Category: Jack Sen

Gefilte Whitefish

In support of Spencer.

I supported Spencer in “Hailgate” (although, as I stated, there was I believe some lack of judgment on his part, just really not that big of a deal), and now I come out strongly in support of Spencer and his mother in their persecution from the Whitefish Bolsheviks.

Several points:

1. The SJW leftists here and elsewhere are not slowed down at all by Der Touchback’s election. No hesitation for them to just continue exactly as they have been before, despite the fact that in a month a new “racist” administration will be in power.  Of course they know, as does anyone not afflicted by Roissy’s homoerotic fixation on Donald Trump, that the vulgar buffoon will throw his supporters under the bus as quickly as he can (Chris and Rudy can explain it all to you, as mainstream examples of this).  No one expects Don and Jeff to overtly support the “far-Right,” but at least can we have the rule of law and an end to political persecution?  We’ll see what happens, but I’m real doubtful.

2. Anyone traveling to Whitefish should give Spencer’s mother some business.

3. While The Daily Stormer is not my cup of tea so to speak, I see nothing at all wrong with what they’ve been doing with this.  Anglin has broken no law that I am aware of, he’s been careful to urge his readers to follow the law, and the Bolsheviks deserve everything that’s coming to them.  How can you persecute the mother of someone you disagree with politically?

4. My understanding of the law (such as it is) tells me that what was done to Spencer’s mother is illegal, and borders on extortion – “sell you property (from which I’ll make a profit) or else I’ll do XYZ to you and ruin your business and your property value” – come on, that’s in writing (!!!) and clear-cut.  If that was done to anyone else, there’s a good chance the individual making those extortive threats would have been arrested.  As it is, there’s a good case for Mom Spencer to file a civil suit against Gersh and associates. I don’t know if Spencer reads this blog, but, hey, Richie, why don’t you contact (if you have not already done so) Kyle Bristow and his group and see at least if you can get some legal advice.  It’s not my place to tell Richard or Kyle what to do here, but it’s a legitimate idea.  Why not take advantage of whatever limited legal resources our side has?  After all, it can’t be that all of Montana’s founding stock population are a bunch of cucks, can it?  Some can be found for a jury who would find in favor of Sherry Spencer against the Levantine aliens, right?

5. For the most part, I endorse Spencer’s activist plans for 2017, as outlined here.

6. Andrew Joyce is an excellent writer, but he needs to explain his promotion of Jack Sen over at TOO.  What will Giacomo Vallone think?

7. After the dust settles, I hope Richard remembers who on the Right supported him during these tumultuous times, and who threw hum under the bus.

Daniel S Is Right About This

The Sen problem.
I’ve had my disagreements with Daniel S, but I heartily endorse this post.
I have in the past analyzed the Sen-Vallone connections and I agree that these are most likely the same person (*).  The divisive and anti-White antics of Sen-Vallone, including the bizarre hostility toward Poles (coupled to a deep concern for the well-being of South Asian shopkeepers infesting Britain), has also been discussed here.
Daniel is a bit too charitable to TOO and its embrace of Sen. Poor judge of character is a bit too mild.  Even after the Sen-Vallone situation had been dissected on a variety of sites (including this one), TOO still gave Sen a forum. Despite being aware of the potential problems, they keep on pushing.
At best, that’s an indication of the failings of affirmative action, pushing toward positions of leadership individuals unsuited for that role.  At worst, well…
This is all also part of the Sallis-HBD extension of O’Sullivan’s Law.  Indeed, any “rightist” entity that is not expressly concerned with genetic kinship and civilizational cultural ties – more specifically, any such entity that contaminates itself with the anti-White hate cult of HBD – will inevitably drift away from pro-White politics and toward a more aracial, civic nationalist stance and will, also inevitably, become easy prey for questionable figures with vague ancestries and even vaguer political agendas.
*Recently listening to certain interviews at Counter-Currents and Radix podcasts, interviews of ostensibly “different” people, my suspicions of the superimposed identity of another “pair” (sic) of activists have been confirmed.  But that’s a story for another day.

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement Marches On

Marching off a cliff.

