Category: Counter Currents

Multiple Nationalisms

Good points.

…the concept of “white nationalism” is a distinctly American notion. Europeans are “British Nationalists,” or they support “Germany for the Germans.” 

This argument again? Funny how few people counter-signal against “British nationalism” despite “British nationalism” itself actually being a rather artificial conflation of English, Scottish, and Welsh (and Irish even.) 

Why is no one attacking “Spanish nationalism” despite the fact that “Spanish” is hardly more authentic than “American” – just look at the Basque vs. the Catalan, etc?

America has always drawn on a wider European base than individual European nations. 

So what? No one in America is demanding that the nations of Europe all drop their identity and become generic “white” – but apparently there is no end to the attempts to define “American” out of existence. 

How eerily similar to the well known Jewish talking points: “Palestinians are an invented people” and “Whiteness is a social construct” and “how the Irish became White.”

To which I reply:

Excellent comment.  Indeed, I’ve known Spaniards who were vehemently “Catalonian” and not “Spanish.”  On the other hands, I’ve seen websites of equally vehement Spanish nationalists.  And there are Spanish pan-Europeanists.  All levels are valid.

One can go to absurd levels of microcosms here.  Spanish or Catalonian? Catalonia or a specific attachment to Barcelona?  A particular neighborhood in Barcelona?  A particular pub in that neighborhood?  Or perhaps different tables in the same pub can form their own tribes?

Cui bono?

Answering a “Wolf”

More permutations of “movement” stupidity.

Read this.

…but count us out…

My reply:

We will.  Something that took me many years to learn, but which is now obvious, is that it is not possible to convince all people, or most people, or even perhaps very many people, of your views. What is more important: to convince the right people.  It is quite obvious that “radical individualists” are not the right people for racial nationalism.

Also: that “radical individualists” need and want a collective tribal wolfpack doesn’t quite make sense.

As regards the main article: citing the Mafia as an example of a System-resistant group is ludicrous. With RICO, informers, targeted prosecutions, and sociopolitical issues, the Mafia today is a weak shadow of what it was in the past.  

The idea that the “Wolves” are going to resist the government like a Red Dawn scenario is equally ludicrous.

More Alt Right Stupidity

More “movement” stupidity.

Getting back to a point made here, one needs to remember that Liddell has a history of fossilized “movement” ethnic fetishism, previously noted, for example here and also here.

Of course, one cannot forget this either (emphasis added):

Perhaps worst vice in our circles is accusing one’s opponents of being “controlled opposition” or enemy agents without adequate evidence. Mike Cernovich has said it about Richard Spencer. Ramzpaul and Colin Liddell have said it about Andrew Anglin…but calling people informants without evidence should be an absolute taboo — right up there with doxing our own people to settle petty scores — as it undermines the trust that is the foundation of every functional movement. The enemy spends a great deal of time sowing distrust in our ranks. So the suspicion of being an enemy agent should fall back on anyone who throws around that charge without evidence. They stand convicted by their own flimsy standards of evidence.

Certainly a well-rounded contributor to Der Movement, indeed!   To be fair, the same should apply to those who call – with no evidence whatsoever – Spencer a “CIA asset.”


The “Buck Negger” Trump is once again asserting his desire to do comprehensive immigration reform.


Cuckadoodledoo!  But, hey. Let’s concentrate instead on Trump’s “negs” and handshakes – more important no doubt.


Read this.

I observed no equivalent of jock culture; the overall dearth of masculinity among Nordic men is not a secret. Guys are mostly thin, well dressed, polite, and unprepared for a fight.

When Sunic made a similar point some years ago – albeit with less polite language – he was vilified.  Perhaps this author would be better received. One wonders – compare the modern description of “Nordic men” compared to that of the time of Karl X Gustav and, of course, earlier than that, the Vikings.  A Kempian racial “historian” of the future may as well claim that this drastic change in behavior has been due to “racial admixture.”  That’s not the case of course, and in cases like this, Frost’s “genetic pacification” is a more likely explanation – and for the Classical World as well.

Durocher in Der News, 7/10/17

Der Movement marches on.

