Category: American Renaissance

Race and Movement News, 7/13/19

In der news.

Another good Taylor video. I had to laugh about the “warpath” part.

Excerpts from another “emotional nerve” comment left at the HBD “West Coast White nationalist” Counter-Currents site,  emphasis added:

The problem is, aside from cattiness, that they always feel the need to bring up Greeks (ancient only, for they know not a thing about any other era, and really, they know very little of even the ancient ones), Italians (they are ESPECIALLY and GLEEFULLY brutal to Italians), Spaniards/Portuguese, etc. Why not just leave it out and just STFU about them? You cannot prove your point with repeating lies about meds (or slavs)???? Really, you can’t?

“……….Pan-Europeanism is our only way out.”

It can’t work BECAUSE of this BS.

@Ash
“I seem to have struck an emotional nerve with you and a few others.”

Typical response really. When a repeater of nordypoo nonsense is called out, always surprised that meds dare to take their own side in a fight, there is talk of “emotion.” But my dear, dear Ash, there was no need to repeat that lie. The whole post could’ve been done without that usual, tired, jealous jab. I understand that nordies feel put upon and cowed by non-whites and anti-white propaganda; but they always try to pump themselves up by ripping on meds and slavs, who played no part in that propaganda, do not attack nordies at all and are not anti-nordy….so WTF?????? Such catty swipes seem to be currency in these circles.

I agree with all of that, and it is good some folks have answered the original inane post. Certainly, the fetishists have a particular sweaty animus toward (Southern) Italians – to them, several rungs below Negroes and Australian Aboriginals on the racial scale.  And the indirect allusion to Sallis’ Law is always correct – Der Movement will always bring up their attacks against Southern (and Eastern) Europeans regardless of the context. If “Ash Donaldson” wrote an article about the weather, or the price of milk, or the design attributes of the Atlas ICBM, or whatever…there would have to be the obligatory mention of admixture in Southern (and/or Eastern) Europe. What self-respecting “movement” post would be without it?

And I agree, pan-Europeanism is not going to work as long as there are people who openly lie about racial history and population genetics to fuel their obsessive dogma, which they proselytize with all the fervor of a crazed priest of the Spanish Inquisition or a modern-day cultist.

We’ve certainly come a long way since the days of Larry Scott, eh?

Di, Di, Di…versiteeee…..

We’ve certainly come a long way since the days of Christy Mathewson, eh?

Di, Di, Di…versiteeee…

Advertisements

Reagan, Spencer, and Dutton, Oh My!

In der news.

Watch this.  Now, I’ve criticized Reagan as one of the original Man on White Horse frauds, and his domestic policy was a complete betrayal of his voters.  Essentially, to the extent he was sincere about any of it (Who knows?  Maybe like Trump, the divorced and remarried Hollywood Reagan was as much an insincere fraud as New York values Antifa Don Trump), he sacrificed his domestic agenda to achieve his foreign policy and defense spending goals.  Let’s put that aside for the moment, and just concentrate on the ability to fulfill the obligations of being a President of the United States – acting the role (Reagan was an actor, after all), and representing yourself, your nation, and your ideals (even if insincere) before the world. Compare Reagan’s televised address linked to above with the behavior of Trump.  How would Trump have responded in a similar situation?  Several blustering tweets, written as if by a brain-addled ten year old?  Speeches about how George Washington’s army conquered airports?  Comments about his “big hands?”  What?  

Actually, Reagan was the last President who was in any way truly Presidential.  Bush Sr. was a whining elitist with no charisma, a man who – despite his war record of physical courage – had no moral courage at all.  Clinton was a disgusting pig and a transparent carnival barker. Bush Jr. was almost as big a vulgar retard as Trump.  Obama, given a free pass because of his race, was an empty suit, a cipher who thought that reading off of a teleprompter with his chin elevated would compensate for his total lack of substance.  What a complete disgrace.  Oh, for the days of Milliard Fillmore!

