Category: anti-racism

As Much Comedy As Tragedy

Exposing the “spin” of the Alt Fail account.

Reading what the Alt Fail writes about the Hermansson infiltration, the following minimizing spin emerges: “Somehow – who knows how! – the fellow evaded Steadman’s extreme vetting.  Well, he attended a few meetings here and there, and he talked with a couple of people, but, you know, he was so inconsequential that no one remembers him, and, like, you know, no harm no foul.  Move on, move on, there’s nothing to see here.”  However, Hermansson tells a quite different story; his story, backed up as it is with voluminous (and very believable) details, and videos, seems to be closer to the truth than is the official (and sanitized) “movement” version.  Let’s read excerpts (emphasis added) from Hermansson’s account (I’m not linking to the execrable site from whence this came, you can find it yourself if you are so inclined):

At any normal dinner the prospect of forcibly removing all non-whites would be greeted with shock, but repatriation was a relatively uncontroversial topic around this table.

The rest of the night I talked with Brits, Swedes, Lithuanians and Americans. Some of these were super-stars within the movement, such as the never-before-photographed American alt-right figure, Greg Johnson.

Above the sound of clinking glasses men in rented tuxedos discussed eugenics, the coming “race war” and the supposedly ongoing genocide of white people. Smugly they congratulated themselves on managing to keep the dinner a secret, away from the prying eyes of anti-fascists. Little did they know, I was secretly filming the whole thing.

Becoming part of the London Forum, the UK’s most important far-right ‘think-tank’, was not as difficult as its reputation would suggest. I got my foot in the door by claiming to be a disillusioned Swede curious about the alt-right movement in the UK. I said I came to London inspired by Brexit and to get away from the “cultural Marxism” (a favourite phrase for conspiracy-minded, far-right activists) of Swedish universities.

Jez Turner, leader of the London Forum and one of the best known far-right activists on the UK scene, quickly invited me to meet up. Later, as paranoia about a mole increased, new members began to be thoroughly vetted and were required to provide letters of recommendation from trusted members.

Luckily for me, Scandinavian heritage and culture is fetishised by some within the UK far right, meaning interest in my Swedish background overcame most suspicion. At formal dinners, for instance, we sometimes opened by drinking from a ceremonial Viking horn, then raising it to the ceiling in a prayer to the mythological Norse god Odin.

One figure from the London Forum showed a particular interest in me as soon as I arrived. Despite being in his mid-fifties, Stead Steadman, a man of diminutive stature, was always dressed in a khaki shirt, khaki shorts and black walking boots; he looked like a cross between a boy scout and a member of the Hitler Youth. Little did I know at the time but this man was to be central to the whole project. Once close to him he opened doors to some of the most influential far-right figures in the world.

Once the trust was built Steadman began openly discussing the London Forum, people they planned to invite and who he liked and disliked within the movement. The information I gathered helped HOPE not hate map the London Forum network and the movements of key activists with precision. We learned of international conferences in Lithuania, Italy and Sweden being attended by British extremists.

It even got to the stage where I was asked to sit in on the vetting meetings for new London Forum members. Steadman, Turner and I would meet applicants who wanted to attend meetings and question them on their background, politics and commitment to the cause. Soon there was almost nothing happening in the London Forum that I and HOPE not hate did not know.

On the face of it the meetings are comical. A man in a long, white, curly baroque wig introduces two to three speakers per night covering topics such as gun laws, religion and the lack of freedom of speech, interspersed with poetry performed in Old Norse or Anglo-Saxon English.

Also active in London are tiny Odinist groups, often with a healthy smattering of nazi adherents. One sunny afternoon a group of us gathered in the Barbican Centre, an iconic brutalist housing complex replete with green areas, for a ‘moot’.

Steadman, in his typical khaki shorts, lifted a horn to the sky and began to pray to the Nordic gods before taking a gulp of mead. Then he placed a Viking horn to his lips and blew, but instead of a bellowing blast echoing out a stuttered honk spluttered from his lips.

Sometimes being a mole in the far right was dangerous, nerve racking or scary but at other times it was surreal, ridiculous and frankly comical.

Gregory Lauder-Frost

He doesn’t hold back and I can feel little drips of his saliva hitting my face as he speaks. He describes his colleague Brooks as a “common bloke” and how Daniel Friberg, founder of Arktos and a leading alt-right figure, is “not a big thinker”. Neither does Lauder-Frost like Richard Spencer. He tells me that Spencer, who has spoken at the TBG, is “naive” and “doesn’t understand Europe”.

By the time I leave the pub it is clear that an important split is emerging within the alt-right movement between some of the biggest players.

If you want to get to the very heart of the alt-right, all roads lead to America. While Europe has produced its fair share of prominent alt-right activists and big names from America regularly visit, it was clear that if I was to better understand the alt-right movement, the emerging split and generally to get closer to the big names, I would have to head across the Atlantic.

During Greg Johnson’s short visit to London I had got to know him well. In addition to the Bowden dinner and the conference the following day I had spent an afternoon at his hotel alongside Steadman. With Johnson being at the very heart of the emerging split in the alt-right, it was decided I should start the American part of my infiltration with him.

Johnson admired the London Forum so much that he replicated the concept in New York and Seattle with closed conferences of hard-core activists addressed by leading speakers from the far right. Recent events had been attended by big names, such as the internationally recognised antisemite and editor of The Occidental Observer, Kevin MacDonald, as well as the UK’s most well-known alt-right vlogger Colin Robertson (aka Millennial Woes).

One sunny Saturday in June, I joined the list of speakers at one of these forums in Seattle. I had intended to attend as a guest but one week before the event Johnson contacted me and asked me to give the opening address, removing any doubt in my mind that I was now accepted as part of this movement.

With delicious irony I opened the event by talking about the danger of anti-fascist infiltration.

After the Seattle Forum I head to New York. The split between Counter-Currents Publishing and AltRight Corporation (the result of the Arktos row mentioned earlier) had got especially nasty.

Having spent a few days at the heart of Counter-Currents, I decided I had to go get the other side of the story.

“We had connections in the Trump administration, we were going to do things!”

I manage to convince Jason Reza Jorjani, co-founder of AltRight Corporation and editor of Arktos Media, to meet for a drink. I’m sitting across from him in an Irish pub in the shadow of the Empire State Building. The first thing he said was: “You’re not in touch with Greg [Johnson], are you?”

