Odds and Ends, 11/4/22

In der news.

IMPORTANT! The other shoe drops and Amren defends anti-KMacD (presumably Jewish) “race realist” Nathan Cofnas.

Well, well, well…Is MacDonald going to be as aggressive pushing back against this as he was with that swarthoid spokesman for Southern Italian interests Sallis? Or will the High Truster good old boys network win out?  Let’s all emerge from our hobbit holes and observe.

I do not let personal feelings interfere with business, so in the MacDonald-Cofnas debate, I support MacDonald 100%. What about you, “Hood?”

Answer the question.

I also like how “Hood” pretends that the MacDonald-Cofnas dust-up is in the best scholarly traditions of the West, as if it has been akin to a bunch of English gentlemen sitting in a nobleman’s study smoking pipes and discussing the finer points of natural philosophy.

In reality, the posts, comments, and tweets, particularly those involving or about Joyce, have reached almost Sallisian levels of disdain.

As stated, I support MacDonald in his debate with Cofnas. The Cofnas argument, as I understand it, is that Jews are not inherently anti-White, anti-Western, and subversive, but that because of their high IQ and accomplishment, they will be (more or less) equally over-represented in any entity that is not explicitly anti-Semitic.

Let’s look at American mainstream politics. The Republicans are not anti-Semitic, they are strongly pro-Israel, and in domestic politics they hold positions – lower taxes, pro-business, against affirmative action – that would seem to favor high-achieving, successful groups like the Jews.

The Democrats in contrast have anti-Semitic Colored elements, are not as strongly pro-Israel as are the Republicans (and some of those aforementioned Colored elements support the Palestinian cause), and support a domestic agenda harmful to high-achieving groups (essentially the opposite of what is listed above for the Republicans).

And yet, Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and are more over-represented among Democratic and/or Democrat-associated leaders (e.g., Sanders, Schumer, and many others) and are more over-represented among Democrat donors.

By an interesting “coincidence” Democrats represent that political party that is most overtly anti-White, hostile to White interests, and alienated from traditional White America.  

And the same pattern holds throughout society in a variety of sociopolitical entities.

A similar argument holds with respect to Asian hatred of Whites.  Objectively, the GOP would seem more in tune with Asian interests (apart perhaps from that more Asian immigration may occur with Democrats).  But as American politics have become more racialized, and the Democrats more anti-White (and Republicans more associated with mainstream White America), Asians have drifted more toward the Democrats.

Another problem with the Cofnas argument is that when Jews do get involved with the Right, they typically do so in a subversive, destructive manner. For example, on the Mainstream Right we see the infection of Neoconservatism; on the Far Right, the HBD cult.  Further, with respect to the Far Right, consider all of the problems of Amren with Jews, including but not limited to the 2006 conference fiasco and its aftermath, Hart proposing a multiracial “White separatist state” (!!!), and Weissberg’s promotion of a “racial status quo” that accepts multiculturalism, affirmative action, etc.  I think we can do without such Jewish “contributions,” and if this is typical of what Cofnas presents as Jewish over-representation on the Right then it supports, rather than refutes, MacDonald’s work on the Jews.

See this.

…Meloni accused sea rescue charities of breaching international law by acting as a “shuttle” between Africa and Europe.

She insisted that the flag nations of the charity ships in question – Germany and Norway – should take care of the migrants currently stranded at sea, rather than Italy or Malta.

Two points. First, the lesser point – this is the first test for Meloni. Second, more importantly, this is yet another example of Germanic High Truster racial warfare against Southern Europe. Isn’t it interesting that the same folks who falsely accuse Southern Europeans of being “racially mixed” are doing everything in their power to make that fantasy into reality?

This has been going on for YEARS. And weak, supine, feckless swarthoids do nothing. How about they sink the goddamned boats or take the migrants and parachute them into Germany and Norway? Goddamned jellyfish dagoes are part of the problem too. The spotlight is now on the wop. If a “Far Right” government cannot resist these Afro-Germanic migrant racial attacks, then the Eyetalian will be proven to be an inferior species before the verdict of history. Your move, Ms. Meloni. Obviously, the High Trusters are testing you. Indeed, if the Italians had any “balls” then they would mobilize their military – not against the migrants but against Germany and Norway.

