Category: ethnonationalism

A Good Podcast: 11/14/17

Transatlantic Pact.

Listen here. The best podcast of the Alt Right continues to create good material – it is not necessary to have podcasts that consist of Beavis-and-Butthead style sniggering, or cunning parasites thanking their deluded hosts (“donors”) for handing over their hard-earned shekels.

Good discussion about “Whiteness” and the balance between pan-Europeanism and nationalism. The idea that individual European ethnies cannot survive on their own, good point, and one I’ve made many times.

Perhaps normal Europeans are not contemplating war with each other, but crazed ethnonationalists sure do, with their advocacy of intra-European “ethnic cleansing.”

Advertisements

Transatlantic Pact Number Two

More (rare) mature Alt Right discussion.

Another good Transatlantic Pact podcast.

First, I note that Spencer sounds a lot better when he is on a more serious podcast like this, as opposed to the more American Alt Right Beavis-and-Butthead podcasts.  This supports my contention that Spencer would be much better off, and more influential, if he’d jettison the worst, most juvenile, aspects of the American Alt Right.

So, yes, let’s talk about the conditions of the Alt Right and the “optics”- “tough love” and “take your medicine.”  So, when is the Alt Right going to take seriously concerns of activists like myself? None of these guys want to engage with our ideas, with the previous generation of activists and the experiences those people have had and the wisdom (if I may use that word) accumulated from such (bitter) experiences.  Some of us could have warned you about Jorjani, for example, saving you a lot of time and trouble (and really bad optics).  Related to that, it would be helpful for the Far Right to have input from people with a genuine scientific background; in that way, perhaps you guys wouldn’t have been bamboozled by Jorjani’s ramblings, and you also wouldn’t get taken in by HBD pseudoscientific flim-flam.

On the positive side, in this podcast, Spencer makes an excellent defense of the general pan-European concept, and the need to eschew stupid, petty nationalism, as promoted by unhinged ethnonationalists.  So, I fundamentally support Spencer in the memetic struggle between Pan-Europeanism (a position I have been promoting for twenty years) and narrow ethnonationalism.

I’d like to point out that there is a difference between national socialism and “Nazism.”  The first is a political philosophy, a way of organizing society; the second is a historical manifestation of national socialism reflecting hyper-divisive German ethnonationalism.  True, many “movement” Nutzis really are Germanocentric Nazis, but’s let’s not confuse national socialism – which could be for the Poles as well as for the Germans or for any other Europeans – with Nazism.

Racial nationalists wanting to have conferences in Europe do need to rethink their strategies, agreed. I’m not sure how to proceed, not exactly knowing the situation on the ground in Europe, so I’m not going to give empty advice.  If I come up with any ideas in the future I’ll post it. 

The American government banning Andrew Joyce: that’s Donald J. Trump as the head of the government. Isn’t that ultimately true?

Spencer’s comments on Ramzpaul – agreed.  Spencer’s comments on swastika flags – agreed again.  “First, do no harm” – good sense. Racial activism needs to avoid both extremes of “purity spiraling” – agreed as well.  Vanguardism important – yes. Avoiding Manichean extremes, yes again. Avoiding past, expired memes – yes.

I’d like to make one minor point.  While swastika flags genuinely have nothing to do with America, uniforms and “Roman salutes” certainly do.  What about the Silver Shirts? What about the fact the military and para-military units throughout history – including American history – have always worn uniforms?  And I’ve been told by older relatives that schoolchildren used to salute the American flag with a “Roman salute” – and that this practice faded away during/after WWII (for obvious reasons).  So, I’ll agree that in public rallies, such salutes (for now) should be avoided, but there is nothing inherently wrong or “un-American” about the “Roman salute” – and there’s nothing wrong with such in private and, eventually, in public as well.

And how does one classify chants of “blood and soil?”  

And if one really wants to (1) be a revolutionary vanguard and (2) at the same time reaching out to Whites in general, perhaps you need to rethink the whole Beavis-and-Butthead White nationalism model, and also let the moronic “Pepe-Kek” nonsense fade away.

Rasse und Der Movement in Der News

Odds and ends.

