Category: mendacity

The Big Lie

First, meet Terentius Neo.  Then we’ll get to the other lies.

The usual suspects in Der Movement (e.g., Kemp) have used the portrait of Terentius Neo to pontificate about non-European admixture in Roman Italy from “slaves and immigrants.” The usual paradigm is that Neo’s appearance reflects alien ancestry while his (assumed) wife reflects “native Roman-Italian ancestry.”  Evidence of such ancestries?  It is just that the fetishists “eyeball” the fresco and make a judgment based on their personal opinion?

Let’s consider what we know about this Neo family.  Emphasis added:

The fresco depicts a pair of middle-class Pompeians believed to be man and wife. Terentius Neo was a baker as the house had been modified to include a bakery, and the portrait shows the couple as equal members of a confident and fashionable mercantile class. The man wears a toga, the mark of a Roman citizen, and holds a rotulus, suggesting he is also involved in local public and/or cultural events. The woman is in the foreground and holds a stylus and wax tablet, emphasising that she is of equal status, educated and literate.

Neo was a Roman citizen during a time when the citizenship was not universal (the destruction of Pompeii was almost 150 years before the Edict of Caracalla).  Could he have been the son of a freedman?  Possibly, but what possible reason to assume so except that the Kempians don’t like his physical appearance? He was not only a citizen, and a professional for that era, but also someone likely “involved in local public and/or cultural events.” That does not prove anything, but it certainly is not inconsistent with being of native stock.  Or is the “Neo” that makes one assume a freedman assumed a Roman name?

See this.  Someone on the Internet vacillates between asserting a Samnite origin (native Italic stock) and about Neo being a freedman – a freedman in the first century AD who is not only a Roman citizen but is also likely involved in “local public and/or cultural events.” The Samnite hypothesis – itself speculation – seems more plausible. Indeed, it seems like the main rationale for speculating about an exotic origin here, besides the speculation about the name, is the idea that “gee, Terentius Neo doesn’t look like all those Anglo-Saxon actors playing Ancient Romans in the movies and on TV.” 

Bottom line – we don’t know the origins of the man (or his supposed wife, for that matter – maybe he’s the native and she’s the alien?  He could be a freedman, but it seems unlikely that a freedman would be a publicly active Roman citizen in the first century AD.  Was he the son of a freedman?  Anything is possible, but if the only criterion is – “he doesn’t look like Charlton Heston playing Marc Antony,” then that’s not good enough.  For all we know, he was a native Italic.

Putting aside the ethnoracial provenance of Terentius Neo, there’s a more fundamental issue here.

The typical “movement” paradigm has been that the original peoples of Italy, including (and especially) the Romans, were fairer and “more northern” (Nordic) compared to modern Italians, thought to be darker and “more Mediterranean” due to “admixture with Afro-Asiatic “slaves and immigrants.”  

However, what if the opposite is true?  What if modern Italians, particularly North and Central (where the Germanic influx from late Antiquity through the Middle Ages was greatest), are actually fairer and “more northern” than the ancients? Even in the South, to a lesser extent, this may be true as well, given Norman inputs.

The Normans expanded from northern France to a number of regions, including Sicily and the southern portion of the Italian Peninsula (and even sacked the city of Rome in 1084), where they established the Kingdom of Sicily (3, 36).

Then there were the earlier Vandal invasions, and the settlement of Sicily by mainland Italians, including North Italians, as well as other Europeans, after the Muslim population was relocated to the mainland after the Morabit rebellion and its aftermath.  The key point is the possibility that the ancients were actually “darker and more Mediterranean” than the moderns, rather than the reverse. Let’s consider my summary of the functional gene analysis from the Roman genetic paper:

Figure S29 gives functional allele frequency data, which mirrors the general genetic data. For example, throughout most of Roman history, lactase persistence is low, and increases only toward the end periods, starting with Late Antiquity, precisely those periods that have samples exhibiting the most haplotype sharing with “Central and Northern Europe.” Blue eye color was highest in the earliest (Mesolithic) and latest (Late Antiquity and Medieval and Early Modern) Roman periods; Iron Age/Republic and the Imperial periods look similar.  Hair color was not studied.

The three skin pigmentation graphs show varying line curves, but the trend is lighter skin as one progresses through time, rather than the reverse – the fairest seems to be the Late Antiquity/Middle Ages period – there certainly does not seem to be any differences between Iron Age/Republic and Empire, apart from the previously mentioned trend that goes against “movement” dogma.


The functional data, combined with the ancestry data, are compatible with the idea that the ancients were at least as “dark and Mediterranean” as the moderns, if not more so.  There is zero evidence for the reverse – Der Movement’s idea of the ancients being “fairer and more Nordic.”  

These posts about Rome, Napoleon, etc., we have seen here and at Western Destiny recently, although interesting in their own right, are more a means to an end rather than an end in themselves. And that end is the deconstruction of the “movement,” to expose Der Movement, Inc. as intellectually, factually, morally, spiritually bankrupt, as a conglomeration of liars, grifters, sweaty fetishists, and pseudoscientists unable to ever admit being wrong, a stronghold of ineffective incompetents, affirmative action cases who hide their ineptness and intellectual vacuity behind a screen of slogans and fossilized dogma. The “movement” is a pathetic failure, a bunch of frauds and liars, and all of you should eschew it and help build a New Movement.

That’s the end.  All these posts are the means to that end.

Meanwhile, all you Type I Nutzis will continue getting lied to, and you’ll believe it all.

You will be told that Blacks have higher serum testosterone than Whites and other races, even though peer-reviewed scientific studies prove otherwise. You will be told that the Ancient Romans, Greeks, and even Egyptians (!) were Nordic, even though ancient DNA studies continue to disprove those ahistorical inventions. You will be told that Rome collapsed because of “racial degeneration” so that the people “didn’t know how the big stone thingy worked anymore,” while the reality is that as the Western Empire declined and fell the genetics of Rome moved in a more “northern” and “western” direction and that the “big stone thingy” was working fine until the Germans came in, destroyed the Western Empire, and plunged Europe into a centuries-long Dark Ages (and it is only in this post-Roman period, that was German-ruled, that we find a lack of piped water). You’ll be told that the original Romans were individualistic northern hunter-gatherers even though the genetic data suggests a mostly Neolithic farmer ancestry and an overall Mediterranean (mostly West Mediterranean but with some Central and East Mediterranean components) racial provenance.  The fact that the height of power of the Empire was associated with a shift in the genetics of Rome to the “south” and “east” (I’m not saying that this shift was good, it is true that maladaptive population replacement took place within the city of Rome itself and in immediately surrounding areas, but I’m just reporting the historical and genetic facts) is something the “movement” will NOT tell you. They will lie to you about individualism and collectivism in Europe, confuse amoral familism with collectivism, and tell you one minute that Sweden is highly individualistic and in the next minute that it is a collectivist “unimind” with a “shame culture.”  You will be told that Rushton is a truth-telling hero, while his fellow HBDer Dutton (himself a buffoon who calls others neurotic while he behaves like a semi-retarded five year old with attention deficit disorder) admits that Rushton was a fraud and a hypocrite. Lynn will lie to you about IQ with his absurd and unscientific “estimates,” while being out-argued by an African. You will be told that everyone on the Far Right was part of the Alt Right and all blindly supported Trump, even though I was openly attacking the Alt Right and calling Trump a “vulgar ignorant buffoon” and a “Negrophilic race cuck” as far back as 2016. You will see the “movement” agonize over MENA admixture in Southern Europe while either ignoring North Asian/Siberian/East Asian admixture in Northern Europe or labeling the latter as “a great benefit to all humanity.” It is LIE after LIE after LIE, distortion after distortion, endless fraud and grifting – they even have the nerve to lie to you that the only thing the “movement” needs is money, after wasting millions of dollars given to them by suckers like you.

