Category: academia

Democratic Multiculturalism and Title VI

Title VII and Title IX as well.

See the definitions of these “titles” here at this link.

I have previously written about, and advocated for, Salter’s idea of “Democratic Multiculturalism” – that White majorities should demand a seat at the multicultural table and use the System’s mechanisms of multiculturalism to advocate for White interests. Multiculturalism is defined (as Salter reminded us) as a system in which minorities are empowered and are encouraged to mobilize for their interests, while majorities are disempowered and demobilized. If that is so, then forcing the multicultural system to allow for majority mobilization will, by definition, make that system untenable, destabilize it, and heighten the contradictions, and lead, eventually, to its demise. There is a saying – “if everyone is my brother, then I have no brother.” Likewise, if every group tales advantage of multiculturalism, then there is no multiculturalism.

Always remember Suvorov’s Law of history – revolutions do not typically occur during the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed. That is why it is imperative to put pressure on the System, at its weakest points, to force concessions and force relaxation of the repression.  Exploiting the “titles”- VI, VII, and IX – is an excellent place to start.

I will concentrate on Title VI here, but what is written applies equally well to the others.  All are ripe for exploitation by a properly leveraged attack of Democratic Multiculturalism.

Read this.  That is open anti-White hatred and discrimination at an academic institution that no doubt falls under Title VI (as well as VII and IX).

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. All federal agencies that provide grants of assistance are required to enforce Title VI. The U.S. Department of Education gives grants of financial assistance to schools and colleges and to certain other entities, including vocational rehabilitation programs.

Examples of discrimination covered by Title VI include racial harassment, school segregation, and denial of language services to English learners. A fuller list of Title VI issues OCR addresses appears here. The U.S. Department of Education Title VI regulation (Code of Federal Regulations at 34 CFR 100) is enforced by the Department’s Office for Civil Rights.

The Title VI regulation prohibits retaliation for filing an OCR complaint or for advocacy for a right protected by Title VI. Title VI also prohibits employment discrimination, but the protection against employment discrimination under Title VI is limited. As a result, most complaints OCR receives raising race, color, or national-origin discrimination in employment are referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

A fair and just reading of Title VI clearly shows that White students are being targeted for repression at Western Connecticut State, and a legal case can and should be made that that institution is in violation of Title VI and should have all federal funding and assistance cut.

If an institution attacks Whites to such an extent that they would attempt to expel a student for saying “it is OK to be White” then this can be construed as a Title VI violation against Whites.  One can think of a myriad of other anti-White academic activities that constitute a hostile environment for White students, and for which the institution should be sued under Title VI.  There are lawyers and legal foundations who have in the past taken on academia from a rightist legal standpoint, we need more such persons and foundations, ones even more “vanguard” in their outlook, willing to begin and sustain an unrelenting legal assault on academia on this issue.  It doesn’t matter if, in the short term, such legal actions will meet with defeat.  The actions, and the resulting publicity, will put pressure on the System at a weak point. It will mobilize Whites. It will heighten the contradictions. It should be supplemented with political, social, and economic activism targeting the academic institutions in question. There should be a multi-pronged assault on the issue, continuous and unrelenting.  Why should these institutions get federal aid if they are so openly violating Title VI for Whites?  No more assistance!  No more financial aid for the students of such a racist institution!  The very act of filing these Title VI suits – regardless of the initial outcome – will be a step in the right direction, a step toward majority mobilization as part of Democratic Multiculturalism. The time to start is now.

Again, remember Suvorov’s Law – revolutions do not occur at the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed.

Worse is not always better.  

There are of course mighty obstacles. The System with its legal apparatus has already tried to define anti-White discrimination as “non-discrimination” and thus acceptable. Let us look at this, returning at the end to discuss how all of it can be leveraged against the System. 

Thus, let’s consider what Whites are up against, how “non-discrimination” is utilized to viciously discriminate against Whites, particularly White men – a tactic successful mostly because feckless, cowardly Whites refuse to fight back, refuse to sue, refuse to protest, and refuse to utilize whatever social, political, and economic power they do have to exert force for change.  

Principle 4: Financial Aid To Create Diversity

America is unique because it has forged one Nation from many people of a remarkable number of different backgrounds. 

America is certainly unique.  It is also in terminal decline – and for the reason stated.

Many colleges seek to create on campus an intellectual environment that reflects that diversity. 

Now, how does “different backgrounds” affect the “intellectual environment?’’ Only if that “diversity” leads to diversity of thought and ideas.  But the exact opposite occurs.  As schools become more demographically diverse, intellectual diversity dwindles to nothing – it  is in fact actively suppressed – to reach the real goal of a demographically diverse student body who share exactly the same social and political beliefs.

A college should have substantial discretion to weigh many factors – including race and national origin – in its efforts to attract and retain a student population of many different experiences, opinions, backgrounds, and cultures – provided that the use of race or national origin is consistent with the constitutional standards reflected in Title VI, i.e. , that it is a narrowly tailored means to achieve the goal of a diverse student body.

Who defines “narrowly tailored?” Why is a “diverse student body” desirable?  What about political diversity?