The reemergence of Jack Sen at TOO has led – inevitably one may add – to the following comment left there.  Spelling mistakes as in the original, emphasis added:

The whole point about being British, is that Britishness is a way of life, which can be exported to those who resonate with it’s essential decency. Or to put it another way, this little country has doen amazing things in the past, and established laws and protocols and technologies that make the world what it is today. Often those who come here believing that their culture and ideals are somehow more valid than ours, come to see the error of their ways and they integrate. Our culture despite the huge and withering attacks it has suffered since the 1960’s is STRONG. Even IF as has been (laughably) suggested the british moslems manage to outbreed us, and in a Britain of the future evey one was called Waseem, by the time they got to that point, almost all of their children would be thinking and considering themselves British! I know we don’t rule the world any more, but that’s only because with a typical british sense of fair play, having brought many primitive lands the light of civilisation, we are now letting them stand on their own two feet. I firmly believe that what we nationalists ought to be doing is not fearing the minorities, (most of them are being painlessly made british simply by the priviledge of living here) but we should be refining and defining what it is to be British and of course settiong a good example for teh children and everyone else to follow. We all live together in Britain with a largely unarmed police force, black white, albino pakistani and chinaman next to each other in what should be an explosive situation culturally yet it isn’t really when compared to many other places. Why? because we are British and even THEY have picked up on the idea that there are certain things that you just don’t do if you are going to live here in Britain. Who cares if he’s Quarter indian, even maybe a “sardar”, all that matters in my insignificant opinion, is that he is British..

This song, suitably modified for context, would perfectly summarize the failure of the “movement.”
But no worries!  The “movement” and its leadership have always known exactly what they are doing!  Onward and upward, to build upon the glorious victories of yesteryear!

The only caveat to all this is the possibility that the above comment is actually a clever attempt at anti-Sen trolling.  I don’t think so, though.

In the News. 3/9/16

Some items for today.

Greg Johnson writes of Kemp’s March of the Titans:

It is not just filled with “mistakes,” the falsehoods are so systematic and driven by an agenda that the book has to be dismissed as dishonest. But beyond that it is clumsily and stupidly dishonest.


Quite right.  But there’s more.  The dishonesty extends to Kemp and his followers stupidly (and clumsily) attempting to deny he and his book are Nordicist, when both are extreme cases, in some ways going beyond Pierce himself (as well as Sayce and Peterson). Ancient Egypt as a “Nordic Desert Empire?”  Napoleon (according to Kemp born in Sardinia of noble French ancestry – no joke) also a Nordic?

Trump wins in the deep south and in the rust belt, loses in Idaho. Sounds all too familiar. Of interest:


Michigan, the place where the Reagan Democrats were first “discovered” by the national media, was a crucial test for his candidacy, testing whether he could really win disaffected union members and workers.


Look who has shown up at TOO again.  Wow, the previous exposure of Sen’s antics really “helped,” eh? And then we wonder why the “movement” is a mess?  Oh, right, let’s blame it on the “multiethnic nature of White America.”  No, rather, it’s more of the monoethnic nature of White American “movement” leadership, if one needed to choose between those two options.

Joyce on Sexology, 12/16/15

Some comments and criticisms.


Who is responsible for the outpouring of modern degeneracy?  Do we really need to ask?


Kevin MacDonald has noted that the Frankfurt School categorized healthy Western norms, nationalisms, and close family relationships as an indication of psychiatric disorder. By contrast, in the last few decades of the nineteenth century Jewish intellectuals began championing Western society’s outcasts and non-conformers. Using these outcasts, Jewish intellectuals could fight a proxy war against Western homogeneity, and wage a clandestine campaign for the acceptance of pluralism.

By subtly supporting the position of the socially and sexually deviant, these Jewish figures could gain acceptance or inconspicuousness in the newly atomized society, while simultaneously undermining the very health of the homogenous nation.

Remember that the next time some HBDer starts rhapsodizing over the wonders of Jewish IQ.

An excellent example of this nightmare becoming reality is one of the latest terms concocted within our atomized society:  Otherkin. According to Google, Otherkin are people who identify as partially or entirely non-human. Some say that they are, in spirit if not in body, not human. In any normal, healthy society this nonsense would be regarded as puerile or insane, and it certainly wouldn’t be indulged. But today, in the wake of Frankfurt School victory, the Otherkin community is just one of several growing realms for the bizarre.

Equally, in a society that has succumbed to Frankfurt School ideology one would expect to find that those most markedly different from the normal and healthy would be held up as alleged examples of the best of humanity.

Particularly relevant to our contemporary society, Ellis also astutely pointed out (206) that “there seems to be a certain relationship between the social reaction against homosexuality and against infanticide. Where the one is regarded leniently and favorably, there generally the other is also; where the one is stamped out, the other is usually stamped out.” Ellis’ astute remarks on the context behind the Jewish outlawing of homosexuality, and the use of violence against it by ancient cultures such as the Peruvians, bear further reflection. This is particularly the case given that there is a strain of inverts within our movement who propagandize their cause by weakly arguing that antipathy towards sexual inversion is due to the influence of “Judeo-Christian morals” rather than ethnically universal concerns around demographic health.

