Category: clash of civilizations

Rosit on the Penman Hypothesis

Biohistorical speculations.

I really don’t have much to add to Rosit’s fine analysis, except to note that culture is a proximate interest, albeit the most important proximate interest, and one that – as I have written about extensively – affects our ultimate (genetic) interests.  But, any complete analysis of the decline of the West must put EGI first and foremost.  That would, as a matter of necessity, bring forth, directly, the race issue, the inability to deal with fully and honestly being, as Rosit suggests, a flaw in Penman’s hypothesis. Also, while epigenetic modifications are may in particular contexts be important, there are many, on both the Right and the Left, with an axe to grind against “genetic determinism” that overrate the importance of epigenetics with regards to the final phenotype.  

A reasonable analogy would be that the body is the hardware (computer), the genes are the software, and epigenetics may in part determine whether a particular software program is turned on or off.  That’s important, no doubt, but without the underlying software, there’s nothing to tun on or off, without the software, the hardware is merely a paperweight, and  – and this is crucial – not all computers are running the same software.  If one computer has a particularly powerful program and the other does not, all the “turning on or off” in the world won’t make up the difference.  Epigenetics has become an over-rated meme.

Penman’s grim prognosis is more or less correct, and having the pathetic “movement” as the major vehicle for preventing the racial-cultural disaster that is unfolding is part of the problem.

We need to start rebuilding now, before the collapse, and Der Movement is hardly capable of doing so.

Advertisements

Political EGI VII: Orban’s Speech

Analyzing excerpts from an Orban speech.

I’ve been critical of Orban, but with his continued farstreaming and Jobbik’s continued mainstreaming, Orban may now represent the “far right” of Hungarian politics.  In addition, while I am dissatisfied with the more “implicit” aspects of Orban’s rhetoric, we must understand the limitations – de jure and de facto – for open, free speech in Europe, and the constraints that an elected political leader in the EU has in speaking the truth. Nevertheless, let us take a critical look at Orban’s public utterances.

There are three areas in which it is not enough to support processes, but in which we need a shift in scale, and the move to a fast track. One area is demography, in which we haven’t even reached a break-even point. It is some improvement that for married couples – or male-female couples in general – the fertility indicator expressing the nation’s demographic situation has risen from 1.2 to 1.44 children per couple, and this is promising, but 1.44 is still very far from 2. In order to feel safe demographically, the average statistical ratio of children to Hungarian couples should be 2.1. In practice this is hard to implement, but this is the average figure we should have. Until we reach that point, Hungarians must be seen as an endangered species demographically; and the people – but the Government above all – should understand the imperative which is implicit in this…

Obviously, any appeal to increasing native birthrates has a fundamental underlying foundation of genetic interests.  Using the term “endangered species” to describe any White group borders on ethnic/racial nationalism and is wholly a biological argument.  That may be as close as Orban currently believes he can approach the problem from the genetic standpoint.

…If we speak about a strong country, we must also mention public security. Today this means two things in particular: defence of the borders, and the ability to prevent terrorist attacks. There is no strong culture without a cultural identity.

Culture is of course important, but secondary to ultimate, genetic, biological interests.  Even better phrased: the biological and the cultural are intertwined and influence each other.

However much of a taboo one is breaking by saying it, there is no cultural identity in a population without a stable ethnic composition. The alteration of a country’s ethnic makeup amounts to an alteration of its cultural identity. A strong country can never afford to do something like that – unless some global catastrophe forces it to do so.

Yes, very good.  But – and this is crucial – a change in a country’s ethnic makeup should constitute a problem – indeed, THE problem – itself, and not just because it affects “cultural identity.”  Here, Orban places culture as the ultimate interests, and the ethnic makeup as a proximate concern that affects the ultimate one; whereas it should be the other way around. If it was somehow possible to preserve a Hungarian cultural identity even with population replacement – would that be alright to the likes of Orban?  The reply would be that such a situation would be impossible, but that’s not the point.  It is a thought experiment to explore, identify, and define priorities. Ethnicity or culture?  

Note I have no problem in invoking culture to defend ethnic genetic interests, nor do I lack understanding of the complexities that come with European speech laws and various other de jure and de facto restrictions.  But with Orban cutting so close to the edge here, one has to note the possibility that he sincerely places culture first, and is not only speaking this way out of necessity (which would obviously be more acceptable).

Over the next few decades the main question in Europe will be this: will Europe remain the continent of the Europeans? Will Hungary remain the country of the Hungarians? Will Germany remain the country of the Germans? Will France remain the country of the French? Or will Italy remain the country of the Italians? Who will live in Europe? 

That’s the ultimate existential question.  It is good that Orban is mentioning specific ethnic groups as the rightful inhabitants of specific nations – asking WHO will live in Europe. That is an EGI-loaded question.

This is a historical question which we must face up to today. As regards the specific situation – and this is quite telling about the world that we live in today – there’s no concrete, reliable information on the percentages of traditional indigenous Christians and the incoming Muslim communities living in Europe’s individual countries. In practice it is forbidden to gather information like this. And the data which is gathered is not adequate for us to predict what the future holds for us, as migrants, immigrants, are not evenly distributed throughout the different age groups. So the general figures say little about what awaits us. We should focus most on people under the age of 15, and also those between 15 and 45. From those figures we can project, we can calculate, what the situation will be like in each country in, say, 2050.

