Category: Internet

Sallis’ Law vs. Godwin’s Law

A comparison.

“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1”; that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends.

Following up on this, let us rewrite the above into Sallis’ ‘Law:

“As a “movement” discussion grows longer, the probability of someone commenting about racial admixture in Southern Europeans and/or Eastern Europeans approaches 1″; that is, if a “movement” discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later (typically sooner) someone will question the “Whiteness” of Southern Europeans and/or Eastern Europeans, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread descends into Nordicism, ethnic fetishism, and fossilized “movement” dogma.

No matter what the topic – Jews, the weather, Babe Ruth’s batting average, the thrust of the Saturn V rocket’s first stage, the price of tea in China – any “movement” discussion will eventually converge onto racial admixture in Southern and Eastern Europe.  It is inevitable, inescapable, expected.

Sallis’ Law is stronger than Godwin’s Law, since it will be, on average, actualized much sooner in the discussion.  After all, what is more fundamental to Der Movement, Inc. than animus toward, and lies about, Southern and Eastern Europeans?

Advice for Der Movement Part II

The double edged sword of the Internet.

Thinking about this – we must remember that the Internet is a double edged sword. A net gain – but still, it comes with costs, as I have written about and as others (Covington for example) have commented on in the past. We have all become too addicted to, and dependent on, the Web, and we have lost much of the social interaction, and the ability to navigate the real world, that we had in the past. The nature of the Internet, which removes people from face-to-face interaction, breeds freakishness and removes much of the selective pressure against severe defectives. Indeed, activism in the Internet age seems to be breeding a new form of racialist, a deformed human type.

Thinking back to the sort of racialists I knew – personally, IRL – back in my time as an analog “meat space” activist, it is obvious that those WN 1.0 types were very different from the WN 2.0 (or 3.0) “heroes” of today.  They were so different, it is almost as if they were a different species.

Those activists of the 90s were hard men. None were effeminate; none were metrosexual. No soyboys. None were potential bronies or furries or Asian Aryanists or cosplay wannabes. None were potential juvenile lulzers.  Maybe some liked to drink, but none were cokeheads.  For all their faults – and most of those people were hardcore Type Is so faults there were aplenty – they were serious. Maybe some were too harsh and offended their fellows, certainly many had all the freakishness, fetishism, and incompetence of today’s Type Is. Similar to today, they made sure to exclude Type IIs from any positions of authority, and of course the “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action policy was already very well entrenched back then.  But even with all of that, there was solidity of character, some of those people inspired confidence because of their character, if not by their competence (or lack thereof). Character is a trait sorely lacking in the activists of today. Yes, I may sound like a grumpy “get off my lawn” older man, but that’s the way I see it.

Of course, we cannot ascribe all of these differences in activist character solely to the influence of the Internet. There are generational differences (although that itself may be in part affected by the pervasive influence of the Internet in the 21st century). The activists of the past were mostly Boomers and the first half of Generation X, with some fraction from earlier generations. Today, we have a core made up of Millennials and the second half of Generation X, with some Generation Z filtering in. Contra Millennial rants about Boomers, this change has not been for the better.

Further, “movement” organizations of the past explicitly and officially rejected homosexuals, people with non-White spouses, and drug addicts – an exclusiveness which by itself would eliminate a significant fraction of today’s Alt Right and Alt Wrong.

But the Internet has indeed had an effect. As stated above, we have all become too dependent on the digital world. Just like a muscle, or a mind, becomes weaker through disuse, the “movement’s” abandonment of “meat space” has led to a proliferation of the unfit, the botched, the hyper-freaks (instead of the more typical WN 1.0 Type I lesser freaks) – and has led to a situation that when the muscle is finally used, it fails. When WN 2.0 organizes meetings or rallies, that usually turns into disaster.  Yes, the hard men of the past were hopeless with the more intellectual aspects (that are the most important) of operational security (they were Type Is after all), but at least they had the physical aspects of operational security well in hand. Today, there is neither.