This podcast was a lot better than the usual Alt Right material, reasonably professional and lacking in juvenile jackassery.  That’s probably because it is a European (Swedish) production, cohosted by an American (newly minted) lawyer.  Hopefully, this quality will continue.

When reading this, keep in mind that the “federal government” these days means Donald J. Trump. Dem dere refugees keep on coming though, don’t they? Of, we’ll be told that his “travel ban” is getting blocked.  Well, how about keeping the damn “refugees” in some sort of prison or concentration camp, instead of dumping them onto the good people of Tennessee?

But, but, but…I thought we were all exactly the same?  Emphasis added:

Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is used to diagnose type 2 diabetes (T2D) and assess glycemic control in patients with diabetes. Previous genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 18 HbA1c-associated genetic variants. These variants proved to be classifiable by their likely biological action as erythrocytic (also associated with erythrocyte traits) or glycemic (associated with other glucose-related traits). In this study, we tested the hypotheses that, in a very large scale GWAS, we would identify more genetic variants associated with HbA1c and that HbA1c variants implicated in erythrocytic biology would affect the diagnostic accuracy of HbA1c. We therefore expanded the number of HbA1c-associated loci and tested the effect of genetic risk-scores comprised of erythrocytic or glycemic variants on incident diabetes prediction and on prevalent diabetes screening performance. Throughout this multiancestry study, we kept a focus on interancestry differences in HbA1c genetics performance that might influence race-ancestry differences in health outcomes.

Objective, non-political, ethnically disinterested anthropological and genetic analysis at this website, no doubt.

As far as Catalonia goes, my opinion is if they want independence, give it to them, but it’s really an irrelevant issue in the last analysis.  What are they going to do with their vaunted independence and ethnonationalist sovereignty?  Import more alien immigrants and “refugees?”

Alt Fail: 10/12/17

The Alt Fail marches on.

An Alt Right commentator, who has previously distinguished himself by discussing, openly and in writing, his secret desire to cook breakfast for an aging, mannish, middle-aged White woman with a documented history of race-mixing, gives us this advice:

Every night, I make myself a relatively strong drink and lie down on the sofa and watch a movie, or YouTube videos (on non-political subjects). I sometimes drift off to sleep that way. In all honesty, given how dicey things have become as of late, I sometimes look forward to this time more than anything else in the day.
As just noted, drink alcohol. But in moderation. We’ve earned this. And it is extremely useful for relaxation. I never get drunk, but just a moderate amount is enough to relax me and help me put all the madness in perspective. I often wind up laughing about it. Maniacally.

That’s it, my friends, watch movies, drink alcohol (you’ve earned it!), and laugh maniacally.  Then drift off to sleep, where you can have sweet dreams of Ann Coulter (who herself may be dreaming of Dinesh D’Souza and/or Jimmie Walker).  

Ethnonationalist shill Leonard writes:

Although the situation is changing here in Italy, it has been my experience that the Italians are still powerfully rooted in their native cities and regions, and they tend to identify more with these than with their nation. A man born, say, in Florence, will generally speak of himself first a Florentine, second as a Tuscan, and only last and finally as an Italian. This is not generation-dependent; it is almost as true of younger Italians as of older ones. (Interestingly, it is during times of crisis and emergency that a sense of nationalism emerges most clearly in Italy.) I do not doubt the situation is different in other European countries: but the very fact that citizens of various European nations and regions differ in their sense of “rootedness” can indeed be taken as another argument precisely in favor of separatism and local rule.

Where were you born, Leonard?  In Italy? Are you an ethnic Italian? If not, why don’t you follow your separatist, ethnonationalist, and “local rule” convictions, you utter hypocrite, and leave the natives of Italy to sort out their relations with each other without your unwanted input?  And perhaps other ethnonationalists, who are not ethnic Hungarians, can leave Hungary and spare the natives there being exposed to such a violation of the basic ethnonationalist premise.

..if that portion of Europe is really so suicidal, so utterly torn from its better and more natural instincts, that it cannot even rise to defend its own narrow borders when it is given the power to command them as it lists, are we really not better off severing it from ourselves, even as we would a diseased limb?