I assure him I’m not, knowing he would leave if he ever found out I had spent the last month getting to know people on the other side of the split, some of whom had recently accused Jorjani of being a CIA agent. “It’s like the SA and the SS,” Jorjani said. “A Night of the Long Knives is coming though.”

Jorjani talks for hours, displaying a remarkable arrogance coupled with a tiring self-pity. He’s a remarkably extreme character, much more so than his public persona. He sees the world one day being run by a single strong leader and predicts it won’t be long before bank notes are adorned with images of Hitler.

I ask about AltRight Corporation and its aims and objectives and he explains how it is a “government in waiting”. But then, out of nowhere, as though it was no big deal, he says: “We had connections in the Trump administration, we were going to do things!”

I lean forward, praying that the camera I have hidden in one of my shirt buttons captured what he had just said. I can hardly believe it. 

I thought the Keystone Cops stupidities of the real world meetings from the 1990s were bad, but whatever we Old Right types experienced back then is nothing compared to the tragicomedy of today.  Twenty years ago, maybe the utter incompetence of “meeting security” allowed an infiltrator into a public (never private!) meeting, where the infiltrator took notes, and/or wrote down license plate numbers outside after the meeting. Today, the infiltrators get all cozy with leaders and with actual decision making, and then infiltrators actually lecture genuine activists about “the dangers of leftist infiltrators.”  The infiltrator sits with leaders discussing how to “vet” genuine activists! 

 

And the other side of the Alt Right feud is not much better.  At AltRight.com, we read the following from a blogger there talking about Charlottesville:

We forced the President of the United States to weigh in on our side…

Yeah…if you didn’t notice, Alt Righter, he denounced you, and then signed a declaration, in writing, not only denouncing you but pledging to use all of the resources of the US government against you.

Delusional much?

Advertisements

A Question of Accountability

Another in an endless series of failures and humiliations.

 

I am sure that by now readers know about the latest unmitigated “movement” disaster, the all-too-predicable infiltration and “exposure” of the Alt Right by a heroic two-fisted Swede (“Oh, look at what a tough guy I am, I really wanted to punch those Nutzis in the face, but I didn’t want to damage my manicure on their coke-bottom spectacles”).

 

 

 

In May of this year, I went to London to speak at the London Forum and the first annual Jonathan Bowden dinner. Stead Steadman introduced me to a young Swedish man going by the name Erik Hellberg. I was told that Erik was, like so many others, a newcomer to the movement who was going to write a master’s thesis on doxing, deplatforming, and harassment directed at White Nationalists.

The day after the London Forum, Stead and I met with Erik in a quiet hotel bar for a brief interview. I talked about my own experiences of harassment in San Francisco. We also talked a bit about White Nationalism in general, as well as other people he might interview. I suggested he talk to Charles Krafft, who had much more interesting stories than mine.

Erik seemed a nice enough fellow. A bit socially awkward, a bit inarticulate, a bit effeminate, but not so outside the norm for academic types that I felt suspicious. And he came with the recommendation of Stead Steadman.

Later Erik told me he was going to the US. I told him that friends of mine were holding a Northwest Forum meeting Seattle in June, and it would be an opportunity to interview Charles. I figured that if he had passed vetting for the London Forum and the Bowden Dinner, he would be fine for the Northwest Forum as well. (Stead actually has a reputation for being too strict in his vetting procedures, which made it impossible for some of Millennial Woes’ fans to see him speak at the May Forum.)

 

 

I initially commented on that at Counter-Currents thus:

 

First, I am sorry that Greg and others had this bad experience with the low-rent piece of dishonest trash Hermansson.

Second, I’ve been involved with the “movement” since the mid-90s, and I must say that this sort of thing happens with distressing regularity.  WNs too nice? Too trusting?  Yes, but also horrifically bad security.  There needs to be a careful evaluation of this case.  How did Hermansson pass the “extreme vetting?” What went wrong?  There also needs to be accountability.  Hermansson was recommended by “Stead Steadman” (whoever that is).  Very well.  Why?  What credentials did Hermansson have that impressed Steadman to his sincerity? Without accountability and without responsibility, nothing will ever change.

And can I suggest that “newcomers to the movement” not be invited to private events?  Unfair to those who are sincere?  Yes, but too bad.  Perhaps a higher level of personal interaction needs to be earned.

 

 

And how did this nice Swedish fellow get through Steadman’s “extreme vetting” and all the other “extreme vetting” that would likely have had a Codreanu or an Evola booted out with a swift kick in the rear?  Well, I had my suspicions, but kept it to myself until the other shoe dropped (emphasis added):

 

Mr. Hermansson, who was sent undercover by the British anti-racist watchdog group Hope Not Hate, spent months insinuating himself into the alt-right, using his Swedish nationality (many neo-Nazis are obsessed with Sweden because of its “Nordic” heritage) as a way in.

 

Hermansson also notes in the video how Steadman’s interest with “Germanic paganism” (who would have ever guessed?) made Steadman and friends vulnerable to the attentions of a Scandinavian Nordic

 

Hoist on the petard of its own Nordicism, ethnic affirmative action, and ethnic fetishism – Der Movement marches on.  Can I say: I told you so?  Yes, indeed, as any reader of EGI Notes know well.  Please note how the enemy knows Der Movement well also: who they choose as an infiltrator, knowing that a Nordic Scandinavian will be given a free pass and handed the keys to the kingdom.  

 

We have a “movement” that ridiculed and killed a Joe Tommasi but that welcomes an infiltrating scumbag like Hermansson with open arms – and then any have the nerve to assert that there is no such thing as “affirmative action” in Der Movement?  Have you ever seen such a bunch of dishonest individuals with zero self-awareness?  The anti-racists know better, and use that knowledge against the “movement” and its obsessions, as we see in this case.

 

More from Johnson:

 

I also suggested that Erik speak briefly at the Northwest Forum about his research project, to see if others in attendance would be interested in an interview.

It turns out that Erik Hellberg is really named Patrik Hermansson, and he was a spy for the antifa group Hope Not Hate. Not only was he recording interviews with people, he was also wearing a hidden camera and taking videos, and the results of his year-long investigations are going to be released as a documentary video.

My initial reaction to this news was a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I imagine that everyone Erik spoke to felt the same way. He certainly made the rounds, attending the Extremists Club in London, the London Forum, the Northwest Forum, and even Unite the Right in Charlottesville, insinuating his way into the good graces of Jez Turner and Stead Steadman, and interviewing not only me but also Millennial Woes, Tom Sunic, Gregory Lauder-Frost, Jason Jorjani, and Daniel Friberg, as well as chatting up countless people at various events.