Very cognitive, very elite. Colored is as colored does.  If a Negro did this, the HBDers would be up in arms; but as regards this, it is move on, move on, there’s nothing to see here.

Colored is as colored does.  Black, Brown, Yellow, Red – what’s the difference?

Is there a point to this, other than Spencer confirming himself as a Type I jackass?  I don’t know, me, I’d rather mock someone for a failing they have control over – for example, running the Alt Right into the ground despite all of the opportunities presented by the post-2016 world – rather than for a failing they do not have control over – for example, being short.  I could be wrong about this, of course, so perhaps a drunken podcast or two can clear up this issue for me.

Do the HBDers support HR1044?

July 10, 2019 in Der News

In der news.

This is Counter-Currents:

Nicholas R. Jeelvy
Posted July 9, 2019 at 7:45 am | Permalink
2001: Space Odyssey is like watching paint dry, but the paint is in love with the smell of its own farts.

Erudition for only the highest of the high-IQ “movement” crowd.

We’re not “all the same.”

Racially mixed Amren commentators assert that racial tension occurs only between groups with different average IQs (always IQ with the HBD/race realist crowd).  That is of course obviously false. See this.  Racially similar East Asian groups, with similar IQs, exhibit tension when brought into proximity, particularly when in the homeland of one of them. Radically different mental traits and abilities can exacerbate tensions, but the tensions exist because of overall racial and ethnic difference, not merely because of IQ. People do not like to be replaced by others, and higher IQ replacers can even be worse as they are more dangerous and more able to control host institutions.

As we know, HBDers are hysterically opposed to pan-Europeanism.  Here’s a reason why, demonstrated by an online commentator supporting pan-Europeanism:

Heraclitean Fire
We’re ALL going to need to team up — the entire West — to have a prayer at effectively opposing China.
China is an existential threat like we have never faced before as a country.
China’s size, economic might, military, & technological prowess dwarf the Soviets of yesteryear.

HBD is all about having Whites as a humiliated and degraded slave race to Asians (particularly the Chinese) and Jews. Having the West “team up” against China is literally blasphemy to HBD, and of course, to Silk Road White nationalism as well.  Instead, we all need to engage in “measured groveling” to all those Chinese girls with guns who will be “guarding the borders of the West.”

Arrogant Europeans always like to say” “Dumb Americans know nothing about Europe and European politics and should stay out it.”  Very well.  The opposite is true as well. Excuse me, ”Tommy Robinson,” but you’re delusional if you think the fat wad of shit Trump cares about you and your interests.  You’re not Israel, Negro prison reform, or a Big Mac, so why should he pay attention?

Trump is a fraud and always has been.

And I’d like to answer Johnson again with his assertion that it’s not true that Trump was always a fraud. His statement slyly implies to the audience that all the people saying “Trump was always a fraud” are using 20-20 hindsight.  No, there are a few of us – Strom and I being two examples – who correctly labelled Trump as a fraud BEFORE the election.

What were the signs obvious to those with a triple digit IQ?  Let’s see. Trump was a man with close Jewish family connections and an established history of hobnobbing with both wealthy Jews and with Negro celebrities.  He used to be buddies with the Clintons, who attended his (third) wedding.  He was well established as having “New York values” and had supported Democratic politicians. The man was a New York real estate mogul and reality TV star.  He had no grounding or background whatsoever in any of the issues of importance to “our side.”  His campaign, while useful in promoting chaos and balkanization, was nothing more than cheap blustering and a few comments about “Mexican rapists.” The man, as exemplified by his shockingly pathetic, ignorant, and buffoonish debate performances was and is a vulgar clown.

Why would anyone in their right mind believe he was sincere?

Der Movement: July 9, 2019

In all cases, emphasis added.

Heddi
Replying to @RichardBSpencer
1) Richard, risk involvement reduces the influx of quality people to exactly ZERO. People who have lives/families to shatter by social ostracism or job loss will not ever involve themselves visibly, thus alt right was anonymous online phenomenon.‏

2) The condition to attract quality people – those who do not come from a “nothing to lose anyway” position – is the erasure of risk. How to do it? Marry risk erasure with incentives of heightened prospects of living conditions. Immerse immediate benefits into joining. Think.

