A Positive Critique

Dominique Venner.
This book has already been reviewed at Amren, so instead of just repeating what has already been done, I’d just like to cite a few relevant points from this excellent book (highly recommended) and how these points fit in to some of the opinions promoted here.
Venner begins with outlining “the flaws of the nationalist opposition” (if he did so today, he would be termed “crazy and bitter,” as “punching right” is only allowed for affirmative action panhandlers); these flaws include (today’s equivalents in parentheses): ideological confusion (of course, the entire “movement”), conformism (Der Movement’s fossilized dogma), archaism (Nutzism, Traditionalism), opportunism (all Chiefs, no Indians, and all Chiefs with the tin cup out), mythomania (conspiracy theorists), terrorism (acting out), and anarchism (lulz lulz).
The section on “Revolutionary Theory” is standard fare and all good, and a wakeup call for those who believe that no firm ideological underpinning for activism is necessary.  Basing activism on vague ideas and “acting out” leads to the sort of weak-minded, Type I activists who turn traitor as soon as they meet that “one nice Black person” they heretofore stupidly believed could not exist (when you have a childish view of reality, all people are binned into rigidly Manichean categories of all good vs. all bad).
“Young Europe” – Venner calls for pan-European cooperation, against the division of narrow ethnonationalism. “Unity is indispensable to the future of European Nations.” Indeed, and that’s a key feature of my work over the last 20+ years, as opposed to the ethnonationalists and their publicly proclaimed dystopian vision of European nations ethnically cleansing each other.
The section “For a Man or an Idea” is an attack on what I call the Man on White Horse Syndrome, and is highly relevant in this the Time of Trump.  Venner writes: “Passive herds, expect their miracle men to fix everything. Even the smallest groups have their idols. The inevitable disappearance of the great men leaves the naïve embittered and discouraged.”  Sound familiar?  And then: “The Nationalist does not need followers but militants who are defined by their doctrine, not in their relation to a man.”  Indeed.  Anyone listening?
Venner criticizes the “Theatrical Revolutionaries” who are “enemies of the revolution.”  The part about “costume” I will address below, but in general, this criticism is relevant to all the Nutzis who ruin us all – Type I dimwits.  Venner talks about “Zero plus Zero” – in other words, grouping zeros together just gives you a bigger zero (the history of Der Movement, Inc.).
With respect to Venner’s criticism of “costumes”-  I both agree and disagree.  It depends upon context and what kind of “costume” one is talking about. Should activists dress up like Nazis?  Strut around with swastika armbands and SS uniforms?  Of course not.  Should they take the Alt Right and Alt Lite course of action, and appear at rallies like refugees from a cosplay convention, aping Captain America and Batman?  Certainly not.  Should they wear uniforms when simply interacting with normal people or going “undercover?”  Of course not.  Compare Joe Tommasi, who stopped dressing up Nazi like he did at first and “went native” as part of his guerilla war program, to the costumed Nutzis who eventually killed him.
Having said all of that, there is nothing wrong with uniforms per se, when attending certain types of meetings, or attending public rallies, or when engaged in more overt action.  There are benefits of wearing uniforms: for esprit de corps, discipline, professionalism, etc. are well known, which is why they have been used for military and paramilitary groups throughout civilized history. There is a history of uniformed paramilitary political solders in virtually every (ex)-Western nation, including America and the Silver Shirts.  Tasteful, utilitarian, culturally endogenous, and non-nutty uniforms are fine – better than the cosplay crew, better than the Nutzis, etc.
Lastly, Venner talks about “Division of Labor and Centralization” – people should do the tasks to which they are most fit, and propaganda needs to be local if possible: “…the propaganda branch should be able to rapidly supply material adapted to local groups, rather than over-generalized and locally irrelevant material.”  In relation to this, see some of my criticism of the National Alliance here.
Yes, you can have, as Venner suggests, a centralized leadership, but the actual “field work” has to be properly local and decentralized.  When activists need permission from “the National Office” to use the rest room, then nothing gets done.  The unwillingness of Pierce to allow local units to create and distribute their own propaganda specifically suited for local conditions and local current events was a terrible error, as much strategic as tactical.  All sorts of explanations were given (“quality control” and “we want to recruit people who understand the big picture and who are not merely emotionally excited about some local event”), but one suspects it was as much about maintaining tight control and the exercising of power, as well as maximizing National Office income (local units actually had to purchase the propaganda material they were to distribute!) as about anything else.  You know, it would still have been possible for the National Office to (quickly) review and approve (or suggest changes in) locally produced material – so the first objection falls flat.  As far as the second objection goes – there is nothing wrong with leveraging local conditions and current events to bring your group and its ideology to the attention of prospective recruits, one can always cull the herd once people are initially brought in, most likely only the truly dedicated will join an overtly public racialist group anyway, and by focusing on local conditions and events, you let the people in that locale know that you understand them and their problems, and that you are there to help – it’s a two-way street, not merely a bigwig somewhere trying to pad their membership rolls in order to boost monthly dues income.  So, the second objection falls flat as well.  Venner was correct: propaganda should be both general and local; if it is just extremely generalized it becomes stilted and stale, and puts too much of a distance between the prospective activist and the organization.  Idealism is great and should be paramount, but one cannot eat Idealism, and Idealism alone will not protect a community from the Colored hordes and their Levantine masters.  Idealism has to be built upon a foundation of pragmatic activity and real-world concerns.  Once you take care of the latter, then you can indulge the former.
In summary, the problem with important books like this is that they get no serious attention from the “movement.” I’ve seen this again and again.  Yes, sometimes such books are discussed and favorably reviewed.  Some people say, yes, yes, we need to follow this advice, and then with the short attention span of the Type I retards, all is forgotten, and all just falls back to “business as usual” – the default setting of “movement” dysfunction wins again.
Expect more of the same with this book.
Was Venner’s suicide at least in part motivated by a realization of the utter failure of the “movement?”  It was about 50 years from his book to his death – what had been accomplished?  Did anyone listen to what he wrote?  What has happened since his death?  We have now the Alt Right making a mockery of serious nationalism, flouting many of the suggestions Venner made.
Perhaps it is time for a Negative Critique?
Advertisements