Well, since virtually all regions of Europe – at least Western Europe – exhibit the same suicidal tendencies, you’d be basically dismembering the whole thing, since there are few healthy tissues left.

A Response To An Incoherent Argument

Answering rambling incoherence.

An Alt Right blog attempts to make arguments about “autochonthous” peoples.  I respond.


Of course some argue that European populations aren’t really indigenous, since Europeans have invaded and colonized one another’s societies for thousands of years. The indigenous people of England, for example, were invaded and colonized by Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and Normans before the present waves of Africans and South Asians. So why should the descendants of Anglo-Saxons or Normans be considered any more “indigenous” than Jamaicans and Pakistanis?
The problem with this argument, of course, is that it still admits that some Europeans are indigenous. Moreover, since all European peoples are descended from the same racial stock, which is indigenous to Europe, when Europeans move from one part of Europe to another, they are not “displacing indigenous populations.” They are the indigenous population, which is merely reshuffling itself.

Of course “indigenous” has already been defined, in a reasonable manner, on my Western Destiny blog. But as I have “nothing useful to say” (as opposed to endlessly repetitive ethnonationalist blather), let’s ignore it, and make arguments of the fungibility of Europeans that (1) essentially refute the entire ethnonationalist argument in Europe, (2) goes way beyond anything a “crazed” pan-Europeanist like myself would say, and (3) if I had actually written anything like that myself, I would have been accuse by the usual suspects of some sort of “Medicist” agenda.


First, it presupposes that mere presence in a territory is morally meaningful. The autochthony argument states that the first inhabitants of a land have a clean title. They did not have to displace anyone else through violence and trickery. Later occupants are illegitimate if they displace the first occupants and usurp their territories.
But if mere first presence in a territory confers rights, then why is this confined to biologically modern humans? Other animals are merely present where they live as well. Didn’t Cro-Magnon man displace the Neanderthal? Didn’t mammals displace the dinosaurs? Aren’t practically all living things illegitimate interlopers in previously occupied ecological niches, until we get back to the original denizens of the primordial soup? But does it make sense to regard the entire history of life on this planet as a ghastly moral offense? So much for evolution, I guess.

What a silly, juvenile, intellectually lazy, and morally obtuse argument.  As humans, with interests as evolved organisms, should we equate our own interests, and the morality of our genetic continuity with that of dinosaurs or the “primordial soup?”  Salter in OGI dismantles the “animal rights” argument from the standpoint of human genetic interests.  And then, inconsistently, after the snide remark “So much for evolution, I guess,” we get a cartoonish misunderstanding of natural selection:

A Darwinist, of course, would argue that one organism can displace another only by being better adapted for survival. Thus evolution is a process of improvement…

Improvement?  First, a “Darwinist” is not “arguing” anything.  A “Darwinist” supports a theory that is bolstered by many decades of observation and experiment. Organisms do replace each other, and that replacement is itself “being better adapted for survival” – the “being better adapted” is not the “mechanism” of replacement, better said the other way around.  Second, there needs not be value-implied terms like “improvement” used.  “Better adapted” is with respect to a particular environment at a given time.  The environment can be altered virtually instantly (e.g., volcanic eruption, fire, a bulldozer passing through), after which the “improvement” can become a “hindrance.”

…rather than a fall from an original state of innocence. 

Oh, that Golden Age!  We are now in the Age of Iron!  Kali Yuga!  Savitri Devi!  The men who can’t tell time!  That’s the reality, and don’t you forget it!

Social Darwinists argue that the conquest of the dark races by whites is evolution in action. And, if the darker races are now turning the table and conquering whites, that too is evolution in action. For Darwinists, success in the struggle for power is by definition the best outcome, no matter who ends up on top.

Stop confusing “Darwinists” – people who support a scientific theory that is backed by impressive data – and “Social Darwinists” – meme promoters who commit the naturalistic fallacy.

The autochthony argument holds, in essence, that the first organism on the scene is in the right, and all who follow are illegitimate interlopers. The Darwinist would argue that the last organism on the scene is in the right, simply because it is successful, and that all that came before have no legitimate claims, simply because they failed. Both arguments are equally morally absurd, because there is more to right than just being present at the beginning or the end of a struggle for power.

