Category: Jews

Sallis vs. Sailer on the Census

Sailer’s HBDite stupidity.

Those who read Sailer often see his “Flight from White” ramblings about the US Census.  Steverino is opposed to Middle Eastern North African (MENA) being a separate category from “White” – he wants the MENA folks lumped in with Euro-Americans.  He has also criticized the fact that South Asians have already been removed from the “White” category due to South Asian ethnic lobbying (similarly, the MENA crowd are actively lobbying for the same).  Sailer notes that these groups in the past wanted to be counted as “White,” but now that Whites are a subaltern “untouchable” group in today’s Jewish-Colored Supremacist America, the NECs want to flee as fast away from “White” as possible.”

However, the point has to be: what is best for America and more specifically what is best for Whites – Euro-Americans?  I do not remember Sailer ever clearly stating (at least at VDARE – I don’t care about the Unz site) why having NECs counted as White is something desirable.  Trying to parse Sailer’s “writings” I conclude that he believes that if MENAs and South Asians are “binned” as “White” then they will (be forced to) identify politically with Whites and White interests, reinforcing the power of the majority and its interests.  The fact that these groups were (South Asians) or are (MENAs) grouped with Whites and certainly reject any sort of “White” identity, political or otherwise, somehow escapes Sailer.  That the Jews have always been politically counted as “White” and have been the greatest enemy White Americans have ever had also escapes Sailer’s HBD brilliance.

Sailer confuses cause and effect.  He apparently believes that how people are categorized in the census affects how they consider themselves in a racial-social sense.  This is clearly not the case.  Instead, the reality is that how people consider themselves in the racial-social sense determines how they want to be categorized in the census.  There’s also crypsis involved: while Jews do not consider themselves “White” in the same sense Euro-Americans do, Jews also have an instinctive urge for crypsis, to want to hide their alieness, made easier for most Ashkenazi since the typical mind-benumbed White gentile cannot identify obvious Jews (but usually can identify gentile Middle Easterners, South Asians, etc.).  So, for the most part, Jews are content to be legally “White” despite not really considering themselves so; on the other hand, (non-Jewish) MENAs and South Asians have no desire for crypsis and for the most have part no chance of being successful at crypsis even if they were so inclined.

So, Sailer’s wrong-headed ramblings on this subject are his typical “look how clever I am posturing” in which he usually ends up looking like a pompous idiot (in other words, an HBDer).

There are real costs to Sailer’s agenda here, costs for Whites.  Binning MENAs (including Jews by the way) as “White,” never mind doing the same for South Asians, obfuscates, masks, and hides the degree of real demographic change, artificially inflates White numbers, and dampens down something that any White racialist (as opposed to an anti-White HBDer) wants to see occur: a strong White reaction against demographic displacement.  Here Sailer is on the same page as the System, as the Left, which wants to calm White fears, promote an “anyone can become White” storyline, and postpone White political reaction to race replacement reality.

We need to know the real demographic facts on the ground, no matter how harsh, instead of indulging in deadly fantasies that say that if a previously White town becomes transformed into a holding pen for Syrian refugees, then no demographic change has taken place.

Euro-Americans should have their own category.  Indeed, we should drill down even deeper.  Even with intra-White mating blurring ethnic boundaries, it would still be useful to know how many White Americans identify as various ethnic groups, etc.  Knowledge is good, as they say.  And contra Sailer, asking people if they identify as German-American is not going to lead to a revival of the Bund.  

Short summary: observe what it is that the HBDers recommend and support the opposite.

Advertisements

More HBD News

Odds and ends from the anti-White world of HBD.

Doesn’t Strom know better?  The HBD race realist/Alt Wrong school of thought tells us that Jews are HuWhyte Men of the West, and they are really, really high-IQ too.  And, I’m sure, they make a good impression at toney cocktail parties, where the guests sniff with disdain at lowly anti-Semites and other flotsam and jetsam unappreciative of their betters.  You have to learn, Kevin, you have to learn.  HuWhyte Jews are your masters and betters, and don’t you forget it.  Hail HBD!

Let’s consider a leading HBDer, the race-mixer John Derbyshire a former illegal alien who writes for, and podcasts for, the immigration-control site VDARE.

The Mrs and I had the idea to take a weekend break at one of those adults-only hotels in the Poconos. 

We’ll get back to this shortly.

You know the kind of place: heart-shaped jacuzzi, view over a lake, a bowl of strawberries dipped in chocolate waiting in your room, that sort of thing. Yeah, yeah, I know it’s corny. We’re an old-fashioned couple; corny works for us.

