Category: Auster

Sunday Movement Follies

It’s a pathetic joke.

Get this give-and-take:

Hunter Wallace
Posted November 16, 2018 at 7:56 pm | Permalink
To be fair, WN 1.0’ers largely thought Unite the Right was a bad idea. I spent about a month arguing with Billy Roper about it. Roper was right.
Greg Johnson
Posted November 17, 2018 at 2:56 am | Permalink
As is clear above the return of 1.0 was less a matter of people than attitudes.
What were Roper’s objections? That UTR was not self-marginalizing and NS purist enough for his tastes?

Attitudes?  Really?  This is getting into the realm of Frankfurt School-level pathologizing.  What attitudes?  Pepe?  Kek?  Idiots marching around dressed like Batman and Captain America?  What?  The only “attitudes” on display were Millennial immaturity, Alt Lite cosplay Stickmanism, and Beavis-and-Butthead juvenile jackassery. The KKK and Nutzis in attendance were hanger-ons who jumped on the Alt Right bandwagon the same as did Johnson, Taylor, and MacDonald.  The whole scenario: pure WN 2.0.  People or attitudes, the failures of 2.0 were due to 2.0.  Now, I know the quota queens, marinated as they are in an aura of being catered to via the affirmative action program, are allergic to any sense of responsibility or accountability whatsoever, but, sorry, folks, we’re not buying this gaslighting narrative.  2.0 can take responsibility for their own failures rather than blaming others or blaming nebulous “attitudes” (note how convenient it is to blame “attitudes” – we don’t want to hold Kessler or the any other Beavis or Butthead accountable personally now, do we?  All except Richard Spencer – it was all his fault, right?).

You really cannot separate people and attitudes.  After all, if Unite the Right was imbued with WN 1.0 attitudes, and if the Alt Right at that time was “infected” with “self-marginalizing” WN 1.0ism, then why did folks like Roper and Strom eschew the rally?  Why was Strom skeptical of the Alt Right during this period?  My “take” on this period is that many 1.0 folks looked upon the Alt Right with ill-disguised disdain, and didn’t believe that the Alt Right reflected their views in any way – strange if WN 1.0 had memetically conquered WN 2.0 at this point.  Why were the cheerleaders of the Alt Right people like Johnson himself?  Why were “boomer” “White advocates” jumping on the Alt Right bandwagon?  Who memetically infected who?  What was going on there?

And as far as this arrogant snark –

That UTR was not self-marginalizing and NS purist enough for his tastes?

– goes, I can’t speak for Roper, but I think the WN 1.0 attitude was, in general, that the whole Unite the Right was poorly planned, with no clear strategic objective, no understanding of the dangers and how to deal with it, too broadly based, no true vetting of participants (vetting not a strong point of 2.0 or its apologists, eh?), and the dislike of 1.0 folks for the entire Alt Right: the Alt Right being a bunch of pretentious, immature assholes who justified their asinine behavior with “muh youth culture” (by the way, my use of “muh” mocking that same “youth culture” if the sarcasm is not immediately apparent to the literal-minded).

Now, here is a question for Johnson.  Why didn’t YOU attend Unite the Right?  If memory serves, you didn’t think it was a good idea either.  You have criticized it since then.  So why can’t we assume that maybe, just maybe, WN 1.0 folks disapproved of it for the same reasons as you?  Maybe they can turn the snark around.  Let’s do it:

To be fair, WN 2.0 Traditionalists largely thought Unite the Right was a bad idea. I spent about a month arguing with Greg Johnson about it. Johnson was right.
WN 1.0er
What were Johnson’s objections? That UTR was not smugly intellectual and traditionalist purist enough for his tastes?

It’s all about responsibility and accountability.  Who knows?  Maybe the lack of those traits among “movement leaders” is a sign of “Kali Yuga” and “The Age of Iron.”  Or maybe it’s a sign of “Yogi Bear” and “The Age of Tungsten.”  You decide.