And what are these other moral rights?  More laziness.


Second, the autochthony argument does not distinguish between occupying and appropriating territory. Just being on a piece of land does not necessarily make it one’s own. To appropriate land, one has to do something. One has to make something of it, and in doing so, one takes responsibility for it.

The non-White invaders into White lands today will claim they are making something of the land, and taking responsibility for it.


Third, the autochthony argument also ignores the distinction between nomadism and settled occupancy. Often times, the first people were merely passing through. Nomads don’t own land, they merely inhabit it, as do the buffalo. They do little to it, and they take little or no responsibility for it. Nomads are less tied to a piece of ground than settled people, and nomads can share the use of the same region, whereas settled ways of life require exclusive ownership. This is not to say that nomads have no interests and rights that more settled people need to respect. But to own land, is it sufficient merely to be on it, or does one have to do something with it—i.e., to improve it and take responsibility for it?

From the standpoint of genetic interests, that’s not relevant.  One could argue that settled peoples increase carrying capacity more than nomads, but that’s not a moral argument per se.

Fourth, the autochthony argument overlooks the fact that if one owns land, one can therefore disown it. If indigenous peoples actually own their homelands, then they can alienate them to newcomers. For instance, not all North American natives were dispossessed through wars of aggression. Many natives began by selling some of their lands to newcomers, and only later did conflicts arise. Moreover, American Indians were sometimes dispossessed after losing wars they had started. There is a huge moral difference between stealing land outright and securing one’s own people by dispossessing and banishing aggressive and implacable enemies. Sometimes indigenous peoples lose their lands fair and square.

Well then, can’t the same be said of Western peoples today?  They elect politicians that promote the dispossession of their own people.  Wasn’t Merkel re-elected? They rally to “welcome refugees.”  They sit and do nothing as they and their posterity lose control of the lands won, in one manner of another, by their forebears.

Fifth, the autochthony argument presupposes that legitimate ownership derives solely from the past (first occupancy) rather than from the future (what one is likely to do with it). For instance, even if the American Indians were the first people on this continent, they weren’t doing much with it.

So, rights to land depend upon what someone else thinks about what you’ve done with it?  Is this the Greg Johnson Law of Historical Eminent Domain?  Hey, maybe Muslims don’t think that European infidels are doing much with their territory, being unbelievers who do not follow the Koran.  Therefore, they should be disposessed.  Why not?  Maybe the Chinese think they can develop Vancouver better than the White natives.  Yellow replaces White.  Why not?  Who decides?

It strikes me as a moralistic absurdity to declare that the farms, factories, highways, power plants, towns and cities of America, plus all of the cultural and technological achievements of Americans, from bluegrass music to the space program, are somehow illegitimate because there was a thin population of Stone Age people on the continent when our ancestors first arrived.

There’s a difference between declaring those things “illegitimate” and declaring that the fundamental genetic interests of Native Americans were harmed, in an irreversible and existential manner, by White colonization of America.


Even if we grant that first occupancy confers rights, doesn’t later use also confer rights? And what is more important: how our people acquired our homelands or what we made of them? Given that the first occupants of all lands are primitives, whereas later occupants are usually more socially and technologically advanced, doesn’t the autochthony argument contain a built-in bias against civilization, progress, and the races that can produce and sustain them? Why should whites, of all peoples, accept such a stacked moral deck? Encounters between radically different peoples almost always end up badly. But at least if one creates something great, the suffering and strife need not be in vain.

Some would think that a Eurabian Ummah is something great to be created out of the “suffering and strife” of European dispossession.  Who judges?  What value system is used and why?


Sixth, the autochthony argument is usually offered in bad faith, as part of a swindle. In the United States, for instance, American Indians who did not suffer from the acts of white colonists in centuries past, demand apologies and favors from whites (including recent immigrants), who never did anything to harm an Indian.
The last thing these Indians want is for whites to take their guilt trip so seriously that they erase the wealth they created and leave the continent as their ancestors found it. Instead, Indians wish to increase their share in the bounty of white civilization through moral blackmail, which just happens to impeach the legitimacy of that civilization’s very foundations. The Indians are untroubled by the moral contradictions of their position, but their aim is not justice but unearned wealth.

