Odds and Ends, 8/5/20

In der news.
Serious question – is it possible for someone to be so fundamentally dishonest that they lose their humanity?  If so, one can ask – has Greg Johnson reached that point?  See the following (emphasis added):

People keep asking me for my predictions for the 2020 US Presidential elections. It is really impossible to say…This election is the Democrats’ to lose. I have been saying that for years.But they may just be stupid enough to lose it by running a ticket of the creepy, senile Joe Biden and any of the shortlist of crazed black women he is considering for VP.In short, given the instability of America today, anything can happen in the next three months. The election could even be postponed or called off entirely. So I simply have no idea who will be the next President of the United States.

Compare to this:

Trump is toast in 2020 no matter what…He will lose in a landslide.No matter what…but then “It is really impossible to say…the Democrats…may just be stupid enough to lose it… anything can happen in the next three months…I simply have no idea who will be the next President of the United States.”

So, by dogmatically and absolutelyasserting “Trump is toast in 2020 no matter what…He will lose in a landslide” the hysterical and unbalanced Johnson once again demonstrated horrifically bad judgment…which he now makes believe never happened as he presents a more balanced and nuanced view, which the rest of us knew was the correct call from the very beginning.

Now, if Johnson, in his second piece, had simply admitted being wrong, simply admitted demonstrating terrible judgment, that would not have been dishonest. One could at least respect the candor. But no. He couldn’t bring himself to do the right thing.

Johnson is simply the most dishonest person I have ever known in my life. That’s not defamation; it is a simple declaration of fact – I am the only one who knows the levels of dishonesty I have encountered in my life, and so I express an opinion based on my personal experience.  Lying by omission is typically considered to be dishonesty – and omission applies in this case.
Therefore my statement is a perfectly reasonable blend of an accepted definition combined with a personal opinion.

Laugh at this comment left in response to Johnson’s post:

Lord ShangPosted August 3, 2020 at 4:24 pm | PermalinkDr. Johnson’s unwillingness to venture a prediction on the election is the mature position. No one really has any idea…

Indeed, I agree.  No one really has any idea, and stating such is the “mature position.”  Too bad no one told that to Johnson back in August 2019, when making a prediction was even more outrageously ludicrous, immature, and reflecting bad judgment than doing so today.

If you think this analysis too harsh, then consider.  If it is impossible to predict the outcome of a November 2020 election in August 2020, then how can any sensible person make an absolute, dogmatic, smugly certain prediction about that election in August 2019?  Answer – they cannot, and anyone who does so is not sensible. These sort of non-sensible snap judgments (always with no accountability) by your “leadership” is why your “movement” has gone from one tragic failure to another for decades. That’s how you get Patrik Hermansson giving a keynote address about infiltrators, and how “Dave Lewis, movie critic” gets a free pass after “David Lewis, writer for The Stranger” was rejected.

Note this:

I was obsessed with Scandinavia due to my passion for heavy metal and my own Danish roots…

That’s great. How about you stay away from Eastern Europe and away from Eastern European women then?  Ethnonationalism!

Was Hadley the Chief Mouser of the National Office?

Interestingly, the Zodiac killer was almost caught after the Stine murder, but was not due to police incompetence.  What is even more interesting is that the police description describes the killer (or the man they thought was he*) of having the “general appearance” of “Welsh ancestry.”

1969: “The suspect that was observed by officer Fouke was a WMA 35-45 Yrs about five-foot, ten inches, 180-200 pounds. Medium heavy build- Barrel chested- Medium complexion- Light-colored hair possibly greying in rear (May have been lighting that caused this effect.) Crew cut- wearing glasses- Dressed in dark blue waist length zipper type jacket (Navy or royal blue) Elastic cuffs and waist band zipped part way up. Brown wool pants pleated type baggy in rear (Rust brown) May have been wearing low cut shoes. Subject at no time appeared to be in a hurry walking with a shuffling lope, Slightly bent forward. The subject’s general appearance- Welsh ancestry.”