It is THE BIG LIE.

And you’ll only see it exposed here.

Ward-Perkins: The Fall of Rome

Who killed civilization and what happened next?

Quote from Amazon review:

Why did Rome fall?

Vicious barbarian invasions during the fifth century resulted in the cataclysmic end of the world’s most powerful civilization, and a ‘dark age’ for its conquered peoples. Or did it? The dominant view of this period today is that the ‘fall of Rome’ was a largely peaceful transition to Germanic rule, and the start of a positive cultural transformation.

Bryan Ward-Perkins encourages every reader to think again by reclaiming the drama and violence of the last days of the Roman world, and reminding us of the very real horrors of barbarian occupation. Attacking new sources with relish and making use of a range of contemporary archaeological evidence, he looks at both the wider explanations for the disintegration of the Roman world and also the consequences for the lives of everyday Romans, in a world of economic collapse, marauding barbarians, and the rise of a new religious orthodoxy. He also looks at how and why successive generations have understood this period differently, and why the story is still so significant today

That very well summarizes the book; having read it, I strongly recommend it (you should be reading on this subject other than retarded “movement” propaganda), and would like to make some points about it here. The book is broadly divided into three parts. First, a historical overview, with the author’s opinions and interpretations as to what happened and why, and also insights into the cross-assimilation process between the defeated Romans and their new German masters. Second, a detailed analysis of the physical evidence for an actual catastrophic Fall, an end to civilization, and the suffering that spread in its wake. Third, a brief summary, with a final warning that what happened to the Romans in their complacency could happen to “our” current civilization (I put “our” in scare quotes because it has already been subverted by aliens – we are already in the process of a Fall).

The author is a self-described “Englishman,” and, although “he was born and raised in Rome and spoke Italian from childhood,” he explicitly states in his book that, personally, he dislikes the Ancient Romans. That is an odd thing for a historian to state about a people he is writing about, but, if he is sincere in that statement, and there is no reason to believe otherwise, then that demonstrates that he is not a shabbos nord stepandfetchit pandering to swarthoids. He is merely writing what he believes is the truth, based on his research. 

One negative about the book to get out of the way – the author writes: “There is no reason to believe, as people once did, that ethnic behavior and identity are genetically transmitted, and therefore immutable.” There is actually every reason to believe that, at least in the sense that a significant portion of identity is determined by biological affiliation and that much of behavior is genetically transmitted; where I part with Der Movement (apart from its constantly disproved dogma on such subjects) is with the idea that this is completely deterministic at the level of being 100% genetic. Phenotype is the combination of both genes and the environment; both are important (genes being more so), and the relative contributions of each inform as to whether the phenotype is mutable or immutable.

Another interesting and amusing part of the book is when the author describes how perceptions of the Fall of Rome have been shaped by ethnic and political considerations.  Thus, Italians and other “Latin” peoples tend to view the Fall of the Western Empire as a catastrophe, with savage and ignorant Germanic barbarians toppling civilization and ushering in a Dark Age. On the other hand, Northern Europeans, particularly Germanics, including the Anglosphere, propose the idea of “a largely peaceful transition to Germanic rule, and the start of a positive cultural transformation.”  And when, in the past, Germanics agreed that the Fall was traumatic, they asserted that it was all for the good, with one German philosopher quoted, with all the sweatiness of a typical Type I Nutzi, about how vigorous northerners rejuvenated Italy by toppling the enervated dwarfish Roman stock (one can imagine Humphrey Ireland as a Goth warrior, furiously attempting to stomp two foot tall scurrying Roman swarthoids, or Greg Johnson envisioning manlet Tom Cruise as an enervated Roman dwarf). On the other hand, the Scottish historian William Robertson lamented the destruction of civilization that resulted from the barbarian destruction of the Western Empire, and then there is Gibbon.

Politically, the view of modern Germans informs opinions on this matter; when WWI and WWII was fresh in people’s minds, the idea of rampaging barbarians was at the forefront, but with today’s more peaceful and influential (and cucked) Germany, the “peaceful transition” idea has more adherents. The author quotes harsh evaluations of the Germanic invaders by English and French scholars during the 1930s and in the immediate post-WWII period. 


More interestingly, the author claims that today’s pro-Germanic paradigms about the “peaceful transformation of the Roman world,” with the consequent prioritization of Late Antiquity, is being used by European Union elites to legitimize their German-dominated globalist construct.  Further, the de-emphasis of Greco-Roman culture is part and parcel of modern anti-Western politically correct “scholarship.” This is all consistent with my longstanding thesis that the System leverages Nordicism to prop up the anti-White multicultural system, not only by dividing Whites but, perhaps more importantly, pandering to Northern European sensibilities by making anti-White constructs such as the EU, and the equation (or dominance) of other cultures – including non-White ones – with that of the Classical Civilization (thus undermining the foundations of the West [regardless of Spengler and Yockey]), more palatable. Similarly, I have argued that HBD occasionally panders to Nordicism in order to make palatable memes that have as their objective raising Jews and Asians to dominance over Whites. The HBD-Nordicism (combination of both paradigms) peddled by MacDonald – with its lies about Rome – is part of this (even though that’s not his intention, the outcome is the same).

The authors’ idea is that modeling the EU on the Roman Empire would leave out much of Northern Europe, but a German-dominated Late Antiquity period serves as an effective model for today’s German-dominated EU. Perhaps in a sense the EU elites are correct given Ward-Perkins’ thesis of Late Antiquity being associated with “the end of civilization.” This time it is the Western Civilization that is ending, with the same ethnic drivers of this catastrophe as with the end of the Classical Civilization. The first time as tragedy; the second time as farce.  In any case, the author of this book looks at the evidence and concludes that the catastrophe scenario is more accurate; the “peaceful transition” hypothesis is effectively falsified.

