Category: anti-racism

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.

Rotten Orange News: King Cuck Keeps On A’ Cuckin

The anti-White leftist Donald J. Trump.

Do any of the Trump fanboys ever ask why such a petition is even necessary?  Why aren’t the God Emperor and America’s (ex) Senator leading the battle against globalist-leftist terrorist thugs, you know the ones who are attacking the God Emperor’s own supporters in the streets?

Do Ivanka and Jared disapprove?

You know, the same “montstrous government” that doesn’t life a finger to use its legal power to act against Antifa.  I’m not sure who is the biggest joke: the Trump/Session ultra-cucks, or globalist thugs who think they act against the System in “protest” while they are actually an integral part of that same System.

Painful truth: Trump and Antifa are on the same side. They’re both part of the anti-White System.

And, by the, way, “kinetic beauty” can go in both directions, in many forms. Personally, I think Nathan Damigo’s first has a great deal of “kinetic beauty.”

Even Mudshark Annie is displeased with the God Emperor.

Monday’s Black Pills, 4/24/17

I usually avoid using juvenile Alt Right “Matrix” language about “pill” colors, but given the subject matter here, particularly the last link, it does seem quite appropriate.

If this does in fact take place, that Le Pen loses the second round, making Far-left “centrist” Macron President of France, I ask you: what has the mainstreaming daughter achieved that the radical father did not?

However, since I was wrong about King Cuck’s election this past November, I don’t want to make assumptions.  I’ll say this though: this is – or at least should be – the last stand of mainstreaming.

We’ll see.

Meanwhile, there’s more to this story than just Brimelow’s perfidy.  Isn’t it true that the God Emperor is President?  Isn’t it true that America’s Senator is now Attorney General?  Do any of the fanboys (hello, Roissy!) find it at all odd that Antifa not only continues rolling along but are upping the stakes with what seems to be complete impunity?  There doesn’t seem to be any fear from their end that the God Emperor’s administration is going to lift a finger against them.  And quite right too, because I doubt they will.  Of course, Trump and company may move against the Alt Right – after all, anti-Semitism is the worst thing in the world, isn’t it?  Or is that just Trump being a good grandpa and acting on behalf of family interests?

As pro-Asian cucks would say: lulz.

Finally, anyone else notice how Trump is becoming increasingly explicitly a Jewish puppet as he moves closer to China and away from Russia?

Silk Road White nationalism: caveat emptor

The Native American Ploy

Whites as Amerindians.

A comment often made – frequently observed for example on Yahoo comments threads – by leftists in response to complaints about White American dispossession is to raise the issue of Amerindians – “You guys invaded the lands of the Native Americans and pushed them out and now you are being invaded and pushed out, ha ha, too bad” is a typical example of this genre of comment.

We should be gratified when opponents make such arguments – for not only do they reveal their anti-White aggression, but, more importantly, they are admitting that the displacement of Whites in North America is akin to the displacement of the Amerindians, and we all know how “well” that worked out for the Amerindians.  Indeed, the response to such comments should be to thank the commentator for supporting the argument that White Americans are indeed being subjected to genocidal race replacement, and to note that Whites are under no obligation to let themselves be displaced and replaced.  Indeed, the Amerindians did resist as the frontier “Indian wars” demonstrate – the problem for the Amerindians is that they lacked the numbers, organization, intelligence, and technics to resist White expansion. Whites, on the other hand, could resist displacement if only they would demonstrate the same fighting spirit as the Amerindians.  Finally, another point in response to anti-White comments about “Native Americans” is to ask whether the commentator opposes the replacement of Whites in their native homelands of Europe, a situation that very well matches the Amerindian scenario.  If the “they were here first in their homeland” argument is so important to aggrieved leftists, then they should be among the strongest supporters of the European Far-Right.

Failure of Fst/Gst

Population genetics.