An analysis of race, nation, and culture in the writings of Herodotus could in theory be an interesting exercise, albeit one not directly relevant to actualizing our goals in our present (and future) reality.  Durocher’s Part I didn’t set off any alarm bells, but I knew it would just be a matter of time. Here we have Part II.  Let’s look at this self-contradictory paragraph, with the offending sections highlighted:

I would argue that Herodotus’ observations are eminently compatible with a scientific and evolutionary perspective on race/genetics and ethnicity. Race is, especially in geographically contiguous land masses, typically a clinal phenomenon, with gradual change in genetic characteristics (i.e. allele frequencies) as one moves, for instance, from northern Europe to central Africa. While intermarriage tends to spread genes, gene flow is slowed by geographical and ethno-cultural boundaries, leading to significant racial-genetic clumping and differentiation.

First, “northern Europe to central Africa” is not a “geographically contiguous land mass” – being interrupted by that thing usually called “the Mediterranean Sea.”  Further, while Africa itself is “contiguous” the Sahara Desert can impede gene flow.  So, “northern Europe to central Africa” is hardly the best choice for any discussion of clinal changes in gene frequencies.  Then he shifts gears and talks about factors causing “clumping and differentiation” including “geographical…boundaries” – which would actually be something to cite Europe-Africa about, rather than for clinal differences.  So: clinal or clumpy?

Which is it?  Answer: genetic differentiation tends to be more clinal within continental populations and more “clumpy” between such populations, although in some cases there could be some “somewhat clinal” clumpy differences within continental population groups and “somewhat clumpy” clinal differences at the edges separating some such groups.

Consider this from Durocher:

The birth of a nation, ethnogenesis, occurs when linguistic, cultural, and possibly genetic drift leads a particular population to acquire an ethnic identity distinct from its neighbors. Cultural chauvinism and ethnic sentiment work together in this, magnifying one another: cultural traits such as language and customs become more and more similar within the in-group, while differences with out-groups become more and more marked. Thus, a point on the genetic cline is hardened into a more-or-less discrete ethno-cultural node and genetic cluster: a nation. The degree of nationhood is defined precisely by the population’s level of genetic and cultural commonality.

Where did we ever read that before?  Oh, here:

Thus, over time, genetic boundaries can become ever-more-aligned to political and cultural boundaries, particularly when those boundaries are fairly impermeable, distinguishing quite distinct national, political and socio-cultural entities. 

Panmixia is NOT required for a better alignment of European genetic interests with actualization of a High Culture.  Given a strict “in/out” barrier, over time, given natural processes of low-level gene flow within both “in” and “out” coupled with drift and selection increasing distances between “in” and “out,” the relative genetic distinctiveness between “in” and “out” will increase, and any potential areas of genetic overlap between “in” and “out” will no longer exist. 

We have gene-culture evolution becoming gene-High Culture evolution as well as gene-political system evolution. 

Hence, the association between genes and political boundaries goes in both directions.

How about this from Durocher:

One does not need a population with an absolutely “pure” lineage for ethnocentrism to be evolutionarily adaptive. On the contrary, one needs only sufficient genetic and cultural similarity for the members of the community to form a common identity and become a solidary in-group, and there must be greater average genetic similarity among individual in-group members than there is between individual in-group members and the members of out-groups they come into conflict with.

That sounds familiar as well:

However, regardless of how modern gene pools came to be, people are not genetically identical – there are differences in genetic kinship and hence in genetic interests, and it is there that we need to focus our attention. 

Premise 1 is false. Race does not depend on “purity.” Race can be defined different ways, but is essentially a genetically distinct subpopulation that is characterized by a suite of heritable (i.e., genetic) phenotypic traits distinguished from other such groups. There’s nothing in any reasonable definition of race that includes the idea that a race has to be a hermetically sealed group, absolutely isolated from all other groups from the beginning of time. Thus, racial preservation deals with races and their gene pools as they actually exist today, “warts” and all. The possible existence of past admixture does not in any way suggest that future admixture is inevitable, necessary, or desirable. The ethnic and genetic interests of any group are forward-looking, based on the present and looking toward the future. How the group came into existence – including via admixture – does not change the interests that group has in its continuity and preservation today. 

Of course, the concept of ethnic genetic interests (EGI) represents an argument against future admixture, particularly against admixture across wide racial lines; i.e., across a large genetic differentiation. EGI is forward-looking. Genetic interests are considered in the present, to influence decisions that affect the future. Admixture in the past affected the genetic interests of the people at that time. We cannot go back in time and alter decisions made by past peoples that created the ethnies and individuals that exist today. 