The author claims that the Eastern Empire survived while the West collapsed because of better geographical protections – the thin band of sea separated Europe from Asia, which allowed for the protection of Constantinople and the richer areas of Asia Minor and the Levant.  In any case, as I have written before, if Der Movement wants to blame biology for the Fall, and not other reasons and circumstances, how would they explain the survival of the  more “racially degenerate” (from a European standpoint) East?  If they invoke non-biological considerations, such as that put forth by the author, is it possible that such considerations apply to the West as well?  It is of course theoretically possible that the West collapsed for biological reasons (but remember that genetically the Western Empire was becoming more “northern” and “western” at that time) and the East survived for non-biological reasons, but it is more likely, and less cherry picking of explanations, to consider all of the practical reasons for the Fall without imposing “movement” dogma on it, and a desire to make self-serving racial analogies between then and now.  I also point out that the author is of the school that claims that the Western Empire was not in terminal decline when it fell, and was still powerful, albeit troubled. 

The author makes an interesting conclusion about Roman-German cross-assimilation after the Fall.  Thus, he writes: “…both groups moved ‘upwards’: the Romans into the political identity of their German masters; the Germanic peoples into the more sophisticated cultural framework of their Roman subjects.” Thus, the “Roman” population of various regions eventually (politically, and eventually ethnically, as those boundaries dissipated) identified as “Visigoths” or “Franks” (and in Italy, became “Italian” or identified with more local identities, so that only the inhabitants of Rome itself identified as “Roman”); meanwhile, the Germans attempted to adopt much of the “sophisticated cultural framework” of the civilization that they destroyed. Thus, the Romans politically became German and the Germans culturally tried to become Roman. This of course contrasts with much of “movement” propaganda of culturally pure noble Germanics sweeping aside all traces of degenerate Roman culture and civilization.  

However, despite the eagerness of some of the Germans – at least the rulers – to co-opt aspects of Roman civilization, they were not did not have the capability to sustain any of it long term, and the physical destruction (material, economy, contacts, the broader aspects of the Roman network) of the Western Empire by the Germans, which the author chronicles in great detail in the second half of the book, meant that no continuance of the Classical Civilization, of Roman culture, was possible.  Indeed, Der Movement likes to tell us that only the people who create a culture and a civilization can maintain it; thus, the descent into the interregnum of the Dark Ages after the German conquest of Rome was inevitable by the Der Movement’s own dogma. Of course, that suggests that, whatever demographic changes took place among the urban masses of the city of Rome itself, the overall Empire, and its leadership, was sufficiently stable, demographically speaking, in a broad sense, to maintain Roman culture until that culture and its civilization was killed, in the West, by the invading Germans. So, while the political assimilation of Romans into the Germanic identity was successful at least in some areas of Western Europe (for as long as those Germanic identities existed in those regions, before becoming superseded by more modern national identities), the cultural assimilation of Germans to Roman culture failed, at least initially. Only after the full cross-assimilation between the two groups (that took many centuries) did a rebirth of civilization become possible.

Indeed, one (most palatable for Der Movement, eh?) of the possible alternative histories broached by the authors, was of a continuance of the Western Roman Empire (in perhaps shrunken form). but under Germanic leadership, rather than of a collapse of that Empire. But that didn’t happen, did it?  The closest thing to a (very brief) revival was the Byzantine (the “degenerate” East) reconquest of Italy during the sixth century Gothic war – and the natives of Italy were so obviously pro-Byzantine that the embittered Goths massacred Italian civilians, including 300 aristocratic Roman children that were held hostage. Goths and Romans as “natural friends,” eh Jordanes?  (Apparently, “movement” lies existed as early as the sixth century AD).

Later of course, the synthesis between the contributions of the North and the South of (Western) Europe led to the creation of the Western Civilization (as Yockey recognized), although of course some in the “movement” believe otherwise.

The author contrasts the paradigm of “Romans politically becoming Germans and the Germans culturally becoming Romans” to that of the Arab conquest of MENA areas, in which the conquered peoples not only adopted the political identity of “Arab” but also adopted the Islamic culture of their conquerors.  The difference, as the author asserts, is that the Arabs conquered in the name of the militant new faith, while the “culturally flexible” Germans came with no cultural agenda; instead, they wanted to partake of the riches of Rome.  The author makes clear that the Germans did not intend to destroy the Empire but to exploit it, but destroy it they did; as the author puts it, they were guilty of manslaughter, not murder (lack of homicidal intention).

The second part of the book is an impressive, albeit somewhat dry (unless you are very interested in potsherds and such things), accounting of the physical evidence of the collapse of civilization, and the resulting drastic drop in living standards consequent to that. The physical structure of the Western Roman Empire was wrecked by the German conquest – and that applies to the entire Empire, even to those areas abandoned before the final Fall, Britain for example.  The author writes: “It may be hard to believe, but post-Roman Britain in fact sank to a level of economic complexity well below that of the pre-Roman Iron Age.” The author states that the (relatively) sophisticated economy of the Roman world destroyed small-scale autarkic local economies, and made everyone dependent on highly specialized interacting large-scale networks, which were very vulnerable to disruption. Hence, we observe the collapse of this highly integrated and specialized economy and the long period (many centuries) of rebuilding required to get back to least partly to what was present before. The author makes the obvious analogies to the highly specialized “Western” economies of today, which are equally vulnerable to disruption.

Of relevance to that, let us remember what the odious scum Zman wrote about Rome, accompanied by my replies:

Zman: …started to think about those people living in the Roman Empire wondering why the water no longer comes from the big stone thingy anymore. 

Sallis: Because invading Germans wrecked them?

Zman: Some may have remembered their ancestors working on them for some reason, but they no longer recall why. 

Sallis: What bullshit.  When the water stopped running, it was because the city was sacked by, and later mismanaged by, the Holy Ones.

Zman: The people who knew how and why those aqueducts worked were long gone. No one was around who could figure out how to make them work again, because they lacked the capacity to do it.

Sallis: Absolute, raging bullshit.  The water stopped flowing after the fall of the empire. Who was running the show then?  Maybe folks who never built aqueducts in the first place. Odoacer: “What’s that big stone thingy?  Can my horse drink out of it?” Hey, Zman, take your Kempian lies back to “Lagos.” By the way, the “Lagos” joke is so stale by now it’s starting to stink like one of Zman’s South Asians.

Of course – surprise! – Sallis is right and Der Movement is wrong.  If one mantra, one paradigm, one meme can summarize Der Movement, Inc. it would be this – wrong, wrong, they’re ALWAYS wrong.

If anyone is to blame for the “big stone thingies” not working any more, it were the Holy Germans. Put that in your pipe and smoke it in “Lagos,” Zman, you insufferable idiot.  Indeed, the author specifically states a lack of evidence that in post-Roman Italy that rural and urban homes lacked the “under-floor heating and piped water” present in Roman times.  Piped water, Zman, which disappeared after your Holy Ones wrecked the Empire.