Both “movement” fetishists as well as anti-racist liars like to misuse Fst/Gst in genetic distance discussions (*) to promote their respective agendas.  Unfortunately for them, Fst/Gst is not really a (direct) measure of genetic distance, and particularly fails even as an indirect proxy when comparing populations that exhibit different levels of heterozygosity (e.g., human ethnies) and/or when considering loci with more than two allele variants.  To have the ill-informed trying to parse differences of, say, Fst/Gst = 0.0060 vs. 0.0065 and trying to make relevant conclusions from that is laughable.  The following are a small sampling of links to cite the next time some idiot tries to play such games (emphasis added):

See here.

See also here:

Likewise, when diversity is equated with heterozygosity, standard similarity measures formed by taking the ratio of mean within-subpopulation diversity to total diversity necessarily approach unity when diversity is high, even if the subpopulations are completely dissimilar (no shared alleles). None of these measures can be interpreted as measures of differentiation or similarity. 

At Wikipedia:

Also, strictly speaking FST is not a genetic distance, as it does not satisfy the triangle inequality. As a consequence new tools for measuring genetic differentiation continue being developed.

And this article here:

One underutilized approach is the coupling of indirect metrics of gene flow (e.g. F-statistics, Dest_Chao) with more direct measures such as kinship or parentage analyses (e.g. Loiselle et al. 1995; Selkoe et al. 2006; Buston et al. 2009; Christie et al. 2010; Palsbøll et al. 2010). Broadly speaking, kinship analyses provide an index of the relative relatedness of all genotyped individuals in a data set, and parentage is a distinct case of kinship whereby the most likely parents of individual juveniles are identified (Vekemans & Hardy 2004; Jones & Arden 2003; reviewed in Blouin 2003; Jones et al. 2010). Kinship coefficients (also known as coefficients of coancestry) are widely interpreted as the probability of identity by descent of the genes, but they are more properly defined as ‘ratios of differences of probabilities of identity in state’ (Hardy & Vekemans 2002, p. 23) from homologous genes sampled randomly from each pair of individuals (Hardy & Vekemans 2002; Rousset 2002; Blouin 2003; Vekemans & Hardy 2004).

By comparison, F-statistics and Dest_Chao are often blind to the relatedness of individuals; different population samples with the same kinship structure can have very different levels of genetic differentiation among them and vice versa.

*True, Salter used Fst in On Genetic Interests, but only because there was no other data available for that purpose at that time.  And Salter makes clear in the book that the proper approach would be to use data from global assays of genetic kinship which did not (and still do not) exist for human ethnies.  It is interesting that population geneticists and ecologists will calculate genetic kinship for plant and non-human animal species, but are either too lazy or politically-motivated to do so for human population groups. However, anecdotal evidence from the genetic kinship data that companies such as 23andme and DeCode used to present to their customers suggest that human genetic kinship findings would not be to the liking of either the fetishists or the anti-racists. 

We’re White Nationalists, Not White Supremacists

Setting the record straight.

As part of her moronic speech attacking the Alt-Right, Hillary Clinton – as well as all the “experts” and “watchdogs” who piled on after the speech – asserted the oft-told lie that White nationalism is the same as White supremacy, that White nationalism is just a euphemism for White supremacy, and that White nationalists are just White supremacists trying to use clever language to hide the truth about what they are and what they really believe.