There are several possible options for a college to promote its First Amendment interest in diversity. First a college may, of course, use its financial aid program to promote diversity by considering factors other than race or national origin, such as geographic origin, diverse experiences, or socioeconomic background. Second, a college may consider race or national origin with other factors in awarding financial aid if the aid is necessary to further the college’s interest in diversity. Third, a college may use race or national origin as a condition of eligibility in awarding financial aid if this use is narrowly tailored, or, in other words, if it is necessary to further its interest in diversity and does not unduly restrict access to financial aid for students who do not meet the race based eligibility criteria.

Laugh – “does not unduly restrict access to financial aid for students who do not meet the race-based eligibility criteria.” They can’t get the aid, but, hey, they are not unduly restricted by that. The argument will then be that schools have unlimited financial resources, so there is no zero sum game, which is an outright lie.

Among the considerations that affect a determination of whether awarding race-targeted financial aid is narrowly tailored…

Again, “narrowly tailored”  is never defined.

…to the goal of diversity…

Why is that a goal?  What kinds of diversity?

…are (1) whether race-neutral means of achieving that goal have been or would be ineffective…

Of course they are ineffective, because some groups are less intelligent and less competent than are others.

….(2) whether a less extensive or intrusive use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid as a means of achieving that goal has been or would be ineffective; (3) whether the use of race or national origin is of limited extent and duration and is applied in a flexible manner; (4) whether the institution regularly reexamines its use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid to determine whether it is still necessary to achieve its goal; and (5) whether the effect of the use of race or national origin on students who are not beneficiaries of that use is sufficiently small and diffuse so as not to create an undue burden on their opportunity to receive financial aid.

If any of those criteria were fairly considered from the perspective of Whites having legitimate interests as do all other peoples, then such programs would not pass the Title VI test.

If the use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid is justified under this principle, the college may use funds from any source.

Sure!  Not for you, Whitey!

Principle 5: Private Gifts Restricted by Race or National Origin

Title VI does not prohibit an individual or an organization that is not a recipient of Federal financial assistance from directly giving scholarships or other forms of financial aid to students based on their race or national origin. Title VI simply does not apply.

The provisions of Principles 3 and 4 apply to the use of race-targeted privately donated funds by a college and may justify awarding these funds on the basis of race or national origin if the college is remedying its past discrimination…

Who decides whether there was past discrimination?  Answer – those getting the money and those eager to give out the money.

…pursuant to Principle 3 or attempting to achieve a diverse student body pursuant to Principle 4. In addition, a college may use privately donated funds that are not restricted by their donor on the basis of race or national origin to make awards to disadvantaged students as described in Principle 1.

The students who get aid, and who are also given preferences in admission, are “disadvantaged.”  Those being actively discriminated against are “advantaged” and “privileged.”  Got it!

Finally, the burden on those who are excluded from the benefit conferred by the classification based on race or national origin (i.e., non-minority students) must be considered. 

Laughable. In reality, the only consideration made is that if Whites suffer, that is good.  White suffering is an essential feature of the system in play here.

Id., at 171. A use of race or national origin may impose such a severe burden on particular individuals – for example, eliminating scholarships currently received by non-minority students in order to start a scholarship program for minority students – that it is too intrusive to be considered narrowly tailored. See Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. at 283 (use of race in imposing layoffs involves severe disruption to lives of identifiable individuals). Generally, the less severe and more diffuse the impact on non-minority students, the more likely a classification based on race or national origin will address this factor satisfactorily. However, it is not necessary to show that no student’s opportunity to receive financial aid has been in any way diminished by the use of the race-targeted aid. Rather, the use of race-targeted financial aid must not place an undue burden on students who are not eligible for that aid.

Who defines “undue burden?” That’s right – those in favor of handouts to Coloreds.

A number of commenters argued that race-targeted financial aid is a minimally intrusive method to attain a diverse student body, far more limited in its impact on non-minority students, for example, than race-targeted admissions policies. Under this view, and unlike the admissions plan at issue in Bakke, a race-targeted financial aid award could be a narrowly tailored means of achieving the compelling interest in diversity.

“Compelling interest.”  Laughable.  How come there is no similar “compelling interest” for intellectual and political diversity?” Why is the “compelling interest” only to have a demographically diverse group of students all of who have – or pretend to have – exactly the same sociopolitical views as each other?

The Department agrees that there are important differences between admissions and financial aid. The affirmative action admissions program struck down in Bakke had the effect of excluding applicants from the university on the basis of their race. The use of race-targeted financial aid, on the other hand, does not, in and of itself, dictate that a student would be foreclosed from attending a college solely on the basis of race. 

Sure! After all, if a poor White cannot afford college but is not eligible for race-based financial aid, that doesn’t preclude them from college!  Take out ruinous loans, Whitey!  Rob a bank!  That’s the ticket!  And if a wealthy Negro gets race-based financial aid, why that’s too bad on you, Whitey!  It’s “narrowly tailored” and all!

Moreover, in contrast to the number of admissions slots, the amount of financial aid available to students is not necessarily fixed. 

