Category: Brexit

Twin Stupidities: “White Sharia” and Ethnonationalism

Against “White Sharia” and the ethnonationalists.

Stop judging me, “movement.”

I’m bringing up this amusing (but true) post again, which is relevant to some of the points I make below.

“White Sharia” – juvenile jackassery that only the Alt Right could produce. Put me down as a misogynist who believes in patriarchy and who also believes that snarky memes derived from alien cultures are utterly moronic. “White Sharia” violates Sallis’ Shiv: “movement” freakishness should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

By the way, probably needs to deal with the SiteLock problem. I’m assuming they’re aware of it; if not, they are now.  I know some of them read this blog. Some of your readers can’t access your site – at least the ones who don’t change their VPN settings.

Speaking of that site, it’s amusing how the ethnonationalist retards are getting their noses bent out of shape over Spencer’s analysis of a very clear and obvious issue.  Yes, British nationalism put all its eggs in the UKIP basket, yes, UKIP lost its raison d’etre after Brexit, and, yes, Brexit hasn’t actually solved any of Britain’s racial and cultural problems.  And, yes, I remember that I was strongly in favor of Brexit – but for the same reasons I supported Trump.  Both Brexit and Trump in and of themselves are useless; however, as bringers of chaos against a destructive status quo, they’ve been useful.  And, of course, the EU as it currently exists is an anti-White disaster and it needs to be deconstructed.  But the idea that “Polish plumbers” (who of course don’t belong in the UK) are in any way the real existential problem is absurd.  Brexit itself solved nothing, the emphasis on Brexit and the UKIP damaged genuine British nationalism, and the whole sorry tale is yet another blow against the ethnonationalist narrative.  Ethnonationalism and mainstreaming – two failures.

I also get real enjoyment over that tired old paradigm that the failure of nationalism in America vs. its “success” in Europe is due to the “unworkable” pan-racial White aspect of American racial nationalism vs. the “grounded” ethnonationalism in Europe.  Err… first of all, given what’s happening in Europe, the migrant invasion and terror attacks being the most obvious examples, the fact that nationalist parties in Western Europe have gone from one failure to another is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the ethnonationalist approach. Second, the difference in success of America vs Europe (to the extent that it is true that nationalism is more advanced in Europe) is mostly due to:

1. The pathetic freakishness of the American “movement” that repulses people of all White ethnic backgrounds, and the fact that the American “movement” is hardly pan-European but openly despises a significant (minority) fraction of America’s White population (the problem is more that the American “movement” is not for all Whites, not that it is).

2. De facto social pricing (America) is more of an impediment to nationalist organizing than is de jure “hate” laws (Europe).  Johnson and Le Brun discussed this on a podcast and I agree with them.  Now, yes, I’ve been adamant that the “hate” laws in Europe must go, and that they are an impediment, but social pricing in America is a far bigger impediment. Wide-ranging soft totalitarianism deters more than narrowly applied harder totalitarianism.

Thus, if (1) the American “movement” was reformed, and (2) a way was found to counter-act social pricing, you’d quickly narrow the gap between American and European nationalist organizing.

Der Movement in Der News, 6/9/17

Build the tribe.

After this example of memetic appropriation, at, we see the startling revelation that hatred of Trump by the Left is essentially hatred of Whites.  That sounds familiar. Where may we have read that before?  Oh wait, here at this blog; for example, from Feb. 2016.

If the Alt Right is going to be great savior of the White race, it may be helpful to actually generate some original content other than that of yelling about “Pepe” and “Kek.”

Getting back to the 5PT article at Counter-Currents, we see this excerpt of a hostile comment:

Contrary to the author’s hypothesis, polling shows most whites are not in favor of mass immigration, suggesting they are wary of their own demographic replacement. The feeling of being invaded and replaced will only continue to grow as mass immigration continues unabated, until the issue becomes red hot. The problem is that our politicians, as usual, are moving far too slowly for those of us who already demand action. Immigration and demographics need to be made a major campaign issue in our elections, which will lead to parties making it a campaign promise to reduce immigration — and we need to hold them to it.