I agree with Joyce’s skepticism toward that “strain” in the “movement.”  It’s not that we are saying “no homosexuals allowed” – it is more of “can you stop talking about it, directly or indirectly, all the time?”  I remember back in the early 2000s when Yahoo groups were starting. I was interested in racial nationalist groups.  In my searches I came across one that asserted that they were “serious gay national socialists.”  A few minutes of analysis of their site confirmed that their “gay national socialism” was all about dressing up in Nazi uniforms and advertising such serious political activism as “U Piss I Drink” (no joke; that was one theme).  It’s one thing for an activist to keep their private life private, in the closest so to speak.  It is another to confuse racial activism with homosexual activism.  If nothing else, a sincere concern for EGI would mitigate against any attack on traditional sexual morality.
But, let us be consistent.  What about other destructive strains?  Should we promote miscegenation, including and especially with those wonderful yellow and brown Asians?  Should we denounce Poles while embracing “Sikh shopkeepers?”  Should we accept mendacious Desis “in our movement” who pose under false ethnic identities and start promoting intra-European feuds? In my opinion, a sincere homosexual of our race is infinitely better than a lying Ganges “family man” trying to turn Whites against one another.

This demographic concern was vital to the interpretations and views of non-Jewish sexologists. Since homosexuality, permitted to spread via fashion, leading to “acquired perversion” in the young, is socially linked to acceptance of abortion and infanticide, it acts to “check the population” and should thus be controlled and quarantined in a state that wishes to improve its demographic health.

The means of quarantine suggested by Ellis were not harsh or unreasonable. Society should refrain (215) from crushing the subject of abnormality with shame but, in an eerie premonition of the “Pride parades,” he argued that society should never allow the invert to “flout his perversion in its face and assume that he is of finer clay than the vulgar herd.” Since the genetic dead-end facing inverts was, in Ellis’ view, penalty enough, society should confine its approach to the sexually abnormal to the “protection of the helpless member of society against the invert.” Essentially, Ellis’ advice was to decriminalize the behavior of inverts and end societal shame surrounding it, but also to prevent inverts from flouting their abnormality, and from having physical, pedagogical or ideological access to children. Such was the approach of a broad swathe of opinion in mainstream (non-Jewish) sexology up to Weimar period. And this is largely the position taken by the Russian state today.

That is essentially a correct stance to take.

For Ellis as an evolutionist, a good indication of the pathology of homosexuality is that it is a reproductive dead end. Homosexuality has always been a puzzle to evolutionary biologists given that same-sex attraction would tend to lower reproductive success. However, since homosexuality has generally been stigmatized in historical societies, men with homosexual tendencies often married and procreated in order to avoid the penalties of being publicly homosexual…

What’s interesting is that many homosexual men have, throughout history, been able to father children.  This means they have been able to be sufficiently physically aroused by a woman to perform.  Should these men be more properly termed bisexual?  Or is homosexuality sufficiently “plastic” than even men who profess no sexual attraction to women are still able to perform with women?  If so, is their homosexuality truly genetic?  One wonders about the reverse?  I would think that – System propaganda about “most people are bisexual” aside – very few heterosexual men would be able to perform homosexual acts if required by social convention.  And yet, the argument by Joyce and other traditionalists is precisely that:  societal acceptance of homosexuality promotes its practice by those who otherwise would not be so inclined (and Ancient Greece is brought up as a possibility).  I actually agree with this latter view, which complicates my analysis.  

One may speculate a combination of genetic and environmental influences, resulting in a spectrum of types. Thus, a majority of today’s population (I say nothing about Ancient Greece) is strongly heterosexual, with no “invert” possibilities. Some fraction of the population however is weakly heterosexual – these are people who would conform to societal expectations of heterosexuality in a traditional society, but who may become homosexual or at least bisexual in a more permissive society. There may be a small fraction, very small, who are strongly homosexual and who would be unable to function with a member of the opposite sex. This is all hypothesis, and needs to be evaluated in an objective manner (unlikely in today’s pro-deviant climate).

Sobieski Alert: Polls About Poles

Facts vs. Desi flim-flam.

Slavic OverlordWrong. healthy banter? ha! if you in fact did live in Poland (Im doubtful) my guess is Poles were too ashamed to tell you how much we hate Germans! Germans are worse than dogs! almost as bad as Jews! the fact you never heard this means you didn’t earn trust. WE DETEST GERMANS!

