Category: mainstreaming

Who’s a Nutzi?


The latter two definitions are relevant to Der Movement.

A far-right-winger, white supremacist, neo-Nazi etc.

He was a nice guy till he got involved with some Nutzis in Idaho.

Name inside the US white nationalist movement given to activists who praise Hitler, wear German Nazi uniforms and carry swastika flags to demonstrations. Sometimes known as “Hollywood Nazis” for their media-friendly image.

“That guy is such a Nutzi; what self-respecting white separatist dresses like it’s 1933?”

There are three ways the word “Nutzi” is used, with increasing generality:

1. An extreme, Type I, Hitler-worshipping neo-Nazi type, typically, but not exclusively, some sort of Nordicist-fetishist. Example: “William Pierce was a Nutzi.”

2. Any extreme, radical activist on the Far Right, of whatever type. Example: “Ted Sallis is a Nutzi.”

3. Any person on the Far Right, regardless of “extremism” and ideology.  Example: “Zman is a Nutzi.”

Definition one is the most specific and the most serious, and is meant to be pejorative.

Definition two is meant to be serious by the System and is either semi-serious among activists – a “this thing of ours” joking attitude – or it is meant to be a pejorative used by the mainstreaming milksops against the more extreme vanguardist types.

Definition three is used by the System and is used by activists only to mock the System (although, for example, some of Zman’s commentators may well be Nutzis, although Zman himself is not, so we can argue how to properly define his website).

I believe definitions one and two are equally legitimate, in their given contexts, but definition three is just System hysteria (used by activists to ridicule that hysteria).

Best regards,

Ted Sallis, Nutzi (definition two)

Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark

Another failure for mainstreaming.

Sallis: Mainstreaming doesn’t work, one reason for that is that the Center-Right can co-opt your lukewarm positions and scoop up your votes as the “safe” alternative.

But the situation is even worse than I had written – Denmark shows that even the Left can co-opt weakly moderate “anti-immigration” positions – and of course later betray those positions, leaving the stupid hoodwinked voters high and dry and leaving the Far Right out of power (as usual). If you cannot even distinguish yourself from Social Democrats, then isn’t that the most searing indictment of mainstreaming possible?

The riposte will be that in Europe, with their “hate speech” laws, more aggressive campaigning is not possible.  Even there, Sallis is right once again:

Some will object – what about Europe?  They have repressive speech codes and aren’t the national governments there considered legitimate by the people?  First, I can’t speak for rightist Europeans – it is very possible that the growth of populism there is indicative of a growing element that does indeed consider the System illegitimate. And, second, the USA, with its particular history of, and alleged commitment to, free speech, is expected to exhibit a much stronger association between free expression and political legitimacy than do nations that have histories of kings, dictators, strongmen, and laws against lese majeste. What about the argument that European nationalists have had success despite the speech codes there?  What success?  In some nations, there has been a temporary slowdown in the degeneration, which can be quickly reversed by any subsequent leftist government; at best, there have been victories by civic nationalists and moderate petty nationalists. The “grand success” in Europe is a figment of the Nutzi imagination. And I can turn the argument around – imagine how much more successful the European Right could be if they could actually express their real views without fear of being fined or jailed?

So, no, the pathetically flimsy “successes” in Europe – which in any case have limited relevance to the American situation – in no way disprove the thesis put forth here.  Given the concerns of White nationalists, the situation in Europe remains dire. Demographic replacement is still “baked into the cake” there. Can European nationalists freely and frankly discuss these concerns?

Der Movement argues how wonderfully the ethnonationalist heroes, with their carefully worded mainstreaming, are doing in Europe.  Sallis argues that this vaunted success is an illusion and that mainstreaming is a disaster, and that without the ability to speak freely – that for the most part European nationalists do not even have as a part of their political platforms – nothing significant can be accomplished.

Sallis – correct; Der Movement – wrong.