It is terrible to feel that one’s trust has been violated by a rat, and it is even worse to feel that you lent your credibility to such a person, so he could violate even more people’s trust. In particular, I must apologize to the 30-odd people at the Northwest Forum who were exposed to this snitch because of me…I also have to laugh at the pretense that Hermansson was risking his life. The only person who ever harmed him was a fellow Leftist in Charlottesville. Frankly, one of the chief lessons of this fiasco is that White Nationalists are far too nice. One always regrets being too kind…I wanted to see how long it would take before a photo got out, and I wanted to see who would finally put it out there: the enemy or one of the many loathsome people in our movement. I was betting it would be movement scum, and I was right. An old photo of me was dug up and circulated in January, and other pictures were surreptitiously taken at the last AmRen conference. So Hope Not Hate is a distant third.

 

 

In his post, Greg talks about Jorjani.  Let’s take a look in that direction to see what it tells us about the “movement.” Paradoxically (or perhaps not, if one views the fundamental basis of the “movement” as hostility to Southern and Eastern [in that order] Europeans), for some “leaders” Nordicism is mixed with Judeophilia or Oriental worship or an Aryan fetishism that imagines racial comrades in Iran and India.  As an example of the latter was the bizarre Alt Right infatuation with Jorjani.  Apparently Jorjani, subject to ethnoracial insults only a fraction of that experience by the typical “movement Euro-swarthoid” has broken with the Alt Right.  Read (emphasis added):

 

I hereby resign, effective immediately, from the Alt-Right Corporation that I co-founded and from my position as the Editor-in-Chief of Arktos Media. Of course, I remain a shareholder in both companies and, upon my return home to New York, I will enter into what I hope will be a brief buyout negotiation with my partners Richard Spencer and Daniel Friberg so that the shares I hold may remain within the movement’s leadership. (I am currently in San Francisco, for a private meeting concerning research and development of exotic technology that may someday serve the Iranian Air Force.) It should be added that, from now on, former associates within the Alt-Right movement of Europe and North America ought to consider any interactions with me as diplomatic relations with a representative of the coming post-Islamic political order of Iran and the wider Persianate world. This point cannot be overemphasized. Over the next few years, we will be watching with a hawk’s eye to identify the true friends and enemies of our archeo-futurist Iran.

 

And read (emphasis added):

 

What is worse is that in the long months of the Spring of 2017, as I waited for funding to materialize, I watched the corporation that was my brainchild turn into a magnet for white trash…The comments sections of our website devolved into a cesspool filled by the most despicable pond scum, former 4-chaners who would routinely pile on in trolling attacks against me every time I published something with a bit of intellectual content. “Iranians is brown poo-poo people” kind of sums it up. I decided to stop contributing until the investment came in and I could really clean things up…In May, at a meeting in London, I was assured by the investors that the obstacles had at last been cleared and I could expect our collaboration to begin in June. When I reported this to Richard at a New York lunch at the end of the same month, he thoughtlessly and angrily dismissed a plan that the investors had shared with me for creating an economic and security corridor from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and across to the Caucasus. This “Neo-Scythian” Ukraine-based approach to the long-term revitalization and liberation of Europe – linked to a future, post-Islamic Greater Iran via the Caucasus – offended the Russophilia that has been fostered by his wife.

 

Comment on that is superfluous, other than to note, for the edification of third party observers, that this is the fellow elevated by the Alt Right to a position high in their councils, and who was turned on by the “movement” base only because of his obsessive harping about the greater glories of “archeo-futurist Iran.”  The Alt Right is the lowest sewer of the “movement,” it is a curse on racial nationalism, and anyone who thought it a good idea to give this Jorjani any sort of “movement” forum has, in my opinion, advertised their abysmal lack of good judgement for all to see.

 

I could say: I told you so.  So I will: I told you so. Check the “Jorjani” archives at this blog for proof of that.

 

Accountability?  None.  “Movement” leadership admitting gross negligence? Don’t make me laugh. Change?  Don’t expect it. 

 

Ultimately, it is the ran-and-file of the “movement” who are responsible for this. They can change the “movement,” alter its culture and eschew its obsessions, end its affirmative action program, and force accountability for leadership.  All they need to do is “vote with their feet” (or with their computers, for the digitally inclined, which is the vast majority these days). Gravitate to different leadership, visit different blogs and websites, and donate in other directions.  Will they do so?  For the most part no, for they share these same obsessions, fetishes, and fossilized dogmas as the leadership they so slavishly follow…right off the cliff.

Citizenism and Mainstreaming Failure

More fails.

Trump so far has illustrated the underlying flaws of Sailler’s “citizens” (warmed over civic nationalism).  While Trump proved that, under the right set of circumstances, there was a narrow electable window for citizenism to come into power, he is also proving how utterly useless citizenism is – and will be – once elected.  Citizenism is “weak sauce” – half measures, compromises, furtive implicitness, which at its best would only slow the decline and delay the inevitable day of reckoning.  However, the Left – nay, the entire Establishment – views citizenism as equivalent to neo-Nazi White supremacy, and thus they oppose and sabotage even the most modest citizenist initiatives of Trump. Thus, while citizenism has proved electorally successful – at least this one time, with a very unconventional candidate – it is inherently doomed to fail, caught as it is between two pincers.  On the one hand, it really cannot solve the Race-Culture problem, because that’s not what it meant to do; on the other hand, it triggers the whole Establishment the same as if it really could effectively deal with Race and Culture.  It’s the worst of both worlds – not radical enough to actually achieve the required outcomes, but just radical enough to trigger a vociferous opposition that prevents even the most modest outcomes from being achieved.

Meanwhile, the “label Antifa as a terrorist organization” has passed the required number of signatures to be considered by the White House.  The ball is in your court, Mr. Trump – as is the question why you have to be forced to consider it (assuming he actually does, and doesn’t blow it off) rather than just doing the right thing to begin with.

I can’t think of a more wonderful test of Trump’s “God Emperorness” than this.  At what point will the sweaty homoerotic fanboys give up on their hero? This is something he should have done after the Inauguration riots.

They never learn.  Electoral failure, inability to appease opponents, unlimited ability to disgust the base. Mainstreaming is a perfect example of what happens when adherents to a plausible hypothesis refuse to give up that hypothesis even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

That applies to almost everything about the “movement,” by the way.

