Category: Durocher

Ignorant Buffoon Jr

Touchback Jr. 

I essentially agree with Spencer’s analysis.  Did Jr do anything illegal?  I don’t see it. Treason?  Absurd (*).  On the other hand, let’s not let him off the hook that easily.

The bottom line is that Trump Jr is as stupid and politically clumsy as his father. Do you go personally to this meeting?  Ever hear of plausible deniability?  How about using cut-outs? Or…whatever – if you are the son of a Presidential candidate who is vehemently opposed by the media and the entire Establishment, you had better at least superficially keep up appearances. Let others, several layers removed, do the “dirty work.”  It doesn’t matter that he did nothing wrong; in politics, appearance means as much (or more) than reality. Come on, Donnie Jr was on Celebrity Apprentice with dear old dad, doesn’t he know the power of appearance?

One thing Spencer could have mentioned – of all of Trump’s children, Don Jr seems the most right-wing and the most in tune with an at least Alt Lite right-wing populism, another reason to be targeted by the Deep State.

A side note: I’m certainly no phenotypist, but on the other hand, unlike what some of my detractors believe, I certainly do acknowledge the importance of racial phenotype (it just has to take a back seat to the genotype). This “Russian lawyer” – is she actually an ethnic Russian?  She looks like she could be ¼ or even ½ Chinese.  Raciology alert!  Maybe – hopefully – she is a non-Russian “Russian citizen.”

When all is said and done, Trump is an embarrassment.  Relevance to EGI? Thanks to the Alt Right, Trump’s civic nationalist phony right-wing populism has been connected in the public mind with Der Movement, so, like it or not, the outcome of the Trump Presidency will, in some manner, influence the direction of American activism.  Hopefully, we can all survive the damage being done by this lumbering buffoon.

In all honesty, the “crazy and bitter” Ted Sallis could do a better job as President.  Sallis in 2020!  Who should be my VP choice – Durocher or Silver?

*In the early 19th century, the US government was unable to convict Aaron Burr of treason, despite Burr’s plans (and activities) in attempting to establish an empire out of the USA’s western territories and Mexico (both to be seized by force).  Now, in the early 21st century, we are told that Don Jr’s meeting with Suzie Chopsticks to get “dirt” on Hillary Clinton (certainly low-hanging fruit if there ever was) is “treason.”  Yeah…who was levying war against the United States?  Who are the two witnesses to Don Jr levying war or assisting in such levying?  As Spencer points out, the USA and Russia are not at war.

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.

Fool’s Gold: Netherlands Conference and Misunderstanding Epigenetics

“Movement” stupidity.

Yes, a bunch of HBD/race realists and a “greed is good” “National Capitalist” bodybuilder whose YouTube channel tells us:

This is a channel dedicated to how glorious and magnificent I am.

Sharing some of my divine wisdom when it comes to obtaining an ultimate physique worthy of the Gods!

Yes, the new golden age is just around the corner!

Consider this moronic comment left by a fact-devoid gamester commentator:

Consider two factoids, in lieu of long, drawn out arguments:

1. An organism’s form: tissues, organs, systems – the whole architecture – is epigenetic (meaning beyond DNA). The difference in size and shape of a tulip and a blue whale has nothing to do with DNA and is wholly epigenetic. (Thus, you can have identical twins with the same DNA – one born with birth defects w/o any arms for ex., while the other can have a full body and be a pro athlete.)

2. Fascinating studies have been conducted in embryos whereby the DNA is extracted before first cell division. According to the “DNA is king” crowd, the organism should be absolutely dead right there. It’s not. The embryos can continue developing for hundreds of cell division, even forming early-stage tissues, before eventually it does die off.

1. This is completely and absolutely wrong, another example of the solipsism in Der Movement: just stating something makes it true, don’t you know. 

“Factoid” – Epigenetics modifies the expression of the genetic information encoded in the DNA, it does not replace it.

The identical twins example; such an occurrence would be exceedingly rare even if theoretically possible. It’s theoretically possible that epigenetic modifications of genes that control bodily development could cause birth defects (but why pray tell would it affect one identical twin in utero and not the other given they are in exactly the same environment?). So what? Maybe you’d get one in a million blue whales born without a flipper because of an epigenetic modification due to ocean pollution, but you sure as hell am not going to get a blue whale that looks like a mouse…or a tulip. DNA is the main player; epigenetics is the sideshow. 

Anyone with at least a room temperature IQ would realize that epigenetic modifications are modifications of DNA and of the RNA produced by the DNA; it’s not “beyond DNA” you rambling idiot but OF DNA.  Epigenetics is modifying the expression of genes encoded by DNA sequences, it is not some mysterious force floating around independent of those same genes. And what does the epigenetic modifications?  Acetylases, deacetylases, methyltransferases – enzymes that, like all other proteins, are encoded by…DNA sequences.

6/11/17 Notes

Some notes.

As I’m planning to begin tackling Heidegger’s Being and Time over the next several months, I found this interesting:

But if the change we desire is already on the way, does this mean that we can simply sit back and let history do our job for us? No, because some of us are not just called to dissent, we are called to fight. But we go forth into battle with the assurance that the change we fight for is already in some sense real, and it is coming to meet us.

I agree with that assessment…or sentiment.

I have some concerns here about this:

In Year Seven, John Morgan of Arktos Media came to work with me full time at Counter-Currents.

…but everyone does their own thing; I have no say on how Counter-Currents is run, so good luck with all of that. Of course, the “back story” there may inform the recent flare-up of the Johnson-Spencer-Friberg/Arktos feud, but what do I know?

Here is an interesting Durocher piece.