But that’s OK, keep on supporting the Quota Queens, those empty vessels who have all the depth of a piece of tissue cut by a microtome and all the heft of a rotifer.  Affirmative action and all that. Meanwhile, enjoy the fruits of mainstreaming in Denmark.

And then we have America:  Trump will be monitoring the situation.  Stay tuned!

I’m fair-minded, and will praise Der Movement when it is warranted.  Thus, in the midst of the horrendous pile of written garbage that now passes for Counter-Currents is a thoughtful essay that I believe has real value – see here.  This attitude, to be actualized into reality, will require community activism, focusing on real social and economic problems instead of nonsense about “Kali Yuga,” and will require an adoption of populist “lefist” economic positions instead of “conservative-libertarian” posturing about “sweet business deals” (the latter coming, perhaps not coincidentally, from the pro-Jewish HBD side of the “movement” aisle).

The Rank-and-File Should Revolt

Forget about the shark, Der Movement has jumped Moby Dick.

Following up on this, and this:

In the real world, no one actually supports Andrew Yang in this movement; it is the “insiders” trying to push it on the rank-and-file. This push, thankfully, is failing.

Why don’t the rank-and-file of Der Movement finally revolt against their “leaders” – against the “insiders” constantly leading them astray?


The following text is an interview I gave to a reporter.

Remember this?

…many scandals to come — are all predictable results of crawling into bed with the press.
…most people in this movement lack the “self-esteem” and judgment to choose their own leaders. Instead, they allow the press and groups like the SPLC to anoint their leaders for them…
…How does one court the press? By giving them what they want, of course. By fulfilling the stereotypes that advance the enemy’s narrative…
…Will these people ever go away? Not as long as the movement lets a hostile press declare who our leaders are.

This Yang thing, on the heels of the collapse of the God Emperor narrative and the Quota Queen’s refusal take any responsibility for their role in that, should be the last straw.

How much bad judgment, humiliation, error, defeat, and embarrassment can the rank-and-file take? How much more hypocrisy?  How much more Asiaphilia?  

I have my differences with the National Alliance crowd, but, still, I’m sure both Kevin Strom and Will Williams would oppose, as I do, the hijacking of racial activism into some sort of mainstreaming embrace of idiotic political candidates, with an underlying Jewish/Asian HBD objective.

Those two gentleman have a degree of status and gravitas in “movement” circles. It would be helpful if they would openly oppose these trends.

More helpful would be if the rank-and-file took up the banner of revolt, stormed the ramparts of Der Movement, and restored at least the level of stupidity that existed under WN 1.0, which, as bad as it was, was still better than what we have today.

Most helpful of all would be a total revolution, a dismantling of the Old Movement and its replacement by something new.

Sunday News

In der news.

All together now: Cuckadoodledoo!

Didn’t I warn you that this guy is a buffoon and a fraud?

The last chance for White America!  The God Emperor!

Spencer is correct: Trump as any sort of “change agent” is finished.  I could have told you that (and did) three and more years ago, but, hey, better late than never.

Hey, Ann, I could have told you all of that back in 2015.

Once again, Sallis is right.  Mainstreaming always fails because your more centrist position can always be co-opted by the System and/or by other, more moderate, populists.  If you stake out a radical position that truly represents what you are (or should be) about, then one of two things happen – either you distinguish yourself from the opposition and thus stand alone or you force the opposition to shift toward you, moving the so-called “Overton Window” in the proper direction.  As to the cries – “oh, you won’t’ win” – please tell me about the success of President Le Pen.  You should win or lose standing on principle, rather than lose as a compromised fraud.  At the very least, if you stand your ground, you know that any success is authentic and due to shifting people toward you, rather than vice versa.

Note to micks who still identify as “liberal Democrats” and who spite WASPs by identifying as “oppressed Hibernians in solidarity with People of Color.”

Watch this.  Of course, Greg Johnson was telling us it was really a “win” for Trump (and, implicitly, I suppose, for all of us), because those wonderful Republican “didn’t lose as badly as they could have.”