Unite the Facts II: Trump Cucks Out

The orange becomes more rotten with every passing day.

Trump praises Antifa and  other urine bottle-throwing thugs for standing up against “bigotry and hate.”

“I want to applaud the many protesters in Boston who are speaking out against bigotry and hate. Our country will soon come together as one!”

At what point will the Alt Right stop the “4D chess” narratives and admit that Trump’s campaign was his greatest performance yet?


More on Charlottesville.


Read this story.  Some news outlets referred to the victim as an “innocent man.”  In other words, he is not a “neo-Nazi,” but if he was, then, oh boy, he would have deserved to have been randomly stabbed while getting out of his car.  I guess this all somehow supports pathologically insane ramblings in The Atlantic about how the Alt Right is so very powerful and all.


Truth to power.  Actually, lies and repression from power.


I don’t want to beat a dead horse but people are looking at the Unite the Right aftermath in a very short-sighted manner.  They are all considering the event itself, but ignoring the larger context behind it – that the “movement” is so very ill-prepared to take advantage of today’s propitious circumstances, and that after many decades of activism by so many people, and after so many millions of dollars of donations and “membership dues” poured into “movement” coffers.  And so we now reach a point of consummate weakness and humiliation, where “innocent” men are stabbed just because they have an “undercut.”

This is in large part due to the “movement’s” Der Tag mentality – that “Armageddon” is just around the corner, so why engage in any long-term planning and organization-building? Just head out to dem dere woods with your trusty rifle and pemmican and get ready for “the revolution.”

I remember that one “movement” quota queen was ranting in the early 2000s – and here I paraphrase from memory – that “I don’t understand why any White folks, particularly racial activists, are worrying about saving for retirement, their pensions, college tuition, or having money in their bank accounts.  Don’t they know that the system is definitely going to collapse within ten years, most likely within five years?”

Yeah…that was fifteen years ago, more or less.  And the “movement” has been saying things like that for – what? – the last 50 years or so?

Maybe it is just small sample sizes or that the “movement” selects for specific types of people, but I’ve noticed that how activists actually behave is completely opposite of what one would predict based on ethnic stereotypes.

Those individuals who are supposed to be prudent, disciplined, disinterested, far-sighted, strategic, long time preference, organized, etc. are the ones who don’t see past their noses, engage in hasty actions with little to no planning, have short time preferences that eschew thinking in terms of decades, engage in hysterical hero-worship and wishful thinking, are constantly pan-handling in the most shameful fashion (some using their own small children as money-raising props), have no organizational security, never learn from mistakes, and are angrily allergic to any criticism.  On the other hand, those who one would expect to be corrupt, short time preference, high-anxiety, neurotic, undisciplined, short-sighted, gesticulating morons are the ones counseling prudence, long-term planning and infrastructure-building, strategic organization, operational security. and critical of shameless “movement” pan-handling and womanly hero-worship.

Again, this may be a sample size and/or selection bias issue, but it has been a consistent pattern over a long period of time.

Unite the Facts: Refuting the System Narrative

A semi-comprehensive analysis.

In light of the unprecedented sociopolitical, memetic, physical, social pricing, and economic/ corporate attacks against the American Far Fight, let’s briefly take a look at and refute some of the more common System arguments.

Let’s first consider that tried-and-true leftist meme that “racists” are stupid and uneducated.

Actually, higher cognitive ability is linked to a greater propensity for “social stereotyping.”

“Stereotypes are generalizations about the traits of social groups that are applied to individual members of those groups,” the authors note. “To make such generalizations, people must first detect a pattern among members of a particular group and then categorize an individual as belonging to that group.
“Because pattern detection is a core component of human intelligence, people with superior cognitive abilities may be equipped to efficiently learn and use stereotypes about social groups.”

Further, many White racial activists are highly educated.  Most of the leaders have at least a college degree.  William Pierce had a PhD in physics.  From what I know of today’s activists, the following have PhDs: Kevin MacDonald, Greg Johnson, David Duke, and Ted Sallis. Note I do not consider HBDers to be racial activists, but for those of you who do so consider them there’s Lynn and Rushton.  Jared Taylor is an educated man, multilingual, and cultured. Spencer is intelligent and articulate.  A number of activists are lawyers.

Racial nationalists in general are not stupid nor are they ignorant.  At the level of the more active activists, IQ and educational attainment is likely greater than that of the White American average, and almost certainly significantly higher than the general “American” average.

Another meme: racial nationalists are seething with “hate” toward members of other races. There may well be some for whom this description fits, just as there are many Blacks who hate Whites, Jews who hate Gentiles. Asians who hate all non-Asians (particularly Whites) – to say nothing of inter-religious hatred (I consider Jews an ethnic group, not a religion). However, being a racial nationalist has more to do with a desire to preserve one’s own people, and look out for their interests, than any sort of “irrational hatred” toward others. Diversity fatigue?  Yes.  Exasperation with the behavior of non-Whites and the White liberals and cucks who love them?  Yes.  Hatred for those who actively harm our people?  Certainly. But if you really want to see hatred, look at the opponents of racial nationalists.  Or, look at the hatred non-Whites have for Whites.

Another very tired meme: racial nationalists are against diversity because they have no experience with it, they dislike non-Whites because they don’t know any.  Actually, the opposite is the case: see the work of Putnam and Salter on diversity – two academics approaching the problem from very different directions but who come to very similar conclusions about the corrosive effects of diversity.  And didn’t Trump get a higher fraction of White votes in the primaries in more diverse areas? Trump’s popularity in the primaries – where most of the folks voting were White – was concentrated in the South (large numbers of Negroes) and in the Northeast/Rust Belt (large numbers of non-Whites of all kinds, particularly Blacks and Hispanics).  The more truthful stereotype is of the tolerant White liberal who lives in a mostly White neighborhood or state.

In my case, having experienced peak diversity growing up, that exposure to different peoples heightened racial views and distinctions.  The more you know them, the less you like them.