Today’s peoples are what they are, with genomes that are what they are. We cannot change that. We can only change what future generations will be like, what their genomes, and consequent phenotypes, will be. Genetic interests always look forward. So, again, any individual or ethny today, with whatever ancestral mix, has genetic interests, regardless of how their genomes came to be.

I could cite more, but sifting through my old writings to find either:

1) Ideas generated later regurgitated by the “movement” or

2) Any of the endless series of predictions I’ve made that have come true

Is a tiresome exercise.  Not as tiresome – predictably tiresome – as Der Movement, Inc. is though.

Der Movement Parallax

Analyzing some important points.

Read this.

For 15 long years, beleaguered Rhodesia maintained near total tactical military supremacy in the region despite severe weapon, materiel, and manpower shortages. Yet, military victory bereft of a strategic vision and clearly delineated political objectives is ultimately self-defeating. The political objectives of Rhodesia changed throughout the course of the war. Initially Rhodesia sought to maintain White minority rule, later hoped to create an African puppet regime, and finally sought nothing more than a seat at the proverbial “multicultural table.” This last political objective sealed the fate of tiny Rhodesia, and led to the pogrom of White genocide presently occurring in southern Africa. The nation of Rhodesia faced a series of overwhelming odds since its inception as a sovereign nation, but its greatest threat was its internal lack of strategic aim. This is a mistake we cannot afford to make.

This is very true.  A fundamental error that is often made is confusing strategy with tactics, and vice versa.  Means and ends are not the same; objectives and the tools to achieve those objectives are not the same.  One problem with mainstreaming is precisely this; the idea is to “mainstream” in order to “achieve (and maintain) power” so the power can be used to “preserve race and culture.”  Very laudable. Let’s put aside the empirically determined fact that mainstreaming simply doesn’t work.  Let us assume it does work.  What happens when selfish human nature takes over and the attainment and maintenance of political power ends up being the ultimate objective, the end, rather than as means to achieve racial-cultural objectives?  You may object: the same power-fetish may occur even with a vanguardist strategy.  That’s true, but less likely. The farther one’s “everyday” activity is separated from their ultimate objective, then the easier it is to lose sight of that objective. Mainstreaming is, in theory, a way to actualize vanguardism; vanguardism in turn is (in theory if you will) a way to achieve racial-cultural goals.  Being one major step removed from the alleged “real objective” makes mainstreaming more susceptible for activists to give up on their supposed goals and pursue political power for its own sake.  Vanguardists, on the other hand, live in “racial extremism” on an everyday basis and are less likely to lose sight of the objective that is “in their face” on a constant basis. Vanguardists are thus more likely, in my opinion, to understand, and remain focused on, the strategic aim.

As Greg Johnson articulated in New Right versus Old Right, white racial survival is the ultimate goal of White Nationalism, but I would go one step further and say we must explore not only how to survive, but also how to thrive racially as one people.

Fair enough.  Preservation is the first step.  Overcoming and progress comes next.

The policy failures and lack of strategic vision of former Rhodesia mirror those of the contemporary White Nationalist movement. The survival of the White race is imperative, but whites will only succeed if they maintain unity; in what form this “unity” manifests itself, and how centralized or decentralized it is, is open to debate. In order to reach our peoples greatest potential, we must seek unity of both race and thought, and harmonize these into a new European/White ecumene. 

There may be truth in this.  But it is a futile exercise to attempt to get everyone in the “movement” on board with a common vision.  It’s not going to happen.  Out of the morass – or perhaps from a fresh direction – a dominant memetic structure will emerge. Whether that will be the right direction, or a disaster, remains to be determined.

In Ricardo Duchesne’s penultimate work, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, Duchesne rightly speculates that a penchant for rational abstraction is the hallmark for White racial success. From this ancestral proclivity new and old ideas must be forged, crafted in a manner conducive to White unity. We’ve all borne witness to the perils of abstraction run amok, such as diversity for the sake of diversity and so-called “human rights”, but abstraction, when grounded in blood and soil and beholden to a people rather than to a proposition like universal equality, can produce a clarity of vision commensurate with the greatness of our race. I’m not opting for ideological orthodoxy or an outright purge, but I am suggesting that we as a movement begin a dialogue towards what we can and cannot accept.