By the way, Johnson criticizes others for promoting self-marginalizing behavior, but he responds to comments like this by stating:

Greg Johnson
Posted November 17, 2018 at 10:03 am | Permalink
He is our James Joyce, our Captain Beefheart. He’s an artist.

It’s all a joke. A pathetic joke. How can any sane person take Der Movement seriously?  That is why it is met with mocking ridicule here at EGI Notes: it deserves it.

This is useful as it outlines an example of the close relationship between Diaspora Jewry and Israel; in this case, between the ADL and Israeli intelligence services.  This underscores how fundamentally dishonest Lawrence Auster was, with his tiresome shtick of asserting no connection between, say, American Jews and Israel – suggesting that people angry at the behavior of American Jews had no right to “punish Israel” because there was no connection between the two. 

Retard Roissy cherrypicks studies and channels Sailer (eating dat dere Cheerios) to promote a Manganite dietary lifestyle, ignoring contrary studies.

Now, it is true: sugar is worse than fat, excess simple carbs (with a high glycemic index) is not good, and that for some people, particularly your typical American lardass butterball, fasting is helpful.  But a high fat diet has its own risks, is likely not maintainable for a lifetime, is unnecessary, and I personally wouldn’t recommend intermittent fasting to, say, underweight ectomorphs needing to gain muscle mass. And I think the major benefits of fasting can be recapitulated by having ~ 12 hours every day between dinner and the next day’s breakfast, eating normal portion sizes, and not eating between meal snacks.  For most normal people, that is sufficient.

If you want lifestyle advice from this blog I would say to eat a balanced diet, avoid added sugar (including fruit juice) for the most part, avoid “white” carbs and instead eat whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, avoid red and processed meat, get animal protein from fish, poultry, some eggs and egg whites, and some dairy – but if you are male not more than two servings of dairy a day because of the prostate cancer risk.  Make sure you have adequate fiber, so you don’t get apoplexy  during a bowel movement.  Mangan himself is an idiot and I’ve documented his ethnoracial stupidities in the past, and his “muscleman” physique is not evidence that his lifestyle recommendations are right (or wrong).  Fact is, just like there is a bell curve for intelligence and other mental and behavioral traits, there is a similar differential propensity for muscular hypertrophy.  There are people who can do everything wrong and look like Sandow; others can do everything right and look like a noodle-armed Antifa.

And one of Roissy’s commentators linked to this article, which I found AFTER I wrote my recommendations above.  Emphasis added:

Analysis of the mid-Victorian period in the U.K. reveals that life expectancy at age 5 was as good or better than exists today, and the incidence of degenerative disease was 10% of ours. Their levels of physical activity and hence calorific intakes were approximately twice ours. They had relatively little access to alcohol and tobacco; and due to their correspondingly high intake of fruits, whole grains, oily fish and vegetables, they consumed levels of micro- and phytonutrients at approximately ten times the levels considered normal today. This paper relates the nutritional status of the mid-Victorians to their freedom from degenerative disease; and extrapolates recommendations for the cost-effective improvement of public health today.

So: they had a higher caloric intake – no fasting – but balanced that with increased activity.  They ate: “high intake of fruits, whole grains, oily fish and vegetables” – how about that?   Not Der Mangan diet, eh?  And where is the chugging of gallons of milk?  The Victorians were not Alt Right.

Sallis right.  Roissy wrong.  How could we have ever guessed?

The Victorians did eat red meat and eggs, but the red meat was mostly offal; the details are below, emphasis added:

