by powerful forces: Jews want more diversity and the destruction of traditional Western peoples and their cultures, Coloreds want access to White lands and goods, Big Business wants cheap labor, Leftist politicians want more voters, Cultural Marxists want to impose their degraded vision over a defeated and humiliated West.

The Right on the other hand traditionally has had goals and objectives that run counter to increasing entropy: increasing order, organization, homogeneity, High Culture, racial preservation, maintenance or even heightening of inter-group distinctions…

Therefore: the objectives of the Left are easy to attain and difficult or impossible to reverse; the objectives of the Right are at best extremely difficult to obtain and very easy to reverse.

But there are some positives for the Right here, particularly for the dissident Far Right. In a scenario in which (e.g., rightist) dissidents wish to attack an established System, to weaken, delegitimize, and, optimally, overthrow that System, then the tropism of events toward higher entropy – more decay, more chaos, more disorganization, and more degeneration - can serve the interests of the dissidents. It is usually easier to undermine a System – particularly one that is corrupt and has many weaknesses to be targeted – than to maintain, never mind build, a System. It is easier to foment chaos, dissension, and division than to promote the opposite. This is not always associated with the “worse is better” paradigm, because from the standpoint of the present System's stability, certain things that are “better” from the pro-White standpoint, such as increasing racial nationalist sentiment among Whites and greater collective action among Whites, are, actually, symptoms of high entropy decay (and thus "worse") for the System. So, "worse is better" - the "worse" is for whom?  Whites?  The System? For Whites, in many cases, "better is better." Didn’t Unz aver – as I recall - that White nationalism could destroy America? Democratic multiculturalism and Suvorov’s Law come into play here. Weakening anti-White repression is the opposite of “worse is better” but from the standpoint of a System based on being anti-White, that is a sign of internal weakness and decay. In some cases, what Whites and the System perceive to be high vs. low entropy are the same, but in other cases, it is different, and in fact, completely opposite.

The System has certain strengths and weaknesses with respect to this entropic principle; interestingly, some of these strengths and weaknesses derive from the same sources. For example, the large size and complexity of the System is both a strength and weakness. It is a strength (more obviously) due to the power and resources the large System can bring to bear in its defense, and it being capable of withstanding shocks that might destroy a smaller entity. A large complex System also typically has a redundancy of sub-systems, so that the collapse – the “breaching and flooding” - of one compartment doesn’t necessarily “sink the ship.” 

On the other hand, as weaknesses, a large and complex System may be bloated and clumsy, and its high degree of inter-connectedness means that a disruption of one compartment may indeed negatively impact others. This latter point does not contradict what was asserted earlier. Think of it as a compartment that may be water-tight, so it won’t flood another, but perhaps contains important equipment whose loss cannot be easily replaced – a case in which the redundancy previously mentioned may not apply. Supply chain disruptions may fit here as an instructive example. 

Likewise, the fact that the System is based on an ideology of high entropy, degeneration, and decay is both a strength and a weakness.  On the one hand, as a strength, it may make the System more resistant to attacks that promote decay, since the supporters of the System may in fact enjoy and exult in decay (think Jews, Coloreds, anarchists, etc.)   Unlike a System built on an ideology of order, hierarchy, and beauty, a System based on chaos, egalitarian degeneracy, and ugliness may survive much more entropic decay.  

On the other hand, as a weakness, being based on chaos, egalitarian degeneracy, and ugliness, the System attacks and weakens that part of itself most capable of its maintenance and defense – e.g., high-functioning White people. In this sense, the System’s commitment to entropic degeneration may synergize with attacks on itself; further, there is a limit to which even Jews, Coloreds, anarchists, etc. would tolerate societal chaos, not to mention the attitude of the saner elements of the population. If a positive feedback loop is established in which the System responds to attacks on itself by doubling down on its high entropy ideology, then it may collapse all the quicker.

Further extension of these ideas can be developed with additional analysis.  Indeed, political activism can benefit from approaches derived from concepts themselves derives from STEM, systems analysis, etc. These lines of inquiry would seem to be more fruitful than typical “movement” fare - e.g., gibbering about Nordics, hobbit holes, and Kali Yuga. The readers of this post can decide for themselves which of these competing analytical approaches – that of the Sallis Groupuscule compared to that of Der Movement – is most likely to yield promising results.