While the wanted poster composite does reflect (at least to my eyes) an individual of likely Northwest European Celto-Germanic ancestry (high trust!), how can anyone say that the appearance is specifically “Welsh?”  How can anyone be so specific?  Are Welsh phenotypes so distinctive that one can distinguish an individual in that manner?  Did the police officer have much experience with people of Welsh ancestry?  His surname could be Welsh I suppose.

*Given that the police description closely matches that of the witnesses to the murder, and since the Zodiac himself mentioned the police interaction (the exact nature of which is controversial – the Zodiac claimed conversation that the police denied), it is overwhelmingly likely, but of course not 100% definitively certain, that the individual encountered was the Zodiac.

I was recently cross-referencing Spencer and Johnson posts here and came across an interesting correlation.

First, see this:

FYI: I hope I’m not speaking out of turn here, but it has been brought to my attention that Richard has been privately approached by respected Alt-Right figures about the increasingly erratic, destructive behaviour of a certain Alt-Right writer (on display in this comment thread below), and has been urged to distance himself and the brand from him.

Second, see this:

Counter-Currents @NewRightAmericaHe’s intelligent, but his intellect has been ruined by insanity. I regret tolerating him and people like Parrott as long as I did. Better people saw it as indecent. It harmed my reputation.

Now, perhaps one shouldn’t focus too much on the similarity there (or perhaps not?); nevertheless, at the very least, we see a pattern in which “respected Alt-Right figures” aka “better people” conduct covert behind the scenes whispering campaigns to disparage individuals and to advise “movement leaders” not to have anything to do with such individuals.

This is interesting at many levels.  First, the arrogance, the chutzpah, of any of these failed “Alt-Right figures” to deem themselves qualified to talk about “erratic, destructive, insane, indecent” behavior of anyone – clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black, as well as Frankfurt School-like pathologization of disagreement and criticism.

Second, the complete lack of character to engage in shadowy, cowardly womanly gossiping campaigns, instead of forthrightly and publicly, overtly, expressing the negative opinions in question.

Third, that the same “respected Alt-Right leaders” give positions of importance and discretion to individuals with documented (and in some cases, self-admitted) histories of real mental illness makes one wonder how they can ever believe they have the judgment to accurately gauge “erratic” and “insane” behavior in anyone.  

Fourth, there is a “what goes around, comes around” quality here – folks advise Spencer, and then, after Hailgate, we had various “respected Alt-Right figures” trying to beat each other to the punch in their eagerness to disavow Spencer and dissociate from him.  One wonders if any of those were the same “respected figures” giving Richie the earlier advice.

How all of this may fit in with the cordon sanitaire around the Sallis Groupuscule I’ll leave to the imagination of the reader.

Comical Nordicist MacDonald still hasn’t gotten the memo that Swift is explicitly an overt SJW anti-White leftist, who has been spewing System bile since Trump’s election.  Hypothesis – the real Kevin MacDonald, the author of the Jewish trilogy, was liquidated by the Mossad, and replaced by a cognitively deficient buffoon surgically altered to resemble the real MacDonald, in order to delegitimize his work on the Jews. I’m joking of course, but it is not clear how things would be any different if that scenario actually was true.

The likely breakdown of purchasers of Swift’s work – teenaged White girls with blue hair, BLM t-shirts, and boyfriends who look like an Australopithecus robustus; and male Type I “movement” boomers who get intractable priapisms every time they hear the word “Sweden.”

Counter-Currents retard:

Everyone knows what it means to be an Italian-American; the Italian-American identity is celebrated across our culture. It’s much cooler and more real to white Americans than Anglo identity. 

Yes, that is why Italians are vilified by both the “movement” and by the System.  To the “movement” the wops are non-White cringing mongrel subhumans, and to the System, they are bigoted off-White stupid criminal subhumans.  Let’s consider the System’s treatment of Italians, using pop culture as a standard.  In TV and movies, Italians – in many cases portrayed by obviously non-White actors and actresses – are presented as criminals, crude thugs, mindless bigots, unpleasant dwarves (Danny De Vito), or leering low-IQ droolcups (Tony Danza).  Type I Nutzis decry how badly “blonde Nordics” are portrayed in popular culture, but one is hard pressed to identify any group subjected to as much ridicule as are Italians.