Reality here – not delusional debate about “when we will win our victory.” Things are bad and getting worse.  I assume the mindset of the “optimism crowd” – if we assume that they are sincere and not merely boosting their egos and cash flows – is that despair will lead to inaction and surrender, so we have to give people hope. Unfortunately, constant disappointment, and constantly dashed hopes, leads to disgust, and, yes, despair and inaction; falsely inflated hope that “all will be well” also can lead to inaction as people believe that “it’ll all work out in the end regardless of what I do or don’t do.”  Reality is best.

Kevin, if you are going to talk about gravity, it is churlish not to mention Einstein and General Relativity.

I’m no fan of Einstein or his ethny, but fair is fair.

“I’m not surprised you’ll get different results from different companies,” Dr. Jennifer Raff, Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Kansas told TechCrunch back in September. “They have their own proprietary info based on those samples. If one of them has lots of individuals from a particular region and the other company does not, you’re more likely to show up as having ancestry from that region whereas if the other company doesn’t have that data represented in their database, it’s going to show up as a different population.”

What the parental populations are is going to significantly affect the results.

This reminds me of a personal anecdote. A family I know – normies not Nutzis – asked me to take a look at some confusing ancestry data they got from a company that shall remain nameless.  No problem with paternity – child has 50% chromosome match with father as well as mother, etc.  The ancestry percentages for the child are very crudely plausible based on the parents. So far, fine as well as it goes.  But the chromosomal fragments do not match.  Thus, for example, the child inherits some percentage of ancestry “X” from the mother and not the father (who lacks it, according to the test). But, the mother’s “X” is on, say, chromosomes 3, 5,and 6 (I don’t remember the exact details) and the child’s “X “is on, say, chromosomes 10 and 16. That of course is at the lower confidence levels.  At the highest confidence level, all of those chromosome fragments are “unassigned.”  So, putting aside a historically novel medical finding of mass chromosomal translocations resulting in a normal child (a probability roughly equal to picking one specific atom out of all those in the observable universe), we are left with the reality that the chromosome fragment identifies at the low confidence intervals are being assigned with the precision of a coin flip.  A fragment may be “X” but very likely could be “Y.”  Or maybe the father actually has “X” – and this is where the child is getting it – but the father’s chromosome fragment is instead labeled “Y” at the low confidence interval and “unassigned” at the higher.  Thus, maybe it is really the father who has “X” at the chromosome fragments that would match the child but the test is assigning those fragments to a different ancestry, while perhaps the mother has little or no “X” at all. If you take the low confidence level data at face value, then this all makes no biological sense at all. Recombination normally takes place between homologous chromosomes, not between non-homologous ones.

These companies would be better served to just estimate ancestry from SNP frequency data and/or genome-wide correlations of SNP frequencies (genetic integration) rather than making low probability guestimates of chromosome fragment identity.  However, the latter method is I suppose better for telling crazed cat ladies that they are descended from Pocahontas, so there’s that.

In addition, the companies’ “timeline” estimates are ludicrous, and cannot be used to “time” admixture, even if the admixture is real and not artefactual.  Putting aside the question as to whether the chromosome fragments are properly identified to begin with, and whether the boundaries between purported different ancestral fragments are also properly identified, an important point is being missed (many academic population geneticists make the same possibly incorrect assumptions).  In a large panmictic population, certainly over time you’ll have sufficient scrambling of ancestries so that in an individuals there will be sufficient possibility for meiotic recombination to mix fragments between homologous chromosomes and this breaks up ancestral blocs over time, allowing for an estimation of the arrival of the intrusive elements. But if a small population was interbreeding in isolated communities, then it is possible to have individuals with very high ancestral proportions of the original intrusive stocks, and given mating over time between such individuals any exchanges of chromosome fragments would likely be between fragments of like ancestry.  So large blocs of a given ancestry can be maintained over time, and only start degrading in size relatively recently, given increased human movement.  But let’s not have real life possibilities interfere with the business model.  Send in the shekels!  Pocahontas awaits!


How any of this is any better than DNAPrint (was flawed as well) is unclear to me.