Saturday, March 19, 2022

Odds and Ends, 3/19/22

In der news.

Jud JacksonMarch 16, 2022 at 1:34 pm

It isn’t just non-whites who contribute to a dirty environment. I have been living in medium sized super majority white Hungarian city for 10 years and the amount of litter on the ground is depressing. There are a few gypsies in this town, but they are not the only ones who litter. There just seems to be no conception of cleanliness here. I am not sure if the rest of eastern Europe is like this but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were.

If you don't like it there, then leave. I assume you are not an ethnic Hungarian, but yet another arrogant High Truster who lives in other people's countries and then insults the natives. So, you should leave whether you like it there or not. Of related interest. That's all from "immigrants" I presume?  Can't be Herrenvolk littering, can it?

See this. With decades of "effort" and millions of dollars of spending, with events giving headwind, and constant screeching of "we will win," the failed "movement" cannot motivate sufficient Whites to protest to equal 3.5% of the American population. And that's with the constant estimates of a sizeable fraction of White support for ideologies at least tangentially connected to right-wing populism. Der Movement's failure is so stark that its "leadership" should be discredited to any thinking person.

Johnson's assertion that the Ukrainians will be able to resist globalism is refuted by the fact that they selected a Jew President, never mind that back in 2014 the nationalist forces were used by globalists to assist in a coup that, in the end, resulted in, as stated above, a Jew leading a nation whose people were victimized by Jewish-led genocide. Hey! With good judgment like Johnson's, victory is assured!

To the Quota Queens, citing facts that make them uncomfortable is diagnostic of "paranoia" and expressing opinions they they disagree with is diagnostic of "insanity."  They're as bad as any Frankfurt School Jew.

Thursday, March 17, 2022

A Response to Kendi

A brief riposte.

See this.

Re: Kendi’s tweet about freedom, my response is as follows.

  • I demand the fundamental human right of freedom of expression.  If that means I offend you, then that is just too bad.
  • I demand the fundamental human right of freedom of association. If that means I exclude you, then that is just too bad.
  • I demand the fundamental human right to pursue the truth. If the truth, for example the truth about race, makes you uncomfortable, then that is just too bad.
  • I demand the right to live my life the way I see fit, without suffering in the prison of a police state designed so that you and your kind can live without ever getting offended, without ever having to suffer the consequences of your own limitations and deficiencies, and without ever having to take responsibility for your own failures. If you object, then that is just too bad.
  • I demand freedom from you and your kind, freedom from your endless demands, and freedom from the endless problems you all create. If you cannot make it on your own, then that is just too bad.

White Americans have already suffered erosion of their basic human rights in order to placate the likes of you, and enough is enough. If we have such fundamentally different views of society, then why not separate? Why must we live in the same polity? If you really believe your assertions about the absolute equality of the races, then, certainly, Blacks like you can create and maintain a wonderful society completely independent of Whites like me. But, alas, you really don’t believe that, do you?

Just admit the obvious.

That creature doesn’t require, or deserve, anything more of a response. 

Feel free to use it. Repeat as necessary.

Wednesday, March 16, 2022

EGI vs. GST

A comparison.

Salter’s ethnic genetic interests (EGI) - I have been discussing this for more than twenty years so my readers should not need me to spell it out more than I already have.

Rushton’s genetic similarity theory (GST):

Genetic similarity theory, an extension of the kin-selection theory of altruism, postulates that people detect genetic similarity in others ("nonkin" as well as "kin") in order to provide mutually supportive environments, such as marriage, friendship, and social groups. In line with prediction, studies using blood antigens and heritabilities reveal that sexually interacting couples and samesex friendships are based partly on genetic similarity. As such, a new theory of attraction and friendship is constituted, and the conditions for the evolution of human altruism are enhanced. Genetically biased preferences are not limited to social partners but extend to adopting other cultural practices maximally compatible with genotypes. Ethnocentrism and patriotism may be fitness-enhancing mechanisms that enable group selection to occur.