Saying you’re not white because you’re Italian or Spanish gives you the chance to escape from the limitations of being white. It may also save you from the moral blackmail non-whites impose on whites.

As far as the second sentence goes, the retard later wrote:

Individual white Americans must decide whether to embrace white identity or flee from whiteness entirely. Our enemies aren’t inclined to honor the second option.

“It may also save you from the moral blackmail non-whites impose on whites…Our enemies aren’t inclined to honor the second option.”  Very consistent!  

As far as the first sentence goes, two points.  First, it is hardly (pure-blooded) “Italians or Spanish” who are the only ones saying that they are “not white.”  And it is not only the “Amerimuts” but also many of your high, high trust Herrenvolk.

Second, and more importantly, notice the “bait and switch” regarding race with respect to the White ethnics – a phenomenon that reflects “movement” hypocrisy.  You see, the “movement” decries the Jewish tactic of being “we White people” when it suits the Jewish argument, but then identifying as specifically (non-White) Jewish at other times. But let’s look how the “movement” – and, historically, the System itself – racially pins down the White ethnics, and hypocritically does the inverse to the ethnics as the Jews do to themselves.  On the one hand, the ethnics are not “White enough” – they are mongrels, low trust Outer Hajnals, moops, swarthoids, etc.  But, then, on the other hand, when the Nutzis want to pontificate about White solidarity vs. “the flight from Whiteness,” those same ethnics are accused of trying to “escape from the limitations of being white.” Who knows? Maybe if you didn’t question their “Whiteness” every five seconds, then they wouldn’t be so inclined to reject that label (and they really don’t do so as often as is implied in that piece). 

Book Reviews: Griffin and Lowell

Books by Roger Griffin and Norman Lowell.


Roger Griffin, Fascism: A Quick ImmersionTibidabo Publishing, Inc., 2020

This book is an unoriginal rehash, a dumbed down version, of his previous “scholarly” work defining fascism and a fascist minimum, as well as of his work on the groupuscule concept; this new book is likely intended as sort of a handbook about fascism for hygiene-challenged Antifa and lard-enhanced blue-haired SJW fatties.

Griffin’s definition of fascism – centered on palingenetic ultra-nationalism – remains sound. Anyone who believes that Franco was a fascist or that Trump is a fascist is an idiot.  In this sense, Griffin remains correct.

However, the fact remains that the Left is congenitally unable to understand fascism and fascists and they ignore or misinterpret the lessons of Griffin’s work. Not for them are analyses of “palingenetic ultra-nationalism” or understanding of the revolutionary and dynamic nature of fascism. No, for them, fascism is simply reactionary oppression; thus, Franco was a fascist, Trump is a fascist, Wall Street stockbrokers are fascists – any White person to the right of Karl Marx is a fascist. They understand nothing, learn nothing, and their approach to the Far Right is simply bashing heads and censoring dissident voices.  Griffin’s beloved Left is intellectually and morally bankrupt, depends upon brute force, and has no use for his work.

Roger Griffin in this latest book expresses his usual tiresome shtick – he always dedicates his books to “the victims of fascism” and/or piously pontificates how the “real readers” of his books are so-called anti-fascists who can use his work to “diagnose and treat” the “disease” of fascism. His attitude toward fascism and fascists is one of snide contempt. However, in reality, the true readers of his works on fascism are fascists themselves – the proponents of the “Universal Nazism” that he decries as a major player in post-WWII fascist metapolitics – the Far Right being the only area of the political spectrum today where actual intellectual ferment occurs. Thanks, Griffin. Although no thanks are required for the volume under review here, as it breaks no new ground and is a rather pallid effort, with zero utility.

