Category: Hispanics

The Wild Bunch

Recommended viewing.

I recently watched Sam Peckinpah’s beautifully violent 1969 Western classic, The Wild Bunch, starring William Holden, Robert Ryan, and everyone’s favorite typically Celto-Germanic Nordic Northern Italian Ernest Borgnine.

From a racial and cultural perspective, there are some interesting features to this film: Mexican mestizo incompetence and savagery, a contrast between those deficits of mestizo character and better qualities exhibited by (relatively) unmixed Amerindians (which readers of Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color may remember as one defining characteristic of “Red Man’s Land”)*, White competence and honor, the sexual allure of colored women even to otherwise honorable White men, and a hilariously satisfying Thermopylae-like shootout ending.

Definitely worth watching.

*Granted, the dividing line between mestizo and Amerindian was not always clear for every character (e.g., General Mapache), but, overall, the contrast, on a group level, between Mexican mestizo troops, whores, and villagers and (more unmixed) Amerindian fighters was one (subtle) theme of this film.



Cuckadoodledoo, 7/31/16

Der Clueless Movement.

What’s Der Movement going to do if and when Der Touchback publicly backpedals like a clown on a unicycle?

What if he is elected and reneges on his promises?

What if he loses the election in an spasm of incoherent cuckiness?

Since he is the “last hope for White America,” what then, oh ye “movement” geniuses? What price mindless worship of the buffoonish God Emperor Trump?

With respect to backpedaling, the debates will be the proof of the pudding.  He will be asked about this, and will have to give an answer.

If he stands firm, all well and good, but it is still insanely irresponsible to say he is a “last hope” when he may very well lose and leave us with the same fight for racial existence we have now (does Der Movement counsel surrender in that case)?

If he backpedals, what then?  Will the Trump worshipers resign their “leadership” in Der Movement?

White Worthlessness in the News, 6/10/16

Several items.

Of course those brown cows have contempt for Whites.  Wouldn’t you?  I mean, you invade someone else’s country and they not only allow you to stay, but they heap benefits on you (full tuition to a Ivy League school), give you advantages their own children do not have, and then they sit back, cuckily blushing like useless pansies, as you publicly insult them and rub their faces in it.

Whites are infinitely contemptible, infinitely useless, infinitely worthless.  As I have said before: a maggot eating its way through a festering lump of dog feces on a sweltering August sidewalk is infinitely superior from the standpoint of adaptive biological fitness than is the entire White race.

Yes indeed, the Germans who, along with the peoples of Britain, have contributed more to human progress over the last few centuries than any other ethny, require to mix with racially alien, stupid, and violent third world immigrants to avoid becoming “inbred.”  

Note the majestic hypocrisy on race I’ve written about before.  Putting aside that its these immigrants who are truly inbred (but this kraut would never say that), these anti-racists are the same scum who tell us: “more genetic variation between groups than between.”  Very good! Thus, not only do the German people constitute sufficient genetic variation among themselves to avoid any inbreeding, but, according to the anti-racist left, Germans and Arabs/Turks are more genetically similar than Germans are to each other – by this “logic” Germans can only avoid inbreeding by only mating with other Germans, no?  I mean, if the Left really believes that members of the same ethny are more different than they are to complete aliens, then only strict ethnic endogamy can ensure sufficient genetic variation. On the other hand, if the Left now says that Germans are really more similar to each other, then their genetic interests demand they oppose the alien influx so as to prevent genetic displacement (and with their large population, there is no threat of “inbreeding” in any case).

Who Will Pay Off Trump’s Losing Gamble?

Raising the stakes.