Mid-Victorian working class men and women consumed between 50% and 100% more calories than we do, but because they were so much more physically active than we are today, overweight and obesity hardly existed at the working class level. The working class diet was rich in seasonal vegetables and fruits; with consumption of fruits and vegetables amounting to eight to 10 portions per day. This far exceeds the current national average of around three portions, and the government-recommended five-a-day. The mid-Victorian diet also contained significantly more nuts, legumes, whole grains and omega three fatty acids than the modern diet. Much meat consumed was offal, which has a higher micronutrient density than the skeletal muscle we largely eat today [59]. Prior to the introduction of margarine in the late Victorian period, dietary intakes of trans fats were very low. There were very few processed foods and therefore little hidden salt, other than in bread (Recipes suggest that significantly less salt was then added to meals. At table, salt was not usually sprinkled on a serving but piled at the side of the plate, allowing consumers to regulate consumption in a more controlled way.). The mid-Victorian diet had a lower calorific density and a higher nutrient density than ours. It had a higher content of fibre (including fermentable fibre), and a lower sodium/potassium ratio. In short, the mid-Victorians ate a diet that was not only considerably better than our own, but also far in advance of current government recommendations. It more closely resembles the Mediterranean diet, proven in many studies to promote health and longevity; or even the ‘Paleolithic diet’ recommended by some nutritionists [60].

So, while there are some differences between that and the Sallis diet, it is much closer to Sallis than to Roissy/Mangan.

I suppose it is convenient for Roissy to talk about diets so as to deflect from the utter collapse of his God Emperor, and Roissy’s gross error in judgment (what else to expect from a quota queen?) for his slavish, lickspittle adoration of the effeminate lump of lard Trump.  Let’s quote Hood’s analysis of the Trump fraud, emphasis added:

In the face of opposition, a real political leader must not only deliver on policy but think of ways to strengthen his supporters and weaken his opponents. President Trump has done neither. Instead, the Justice Department is selectively prosecuting his supporters and using reports from his antifa opponents as evidence. Antifa are now raiding the home of one of President Trump’s most prominent supporters, Tucker Carlson.

More broadly, Donald Trump’s seizure of state power has been a catastrophe for his close friends and allies. Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, and other aides have had their lives ruined by the Robert Mueller investigation for crimes that would have been completely ignored had Donald Trump not won the election. By contrast, despite all the chants of “lock her up,” Hillary Clinton will never be prosecuted, nor will she ever pay any legal price for her actions. Somehow, the president of the United States seems to be fighting the government he ostensibly controls, as everyone from leading officials to petty bureaucrats resists his policy initiatives. One even bragged about it in the New York Times in the notorious anonymous Op-Ed, and there was less media interest in demasking him than there is when someone puts up an Identity Evropa sticker.

The Trump Administration is the worst of both worlds in that it creates the illusion of a vigorous, nationalist government—that accomplishes nothing.

Far from “being tired of winning,” we have won nothing since President Trump took office. Illegals are not being deported, anchor babies continue to get US passports, mass immigration continues, and anti-white discrimination law still stands. Though President Trump is routinely accused of having “emboldened” white advocates, it is hateful anti-white speech by journalists and others that has been emboldened. President Trump is an energetic campaigner, but he is weak and indecisive in power.

“Weak and indecisive” – must be all that estrogen generated from his over-abundant adipose tissue.

Interestingly, the only major “movement” figures who were skeptical of Trump from the beginning were the same two who were skeptical of the Alt Right from the beginning: Sallis and Strom.  That’s no coincidence.  The same common sense required to recognize that the “Alt Right brand” was juvenile jackassery with a short shelf life is the same required to recognize, clearly and immediately, that Trump was and is an untrustworthy imbecile and a vulgar, ignorant, buffoon. Everyone else was eager to jump on the Trump and Alt Right bandwagon, even to the extent of engaging in out-of-character undignified behavior.

John Morgan drug user:

Sometimes, some drugs can be used constructively, as I can attest. I don’t use them anymore and haven’t in quite a while, but there was a time in my life when they definitely had a positive impact. Psychedelics, if used properly, do not cut one off from the “true beauty of flourishing life,” they enhance it. Psychedelics helped to turn me from a rather nihilistic materialist into someone who could believe in the value of things such as the chain of our people and the idea that there is something intangible above us to believe in.

Auster the Liar and More Evidence of Israel-Diapora Jewry Connections

Auster – Jew, Auster – Liar: redundant?