Individuals who have dropped out of the “movement” and who now shill for the System promote the meme that White nationalists suffer from personal pathologies; thus, they get involved with racial nationalism because they are “frustrated, feeling hopeless, needing guidance, with a longing to belong” not because of any deeply held beliefs and realistic interpretation of facts (of course, similar accusations are never made against the thuggish left).  This is of course pure projection; these individuals are talking about themselves. Indeed, selection bias rears its head: it are those individuals who join the “movement” because they are “frustrated, feeling hopeless, needing guidance, with a longing to belong” who are exactly those who will leave the “movement” once the System gives them a better deal (of whatever sort).  All the other activists – those with deep beliefs and who do not become turncoats – are not heard from; instead, we only hear from those traitors justifying their own inadequacies. Looking at this objectively: if you have ideological convictions based on reality, then how can you suddenly decide that objectively factual demographic and cultural trends do not exist?  Or if they do exist, go from being an existential threat to no threat at all (or even something to be welcomed)?  It seems to me that the real pathology – bordering on some sort of sociopathy – is to parrot dissident views without really believing them and then turn 180 degrees in the other direction as if the preceding memetic reality never really existed.  That, my friends, is truly sick.

The white supremacists marching in Charlottesville, Virginia, this past weekend were not ashamed when they shouted, “Jews will not replace us.” They were not ashamed to wear Nazi symbols, to carry torches, to harass and beat counterprotesters. They wanted their beliefs on display.

How about the counter protestors there, carrying clubs and flamethrowers, actively harassing and beating rally goers?  The epitome of mental health and love, no doubt!

It’s easy to treat people like them as straw men: one-dimensional, backward beings fueled by hatred and ignorance. 

See above.


But if we want to prevent the spread of extremist, supremacist views, we need to understand how these views form and why they stick in the minds of some people.
Recently, psychologists Patrick Forscher and Nour Kteily recruited members of the alt-right (a.k.a. the “alternative right,” the catchall political identity of white nationalists) to participate in a study to build the first psychological profile of their movement. The results, which were released on August 9, are just in working paper form, and have yet to be peer-reviewed or published in an academic journal.

Why should any White nationalists participate in a study designed to delegitimize their beliefs?  Do you need more evidence of the immaturity of the Alt Right?

A lot of the findings align with what we intuit about the alt-right: This group is supportive of social hierarchies that favor whites at the top. 

Really?  It seems like most White nationalists do NOT want a social hierarchy with “whites at the top” – they want a society that consists of Whites only and no other group. Separation, not supremacy.


It’s distrustful of mainstream media and strongly opposed to Black Lives Matter. Respondents were highly supportive of statements like, “There are good reasons to have organizations that look out for the interests of white people.” 

Shocking!  White folks have interests!  There should be organizations that look after the interests of Whites, the same as all other groups have! Horrors! Whites shouldn’t be subaltern kulaks!  We are all shocked!  Shocked!

And when they look at other groups — like black Americans, Muslims, feminists, and journalists — they’re willing to admit they see these people as “less evolved”… ….The alt-right scores high on dehumanization measuresOne of the starkest, darkest findings in the survey comes from a simple question: How evolved do you think other people are?
Kteily, the co-author on this paper, pioneered this new and disturbing way to measure dehumanization — the tendency to see others as being less than human. He simply shows study participants the following (scientifically inaccurate) image of a human ancestor slowly learning how to stand on two legs and become fully human.
Participants are asked to rate where certain groups fall on this scale from 0 to 100. Zero is not human at all; 100 is fully human.
On average, alt-righters saw other groups as hunched-over proto-humans.

Don’t non-Whites dehumanize Whites?  Don’t Jews refer to Gentiles as “supernal refuse?” And what if there is scientific evidence that some groups actually are less evolved?

Dehumanization is scary. It’s the psychological trick we engage in that allows us to harm other people (because it’s easier to inflict pain on people who are not people). Historically it’s been the fuel of mass atrocities and genocide.

Yes, indeed.  You mean how the entire System dehumanizes the Far Right? Do you mean how the System dehumanizes Whites as a race by denying us the same rights of self-interest and self-preservation accorded to every other group?

The alt-right has high support for groups that support and work for the benefit of white peopleThis is — unsurprisingly — the largest difference Forscher and Kteily found in the survey. They asked participants how much they agreed with the following statement: “I think there are good reasons to have organizations that look out for the interests of whites.”

Whites are not allowed to organize to defend their own interests?  


The alt-right wants and supports organizations that look out for the rights and well-being of white people. Historically, such groups have done so by striking fear in the hearts of immigrants, Jews, and minorities.

How about “immigrants, Jews, and minorities” striking fear in the hearts of Whites?  Ever hear of White flight?  And if Whites can defend their own interests only by “striking fear in the hearts” of non-Whites, then that proves that the races are incompatible and that separation is the only solution.  Or should Whites continue to indulge in masochistic self-abnegation so as to avoid “striking fear” in anyone?

The alt-right is more willing to express prejudice toward black peopleThese survey questions ask respondents the degree to which they agree with statements like, “I avoid interactions with black people,” “My beliefs motivate me to express negative feelings about black people,” and, “I minimize my contact with black people.”

Given Negro behavior, minimizing contact is quite prudent.

Alt-righters are willing to report their own aggressive behavior

The Alt Right are grossly naive.  Again, why cooperate with your enemies? Why cooperate with anti-White academics?

Personality traits that frequently show up among alt-righters: authoritarianism and MachiavellianismAlt-righters in the survey scored higher on social dominance orientation (the preference that society maintains social order), right-wing authoritarianism (a preference for strong rulers), and somewhat higher levels of the “dark triad” of personality traits (psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism.)

Pathologizing dissent. Back to the USSR!

Alt-righters aren’t particularly socially isolated or worried about the economyAmong the measures where the alt-right and comparison groups don’t look much different in the survey results is closeness and relationships with other people. The alt-righters reported having about equal levels of close friends, which means these aren’t necessarily isolated, lonely people. 

Hey!  I thought people get involved in”hate” because they are frustrated, isolated freaks?

It goes to show: The alt-right is motivated by racial issues, not economic anxiety.

Wow, what a discovery!


But it goes deeper than that. The survey revealed that the alt-righters were much more concerned that their groups were at a disadvantage compared with the control sample. The alt-right (and white nationalists) is afraid of being displaced by increasing numbers of immigrants and outsiders in this country. And, yes, they see themselves as potential victims.

It seems like they are victims if the System is interested in leveraging psychological technics against perfectly legal, and biologically adaptive, viewpoints.

Knowing the psychology of the alt-right may be the key to stop white supremacist views from spreadingThis is the quixotic hope behind a lot of social science research: The first step to solving a problem is defining the nature of that problem.

I see.  So “social science research” is all about promoting anti-White viewpoints and delegitimizing White racial self-defense?


Once we understand the psychological motivations behind the alt-right worldview, maybe we can learn to stop it.