Some correspondence I had with someone about the seeming greater acceptance by Europeans of Ukrainian refugees vs. those form non-White nations, and whether this supports what is in Salter’s On Genetic Interests (OGI):

One needs to distinguish descriptive and prescriptive. OGI says that Europeans should welcome Ukrainian refugees more than Colored (prescriptive). That they seem to do so - at least in some cases - is good but not essential for Salter's EGI. It does support it in the sense that the more theory is aligned with human behavior the better. But even if the actual behavior was different it would still be the right thing to do.

So, EGI tells us that the West SHOULD have "warmer acceptance of Ukrainian refugees throughout the West than of MENA/African ones." That they actually do so is good, but and supportive, but not essential. I would say the behavior in this case is evidence for Rushton's genetic similarity theory (GST), which is associated with EGI, but not the same.

EGI tells us what people SHOULD do. Rushton's GST tries to explain what people actually do.

In summary:

EGI is (mostly) prescriptive – it describes genetic realities and neo-Darwinian theory and then tells people what they SHOULD do. It is not really dependent upon “the evolution of altruism,” “genes for altruism,” the “evolution of ethnic nepotism” (or of anything else).  It can be achieved, if required, by rational thought mechanisms.

GST is (mostly) descriptive – it describes genetic realities and then tells us what people do and why they do it.  It in fact does depend on the evolution of various cognitive/behavioral traits, and is mediated, for the most part, by innate, unconscious mechanisms.

Tuesday, March 15, 2022

Odds and Ends, 3/15/22

In der news.

Happy March 15th.

See this.  I promote truth and facts, not dogmatic narratives. In that spirit, I share this Campbell video. It does give some support to those who have been hysterical about the covid vaccines. However, this needs to be put into the perspective of morbidity and mortality from covid itself. It would seem that with Omicron being mild, they should stop pushing endless vaccination. Further, stop with the young people. Older people like myself are a different story (although as I sort through my health issues, it will be interesting to determine, if possible, if the metabolic issues are vaccine-derived. The surgical ones are not).

Where I differ from others is that I rightly pin the blame where it ultimately belongs – China and the Chinese. That doesn't take Big Pharma off the hook. That needs to be addressed. But none of this would have happened if the HBD Gods were not as filthy and utterly incompetent as any possible Negro.

Problems with the covid mRNA vaccines are not due to "DNA being changed" and is unlikely to be due to any inherent problems with the mRNA vaccine concept. Instead, it is likely due to immune responses to high levels of the (modified) covid spike protein antigen, especially with repeated exposures. However, given that covid doesn't seem to cause a very strong, long-lasting immune response, I'm not sure if the vaccines would have been effective if they were "weaker."

We should not let the (possible - probable?) bizarre inter-racial sexual preferences and deviances of White male HBDers deflect us from pinning the blame on the ethny of disease and death the Chinese.

Gaslighting Greg:

Our biggest project this year, however, is creating an entirely new institution: a think tank that will propose concrete policies to halt and reverse the negative consequences of globalization and multiculturalism. This is an enormous, long-term project which is taking most of my time.

This has to rank among the most alarming developments of all my time in pro-White activism. if this "think tank" promotes the failed and wrong ideas of Counter-Currents, and if it displays the same lack of judgment as Greggy and his pitiful crew of imbecilic sycophants, then it is a pernicious, destructive development that must be opposed.

If the National Policy Institute was properly managed, then there would be no room for the looming catastrophe of a Counter-Currents think tank.

Der Movement's ethnic affirmative action program is not a theoretical construct; instead, it is a real world disaster bringing a seemingly endless series of negative consequences.

Please distribute far and wide. That is based on my Amren article from about 20 years ago. Translate into other European languages if you can do so.

More High Truster SJW babble that is poisoning the West. Sorry, Cliff, ascribing success to "luck" and "privilege" fails to account for patterns of accomplishment that track not only with ethny/gender (luck? I think not) but also with innate cognitive and behavioral traits (privilege? I think not?).