In this remarkably unoriginal book, Griffin once again repeats one of this constant tropes – fascists (i.e., the real Far Right) are impotent, desperate, powerless, and because of the “structural” nature of modern sociopolitical reality, fascists have absolutely zero chance of achieving any of their goals.  So, besides the obvious question as to why Griffin has dedicated his entire career to fixate on this useless, impotent, and powerless creed (*), we are left with another question – why is the Left/System always screeching about “the rise of fascism, the threat of fascism, the resurgence of fascism” if the Far Right is such a powerless joke with no chance whatsoever of achieving power?  Griffin argues – and I agree with him here since the facts are incontrovertible – that the whole leftist spectrum (from Marxist Antifa to Marxist university professors to the mass media to the political class to the typical blue-haired fatty) mistakes right-wing populism, paleoconservatism, identitarianism, and rightist reactionary authoritarianism as “fascism.” So, yes, if everyone to the right of John McCain and Mitt Romney is “fascist” then there is a resurgence of “fascism,” but that is just the stupidity and the paranoid fantasy of the Left. Those individuals and entities are not fascist, and so Griffin can continue to assert that not only is the Far Right completely powerless today (a fair assessment, but one lacking in context) but will always be so, regardless of context (not a fair assessment).

What Griffin terms the real existential threat – worse than Nazism and Stalinism – are ecocatastrophes and other such threats to human existence, which he claims will become more likely if the (non-fascist, but still bigoted and hateful) anti-liberal Right comes to power. All humanity will perish in a cataclysm because of, say, Trump or Le Pen or Bolsonaro or Brexit or Salvini.  Any deviation from SJW multiculturalism, any deviation from a pathological altruism that embraces every “other,” any deviation from crazed xenophilia – that is going to threaten humanity.  All those intolerant White bigots will not and cannot effectively address the looming ecocatastrophe.

Thus, Griffin in this book has jumped the shark – or, more precisely, jumped the pachyderm – to write what may be the most juvenile and cringeworthy sentence in the history of childish leftist polemics:

Meanwhile, as Trumpism and the Brexit debate illustrate, the looming ecocatastrophe is still the elephant in the room, a metaphor that before long may have a tragic ring to it when the only elephants are left in zoos.

Jumbo weeps.

Well, after all, as we know, Negro transsexual lesbians and obese blue-haired neo-Marxist SJW feminists, who cry about microaggressions and about the patriarchy, and who “deconstruct” science and technics as the White Man’s ju-ju, are going to save us all from ecocatastrophe. Yes, the descendants of people who never invented the wheel are going to lead us to the stars, as long as we don’t reject “democratic pluralism” and as long as we blindly and self-destructively accept “otherness.”

Of course, the very opposite is the case. Griffin’s tolerant liberal democracy leads to a complete rejection of science; we’ve reached the point where university professors are disciplined for saying that men cannot become pregnant.  These are the people who are going to save us from an ecocatastrophe?  Is Black Lives Matter going to solve global warming?  Are critical theory advocates going to stop an asteroid strike? Is a ghetto gangbanger going to divert a comet? The only people who have demonstrated the scientific and technical capability to prevent an ecocatastrophe are those who Griffin’s work is intended to dispossess and, eventually, displace and replace. Griffin’s own ideology will help to bring about the ecological, physical, and cultural destruction he allegedly fears. It is multiculturalism, and the wages of diversity, that result in the hemorrhage of material resources, the loss of collective social goods, and the decline of community engagement (hello Putnam!  does Griffin “bowl alone?”) that will truly contribute to ecocatastrophe and human extinction.

I would like to end with two examples of why I hold Griffin in contempt. As part of his constant refrain of how modern fascists are a pathetic and powerless group with zero chance of achieving their goals, losers who cannot compete with the structural advantages of the victorious liberal democracy that the masses love and support, he demonstrates that he is either extremely stupid, so ideologically committed that he his blinded by a complete lack of self-awareness, or a mendacious and hypocritical gaslighting liar.

Griffin mocks Greece’s Golden Dawn as a “spent force” whose activists are on trial for being members of a “criminal organization.” That Griffin sees this as a victory for liberal democracy is simply astonishing.  WHY is Golden Dawn a “spent force?”  Was it defeated by liberal democracy in the marketplace of ideas?  No.  Golden Dawn was a potent force, increasing in popularity, and was attacked through political persecution by a liberal democratic state using “fascist” tactics of criminalizing political dissent. Thus, Golden Dawn is now a “criminal organization” – after all, it opposes liberal democracy and any dissent from liberal “tolerance” is unacceptable and must be criminalized – and its members are put “on trial” in a manner no different from the show trials of Stalinism. This, according to Griffin, is proof of the pathetic weakness of the Far Right – that it becomes so popular to the people, and so threatening to the liberal democratic state, that tolerant liberal democrats are forced to criminalize political dissent, jail political opponents, ban political parties, and censor political speech.  Griffin sees no problem with that.  He simply uses the criminalization of Golden Dawn as evidence of their ineptness without questioning whether criminalizing political dissent is compatible with the liberal democracy he so strongly espouses.