Is the purpose of psychology to impose ideological repression on dissident viewpoints?  Isn’t that similar to the abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union?


In their preliminary analysis, Forscher and Kteily found that willingness to express prejudice against black people was correlated with harassing behavior. “If we can change the motivation to express prejudice, maybe that gives us a way to prevent aggression,” they say.

Given how Blacks harass Whites, there must be a huge amount of anti-White prejudice among Negroes.


Again, this is all early work. Forscher hopes to track some of these survey participants over the coming months and years, and see if they remain adhered to the alt-right. Or if not, he hopes to learn what caused them to ditch the worldview.

We need to understand how to get people interested in the racial nationalist worldview.  We need to reverse engineer this psychological abuse.

Another issue, and one of particular interest to me, is the System’s focus on White nationalists and genetic ancestry testing.  Apparently, the Establishment is studying White nationalists (they really are obsessed with us, aren’t they?) and the reaction of these nationalists (e.g., on Stormfront) to the testing results of themselves and others.  The System can hardly contain its glee over the fact that there have been some disturbance and controversy over the fact that many racial activists do not test as “100% pure” (as any reasonably informed person – and anyone who has read my work – could have predicted). Indeed, Establishment operatives chuckle that they wish they could pay for genetic testing for all White nationalists, who would abandon their “hateful” beliefs as soon as they find out that they have 1% of this or 0.5% of that.  And the Cobb case is also joyfully described in these articles.

Now, you can’t say you haven’t been warned about this.  I have written, repeatedly, that the “movement’s” obsession with (a mythical) absolute racial purity will come back and haunt it, since basing racial identity on absolute purity means that this identity will be delegitimized by the System once data are obtained that confirm a lack of purity.  I have also pointed out how such purity is unrealistic and has nothing to do with scientific descriptions of group populations (i.e., ethnies, races, etc.).  While some listened to, and agreed with, my arguments, others – adherents of the Old Movement Pierce-Kemp absolute purity school of thought – labeled my (scientifically valid) arguments as “sophistry” (even while admitting they didn’t fully understand the arguments they dismissed).  Once again, I have been proven correct, as the System is making a concerted effort to use genetic ancestry testing results to ridicule White nationalists and to delegitimize their beliefs.

However, all is not well in System-land.  While some White nationalists take a typical lunatic Old Movement view toward (possibly spurious) sub-fractional “admixture” (“don’t breed”), others take a saner and more nuanced view, which distresses the Establishment.  Some activists interpret the data as meaning that Europeans have sufficient genetic diversity and therefore do not need any non-Whites; thus, European peoples as a whole encompass all the diversity that we could ever want or need (good work here, using the System’s own rhetoric against it).  Other activists make use of “more scientific” arguments against some of the tests and/or over-interpretation of the data.  Thus:

But some took a more scientific angle in their critiques, calling into doubt the method by which these companies determine ancestry — specifically how companies pick those people whose genetic material will be considered the reference for a particular geographical group.

While none of these arguments are specifically cited in System articles, no doubt some of these arguments derive from my own writings on this subject (e.g., I’ve seen my Counter-Currents article about racial purity on Stormfront).

So, in the end, Establishment joy dissipates and they acknowledge that maybe genetic testing won’t save them against “hatred and bigotry” after all.  

Two major take-home points from the genetic ancestry testing paradigm. First, the System is so desperate to delegitimize White nationalism that they will indulge in the most outrageous hypocritical inconsistencies – e.g., saying that race has no biological basis and so cannot be determined by genetic testing, and then saying that hopefully we can use genetic testing to show White nationalists that they are not racially pure.  Second, if I may “toot my own horn,” the “movement” needs to get over its “hate the messenger” attitude and sometimes listen to what I have to say.  In the end, I often turn out to be correct, and it would save a lot of time, energy, effort, and avoided failure if people who know what they are talking about are actually listened to and accepted, rather than being ignored or summarily dismissed. This is one example – those White nationalists who accept the scientifically valid definitions of race as involving genetic kinship and genetic distance (and who view Identity as having both biological and non-biological components) are impervious to these sorts of ancestry testing-based System attacks, and those who think March of the Titans in the “word of god” are going to continue to find themselves vulnerable to the System’s memetic-genetic attacks. Your choice – scientific validity and strength or racial pseudoscience and weakness.

Read this nonsense. Better title: “What the Left Gets Wrong About Antifa…and the Alt Right.”  The ludicrousness of all the Establishment heavy breathing is beyond measure, but I’ll make a few brief points about this leftist effort.  First, whatever violence is now coming from the Right is a pale imitation of many years’ worth of extreme violent thuggery and outright domestic terrorism coming from Antifa and other flotsam and jetsam of the “Alt Left.” The Right has endured endless years of street attacks (championed by the Establishment – e.g., “punch a Nazi” and note that the unprovoked punch of Spencer was met with glee while Damigo’s self-defense punch was met with unbridled horror), cancelled meetings, break-up of lawful public assembly, leading up to the recent Unite the Right event where a legal rally was met with the usual vicious violence. Second, attempts to justify leftist violence because it is, in the opinion of deranged leftists, in the service of more palatable ideologies, is self-serving nonsense; particularly since some of these leftists are Marxists, representing an ideology that has murdered more human beings than any other, and anarchists themselves have built up their own body count over the years.  Third, the idea that the Alt Right “has more power” than Antifa is the height of leftist madness. Curiously, apart from perhaps the ignorant buffoon sitting in the White House (who himself denounced “racists” and “White supremacists”), the entire Establishment of the entire Western world, from Mitt Romney to Angela Merkel, from movie stars to professional athletes, from Senators and Congressmen of “both” parties to major corporations and CEOs, ALL speak in one voice: against the Alt Right and in favor of the “protestors” (Antifa/Alt Left).  Even Bannon called the Alt Right “clowns.” That’s a fascinating juxtaposition, as is the fact that while Unite the Right attendees are losing jobs just from being photographed attending the rally, none  of the club-wielding, brick-throwing, chemical-spraying, and flamethrower-shooting leftist thugs have suffered a similar fate, much less being arrested or otherwise harassed by the police (who, mysteriously, sided with the “powerless” Antifa against the “powerful” Alt Right, possibly at the instigation of local authorities who, also mysteriously, sided with the poor, powerless waifs of Antifa against the big, bad bullies of the Alt Right).  Fourth, talk of a history of “White Christian Supremacy” in America reminds me of Sailer’s point that the Left ignores the last 50 years of American history.  Hey, leftists: you guys have been in charge for the last half-century, and you are so entrenched in all of the institutions of power that you are effectively blocking Trump’s initiatives. So, who are these guys kidding?  They have the power, they are the System, and Antifa is the Establishment. 

