Category: Hart

A Mendacious Middle Easterner

Another Hart attack.

Read this nonsense.

By this I am not suggesting that Jews are naturally unpatriotic because they are not Christians. The theological differences between religious Jews and religious Christians are minor compared with the differences between believers and non-believers, and orthodox Jews tend to be politically conservative. There are also many who are not religious but who still love and honor the United States, but this is not necessarily true of many atheists and agnostics.

 
Wow! A Jew states that he doesn’t believe that Jews are “naturally unpatriotic!”  Who would have ever guessed?  I mean, why let several thousand years of anti-nationalist, anti-patriotic, anti-majoritarian, and otherwise subversive Jewish behavior, in every land they have ever dwelt (nay, festered) in, including the United States of America, convince you otherwise?  Why let the Jews’ advocacy of anti-White and anti-American causes, their leadership of the “Civil Rights Movement” which ruined America, their leadership in overturning our demographics through the 1965 immigration act and through migrant cheerleading, their constant hostility to any manifestation of White identity whatsoever, their Israel-first identity and foreign policy preferences – why let any of that make you think otherwise?
 
Then he makes a moronic comment about “theological differences” as if that matters, or should we say maybe it does matter since both Jews and many “religious Christians” are in favor of open borders and the demographic eclipse of Europeans worldwide.  
 
Next we are told that “orthodox Jews tend to be politically conservative.”
 
OK.  First, most Jews are not orthodox.  Second, the wonderfully conservative orthodox Jews supported Clinton over Trump by a comfortable margin, albeit a bit less than their less religions co-ethnics. Third, even “conservative orthodox Jews” will in general hardly be reliable allies for any sort of Far Right White identity movement.  Fourth, those “conservative orthodox Jews” sure don’t have a problem exploiting America’s social welfare system, even to the point of being accused of welfare fraud.
 
Then Hart completes his outrageous screed by stating that “many” – we have to presume he is still talking about Jews here – who are not religious (Hart?) “still love and honor the United States” – but the real problem, you see, are all those “atheists and agnostics.”
 
So, according to the fantasy world of Hart, Jews – including secular Jews – are well-known for their upstanding patriotism and love for America, orthodox Jews are rock-solid conservatives wearing MAGA yarmulkes, while the real problem are all those (goyisch) “atheists and agnostics.”
 
What a despicable mendacious blot on humanity is this Hart.  But what about those who give him a forum?
 
Note to Richard Spencer: I agree with all you now say about the Alt Lite (and I was indeed saying it months before you), but what about really taking out the heavy memetic artillery and tackling the Alt Wrong?  You know, the guys who threw you under the bus because Hailgate offended all those HuWhite Jews of the West, and the guys who sniggered with their Jewish correspondents about the possibility of you getting shot.
 
They are the real problem on the Right, not the Alt Lite milksops.
Advertisements

Something Good About the Alt Right vs. Alt Nuts

Boots on the ground vs. self-absorbed egoism.

First, the good news.


Kinetic beauty.

The Alt Right can get “boots on the ground” and they stand up to leftist thugs (Alt Right god in action).  They should be praised for that.  If they can attract youth with their juvenile jackassery, fine too, But the problem occurs when they have delusions of grandeur – if they would just stick to being the youth wing of racial nationalism (while toning down the jackassery to a level just enough to attract youth and no more), fine.  But they are not “the movement” regardless of their fantasies (see Alt Nuts below).

Further, while Identity Europa may identify (no pun intended) as ‘Alt Right” there is a difference between a more serious group like them and the online lulzing jackasses (and Presidential jackasses).


Also, how much of the limited Alt Right success has been due to their own efforts, and how much has been circumstance (Trump, etc.)?


Another good thing is the stated intention of the Alt Right to ditch the Alt Lite. Can they do the same for the Alt Wrong?


The Alt Wrong is once again promoting the ultra-Aryan Haalstat Nord Hart – who after all, has consistently demonstrated being a non-bitter and loyal supporter of Amren and, indeed, the “movement” without the slightest disruption or controversy.  Those HuWhite Men of the West are always the most conciliatory, discreet, and well-spoken of convention guests!