Then he mocks Britain First for having a large online presence but being unable to attract more than a handful of people to show up for a live rally, where they were out-numbered by antifascist protestors. Griffin neglects to note that the “anti-fascist protestors” are violent thugs who are protected by the State; in essence, Griffin’s liberal democratic system uses criminal Antifa as stormtroopers to break up legal Far Right public events with brutal violence. The Antifa terrorists work hand-in-glove with the police and with the state security apparatus; if rightists defend themselves, it is they who are arrested and prosecuted.  No wonder that the Far Right doesn’t manifest many activists in street rallies these days.  In the context of the brutal repression by the liberal democratic state – and I haven’t even mentioned “hate speech” prosecutions and convictions in Britain that are used to suppress dissent (as they are throughout Europe) – any Far Right presence is impressive and should be applauded.

At no point whatsoever has Griffin’s liberal democracy engaged with the Far Right on a level playing field. At every point, liberal democracy uses authoritarian – and sometimes totalitarian – techniques of political violence, political repression and subversion, criminalization of speech and of dissent, to prop up their system.  Liberal democracy – and the Left in general – is intellectually, politically, and morally bankrupt. The fact that a so-called champion of liberal democracy such as Griffin blithely accepts political suppression of his opponents as “business as usual” demonstrates that the real “leakage” of “fascist ideas” into the mainstream has been the adoption of intolerant “fascist” techniques of political repression by the liberal democratic system.  Indeed, Griffin himself has been “tainted by fascism” since he accepts and applauds “fascist” techniques that are used to stifle ideas that displease him.

Further, even though the American “movement” is pitifully inept, “led” by affirmative action incompetents, it is still true that it has NOT been defeated in a free marketplace of ideas, but instead has been met with a combination of political persecution, street violence, selective prosecution, deplatforming, social pricing including termination of employment, and other assorted methods of authoritarian coercion that has nothing to do with classical liberalism or democratic procedures. The American Far Right has been suppressed by political thuggery and by criminal conspiracies to deprive activists of their basic constitutional civil rights.  This is essentially a tacit admission by Griffin’s vaunted liberal democracy that it had lost the battlefield of ideas. All that it has left is trying to win the battlefield of force and coercion.

This is true historically as well. Hitler was defeated by war; Mussolini was overthrown because of the war; Codreanu was murdered by the State. Fascism has never been defeated by liberal democracy in a free marketplace of ideas; it has only been defeated by brute force, by the “tolerant liberal state” using the tools of ruthless coercion, political persecution, and total war. Again, liberal democracy always adopts the tactics of “fascism” in order to defeat fascism; it is unable to do so on its own terms.

Griffin is a laughable turd indeed, the very incarnation of Nietzsche’s Last Man, the very embodiment of the sissified White Cuck.
What a buffoon.

*I suppose Griffin would argue that even though the Far Right is pathetic and powerless, certain of its illiberal and bigoted ideas can seep into the mainstream, through the filter of right-wing populism, and so must be studied and opposed for that reason; further, he asserts that pitiful and desperate fascists will conduct lone wolf terrorism and so are a limited threat in that sense. Even with all of that, the amount of his life energy put into the study and opposition to fascism is orders of magnitude out of proportion to the reality if he really believes the aforementioned are the only real long term threats to the liberal order from the Far Right.


Norman Lowell, Jesus the Usurper: Murderer of Christ, Norman Lowell, 2020.

This is the third in Lowell’s series of books, after Credo and Imperium Europa; this one stresses “spiritual” issues.