Point number one is fairly obvious but very important, and perhaps not obvious to the grand poohbahs who represent themselves as “movement leadership.”  And this is something I’ve written about before, more than once.  

As far as point two goes, I essentially agree, except that “erasure of risk” is unrealistic. There is risk in everything, even driving a car or walking down a flight of stairs. Obviously, involvement in dissident political/metapolitical activity that is opposed by the entire System, by virtually the entire political spectrum, is going to have inherent risk.  Instead, we should talk of “risk management” and “risk minimization” – far more realistic objectives.  That is opposed to the typical “risk maximization” of Der Movement.  As an example of reasonable minimization, see the 2019 Amren meeting; while Unite the Right, the fate of Ricky Vaughn, Hermansson and Lewis infiltrations, IE Discord, and similar antics exemplify risk maximization.

And as far as incentives go – there are none.  Community building? Resistance to social pricing? Alternative infrastructures and economic viability for low-to-medium scale activists (as opposed to the “Happy Penguins” soaking up the “D’Nations”)?  Camaraderie?  Normalcy?  None of that. Instead we see sour defectiveness, bizarre freakishness, and endless failure.

A comparison between the Type I-style and Type II-style “alpha males” is shown in this short clip from Twin Peaks Season 3. Ray Monroe exemplifies the style of alpha maleness prized by the Type I defectives of “game” such as Roissy – a snide, smirking, sneering, joking, obnoxious jackass.  Mr. C, on the other hand, displays a more Type II-style sense of alpha maleness – aggressive, driven, serious, threatening, focused, with the “alphaness” focused with the “want” vs. “need” distinction.  Note how the two interact – Mr C putting Monroe in his place but the latter refusing to acknowledge it other than a begrudging slight nod and semi-grunt, followed by more of the same annoying jerkboy behavior.

This is a useful contrast because it is the Type I behavior that has led to the downfall of the Alt Right and damaged (American) racial nationalism.  All you need to do is listen to (drunken) “movement” podcasts and read “movement” blog posts and comments threads and you’ll observe Ray Monroes aplenty.  Unfortunately, Mr Cs are few and far between, so the snark to seriousness ratio approaches infinity.

The paradigm of “Sallis is always right” extends to my opinion of Durocher, whose latest inane screed can be found here.  Note the Bliss vs. Malla insanity in the comments thread, which is a direct result of Durocher’s constant shilling of an unscientific, ahistorical, cartoonish Ostara-style version of racial history.  Note then the Nutzi Germanic lunatics, the raging defectives, sweaty fetishists, and all the rest.  It’s no coincidence that such freaks come out of the woodwork with a Durocher post.  As they say – garbage in, garbage out.

Once again Sallis is right – remember this:

Some will object – what about Europe?  They have repressive speech codes and aren’t the national governments there considered legitimate by the people?  First, I can’t speak for rightist Europeans – it is very possible that the growth of populism there is indicative of a growing element that does indeed consider the System illegitimate. And, second, the USA, with its particular history of, and alleged commitment to, free speech, is expected to exhibit a much stronger association between free expression and political legitimacy than do nations that have histories of kings, dictators, strongmen, and laws against lese majeste. What about the argument that European nationalists have had success despite the speech codes there?  What success?  In some nations, there has been a temporary slowdown in the degeneration, which can be quickly reversed by any subsequent leftist government; at best, there have been victories by civic nationalists and moderate petty nationalists. The “grand success” in Europe is a figment of the Nutzi imagination. And I can turn the argument around – imagine how much more successful the European Right could be if they could actually express their real views without fear of being fined or jailed?

So, no, the pathetically flimsy “successes” in Europe – which in any case have limited relevance to the American situation – in no way disprove the thesis put forth here.  Given the concerns of White nationalists, the situation in Europe remains dire. Demographic replacement is still “baked into the cake” there. Can European nationalists freely and frankly discuss these concerns?