Now for the latest Alt Nuts episode.


For and by young White men.

Yes, nothing wrong with that, but:


DO NOT PRETEND TO SPEAK FOR THE ENTIRE RACIAL NATIONALIST “MOVEMENT,” THANK YOU VERY MUCH!


Stick with your juvenile millennial jackassery and stop the pretensions of memetic hegemony.  We older White men have our own agenda, which, believe it or not, doesn’t include obsessing over a cartoon frog or screaming about “Kek.”

For every step forward, the Alt Right takes two steps back, mostly due to their navel-gazing obtuseness and lack of measure.  Get over yourselves please…and quickly.

Lawrence Murray Speaks For Himself

And not for “White nationalism” in general.


Putting aside minor issues such as a misunderstanding of fascism, I see two major problems with that essay.

1. Pan-Europeanism.  Of course, there is no “official” definition of “pan-Europeanism” so people are in theory able to define it as they wish, even to the extent of a straw man definition.  That said, it probably is useful to have actual pan-Europeanists contribute to the discussion.

Murray and others define “pan-European” as a set of policy prescriptions, such as a “European super-state.”  That’s a very narrow viewpoint, which does not encompass what I see as the reality of what is meant by “pan-European.”

In my view, pan-European (no scare quotes) is more of an attitude, a meme, an ideology, rather than any specific policy initiative.  I would define pan-Europeanism as:

A meme that asserts that the interests and well-being of ALL peoples of European descent are of importance, and should be equally pursued.

That contrasts to Der Movement, which restricts its interest only to those peoples whose origins are to the north of Vienna and the west of Berlin.

The exact approach used to achieve the objectives of pursuing pan-European interests may vary.

2. The idea that we can have significant populations of non-White minorities in at least some areas of a “White ethnostate.”  That’s the Michael Hart ideal of multiracial “White separatism” and I reject that.  There is no reason why “ports” or “coastal cities” in any White state have to contain any non-White minorities whatsoever.  Why must Whites always accommodate the other, even in the context of racial nationalism?  Is this “cuck-racialism?”

An Ethnonationalist Idiot

Behold an idiot.

An idiot commentator at Counter-Currents states:

Northern Europeans are better than Mediterraneans at creating wealth. Northern Euros aren’t going to want to prop them up.

Rephrased to be accurate:

Currently, Northern Europeans are better than Southern Europeans at creating wealth. Northern Euros aren’t going to want to prop them up.

There is no such thing as “Mediterraneans.”

Now, comments such as those fall into the category of the Professor Michael Hart school of racial nationalism.  Hart envisions an American White Separatist (sic) State that is essentially exactly the same as the current America (including being multiracial!) except that it would have no Negroes. Retards like the above commentator envision a White Imperium exactly like the current Europe except that the aliens would be gone and nationalists would be in charge.

Well, that’s not what I have in mind.

Any limited amount of internal national sovereignty would be predicated on each nation and people pulling their weight – economically, militarily, culturally, etc.  No one is going to “prop up” anyone else.  If anyone fails in their obligations, they lose their sovereignty until such time that they are straightened out, and during that period they will be run by the external centralized state.

But wait, some would say, these differences in performance are innate biological differences.  What can you do?  To the extent they are innate and biological (some of it is cultural, but then, what creates culture?), then this must be changed as well.  Eugenics is required.  The more degenerate any European stock is, the more dire need it is of the proper ruthless culling and selection for improvement.  Lazy, hedonistic, unproductive “Meds” will have no place in any Imperium; those types will be selected against in favor of their more productive co-ethnics.  The same goes for “Nords” like Merkel and those crying for joy at the sight of arriving refugees.  

Eugenics is compatible with EGI, as Salter clearly stated that sub-optimal alleles should be replaced to boost fitness of the overall distinctive genome.

Why does anyone believe that an Imperium is going to tolerate national incompetence or liberal race cuckery?

Who Would You Support?

