Category: Clinton family

In the News, 3/5/16

Odds and ends from a world (and “movement”) gone mad.

I agree with Sanders’ supporters in this regard.  Will Bill and Hillary have matching orange jumpsuits in prison?

And certainly not many of the Chinese and Indians I have met who bad-mouth the US in favor of their own countries and who have come only to make money. And if any of these immigrants vote, over 70% vote for socialist big government and not in favor of the freedom which has always been a big reason to want to be American.

Of course.  After all, the existential meaning of Asians is hatred of Whites, and didn’t Derbyshire himself (in the “measured groveling” essay) tell us about Rosie’s extreme ethnocentrism and anger toward Americans (while living in America of course) over that plane incident that occurred more than 15 years ago?

And then we have the dedicated anti-White activist Durocher who pontificates:

At least until the entire rotten structure of lies and hypocrisy is brought tumbling down and the European peoples, and in particular European-Americans, are, again, free to determine their own destiny.

Here he is blogging about Jews on Counter-Currents.  Why “in particular European-Americans?”  After all, when he posts at TOO, he’s always talking about Jews in Europe, particularly France.  But that, you see, is one of the keys to understanding Durocher, and one reason his writing irritates me so much.  Like another well-known anti-White Internet Troll (remember that Yukon Cornelius song to know who I’m talking about here), Durocher is always exhibiting a chameleon-like ability to change his worldview to suit his audience, marketing himself (why? to gain trust?) rather than promoting a specific worldview.

So, on TOO, he is all about Jews, Jews, Jews, mostly in Europe, when he’s not fawning over Viktor Orban, promoting the discredited idea of mainstreaming.  At Counter-Currents, addressing an audience mostly European-American, he emphasizes Euro-American interests while warning us not to be too obsessive about Jews.  At Counter-Currents, a more radical site, he tends to dispense with the mainstreaming, and praises Hitler, and also peddles Nordicism.  His essays are rambling displays of incoherence, with no other seeming purpose than to ingratiate himself with the target audience and win their trust, before spewing forth more memetic poison.

And he continues:

There are dangers in becoming obsessive. Every topic must be given the just measure of attention. The work must go on.

Which means what?  How does the work go on?  How do we know what is obsessive and what is just measure?  What Durocher tells us it is?

And then we have Roissy, trying to excuse Trump’s pitiful flip-flopping on immigration,. Roissy refers to the Rightists that omega race cuck Trump continuously disavows:

some internet backwater weirdo 

Who is that?  James Edwards I presume?  It could be David Duke also, since Der Touchback disavowed Duke as well.  (Question: Has Trump disavowed his Jewish son-in-law or his Jewish convert daughter or his Jewish grandchildren?  No, as Tony the Tiger would say, Trump thinks they’re GREEEAATTTT!).

Who the hell is this turd Roissy calling someone else “some internet backwater weirdo.” Guess what asshole: the Left would consider “Chateau Heartiste” to be backwater weirdness as well.  You think you are better than Edwards and Duke?  Are you joking?  Or are you  just emulating your cuck-god Short-Fingered Vulgarian Touchback in attacking those to your right?

Jews, Intermarriage, Gene-Stealing, and the Trumpening

Andrew Joyce essay.
At TOO is a very interesting essay by Andrew Joyce. I’d like to reproduce a few excerpts (emphasis added) with my own comments interspersed.

Jewish intermarriage into non-Jewish power elites is a significant but under-researched aspect of Jewish strategies to maintain and expand influence… …Even in ancient times there is evidence that “some gentile-derived genes were being selected for their effects on resource-obtaining abilities within the Jewish community (PTSDA, 41).” By targeting the rich and powerful for intermarriage, Jews could obtain significant and immediate material resources, an improvement in social status, and also useful genetic material…

An important point. Picking up genes for high intelligence, picking up genes that would reduce the phenotypic (physical appearance, not behavior) gap with the host, all that could be useful for an essentially parasitic Diaspora minority. On the one hand, Jews prize endogamy, to preserve themselves and their essential nature while living among others, to prevent total assimilation. On the other hand, they are not so strict about this when it comes to their overall identity. White Gentiles tend to value a high degree of ethnic or racial integrity for identity; Jews have been more flexible.