Certainly, yes, just as phenotype is genes and environment, success is often a combination of merit and some degree of good fortune. But the presence of the latter (sometimes) does not delegitimize the importance of the former. Put it this way. An intelligent and productive person can sometimes become a great success or not, and some degree of luck can be involved. But all the good luck in the world is not going to make a retarded dullard into a rocket scientist or a quantum physicist.

And to say meritocracy leads to discrimination is just virtue-signaling nonsense. So what? Maybe the inferior should be discriminated against to make more room for the superior. This idiot only counts the costs of meritocracy without looking at the benefits, and does the opposite for the anti-meritocratic view.

I'd prefer discrimination with First World standards than equity living in a Third World mud hut.

Readers of my blog know I reject simplistic "worse is better" narratives and instead promote Suvorov's Law. However, it is complex. Things need to be bad enough to stimulate a strong desire for change, but not so bad as t make people give up in despair. There needs to be enough repression to make people uncomfortable and desperate enough for radical solutions, but not so much repression that they have no room for maneuver. People need to see some victories to maintain morale and to delegitimize the System. This requires prudent leadership with sound judgment - not dogmatic imbeciles with piss-poor judgment. We need flexible strategizers, not rigid idiots.

Note 7,8,12. First, as I've written, there's a non-zero chance that Putin ends up as an exile in China, bending over for Ms. Wei Fuk Yu. Second, the stupidity of Der Right - in this case, right-wing populists - is endless. I've been criticizing Trad Vlad since at least December 2013, but the fearless leaders of Der Right know better, huh? Maybe you need new leaders? Third, the victory of "democracy" and "freedom" is what a Colored like this Jap would enjoy - hate speech laws targeting Whites, no freedom of association, genocidal mass migration, globalist control and and end to populist politics. Thanks, Trad Vlad. The deep chess game continues!

Monday, March 14, 2022

A Southron Buffoon

A friend of this blog alerts me to the following Identity Dixie posts.

Laugh at this.

In some ways…

Meaning in no real ways at all.

…I am a Northeastern Ethnic.

You are not. Readers of Griffin’s One Sheaf One Vine know that I am actually such a type of person, not this liar.  

I am half-American and half-Irish. 

He’s half Native American?

My American grandmother was born in Delaware, but her parents were lifelong, multigenerational Virginians on the Delmarva Peninsula.  My American grandfather was the son of an Austrian immigrant and a Virginian longshoreman. 

Those founding stock Austrians!

My Irish grandparents, however, hailed from Cork and Galway.  They married in Tallahassee, Florida, and purchased land in Ocala in 1940.  They never really settled in the North…

Uh huh. Very “Northeastern ethnic.” 

I was raised in New York City from 1986-1990, where I went to high school…

Wow!  Four years of high school in NYC – obviously you know better than people whose families are multigenerational Northeastern ethnics, right?

The Italians really ran New York in the 1980s. 

Lie. If by “Italians” you mean Jews and their Colored pets, along with Wall Street WASPs, you’d be more accurate. Oh, yeah, the “Mafia” – how’d that end up for them, when RICO prosecutions sent them all to prison? 

It was a very big mistake for a black to wander into an Italian neighborhood, as witnessed in the Howard Beach and Bensonhurst incidents.  

And what happened to wops who wandered into Negro neighborhoods?

This is hard for many outside of the Northeast to understand: Northeastern Ethnic Tribalism.

That is today non-existent as described by this buffoon, and never actually existed, as he describes, at least for wops, even "in the 1980s."

But for Northeastern Ethnics, their tribal affiliations to their home country identity runs in direct contrast to those of the Yankee.  It is also the reason so much of the White Nationalist and Dissident Right hails from Northeastern Ethnic ranks.

No, it is because they are not xenophilic High Truster cucks. Just ask the HBD-Nordicists, right?

For Italian-Americans in the Northeast, being Italian is everything to them.  

Complete and utter lie. That actually describes the Irish and the Greeks. Maybe you shouldn't glean your "understanding" of wops from The Sopranos.

The same can be said for the Irish.  

True.

To the Italians, everyone else’s food was tasteless garbage. 

Complete and utter lie.  Italian-Americans only eat “Italian food,” right?  Ignorant liar. What an absurd buffoon.