Auster always used to say that there’s no connection between Israel and Diaspora Jewry, so traditionalists, nationalists, and racialists shouldn’t “punish” Israel because of Diaspora anti-White liberalism.  What I’d like to know is whether there’s a genetic basis for dissembling mendacious lying among a certain very special ethnic group.

The Tribe’s Hypocrisy

Good for thee but not for me.

It is no news to regular readers of TOO that Jews have been staunch and pivotal supporters of massive non-White immigration into America and other Western countries. The general Jewish attitude to the demographic crisis facing White America is captured in neoconservative Ben Wattenberg assertion that, “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” This attitude typifies the entire Jewish political spectrum, from the far Left to the neoconservative Right, and is grounded in a simple logic: the take home lesson of  the Third Reich and the “Holocaust” is that all White people are incipient Nazis, and mass non-White immigration consequently makes formerly homogenously White nations safer for Jews. Jewish activists pose as moral paragons and humanitarians when their logic is nothing more than self-interested ethno-politicking: demographically swamp White nations so that the political power of Whites declines, making the rise of an anti-Jewish movement among Whites less likely. The result of these Jewish anxieties and hatreds is to promote the swamping the West with tens of millions of non-White immigrants, making Whites a powerless minority in the countries they founded and built. 

Noting the outrageous hypocrisy involved in simultaneously condemning White racial consciousness and concern while defending the Jewish ethno-nationalist state of Israel and Jewish anxieties about rates of intermarriage, Kevin MacDonald observes in The Culture of Critique that: 

“Ironically, many intellectuals who absolutely reject evolutionary thinking and any imputation that genetic self-interest might be important in human affairs also favor policies that are rather self-interestedly ethnocentric, and they often condemn the self-interested ethnocentric behavior of other groups, particularly any indication that the European-derived majority… is developing a cohesive group strategy and high levels of ethnocentrism in reaction to the groups strategies of others. … A Jew maintaining this argument should, to retain intellectual consistency, agree that the traditional Jewish concern with endogamy and consanguinity has been irrational. Moreover, such a person would also believe that Jews ought not attempt to retain political power in Israel because there is no rational reason to suppose that any particular group should have power anywhere. Nor should Jews attempt to influence the political process … in such a manner as to disadvantage another group or benefit their own. And to be logically consistent, one should also apply this argument to all those who promote immigration of their own ethnic groups, the mirror image of group-based opposition to such immigration.” 

In truth, Lieberman’s support for the segregated education of all young Jews is really just a re-statement and extension of the longstanding position of Jewish leaders throughout the West. For decades Jewish activism has centered on three main objectives: to ensure the ongoing existence of Israel as an ethnically homogeneous Jewish state; to ensure the safety of diaspora Jewry by reforming Western immigration policies to promote racial and ethnic diversity (high levels of white racial homogeneity being regarded as potentially dangerous to Jews); and finally, to ensure the continuation of Jewish ethnic separatism and endogamy (and counter assimilation) in the West through establishing separate Jewish organizations — especially  Jewish day-schools. 

The subtext of this piece is that it underscores the fundamental and close ties between Israel and Diaspora Jews.  That’s well known to anyone paying attention, but it is important to always emphasize this, since mendacious members of the tribe, like the late Larry Auster, would pretend that such a connection did not exist  – that it was “irrational” for White rightists to “unfairly punish Israel” because of the admitted racial liberalism (for us, not them) of Diaspora Jews in America (and elsewhere).  No, Larry, no.  There are not two separate and distinct entities there, but one entity that has a common core of interests.  It is one tribe, and must be considered as one.  If Diaspora Jews were to suddenly embrace and support White racial preservationism, then I’d be very happy to return the favor and support an ethnonationalist Israel. On the other hand, given the continued hostility of the Diaspora group toward White interests, why should any White support Israel?  There has to be “give and take” here.  I realize that the HBDers consider the tribe to be superior demigods, perhaps even superior to the big-brained Chinese supermen, but, still, high-IQ does not excuse rampant and obvious hypocrisy.