Looking ahead, unlike most politicians.  When you farstream, you are forced in that direction; conversely, when you mainstream, you are forced away from that direction. 

Naturally, when considering the whole issue of who will live in Europe, one could argue that this problem will be solved by successful integration. 

No, that’s exactly what we should NOT argue.  It doesn’t matter if aliens “integrate” – or, better yet, we do not want them and their alien genes to integrate.  We do not want them in our nations, carrying their alien genes, unintegrated either.  We do not want them at all.

The reality, however, is that we’re not aware of any examples of successful integration. It’s obvious that migration is not the answer to economic problems and labour shortages.

That’s true even if integration were to be successful.  “Economic problems and labor shortages” are not an excuse for genocidal race replacement.  The natives do not prosper by a “strong economy” when they are replaced by other peoples.  The Alt Right has correctly pointed out the Establishment hypocrisy: on the one hand, we must “save the environment” by having less children; on the other hand, we must import immigrants because Europeans don’t have enough children to “support the economy.”

Interestingly, people in Europe are least concerned about migrants taking their jobs. This probably reflects some form of personal experience.

If proximate concerns like that can motivate a defense of ethnic interests, fine, but of course the problem is much deeper than personal experience and personal grievance about job opportunities.

I can believe there are desperate situations, just like a castaway on the ocean finally giving in to the urge to drink seawater: it’s water, but it doesn’t quench one’s thirst, and only adds to the problem. This is more or less the situation in which those who want to cure their economic ills with immigrants will find themselves. In countering arguments for successful integration, we must also point out that if people with diverging goals find themselves in the same system or country, it won’t lead to integration, but to chaos. It’s obvious that the culture of migrants contrasts dramatically with European culture. Opposing ideologies and values cannot be simultaneously upheld, as they are mutually exclusive. To give you the most obvious example, the European people think it desirable for men and women to be equal, while for the Muslim community this idea is unacceptable, as in their culture the relationship between men and women is seen in terms of a hierarchical order. These two concepts cannot be upheld at the same time. It’s only a question of time before one or the other prevails.

Again, if these proximate concerns motivate ethnic defense, fine, but it obscures the question. If these migrants were 100% on board with current liberal European values, if they were seamlessly integrating, would race replacement – genocide – be alright then? We should be thankful they are not integrating well, that the experience for Europeans is painful enough to motivate ethnic defense. As Salter has written, the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does.  How about talking about European ethnic-racial existence, rather than just culture?  I understand the practical implications for speech in Europe, but one could invoke the language of kin and family here.

Of course one could also argue that communities coming to us from different cultures can be re-educated. But we must see – and Bishop Tőkés also spoke about this – that now the Muslim communities coming to Europe see their own culture, their own faith, their own lifestyles and their own principles as stronger and more valuable than ours. So, whether we like it or not, in terms of respect for life, optimism, commitment, the subordination of individual interests and ideals, today Muslim communities are stronger than Christian communities. Why would anyone want to adopt a culture that appears to be weaker than their own strong culture? They won’t, and they never will! Therefore re-education and integration based on re-education cannot succeed.

Again, it is better that it does not succeed.  Stop talking only in terms of culture for godssakes.  There is room for rhetorical maneuver here, using careful language.  Why should Europeans be race replaced, regardless of “culture and integration?”

…there is a Soros plan. It comprises four points. He wrote it down himself, the Soros Empire published it and began recruitment for implementation of the plan. The plan says that every year hundreds of thousands migrants – and, if possible, a million – should be brought into the territory of the European Union from the Muslim world. The second point is that upon arrival every one of them should be given an amount in euros equivalent to four and a half million forints. The author of the plan would gladly finance this – but that is secondary, although it’s something that’s worth pondering. However, it’s not this, it’s not the business profit that’s the essence of the proposal, but the fact that in this way it’s possible to maintain a continuous influx. So those who want at least a million migrants to come in every year must maintain this mechanism – which in European political terminology is called a “pull factor” – so that they continue to come. And if they distribute them and everyone receives a sum – which is, in fact, higher than the Hungarian annual average wage – there won’t be a problem with reduced flow. The third point in the Soros plan is that the migrants arriving on the continent will have to be distributed among the countries of Europe as part of a mandatory and permanent mechanism.

Soros is of course a “HuWhite man of the West,” right?

A shrewd speaker should approach Universalist, faux-rationalist liberal Europeans and make the argument:

1. Universalism means that all peoples should have the same rights and should be cared for the same

2. You Universalists assert that genocide is wrong and you champion indigenous rights

3. Therefore, you must oppose European genocide – even auto-genocide – and champion the rights of indigenous Europeans

Of course, the Left, and much of the lemming-like masses, would reject such an overt argument, but that would force them to admit an irrational, inconsistent, hypocritical, anti-European worldview.

Rotten Orange and Silk Road News

In the news.