Growing up in an ethnic tribal environment, children never associated themselves with Americana.  

Absurd lie. Many such people completely identified with the traditional America, at least until they came up against WASP/Nordic hared of White ethnics.

They associated themselves with the geographic and genetic origins of their parents and grandparents.  

Lie – if the implication that was their only identity.  They were White Americans.

If someone walked up to you and asked, “What are you?” The anticipated response was an ethnicity: “I am Irish…” or “I am Italian…”  Tests of authenticity permeated broad national identity.  

Sure…(sarcasm).

One could not simply be “Italian.”  

Lie.

He had to know exactly where his family was from in Italy.  “My father is Napolitano, but my mother is Calabrian.”  Sicilians were not Italians at all; they were Sicilians.

A complete and utter lie. Italian-Americans of Sicilian background consider themselves, ethnically, Italian first and then, if there is a need for more detail, Sicilian, just like a German may, if required, give the extra information that they are specifically from Bavaria or Saxony. I have never, ever, met any Sicilian-derived Afrowops in America who subscribed to the notion “Sicilians were not Italians at all; they were Sicilians.” Look at the societal evidence as well. Sicilians in America join with other Italian-Americans in ethnic organizations, parades, festivals, etc. The American Mafia is open to all ethnic Italians, not just Sicilians – it’s not segregated in that way. When Sam Gravano talks about his Sicilian ancestors, he says “they came over from Italy.” There is zero evidence that there is the sort of widespread intra-Italian segregation of identity that this idiot describes. It does not exist. It never existed. There may have been some general tensions of North vs. South Italians (but not to the extent of strict segregation; there were no separate intra-ethnic organizations, and all marched on Columbus Day, not only Northerners), but NOT "He had to know exactly where his family was from in Italy.  “My father is Napolitano, but my mother is Calabrian.” Sicilians were not Italians at all; they were Sicilians." Yes, wops were interested in their specific roots, but then everyone is. Yes, there may have been some very subtle Sicilian vs. Neapolitan rivalry in the Mafia, but the same can be said about North vs. South Germans in the Nazi party. Such competitive behaviors are part of human nature, but, again, there was no segregation of identity. They were all "Italian." Mafia "families" consisted of Sicilians, Neapolitians, and other Italians together. Real Italian-American families intermarried freely, independent of regional area of origin.

This Southron, with his grand total of four years going to high school in NYC, doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about. He’s either making all of this nonsense up to justify his divisive agenda, or he’s basing his opinions on passing comments made by an isolated person, or by a few people. No one who has ever had long-standing interactions with large numbers of American Afrowops would believe that his fantasies are in any way generally applicable.

Here's an idea for all of you ethnonationalists who promote narrow "tribal" identities - maybe groups like Italians can decide for themselves what their identities are, without Anglo-Austrian-Irish hybrids dictating that to them. I realize that ethnonationalism is just a cover for arrogant High Trust ethnoimperialism, but do try to restrain your hypocrisy.

And it would also be helpful if non-Italians would get over their bizarre fetishistic obsession with Italians, Italian-Americans, and wop identity.

In fact, to a Yankee, the idea of an Irish or an Italian marrying into the family is far more horrific than a Jew or a black.

If true, that says more about “Yankees” than it does about micks or wops.

Their culture and tribal affiliations protected them from violent, urban black behavior.  

Yes, they were so very well protected they all fled the cities to the suburbs as part of White Flight.  Liar.

Imagine if a South Carolina couple sat their daughter down to explain how disappointed they were in the fact that she planned to marry someone from Arkansas.  Such a conversation was not uncommon between Irish and Italian families as late as 2012 (the last time I sat in such a conversation).

Yes, it is so very difficult and disappointing that there are in fact so many Irish-Italian hybrids in America that they can constitute a separate ethnic group. Sometimes I wonder if they outnumber unmixed Italians in America. In fact, the majority of today's "Italian-Americans" are not real (i.e., unmixed) Italians - they are ethnic hybrids. Alba's ethnic data showed that decades ago. Once again, this solipsist buffoon is just inventing "reality" to suit his agenda.