After the last post’s unbridled humor, we now become serious.
See this.  Who would you support there?  The Russian Slavs or the bizarre alien yellow hordes, chanting swarming insects, part of the world of color, a rising tide of color, ready to submerge the White race?   I would support the Russians.  Others who call themselves “White nationalists” would support the Chinese.  There lies a division that can never be plastered over – a division between racial patriots and Asiaphilic race traitors. Note the brief clip starting at 7:00 in that video – that’s what some heavy breathing perverts say will be the future “border guards of the West.”  I mean, you just can’t make this stuff up.
Let’s consider some excerpts from Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color, which are relevant here.

It all comes down to a question of self-preservation. And, despite what sentimentalists may say, self-preservation is the first law of nature. To love one’s cultural, idealistic, and racial heritage; to swear to pass that heritage unimpaired to one’s children; to fight, and, if need be, to die in its defense: all this is eternally right and proper, and no amount of casuistry or sentimentality can alter that unalterable truth. An Englishman put the thing in a nutshell when he wrote: “Asiatic immigration is not a question of sentiment, but of sheer existence. The whole problem is summed[Pg 276] up in Lafcadio Hearn’s pregnant phrase: ‘The East can underlive the West.’”[166] Rigorous exclusion of colored immigrants is thus vitally necessary for the white peoples. 


Exactly. What kind of lunatic would want Asian colonies in White lands?

Unfortunately, this exclusion policy will not be easily maintained. Colored population-pressure is insistent and increasing, while the matter is still further complicated by the fact that, while no white community can gain by colored immigration, white individuals—employers of labor—may be great gainers and hence often tend to put private interest above racial duty. 


Yes, indeed, and not only “employers of labor.”  Stoddard couldn’t envision the day when White “men” on the Right would call for an Euro-Asian alliance based on their “measured groveling” to their Chinese wives, or their prurient fantasies about gun-toting Chinatrices.

Barring a handful of sincere but misguided cosmopolitan enthusiasts, it is unscrupulous business interests which are behind every white proposal to relax the exclusion laws protecting white areas.


That was then, this is now.  Today, we add HBD nerds, sexually frustrated masochists, and other flotsam and jetsam.  There is of course Jews like Hart; thus, while Daniel S accuses me of being a “troll for the Jews,” he himself advocates multiracial White separatism (sic) just as do Jews.

Indeed, Californian assertions that Oriental immigration menaces, not merely the coast, but the whole continent, seem well taken. This view was officially indorsed by Mr. Caminetti, Commissioner-General of Immigration, who testified before a Congressional committee some years ago: “Asiatic immigration is a menace to the whole country, and particularly to the Pacific coast. The danger is general. No part of the United States is immune. The Chinese are now spread over the entire country, and the Japanese want to encroach. The Chinese have become so acclimated that they can prosper in any part of our country…. I would have a law to register the Asiatic laborers who come into the country. It is impossible to protect ourselves from persons who come in surreptitiously.”[180]


And we won’t be able to protect ourselves from persons we invite in, either. Now the following is directly relevant to Daniel’s “border guards” idea.  After all, we’ve seen all of this before:

 Asia’s perception of what the war signified in this respect was instantaneous. The war was not a month old before Japanese journals were suggesting a relaxation of Asiatic exclusion laws in the British colonies as a natural corollary to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance and Anglo-Japanese comradeship in arms. Said the Tokio Mainichi Deupo in August, 1914: “We are convinced that it is a matter of the utmost importance that Britons beyond the seas should make a better attempt at fraternizing with Japan, as better relations between the English-speaking races and Japan will have a vital bearing on the destiny of the empire. There is no reason why the British colonies fronting on the Pacific should not actively participate in the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. Britain needs population for her surplus land and Japan needs land for her surplus population. This fact alone should draw the two races closer together. Moreover, the British people have ample capital but deficiency of labor, while it is the reverse with Japan…. The harmonious co-operation of Britain and her colonies with Japan insures safety to British and Japanese interests alike. Without such co-operation, Japan and Great Britain are both unsafe.”[184] What this “co-operation” implies was very frankly stated by The Japan Magazine at about the same date: “There is nothing that would do so much to bind East and West firmly together as the opening of the British colonies to Japanese immigration. Then, indeed,[Pg 292] Britain would be a lion endowed with wings. Large numbers of Japanese in the British colonies would mean that Britain would have the assistance of Japan in the protection of her colonies. But if an anti-Japanese agitation is permitted, both countries will be making the worst instead of the best of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. Thus it would be allowed to make Japan an enemy instead of a friend. It seems that the British people both at home and in the colonies are not yet alive to the importance of the policy suggested, and it is, therefore, pointed out and emphasized before it is too late.”[185]