Widely separated Jewish communities are more genetically related to one another than to the peoples among whom they live. No, Jews are not a “pure” race. They have picked up a good deal of foreign blood in their wanderings. But Jewish identity does not require purity. All it requires is a taint.

Jews require for Jewish identity some degree of Jewish bloodlines (preferably maternal). Thus, we have varied Jewish types, all considered Jewish, and actually more genetically similar than would appear at a casual phenotypic glance, since they all retain a Jewish ethnic core. It’s that minimal core, which allows for genetic similarity when the other elements are not too divergent (i.e., all greater “Caucasian”), which defines Jewishness. Meanwhile, we would consider a person half European and half Jewish to be Jewish. On an ethnic level, a person half Dane and half Greek would be considered neither Dane nor Greek, but rather generic European. The flexibility of Jews in this regard is somewhat in between the more restrictive White Gentile attitude, and that of American Negroes, who have no problem calling the likes of Colin Powell or Obama “Black” to the same extent they would an unmixed Nigerian.

Joyce continues:

Those Jews who drifted into the non-Jewish gene pool were indeed, according to Endelman, “swindlers, drunkards, whores, schlemiels, schlemazels, nudniks, and no-goodniks” whose “social, cultural, and even moral level was low.” By contrast, those non-Jews welcomed into the Jewish fold were from the very highest social levels, and the efforts taken to entice young princes, landowners, or heirs of industry to take Jewish wives were remarkable for their long-term, premeditated nature…

We get their worst genes; they get our best. Note this part “we get” is not contradictory to what I wrote above. Absolute racial purity is not the same as racial integrity; one is a myth, the other a practical reality.  If a European happens to have one of those “no-goodniks” has their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather, in the midst of an otherwise normal ancestry, that’s not any blow against racial integrity.  In an old ADV broadcast, I remember Pierce arguing against those who claim that “well, Whites cannot be 100% racially pure, so racial preservation is pointless.”  I can paraphrase Pierce’s riposte thus: “no matter how well you wash yourself, you will still have bacteria on your skin. That doesn’t mean you give up and don’t practice a healthy hygiene. You do the best you can.”  That’s the White attitude.  On the other hand, Jews seem to practice just enough endogamy to preserve the broad outlines of their racial integrity, but will absorb high-quality alien blood if it will promote the interests of their core Jewish bloodlines (what Johnson calls the “taint”).

Jews historically have tirelessly engaged in efforts to position themselves either in elite positions or in positions that place them between the elite and the great mass of people.Jews have sought these positions of power and influence in order to pursue their goals and interests — goals and interests which are very often at odds with the interests of native populations. This conflict of interests is the root cause of what has been termed “anti-Semitism,” and one of the main strategies Jews have employed against “anti-Semitism” is that of crypsis. Cryptic strategies have involved insincere conversions to Christianity and the abandonment of phenotypic characteristics that provoke hostility. The argument here is that Jewish intermarriage with native elites should be seen, partly, as a more extreme example of Jewish crypsis.  What better way for a foreign elite to occupy powerful positions in a society than to do so in a manner which gives the impression that the foreign elite is nothing more than the traditional, native elite? By inter-breeding so acutely with the native elites, and blending their interests so tightly, the strategy also places further distance between the native elite and the people it leads. As Pine suggests, the native elite can no longer act on behalf of the people and against foreign influence because intermarriage has ensured that any Jewish loss would in fact be “mutual.”…

Jews are masters of crypsis indeed.  I think the language of biology is relevant here, including the use of the much maligned (but useful) phrase “parasite and host” as well as Bowery’s novel approach for evaluating Jewish virulence.