When we discussed the idea of future grandchildren, I expressed my desire that our grandchildren be Irish.

How can your grandchildren be “Irish” if you are not, you hybrid.  Liar. Really.  What kind of "tribalism" allows mixed-ethnic hybrids to redefine ethnic identities so as to force their own inclusion?  What happened to "sovereignty?"

Yes, we are in a fight for racial survival – we should help where we can, but always remember our unique, ethnic lineage.

So writes a person who is himself of mixed European ethnic ancestry.  His entire being refutes the meaning of his essay. What a retarded buffoon.

Laugh at this.

Consequently, broad based White Nationalism is likely to fail because we simply do not have time to attempt to bridge genuine divides. 

Yes, decades of utter failure muttering about Nordicism and Kali Yuga just “wasn’t enough time.” Let’s see, liar, most White Americans are of MIXED ETHNIC DESCENT (you included, retard). Europeans voluntarily joined a “European Union.” The "divides" are being bridged well enough, thank you. 

No one is going to unify all of us under a single banner. 

Just because you want to cling to a laughably outdated “Southern Dixie” identity, right? How’s the 1860s coming along, since you’re still living in them?

Despite what some sociopaths and their sycophants may personally believe…

No, that describes “ethnonationalists” who hypocritically colonize other people’s nations. They can’t even live their ideals in their own personal lives.

Hitler, and by extension, the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), never believed that their system was one-sized-fits-all. 

Yes, he just wanted to unify all Germans – that’s why he tried to conquer Eastern Europe and dispossess the Slavs?

Broader White Nationalists should learn from them.

No, quite the opposite. Hitler failed. I know that Der Movement embraces failure and would want to learn how to fail more effectively (although they’re doing quite well in that regard already), but the rest of us should eschew approaches that are proven historical failures.

So, what is the solution? It is my opinion that the various ethno-nationalist groups would be advised to consider delegations for the sake of coordination and cooperation, while respecting each other’s sovereignty. 

How about John Morgan leaving Hungary?  Sovereignty and all that. By the way, should a White American of mixed European descent send a “delegation” from one part of their genome to another? Why do so many “movement” retards think that we are still in the year 1910? Or 1860?

This would take extraordinary courage and humility.

Yes, and convincing White Americans of mixed European descent that they should disintegrate into their constituent ethnic parts to satisfy the divisive ravings of retarded imbeciles would take lots of courage indeed. I don’t know about humility – I think you’d have to be quite the arrogant ass to preach atomized ethnic fetishism to ethnically admixed populations.

What we need is MORE ethnic integration, not less. 

I wonder if any of these dividers ever consider why the System allows Whites to celebrate narrow ethnic identities without too much fuss, but becomes absolutely hysterical whenever Whites try to promote a unified positive racial identity. Maybe - who knows? - the System realizes that atomized ethnic navel-gazing is not a threat, but also realizes that pan-European White nationalism has the power to destroy the multicultural establishment?

Saturday, March 12, 2022

Political EGI: EGI Speech I

Speaking out on behalf of Whites.

Note: The following should be viewed as a rough draft, a work in progress, and can be adapted and edited by people as they see fit, if they want to use this as a foundation for some sort of statement, speech, or address. I will likely produce more such items in the future, perhaps briefer, more specific and targeted pieces, in contrast to this more generalized statement. What we really need are people defending White interests explicitly; implicit statements really don’t serve White interests well any more. We’ve moved passed that. We need leaders who are not afraid to speak frankly about race and about the need to defend Whites as a race and to defend White interests. Note that this speech is aimed at White Americans; however, it can be adapted to other groups, including Whites in other nations (e.g., Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc.).

My Fellow White Americans,

White Americans are in a state of crisis. Our numbers are declining, not only as a proportion of the population but even as a real decline in the number of our people. Whites are losing political, social, and economic influence along with their demographic decline. Whites are vilified by academia, mass media, social media, corporations, by many politicians, particularly those on the Left. Even more telling, no major figures, across the political spectrum, explicitly speaks up in defense of Whites and of White interests. We observe all of the conservative politicians and other right-wing figures who criticize the progressive agenda and all they say is that those left wing policies are “bad for Blacks” or somehow have negative effects on “people of color.” To actually come out and openly, explicitly, advocate for White interests is the “original sin” in America – and in other countries as well. Well, I’m not going along with that, and neither should you. Our enemies will call us names, label as “racists” and “White supremacists” – demonstrating their hatred of Whites and their fear of Whites standing up for themselves and for their interests.