Most Whites may be against mass immigration, but they sure don’t vote that way when they have the chance to vote for even mainstreaming ethnonationalists like Le Pen and Wilders. Politicians moving far too slowly” – who?  Who has been elected?  Only the fraud Trump, and we all should have known better.  Polls are useless if the alleged opinions said polls represent neve become actualized into electoral victories or any other concrete real-world manifestation of White backlash.

In any case, both sides of this debate don’t seem to realize that “building our tribe” and “taking back our nations” are not incompatible or orthogonal to each other. It would seem that tribe-building is going to be a necessary prerequisite to nation-taking, and if the latter fails, then having the former around will allow the White tribe to survive (and possibly make new attempts at nation-taking in the future).

We need to do both the nation-taking (it’s too early to give up completely on that, despite the current grim reality) and tribe-building. And it’s the tribe building that needs to be the predominant focus, since it serves not only to aid nation-taking, but it also lays the groundwork for an effective strategy if the “take back the nation” efforts fail.  Tribe-building is the underlying foundation for a wide variety of overlapping efforts.

Note the comments about UKIP’s silk roadism and about “British Asians.”  I agree wholeheartedly with Spencer’s pan-European vision.  Delenda est ethnonationalism!

Well Then, Brexit is Sure Working Out Well!

Dat dere ethnonationalism working wonders!

Well, you see, as long as dem dere Poles are kept out of the UK, everything will be A-OK!

Now we can wait for the other shoe to drop: marches in London, full of White natives, in support of more Islamic immigration, in support of their “Muslim community,” in support of “diversity” and “multiculturalism,” and against “bigotry and hatred.”

No worries though!  All you need are some more Silker comments posted at accompanied by pictures of female (of course) anime figures standing proudly alongside the British flag. After all, the essence of being “British” is the Union Jack, don’t you know.

A Tale of Two Non-Whites

The second situation is just puzzling.

First, it’s Johnson vs. Roosh, Part II. At some point, I hope that the “movement” gives up on all this PUA nonsense. The whole point of the “movement” – if we take their statements at face value – is “what is best for the White race.” Therefore, of course, sexual activity needs brakes, needs controls. The idea that non-White men should NOT be sex-trolling around Europe is a feature of WN, not a bug. I thought all of this was obvious?
Second, here is a statement made by an individual claiming to be a Japanese female, concerning the upcoming “Brexit” vote in the UK:

Assuming that nothing about this insane situation changes by June, I will vote ‘Leave’ on the referendum when it is placed in front of me. I would have no other choice.

That can be interpreted two ways. The more charitable interpretation is: “IF I was a Briton living in the UK, I would vote to leave the EU.” The less charitable interpretation, and the one more consistent with the wording is: “I live in the UK with the right to vote there, and I will vote to leave.”
The first interpretation is a perfectly reasonable expression of opinion. The second interpretation, if true, essentially completely invalidates the entire blog/website on which it is found. Isn’t the whole point of racial nationalism to have racial separation: nation-building based upon race (and culture)? This is WN, not Derbyshirian HBD.
Somewhat supporting the second interpretation is:

From my perspective this is all a complete disaster in the making, of a kind that will have far-reaching ramifications and probably will impact my purse directly in some measurable way.

Directly? Regardless of how this statement influences which of the abovementioned two interpretations is true, the statement on its face is bizarre. Do the British people need to worry about how their decision affects a Japanese woman’s “purse?”
Wait, there is more:

However, I would not be angry with the British people if they chose to throw in the towel and give up on the European Union Project now.

The British people do not require the permission or approval of foreigners to decide the national future of the UK.
What is the main point of Brexit? It would seem that the two main issues are Sovereignty and Immigration. That being so, it would seem that the opinions and interests – much less votes! – of East Asians should be irrelevant. The idea that Japanese people should in any way influence this decision is the very thing Brexit is supposed to oppose.
Indeed, the only people who should be allowed to vote on Brexit are UK citizens whose ancestry derives from one or more of the following sources, and these sources only: English, Scottish, Scots-Irish, Welsh. No one else, regardless of “citizenship” or “place of birth,” should have any rights in this regard whatsoever.