So, yeah, I’m sure the vaunted Swedish ethnonationalists will go from victory to victory when it is considered a crime to merely state the desire to deport criminal migrants.  

Laugh at this.  Soporific blog posts?

After a hard day of writing inspirational articles for Counter-Currents (under various pennames)

Multiple pennames? If true, that would help explain the devastating decline of quality at that site.

…I mix myself a drink that consists of vodka, soda water, lots of lime juice, and lots of ice.

What is it with Type I Alt Right and drinking alcohol?

Taylor, Strom, and Russia

In Der Movement.

Another good video by Taylor.  Promoting and defending the concept of White advocacy is obviously a strength of Taylor.

Three brief points.

First, there was never any reason to believe CNN would “play fair,” and I hope people “on our side” will stop believing, and talking to, the press.

Second, Kauffmann is no friend of ours; see here.

Third, European nationalists may not have no choice not to speak about race, given the “hate speech” laws they have there, and the risks of ending up with fines and/or prison sentences for saying or writing the wrong thing.

That said, it is one unfortunate side effect of the despicable EU in that it has soured a feeling of common “Europeaness” among Europeans, particularly those with healthy instincts. Although, to the globalists, that may be a feature, and not a bug, of their EU creation. Turning Europeans against each other has always been a major component of the enemy’s toolkit – said enemy also including the HBDers.

Unfortunately, the level of support given by our readers is insufficient for us to send one representative and speaker, much less two or three as the ICPF would have preferred, to a conference in Moscow. If our readers and listeners step up to the plate, perhaps we can directly participate next year. But we did send a written copy of the speech by Miss Neubauer in lieu of her actual appearance, for distribution to all the attendees, and I will share that speech with you today.

A few points.  

First, this was an excellent speech, with content much in accord with my own views. 

Second, if Neubauer has a husband born in Alaska (now, who can that be?) why is it Miss Neubauer?  

Third, I think that the speech was written by Strom; that is his style and level of intelligence. 

Fourth, if Strom is upset that his group doesn’t have the money to send anyone to Moscow, he should read this. I understand that Strom may not want to be seen as attacking competitors for donations, but the reality is that every dollar that goes to Brimelow and race-mixing Philosemite Derbyshire is a dollar that doesn’t go to Strom and the National Alliance. The “tide raises all boats” theory of potentially unlimited funds to share among activists is, at least for now, a pipedream. If Strom doesn’t confront the HBDers, they’ll continue their grifting ways, parasitizing the “movement,” and leaving behind a dried out husk.

Fifth, and no offense, but the National Alliance has been around for 45 years.  If it is really, as they assert, the leading activist vehicle for European American interests, then why can’t they, after so many years of activity, scrape together the funds to send someone to Moscow? Even a relatively new and small scale operation like Counter-Currents can repeatedly send Johnson to Europe, and yet the vaunted National Alliance is helpless to send at least one individual to a conference in Russia. You can that see my skepticism from last week is justified.

As regards Russia, I know I have readers from that nation, and I hope that most of those are ethnic Russians, and more so, that some are Russian nationalists or, better yet, Russian White nationalists. A brief message to those readers – you may not agree with all I write here, for example some of my criticisms of Putin, Dugin, and Raciology, or my championing of Ukrainian self-determination, but I hope it is clear that, unlike other areas of Western racial nationalism, I am pro-Russian.  Indeed, I am “pro” every European ethny; I do not play favorites.  With respect to Russia, that nation and its civilization has a vital role to play in the future of the White race (if such a future exists) and one can only have admiration for the cultural, scientific, and technical achievements of the Russian people.  As I wrote above, I am in accord with most of the Strom/Neubauer speech.

A Duel of Wits

Between unarmed opponents.

See this.

There is some good here, but also considerable nonsense. If the characterization of Richard Spencer’s racial views is correct, then Johnson’s racial views are sounder from an empiricist-materialist standpoint. However, there is much lacking here from a more hardcore scientific standpoint (the wages of “Traditionalism” I suppose). 