Sure! Schools have unlimited funds! Or perhaps they would, if they didn’t pay (anti-White) administrators bloated salaries that far surpass that given to the President of the United States.

For example, a college’s receipt of privately donated monies restricted to an underrepresented group might increase the total pool of funds for student aid in a situation in which, absent the ability to impose such a limitation, the donor might not provide any aid at all.

Certainly!  If the money can’t be given to Coloreds, don’t give it at all!  Let Whitey pump gas for a living!  If a wealthy Negro can’t get financial aid, then no one can!

Even in the case of a college’s own funds, a decision to bar the award of race-targeted financial aid will not necessarily translate into increased resources for students from non-targeted groups. Funds for financial aid restricted by race or national origin that are viewed as a recruitment device might be rechanneled into other methods of recruitment if restricted financial aid is barred. In other words, unlike admission to a class with a fixed number of places, the amount of financial aid may increase or decrease based on the functions it is perceived to promote.

Please read the above paragraph very carefully.  What it is saying is this: Even if you were to strike down as unconstitutional giving race-based financial aid, the schools – in their hate-filled animus toward Whites – would not rechannel that money into race-blind financial aid. They would simply invent new programs to skirt the law so as to enable Coloreds, rechanneling the money to Colored pockets, anything to avoid giving Whites a fair chance for a college degree. It’s the same with admissions. “Holistic review” is just a fundamentally dishonest way of enabling racial (and sex) quotas in admissions in an indirect fashion, to comply with the law in a strictly legal manner, but not in spirit. Anything to screw The White Man is acceptable!

In summary, a college can use its financial aid program to promote diversity by considering factors other than race or national origin, such as geographic origin, diverse experiences, or socioeconomic background. 

Right!  So if you come from a predominantly Black city, come from a high school that is 100% Black, are a member of your high school’s Black Student Union, etc., then, by golly, that’s race-blind admissions!  Holistic review!

In addition, a college may take race or national origin into account as one factor, with other factors, in awarding financial aid if necessary to promote diversity. Finally, a college may use race or national origin as a condition of eligibility in awarding financial aid if it is narrowly tailored to promote diversity.

Again: Who defines “narrowly tailored?”  Answer: The school administering the program.  As well as the leftist judges who rule in favor of viciously racist outright discrimination against Whites.

All of that may be disheartening, but let is take a “glass half full” approach. All those negatives mean that there is much to criticize, much to attack, much “low hanging fruit” for concerted legal, social, and, above all, political methods to be employed to leverage these anti-White policies against the System.  Vulnerabilities for the System abound, if only there was a crafty and strategic opponent willing to exploit those vulnerabilities. Consider Title Vi and academia – coupled to the whole affirmative action scam about admissions – all tailor-made to infuriate White students and their families. It is no coincidence that a major focus of “reverse racism” lawsuits have centered on the educational system.  In addition to what Title VI can do, Title VII can bring the focus of anti-White discrimination and hypocrisy to the broader arena, and Title IX can focus on anti-male discrimination and hypocrisy. The three “titles” together constitute a weak point for the System, a chink (sorry, Derbyshire) in the System’s armor.

Salter stated that – from the standpoint of a majority being displaced and replaced – the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does, thus ensuring the relatively painless race replacement of the majority.  However, as stated above, Democratic Multiculturalism is not stable for the System in the long run, as the whole idea of multiculturalism is empowering minorities and disempowering the majority. A concerted effort of the majority to demand fair treatment under multiculturalism, according to its own standards, would destabilize the entire multicultural system and heighten the contradictions. If the System tries to deny Whites relief under the multiculturalist ethos, the contradictions can be heightened to a point of complete System illegitimacy – and although the System can attempt to maintain the repression, there may be a breaking point at which they’ll have to give in.  If they attempt to relieve the pressure by giving in to some White demands, in the hope of appeasing White demands, then Suvorov’s Law comes into play, particularly if there are legitimate White leaders (and not System ringers – always a concern, something we must avoid) who will never be satisfied and will continue upping the demands. Once concessions are made, the floodgates will be opened, and the legitimacy of White interests confirmed. 

Getting back to the idea of the System trying to maintain repression – the reason why Suvorov’s Law has been actualized so many times in history is that repression is difficult to maintain at a high level for long periods of time, particularly when the repressed group is the majority – or at least a plurality – of the population. That’s why it is important to get started with Democratic Multiculturalism now, with Whites still a majority, and the “titles” are a good place to start.  And remember, I am not saying Title VI legal actions alone, but a concerted effort, including Title VII and IX, as well as all other aspects of anti-White discrimination in society, also using political, social, economic, and other forms of protest.  The struggle must be on a wide front, but it needs to start somewhere.  

Valhalla Awaits

And other odds and ends.

However, my theory is based on the proposal that Western uniqueness derives ultimately from unique ancestral environments in northwestern Europe, with emphasis on a north-south genetic cline in the relative genetic contributions of northern hunter gatherers, Indo-Europeans, and Early Farmers from the Middle East.