On the other side of the equation, the verdict of history is already in on the High Trusters, who have forever forfeited the right to have the leading role in any European New Order. Put the Hi

McCulloch Partially Addresses the Johnson Question

Let’s take a look.

Readers of this blog know I admit when I’m wrong. So, my previous characterization of McCulloch as dishonest and/or incompetent, re: Johnson’s embrace of multiracialism, was wrong (assuming that the second part of his essay was written in its present form before my post of earlier today). If that assumption is correct, then I do apologize for “jumping the gun” so to speak, and this is a lesson to wait for the entirety of a work to be published before commenting. 

That said, my criticism of McCulloch’s lack of understanding of population genetics methodology and interpretation still stands, and, as we shall see, he ends his essay in such a way as to mostly invalidate what good he does in critiquing Johnson.

Here’s some of McCulloch’s criticism of Johnson:

This is where Johnson seems to falter and backstep on the program he advocates elsewhere. That is, he accepts “multiculturalism” (by which he means multiracialism, the real object of our concern, because without multiracialism there would not be enough multiculturalism to be concerned about) in a reduced degree with pro-White modifications to make it work better for Whites. He thus adopts a Fabian or “creeping” approach to eventually achieve an ethnostate. This is supposedly to minimize the difficulties and opposition entailed by a complete and more abrupt racial separation. In the previous essays in this volume Johnson has built a strong case for complete racial separation to attain his elsewhere expressed desire for what he calls “a nice white country,” as he did in his previous manifesto. However, in “Uppity White Folks” he materially deviates from that position.

Yet to gain their support Johnson proposes to accommodate their current ill-informed and misinformed racial, political and moral beliefs and values, however false and harmful they may be, by abandoning preservationally-sufficient 100% White nationalism in favor of preservationally-insufficient 90% White nationalism.

What would be the final goal, the final numbers or proportions of Johnson’s proposed solution, or how much would the non-White population have to be decreased to reach the solution? He addresses that question in the sub-section titled “Ninety-Percent White Nationalism.”

If an American identitarian movement were to propose reversing the demographic decline of white America, they would need a target number. If the public is not yet ready for homogeneously white ethnostates, that target number must be somewhere under 100%. As an American, I would choose 90%.

As for the ethnic breakdown of the non-white percentage, … I would … make it clear that it could contain representatives of all currently existing non-white groups. This is important to reduce opposition.

[M]any whites who are ready for some form of white identity politics will not accept it unless you leave some room for “based” minority outliers, mail-order brides, indigenous minorities, hard-luck groups like refugees and the descendants of slaves, and the purveyors of their favorite ethnic cuisines. (pp. 142–143)

Including non-Whites in our country because they purvey some Whites’ favorite ethnic cuisines? Johnson has elsewhere dismissed this objection to racial separation as petty compared with the White interests involved. Indeed, it is on a par with such objections as “who will pick up the trash” or “who will cut the grass.” Why is he now not just taking it seriously but actually accommodating it?…

…Here Johnson returns to his position in the first 136 pages, and again uses multiculturalism as a euphemism for multiracialism, as references to “white majority” and “suicide” make sense in the context of race but not of culture. But isn’t the idea of 90% White Nationalism nothing more than Whites being gaslighted into an even longer and more drawn-out suicide, and distracted from non-suicidal alternatives?..

…If we allow that Johnson’s target of 90% White Nationalism is achievable, whether desirable or not, the question then is how would it be maintained, or is it even realistic to assume it could be maintained, other than by a permanent continuation of the draconian measures which would probably be required to attain it.

OK, so far so good. Once again, if that was written before my earlier post – mea culpa, I was wrong. Now, here is where it goes “off the rails”- 

Johnson is to be commended for addressing the subject of solutions to our racial problem, something too few do. He might sometimes seem to get ahead of himself and neglect specifics that would clarify his multiple proposals, but this is all to the good as it both stimulates and provokes thoughtful, constructive, and hopefully fruitful discussion of this vitally important matter.