Others have previously outlined the clear difference between White nationalism and White supremacy, between the idea of separatism and that of supremacism.
I would like to make some statements about my beliefs, and why I find the comments of Clinton and the watchdogs and other racial liberals and anti-racist nitwits so offensive.
I would hope that even some of my “movement” opponents – who have criticized me vociferously over the years on a number of matters – would at least agree with the premise that I am not dishonest. “Wrong, misguided, crazy, paranoid retard, etc. etc. etc.” – all these and other negative comments have been made – but at least admit that I believe what I write. So, now, believe me when I say this, as someone who prizes honesty and despises “mainstreaming” – I am a White nationalist, but NOT a White supremacist, and there is a very clear distinction between those two descriptions, clear to anyone who is not some sort of dishonest mendacious toad themselves.
I am someone who self-describes as a (radical) national socialist; I have no interest in using clever euphemisms to disguise my beliefs. Therefore, rejection of “White supremacist” has nothing whatsoever to do with an attempt to evade the truth; on the contrary, it is born out of a desire to be as truthful and as accurate and precise as possible. If I am not a White supremacist, then why should I accept that label? To do so would be dishonest and would obfuscate the facts and impede a truthful and frank discussion of the issues at hand. Indeed, one would think it obvious that someone who writes about White inferiority, about the “objective worthlessness of the White race” (from an adaptive fitness standpoint), that such a person is not, and could not be, a “White supremacist.”
Some would argue that a desire for separation implies a belief in supremacy. That is strange: I assume that those making that argument prefer to live on their own in a home or apartment rather in a communal dwelling; are they supremacists? Another analogy would be ecological. Ecologists and environmentalists are interested in preserving endangered species and subspecies. Some of the dangers facing such organisms are similar to those facing Whites – for example, competition from invading species and subspecies and/or hybridization with those invading competitors (note: contrary to popular belief, there does not have to be reproductive isolation between closely related species of the same genus, and sub-species are typically completely reproductively compatible). Insofar as I know, these ecologists and environmentalists do not express their concern in the language of supremacy, but rather stress the preservation of the diversity of life. One here is interested in difference, in distinction, not with superiority or inferiority. How much more urgent then should be the preservationist impulse if one is talking about danger facing one’s own group! There is obviously no logical connection between preservation and supremacy.
Further, even in the absence of an immediate danger to your group, it is perfectly natural and healthy to prefer those genetically closer to you; that is adaptive fitness, and is exemplified by family ties and familial interests. Parents, for example, do not typically express their interest in their children in terms of supremacy (despite the fact that they may sometimes brag about their children’s accomplishments). Concern for kin, at either the familial or ethnoracial level, is not “supremacy.”
Now, to be honest, there are of course some White nationalists who really are White supremacists – but a significant fraction of these are more concerned with supremacy of certain types of Whites over other types of Whites than with Whites compared to non-Whites. And, yes, it is certainly true that White nationalists like myself do believe Whites are superior by certain criteria, just as we believe Whites are inferior by other criteria. But this fact-based weighing of racial strengths and weaknesses does not constitute the foundation of our racial nationalism, which is based instead on genetic and cultural kinship, and a desire to promote the preservation and advancement of our race, without necessarily doing harm to other groups. Indeed, many of us promote Salter’s idea of “Universal Nationalism” and grant other peoples the same rights of existence and self-determination that we claim for our own people. Therefore, in the last analysis, for our type of White nationalism, the idea of some sort of general and fundamental “supremacy” simply does not exist.
So, I have no desire to use euphemisms for my beliefs. I am a White nationalist, a fascist, a national socialist, whose overall ideology can be called pan-European national socialism. I object to the label of “White supremacist” for the very simple reason that it is not true, it is a fundamentally dishonest distortion of my beliefs, and to support truth and honesty, I want a clear accounting of what it is I believe or do not believe. It is not for political opponents to impose labels on others as part of a strategy of emotional button-pushing. They say “White supremacist” in order to conjure up images of White plantation owners and Black slaves, of the alleged indignities of the Jim Crow South and of apartheid-era South Africa, of violence against civil rights protesters, of “good old boys” with their Confederate flags and juvenile acting out. They want to avoid people thinking about nationalism, about separation, about folks just wanting to be left alone to pursue their own destiny in their own nations.
So: White nationalism, yes; White supremacism, no. Not any sort of euphemism or covering up of the truth, but a reflection of the truth itself.

Der Movement in the News, 6/15/16

Several items, with a concentration on HBD: Jews, Breezy, gamesters.

Tim Wise: Jews gonna Jew.

Steve Sailer: HBDers gonna HBD.  Breezy’s article isn’t up yet, but I’ll take this opportunity to once again state my opinion that the Johnson-Reed Act (which is what I presume Breezy will talk about) was a good idea, although the major rationale was preserving ethnic balances, not proximate issues (which are of course important also).

In that spirit, I’ll also state my support for another example of a majority acting firmly, an example of which I’m sure Breezy and the other HBDers would rather like to ignore.
Here’s an amusing comment:

(((Ivanka Trump)))

(((Michael Cohen)))

(((Sidney Adelson)))

(((AIPAC))

CONDI for Veep

(((DONALD TRUMP)))

CH founded by (((…)))