Now, at first glance I may be ill-suited to handle the task of reviewing such a work, since I am relatively uninterested in spiritual issues, focusing instead on the political and science/technics sides of racial and cultural issues. Needless to say, I am hostile to religion, organized or otherwise. However, these characteristics may in fact make me particularly well suited to tackle this task, for it may well be useful to have someone approach a spiritual work from an “outsider” position, purely objective without a “dog in the fight” so to speak.  In this sense I can examine Lowell’s arguments without being biased due to a pre-existing strong religious belief on the subject.  As a “third party observer” to spiritual and religious disputes, I can render a verdict based purely on the arguments made.  Of course, the book also needs to be critically examined by those who have more expertise (and “skin the in the game”) on this subject; nevertheless, my own viewpoint may be a useful supplement.

The foreword to this rather slender volume was written by an acquaintance of Lowell’s, a Kevin Ellul-Bonici, described as a “former police investigator and prosecutor specializing in fraud and economic crime,” as well as someone involved in “Eurosceptic” politics. This individual claims to disagree with aspects of Lowell’s book and this is clear from the tenor of the foreword, particularly in its pro-Christian ending.  This individual, interestingly, claims that the Jews are not actually the prime movers in the conspiracy against the truth, which he instead avers are…the Jesuits.  Now, I do not wish to be close-minded, and I certainly am no expert on these affairs. I do not doubt the pernicious influence of the Jesuits throughout history, but I am – let us say – skeptical that they are the high point, the very top, of the global conspiracy. Indeed, I doubt that any single group is, but instead several powerful groups with interlocking interests – Jews, Jesuits, global capitalism, the Left, the rising tide of color, among others, are responsible.  Things get worse in the foreword with a dive into anti-materialism in the sense that the ultimate cause of our troubles is assigned to “extra-dimensional beings and the Luciferian agenda.” The author, unlike Lowell, takes a pro-Paul view in the midst of Christian apologia, and states that “The Man of Reason can never grasp how Christ redeemed us by paying the price on our behalf as descendants of the fallen Adam. Reason would rather have us believe the lies of this world then in His second coming.”

With all due respect, this is, in my opinion – as a “Man of Reason” – ridiculous nonsense, and completely against the message of Lowell’s book. On the one hand, one can admire Lowell’s open-mindedness and confidence in his own arguments as to invite a contradictory foreword; however, as a “Man of Reason” my overall reaction to the foreword was a loud sigh followed by a face-palm.  That is exactly the anti-reality, anti-the-real-world attitude, rejected by Lowell (and Nietzsche), which has contributed to our current demise. Oh, what damage two thousand years of Christian lies have wrought!  Crush the infamy!

Lowell himself in this book takes the view of Nietzsche that the traditional, “official” Jesus of Christianity was an invention by the Jew Paul to undermine the Roman Imperium, spreading a doctrine of weakness and surrender, making people disregard the heroic work required in the real world in favor of some (mythical) otherworldly paradise suited for the weak and the botched.  Lowell instead sees Christ as being Caesar, who was valued by Nietzsche as a form of superior human being.

This type of “Christianity,” focused on the higher values of Life, coupled to an Aryan Cosmotheism, is what Lowell sees as the spiritual way forward for European Man. A Nietzschean religion, allied with Cosmotheism, that elevates Caesar as an ubermensch to model ourselves after, is fine by me (although I would prefer no religion at all). But, surely, such a religion – Caesar as Christ – is far from any traditional understanding of Christianity and cannot be termed as such, nor would it be accepted by the public (or even by most elite activists) as such.  It is something completely different, and requires its own terminology.

All in all, Lowell’s contribution is interesting and thought-provoking. One thing though is that I’m not very fond of references to “Atlantis” and such.  A minor point. 

Overall, a good and useful book.

Proximate White Racial Interests?

It’s wrong to emphasize the proximate.

Let’s consider this again.  I object to basing pro-White arguments solely on proximate issues of Whites being better with respect to some traits.  See my arguments here (at TOO of all places!):

…that what’s it is all about is race and genetic interests, not about legality, IQ, economics, the environment, or what have you.  It’s about White vs. non-White demographics in America, and all the rest is a smokescreen obfuscating this key point…Summary: It is about Race, or the Race-Culture; it is about genetic interests, and these are things that can be, in the long run, defended only by Explicit Whiteness. If we can’t talk about racial interests as Whites, we can’t win. All these other arguments are ultimately meaningless if they don’t serve ultimate interests.