That may well describe the “Indians” of today – many of whom are part-White and even mostly-White hybrids. But I imagine that the pure-blooded Indians fighting dispossession in the 19th century would have been satisfied just to have their old ways back, their continent back, and see the “pale faces” long gone.


In truth, indigenous peoples who present themselves as “historical” victims aren’t victims at all. 

Even Salter in his writings spoke of the dispossession of Native Americans and that the wealth brought by Europeans doesn’t compensate for the loss of an entire continent (!) for the exclusive use of the expansion of your progeny.  What kind of absolute nonsense denies genuine victimhood to peoples deprived of carrying capacity land?  I guess we can just turn around and say that “diversity” and “the economic benefits of youthful immigrants to Europe” means that dispossession of the original peoples of that continent is justified and Europeans are not victims?

I do not argue Whites need to feel guilty or give the land back.  But they should not dismiss legitimate claims of victimhood either. Native American dispossession happened.  From their perspective, it was a world historical calamity.  Why belittle that reality?


For instance, there is every reason to reverse the recent colonization of Europe and European diaspora societies by non-whites. There is every reason to reverse Chinese colonization of Tibet. In every case, the colonists have homelands to which they can return. 

Native Americans would argue that Whites can return to a Europe in which non-White colonization has been reversed.

…we can create an ethnonationalist world order…

I veto your dream.


Addendum: 


In another post by the same author at the same blog, we observe the usual ethnonationalist hypocrisy and incoherence.  A few brief excerpts:


For visitors and temporary residents, white and non-white alike, as well as for white minority groups living within their borders, ethnonationalists do not want or encourage assimilation. 


Alright, but then:


Immigration between white societies should be minimized. Practically all cases would be due to marriage.


Let’s have an “out” for certain ethnonationalist ethnic imperialists who live in other people’s nations and take the women of these other people.

Expatriates from other white nations should be allowed, in limited numbers, as long as they respect the dominant culture and the natives need not interact with them.


This allows ethnic imperialists from certain European ethnies to colonize the “warm clines” of other European ethnies.  Of course, respecting “the dominant culture” includes Deasy disrespecting Bulgarians after visiting Bulgaria, and Leonard promoting intra-Italian separatism while living in Italy.


In addition, are members of that blog, who are not ethnic Hungarians, living in Hungary not interacting with any natives?


However, once whites feel that we have a future again, we will be able to take the risk of accepting less than fully homogeneous societies…


Let’s go through all the trouble of over-throwing the System just so we eventually can start the same problems all over again.

Der Movement, Ethnonationalism, Etc.

Der Movement.

That’s good.  Unfortunately, the same for the American Alt Right would consist of: Pepe! Hail Kek! Trump is god!  Boomers such (except Trump)!

Hey, Steverino: I thought the impossibility of knowing “what is White” will ever prevent White nationalism from every being successful?

How come you know these guys are “white” now?

Or does “white” become questionable only when it comes time for Unzian handouts?

And this Nobel Prize harken back to the time when research in America was performed by Americans, not by Chinese and Indians, overseen by their own nepotistic ethnics or by grasping Jews.

At an Alt Right blog, someone using the surname “Leonard” and claiming to live in Sardinia, champions ethnonationalism and the alleged separatist desires of Sardinians.  

I wonder though if this “Leonard” is himself an ethnic Sardinian?  Or even an ethnic Italian?  If not, perhaps, in the name of Holy Ethnonationalism, he can get the hell out of Sardinia, out of Italy, and let the natives sort out their own problems?  I also like the strawman characterizations of pan-Europeanism, par for the course for an intellectually lazy website that takes positions on important topics merely out of spite.  I’m a pan-Europeanist, and my take on Catalonia is if they want their independence, let them have it.  However, one wonders what they’ll do with it?  Import more refugees and enjoy more terrorist attacks on the streets of Barcelona? But, hey. I support their independence.  Sardinia as well, Padania, Flanders, Scotland, Basques what have you.  But all these nations are going to need, eventually, to be confederated into some European structure.  The Chinese – all 1.3+ billion of them – could care less about the ethnonationalist wants or needs of European micro-states.  Eventually, they – and the entire world of color, including Jews – are the enemy, not other Europeans.  Ethnonationalist idiots, the ones that have made the cities, fields, trenches, and beaches of Europe run red with the blood of our people, may learn that one day.