Is Trump correct about the “Mexican Judge?”  Of course he is. Unfortunately, instead of explaining his position intelligently, and pointing out the judge’s connections and ethnically-based organizational affiliations, Trump, like the clownish buffoon he is, keeps on blustering: “He’s Mexican and I’m going to build a wall.”  The Jake Tapper interview was painful; Trump talks like a petulant elementary school student.
The bigger question: how does this all affect White interests?
Trump is gambling that going along this path will gain enough working class/populist White votes to compensate for those cucks and “soccer moms” turned off by his rhetoric. Trump is like a gambler who keeps on raising the stakes, but it is we, and not him, who will ultimately pay off if he loses.  Just like Hitler gambled the future of “far-right fascistic racialism” on his gamble of military-based German hegemony (and lost, to our detriment today), so is Trump gambling all on the idea of being an ignorant blowhard is the best way to ride a wave of right-wing populism.
Now, Trump’s antics are great for chaos and balkanization.  For this, for all the trouble he has caused, and all the raciosocial resentments he has brought to the surface, he needs to be commended.  But he has raised the stakes so high, he really needs to win.  If he wins, with all his antics, that would raise balkanizing chaos in America to new heights.  However, if he loses – and as of today, it looks like he will lose – this can and will be used by the System to discredit right-wing populism and race-based appeals.  If Trump loses, he not only wastes the current opportunity, but he spoils things for future right-wing populists to come, candidates with similar (or better) agendas, but who are not, like Trump, ignorant buffoons.
The only other possible positive outcome is if the GOP is so stupid as to pull something off at the convention, deny Trump the candidacy, and put a nice cuckservative in his place, who will then go down in flames among the justified outrage of Trump’s supporters.  That scenario though looks even less likely than a Trump victory in November.
The real “right” had better come up with talking points now, in preparation for a Trump defeat, including but not limited to:
1. How Trump was betrayed by GOP elites and various cuckservatives who didn’t provide their support and constantly sniped at him.
2. The hostility of the mass media and other elites.
3. The demographic changes in America – supported by the cuckservative GOP elites – has ensured a Democratic majority and has made patriotic candidates difficult to elect.  The answer to this is to hold the cuckservative GOP elites responsible, not Trump and his supporters.
4. For all his good points, Trump didn’t have the best temperament for a presidential candidate.
But, no, the right – the “alt-right” – is too busy onanistically pleasuring themselves over Trump, and too busy pontificating about “high trust hunter-gatherers” or “Savitri Devi’s Kali Yuga” to do anything strategically useful as per practical politics and meta-politics.

On Executive Amnesty, Impeachment, and the Movement

What now?
Several brief comments. First, one hopes the White voter understands the utter uselessness of the GOP and of “mainstream conservatism” – fighting and losing battles from decades ago, the paragons of surrender.
This blog endorses impeachment, which is the only way for the Republicans to salvage the slightest microscopic scrap of honor and dignity. Yes, I understand: mainstream politics are useless, the GOP is useless (with or without impeachment), and in the end it is sound and fury signifying practically nothing. And, yes, there would never be a conviction.  Nevertheless, impeachment would have some spiritual and moral value: it is the right thing to do, it sends a message that the beta race is at least making a token attempt to stand up for itself, and, most of all, it is a morale booster for Whites – and here I talk about normal, everyday, healthy-minded “mainstream” Whites and not “movement” Nutzis – Whites who are sick and tired of “their side” always surrendering (*) without a fight, always betraying, always sacrificing honor for expediency, always being “moderate,” always being fearful, always pandering and placating. While it is always best to win – and we desperately need victories – at the very least, if you are going to lose, at least lose with dignity, lose after making an honest fight of it. In that way, your side can hold its head high, retain some morale, and be ready to fight another day. However, rank cowardice and outright surrender – the stock-in-trade of “Conservatism, Inc.” – leads to despair and acceptance of lower-caste, subaltern status. Impeachment may be a lost cause, but it will at least give the “troops” some sense that the battle has been joined,
As regards the “movement?”  Once again, this event, anther victory for the anti-White left, underscores the stupidity and impotence of the Nutzis, obsessed as they are with cephalic indices and gene frequencies, with dubious racial histories and the fantasies of gnostic traditionalism, of tinfoil hat conspiracies and sweaty fetishes.  The Left deals with real world practical issues, they win real-world victories, they make policy that affects our race and speeds us on the road to extinction. And the Nutzi response is esoterica, nitpicking, attacks against fellow Whites who don’t meet some imbecilic standards, obsessions about sub-fractional “admixtures” or cherry picked photographs of celebrities, Hitler as the “man against time” or “above time” or whatever other insanity demented cultists spewed from the fevered swamps of their addled thought processes – stupidity and more stupidity. The Left makes history, the mainstream Right cowers before history, and the far Right onanistically obsesses over an invented comic book version of “history.” Guess who wins, who loses, and who behaves as if they belong in the madhouse.