It is inherently dangerous to center the debate about White interests on proximate issues. After all, one can always make arguments that other groups manifest the positive traits in question and in some cases may manifest these proximate positive characteristics better than do Whites.  To put it crudely, only Whites can be Whites, but Asians can be “high-IQ and law-abiding.”  Which then is the more stable and directly definitive argument in favor of White interests: White uniqueness as a people in the sense of a distinctive extended kinship family or arguments that Whites are better than other groups in certain ranked traits?

By the way, remember Senator Vaile’s defense of the Reed-Johnson Act:

Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the “Nordic” race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer … that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has … a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But … [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.We are determined that they shall not … It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.”-Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922

Thus, kinship-based arguments independent of claims of superiority, have already been successful in American history for appealing to the high trust northern hunter gatherers.  Why then use HBD proximate arguments that can be hijacked to promote the interests of Jews and Asians?  Unless of course that is the real intention.

This reminds me of Ian Jobling, whose “activism” on behalf of Whites was motivated by his belief that Whites were the only group capable of prompting the liberal democratic universalist values – including Rawlsian ethics of all things! – that he espoused; essentially he thought Whites embodied the leftist egalitarian creeds hastening our destruction.
A problem with basing pro-White activism on proximate values is that it legitimately smacks of the very sort of “White supremacy” that kinship-based White nationalists are unfairly accused of.  Indeed, if you are going to argue that Whites are important to you precisely because they are better at X,Y,Z than are other groups – and in some cases claiming that Whites are unique in being the ONLY group capable of manifesting these positive traits and creating the desirable societies resulting from such traits – then how else will that be construed other than overt White supremacy?  Such an approach will likely repel Herrenvolk Whites even more than a simple kinship-based “we are all one big extended family” approach to the problem.

But, hey, maybe I’m wrong.  This can only be determined empirically.  If the MacDonald-Duchesne school of thought is correct, then they should achieve success in using their strategy to push Whites toward the “ethnicized individualism” they envision.  Does anyone truly believe they will achieve such success?  Hasn’t all of these proximate arguments already been made – and failed spectacularly?

Now, those are comments about the prescriptive components of the MacDonald thesis.  I’ve already commented and critiqued the descriptive.  I’ll say only one thing.  How about trying to demonstrate the validity of genetic-based ethnic behavior by examining whether these behaviors are stable in novel environments – like the USA?  Can differences be observed between, say, Anglo-Americans and Swedish-Americans on the one hand, and Italian-Americans and Russian-Americans on the other?  Here I talk about people of unmixed ethnic ancestry, whose families have been in America for 100+ years.  If the traits are inherited, it should be stable in the New World.  If the argument is that the differences are an emergent trait of having communities of these peoples, instead of isolated families, then I suppose you can compare Swedish-Americans in Minnesota to Italian-Americans in New Jersey.  Of course, the same approach applies to non-European peoples as well.

Laugh at this.   MacDonald doesn’t seem to comprehend that by his own theories (!), the Herrenvolk ancestry of those two is precisely the reason why they support the Left, and will continue to do so.

If one wanted to adopt a top-down approach as part of their overall activist strategy, targeted White elites, particularly wealthy White elites, then the optimal approach would be to target individuals for which there was at least a slight possibility of sincere conversion to the cause. In contrast, Bezos and ex-wife have very clearly demonstrated that they are committed enemies of White interests, with no indication whatsoever of being susceptible to change.  To the extent that their “northern European extraction” is relevant here, then – according to MacDonald’s own theories – that would make them less, not more, likely to accept pro-White arguments and to be converted to promoting White interests.

MacDonald’s tweet merely demonstrates the strong hold Nordicism still holds over Der Movement (Nordicism here defined in its broadest sense, by ancestry, since if we consider phenotype, then Bezos resembles a cross between a Jew and an earthworm).

It is baffling how the author of the Jewish trilogy – an important piece of serious scholarship – can descend so far as to make such childish Type I tweets.