So, essentially, the “West” is “northwestern Europe.” The interesting thing is how the reality of Der Movement is converging on my parody of it. Long time readers of EGI Notes are aware of my description of Der Movement as believing that Europe is only that which is to the north of Vienna and the West of Berlin, and now, essentially, the HBD-Nordicists are promoting “theories” that essentially say in actuality (substituting “the West” for “Europe”) what I have been writing in mocking ridicule. Basically, parodying Der Movement is becoming ever more difficult, because “movement” reality converges upon, and then surpasses, what one says in sarcasm.

The aforementioned “theory” works only if you believe that areas of Europe outside of the northwest, including areas enriched in Neolithic farmer ancestry, are not part of the West, and that the peoples deriving from those areas are not genetically constituted for traits defining “Westerness.”  .

I don’t know of any serious scholar of the West (*) who believes that.  And Yockey, whose knowledge and understanding of Western history and culture dwarfs that of various “movement” “rock stars” certainly didn’t believe it.

This is just warmed over Kempism, “just so” stories promoting intra-European division and doing nothing but supporting my contention that so-called “White ethnics” have no place in Der Movement, Inc. and instead should look to the formation of a New Movement based on different principles. 

But I suppose that after the grand failure of the Alt Right – the Alt Right being supported by all the august “movement” personages at the same time I was presciently denouncing it – squandering the world historical opportunity of 2016, there is an impetus to devise new intellectual defenses of the “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action program. Only Pure Genetic Westerners need apply!  Spencer and Johnson to the vanguard, oh glorious leaders, grant us final victory!  Valhalla awaits!

The ultimate outcome of HBD – enslaving Whites thus to inscrutable Chinamen..

The Arctic Alliance marches on.

For the benefit of new readers, I want to once again clarify my position on HBD. When I write that HBD is a political movement aimed at subjugating Whites to Jews and Asians, I do NOT mean that all, or most, or even many, HBDers actually have that as their explicit agenda.  I do NOT mean that most HBDers cackle with delight as they plan the downfall of the White race, and I do NOT mean that masses of HBDers get together to plan the subjugation of Whites. Most White HBDers are no doubt sincere in their beliefs; they are useful idiots being manipulated by the relatively small number of HBDers who do actually have an anti-White agenda of replacing kinship-based racialism with aracial cognitive elitism, setting up a racial hierarchy with Jews and Asians on top, and promoting Jeursasian mongrelization.  


Thus, following the tenets of HBD to their logical conclusions will inexorably lead to the aforementioned subjugation of Whites to Jews and Asians, even though most (White) HBDers would deny that they desire such an outcome and would scoff at the possibility. However, the wire-pullers behind the scenes know very well how to make the HBD poison more palatable to the dupes, how to add sugar to the poison to make it go down more effectively. If HBD rhetoric was just Jewish and Asian supremacism, it would not have such a following.  But they add to the mix obvious truths about Negroes that add credibility to the dogma, and then they titillate the more sweaty of the ethnic fetishists by putting Afrowops at the bottom of the racial hierarchy, and by asserting that while Med swarthoids are cringing stupid subhumans, Nords are really smart – albeit not as smart as Jews and Asians. And Nords, and only Nords, are the real Westerners! Just ignore the leering Levantines and grinning Orientals behind the curtain. Move on, move on, there’s nothing to see there!  And the useful idiots eat it all up.  With gusto.


Do not misunderstand me. I am not denying important differences between Europeans, and I have discussed such differences here, including cognitive and behavioral differences – and some of those differences may be linked to national variation in culture and achievement. Where I differ is the idea that a particular set of traits associated with one subsection of Europeans is what defines “the West.”  Instead, I believe “the West” is best defined as an emergent property of the traits and national histories of all the types of (Western) Europeans, North and South, together. The complexity and richness of the West and its civilization is, I believe, also due the synergy of these various traits and histories. All of these components are important and cannot be isolated; the West is not just a derivation of one set of the European peoples. The fact that the “theory” in question is merely a variation of the same Guntherite Kempism we’ve all seen before suggests that it is, ultimately, an intellectual defense for the same old tired “movement” dogma.


Further, the idea that varying percentages of the same types of ancestral stocks can be so starkly genetically deterministic so as to allow for a sharp line to be drawn with respect to behavioral-cultural traits is an extreme stretch. If you are willing to go that far, then you would have to consider all of the implications. Is smug, self-righteous, destructive sick SJWism also so biologically deterministic, with such sharp territorial delineations?  Is hyper-collectivist conformism of belief in that SJWism equally so genetically and biologically deterministic?


And, I must say, accusations of “ethnic hurt feelings” are transparent projection. Long time readers of EGI Notes have read some extremely harsh criticisms here of swarthoids and other “White ethnics,” up to and including calling for a genetic culling of the worst 10-20% of the population (that could be done via sterilization instead of other measures). This blog has also praised the English and Germans as being the top of the European crop in terms of cultural, technical, scientific, humanistic intellectual, etc. achievements over the last few centuries; in addition, I’ve always been extremely impressed by the per capita technical achievements of the Scots. Durocher was alerted to North vs. South European differences in brain structure from this blog. I write what I perceive as the truth about any and all groups, regardless of “ethnic feelings” – hurt or otherwise.  In contrast, when is the last time you read or heard any of the Nord-fetishists say anything critical about Northwest Europeans – other than to assert that they are just too noble and altruistic and disinterested for their own good, “criticism” that is actually thinly veiled praise?  And those guys certainly have nothing good to say, ever, about swarthoids or hunkies. They are the ones whose “ethnic feelings” preclude them from ever legitimately criticizing their own group or praising other types of Europeans. Pot, meet kettle.