So, Johnson proposes an incoherent and racially destructive plan (and one McCulloch picks apart), but he’s to be “commended for addressing the subject of solutions to our racial problem.”  I recall McCulloch not being so gracious with Dr. Michael Hart; indeed, Hart was (justifiably) sharply chastised by McCulloch and, again if I recall, Hart was accused of an ulterior motive for sabotaging genuine racial preservationism.

The problem is that Hart’s solution wasn’t materially different from Johnson’s in its broad outlines.  Yes, there are differences in detail, but Hart proposed a multiracial, majority White ethnostate, exactly as does Johnson.  Yet, Hart was labelled as some sort of “chess player” plotting moves to negatively affect preservationism, but Johnson is praised and commended. Yes, I suppose Jew Hart’s armenoid phenotype may have offended the racial aesthetic sensibilities of McCulloch, while founding stock American Johnson is suitably “Nordish,” but to attack Hart while commending Johnson seems to me the height of hypocrisy.  

On Jeelvy and Cofnas

Odds and Ends. In all cases, emphasis added

Counter-Currents advocating violence and illegality:

Nicholas R. JeelvyMarch 21, 2021 at 1:50 am

Women, whether they’re wives or daughters, will test your patriarchal resolve until the choice is between abdicating mastery of the house or beating the woman.

You don’t have to enjoy it, but yeah, at some point, beatings may become necessary.

Is it really necessary to point out all of the problems with that, not only on its own merits as an idea, but also with respect to “optics” and the status of a Far Right website in today’s sociopolitical climate? The deeper problem here is not so much Jeelvy’s absolute stupidity and immaturity (already well established) but Johnson’s horrifically poor judgment (I suppose that is also already well established).

I view these comments from Jeelvy to be akin to Derbyshire’s comments about child porn – a line has been crossed, after which anyone who associates themselves with Counter-Currents is tainted by the stink, just like those who continued to associate with VDARE and Derbyshire after the child porn comments were also, in my opinion, similarly tainted.

Comments from Counter-Currents:

OnlookerMarch 21, 2021 at 6:41 pm

Beat women. Marry girls at 14. Women can’t give consent. Are you a satire, a la The Onion, or a chuckling troll? Please tell me you are. Otherwise you are a deeply mentally and emotionally troubled misogynist who needs serious help.

threestarsMarch 22, 2021 at 5:01 am

Jeelvy’s opinions are in the minority, even within our thing. For starters, the average marriage age in Wester [sic] Europe for the last thousand years or so was 25 and 21 respectively for men and women, with a maximum of 26 for gals in 17th cent London. Maybe backward cesspits like Macedonia were different.

threestarsMarch 21, 2021 at 3:19 am

lol

In better times, she’d already have a husband at 14

The average marriage age for men and women in the Western world was 25 and 21 respectively for the last thousand years. So it’s clear where this guy’s coming from.

outclassedMarch 22, 2021 at 9:37 am

It used to be widely known and understood that the 1350’s abuse and beat their women for various reasons including for the reasons you seem to promote in this article. Apparently this type of domestic violence is rampant in the lgbtq community as well.

Advocating to emulate this behavior appears counterintuitive to the continued mandate this site and others of the same ideological compass advance.

We are supposed to be better.

These commentators obviously haven’t figured out yet that Counter-Currents these days is all about maximizing page views and “D”Nations” (after all, “Trevor Lynch” needs your shekels to go to the movies).  If “shock jock” tactics boost page views and get sweaty Fullmoon Ancestry types in their mothers’ basements to send in money, all the better, amirite?