Perhaps, just like the Internet has been a double edged sword for our side, censorship and deplatforming of our side from the Internet will be a double edged sword for our opponents. Perhaps the selective pressures of a more hostile environment, and the need for more effective IRL activism, will bring back some of the hard men, but this time with more effective Type II leadership cadres, so as to not  repeat the errors of the past.

I would like to cite another problem, this one fully within the context of Internet use itself. The rise of social media as a communication platform has resulted in the degeneration of the ability of activists – particularly the younger ones – from expressing themselves in longer and thought-out opinion pieces. Everything is tweets and brief “memes” – forget about reasoned argument and debate.  But, hey, it’s WN 2.0 (or 3.0) – so it’s all good!  No worries, eh?

Seriously though, the “movement” needs to get ahead of the curve, and develop a more balanced portfolio of analog and digital activism.  We need to stress more on the analog; however, the problem is that I do not believe that Der Movement and its failed “leadership,” as well as the “face-buried-in-the –smart-phone” rank-and-file are ready and able to do this.

But I most strongly advise that we start thinking about becoming less dependent on an Internet controlled by our enemies. Of course, we should develop our own independent digital capabilities if possible, but we need to look analog as well.  After all, in the end, racial survival and progress will be actualized in “meat space.”

Repressing Free Speech in the UK

From TOO.


We need to be thinking hard about an awful possibility —  a future without the internet and without outlets like the Occidental Observer. We desperately need to be looking at other ways of linking up with each other and if this pushes us away from our keyboards and out onto the streets it may be no bad thing.


Several points. I have been strongly advocating,. for many years, that European nationalists make the fight for free speech an integral part of their political platform, right up there with immigration or anything else.  I have addressed this directly to certain (low-level to mid-level) nationalists, raising the obvious point that it is difficult to speak out on issues fundamentally important to your movement (in Europe, real movements) if honest discussion of the topic is illegal (*)

I got a “yeah, yeah…you Yanks don’t understand that Europe never had a history of free speech,” as if that means anything. Hey, guys, Europe never had a history of mass Third World migration either, but you got it now. Change with the times….

It’s good that the author of this piece is looking ahead, asserting that contingency plans need to be put in place in the event of total Internet censorship. That’s a good idea, but I doubt the “movement” (with scare quotes) is listening.

The part about “may be no bad thing” is something I agree with as well. The Internet is a net (no pun intended) good, but it has costs as well as benefits. Too many people think posting and commenting is “activism,” we are fragmented and cut off from the real world, where the race crisis is happening. Our loss of genetic interests is taking place “out onto the streets,” not in Cyberspace, and, eventually, it is out onto those streets that we must go.

*With all of this, as I’ve said elsewhere, in many ways, Europeans have more freedom than American in expressing dissident views, given that American social pricing represses expression more than does on-the books laws. With laws, you at least have at least an approximate idea where you stand (although such laws can be vague and inconsistently enforced based on who? whom? questions). However, Americans constantly self-censor themselves, as any comment, even if uttered with a completely inoffensive and apolitical intent, can be construed as “bigotry” and cause all sorts of pointing and sputtering.

NECs and "Internet Integrity"

They are always a problem.

Chehadé believes the next hurdle for the global internet community doesn’t relate the underlying infrastructure of the internet. Instead, he thinks it’s time to focus on “what happens on the internet.”  

He called this “internet integrity.” 

He went on, “When I see something on the internet written about me … 

How do you know it is a high integrity item? How do you know this is the truth?” Chehadé believes that the next issue to be tackled is not how the internet works (which is the infrastructure that ICANN has been overseeing for decades), but how to create a better way to ensure and protect the content disseminated on the internet.

NECs were a problem at Marathon and Thermopylae, they were, and are, a problem with their 1965 immigration act and its aftermath, they are a problem with their ongoing immigration invasion of Europe and the “clash of civilizations,” and they are a problem with this.
Who is going to decide what is truth and integrity online?   Who is going to “protect” and “ensure” Internet content?  A bunch of NECs with a historical animus toward Europe and the West?  And by NECs I include a certain “high-IQ” tribe much beloved by the HBDers.