And remember the webmaster’s comment about the shared IP addresses.
Let’s take a look at what Poles actually think about Germans:

Polish people have started to see Germans as modern, hard-working and well-educated. We might assume that Germany has become an ideal example of a well-structured and functioning state in light of the turbulent transition from communism to democracy that Poland experienced. Thus German people represented everything what Polish people had to struggle for. Poles perceived Germans as being goal-oriented and well-ordered. German detailed, structured life has, however, become the subject of jokes in Poland; people might laugh about Germans’ inflexibility and inadaptability to uncertain and unforeseen situations. On the other hand, Polish people are less likely to attribute “warm” associations to Germans: for instance, only 34% of respondents believed that Germans were tolerant and 36% that they are kind toward others. There is evidence of greater Polish sympathy towards Germans than German sympathy toward Poles. According to the Polish CBOS (Center for Researching Public Opinion), 44% of the respondents stated that they were fond of Germans, placing them closely behind eternal Polish friends, the Americans, French and Czechs. Twenty three per cent of people said that they had an aversion to Germans. On the German part, the most-prevailing response, from 60% of Poles, was “neither sympathy, nor aversion” which illustrates an ambivalent attitude from Germans toward Polish people. Polish people remain much more interested in Germany than vice-versa.

So, something for the TOO folks to consider. A so-called “pro-Western nationalist” living in the UK (*), who is NOT of Polish ancestry, falsely takes on the identity of a Pole who asserts that Poles “DETEST GERMANS!” and consider Germans to be “worse than dogs.”  Actual opinion polls in Poland indicate more Poles have a positive, as compared to negative view, of Germans.
So, TOO: do you endorse this behavior?  If so, why?  What benefit does it bring?  If not, will you publicly denounce it?  Or do you think ignoring it will make it go away? (It won’t).

I guess all these “European Knights” (**) have to do is criticize Jews and it’s all alright (***)? 
*Vallone, Sen, or Sen and Vallone being the same is not important, as none of those permutations are of a Pole (living in Poland or abroad), and all are associated with Sen, directly or indirectly, in one way or another.
**Here are some real European Knights: the Poles who spearheaded the largest cavalry charge in history, saving Europe from the NEC Turks (so that the frausow Merkel can hand it over to them today).  By the way:

The Poles did not reap any long lasting benefits from their startling victory, indeed, quite the contrary. Even in the short term it was clear that the recipients of their largess, the Habsburgs, were decidedly ungrateful. 

Sound familiar?  Also, I wonder what Indian and Sikh shopkeepers were doing then?  Certainly not charging the Turkish lines, eh?

***The “movement’s” affirmative action program strikes again.

Behold the Movement: Civil War?

Salon shitlibs laughing.


On the one hand, excessive feuding is not good. On the other hand, this blog (as well as “Richard Lynn’s Pseudoscience”) does critique certain individuals, and thus could be seen as part of the problem. On the other hand as well, a degree of healthy disagreement is useful; one would not want the “movement” to prematurely coalesce around wrong memes.

A balance needs to be found. Nietzsche wrote that his critiques of individuals were not personal (*), but that he intended to use the person in question as a lens of sort, to focus attention on that individual’s ideas, which is what Nietzsche really wanted to attack.

So, there are memes I see as worthy of criticism, including but not limited to: HBD cognitive elitism, mainstreaming, “game” as an end and not as a means, ethnonationalism and subracialism elevated to the top of the activist priority list, economics over race, affirmative action in the “movement,” esoteric traditionalism, pseudoscience, cocksure incompetence, anti-White trolling, hypocrisy and mendacity, data cherry picking, invented racial histories, straw man attacks on Salterism, proximate interests elevated over ultimate interests, non-Whites (including Jews) and race-mixers infiltrating the “movement” and distorting it.

Individuals promoting those destructive memes I see as fair game for criticism, as long as the criticism is motivated by those ideas, and not by personal animus.  “Personal” critiques are either tongue-in-cheek and not meant to be taken seriously (**), or merely quoting the person in question (***).  Or, for example, the Sen-Vallone question is directly relevant to motivations in dividing Europeans against each other.

Purely personal criticisms should be avoided. Whether one person is (actually, not jokingly) homosexual (as long as that doesn’t significantly influence their ideology in a negative fashion), or ugly, or sickly, or merely with a personality that you may like or dislike – that should not be a relevant issue. Public feuding over personal, private disagreements accomplishes nothing except giving the Salonites grist for their mill.

*He may have been deluded about that, re: Wagner, but let us take him at his word for the moment.

**For example, obviously the heterosexual womanizer Roissy does not have a “homoerotic fixation” on Trump; that’s a joke meant to illustrate a point about the “man on white horse” syndrome.

***Derbyshire himself admitted that his relationship with his wife is characterized by his “measured groveling.”  That is a self-admission that illustrates his – in my opinion – attitudes toward White-Asian relations.