Again, I’m doubtful that the feuding activists of Der Movement – all Chiefs and no Indians – will come to such a consensus.

Rhodesia wasn’t able to formulate a clear sense of strategic national purpose, because they couldn’t decide what they could and could not accept. Pragmatism is the basis of power politics, but it must be grounded by an immoveable set of axiomatic principles. 

That’s correct, and why mainstreaming is bad even if it would be politically successful – because there pragmatism itself becomes the “immovable axiomatic principle.”

Our lack of a cohesive vision is tantamount to a proverbial arming of the natives, and the natives are getting restless.

True, but, again, one cannot force a collective vision on a collection of individuals and mini-groups who cannot even decide on the parameters of “Us” vs. “Them.”  The Us/Them division is the fundamental characteristic of what a group is; if even that cannot be agreed upon, then there is no group.

Old hostilities and petty ethnic rivalries exacerbated an already precarious military and political situation. Intra-racial division, aside from contributing to Rhodesian political incongruity, proved deleterious to the war effort by limiting the mobilization of the population…

Let’s have more dem dere narrow ethnonationalism, as well as more divisive Guntherite racial theories!  That’ll bring folks together in unity, no doubt! 

We contemporary White Nationalists find ourselves in similar circumstances. The rampant division within our movement, though generally not based upon intraracial ethnic distinctions…

“…not based upon intraracial ethnic distinctions…”  Uh, I think the author of this piece just missed the last century of failed racial nationalism.  “Intraracial ethnic distinctions” constitute the first major division of “movement” disagreement.  If one wanted to do a memetic “PCA plot” of Der Movement, then the subracial/ethnic question would be the first major axis of variation.

Like our former Rhodesian brothers, our numbers, though growing, are few and the upcoming struggles will require mobilization of our entire movement for the survival of our race.

Not going to work. You need to find the optimal segment of Der Movement – or better yet start a New Movement beginning with first principles – and build your unity out of that.

European civilization has always been conflicted, agonal in nature, and historically our propensity for low-level kinship violence has been evolutionarily beneficial. 

Perhaps in the past, not the present.  The definition of what is “evolutionarily beneficial” (i.e., adaptive) depends on the environmental context.

However, in the midst of possible racial extinction, it’s of the utmost importance that internecine movement division stop. But how can division stop, particularly if we begin to explore new strategic paradigms, as dialogue breeds division?

Good question.

Put simply, we can stop division through dialectical synthesis. The musical virtuoso J.S. Bach wasn’t simply a master composer and performer; he was first and foremost a “synthesist” and thus able to harmoniously weld together an eclectic assortment of European musical styles into a cohesive melody. More to the point, like the works of Bach, we in the White Nationalist movement must shed the detritus of the past and form a new metapolitical imperative based upon a thoughtful, long-term strategy and movement unity. Strength in numbers is a very real thing, and as was the case for our Rhodesian ancestors it will be a deciding factor in our movement’s life or death.

That’s not an answer.  It’s hand-waving.  How to, in real-world terms, practically speaking, create the unity the author refers to?  Actually and precisely, how?

Native Africa never truly overcame the so-called “k-factor,” though it did receive outside help from a variety of forces, from international finance to Communist China…

A side note: Asians are always going to be on the forces of anti-Whitism and anti-Westernism.  Yockey understood that.  Can today’s yellow fever fetishists understand that as well?

My criticisms aside, I liked this article and believe the author is on the right track, sort of. But I myself went through this stage, long ago, of thinking that the entire “movement” could unite around some fundamental principles, have unity, and move forward.  Not possible.  As I said, the “movement” cannot even agree on the most basic distinction of all – Us/Them – how is anything else possible?  The author it seems wants to make “preservation and advancement of the White race” as the “immoveable axiomatic principle” – good luck with that since Der Movement cannot agree on what the “White race” is and who does or does not belong to it.  

So, while the author’s heart is in the right place I have to tell his head: it’s not that simple. It’s not like others haven’t come to similar conclusions before.  It just doesn’t work that way in reality.  The solution for him, personally, is either find a segment of the “movement” that fits his perspectives and try and build that segment into the dominant activist vehicle, or, if no such suitable segment exists, then help build a new one from the ground up.