Whatever the faults of the later Roman Empire – and it had faults aplenty (as did the Roman Republic by the way, as did NS Germany, as did colonial America, as did, or does, every polity in history, albeit in different manners and to different extents – one cannot compare 1950s America to Idi Amin’s Uganda), it still was working, it still had civilization, it was still a working state with a higher standard of living, and technics, than the surrounding peoples. No, Zman, they didn’t forget how those “big stone thingies” worked.  No, the “big stone thingies” didn’t just stop running water.  Yes, it was your Germanic tribal heroes who wrecked everything, as Ward-Perkins – no swarthoid he – has pointed out in exquisite detail.

The genetics of Rome in the late periods – decline, fall, post-fall – when all those “big stone thingies” stopped working according to Zman, was moving in the “western” and “northern” directions.  Indeed, the settlement of Germans in Italy and the abovementioned assimilation no doubt explains much of these genetic shifts during this period, as well as pre-Fall immigration and political and military participation, and some assimilation even then (The Vandal-Roman hybrid Stilicho as an example).

The last part of the book summarizes the evidence and gives the warning described near the beginning of this essay, with the author saying that we can experience the same collapse in our complacency as the Romans did in theirs.  It’s already happening.

To summarize the main thesis of this book: There was no “gradual evolution” of the Western Roman Empire after the fall. It was crushed, ended, and there was an interregnum of the Dark Ages. You may say, hey, it ended one tired civilization and brought forth a newer, more vibrant Western civilization (Spengler saying that the Classical and the Western are two separate entities – let’s assume that for now, although one can argue both ways). True, but the same outcome could have been achieved, with less horror and without the long interregnum of backwardness, if the “gradual evolution” actually occurred, as I wrote:

Was the destruction of the Western Roman Empire by the Germans good or bad?  If we take the traditional (and “movement”) view that the (later) empire was completely degenerate, then it was undoubtedly good; however, if we take the view, discussed above, that the later Western Empire was actually more morally sound than it ever was, then the question becomes more interesting.

Rather than frame it in the form of “good” vs. “bad” perhaps a counterfactual analysis would be useful.  What if the Roman Empire, the Western Empire, was able to act from a position of strength in the fourth and fifth centuries AD to reform the European situation to one of a power-sharing confederation mode? What if Rome has won the Battle of Adrianople, and had corrected certain deficiencies and regained some degree of vigor.  What if a wise Emperor had realized that maintenance of a far-flung centralized Empire was no longer feasible (note that the division into Western and Eastern halves was the beginning of this realization) and had reformed the Empire into a Confederation of Peoples – Romans, Germans, Gauls – with cooperation, considerable local autonomy and various common objectives (e.g., eastward expansion, defense against the Huns [Chalons as a crude example of what was possible], etc.).  That may have been unworkable given the attitudes of people of that time; on the other hand, the Gauls were Romanized after exhibiting such resistance centuries before; and, and, at this time, the Germans were no longer the same “barbarians” as in the past, some degree of “Romanization” had taken place, at least to an indirect degree. 

Rome could have at some point attempted to cut its losses, preserve itself as an independent “Mediterranean” power, and come to an accommodation with other European peoples.

Would that have hastened the development of the West, bypassing the Dark Ages?  Or would it have inhibited the development of the West by preserving the fossilized remnants of the Classical past its expiration date?  These are all interesting questions, ones that are never asked by a (itself fossilized) “movement” steeped in inflexible dogma.”

And then we have this:

We can consider the 1942 classic The Roman Commonwealth by English historian Ralph Westwood Moore. With respect to the idea that Rome went from a virtuous city-state to a degenerate empire, Moore classified that as a “pious myth” and further stated: “Morality in the large sense was a thing which Rome achieved as she grew, not a Garden of Eden from which her destiny expelled her or a state of innocence from which she fell.”  Blasphemy!  That doesn’t accord with “movement” dogma so it must be wrong, wrong, wrong – or Moore was secretly Moori, a swarthoid with a Medish agenda!

The point of this essay is not to mimic the “movement” (in the opposite direction) and take sides in ancient conflicts. The Goths and other Germans may have wrecked the Classical Civilization but they were instrumental in founding the modern “Faustian” Western High Culture – Western Civilization.  The point of the essay is merely to demonstrate to readers that there is genuine scholarship on these subjects and you do have to depend on the “movement’s” retarded dogma. The “movement’s” cartoonish view of noble godlike Germans and degenerate devilish Romans needs to be eschewed. The lies about the “degeneracy” of the Roman Empire and the changing demographics need to be interpreted in the light of facts, including that the maximal corruption of Late Antiquity and the subsequent Fall of the Western Empire took place at precisely the same time that the genetics of Rome were moving more in the “high trust northern hunter-gatherer” direction. We need to consider serious scholarship.  Shameless liars like Kemp and MacDonald peddle falsehoods about Rome to push their radical Nordicism, but you are not obligated to digest that nonsense as long as real scholarship exists to set the record straight.

Odds and Ends, 12/4/19

Various issues.

Greg Johnson describes how he attacks those on the Right:

principled intellectual disagreement vs. personal invective (It is not “divisive” to sincerely disagree with someone.)
defending oneself from attacks vs. launching attacks on others
calling out people for harming the movement vs. pointless personal vendettas

The problem is that this is exactly what Ted Sallis does, but when Ted does it, he’s “crazy and bitter” and to be “banned.”

Type Is on the march.

Zaremski was an emergency medical technician who frequented white supremacist forums online and had a trove of neo-Nazi literature. He was caught only because he sent a photo of his ex-girlfriend wearing parts of a Nazi uniform to her employer, officials said…He also affixed a “Right Wing Death Squad” patch to his EMT jacket.

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.

Look at this naïve buffoon presenting ancestry testing results to the decimal point for Gabbard, including percentages of 3.8, 1.1, and 0.8.  Depending on the test and the parental populations used, I would question even the percentages in the 20s.

Let it not be said that the “movement’s” affirmative action “leadership” does not come up with brilliant ideas – this is one!  Heil Der Movement!  Heil!  

No, actually the Alt Right should just continue on the glorious path already established.

Andrew Fraser wanna-be and “Wilmot” lover Morris the Liar is back again with the same old shtick. Question – wasn’t it the grand old WASP foreign policy establishment that gave us American involvement in WWI and WWII (and don’t start braying about “Pearl Harbor” with respect to the latter, with all the grand work Der Movement has done over the years uncovering the FDR administration’s perfidy regarding that)?

Oh you’ll say – the Jews were manipulating there.  If that is the case, as far back as WWI, then when did the USA have an authentically Humphrey Irelandish foreign policy apparatus?  The Spanish American War perhaps, brought to us by grand fellows like Hearst (journalism leading foreign policy) and the reason we have so many Puerto Ricans and Filipinos in American today.  What?  Do we gave to go back to Polk and the Mexican American War?  Or perhaps Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase?  Or Washington’s Farewell Address?

Der Movement likes to pontificate, but cannot back up all of the hot air with historical reality.

If you believe that in the past that American foreign policy was run by the “Majority,” then this is relevant.  Fiction mirroring reality. After all, if Der Movement loves the Pesci scene so much, they can also consider the content of the remainder of the movie as well.