I accordingly went on the internet and googled “romantic weekend getaway poconos.” There they were, a good choice of hotels. Heart-shaped jacuzzi, check: view of lake, check: chocolate-dipped strawberries, check.

The thing that struck my eye, though, in the promotional websites for these places, was the extraordinary numbers of photographs showing a black man with a white woman. I put together a montage without trying very hard at all. (Looking closer, I think one of the ladies there may be high yaller; but she’s still way paler than the guy.)

The lady Derb “thinks” “may be” “high yaller” is obviously a mulatto and that can be discerned virtually instantly.  It’s always amusing when self-promoting “race experts” are near-clueless when it comes to elementary racial identification.

I have nothing against miscegenation — how could I have? — but do they really have to bang us over the head with it like this?

This is the key sentence to the whole thing.  Now, while it is theoretically possible to “have too much of a good thing,” typically people don’t mind being exposed to sights, sounds, smells, and other experiences they find pleasant, or to which they can accept rationally and intellectually.  Indeed, typically, people enjoy being exposed to things that are positive.  With respect to things they are completely indifferent to, then they really wouldn’t care one way or the other.  A person who liked miscegenation would enjoy the pictures Derb complains about, and a person who truly had “nothing against miscegenation” wouldn’t really care one way or the other.  But Derb does care, he complains, he says the pictures “bang us over the head with it” – a phrase that implies being excessively exposed to something that you find at least mildly unpleasant.

I suspect it is one of two things.  The less likely possibility is that Derb really does have something against miscegenation in general but makes an unprincipled exception for his own situation.  The more likely possibility is that Derb objects – whether he consciously realizes it or will admit it – to specific kinds of miscegenation and not others.  For example, there are some folks who get triggered by racial mixing involving Blacks, especially when the Black is male, but are unaffected by White-Asian mixes, particularly White male-Asian female.

Let’s consider this.  Most women are not beautiful.  Just look around you.  Most American women are waddling landwhales, stinking of rotting flotsam and jetsam wedged in their fat flabs.  Now, let’s imagine all the pictures in promotional websites Derb looked at had pictures only of beautiful White (or Asian, for his tastes) women.  That’s certainly unrepresentative of reality, but I doubt he’d complain about how we are being banged over the head with an over-representation of female beauty.  No, there’s something about those specific pictures he just doesn’t like and that’s likely why the unrepresentative samples bother him.

And we come back to this:

The Mrs and I had the idea to take a weekend break at one of those adults-only hotels in the Poconos. 

If anyone is guilty of banging heads with miscegenation it is Derbyshire himself, who has to constantly bring up his mixed family, and his alleged indifference to, or support of, miscegenation at every opportunity.

The Ascent of Saint Adolf

Brief book review. 

Reading this relatively new Hitler book, which concentrates on the first 50 years of Hitler’s life (1889-1939) I note that it contains the usual snide, conformist, and biased anti-Hitler and anti-NS comments one comes to expect from politicized hacks. The anti-Hitler and anti-NS comments come fast and furious; after all, Mr. Ullrich, the author, has to maintain his status in polite society as a good-white cuck (and also does not want to suffer the same fate as David Irving, eh?).

One example of Ullrich’s gratuitous anti-Hitlerism is his smug labelling of the grand architectural plans of Hitler and Speer as “sheer insanity” and “megalomania.”  In contrast, I view those plans as inspiring, and as a reasonable model of what a European Imperium should build – nay, even greater than Hitler and Speer had planned!  

Hitler and Speer planned for the ages, planned for eternity, planned for what they hoped would be a German Empire.  What would the likes of Ullrich wish to see instead, I wonder?  A “Germany” full of mosques, perhaps, with NECs running wild in the streets and African Negroes swinging from the trees?  If that’s what they wish, they are, thanks to Mama Merkel, well along in those developments. “Germany” as a subaltern cuck nation colonized by the Third World: that sounds like a textbook definition of “sheer insanity” to me.