The Trump and Clinton intermarriages should be seen as part of this greater strategy of expanding power and influence cryptically, and “normalizing” or blurring the image of Jews at the top of our society. Also, in the same way that one injects small amounts of microbes in order to immunize oneself against a disease, by taking in small amount of the “best” genes or personalities Jewry “immunizes” itself against the threat of a reaction from the financially and politically powerful. To be clear, although it is clearly helpful, the argument here is not that intermarriage is any longer essential to the expansion of Jewish power and influence. It’s continuance in the present is in part merely a symptom of the geriatric, decayed, and increasingly alien nature of our existing elites… 

…A couple of weeks ago, during a conversation with a White advocate of many years’ service, I was asked my opinion on the monarchies of Europe and their future. I replied that although I have a lingering respect for centuries of tradition, the time has come for the decrepit old elites to be swept away. In the course of the ongoing invasion of foreign peoples into Europe, the remaining aristocracies will not survive long anyway. The invaders will not respect the history, tradition or authority of people who are no more than relics of past European glories. The inbred, quasi-Jewish denizens of Europe’s crumbling manorial estates may lock the doors of their palatial residences, but if push came to shove, they would be no more spared the ravages of a racial conflict than the humblest member of society. Nor should we mourn the passing of these people and their toppling from power and influence. These older elites have had centuries to prove that they deserved their positions through service to the folk and concern for the collective material well-being. Time and again they failed. Their corporate and political successors are failing even more rapidly, and much more profoundly…

The old elites and their equally corrupt successors should be (literally) drawn and quartered by a White ethnostate…after a fair and public trial of course.

…This discussion is aimed primarily at moving us away from references to “our” elite, as opposed to the Jewish elite. If anything resembling the old WASP elite still exists in America, it is either moribund, corrupted, or beyond saving. The salvation of our people will not come from throwing our support behind an imagined non-Jewish group already possessing some wealth and power. As discussed above, interests and bloodlines have been intertwined enough for any such group to view a decline in Jewish power as a decline in its own. “Our” elite isn’t really “ours” at all. There is simply one, heavily-Jewish, elite, and we are in ideological, material, and spiritual opposition to it. How excited, then, should we really be about Donald Trump? For all his bluster, Trump is a creation and product of the bourgeois revolution and its materialistic liberal ideologies. We are teased and tantalized by the fantasy that Trump is a potential “man of the people.” But I cannot escape the impression that he is a utilitarian and primarily economic character, who seeks a social contract based on personal convenience and material interest. In his business and political history I see only the “distilled Jewish spirit.” In his family tree I see distilled Jewish blood. Time will tell how useful his “drawing attention to the immigration issue” will be. Time will also tell whether, if he is successful in reaching the White House, he would do anything to reverse the decline of White America.

As someone who detests the “movement’s “man on white horse” syndrome, I view positively this skepticism about Trump, which contrasts with the girlish shrieks of excitement about “the Trumpening” emanating from PUA pansies. In the last analysis, Trump is an obnoxious buffoon, with a mixed family, he is not “one of us.” and I am highly skeptical of his sincerity (*).

Having said, that, I still strongly believe his campaign is of great value, and I would even consider voting for him if he were on the national ballot.  Why?  One must understand that in politics, as in economics, perception merges with reality. Hence, the perception of the multiculturalist Putin as some sort of secret White hero; in America, we have Trump and his right-wing populist (or imitation populist) campaign creating the perception that he is some sort of pro-White anti-immigration xenophobe.

Thus, Trump is legitimizing such views, he is paving the path for future, more authentic, right-wing populist campaigns, he is creating political chaos, and he is destabilizing the careful Demoplican/Repblocrat status quo we’ve had for far too long.  Trumpian success agitates the Coloreds, and promotes the racial balkanization of American politics. The more of that, the better. Better an insincere Trump than a sincere Jeb, Marco, or Miss Lindsey.

One final note: I do wonder: how much of this Jewish behavior is consciously planned, and how much is instinctual, or woven into Jewish culture. Do Mom and Pop Yarmulke plan their children’s’ corruption of the Gentile Elites, or is it more of “hey, we wish Moishe and Sarah would marry Jewish, but if they don’t, well, then they might as well marry some rich, smart, powerful (White) goys, and we’ll see what we can get out of it.”

*I would love to see Trump get, and read, a copy of Salter’s On Genetic Interests. What would be his reaction to that, I wonder?  Even if the skeptics are right about Trump, any promotion by him of Salterian memes would be helpful. If the skeptics are wrong, and Trump is indeed sincere, then he should jump on Salter’s thesis like a hungry wolf on a lamb chop.