The whole “transplanted brains” scenario is absurd and meaningless intellectual masturbation.  What could one do? There are racial – and subracial (cue Durocher’s heavy breathing) – differences in brain structure that can be identified via imaging methodology.  If one were really determined to obtain a definitive identification, a small brain biopsy can yield DNA to assay for genetic ancestry and thus prove whether or not the brain tissue was of Negro origin. As far as the ridiculous question as to why build a community on race instead of other characteristics, I point both interviewer and interviewee to Salter’s On Genetic Interests. Adaptive fitness is the ultimate interest of evolved organisms (such as humans), and any group that promotes their ultimate interests will outcompete and replace those who do not. And, after all, one can always form these narrower communities within your racial group while preserving EGI, but the opposite is not possible.  One can form your little group of Tolkien fans among Whites in an all-White ethnostate, but a multi-racial Tolkien group that is not stratified by race (by definition, if it is multiracial and stratified only by Tolkienism, it will not be stratified by race) will constitute a loss of genetic interest.  Smaller groups within a White ethnostate will retain the advantages of a concentrated EGI; on the other hand, smaller groups of Whites in, say, a multiracial Tolkien Fanboy state, will suffer as a result of a loss of EGI, itself a consequence of the multiracialism of such a state. In the latter case, the situation can be retrieved only by racial separation – so why not  divide on the basis of race to begin with?

Stupidity about gender-specific nations also fails – I remember Bowery writing (correctly) long ago that gender/sex is not a genetic interest.  A man has more genetic commonality with female relatives and co-ethnics than with male non-ethnic strangers. One could subdivide a racially pure state by gender (for what purpose?) but the racial stratification must come first if one is concerned with biological fitness. If you are not concerned with fitness, fine, but that’s not an evolutionarily stable situation. You’ll end up in the dustbin of genetic history, replaced by more ethnocentric others. These are reasonably obvious arguments.  I would also point out that sexual reproduction has evolutionary advantages via increased genetic diversity. No doubt that a sufficiently advanced technology could artificially impose independent assortment and recombination on a single-sex artificial reproduction regimen, but, again, for what purpose?  While eliminating the yeastbucket requirement would no doubt be advantageous in many ways, what would be the sexual outlet for such an all-male society?  Widespread homosexuality?  I’ll take a pass on that. There are probably some things best left unchanged in human nature and the division between two sexes for reproduction is likely to be one of those.

And what’s with this obsession with Rushton and Lynn?  Look, the broad theories of both of them are likely true, but that’s as far as it goes. R-K theory on race (that I independently came up with in the 1980s after reading an ecology textbook) is undoubtedly true on the general level of – Blacks and Browns have more offspring and invest less in them; Whites and Yellows have fewer offspring but invest more in them. And, as well, Blacks and Browns have faster life histories (earlier maturation and reproduction and earlier death) than do Whites and Yellows. If Rushton had stuck with that, instead of trying to shoehorn every racial characteristic (including penis size) into the formulation, he’d be more respected today. Likewise, Lynn is likely correct that there is a general association between national IQ and economic productivity (as measured by GDP) and general accomplishment; the problem occurs when he falls too much in love with his theory (as did Rushton with his ideas) and tries to fit every data point into the pattern, with ludicrous “estimates of IQ,” racial history fairy tales about admixture, and hand waving “just so stories” to explain anomalies. The problem, I suppose, is that the broad theories are a bit too obvious and common sense, plain to any reasonably intelligent and honest observant individual, and so there isn’t much “intellectual prestige” in merely stating the obvious.  Therefore, ego-driven “intellectuals” have to build castles of sand to demonstrate how very clever they are.

Counter-Currents commentary:

Craig
Posted July 1, 2019 at 8:07 am | Permalink
Yang was a joke who never should have had any support from the Dissident Right in the first place. Those who did have made public fools of themselves.