Speaking of HBD – I don’t know, maybe this reflects neurotic behavior?  Or just being a juvenile jackass?  Actually I don’t mind HBDers acting the buffoon.  It fits.  Like a glove.

Watch this.   That is the future of America.  And if you think that’s just an isolated case, you are in complete delusional denial. That’s the norm in American academia today, not the exception. Enjoy! And while the guy who made the video may be a milquetoast civic nationalist type, we should thank him for bringing this to our attention, and speaking out in class against the madness.


By the way, I just noticed that Greg Johnson describes himself thus:

My Facebook account has been terminated because I am a white advocate.

Not White nationalist, but “white advocate.” The ethnonationalist-HBD-Nordicist alliance continues to take shape.  “White advocate”- please.

Is College a Scam?

Even if it is, we still need it.

I was listening to an older Forney podcast in which he (lamely, in my opinion) tried to justify his previous work in helping Asians scam the American academic system with the excuse that college is a scam anyway, and Whites (presumably White men) should just go to trade school instead. Let’s consider this. For the sake of this essay, “college” includes the totality of the higher education experience – colleges and universities, post-graduate education of various types, etc.

In some ways college may indeed be a scam, but then much in today’s society is (including and especially Der Movement). We need to stay engaged in society and not eschew higher education. A college degree today is essentially equivalent to what a high school diploma was in the past, the gateway to a minimum level of possible professional success for many – perhaps most – people.  


Thus, a lack of college today is more or less equivalent to being a high school dropout in the past, with all that implies about social status, marketability, etc. The riposte will be that “young White men should eschew college and go to trade school.”  Now, no doubt, for many young White men, trade school is indeed a good idea, and, probably, some young men wasting their time in college with useless majors, bad grades, and Alt Right-style jackass partying would be better served attending trade school instead. Keep in mind that while college could possibly be a gateway to a professional career, we have all heard stories of college graduates who are saddled with enormous student debt and who cannot find suitable employment. Yes, these problems exist.  


However, there is a reason why Jews and Asians – who the HBDers tell us have a “high, high IQ” – all tend go to college.  True enough, they can leverage their ethnocentric networks after college in ways Whites (yet) cannot. In this way, they are better able to utilize their college degree for professional success than are atomized, individualistic Whites. But still, if college is such an obvious scam, why are those at the top of the human energy pyramid, those at the top of the economic food chain, those with the highest average incomes, why do they go to college? Obviously, they see a benefit, and this is a benefit that can still apply even to atomized Whites (and would apply to an even greater degree if we start networking as Jews and Asians do). The anti-college crowd could argue that the academic environment is openly hostile to White men and not to these other groups. That’s true, but the solution is not to surrender, abandon the field, and accept downward mobility and low-caste racial status. At some point, Whites need to start defending their interests in the institutions they created, not simply run away, leaving the racially alien victors to gather the spoils.


True enough, while a college degree may be the ticket for possible professional success for the average person, there is a not inconsiderable fraction of young men who could be well served by trade school.  But a fraction is not everyone, and is not the average, and it is not possible, nor is it desirable, for all or even most Whites – at least young White men – to go to trade school. There aren’t enough such jobs for all these people, and that’s the least of it. Many people are just not suited for such professions – should an intellectually-oriented White man become a tradesmen? There’s nothing wrong with such jobs – many are practically useful, fairly lucrative, and respected professions. But it’s not for everyone. Even more fundamentally, given the importance of college in today’s society, and given the importance of academia in the intellectual life of the West (for better or worse), why should Whites abandon academia and the high level professions that may result from an academic education?  Why should Whites abandon the field to Jews and Asians? Why should Whites abandon law, medicine, STEM, business, media, and academic positions, all of it, to our racial enemies?  Yes, college may be a scam, and a college education doesn’t guarantee anything, and, truth be told, it is more of a gamble than trade school, but if Whites abandon the top of the human energy pyramid to Asiatics (including Jews), then doesn’t that ensure a future for us as serfs?  Do all White men need to be tradesmen working in the homes of leering Levantines and grinning Orientals?

And then we have the practical matter of mating.  Like it or not, colleges and universities are full of White women, and they are there to stay (under the current system), and they are not going to trade schools. If White men abandon academia that will simply encourage more mudsharking with the aforementioned Jews and Asians, as well as with Negro college football players. Should White men abandon the sexual playing field on campus to the world of color?  Should high-IQ educated White females be abandoned to be the sexual playthings of Levantines, Orientals, and Negroes?