Lulz Lulz Lulz

Yes…tell me again how much better ‘White nationalism 2.0” is than the “Boomer 1.0 version.”

See this.

1. ADL Publishes false information about the shooter without police confirmation and based on a 4Chan prank.
2. Everyone calls the shooter a white nationalist.
3. Turns out that information was false.
4. No one will ever see the correction, will continue thinking he’s WN.

Here’s the thing: you cannot base a real social and political movement on trolling, lulzing, Pepe, and Kek.  No one is going to man the ramparts for cheap laughs or a cartoon frog.  When people are activists just to be offensive, for the “lulz,” to be “edgy” or whatever, these are the same individuals who’ll turn traitor once they “get a nice Black friend” or “find a nice Asian girlfriend” (albeit the last bit seems compatible with the Alt Right in every sense).

But, to be fair: the rise of the Dolt Right is in direct proportion to the monumental failures of “White nationalism 1.0.”  The problem is that the “cure” is exactly the same as the disease: stupidity, affirmative action quota queen leadership, freakishness, a complete lack of any long term vision or strategic plan, “acting out,” fossilized dogma, etc.  It just has a superficial veneer of Millennial nonsense crudely brushed on top.  Underneath it’s the same rusted pile of junk.

So, yes, have your fun.  Let it backfire again and again.

Lulz.

Race Fraud

Marital crypsis.

Who is the victim?  The “racist” father – the one his scum daughter wants to portray as a villain.  Look, the man thought he was marrying, living with, and procreating with a woman he perceived as White, was misled (by her) to think as her being White, while she was actually a light-skinned (mixed race) “African-American.”  The man had one life to live, he married and reproduced with (insofar as I know) one woman, and he wasted his life, and wasted his genetics, on an indescribably evil race fraud.  Evil?  Yes.  If she knew her husband was an anti-Black racist, how could she fool the man, in the most intimate manner possible, for their entire married lives?  It’s at least as bad as cuckoldry, passing off another man’s child as his own.  She was passing off someone else’s racial identity for her own, and passed off the offspring of an inter-racial marriage to the husband as if they were a product of an intra-racial marriage.

Evil.  Disgusting. Horrific.

However, the father can’t get off without criticism.  He was a victim, but was also victimized by his own stupidity.  I cannot image marrying someone without having a very clear idea of their ancestry and without meeting their family (or even seeing pictures of said family).  The fraud looked, as Grant said about Argentinians, “suspiciously swarthy,” so the man should have looked more deeply into the genepool he was going to dive into.

But, even with that, he’s clearly the victim in this story – defrauded into destroying his pre-existing genetic lineage, foregone parental kinship, lost European progeny.