*White America has had a masochistic relationship with Hispanics for a long time. Instead of insisting that everyone in America speak English, we’ve turned America into a de facto bilingual nation to accommodate aggressive Hispanic demands – why would constant surrender on immigration be any different?

Does Diversity Cause Autism?

What’s going on?
I was always intrigued by Bowery’s thoughts on autism.  If I remember correctly, he found some interesting correlations between autism incidence and the presence of certain population groups living together, particularly South Asians and northern groups like Finns.  His theory – again, if my memory fails, I apologize – was, I believe, based on parasites carried by South Asian immigrants to which groups like Finns (being “farther from human origins”) were more sensitive to.
There were some productive discussions at Majority Rights on this topic.  I proposed a different mechanism: that certain groups that evolved more in isolation (such as Finns) are more sensitive in the amygdala to exposure to the alien phenotypes of varied racial groups.  Thus, the developing brains of young (mostly male) children were being damaged by being “shocked” through exposure to alien phenotypes.  I conjectured that South Asians were particularly damaging in this regard because their “intermediate” phenotype – dark-skinned but with some Caucasian features but with some facial differences as well – caused more “confusion” to the “race recognition software” of young children than would more extreme, easily distinguished, racial types (e.g., comparing Danes, Chinamen, and Nigerians).
Of course, the “official” explanation for most of the increase is simply “better diagnosis.” I’m not sure about that. Should we just give up on the idea of a large, real rate increase?  Some cite “inbreeding” of “high-IQ” people – which I think is just thinly veiled propaganda for miscegenation and dysgenics.  Assortative mating need not necessarily lead to autism.  Then we have the finding, cited in the links in the linked article above, which suggest that autism rates for Black and Hispanic children (mostly male) are rising as well.
Let’s assume the last finding is correct.  That would suggest that the problem may be broader than just for susceptible groups like Finns, and may not be simply due to “intermediate” groups like South Asians.  And Blacks and Hispanics are hardly groups one associates with “assortative mating” for intelligence.  American Blacks are admixed and Hispanics are highly admixed, so there goes the “inbreeding” theory as well.
I would suggest then that the autism increase is real, and that it is a general effect of multiculturalism. I suggest that male brains, being more tuned to recognizing and opposing foreign male incursions, are being damaged during development through exposure to so many different racial types. Multiracialism causes autism in my theory, and this holds for all racial groups.  Thus, rates for Blacks and Hispanics are increasing due to “desegregation” and the increased infiltration of these groups into previously White communities (or Hispanics moving into Black areas), as well as the general increase in diversity in urban areas (where many Blacks and Hispanics live) due to Asian immigration, etc.
One would expect to find, for any group, higher rates of autism in areas where there is more diversity, comparing matched populations (i.e., a proper control group not exposed to [as much] diversity).  Has autism in Europe been increasing with immigration?  Is there a generalized correlation between diversity and autism?  Note that the pathogen load theory is also consistent with increased human diversity, although the “brain shock” theory is more general for both direct and indirect forms of diversity (see below).
This theory may be completely wrong and if proven wrong, that’s fine.  But it should at least be carefully considered and not immediately dismissed as “racist.”  And any analysis of the “brain shock” theory needs to be fair and without political bias.  In addition, it must consider not only direct diversity (direct exposure to various human types) but indirect as well (exposure to diverse human images in television, movies, Internet, books, etc.).  After all, the developing human brain will react to the images regardless of how they are presented, although it is possible (albeit not proven) that repeated direct contact would have the greatest effect.