Now, I did state:

A case can be made that folks like the Wilsons founded and built America and so they have the right to pull the strings…

Very well.  But if so, at least have the honesty to admit when the Wilsons screw things up, instead of pretending those were halcyon days – the Golden Age of foreign affairs from which we’ve sadly fallen to the Yogi Bear (“Kali Yuga”). But then, the concept of accountability is not very well accepted by Der Movement and its “leadership,” is it?

My response to this nonsense is this EGI Notes post.  Fact is, Rushton was exposed as a fraud and a personal hypocrite by a fellow HBDer.  That Johnson blithely ignores the facts about his hero and continues to peddle him as some sort of admirable figure is unfortunate but not (to me) surprising.

Happy Thanksgiving 2019

Odds and ends.

On this day, let us all be thankful that the Alt Right collapsed before it became even more intertwined with racial nationalism and dragged racial activism down into the abyss.

I would like to point out with respect to some of my recent harsh criticism of certain “movement” figures that it is not personal and does not deny that those people have made important contributions to the cause.

Take Hood for example. Much of what he writes I agree with, but the outrageous gaslighting about the history of the Alt Right and its support by those on the Far Right, and also about support for Trump, is unacceptable. His comment of “we just need money” is also unacceptable, as Der Movement has frittered away millions of dollars with nothing to show for it except for endless humiliating failure.  MacDonald had done good work, but the current HBD-Nordicist direction of his work delves into pseudoscience (for an example, see below).

I will continue to speak truth to power.  The power in this case being Der Movement, Inc.

Laugh at this prime Type Isim.

In Donaldson’s mythos, which is equal parts Joseph Campbell and J. R. R. Tolkien, ancient races of elves, dwarves, and giants represent elemental aspects of our world and our souls. Storm giants, for example, represent what is violent and destructive in men and also the great winters that caused the last Ice Age. Before the advent of men, these races often did battle, with the storm giants routing the elves in North America and sending their great prince, Boden, fleeing to Europe. There, the elves managed to defeat the storm giants (an allegory for the retreating glaciers after the Ice Age) with the help of humans.

My elf, my elf, my storm giant for an elf!  I don’t know – those silver age Tales of Asgard comic tales by Jews Lee and Kirby seem to me better than Donaldson

Next for Ash Donaldson – writing a sequel to The Iron Dream.

A Race for the North imparts above all else the great kinship shared by the white European peoples.

By “white European peoples” that is, of course, everyone who derives from the north of Vienna and the west of Berlin.  That may be a bit too inclusive though – how about from the north of Calais and the west of Hamburg?  Dat right!

Zman:

At some point, I decided to watch until I saw an ad featuring anything resembling normal people doing normal things. I gave up after about thirty minutes. If a space alien tried to understand America based on television, its conclusion would be that we are ruled by frizzy-haired mulatto lesbians and homosexuals.

What about Spencer’s octoroons?

With respect to the HBD-Nordicists, see this.  Emphasis added.

And in Sweden, public shaming and ostracism — punishments typical of a feminized society — are very powerful.

Sweden a shame culture? I thought that all of those high trust northern hunter gatherer Inner Hajnal peoples were individualistic “guilt cultures” and the collectivist “shame cultures” were what one would expect from two foot tall greasy Med swarthoids?

See this. Emphasis added.

In cultures that are more individualistic, one’s primary responsibility is to oneself. People make their own important life decisions (e.g., what kind of work to do and whom to marry), and have to live with the consequences of their choices. Thus, it is argued, guilt is a key motivator. (I don’t do something wrong because doing it would make me feel bad.)

In cultures that are more collectivist, one’s primary responsibility is to others—one’s family, tribe, religion or other social entity. Important others in their group make key life decisions for the individual (e.g., what kind of work to do and whom to marry) because they have the requisite knowledge and power, and one’s primary responsibility is to the group and to them because of their elevated position within it. Thus, it is argued, shame is a key motivator.

Back to Amren, emphasis added:

Swedes practiced collectivism long before the Social Democrats came to power in the 1930s…

Swedish collectivism?  Say it ain’t so!  What happened to the individualism of the high trust northern hunter gatherers?  The edifice of HBD-Nordicism continues to crumble.  I suppose they’ll engage in hand-waving spin to “explain” that Swedish collectivist shame culture is due to “egalitarian societal consensus.”  This demonstrates why HBD is not science, but is pseudoscience. From the perspective of the HBDers, their dogma is not falsifiable. Whatever theories and hypotheses the HBDers come up with, if evidence is shown to falsify those theories and hypotheses, the HBDers just create “spin” or lie or create bizarre misinterpretations in order to evade the fact that the falsification occurred.  They never admit to being wrong. If people refuse to accept that their hypotheses have been falsified, they are not real scientists. That is pseudoscience.

Listen to this. It is interesting that Taylor makes a distinction between “White countries” and Jews and Israel. I have no problem with that, of course, but I find it surprising.  


Taylor’s comments on racial differences in serum testosterone is based on what? HBD nonsense?  It doesn’t seem to be based on actual scientific evidence.  Quite the opposite.  See this as well.  There may be other issues involved, such as levels of androgen receptors and the gene expression response to hormones, etc., but that was not what was stated in the interview – the comments there were specifically about serum testosterone levels.

Wrong, wrong, they’re always wrong.

Do HBDers ever admit to being wrong?  Or is it more non-falsifiable (from their perspective) HBDism?  Overt pseudoscience.


I cannot stress enough how important it is to get these facts right. Making obvious errors such as this – obvious because a few seconds of online searching can find the current scientific consensus – gives the Left ammunition to smear all racial science as “pseudoscience.”  Authentic racial science is not pseudoscience, only HBD is. Unfortunately in Der Movement, the two are intimately linked, with the latter trashing the reputation of the former.


More of the same outrageous lie.

The single greatest – but largely unmentioned and unstudied – ethnic conflict in America is that between Yankees and Jews.

The truth, emphasis added:

In part, Yankee concern for black rights was genuinely inspired by Protestant moral fervour, but it was also influenced by the same strategic principle which underlay the southern-Catholic alliance: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Indeed, other than their opposition to white southerners, white Massachusetts Unitarians and black Mississippi Baptists have almost nothing in common.

The history of US politics is little more than the history of these two coalitions: the southern-Catholic alliance and the Yankee-black alliance.

But the civil rights movement united Jews with blacks and their traditional allies, greater New England Protestants and Germanic Americans, against white southerners and northern white Catholics. Today, Jews are the most loyal white ethnic group in the northern coalition, which nowadays goes by the name of the Democrats.

The Yankee-Jew-Negro/Colored Alliance. That’s the truth – not Counter-Currents gaslighting lies.


Lie, lie, they always lie.


No, don’t spend money on Christmas!  Send in those “D’Nations” to Counter-Currents instead.  Remember, those who give live in the Golden Age today!