Craig, meet Greg Johnson. And Richard Spencer. And many more.

Also, what’s the big deal about Gabbard? Oh she’s good on foreign policy. But so is Trump. He not once, but twice, averted war by outmaneuvering the warhawks in DC. First with Syria and now with Iran. He’s the peace candidate you should be voting for.

There’s no reason to pay attention to any of these clowns with a (D) in front of their name.

Craig, meet David Duke.  And Richard Spencer.

Then there’s John Morgan:

John Morgan
Posted July 1, 2019 at 6:33 am | Permalink
Rep. Gabbard seems to be the least bad (notice I’m not saying good) of all these people. It’s also worth mentioning her connections to/support of Hindu nationalist groups in India like the BJP and RSS (since she is a practicing Hindu herself). This doesn’t necessarily equate to sympathy for nationalism for white people, but it suggests she may at least have the vision to not be completely averse to it. In practice that may not mean much, however. But as Mr. Hampton wrote, she has no chance of getting the nomination this time around, anyway.

You know she supports reparations for Negroes, right?

A one, a one, a one two three….

Ted Cruz at least spoke up about this.  Antifa Don Trump, The God Emperor?  Silence.

MAGA!  Pepe! Kek!

Readers of this blog know that I am no apologist for homosexuals (of either sex) but I’m no apologist for hypocrisy either.  I mean, really….  Apparently, “homophobia” – “vile” or otherwise – is perfectly acceptable in the service of “movement” feuds.  Perhaps, Antifa can be critiqued in other ways than their penchant for sending gay Asians to the hospital.

The State of the Press

Sigh.

Read this.

I’m of two minds here.  On the one hand, my major impulse, and strong belief, is that no one broadly on “our side” should talk to the Press. I see no percentage in it and it inevitably ends badly (as it did here). On the other hand, Taylor is probably the best spokesman Der Movement has right now, so if you guys want anyone speaking for you, it would be him (*).

But this episode demonstrates, once again, that you simply cannot trust the Press, and that my major impulse was and is correct and that dealing with the Press under circumstances in which they have to be trusted is simply bad judgment.

I would advise “movement leaders” to refuse such offers unless the Press is willing to sign off on a legally binding document that constrains their ability to smear and distort – for example. forbidding them to use words like “hate” or “White Supremacy” or ‘White Supremacists,” etc. and preventing them from running the interview without the prior approval of the interviewee (so that what will be presented is an accurate reflection of reality). If they violate the pact, then sue. Taylor won against the state of Tennessee allowing his conference to go forward without ruinous security fees, so using the court system to remediate an ironclad breach of contract, with respect to an agreement with the Press, is not impossible.

The argument would be: “The Press would never agree to those conditions.”  Very well, so be it. If they refuse to agree, doesn’t that clearly indicate the strong possibility that they plan to use smears and distortions?  If they refuse a reasonably worded and not overly restrictive agreement, then you are better off not doing it.

And this underscores the need for racialists to have their own media (in all its forms) and other infrastructure, instead of relying on a hostile System.

As far as the White-hating Asian (more simply: Asian) Zakaria goes, I’ve written about him before (if memory serves, most prominently during my time at Majority Rights), and I have to say he has always reminded me of the Clement Dio character from The Camp of the Saints.  Zakaria is in my opinion one of the filthiest pieces of absolute vile scum imaginable.

And as far as Zakaria’s moronic statements on race, the “movement” would probably be better positioned to effectively argue against that if it had as allies genuine STEM people (particularly in the broad field of biology) instead of alienating such people and driving them away.  Hint: Lynn, Rushton, et al. are/were not in my opinion STEM or scientists of any kind, but politicized hacks.  Do better.

*I’ve written before how the System has been ignoring folks like Taylor in favor of more inept spokesmen. That they are turning to Taylor now suggests that they have an agenda to discredit him as the lone reasonable voice among the bunch or they’ve simply run out of alternatives with the utter collapse of the Alt Right.  Or did they try to get other people and were refused?