In summary, if you are truly not college material, don’t waste your time there.  But if you can leverage college for upward mobility and, possibly, a healthy racially endogamous relationship with an educated member of the opposite sex, then do so.  Don’t listen to the Sage of Tbilisi.  The Right should battle for a place in academia, not declare unconditional surrender.  A secular and rational Right that embraces science and education should make its presence felt and compete with the Left, taking the memetic battle to the heart of enemy territory.  And individual White men who believe they can make it in college and in the higher professions should enter the fray and not stand back in favor of Moshe Finklestein and Yu Fuk Chen.

Of Webinars and Genetics

And other news.

Guys like Taylor and Spencer would like to give speeches at colleges and universities, but the problem is violent Antifa protests (protected not only by the academic institutions themselves but also by the radically far-left and anti-White Trump administration) and the reluctance of the institutions to provide security.

Have these (and other) gentlemen considered the option of webinars as a stop-gap until such time that live speeches can again grace the halls of American academia?

Assuming they can get someone at the institution to make the invitation and arrange the webinar, this would seem to be a reasonable option.  Although there are of course drawbacks of webinars compared to a live appearance, there are some advantages as well, particularly in the current climate of repression.

1. It saves the cost, time, and inconvenience of traveling to the venue.

2. In case of a cancellation, less is lost.

3. There is no problem of physical security for the speaker, while the focus of security for the institution is shifted from that of an outside speaker to the institution’s own students (and employees) and their own property.  Let’s consider this last point in more detail.

For a live speech, the major focus of physical protection is the speaker, who is an outside presence, with the intended audience being secondary.  For a webinar, the focus of physical security is the audience, who are likely to be students and employees of the institution, as well as the property (e.g., computers, audiovisual, etc.) of the institution. The obligation of the institution to protect their own students and employees, as well as protect their valuable equipment and other property, is not something they can reasonably (or legally) evade. They could in theory ban the webinar, which would reach levels of absurdity and legal ramifications significantly beyond that of banning a live speech event.  If the institution would go to the embarrassing extreme of cancelling a webinar – a webinar! – then that’s a choice they should be forced into making. Think of the implications. It’s one thing for a college or university to claim that the costs and trouble for providing security for a live visit by an outside speaker is prohibitive – and even there they come up against the legal problem of the heckler’s veto – but to actually tell their own students and employees that they cannot even just gather in a room to communicate electronically with someone in a webinar format is another thing entirely.  They are going to tell tuition-paying students that they cannot listen to a webinar?  I’m sure they would like to tell the students that, but what they would like to do, and what they can do with impunity, are two different things entirely.

Sieg Heil!  Those high-IQ, racially superior, Inner Hajnal German purebloods make history once again!  Sieg Heil!

Complete ignorance of subject matter doesn’t stop Amren speakers from making fools of themselves. Neolithic farmer ancestry?  According to this retard, it never happened.  A few “Neolithic hunter gatherers” (sic!) were hanging around, not Mesolithic or anything like that, no sir!  We’re all from the steppes!  The smallest part of the European genepool is now the major part. Nothing else to report, except of course for some pesky sub-Saharan contaminants – but he seems to have forgotten some other examples.  Well, I suppose that weasel words like “practically absent” covers the omissions. I presume it’s “practically absent” from Portugal as well, hmmm?  Mongols in Russia – but evidence of Northeast Asian admixture in Northern Europe is mysteriously also missed in this ever-so-cogent analysis.  

We got to get this moron together with Durocher and Duchesne to give a presentation on European racial history – it can be sponsored by Ostara. These guys just make things up as they go along.  The fact that there is a rich literature of population genetics studies doesn’t prevent liars like this Amren speaker from literally inventing a history absolutely and definitively proven to be wrong.

Do you trust Der Movement?  Are you that naïve?

Ah yes…dem dere modern Greeks are dumb, but we need to better “robustify” the results. Very well.  But, if the Minoan and Mycenaean samples were the brainiest, more than the Neolithics and the moderns, perhaps we can look at Reich’s work and make some conclusions about those big-brained ancients?

Like, you know, certain things that the fundamentally dishonest “movement” likes to omit, such as that those ancients were dark-haired, dark-eyed “Mediterraneans,” genetically closest to modern Southern Europeans (e.g., from Southern Italy and Greece); they were not “Nordics.”

Good luck finding any “movement” YouTube videos stressing those aspects of “archaeogenetics.”  Good luck finding any breathless Mr. Caliper Unz Review essays or Amren articles about that either.  After all, Der Movement is all about “uncovering the truth about race” – up until the moment that “truth” conflicts with established dogma, at which point “truth” is conveniently ignored.

More on Ethnogenesis in Southern Europe

Genes in der news.