Particularly amusing is the author’s description of the Nuremberg race laws as an example of “grotesque senselessness” because of some sort of alleged inability of the Nazis to define Jewish ancestry (which, for some mysterious reason, the Jews themselves were perfectly capable of doing).  Modern genetics confirms the validity of the Nuremberg concept, as even quarter-Jews can be genetically distinguished from gentile Europeans.  The bulk of what we know as Jews constitute a reasonably defined ethnic group, and certainly, within that larger grouping, the Ashkenazim, consisting of the vast bulk of those Jews that the Nuremberg laws dealt with, constitute a particularly well defined ethny.  Given the strong correspondence between Jewish identity and Jewish genetics, the Nazi identification of, say, a half-Jew, as someone with two grandparents belonging to the “Jewish religious community,” is actually biologically sound, and far from the “grotesque senselessness” that the scientifically illiterate Ullrich pretends it is.

There are some even more obvious factual errors in the book as well; for example, what to make of September 27, 1939 being described as “several weeks before the beginning of the Second World War” (emphasis added)?

An annoying part of the book is all the sob stories about the “persecution” of the Jews during this pre-WWII period of the Nazi regime. We have the gnashing of the teeth about Kristallnacht, as well as the alleged horrors Jews suffered in Vienna after the Anschluss – university professors made to scrub the streets with their bare hands, or “pious” old Jews made to do “leg squats” in temples while yelling “Heil Hitler!”  But didn’t others have things worse, including ethnies that were the victims of Jewish communist-led genocide?  How many Slavs were slaughtered by the Jews in the Soviet Union?  Was scrubbing the streets or doing deep knee bends worse than millions of Ukrainians being deliberately starved to death in the Holodomor, while grinning Levantines carted off the foodstuffs?   Ullrich doesn’t have the common decency to acknowledge that Nazi “persecution” of Jews was at least in part motivated by the knowledge of what Jewish communists did to Europeans in the USSR, and the fear that they would have done the same in Germany if they had the opportunity. Yes, indeed, I would assume that Ukrainians watching their children die from starvation would have wished they could have got off easy by scrubbing streets and squatting up and down a few times.  But, hey, they were only Slav gentiles, so who cares about them, right?  

Ignoring all of these glaring flaws, the book is fairly well-written and the objective facts buried under the subjective hysteria do shed some light on the Hitler phenomenon, but I came away from this book with a profound disrespect for Ullrich and his “character.”

And Hitler himself?  Saint Adolf was like an individual given a choice of what to do with his money: either put it into prudent, long-term investments; or got to a casino and engage in the most risky forms of high-stakes gambling – and chooses the latter, losing everything.  The money in this case represents the long-term EGI of the German people and of Europeans as a whole, and, also, the money represents the legitimacy of “Far Right” nationalism, particularly fascist thought, and especially the tenets of National Socialism.  Hitler, being the archetype of the Type I “movement” Nutzi and ethnic fetishist, of course took the gambling route, losing all and ruining all; indeed, it is no wonder Saint Adolf is a grand hero and role model for Der Movement, Inc., since the behavioral patterns of he and they are exactly the same.  In summary: Hitler was an idiot.

Saint Francis the Prescient

It all sounds familiar.

Read here. Emphasis added.

I have just returned from the Convention in Los Angeles. I see now why you did not feel any urge to go. You already known, apparently, that which I had to find out—viz. that the movement in this form and under this leadership is devoid of a future. 

Hey, that sounds like Ted Sallis talking about Der Movement. Inc. Was Yockey “crazy and bitter” as well?  Dementia praecox, indeed!

The magazine, the newsletters, the World New Service which Lohbeck and I are founding—these indeed are valuable, but of themselves they are not politics. At most they are useful adjuncts to politics.

I met Smith—in company with his wife and with Lohbeck—and he delivered a speech at the lunch table. He had not read Imperium nor the London “Proclamation,” because, as Lohbeck tells me, he reads nothing. 

Sounds like Trump.

Immediately after the speech, Smith delivered one of his own, attacking me, and saying that Americans love democracy, that he would not unite with me in my hatred of the Jew…

Was Smith a HBD race realist Alt Wronger?

…nor in my love for the Western Civilization, but only in the principles of Jesus Christ. Exactly what that means I do not know, but perhaps it was only a way of calling attention to the fact that I had not mentioned Christ. The entire Convention was primarily Christ and Christianity, and secondarily anti-Jewish, mostly on the basis that the Jews are anti-Christ.

Christianity – or, should we say, Christinsanity – must be mercilessly destroyed.

Such morbid suspicion could arise in a case like Elmhurst’s, for he has indeed suffered long and hard persecution, and he lives in the environment of New York, where, he says, Jews are constantly trying to poison him. 

Oy vey!  Don’t eat those gelfite fish!

I thought that you should know these things, for the future.

Yockey’s future is our present.  Nothing much has changed in the ludicrous clownshow of the “movement,” has it?