DNA Testing and Jewish Sophistry

DNA tests.

For example, I’ve come out 95 percent Ashkenazi Jewish (not a geographical population, but a gene pool with its own minor genetic idiosyncrasies due to history) and 5 percent Korean.

There are two major points to derive from this, both that I have discussed before (and labeled as “sophistry” by a Mexican lunatic).

First, as I’ve said before, these commercial tests irresponsibly assert imply a level of accuracy that they really don’t have, specifically for minor “admixture.”  And Der Movement, full of Nutzis and nitwits who do not understand the fine points of DNA testing, are equally irresponsible in believing that, for example, a Finn who tests as “100% European” is meaningfully different from another Finn who is “99% European and 1% Asian” (the former being a pureblood and the latter a mongrel – even if the two are brothers).

It was not clear exactly what tests Marks took (assuming he is truthful about his experience), but we can assume that he is not “5% Korean.”  That 5% could reflect some degree of deep Asian ancestry in the Ashkenazi genepool OR it could just be statistical noise (dependent on the test) OR it could be (as it often happens) dependent on the parental populations chosen to designate “pure” groups – an artifact of genetic distance of populations, or subgroups of populations, from those groups chosen to genetically calibrate group identity.

It is very possible to explain the 5% Korean results without going to the mendacious extreme of asserting that DNA testing is objectively meaningless in its totality. So, Marks is outrageously irresponsible but others are irresponsible as well.

Thus, by irresponsibly over-interpreting low % results (one cannot take too seriously 5% or less results for many of these tests, unless there are VERY solid reasons for assuming otherwise), both the companies and Der Movement leave an opening to filth like Marks to delegitimize the very idea of DNA testing, which itself is scientifically valid if responsibly interpreted (majority ancestry or high levels of “admixture” – albeit not in exact percentages – typically are more or less valid).

Second, the fantasy of absolute purity helps, ironically enough, to delegitimize the reality of race, thus:

Premise 1: The reality of race and the legitimacy of racial preservation depends upon absolute racial purity.

Premise 2: Absolute racial purity does not exist (as scientific studies tell us).

Conclusion: Therefore, there is no such thing as race, and racial preservation is illegitimate and irrelevant.

The fact that one can detect ancestry in these identities does not mean that they are products of nature.

Absolute insanity – proof positive that Jews are an evil, deceptive people.  I wondered how the System would “spin” the FACT that commercial DNA testing – with all its flaws – absolutely demonstrates the reality of race and can determine, with almost absolute certainty, a person’s major ancestry. Answer: DENY OBJECTIVE REALITY.  Just use REAL sophistry, deny reality that is right in front of people’s eyes, and spin a fantasy that hard reality is meaningless.  Difference between Right and Left: the Right adjusts ideology to hard reality; the Left attempts to adjust – nay, distort – reality to hard ideology.  Who do you trust – a fast-talking Jews who attempts to tell you that a Jew testing as a Jew is not “a product of nature” or Ted Sallis who tries to give a reasonable and balanced view of DNA testing?

Indeed, the word “trust” and “Jew” in the same sentence should make all your alarm bells go off.  And, really, in the end, consider – Marks is an Ashkenazi Jew and he tested as “95% Ashkenazi Jewish” – which would seem to me to be a solid result – and yet dismisses the biological validity and meaning of the results.  Focusing on the highly questionable minor “admixture” results to the exclusion of the rock-solid majority identity results is typical of the type of mendacious hand-waving characteristic of a certain ethny.  And the idea that one can just “look in the mirror” is destructive and absurd as discussed here.

Hmmm…a Jew who promotes destructive and absurd memes – who would have ever guessed?

Exposing the Jewish-Silker Alliance

Counter-Currents vs. the Silkers.

Important comment:

…since the current Chinese regime works hand-in-glove with international Jewry… 


My response:

So much for “Silk Road White nationalism” as an anti=Jewish alliance; indeed, the opposite is the case, the Silkers – some of whom admit to being deep state workers – actively promote Chinese-Jewish aggressive interests.

I will agree with this author that driving a wedge between some Chinese people and the Jewish-Silker alliance is a good thing, so please continue your good work.

To use their own crude and vulgar language – do the Silkers “suck Jewish cock?”