A preprint, emphasis added:

A series of studies have documented how Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry reached central Europe by at least 2500 BCE, while Iranian farmer-related ancestry was present in Aegean Europe by at least 1900 BCE. However, the spread of these ancestries into the western Mediterranean where they have contributed to many populations living today remains poorly understood. We generated genome-wide ancient DNA from the Balearic Islands, Sicily, and Sardinia, increasing the number of individuals with reported data from these islands from 3 to 52. We obtained data from the oldest skeleton excavated from the Balearic islands (dating to ~2400 BCE), and show that this individual had substantial Steppe pastoralist-derived ancestry; however, later Balearic individuals had less Steppe heritage reflecting geographic heterogeneity or immigration from groups with more European first farmer-related ancestry. In Sicily, Steppe pastoralist ancestry arrived by ~2200 BCE and likely came at least in part from Spain as it was associated with Iberian-specific Y chromosomes. In Sicily, Iranian-related ancestry also arrived by the Middle Bronze Age, thus revealing that this ancestry type, which was ubiquitous in the Aegean by this time, also spread further west prior to the classical period of Greek expansion. In Sardinia, we find no evidence of either eastern ancestry type in the Nuragic Bronze Age, but show that Iranian-related ancestry arrived by at least ~300 BCE and Steppe ancestry arrived by ~300 CE, joined at that time or later by North African ancestry. These results falsify the view that the people of Sardinia are isolated descendants of Europe’s first farmers. Instead, our results show that the island’s admixture history since the Bronze Age is as complex as that in many other parts of Europe.

So, let’s assume this work is, at least in the broadest sense, accurate about Sardinia. Thus, the idea that Sardinians are merely unmixed Neolithic EEF farmers is false. This puts all the other work in the field showing Sardinians as of an unmixed ancestral component into question – or does it merely confirm what I have written, that the outcome of population genetics measurement depends on how it is performed?  Possibly the latter.  If you stop the analysis at one level, Sardinians are unmixed; however, if you dig deeper and look for more ancient ancestral components, with different reference samples (this is ALWAYS the key – it is always about the parentals), then different results are obtained.  One wonders though how long Der Movement will keep on mindlessly repeating – “Sardinians are pure EEF.”

More important perhaps is the “Iranian-related ancestry” – “which was ubiquitous in the Aegean”- being found in Sicily as far back as the Middle Bronze Age. Once again, my suppositions are supported, as I have suggested that the “Near Eastern/Middle Eastern, Southwest Asian, West Asian,” etc. ancestral components identified by the ancestry testing companies (and by some studies) in Mediterranean Europe, including the West Mediterranean islands, are for the most part of ancient origin, present in this part of Europe for thousands of years.  Hence, it is part of the ethnogenesis of various European ethnies, and should be considered indigenous European ancestry.  If the ancestry testing companies (and others) would properly include a broader range of populations as parentals, then results that cause spontaneous sweaty ejaculation among Nutzis would be presented quite differently.  Note the part of the abstract “many other parts of Europe” to describe ancient “admixture history.”  There are a variety of ancient ancestral components in Europe dating back thousands of years, if not by the Bronze Age then at least by the Classical Period. These are all elements contributing to the ethnogenesis of extant European ethnies.

The authors do state in the main text that population modeling demonstrates that some degree of North African ancestry was added on to these Western Mediterranean islands (e.g., Sardinia, Sicily) after the Bronze Age, some of which may be modern – although the authors talk of the “last two millennia.”  This minority ancestry – which is curiously absent from many ancestry testing company results and which therefore may be another artifact of population modeling – is, to the extent that it is real, part of the ethnogenesis of these European populations.   

However, the question of modeling influencing results, and the reality of those results, can be re-examined by taking another look at that table from Durocher’s latest onanism material.

Note that Germans are being used as the European component representative for the admixture analysis, and despite that, Northern and Central European populations are still getting percentages ascribed to “Saharawi” and “Qatari” components.  Given clinal gene frequencies, it is not surprising that Southern European populations are modeled as having North African and Near Eastern ancestral components compared to Germans, but what to make of, for example, such ancestry in Swedes, Norwegians, Scots, and the Irish? I presume that Der Movement does not believe that such populations have any modern admixture from North African or Near Eastern sources. Therefore, the findings for those populations are artifacts from the modeling, ancient admixture, or both.  If that is so, then any “real” modern admixture in the Southern European populations has to be whatever small percentages in excess of that found in Northern and Central Europe, and even there, the clinal gene frequency issue has to be considered.  The same principles hold for the modeling in the preprint discussed above.

Consider also the old saying – “if you look for something, you will find it.”  Some population geneticists seem to have an agenda of wanting to find admixture in Europeans deriving from sources akin to those groups currently constituting the migrant invasion of our home continent.  Thus, from the preprint, emphasis added:

Thus, rather than being an island sheltered from admixture and migration since the Neolithic, Sardinia, like almost all other regions in Europe has, been a site for major movement and mixtures of people.

You are all admixed!  Resistance is futile!  You will be assimilated!

A Message for Eric Kaufmann

A brief message.

Following up on this, we read this:

Eric Kaufmann was born in Hong Kong and raised in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. His ancestry is mixed with a quarter Chinese and a quarter Latino. His father is of Jewish descent…

So, the person advising on how to ease the anxiety of Whites so that they can be more easily (slowly) dispossessed and, eventually, race-replaced by mixed-race individuals, is himself mixed-race and half-Jewish. I’m shocked, shocked, I say.

So, here is a brief message for Kaufmann:

Dear Sir,

I do not know your level of sincerity concerning your work on White interests. Regardless, taken to its logical conclusion, and from your own words, the ultimate outcome of Whites following your advice is their slow but inevitable demographic eclipse and their race replacement by a mixed-race population.