I do not believe Elmhurst did much damage to the relations between Smith and me, since I believe Smith’s attitude did not change, that he is not yet ready for the kind of political thinking that I brought to him, and that, in any event, he is not political. In his beliefs, he is undoubtedly sincere, but in his actions, so to speak, he is not. His person, his family—in every speech he mentions his wife, mother, and father at least ten times—“the clean loins of my father, and the pure womb of my mother who carried me,” etc.—and himself at least thirty times—his security, physical and financial, are of the very highest importance to him. He lacks entirely what we call in Europe the heroic world-outlook. He explained to the audience at one point that he does not live in St. Louis because there was a plot to kill him in St. Louis, and that under these conditions, his mother could not visit him in his home, nor could he enjoy peace and quiet with his wife. One of the strong points which he makes to his audiences is that he and his wife are as happy a couple as could be found in America. In the closing speech of the Convention, he talked for four minutes about his stomach, his digestion, and the fact that he does not need to take laxatives.

Being around the “movement” for any length of time should sufficiently sicken anyone so that they will have a copious gastrointestinal flow without the need for any laxatives.

Jews and other guks who tried to intervene were silenced by the audience. Guk, by the way, is our new word for anyone who does not belong to the white race and Western Civilization. It is our word corresponding to the Jewish word Gentile or goy—any non-member. It is the word American soldiers use to designate all Koreans, north and south. Gannon will introduce the word in England, and it must enter all languages.

Behold the Guk

It is time to reintroduce this Yockeyian term.

Jews and other guks who tried to intervene were silenced by the audience. Guk, by the way, is our new word for anyone who does not belong to the white race and Western Civilization. It is our word corresponding to the Jewish word Gentile or goy—any non-member. It is the word American soldiers use to designate all Koreans, north and south. Gannon will introduce the word in England, and it must enter all languages.

This term has its derivation from Korean cuisine.

Thus, American soldiers of human (i.e., European) ancestry used that word to describe all Koreans (classifying by race, not by official “friend” vs. “foe”), and Yockey thought it a useful term to describe the Other.  I suggest we reintroduce this to racial nationalist terminology.  Given that it was originally used as a pejorative distinction toward Northeast Asian cogelites, and then specifically used in this context about Jews, use of the word “guk” has an added benefit of “sticking it” to the Alt Wrong/Alt Yellow HBD “yellow supremacists” who also happen to be pro-Jewish as well.  Thus, we distinguish the real Far Right from milquetoast milksops who worship at the Altar of Asia and at the Altar of the Yarmulke. The term also “sticks it” to the yellow fever masochistic Silkers and their Asian female “handlers.”

Bunker Syndrome Redux

An example of leftist hypocrisy as well.

Some time ago, I wrote about “The Bunker Syndrome,” an affliction that characterizes many Whites of rightist inclinations. You have White folks with healthy instructs about race and culture, but they are unwilling to actually do anything productive about it.  Rather than attempting to actualize their beliefs in the real world, and engage in activism, they’ll just spout some “bigoted” remarks, or “act out” in public, accomplishing nothing except making themselves (and others who share their beliefs) look bad.

Let’s consider this situation.  Yes, a New York lawyer named “Aaron Schlossberg” raises questions as to his ancestry – or should we say (((ancestry))) – but that’s irrelevant to the main issues at hand.  Ignore that Levantine possibility for the time being, and let’s look at this through the paradigm prism of “a ‘White’ person making rightist, politically incorrect comments.”

Now, the persecution of Schlossberg is wrong, but his behavior is a perfect example of The Bunker Syndrome – lots of loud “acting out” of “bigoted” opinions but no actualization of his views in the real world.  Indeed, we read, emphasis added:

The website for Schlossberg says he is a lawyer with a focus on commercial and insurance law and notes that he speaks Spanish and some French, Mandarin Chinese and Hebrew, in addition to English. His law office advertises that it can take phone calls in four foreign languages, an irony that was not lost on many commentators on social media.

If Mr. Schlossberg feels so strongly about the sanctity of public English speaking, then perhaps his law office should only have accepted phone calls in that language?  More to the point, if he feels so strongly about immigration, illegal immigration, immigration enforcement, rightist politics, and cultural preservation, then, instead of public displays of Bunkerism, he could have used his legal training to help those on the Right, instead of practicing “commercial and insurance law” for a “vibrant” clientele.  Even if he didn’t want to help any “anti-Semitic Nazis” there are those on the Right who would welcome him – indeed, the Alt Wrong would much prefer a New York lawyer named “Aaron Schlossberg” over some greasy low-IQ Afrowop or some Romanian dancing the hora (long may it turn).  Then there is the whole Alt Light, the Paleocons, and the Donald Cuck administration.  There’s a wide range of opportunities for someone with legal training to help the Right, instead of acting like a jackass in a restaurant.