And if you give to VDARE you’ll live in The Happy Penguin Age today!


Why imagine?  You people were supporting him for years.  MAGA!  Pepe!  Kek!  Hail Trump!

Hood’s Faith and Purpose

Analyzing Hood’s analysis

Read this. Excerpts, emphasis added:

Considering my long involvement in conservative organizations, I must start by clarifying something. President Ronald Reagan said shocking things about African leaders, even calling them “monkeys.”

Monkey see, monkey do.

Thus, I would like to say that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Reagan conservative. I disavow “mainstream” conservatives and their offensive Reagan cult. After all, it’s important to maintain respectability.

Amusing.

What President Reagan said was very revealing. The federal government pushed integration in the South because it wanted to win newly independent African states to “our side” in the Cold War. In these particular remarks, Ronald Reagan was criticizing African delegates to the UN, who, in his words, were “monkeys” and “still uncomfortable wearing shoes.” They had voted to recognize Communist China and expel Taiwan from the UN, thus incurring Reagan’s wrath.

That’s the same Reagan who agreed to the MLK holiday and didn’t get rid of affirmative action at the federal level. Note that Reagan wasn’t wrathful about anti-White Black crime, but about voting about Taiwan. All Asia all the time.  Was Reagan a HBDer?

The federal government enforced integration at bayonet-point to win Third World allies. Freedom of association, property rights, and many Southern cities were destroyed — and we didn’t even get any allies.

Rewrite:

The race realists enforced HBD yellow supremacy at meme-point to win Asian allies. Freedom of association, property rights, and many White cities were destroyed — and we didn’t even get any Arctic allies.

Back to Hood:

In this recently revealed conversation, Ronald Reagan was talking to Richard Nixon. Jared Taylor always objects if I attribute motives to other people in my writing. 

Why?

Yet based on Richard Nixon’s recorded conversations over the years, I can safely say the President had politically incorrect views on many subjects. However, Richard Nixon also imposed anti-white racial discrimination, i.e. affirmative action, on the United States.

Nixon – one of the original “man on white horse” heroes.

Nixon’s personal views were far more extreme than my own. In one notorious conversation, he bemoaned the state of American culture with the well-known evangelist Billy Graham. Graham could fill stadiums around the country. The President of the United States and America’s most famous and influential Christian leader blamed cultural collapse on Jews. Yet these two immensely powerful men both agreed there was nothing they could do about it. In fact, they agreed they couldn’t even talk about it.

Bunker Syndrome – plenty of bigoted talk, but no action.

Forget the specific claim. 

It’s Amren after all.

What does this story tell us? It shows that ideology and education aren’t enough. “Red-pilling” people doesn’t necessarily lead to action. Just because somebody “knows” something, it doesn’t follow that he will do anything about it. Worse, sometimes somebody “knows” something but acts like he doesn’t. Cowardice, self-interest, and political gain are often more powerful than conviction.

That’s why metapolitics without practical politics is a dead end. Politics without metapolitics is a dead end as well. You need both the theory as well as the will and ability to actualize that theory into reality.

Many Republicans know demography is destiny for the GOP. They know how this movie will end.

After all, they wrote the script.

Look at their actions. Most oppose giving felons the right to vote. Most support Voter ID laws. These have the effect of reducing the Democrat vote.

Yes, look at their actions. Supporting mass immigration for cheap labor, opposing abortion of Negro fetuses, opposing White nationalism – these have the effect of increasing the Democrat vote.

What are elections anyway? They’re demographic contests. Each side tries to assemble the largest coalition. You increase the turnout of groups that support you and suppress opponent turnout. During campaigns and on Election Day, everyone believes in identity politics. Bill Kristol recently admitted, “We’re running a census every two years as much as an election.”

Many years ago, I was discussing my views with a well-connected Republican. “You know, I agree with you about the way this is going to turn out because of immigration,” he told me. “I’m a short-term optimist and a long-term pessimist.” He shrugged, as if to say, “There’s nothing we can do about it.”

A self-fulfilling prophecy.

They know, but they think demographic change won’t hurt their own careers. They may think they don’t have the moral right to oppose demographic change. What happens to the country in the long run is not their concern.

My friends often joke about my pessimism. However, that pessimism is short-term. I’m a long-term optimist.

We are going to win. 

You do not know that, and cannot know that.

We must have faith. It must be something completely unquestioned. It must be something as self-evident as your love for your children. It can never be subject to doubt. That’s the spirit required if we are going to get anywhere.

The problem is that being overly optimistic is just as destructive as being too pessimistic and giving up in despair. If you are so unquestionably convinced you will win – on blind faith – then why bother making sacrifices?  It’ll all work out!  Just have faith!

Yet we know “education” won’t lead to victory. Education, after all, is just a means. What is the end? What are the intermediate goals that we have for this movement?

Promoting yellow supremacism? Being front men for Jewish interests? Spewing HBD pseudoscientific lies?

One is that we must be an independent political force. Whether you want to call us white advocates, the Dissident Right, nationalists, whatever, we are not a political force right now. One proof of that is that we can’t even agree on what to call ourselves.

There was a time when we could. 

Absolute, raging bullshit.  Here comes the WN 2.0 gaslighting.

In 2015, the “Alt-Right,” a label even people like Mike Cernovich and Steven Crowder were claiming, was an independent political force. Donald Trump, an insurgent candidate opposed by the conservative movement and the Republican Establishment, was our vehicle.

This is the problem, Hood. All you “jump on the Alt Right bandwagon” guys completely ignored dissident voices like mine warning that the Alt Right would end badly and that we should not tie White nationalism to the Alt Right (as Johnson promoted). Now, guys like Hood engage in lying gaslighting, pretending that everyone on the Far Right was on the Alt Right train back then.  An absolute lie, and very convenient for avoiding accountability, eh?  Also – some of us were calling Trump a vulgar, ignorant buffoon; he was not my “vehicle,” liar.

What happened? By winning, we lost.

“We” didn’t win.  Trump won.  If Trump is, and was, a fraud then he is not, and never was, “we.”

President Trump was co-opted. When he became the incumbent rather than our wrecking ball, we were left in the cold.

He co-opted himself.

Steve Bannon said the Trump Administration’s “original sin” was embracing the Republican Establishment he had just defeated. President Trump has suffered from leakers, traitors, and saboteurs ever since. Ultimately, that’s his own fault, because personnel is policy. 

No kidding.

The Alt-Right’s response was to assert its independence by occupying space. That was what led to Charlottesville, something we can’t avoid talking about. “Unite the Right” backfired massively. I’m not scapegoating organizers. An independent review clearly proved that city and state officials wanted, and got, violence.

The organizers should have anticipated that.

Perhaps that demonstration was a chance worth taking. However, if it was a gamble, it was a gamble the Alt-Right lost.

And where is the accountability for that?  The Quota Queens just go on blithely forward.

Where does this leave white advocates today? When you are marginal, it’s difficult not be co-opted because of the desire for “mainstream” relevance.