Look guys, it may sound egotistical, but the record shows that Sallis is typically right about most things. If you read this blog you’ll know that I identified Counter-Currents as being in decline (*), and on a Majority Rights-like downward trajectory.  I identified Jeelvy as among the worst writers I’ve ever encountered in Der Movement, and then Fullmoon Ancestry came along who, if anything, is worse. Jim Goad is simply an embarrassing disaster, whose “contributions” are for “shock jock” value only. Counter-Currents is now middlebrow at best. That Johnson wanted to recruit Roissy tells you all you need to know what the long-term strategy is there. Following up on that strategy, Johnson should get over his feuds and recruit some of his Alt Right enemies to do Beavis-and-Butthead Counter-Currents livestreams, alcohol consumption during livestreaming being mandatory; consumption of other substances can be voluntary. 

*I’m talking about quality, its trajectory, and its long-term future. I acknowledge that for now that the “Howard Stern” tactics are boosting page views and donations, but can the site’s quality and seriousness be compared to how it was, say, ten years ago?  Or even five?

Whatever my disagreements with Joyce, and they are significant on certain topics, he is still orders of magnitude superior to the juvenile retards who write for Counter-Currents. Let us consider his Cofnas critiques.

Countering Cofnas, part one.

Countering Cofnas, part two.

Cofnas remarks that “four-out-of-ten invited speakers at the first American Renaissance conference in 1994 were Jewish (Lawrence Auster, Michael Levin, Rabbi Mayer Schiller, and Eugene Valberg) (American Renaissance 2017), and many of its most prominent supporters were Jewish.” He furthermore argues that this is evidence that “Jews have been overrepresented in non-anti-Semitic white nationalist movements.” But the logic here surely breaks down when given even the briefest of considerations. These speakers were not representational, but invited. Their mere presence at the conference reflects in large part the tastes, preferences, and, I would argue, anxieties of the person or persons who invited them. In this regard, I believe it’s been a longstanding position of Jared Taylor that he not be seen as anti-Semitic, and Taylor has himself on many occasions expressed hostility to anti-Semitism. In his own words, Taylor has maintained that “American Renaissance has taken an implicit position on Jews by publishing Jewish authors and inviting Jewish speakers to AR conferences.” Could his selection of these speakers have been an over-compensation to fend off accusations of American Renaissance being anti-Semitic? I believe so… All four figures are primarily concerned with race and IQ, a preoccupation of the almost explicitly philo-Semitic Jared Taylor (and one I personally find both distracting and overplayed in the context of broader civilizational collapse), rather than having ties to broader White nationalist ideology. Schiller was an almost comical inclusion given his lack of academic credentials and attachment to certain crackpot fringe ideologies.

Always remember – HBD “race realism” is a political movement designed to privilege the interests of Jews and Asians over those of Whites.

Cofnas suggests, or implies, that Jews are forced out of pro-White activism merely because they are Jews, because of irrational anti-Semitism, and that Jews are being unjustly accused of sabotaging nationalist efforts. Let’s look at the actually history of the Amren Jews, which include such low points as:

1. Promoting the idea of a multiracial, racially diverse “White separatist state” [sic!] that would include “Asians and others.”

2. Getting into a verbal altercation with David Duke at the 2006 conference, causing chaos and national and international reporting on the incident, after which Amren conferences started having all the problems with cancelled venues, etc.

3. Being involved in sending a pushy and threatening letter to Amren about “anti-Semitism.”

4. Stating that we should all accept the “racial status quo” of anti-White policies, alien immigration, affirmative action, forced integration, etc. because we cannot hope for anything better.

5. Asserting that the White public equates White nationalists with child molesters.

6. Asserting that racial preservation for its own sake (rather than for some phenotypic IQ hierarchy) is “insane.”

7. Asserting (contrary to Yockey and just about every other student of history) that Spain (and I presume Portugal as well) is “not really part of the West,” while, of course. Jews, for endless centuries ghettoized and separate from host European nations, and derived from a non-Western “Magian” High Culture, are, of course, completely Western.

8. I strongly suspect, but have no direct evidence, that the “latrine flies” slur against Amren conference attendees, so enthusiastically promoted by Derbyshire, originated with one of the Amren Jews, but, again, I have no evidence and may be wrong about this one specific point.

And of course, in general, “rightist” Jews, whether associated with Amren or not,  have been prominent promoters of the HBD fraud.