Thus, a White-Yellow alliance means aggressive Yellow colonization of White lands (not the reverse of course – that would be “racist colonialist imperialism”).

The covert threat embodied in those last lines was a forerunner of the storm of anti-white abuse which rose from the more bellicose sections of the Japanese press as soon as it became evident that neither the British Dominions nor the United States were going to relax their immigration laws. Some of this anti-white comment, directed particularly against the Anglo-Saxon peoples, I have already noted in the second chapter of this book, but such comment as bears directly on immigration matters I have reserved for discussion at this point.


Anti-White abuse.  Why not?  The existential existence of colored peoples is denial of, and opposition to, the West, as Yockey indicated.

Our own acute labor shortage during the war, particularly in agriculture, led many Americans, especially employers, to cast longing eyes at the tempting reservoirs of Asia. Typical of this attitude is an article by Hudson Maxim in the spring of 1918. Mr. Maxim urged the importation of a million Chinese to solve our farming and domestic-service problems. “If it is possible,” he wrote, “by the employment of Chinese methods of intensive farming, to increase[Pg 294] the production of our lands to such an extent, how stupendous would be the benefit of wide introduction of such methods. The exhausted lands of New England could be made to produce like a tropical garden. The vast areas of the great West that are to-day not producing 10 per cent of what they ought to produce could be made to produce the other 90 per cent by the introduction of Chinese labor…. The average American does not like farming. The sons of the prosperous farmers do not take kindly to the tilling of the soil with their own hands. They prefer the excitement and the diversions and stimulus of the life of city and town, and they leave the farm for the office and factory…. “Chinese, imported as agricultural laborers and household servants, would solve the agricultural labor problem and the servant problem, and we should have the best agricultural workers in the world and the best household servants in the world, in unlimited numbers.”[189] Now I submit that such arguments, however well-intentioned, are nothing short of race-treason. If there be one truth which history has proved, it is the solemn truth that those who work the land will ultimately own the land.


Please read that last paragraph again. The situation is perfectly analogous: those who guard the land will ultimately own the land.  Daniel’s ideas, however “well-intentioned,” are nothing short of race-treason.

In the News, 11/6/15

Three news stories.

One: Leucosa watch: what can you say about a race of people so pitifully cowardly that they can’t even openly state their support for a mainstream political candidate?  We are talking about Donald Trump, for heaven’s sake, not David Duke. Donald Trump – celebrity millionaire, reality TV show star, a person slated to host “Saturday Night Live” (regardless of whether or not that’s cancelled, he was still invited – would Duke be?).  Newsflash to all those “Der Tag” “movement” types, who think a White uprising is just around the corner: if Whites are afraid to tell a pollster “I support Trump,” do you really think those same marshmallows are going to “take to the hills” and “smash the System?”  

Two: One benefit of Salter that it allows a quantitative (or at least semi-quantitative) discussion of the real costs of mass migration.   For example, see this “back-of-the-envelope” analysis of the costs of the mestizo invasion of America. That puts the contrast between ethnic interests and “economic gain” right to the forefront. You can not only put a cost in “child equivalents” on any scenario, but also invoke “dollars and cents” to put it into starkly economic terms. Only Salterism allows for ultimate interests to be duly recognized and discussed in this fashion.

Three: One Jew supports the work of another Jew, said work being just another permutation of multiracial separatism. Well, they are going to do what comes naturally to them. The bigger problem is with their Gentile enablers, who help give them a platform within the “movement.”