Some believe we should align with Democrats such Andrew Yang or Tulsi Gabbard. 

Idiots like Spencer and Duke.

In truth, I support some of their policies. 

Reparations for Negroes?

Perhaps it is worth promoting these policies online.

Sure, go ahead. Waste your time.

However, it won’t be like the Trump campaign in 2016; you won’t be let into their rallies and you won’t find much support among their backers.

Because those candidates are anti-White, as are most of their backers.

There was a brief time when many supported Andrew Yang and tried to meme neon pink hats as a symbol of his campaign. The campaign, of course, disavowed it and that was that.

Gee…and who was it who said – from the very start – that this support of Yang was a bad idea and would end badly? Ted Sallis. But, hey, keep on following your affirmative action leadership.  Endless failure is very attractive, right?

Though I hate to say it, I think we are stuck with the GOP simply because that’s where our potential constituents are.

Perhaps – but quality, sane third parties have never been tried on the Far Right.

Studies indicate massive political polarization. Internal disagreements within the parties are disappearing. Members of both parties have a “racialized” view of the opposition. In one study, the authors found that race was the best predictor of attachment or hostility to a party. “Racial animosity, perhaps more than any other identity cleavage, has defined and structured American politics,” it concluded. Racial polarization mirrors partisan polarization.

How do we reach the GOP constituency? Frankly, with whatever ideas that work. Reaching the constituency is the important part.

American political parties, unlike European parties, are very “loose” ideologically. The platform is irrelevant. The GOP, in and of itself, doesn’t support or oppose anything. This is also why trying to “take over” random party positions isn’t very rewarding. The candidates are what matter. The party shifts according to what those candidates believe.

If that is true, then the imperative is to have explicitly pro-White candidates involved in politics, as I have been writing here for years.

We see this happening today. Within the past few years, President Trump has managed completely to reverse the position of Republican voters (if not Republican elected officials) on issues such as free trade and tariffs. Personality matters more than platform.

Yes, but, contra Johnson, if the Trump personality was pushing a Jeb Bush platform, he would have gotten nowhere. Both matter.

It’s going to take new candidates to change the political landscape. They will probably be people we don’t know about.

Certainly none of the comically inept “leaders” of Der Movement.

In 2013, “President Donald Trump” was a television punchline. Now it’s reality. Already, liberal pundits are fretting about a more competent version of President Trump coming along, someone who will deliver on the economic and national populism Trump hinted at.

Ultimately, that’s not under our control. There’s a more important issue than partisan politics. Our limited resources, time, and energy should be focused on building sustainable networks off-line, in the real world. Our primary challenge is economic.

No, the primary challenge is the failure of “leadership”- and that failure ultimately derives from the “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action policy.

It used to be that our ideas were very hard to find. Now you can find them easily, even with deplatforming and demonetization.

It used to be that you paid a terrible social cost when you were associated with these ideas. That’s still true to some extent. 

Some?

However, I’ve found if you’re involved with this, you have more friends than “normal” people do, whose most meaningful relationship is either with Netflix or boxed wine. A recent survey found one in five millennials say they have no friends at all, with more than one in four saying they have no close friends. Among ourselves, if you get sick, if you get married, if you have a child, there’s a whole community that cares.

Laughable.  Der Movement is full of feuding lunatics who spend a significant amount of time attacking each other.

What’s holding us back is just money.

That’s absolute nonsense, a pure lie.  Der Movement has always had money.  Sure, that money is only a tiny fraction of what the opposition has. But it still exists, and the fact that the “movement” has squandered millions of dollars, producing nothing but endless failure, strongly suggests that if the “movement” did have more money then the affirmative action “leadership” would simply squander that as well.  You would just get more of this.

Hood’s argument is actually internally self-contradictory. If what is holding us back is just money, then that implies that we have everything else we need – including competent, imaginative, and strategic-minded leadership. But if we has such leadership, then they would have already built up sufficient infrastructure that would have enabled us to have the extra money we need. The millions of dollars I alluded to above could have been used to build the infrastructure that would have led to the sort of really big money Hood wishes us to have. Instead we have pictures of Brimelow and Derbyshire sitting on lawn chairs.

Media have the power to isolate and target individual activists so they will be fired. You can perhaps get another job, but that sword is always hanging over your head. That’s the main problem. If we can get past that problem, we will advance very quickly.

I’ve been saying for years that we need to defeat social pricing.  Good to see that Hood is just realizing that now.  Better late than never.  He should be asking why the Quota Queens haven’t made any effective attempt to deal with the situation.

It’s horrible, but “doxing” is forcing us to built networks and institutions that didn’t exist before. Maybe it must happen this way. There was no other way than the hard way.

Absolute nonsense.  Nothing stopped the “movement” from building these “networks and institutions” years ago, decades ago, as some of us were urging, such as what I said to Griffin in my interview with him.  Endless years, endless decades, completely wasted.

There are models to follow. Some groups are already providing jobs and resources to one another, becoming “anti-fragile.” Look at how Mormons work together. They have a network that operates for the financial well-being of everyone in the group.

Look at the Left. Worker-owned enterprises, syndicalism, the early unions, communes — these are all things we can learn from.

What I said to Griffin long ago:

The Nation of Islam may be an example of the kind of thing I’m talking about. It was founded in the 1930s, but it wasn’t until the early 1960s that most white Americans ever heard about the Black Muslims. They spent decades building a base of support in the black community by helping black people with whatever they were doing in their community. So when they started becoming vocal and white people in the early 1960s started saying, “Hey, these people are a problem, what are we going to do?” it was already too late. The Black Muslims were already firmly established and had become an integral part of black society. In a similar way, a white nationalist movement has to grow like a plant, with its roots firmly in the soil.

But I was, of course, ignored. I didn’t have the right “credentials,” so to speak, you know, what Spencer and Johnson have.

Of course, one obstacle is that we are spread out all over the country. You probably have comrades closer to you than you think, but you can’t openly organize because the media will target overt activists. Geographic concentration is necessary. The problem is that everyone thinks where he lives now is the perfect place for everyone else to go. Where we should gather is a debate we’ll need to have.

Need to have?  Future tense? For godssakes, this has already been debated for decades. All these Johnny-come-lately Alt Righters believe, with their solipsism, that the “movement” came into existence the moment they became “red-pilled.” How much effort was spent debating about the “Northwest Imperative,” over the years, for example?

We need to discuss these questions because what’s coming is occupation. We already live under occupation, but it will be more visible and physical in the years ahead. I’m not optimistic about President Trump’s re-election prospects. Whatever happens, he’ll be out eventually, and Texas, Florida, and Georgia will flip because of demography, and then national politics will essentially be over.

And why didn’t Der Movement take advantage of the demographic situation that existed up until that point?

At that point, our opponents will circumvent the First Amendment. Certain speech will be called “ethnic intimidation,” not deserving of legal protection. The most violent and threatening language towards whites will still be allowed. People won’t be afraid just to act or demonstrate; they’ll be afraid to speak or write.