Now, Jew apologists would counter-argue that it is understandable that Jewish “pro-White” activists would reject “anti-Semitic” rhetoric and would oppose Duke, and would insist that Jews are White and should be accepted in any White ethnostate. Very well. Let’s then remove #2 and #3 from the list above. Consider what remains. One example – promoting multiracialism as part of “White separatism!” While it can be understandable if a Jew insisted that Jews be part of a “White ethnostate” (although we may object), “Asians and others” is inexcusable. What about telling us we should give up and accept the “racial status quo” since we are viewed no better than child molesters and the current racial dispensation is the best that can be hoped for?  What about rejected racial preservationism that is based on race, kinship, and EGI and instead insisting on “IQ nationalism?” Why do Jews ALWAYS promote corrosive memes, even within the ranks of “race realists” and “White advocates?” Even putting aside the issue of “anti-Semitism,” Jews will ALWAYS promote diversity, multiculturalism, aracial nationalism, IQ over kinship; even in the context of an Amren meeting, they promote, in an attenuated form, the same poisons that their more obviously leftist co-ethnic brethren disseminate throughout the broader society.

Then why shouldn’t they be distrusted and forced out?  As Joyce writes:

In short, Jews have been accused of “scheming” to subvert nationalist movements because they are very often proven to be doing just that. 

Can Cofnas, or anyone else, point to one prominent Jew involved in overt pro-White activism who behaves in good faith and doesn’t promote some sort of destructive agenda?  I cannot think of a single one. 

If we expand the scope to the broader Alt Right and paleoconservative Alt Lite, Gottfried may be the best of the bunch, but even he has said some dumb things over the years. If we further expand the field to include the broader Right, which encompasses Trumpian populism, then Stephen Miller would be an example of a Jew who seems to be doing the right thing. That’s just one person of course, and there we are talking about mainstream politics, not the overtly pro-White “movement.”

If any group is actually being unjustly forced out of pro-White activism it is White ethnics, who are actually rejected solely due to their ethnic origins; none of these peoples poison the well of discourse as did Jews like Hart, Weissberg, et al.

Countering Cofnas, part three.

About intermarriage, some time ago I analyzed ethnic intermarriage data (from Alba, etc.) and demonstrated that, compared to European American ethnic groups of similar size, Jewish Americans actually have a suppressed intermarriage rate.  Thus, if Jews intermarry at about 50%, White groups of similar size intermarry at about 70-80%.

In addition, Joyce adds:

It is also worth pointing out that in both cases, Jewish males have taken non-Jewish wives, a direction that dominates the overall picture of intermarriage in North America. Since Jewish identity is traditionally perceived as following the maternal line, it should be clear that this tendency is yet another factor mitigating intermarriage somewhat from the perspective of Jewish ethnocentrism.

I’m not interesting in Cofnas sufficiently to do a deep analysis of him and his political views, other than to note that some on the SJW Left accuse him of being on the Right.  So, instead of Cofnas specifically, let us consider a pro-White, rightist Jew in general.  Now, it can be somewhat understandable if such a person would want Jews – at least pro-White, rightist Jews – accepted on the Right, and it is also understandable that they would reject many anti-Semitic tropes. They have the right to criticizes errors and excesses in MacDonald’s work (after all, I do so here, with respect to his later HBD-Nordicist assertions), although Cofnas’ “refutations” seem to me to be mostly nitpicking and misrepresentation.

But, you know, a sincere pro-White Jew would acknowledge that MacDonald makes good points about the Jews, that much of that work is sound, at least in its general conclusions (even if some minor details are off), and that the anti-Semites have a point. Even more importantly, the Jew in question would be better served doing some positive good, rather than constantly negatively focusing on MacDonald or on anti-Semites.  