Since I am talking about race, we need to briefly talk about race itself. So, before I get into the main part of my talk, I’d like to address some arguments made against the idea of race; ironically enough, these arguments are often made by people obsessed with issues of race and in some cases are made by people who are strong advocates for their own racial group. They will say things such as “race does not exist; it has no biological basis and is merely a social construct.” Or they may say, ”there is more genetic variation within groups than between groups, so members of a group can be more similar to people in another group than their own,” or they may say that “genetic differences between groups are only a tiny fraction of all genes; we share most of our genes with each other.”  Now, don’t worry, I won’t delve deeply into the science here – the science being, by the way, in reality 100% on my side – but I will give you a good understanding of how you are being lied to by the people who make such misleading statements.  

Now, people can define “race” any way they want, but scientists who study population geneticists define what they call “continental population groups" - that is, people from Europe or Africa or East or South Asia, etc. One can find a large number of scientific papers that clearly show that these “continental population groups” form distinct clusters, distinct groupings, since they are objectively different from each other. That is in no way in any real dispute, and these “continental population groups” are essentially what most people mean when they talk about “race.” So, contrary to politically motivated lies, racial groups – defined in a rational manner – certainly do exist. It is true that genetic variation is greater within groups – and that applies to dogs and other animals as well as to people – but that is simply a function of the fact that most genetic variation is random. You can take any group of people – completely random groups, or people born on Tuesdays vs. people born on Wednesdays, or even families – and there will always be more genetic variation within groups than between. It is practically irrelevant.  It has nothing to do with the fact that certain groups – like continental races – are genetically distinct from each other. And, indeed, if you look at large numbers of genes together, members of a group will always be more similar to members of their own group than to others – which is why those groups cluster together to begin with. And that is why that, for example, if someone whose ancestry is from, say, Norway, takes one of those commercial ancestry tests, the results will show them as similar to other Norwegians, not similar to Nigerians or Chinese. Similarly, looking at this more broadly, in general, Europeans, Whites, are more similar to people of their own race than to others. And, finally, although people do share most of their genes with other people, regardless of race, we also share most of our genes with dogs, mice, and other animals. So what? It are the differences that are important. The genetic distinction between a family member and a complete stranger is small indeed.  I think it is important. Don’t you?

The analogy between one’s group and one’s family is very telling; an ethnic group or race is like an extended family, a group of people sharing deep ancestry, and sharing a common culture and a common identity. Regardless of what the liars tell you, Whites are such an extended family. In this sense, I’d like to cite the important work of an honest academic, Dr. Frank Salter, who wrote a book entitled: On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration.  Salter outlines the interests – which he calls “ethnic genetic interests” – that members of a group have in the survival and well-being of their group. Just as someone has interests in the family that they are related to, so do they have enormous interests in the ethnic and racial family to which they belong. All peoples except for Whites recognize this; it is high time that we Whites join the rest of humanity in defending our interests.

When our group maintains itself or expands, when it prospers, then we benefit; when our group declines, we suffer. And we suffer not only the political, social, and economic consequences of this decline, but we also suffer because people like ourselves, people who we share deep ancestry with, our large extended family, suffers; and people who we are most similar to, in our very genes, are being diminished within the human family. We are suffering from the physical diminishment of our large extended family. Therefore, it can be as adaptive to support one’s ethnic or racial group as it would be to support one’s own family.

As Dr. Salter notes, and which should be obvious to us all, a defined territory is typically crucial for the survival of a group. In the long run, territory is crucial for survival, and human history is largely a record of groups expanding and contracting, conquering or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants. The loss of territory, whether by military defeat or displacement by migrants, brings group diminishment or destruction – precisely what is happening to Whites in “multicultural” America today; the same happens in Europe and in other majority White nations. 