This is the problem with all the “Bunkers.” They’ll say this or that but not actually DO anything productive in the political or metapolitical sphere to advance their beliefs.  In fact, their “acting out” typically has the consequences (apart from harming themselves) of delegitimizing their beliefs and generating (undeserved) sympathy for the targets of their ire.  They are not even helping to promote racial balkanization, since their behavior is a dead end resulting in the aforementioned sympathy for their targets, and embarrassment for those who share their basic beliefs.  There is no real “heightening of the contradictions” here.  That Black guy who walked into a restaurant with a MAGA hat and got harassed actually did more to promote balkanization than did Schlossberg yelling about calling ICE on some Spanish speakers.

In comment threads in articles about Schlossberg, one sees the typical leftist mantra that spews forth when anyone with rightist sympathies is subjected to oppressive social pricing: “free speech has consequences” and “free speech protections of the First Amendment only refer to a lack of government persecution and have nothing to do with private consequences” etc.  These same leftist hypocrites (redundancy) were silent however when Fresno State claimed an inability to discipline NEC land whale Jarrar due to…drum roll please…free speech and the First Amendment.  And keep in mind Jarrar’s antics not only included the public comments about “amazing racist” Barbara Bush but also the incident with the ASU hotline number.  Consequences for any of that?  Absolute zero. Consequences for Schlossberg expressing his private opinion in a private setting?  Kicked out of his office and having elected officials submitting complaints for him to be disbarred.  

There are some on the Left who call those on the Far Right “hypocrites” on the free speech issue because, as they say, “if you guys were in charge, you wouldn’t allow free speech.”  Of course, leftists accusing others of hypocrisy is breathtaking….well, hypocrisy, as well as an insane level of projection.  But as to the “accusation?”  Fair enough…if I were in power, I wouldn’t allow free speech for the Left; they would be silenced just as they now silence the Right.  But it is not “hypocrisy” because a Sallis State would not pretend to be a “democracy” with a “First Amendment” and would not engage in dishonorable cant about “freedom” to justify interfering with the sovereignty of other nations. A Sallis State would also not cherry-pick law enforcement nor would it engage in cowardly techniques of social pricing (also applied in a cherry-picked, inconsistent manner) in order to evade the letter and spirit of the law.

The Left does not respect freedom of expression in the context of a “democracy” centered on a “Bill of Rights” (and Europe is even worse).  So, why should they expect the Far Right to respect freedom of expression in a national socialist authoritarian state?  Are they delusional or merely retarded?

In any case: if there are rightist lawyers (or other useful professionals) out there, please learn from the Schlossberg case.  We don’t need more Archie Bunkers.  The Bunkers didn’t save America from being transformed and destroyed.  We don’t need you spouting off in a restaurant, we need you in a courtroom (or wherever your skills can be best utilized) advocating for the Right.

The Scorpion and the Frog

Europeans are the Frog.  Guess who the Scorpion is.

A summary.

A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was in its nature to do so.

Read this – Quinn’s finale on the MacDonald-Cofnas dustup.

See this article from 2010, which is relevant to the questions and criticisms of Quinn.

Ultimately, in a sense, Quinn is correct in that whether the Jews are, or are not, acting on behalf of their own evolutionary group interests is irrelevant from the perspective of the victims of Jewish behavior.  Maybe the Jews hate Whites more than they love themselves.  Maybe the Jews are dooming themselves by their embrace of, and promotion of, the poisons they are using to undermine European survival.  It could be irrational; it could just be their nature, as like the Scorpion in stinging the Frog.  In Mein Kampf Hitler asserted that if the Jews succeeded in destroying Aryans, they would turn on each other next, in hate-filled struggle.  Of course, whether or not the Jews will destroy themselves does not obligate Europeans to allow themselves to be destroyed as well.  For the victim of murder, a murder followed by the suicide of the murderer is not more palatable than murder alone.

Perhaps Europeans should worry more about defending themselves against Jewish behavior rather than worrying whether or not that behavior is, or is not, evolutionarily beneficial to Jews.  We need to shift the focus on us rather than on them.