In any case, that tweet is a perfect example of the dogmatic fetishism that has led the “movement” to decades of unremitting failure.  Instead of focusing on the “low hanging fruit” of (allegedly) “modestly collectivist” Southern and Eastern Europeans, your “leaders” fixate on wealthy Herrenvolk who have an objectively documented history of giving hundreds of millions of dollars to fund your racial enemies.  At what point are the rank-and-file going to wake up and realize how they are being so badly misled?

But, hey, Bezos is of great benefit to all humanity and we need more men like him!

Competent wops?

Read this.

You may have never heard of Frank Borzellieri, but from 1993 to 2004, he was the most famous local politician in the country. He first ran at age 30, and was releected three times to the school board in the Bronx, New York. He blasted anti-white bias and the idea, that, in his words, “white Europeans are to blame for all the historical troubles of man.” He caused a huge stink and he got more of the vote every time he ran. He lost reelection only because all the school districts in New York City were rolled up into one giant one. He influenced and inspired countless people. If you are smart and energetic, you can do the same.

And he ended up having his life ruined because of his pro-White activism.  To his credit, Derbyshire did direct attention to Borzellieri’s plight and asked people to help, but in general, Frank was abandoned by Der Movement (do we really need to wonder why?).

And then we have:

…it may be that the most important thing you can do is give money to people and organizations doing work you respect. Every activist organization needs money; without contributors they die.“

D’Nations!”  Maybe Der Movement should first demonstrate concrete positive achievements with the millions of dollars they have already received before they ask for more.

They’re “cute.”  T level = zero.

He’s HuWhite.

Here’s something for Andrew Hamilton to enjoy.  See this as well.  But, hey, keep on whining about the odd Egyptian in Napoleon’s Imperial Guard.

The Expanse and Race

The Expanse: The TV Series.

Summary here.

The few semi-positive White men featured in the show are:

James Holden, played by Dutch-Italian hybrid Steven Strait, is a race-mixing/oil-drilling “emo” character, who spends half of his time onscreen with a comical look of moral anguish on his face. In addition, Holden derives from a bizarre family with multiple mothers and fathers. Indeed, The Expanse normalizes various types of perversions, including miscegenation, homosexuality/lesbianism, and polyamorous familial relationships.

Amos Burton, played by a muscular Wes Chatham, is a sexually ambivalent, wild-eyed, violent psycho.

Joe Miller, played by a haggard-looking Thomas Jane, is the stereotypical cynical hard-boiled detective, in his case enlivened by falling in love with a grotesque Eurasian woman (to eliminate redundancy – an Eurasian woman) he is searching for and for whom he ultimately sacrifices himself.
Those are the “positive” portrayals. The rest of the White men featured in the show essentially fit into one or more of the following categories: weak, corrupt, evil, mad scientists, semi-autistic, perverted, treasonous, nerdy, untrustworthy, cowardly, etc.

In contrast, the heroes and heroines are for the most part non-Whites and women of all sorts, including, but not limited to: noble, deep-voiced, Morgan Freeman-like Negroes; every possible racial configuration of women; a White SJW woman Methodist minister involved in a lesbian relationship with a Negress; NECs of varied types, etc. Such people are portrayed as strong, noble, far-sighted, altruistic, heroic, trustworthy, loyal, disinterested, moral, intelligent, competent, and calm, with powerful leadership abilities. Indeed, thankfully, someone is around to clean up after the cringing, stupid, cowardly, and corrupt White man!

Particularly jarring is Naomi Nagata – Holden’s love interest by the way – played by Dominican-English hybrid Dominique Tipper. Nagata is not only one of these strong, honorable, and competent non-Whites, but also disconcertedly combines an English accent with brown skin, a mildly prognathous jawline, and a  broad flat nose.  Well, in the year 2020, half the people living in London look like her, so I suppose we’ll all just have to get used to it.

The Expanse is essentially the Globohomo-Technic multiracial future the SJWs think we will have.  Detroit and the slums of Brazil exemplify the horrifying reality that we will have on our present trajectory.The Expanse is nothing more than leftist multicultural propaganda hiding behind a sci-fi facade. Alas, harsh reality often has the habit of clashing with ludicrously unrealistic propaganda. 

And so it goes…