I note that your own ancestry is described as “mixed with a quarter Chinese and a quarter Latino. His father is of Jewish descent.”  Even if we were to assume that the “Latino” is Euro-Iberian, then that still leaves 75% of your ancestry of non-European descent. Therefore, by the standards of those who most closely exemplify the pursuit of White interests you pontificate about, you are not “White.”

Very well, you have the right to express your opinion.  So do I.  And my opinion, expressed here, is the same that I have expressed toward other non-Whites attempting to interfere with the expression of White interests by Whites.  

Whites have their own internal debates, their own conflicts (ethnicity, sub-race, religion, etc.), their own consideration of different strategies, and their own concerns. These are OUR affairs, not yours.  These are OUR conflicts, not yours. These are OUR debates, not yours.  And these are OUR interests, not yours.

How Whites relate to each other, how Whites decide to work together (or not), how Whites decide to strategize (or not) in defense of their own interests, that is something for US to do, not you.  Ultimately, WE have to be the arbiters of OUR fate. OURSELVES ALONE.

And, no, we do not need, or want, non-Whites with their every “helpful” advice, telling us that our best option is to slow down our displacement, replacement, and destruction; that we are “dying of Whiteness;” promoting intra-White division; that we need alliances with Asians in which Whites must grovel before their Yellow and Brown masters; that we must have a multiracial “White separatist state;” that we are akin to child molesters and are “latrine flies;” that we must accept the “racial status quo;” that racial preservation for its own sake is “insane;” that we must have a “Red State nation” that accepts “conservative Blacks;” etc. 

Maybe, sir, you can take your advice to Israel, and suggest to the Jews there how they can accommodate their eventual race replacement by Arabs through an increased short-term focus on Jewish interests (hard to say how they can go beyond what they already have), or you can go to China and spread a similar message there – although, contra Frost and the “Arctic Alliance” crowd, the Chinese are hardly in any danger of race replacement.  But, wherever you go and whatever you do, we can do without your proffered chalice, dripping as it is with carefully concealed poison.

Whatever the outcome of the White racial problem, I do not believe the outcome is going to be pleasant for the likes of you. If you are wrong, and Whites quietly go to extinction without any expression of self-interest, then the resulting Colored dystopia will ultimately not be of benefit for the Coloreds themselves.

What if you are correct about the situation? That you are correct that it is untenable to suppress the expression of self-interest by a group whose demographic majority is disappearing? Let’s say I agree with you – even the White omega race may well become ever more demanding of their racial self-interest.  Where I disagree with you is with the idea that this discontent can be effectively managed through a safety valve release of controlled, moderate expression of racial self-interest. 

As Suvorov wrote – revolutions do not occur during the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed.  Louis XVI learned that, as did Gorbachev. Once the expression of White racial interests is legitimized, once the pent-up fury of a wronged people begins to be released, how can it be safely controlled? Once the genie is out of the bottle, and the toothpaste is out of the tube, can everything be safely be put away again once things begin to spiral out of control?

The future is chaos. And your stage-managed attempt at orderly White extinction will only add to that chaos. Enjoy.

Best regards,

Ted Sallis

Questions for Eric Kaufmann

Questions.

Read here.

…the second meaning of whiteshift is this longer-term one. You’re going to get this very rapidly rising mixed-race population that will become the majority and will take over the consciousness, memories, and myths of that current ethnic majority.

Questions: What if Whites do not want to be replaced by “this very rapidly rising mixed-race population that will become the majority?”  What if they do not want to “expand Whiteness” to include people who are, by definition as “mixed-race,” not White?  What if they want to preserve themselves, and their genetic interests, as they are today?  What is wrong with that?  Other than your own preferences, of course.

Like the Jews, for example, have different DNA in them.

Questions: Why do you lie about this?  Yes, there are minor groups like Ethiopian, South Asian, and Chinese Jews that do indeed “have different DNA in them.”  But the major Jewish groups are quite similar, genetically, with similar lineages.  What’s your lineage, by the way?

There’s no question whites are advantaged economically, politically.

Questions: If Whites are so “advantaged” economically, what about Jews and Asians? You agree that Whites are being demographically replaced. You agree that Whites, unlike other groups, are not being allowed to express and defend their racial interests.  Thus, how are they really “advantaged” politically?

For example, a lot of those individual measures, like I don’t want my kid marrying an African-American, or I’m against interracial marriage, or I don’t want a black boss, in the survey data, it’s very low now. It’s not perfect. It will take a little bit more time before we get rid of it entirely.

Questions: Why do you define perfection by getting rid of these attitudes?  Aren’t you displaying your hidden anti-White biases by defining perfection in terms of White dispossession and White liberalism?

However, I don’t say that in every case the mainstream parties should go there. Like George Wallace, for example, on segregation.

Question: Why?

General question: Isn’t your book all about just slowing down White dispossession so as to make it more palatable to Whites, to accommodate them to their own demise?

Secondary question: Given Suvorov’s Law of History, don’t you understand that your “throw them a bone” strategy may backfire against your leftist interests? 

Another issue:

Ron Unz?