If you allegedly “love” and “care for” your life partner, how could you willfully defraud them in such a callous manner?

New York Minute: Donald Cuck Amnesty

Stop the far-left, White-hating obese cuck from destroying America.

Trump’s bad deal:

Trump’s offer is an obviously bad deal. Not only are a million more illegal aliens given Amnesty under the proposal than the number protected by Obama’s unconstitutional Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, the bill would also not end chain migration for another 15 years. Immigration would have to wait another generation to see any significant reduction, and many things can happen between now and when Barron Trump will be old enough to run for office. Additionally, mandatory e-Verify is left out of the legislation, giving immigration patriots even less of a reason to support such a gargantuan Amnesty.
 
Yes, many things can happen, as outlined herethe amnesty is forever, enforcement is never.  And if there is any doubt about that, read this.

The slightest attempt at enforcement will require going all the way up to the Supreme Court, and as soon as the Democrats take back the Presidency and/or Congress even these attempts at enforcement will stop. The Trump amnesty will go down in history along with Reagan’s as another cuckservative failure. The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce, and the vulgar ignorant buffoon Trump is well suited to bring us farce.

So while the gamesters post (literal!) Valentine’s Day cards to their homoerotic man crush Trump, the rest of us know that the obese baboon’s adipose tissue is churning out so much estrogen that he’ll sell out White Americans in a New York Minute – that must be the “New York values” that Cruz critiqued in the primaries.

They Wuz Dumb II: More Movement Misinformation about Race

Lies or stupidity – it’s anyone’s guess.

In all cases below, emphasis added.

Read this. After rehashing the points I made about Cheddar Man several days ago, we then get comments about Egyptians, ancient and modern, that are either mendacity or reflective of a problem with reading comprehension.

Today’s Egyptians have some sub-Saharan alleles, but this mixing appears to have begun only about 700 years ago.

The linked Nature article concerning that issue clearly states that the events of 700 years ago were in addition to the significant sub-Saharan ancestry that existed before:

The researchers say that there was probably a pulse of sub-Saharan African DNA into Egypt roughly 700 years ago. The mixing of ancient Egyptians and Africans from further south means that modern Egyptians can trace 8% more of their ancestry to sub-Saharan Africans than can the mummies from Abusir el-Meleq. 

Got it?  That’s 8% more than what was there before, not 8% suddenly appearing 700 years ago on a background of 0%.

See this.

The original paper:

…reveals that the three ancient Egyptians differ from modern Egyptians by a relatively larger Near Eastern genetic component, in particular a component found in Neolithic Levantine ancient…Finally, we used two methods to estimate the fractions of sub-Saharan African ancestry in ancient and modern Egyptians. Both qpAdm35 and the f4-ratio test39 reveal that modern Egyptians inherit 8% more ancestry from African ancestors than the three ancient Egyptians do, which is also consistent with the ADMIXTURE results discussed above. Absolute estimates of African ancestry using these two methods in the three ancient individuals range from 6 to 15%, and in the modern samples from 14 to 21% depending on method and choice of reference population

Got it? Moderns have ~8% more than the ancients, but the ancients may have been as high as 15%, with a floor of 6%.

So, what is the take home point?  It is this: Der Movement, and particularly its HBD wing, LIES about race, LIES about population genetics, and LIES about racial history. Or, if you want to be more generous, they are not lying, but they are simply sincerely stupid, unable to read clear English, so they spread their wrong-headed misinformation around the Internet.

Thanks a lot for giving the Left ammunition to accuse racial activists of peddling pseudoscience about race. But, then, the HBDers do that a lot, don’t they?  I don’t call them the Alt Wrong for nothing.

By the way, did you catch this from the original paper: “depending on method and choice of reference population.”

Sound familiar?  Yes, it does.

Facts on race = EGI Notes

Falsehoods on race = Der Movement, Inc.

Return of Sense

Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

First: An update: it seems like the AltRight.com site is “under renovation” and a new “2.0 site” is going to be revealed in several days.  Hail Pepe!  Praise Kek!  We are saved!  Seriously though, unless the Alt Right is merely a money-making machine (is it?) making cosmetic changes in websites is irrelevant.  How about a complete renovation of the Alt Right itself, its dogma, its leaders, its culture?