Not just Muslims.  It’s the forever war against Asians, Jews, NECs, and White leftists. One of the terrorists was a “British Asian” by the way.

The Deep State revealed. Not much of a winner. That’s who has a “top-secret security clearance” in today’s America.  

I don’t know what’s less surprising – that “America’s senator” Sessions is overmatched in his new role, or that Trump is angry at his only cabinet pick that was satisfactory to the Alt Right.  We are witnessing apolitical train wreck of unprecedented proportions. And according to the gamesters, wasn’t “Sessions as Attorney General” by itself “worth having Trump elected?”  

June 5: Spencer’s Video and an Open Call

An open call.

Here is an excellent, and realistic, Spencer video on the latest London terrorist attack. Here, Spencer hits some notes consistent with points I’ve made over the years: objectively worthless (my words, not his) Whites will continue to grovel and appease regardless of the provocations, worse is not better because there is apparently no limit in sight to the level of abuse Whites are willing to take, and that change will require a fundamental alteration in White thinking patterns so activists need to concentrate on basic principles and not overreact to single incidents like this one.

Spencer once again proves his potential as a pro-White leader.

Now, you know, I’m not of the Alt Right  and I (strongly) dislike the brand and its pretensions to legitimate “movement” hegemony.  I could in theory adopt an attitude of schadenfreude about all the divisive, internal Alt Right feuds going on, and if I was really the “crazy” and “bitter” lunatic the Alt Righters claim I am, that would indeed be my attitude.

However, I realize that – until the time comes that the Alt Right fad burns itself out – the Alt Right does have predominance (illegitimate hegemony) in racial activism today, particularly in America but growing in Western Europe as well. This predominance means that missteps of the Alt Right can harm racial nationalism as a whole, and I would like the damage minimized.  That is, we need “damage control” until such time that activists come to their senses (there’s a first time for everything) and realize there’s more to racial nationalism than Millennials, juvenile jackassery, generally superficial analyses, Trump worship, and screaming about Pepe and Kek.

In that frame of mind, I make an open call, I call upon both Spencer and Johnson to put their differences aside, exhibit genuine leadership for the greater good, and, at the very least, stop the attacks against each other and their allies.

Things change in Der Movement.  Not so long ago, Johnson was on good relations with Spencer and with Friberg.  Now, he’s on good relations with Hunter Wallace, a change from the past.  Spencer has refrained from criticizing Johnson until the recent Friberg incident.

Yes, I know, nationalist leaders of the past have had their feuds and falling outs.  Hitler and Rohm, Codreanu and Cuza, etc. But, guys, you are not at their level, your differences do not rise to the level of those historical breaks, and petty feuds mostly about personality and access to money aren’t helping any of us.

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 AltRight.com 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.

Contrasting Ethnocentrisms

Contrasting ethnocentrisms.

One can say that the type of Middle Eastern ethnocentrism noted by many observers as characteristic of that region is formally analogous to the idea of a White ethnostate and the pursuit by Whites of their (very) legitimate racial interests.

But there is a fundamental difference.  Salter has proposed, and I endorse, the idea of Universal Nationalism – that every people have the right to preserve their own uniqueness, both biological and cultural, and this applies to non-Whites as well as Whites.  That’s an enlightened ethnocentrism.

However, on the other hand, Middle Eastern ethnocentrism is characterized by an aggressive dual morality and an expansionist, imperialist mindset.  Thus, one Middle Eastern people strive to be at the top of the human energy pyramid, both parasites and manipulators, those who oppose all nationalism except their own, and those who promote multiracialism and multiculturalism to destroy the West and the White race. Another group of Middle Easterners – and other non-Whites who follow a Middle Eastern High Culture – wish to colonize the West through their mass migration and impose their own civilization on Westerners, both a demographic and a cultural form of colonizing imperialism.  Thus, in contrast to Europeans, the well-known ethnocentrism of the Middle Eastern High Culture is aggressively particularistic and definitely not universal.  Universalism it seems is a trait of the West and of the West only.

Race in the News, 9/19/16

Several items.


Why do Whites tolerate this?  Whites: A race of loser cucks, indeed.

On Yockey; I am gratified that some of my work is listed there to honor Yockey, a great man.

That’s good, but one tires about hearing about “Pepe and “Kek.”  The only good about those juvenile memes is that they represent a proof of principle about spreading memes independent of the System.  Now, can we actually start spreading memes apart from cartoon frogs and idiotic ranting?

Exactly, similar to the point I posted yesterday.  The hysteria about Trump is tragicomic. Apparently, calling a bomb a bomb is worse than someone actually planting the bomb in the first place.  The only flaw in Alt-Right analyses is that they don’t go far enough. The Left does not hate Trump merely because he speaks the truth (sometimes) in a politically incorrect manner and is thus agitating certain “White resentments” – it is more fundamentally because Trump is in their “minds” a proxy for White America, the real object of their unrelenting hatred.

Also: I’ll agree with Roissy on one thing – Trump’s Les Deplorables imagery was excellent and I must admit that Der Touchback has been handling the whole “basket” incident with considerable skill.