Right now, they tell us that balkanization is good: breaking up Europe into ever smaller and weaker micro-states, so the continent becomes a conglomeration of squabbling, mutually hostile postage stamp sized “ethnostates” hostile to their neighbors, and ready to team up with another state – temporarily of course – to “ethnically cleanse” their neighbor if some problems arise.  Ethnonationalism – gotta love it!


And let’s not forget what Saint Francis said in Imperium about those who want to divide Europe against itself: the culture retarders, the Michel element, the traitor within the gates, the enemy of Europe.


In any case, the lack of self-awareness of these hypocrites is amazing.  Are you a proponent of ethnonationalism?  Yes, very good.  Are you Sardinian?  If not, out of Sardinian, please, and don’t pontificate about Sardinian separatism.  It’s not your business.  And if you are not Bulgarian, Mr. Deasy, please refrain from visiting there (invited or not) and spare yourself the trauma of exposing yourself to all those “different” faces.  Of is ethnonationalism a euphemism for ethnic imperialism?  Members of certain ethnic groups apparently believe that nationalism, sovereignty, and homogeneity for their own ethnic group is imperative, while they live in other people’s nations, and dictate to these other peoples how they should run their lives. 

Badmouthing Balkanoids

An obnoxious guest.

Some specimen who uses the surname “Deasy” writes on a certain Alt Right blog about visiting Bulgaria. Among the smug air of superiority he affects, one finds the following paragraph:

The faces of most of the people took getting used to. This was an important lesson in ethnonationalism: Southeastern Europe would not mix well with Sweden, England or France. It isn’t clear to me that expelling the Gypsies and other nonwhite populations from Bulgaria would drastically reduce poverty the way it would in the US or Western Europe. Bulgarians are a different kind of people, with a different kind of multicultural problem. Their birth rate is low, not unlike Germany or Korea. The Gypsy population meanwhile is booming.

Let’s consider this.

The faces of most of the people took getting used to.

Gee, that must have been terrible for you.  Tell you what, next time, decline to visit nations outside of your comfort zone and spare yourself this obvious trauma.

This was an important lesson in ethnonationalism:

If you are an ethnonationalist, and not an ethnic Bulgarian, probably you should have declined the invitation to visit there; it’s not “your people” after all.


Southeastern Europe would not mix well with Sweden, England or France.

Good thing one can walk around, say, Stockholm, London, or Paris and not see a single non-native face.  By the way, did any of your Bulgarian buddies profess to believe that their countrymen should live in Sweden, England or France?  And what do they think of British retirees buying up prime real estate in Bulgaria?

It isn’t clear to me that expelling the Gypsies and other nonwhite populations from Bulgaria would drastically reduce poverty the way it would in the US or Western Europe.

Translation: Bulgarians are dumb, inferior Swarthoids, themselves responsible for their own poverty.  Forty plus years of Stalinist communism had nothing to do with ruining the country and its people.  On the other hand, the poverty of, say, North Korea or rural China is 100% the result of communism.  After all, they have high, high, high test scores, and test scores from North Korea and China are as pure and untainted from government manipulation as freshly laid snow.

Bulgarians are a different kind of people, with a different kind of multicultural problem.

They’re terrible, terrible, I tell you, and they look all weird and all.


Their birth rate is low, not unlike Germany or Korea. The Gypsy population meanwhile is booming.

No problem.  Just get rid of the gypsies and repopulate the country with some nice high-IQ Jews and Chinamen.

The bottom-line: all people – including all those worthless Balkanoids! – have interests in their own genetic continuity, despite what condescending ethnonationalists like Deasy, or anyone else, thinks about them.