Corporations, Internet entities, and others who have no problem with child porn or terrorism have a problem with White nationalism or “race realism.”  In other words, according to the System, a Jared Fogle is better than a Jared Taylor, and an Osama Bin Laden is better than, say, a Richard Spencer.  Tell me again: who has the power?

Counter-Currents has been booted by PayPal and our Facebook page has been deleted.
Both Red Ice servers were hacked, as were the site owners’ Twitter accounts, and still have not recovered.
VDare, AltRight.com, and AmRen were bounced from PayPal.
VDare’s conference next April has been shut down by the venue.
TRS was taken down by their webhosting company, but got a new host and were back online in 3 hours.
Mike Enoch was banned for the fourth time from Twitter.
KickStarter, GoFundMe, and IndieGoGo have all vowed to shut down campaigns related to White Nationalist concerns.
Pax Dickinson’s Twitter has been shut down.
Hatreon is offline.
PolNewsForever’s Twitter has been shut down.
The Daily Stormer has been targeted with massive DDOS attacks.
The Daily Stormer domain registration was dropped by GoDaddy, transferred to Google, and then seized by Google.
The Daily Stormer discord server has been shut down.
The Altright.com discord server has been shut down.
Vanguard America’s WordPress and Facebook accounts have been shut down.
Spotify has removed 27 “hate” bands as defined by the SPLC.
GoFundMe has taken down campaigns to help James Fields.
RootBocks has been taken down by its hosting company, but is back online.
Xurious has been removed from Bandcamp and Soundcloud.
Daniel Friberg and Christopher Dulny, both Swedes, have been barred from entering the United States because of their presence at Unite the Right.
Lauren Southern’s Patreon account has been taken down.
Lauren Southern’s Instagram has been taken down, but is now back up.
NPI’s Paypal account has been shut down.
Two upcoming speeches by Richard Spencer have been canceled.
Identity Europa’s PayPal has been shut down.
Christopher Cantwell’s Facebook, PayPal, and website are gone.
Weev’s LinkedIn account has been shut down.
The Paranormies and other podcasts have been kicked off of Soundcloud.
YouTube had demonitized controversial videos, making it impossible for dissident video bloggers to make a living from their work.
Airbnb combed through the social media of people with Charlottesville-area registrations on Unite the Right weekend, and canceled the reservations and accounts of Unite the Right attendees
Uber has cancelled Baked Alaska’s and James Allsup’s accounts.
Squarespace is dropping multiple Right-wing sites.
A Toronto free speech event with Faith Goldy, Jordan Peterson, and Gad Saad has been cancelled.

Is that power?

That’s great.  I say: bring it on, GOP.  Try and win elections, especially at the national level, without the long-time core supporters that you despise and, truth be told, have always despised. Forget about the “Alt Right” – without the “Bunker vote” the GOP is toast.

Let’s get those Bunkers to abandon the GOP, and the cucks can try and get Antifa votes 


As the “Unite the Right” crowd was dispersing, they were forced by the police into the path of the peace-loving, rock-throwing, fire-spraying antifa. A far-left reporter for The New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, tweeted live from the event: “The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding ‘antifa’ beating white nationalists being led out of the park.”


MARK STEYN: Absolutely. Freedom of speech enables you to argue for other freedoms, and that is the point of it. So if you don’t have freedom of speech, all you can do is, as they do in unfree societies, is blow things up and shoot people. And it is interesting to me that the less freedom of speech we have, the more we have what we saw over the weekend. We have guys rampaging through the street.
It doesn’t really matter what side they’re on, the minute you say that you can’t book a conference room and hold a debate, you can’t have a YouTube channel, you can’t go on Facebook, then the logic of that tends towards smashing stuff in the street…

The System and the Left (really the same thing) in their outrageous hypocrisy first want to deny the “Far Right” the right to peacefully assemble, to hold conferences, to express dissident opinions, to have dissident websites, to be activists without being subjected to social pricing, to attend rallies without being confronted with flying bricks and flamethrowers – and then they criticize when the Right, with its back against the wall, fights back and uses “violence.”   If you do not allow people to lawfully engage in the political process, if you deny them access to the marketplace of ideas, if you stifle debate and free inquiry, then all that pent up dissident energy is going to go somewhere.  Repressing the non-violent activism of the Right increases, not decreases, the probability of rightist violence (is this the intention?). If Unite the Right would have been allowed to have their rally without the tag-team repression of Establishment politicians/law enforcement and the Antifa who work closely with the politicians and police they pretend to oppose, then the car ramming and the helicopter crash would not have happened.  To deny this fact then leads to the logic that any manifestation of the pursuit of White interests is so forbidden than pro-White activists are always morally responsible for the violence committed by their opponents.  That “logic” by the way does nothing except reinforce Far Right memes about the anti-White System and White genocide.  Who has “the power” again?  One has to be borderline insane to argue that the beleaguered (to use Trump’s word) Far Right has any amount of real power whatsoever.

This all deals with the social pricing problem.  I have written about this issue extensively over the years (as has, e.g., Dr. MacDonald and others), and I wholeheartedly agree with Greg Johnson’s latest proposals for making political opinions a protected category in the private workplace and for treating Internet companies as public utilities that cannot discriminate based on dissident views.  The problem is that the System, deriving enormous power from social pricing, will be especially loathe to give that power up. Indeed, I have been reading many Establishment articles crowing about the success in imposing social pricing hardships on Unite the Right attendees, on the principle that it is “society acting to impose standards of acceptable belief and behavior.”  Of course, these are the same people who scream and cry about the “horrors of McCarthyism” – apparently being supporters of genocidal Marxism and being traitors during the Cold War is admirable, but defending the interests of your race is not.  The fight against social pricing in America mirrors the fight against hate speech laws in Europe: absolutely essential, but one that faces an uphill battle due to the vested interests of the System in maintaining the status quo.  We need to do a better job of formulating memes to support these legal/political initiatives, and we will need allies along other areas of the political spectrum to drum up support. Of course, with the current “CharlotteGate” hysteria, it doesn’t look likely that such allies will be forthcoming right now.  Maybe later.  But we need to prepare now. We need people with legal training, with knowledge of law drafting, to start looking at approaches for formulating these anti-social pricing initiatives.  It will need to be done in a way that balances free speech and free association – for example, Planned Parenthood should not be forced to employ a rabid antiabortion activist; on the other hand, what one’s politics are shouldn’t affect employment at a pizza restaurant or what have you. On the other, other hand, we need to be wary of places of employment making grasping arguments about how diversity is somehow fundamental to their mission (“we serve people of all races, so therefore….).  That’s why we need careful thought in drafting initiatives that cover various contingencies and legal tricks, so a document exists that can later be peddled to others when the current furor dies down.