Note that as regards bison, phenotype/morphology/phenotype is not enough – the actual genome matters.  Durocher seems to support that view.  Very well.  Sound familiar?  I’ve been preaching the priority of genotype over phenotype nearly my entire time online and writing for racialist journals.  It is of course common sense and biologically reasonable and consistent with adaptive fitness.  Of course, when I do it, I’m labelled “crazy “and with an agenda.  Perhaps Durocher will have better luck- the fact that he specifically mentions Northern Europeans may make his comments more palatable to a “movement” that sees no difference whatsoever between Southern Europeans and Africans, or Eastern Europeans and Asians.

Race in Der News, 1/17/17

The usual stupidities,
Ironically enough, one of the pictures accompanying this article shows invaders easily going under Orban’s pathetic chicken-wire fence.  If we know it’s happening, doesn’t Saint Viktor know?  And, so…?
Yes, and if Harry mates with mongrel Markle, so much for the “Nordic physical type.”  Are English patriots fed up with the “royal family” yet?  Of course, these “royals” already have a quite interesting bloodline. Nevertheless, the vast majority of their ancestry is European, and the vast majority of that is Anglo-Germanic; if they were to continue to intermarry with the native English stock, any Afro-Asiatic traces would be diluted out. Unfortunately, Harry, who seems to have inherited race-mixing proclivities from his mother, is currently intent on reinforcing, rather than diluting, such admixture.
Thus comes the ultimate peril of the China to all nations on earth and especially the White race whom China knows it must defeat and subdue, and if necessary, eliminate to achieve its ambitions, without mentioning the fact that China’s major ally and enabler, the international Jewry also shares this objective.
In a summary, in years China has morphed into a hybrid monster combining the worst and most sinister elements and vices of the traditional and modern China sifted and forged to survive and linger to this day: selfishness, ruthlessness, apathy, cruelty, bully, deceit, egotism, mendacity, jealousy, vindictiveness, amorality, duplicity, abusiveness, aggressiveness, vileness, violence and treachery… It is high time for the White people to wake up and stare at the dire reality of the Chinese question squarely and start thinking about countermeasures as soon as possible.
Jews and China.  Of course, the Silk Roaders claim that anyone – even virulent anti-Semites! – who does not grovel to Asians is either Jewish or is a pro-Jew who “sucks Jewish cock” (exact quote).
AJ: To what extent, if any, do you see yourself as White, or a part of Western culture?
RJ: I do not consider Jews to be white, even Ashkenazis. We have a fundamentally different identity, despite some of us having European blood.

Fair is Fair, 12/16/16

Celebrating some reasonableness.

I have been critical of Durocher in the past (and will no doubt be so in the future), but one must be fair, and I see nothing at all wrong with this – actually, I would strongly endorse most of it.  It is of course interesting that he chooses Radix – the site of Richard “Big Europe” Spencer – to promote this very pan-European vision, but never mind.

Of course, there are some commentators who are unable to distinguish a confederation of autonomous states from a “Roman Empire,” but then extreme ethnonationalists have never been a very impressive lot.  Who says Bavaria can’t have its own local autonomy?  The point is, without Europe, Bavaria is virtually meaningless on the world stage. Rest assured, China cares not one bit about the bucolic charms of various European locales (even though they may want to copy them in a bizarre fashion to make a buck), and would not hesitate to move against atomized micro-states.  And if “the people just want to be left alone” then why don’t they vote that way?  To start with, the Germans, including all those wanna-be autonomous Bavarians, can stop voting for Merkel and start voting for Alternative for Germany (putting aside why they never supported the NPD).

Further, not only has Durocher written a reasonable post, Silver has written reasonable comments to that post.  What’s the world coming to?  Anyway, fair is fair, I must encourage reasonableness as well as discourage unreasonableness.  I’m still very wary and suspicious, however.

In any case, I don’t see why a person cannot be, at the same time, a Bavarian and a German and a European.  Where’s the problem with that?

Strom and Johnson

Some comments.

Kevin Strom is one of the few people on the far-Right who talk sense about Trump.

Greg Johnson is another.  While I usually agree with him on most things, a serious point of departure is described in this brief fisking.

When I speak of White Nationalism, I mean ethnic nationalism for every particular white ethnic group — Italians, French, Americans, Canadians, etc. — not some sort of European Imperium and melting pot, an idea which is revolting on the face of it, since it replicates all of the problems of globalization merely on a smaller scale…

Some problems, perhaps, but then the nation state can have the same problems as well. Greg is talking to Italians there.  Very well.  There are separatists in Italy who feel that the Italian state smothers their identity as does globalism, and the Flemish in Belgium feel similarly and there are other such examples.  Well, fine, let them separate.  Very good.  And how does a micro-state of Flanders or Padania or Catalonia or whatever make its way in a world with a clash of civilizations and with single nations (e.g., China and India) which contain hundreds of millions more people than all the Whites on Earth combined?  An alliance of White states perhaps?  A European Imperium that preserves a degree of internal sovereignty and certainly prevents internal migration flows, but puts up a common front for defense, space exploration and other science/technics, and various cultural projects? What’s wrong with that?  Even Durocher I believe endorsed that at one time or another.  Or do we try and have nations of several million trying to have relevance in a world with nations of over a billion?

…and which could never be realized without the fratricidal European wars…

Brought to us by ethnonationalism, which wrecked the White race with its internal feuds.

 …it is supposed to prevent. 

Why can’t the Imperium be voluntary, a confederation of nationalists?

If advocates of a white Imperium want to prove that it is more than a pipe dream, they can demonstrate this by first putting Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia back together.

Why should they?  Serbia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia can all be independent members of an Imperium that respects internal differences, as Yockey and Lowell have proposed.

If they can manage that, I will take them seriously.

I will take ethnonationalists seriously if they accept responsibility for two world wars that wrecked the White world and if they can explain why China should take Flanders seriously.