Next: I’m no fan of Roosh, but how can anyone argue with the following, emphasis added:

An important question is what to do next. Rallies and other public events should be crossed off the list unless you’re prepared to run them like a counter-terrorist operation, which is how I was able to pull off my Canadian lectures. It makes absolutely no sense to announce the time and place of your meeting for the main benefit of appearing in fake news, all to be ambushed by antifa who have nothing to lose through their felonious violence.

Unless you’re an e-celeb with a huge ego, you don’t need public events, you don’t need to make the news, and you don’t need to gather massive groups of men you don’t know. Build your movement slow and steady instead of attracting whack jobs who praise Hitler and run people over with cars. Create flash events where leftist foot soldiers don’t receive advance notice on their iPhones of your whereabouts, and focus on winning hearts and minds with poignant, effective, or humorous engagements that are publicized through images or video and allow you to grow slowly as you gain needed experience.

If you insist on facing off with antifa, it’s going to be a fight that will likely lead to injury or imprisonment for you, but not imprisonment for them, and with the My Paycheck Matters police on the side of the state, it’s a hill you don’t want to die on until we enter a hot Civil War scenario. If you can’t become as competent on the field as a genuine Army Major, do not lead people into what will be sure ruin.

It should be clear that we have no allies in existing state and cultural institutions. They hate you and wish you would disappear, because you’re the one remaining obstacle to allowing them to permanently rule and usher in their “end of history.” They’re currently treating you with kid gloves, but we’re fast approaching the point where it will just be easier to outright kill you through their antifa or BLM zombies.

Before you associate with any dissident leader, ask yourself if he will get you maimed or impoverished through his incompetence, unpreparedness, or stupidity. Are you following a leader with an ego or an ego who doesn’t know how to lead? Since we’re still about 2-4 years away from violence that will make Charlottesville look like nothing, you still have time to decide the best way to proceed for you and your country.

Re-read that last paragraph.  Then read it again and again and again until it sinks in.  Let’s extend that advice.  Will you support such a leader even online?  Through donations?  Stop enabling quota queen incompetence.

More on Admixture Testing

Don’t compare apples to oranges.

I will attempt to explain the problems about parental populations and genetic tests for the typical Type I “movement” Nutzi dimwit. I will use simplified examples to illustrate the concept.

Let’s say Company X is assaying the autosomal genome of a Russian and trying to construct “ancestry percentages.”  The parent populations they are using as the standards of comparison are Germans and Japanese.  The Russian tests out as “95% German and 5% Japanese” (cue heavy breathing from the anti-Slavic contingent of Der Movement, Inc.).  However, if that same Russian was tested with parental populations of Russians and Japanese, the test results may be “100% Russian and 0% Japanese.”  The same basic principle applies to other groups.  The more similar the person or group tested is to the parental populations, the less “exotic admixture” they will display, and vice versa.

This does NOT mean that “race is a social construct” or “genetics is subjective” or “deconstructivism is correct.”  In the example above, the Russian’s genome is what it is, and can be identified as ethnically Russian.  However how one wishes to describe the objective reality of the genome can be subjective, or partially subjective, dependent on what parental populations are used.  And, even more fundamentally, how those parental populations are named.  What if the German population was labeled as “European” and the Japanese as “Asian.”  Then the Russian is “95% European and 5% Asian.”  On the other hand, most Germans would test as “100% European” as they are essentially being compared to themselves (in practice  of course there is statistical error, and not all Germans derive from identical genepools, so typical German percentages may vary from, say, “98-100 European” in this case.  The main point is that if Germans are being tested against a German parental population that is labelled as “European” they will have higher European percentages than other groups).

Of course, one can argue that this critique can be taken too far.  If you want to know the admixture percentages of Puerto Ricans, then using, say, Iberian, West African, and Amerindian parental populations are reasonable.  Using Puerto Ricans themselves as the parental population, and comparing Puerto Ricans to Puerto Ricans – with people getting test results of “98-100% Puerto Rican” is not going to be informative about the admixture question asked.

Fair enough.  But what if we were asking: which Hispanic group has the most admixture?  And then assume you use as the parental populations Puerto Ricans and Japanese.  Mexicans are going to show more “Asian admixture” in this case, given their greater percentage of Amerindian ancestry compared to Puerto Ricans.  If the parental populations were Mexicans and Nigerians, then Puerto Ricans would be seen as a Mexican-Nigerian mix.  

You can see that the manner in which the question is asked, and what data are used to answer it, is going to influence the interpretation of the outcome.

Subtleties like this fly right over the head of the typical “movement” fetishist.