While we can criticize the Left, the Right – and here I mean the Far Right – can be criticized as well. But that can be a subject for another day.

Revisiting Putnam

No White racial solidarity.

Let’s again consider Putnam’s oft-discussed findings about diversity eroding societal trust and repressing social engagement and investment in public goods (similar to findings by others and a topic often brought up by Salter).

Putnam not only found that diversity decreased trust between groups but within groups as well. That latter finding is somewhat counter intuitive, since one could reasonably assume that increased diversity, and the consequent increased distrust between groups, would strengthen a tribal “us against them” mentality and therefore increase trust within groups. But the opposite occurred, at least with those examples Putnam studied. 

How can we interpret the counter intuitive finding that diversity erodes trust and societal cohesion within groups as well as between groups?  This depends on whether this “within group” problem applies to all groups, or only to Whites.  Perhaps those more familiar with the nuances of Putnam’s work – which I read some time ago and have no interest in revisiting as Putnam is a disgusting excuse for an academic who hid his findings for years and only published it with an accompanying screed promoting social engineering to grease the wheels of White dispossession (*) and my hypothesis here will require more data in any case for a fair evaluation – know more of this.

My hypothesis is as follows. 

If within group trust is eroded by diversity for all groups, then this phenomenon reflects a general human (or should I say “hominid”) trend to withdraw and “hunker down” when faced with diversity,

If the effect is restricted to Whites (which I believe will be the case if a careful quantitative study is done), then this is a strictly White mental phenomenon.  And how does this happen?  The hypothesis suggest the following.

One could speculate various mechanisms if this was the case, but consider – a la Ignatiev’s “Race Traitor” paradigm – that Whites are the only group in which large numbers of the group – including a majority of influential elites – act overtly against group interests.  Thus, there is no racial solidarity among Whites, no one you can racially trust unless you really know them – hence, when faced with diversity, Whites will mistrust other Whites because  – given the omega cuckiness of many Whites – one can never be sure whether a given White is “on our side” or “on their side.”  In a homogeneous White community this isn’t so much of a problem (of course political disagreements – including whether or not to import diversity – can precipitate such mistrust, but even so, in a homogeneous community such conflicts would be muted).  However, in the presence of diversity, Whites must tread carefully.  Is your White coworker someone you can trust to share your disgust over multiculturalism, or will they “report you to HR” because of your “bigotry?”

On the other hand, non-Whites (including Jews) can reliably depend on their co-ethnics showing ethic/racial solidarity, and siding with them against “the other” (and particularly against Whites). For Whites, a given fellow White is just as likely to be a Universalist cuck as they are to be someone sharing your beliefs.  

Thus, diversity erodes within group trust among Whites (and likely only among Whites) because Whites are ideologically split on this race-diversity issue, and many Whites are SJW “altruistic punishers, so that in diverse environments fellow Whites may pose a threat since they would identify with “the other side.”

Ignatiev would be proud.

*Salter rightly claimed in On Genetic Interests that for a majority being replaced, the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does work, since the workable multiculturalism will make race replacement more agreeable to those being replaced, while the pain of a failed multiculturalism may wake the majority up to prevent their dispossession.  Putnam is clearly on the side of those who want multiculturalism to succeed.

Political EGI, Part IV: Origin Myths?

Latest anti-racist lunacy.

The latest anti-White poisonous meme being promoted (in a recent issue of Science, for example) is that of the “myth of origins” in defense of mass migration.  In other words, peoples (i.e., White people) have the “erroneous” idea that they have a single point of origin, which leads to “bias” against “migrants.”  Instead, we are told, peoples are the product of “multiple migrations” with no single origin, hence – and this is really a non-sequitur – there is no rational justification to oppose migrants.

Now, my first response to this “argument” was – “hey, does that mean we don’t have to worry about all the oppressed indigenous peoples anymore?” You know what I mean here – all of those (carefully defined so as to exclude Europeans) indigenous peoples that we – and the United Nations! – need to worry so much about.  Amerindians, native Hawaiians, Australian aboriginals, etc. – no need to “feel bad” about their displacement by the White man!  After all, all those peoples are merely the product of “multiple migrations” and so the arrival of Europeans should have been met with great joy and welcoming. 

A second response would be to ask whether this leftist logic applies to non-Whites: so that Africans, Asians, etc. all should welcome displacement and race replacement.  Good luck with that.

With respect to actually answering the “argument” itself, I state that:

1. Any reasonable definition of “indigenous” – including and especially my own definition – should be based upon the act of ethnogenesis, which itself takes into account those migrations that are part of the history of virtually all peoples (some more than others, of course).  It simply does not matter in the last analysis how a people came to be – they exist, and if their ethnogenesis is tied to a particular territory, and if they are the oldest extant people on that territory, then they are indigenous to that territory, and their origin there is a reality, not a myth,

2. Regardless of how different peoples came to be, they differ genetically and culturally, and they have an inherent right to safeguard their uniqueness, an inherent right to their own territory, and an inherent right to resist displacement and race replacement.

3. It follows then that the actual mechanisms of origin, and the actual mechanisms generating a people’s genetic and cultural uniqueness, are irrelevant to their Identity, and to their self-conception tied to a territory and to an origin in that territory.  Group interests are inherent to group existence, and anyone who attempts to delegitimize those interests – for example by delegitimizing a sense of origin and a sense of identity – are threatening the group’s existence and are thus promoting genocide.

White racial activists like to bring up the United Nations Genocide Convention and how it applies to White displacement.  They need to get more serious about it.  As part of Political EGI, nationalist politicians should openly accuse their opponents of promoting genocide, and assert that those opponents need to be hauled into court for crimes against humanity. Not that this “hauling into court” will occur (for now, only nationalists are so “hauled”), but it is excellent political rhetoric and sets the tone for the future.

Part V will continue this discussion.