I look at Stephen Miller – there is someone doing good work on the immigration issue. If Miller has been spending time obsessing about “anti-Semites on the Right” then I must have missed it. If there are sincere Jews on Der Right, they would be better served demonstrating their sincerity through their actions on behalf of Whites and the West, rather than doing what Cofnas does. Certainly, those Jews have the right to promote the view that Jews should be considered part of the White West (I’m not saying I agree with that view, merely stating that the Jews in question are well within their right to include their own interests in their activism – why should they sacrifice themselves for other folks?). But if they believe this, if they believe that they belong, then do something of value. I don’t consider misrepresenting the role of Jews in White decline to be of value, promoting the HBD fraud is not of value, promoting multiracial “White separatism” (sic) is not of value, telling us to accept the “racial status quo” is not of value.  If you don’t want to be accused of sabotaging the White Right, then the first step is to actually stop doing it.

We are all not just imaging the war of ethnic aggression of Jews against Whites. If Cofnas is correct,we should be seeing plenty of Jews heavily involved with promoting Der Right, and with the Jews’ power, influence,wealth, cunning, etc.,the Right would be doing much better than it is.  But, no. Jews are overwhelmingly on the Left, and most of those that are on the Right do more harm than good.

If pro-White Jews want to criticize someone, Hart or Weisberg would be better choices than MacDonald. The antics of the Amren Jews have convinced many activists that MacDonald’s work on the Jews is 100% correct.

See this.  The parents targeted by this harassment should take proper legal actions.

9/15/19

In der news.

Someone knows Trump:

Exile

Absolutely. Seeing a PoC pulling (((tricks))) hits grugs in their monkey-brain. AOC even triggers big-brain Tucker. Trump’s Orange Soma by comparison. His rhetoric lulls them. I’m seriously worried about major (((shenanigans))) on guns and immigration if Trump gets a lame-duck second term. He’s already punch-drunk on the goofy idea that Princess-Abu-Titjob will be THOTUS someday and God only knows what “muh legacy” bullshit he’ll try for with nothing left to lose.

Good video by Taylor.

This podcast by Johnson and Morgan is reasonably good.

Johnson makes a good point that Jews clearly feel more comfortable living among Muslims than they do among European-derived peoples (Whites).

But then:

Greg Johnson

Posted September 14, 2019 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

Covington was part of the Old Right. I have said all I want to say about him. The New Right has a very different approach to politics. Commemorating his life would excite the wrong sort of people. I have been consciously trying to deemphasize Old Right figures at Counter-Currents.

Let’s dissect:

Greg Johnson

Posted September 14, 2019 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

Covington was part of the Old Right.

In other words, he was a serious White nationalist (whatever his faults…I’m not taking sides in the Covington/NA-Pierce-Williams feud).

I have said all I want to say about him. 

If only the same would apply to Evola, Devi, Guenon, Trump, etc.

The New Right has a very different approach to politics. 

Sure!  Pepe, Kek, Unite the Right, the Night of the Wrong Wives, the Pilleater Chronicles, TRS follies, Trump worship, Hermansson and Lewis, being wrong about virtually everything…a very different approach, indeed!

Commemorating his life would excite the wrong sort of people.

One can say the same about running Ash Donaldson articles.

 I have been consciously trying to deemphasize Old Right figures at Counter-Currents.

Instead, we’ll seen have an in-depth metapolitical analysis of Pepe. The only question – written by Mudshark Annie’s breakfast butler Costello or gun-toting, Slavic muscleman Jeelvy?

Spencer:

How many Boomers will write checks to this girl’s non-profit with notes attached that read:

 “If Millennials adopt socialism, they could destroy Medicare!”

Rewritten:

How many Boomers will write checks to Strom’s National Alliance with notes attached that read:

 “If Millennials adopt Spencer, they could destroy White nationalism!”

Anyone else notice how McCulloch is being featured at TOO frequently recently?

Anyone who doubts the predictions and analyses of Sallis does so at their peril.  I openly predicted a growing alliance between the HBD/race realist crowd and the Nordicists. Ironically for all involved, the wire-pullers behind the scenes are those that would, in their “genetic and cultural locus,” resemble Lukacs.  After all, Unz and Hart are “good Jews,” aren’t they guys…or should I say goys?

I’m also curious whether the “esthetic prop” includes things like this.

Not so much this, I think.