While plunging birthrates may be damaging for Whites, their replacement by immigrants is much more damaging. A falling birthrate reduces the population but does not transform it, and a future increase in birthrates can always make up for the loss. Once immigrants have established themselves in a territory they are most likely a permanent addition. From the standpoint of genetic interests, the idea that “immigration makes up for low native birthrates” is pathological. The assertion that immigrants must be imported for “economic” reasons, or for some other short-sighted rationale, is therefore exposed as incredibly destructive to the interests of the pre-existing native population.

Any consideration of the costs vs. benefits of immigration – or of a multiracial society in general – must absolutely consider the costs incurred at the most basic, most personal, and most fundamental human level. A people do not “benefit” from a policy if that policy results in that people’s displacement and their replacement by others to an extent equivalent to genocide. Therefore, mass immigration of racially different peoples is genocide. Similarly, a multicultural, multiracial society that manages the demographic eclipse of its majority population is also practicing genocide. These are facts which cannot be responsibly evaded.

This is not meant to inspire dislike or anger towards immigrants – or towards any other people. On the contrary, such emotions are self-defeating and counter-productive. After all, these peoples are only taking advantage of the opportunities given to them for a better life and to expand their numbers in other peoples’ lands.

No, the ultimate causes of our decline are that the governments and “leaders” of majority White nations are openly and actively betraying the interests of their own peoples, and that the peoples of the West themselves, all too comfortable and unconcerned with their own demise, are seemingly uninterested in defending their interests. Or is it that Whites are grossly uninformed about where their real interests lie? Whites need to stop focusing exclusively on secondary issues such as economics and economic growth, “cultural assimilation,” employment opportunities, funding for pensions, and a myriad of other concerns which – while certainly important and certainly worthy of interest and consideration – pale in significance compared to the ultimate problem of demographic displacement.

Now, some people will complain that following my advice will “tear American apart.” Well, I have news for them - America is already torn apart. America has been torn apart because European Americans – White Christians - gave up on a group identity for themselves and instead adopted a color blind “we’re all Americans” approach, while every other group doubled down on their group identity and have constantly agitated to benefit their own group. When one side plays the game of identity politics and the other side does not, the side that plays always wins and the side that doesn’t play always loses. That alone explains much of what has happened to America and to White Americans over the last half-century and more.  White Americans need to stop sacrificing themselves and their interests for a dream that has ended – a dream that has become a nightmare.  Don’t listen to self-interested enemies who tell you not to play a game that they themselves are playing very well – and are winning at your expense. Of course, they don’t want you to play. Of course, they don't want you to win. They want to keep the winning all to themselves.  But you are not obligated to listen to the “advice” of those who hate you and want to keep you down. You instead have an obligation to yourselves, to your families, to your people, and to what used to be your country. 

We need to organize – legally and peacefully – we need to organize politically, socially, economically, in every way possible. If our enemies call us “supremacists” and “racists” and “terrorists” for standing up for ourselves, then that means every other group must be "racist supremacist terrorists" as well since all other groups strongly advocate and organize for their interests. 

Dr. Salter has stated that the only thing more damaging to a nation for a multiculturalism that fails is a multiculturalism is successful. Multiculturalism as it is practiced in America and throughout the West is based on the organized mobilization of minority groups and the passivity of the majority. It is time for the declining White majority to become mobilized as well. If that is “evil” then we are all evil together, non-Whites as well as Whites. There is no reason why Whites should forego the advantages enjoyed by others. The time for double standards is over.

And one last thing. As I’ve suggested, by noting that the same thing is happening in other nations, what I have said here about America applies elsewhere as well – Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, anywhere that you have large numbers of Europeans and others living together, competing for territory, resources, and power. This is not only an American problem; it is a global problem. Whites have lost their way. It is “the White man’s disease” – an inability to recognize and defend their own interests against others who have no such problem. As we stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in other lands, let us show them the way by fighting for our interests here in America.

It is time to stand up, fight back, and, for once, look to our own interests for a change. Someone has to do this. If not us, who?  If not now, when?

Thank you for listening.