Blame the Quota Queens for that, for wasting untold time and untold opportunities. Hood really should be speaking out against the “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action program, but that’s apparently a bridge too far.

How do we survive as a people? Too many are still in that 2016 mindset where we debate mass politics.

What we need to discuss now:

How do we ensure physical safety?

How do we earn a living?

How do we support the activists and platforms we still have, especially if we can’t use payment processors?

How do you ensure that when the journalists come for you and your family, you will have support?

We need to figure this out.

I agree 100%. I’ve been saying this for years. Even my interview with Griffin, so many years ago, touched on these practical matters:

I think the challenge is to heighten whites’ racial awareness—especially the sane, honest, hardworking, law-abiding whites—and convince them to form voluntary, private organizations in their own communities. These organizations would exist to do practical things. The problem now is you have racialist organizations and they say, “Join up and send us your membership dues,” and you get a little membership card and a newsletter once a month. But the members stay isolated and everything stays divorced from reality. We need racial nationalist organizations that help children with homework, and help old and infirmed people, and that clean up neighborhoods, and where everybody stands together when some outside force tries to push them around. Maybe these organizations could have youth auxiliaries.

As it is now, we have white people thinking, “What am I going to do? I have got to send my children to the local school and it’s full of minorities and they are going to be taught all sorts of nonsense and they are going to get attacked, and my neighborhood is deteriorating, and my life is going to hell.” An activist comes up to them and says, “Let’s go protest against the United States’ foreign policy in the Middle East.” That’s great, our foreign policy in the Middle East should be protested, but there is still the question of what is going to be done to help the person scratching his head trying to figure out what he is going to do about what is happening in his life. At a very basic level we have to protect ourselves physically.

Back to Hood: 

It’s been said good generals study tactics, great generals study logistics. All our conversations need to be about logistics. There’s work to be done in terms of ideology. 

You had better believe it.

However, if we don’t figure out the supply questions, none of it matters anyway.

I agree 100%.  The greatest ideology in the world will get you nowhere if your opposition can completely suppress expression of that ideology.

If James Fields had taken a left instead of a right two years ago, we’d be in a different world. Things can break for want of a nail. 

Also for want of real, merit-based leadership.

Instead of trying to predict what’s going to happen, we need to have people capable of acting when opportunities arise. People talk about an economic crisis, a military conflict with Russia or China, some unforeseen political development. It could be all or none of these things. We can’t predict what kind of crisis is going to come. We just know that one will.

I do think something is going to happen. The political system can’t contain the tensions that are building up. Many Americans speak openly about civil war. I think that’s extreme, but there are some parallels.

Before our first Civil War, it was the Southerners who were the nationalists. They were the ones who were the most expansionist, most patriotic, most warlike. John Calhoun was a nationalist when he started out in politics, while New England flirted with secession during the War of 1812.

However, control of the political system “switched.” The people who thought of themselves as being in control, who thought of themselves as being the real America, realized they were politically powerless. They headed for the doors.

If Hood really understood the dynamics of revolutionary change, he would be talking about Suvorov’s Law here.  But, alas, it is only at EGI Notes that you’ll hear about that.

What does American nationalism really stand for? Clearly, it stands for something. The Left sure hates it. Clearly, most white people still believe in America. We must articulate what Americanism really means in a more developed way.

It means nothing any more.  

This brings us to the most important question. What exactly are we doing here? In recent weeks, journalists and antifa have doxed people and cost them jobs and careers. We’re called evil, terrorists, or Russian agents. It’s a tough life, but this is the business we have chosen. 

To some extent, we are forced into this. You can’t simply hide and hope “they” don’t get you. Ask the students from Covington Catholic. Every week, it seems some poor unfortunate becomes the “Nazi of the week” after he is caught in a manufactured controversy. Racial consciousness can help you avoid these situations because you see them coming a mile away and can sidestep them.

Yet white advocates unquestionably lead a difficult life.

Especially after the Quota Queens squandered fortunes and decades in order to live off of “D’Nations” while accomplishing absolute nothing of value.  The only infrastructure built by them are Brimelow’s lawn chairs. So, yes, “white advocates” (stupid term) lead difficult lives.

I’ve read the journalists and sociologists who claim what animates us is the search for “meaning.” That’s like saying people are immigrating to America for a “better life.” 

Or John Morgan invading and occupying Hungary for a “better life.”

Has anyone ever done something to get a worse life? Of course we’re searching for meaning. So is everyone else. It’s a human universal.

The question is what meaning, what purpose?

Some may say the memory of our ancestors and the future of our descendants. I’d say it’s something even bigger. Journalists and academics have made “whiteness” into a social construct. They’re projecting onto us their own actions.

What is whiteness? Think of the protests when Apollo 11 launched. Black leaders said we shouldn’t be going to the moon while there was still poverty in America. Think of the anarchists who say beauty standards are fascist. Human achievement, greatness, beauty — all of these things are associated with “whiteness.” This is why so many non-whites celebrated when Notre Dame burned.

Racial envy.

I do think of our people as the torchbearers of the human spirit, the Faustian civilization, people who carry something essential that nobody else does. We carry light into the darkness, even into outer space. “People of light” seems appropriate.

Hood apparently hasn’t been to a local Walmart recently. “People of light!” “Destiny of angels!”  Four hundred pound land whales on motorized scooters – the torchbearers of the human spirit!

For me, I do this because it’s the way I justify being alive. If I didn’t do this, there would be no reason for me to exist. We’re people of light. This is our purpose and our faith is expressed through loyalty to each other.

Loyalty to each other should start with loyalty to fellow activists.  Good luck with that.

If Hood is unable to understand the real underlying problems with the “movement” and/or is unwilling to discuss them, then he is part of the problem.

Political PopGen

And other news.

More mendacity.  I like how they are trying to surprise us with “you see, the Ancient World was really diverse” (shilling for modern mass alien immigration), while the fact that Rome itself (the city and immediately surrounding regions, specifically) became a cosmopolitan city has always been well known. In fact, if I recall correctly, some of the early work from the Cavalli-Sforza lab identified Rome and Naples (and areas immediately surrounding) as being somewhat genetically different from the rest of Italy, with the suggestion that it was because of the cosmopolitan aspects of these large cities throughout history. What about Alexandria?  It has always been known that it had a variety of ethnic groups.  What about the metics of Athens? Again, it was ALWAYS known that these large cities of ancient big states/empires, civilizational units, etc. were not purely homogeneous.  Why lie?  Why set up a strawman so you can knock it down with breathless accounts of the “surprising diversity?”  If for what other reason than to convince Whites to open their borders to the other today, and to cheerfully accept their demographic displacement and replacement?

Again, it depends what you mean by “Rome.”  If by that you mean the city itself, I don’t know of anyone who ever claimed the city did not attract migrants and take slaves. However, if by “Rome” you mean the entire Empire, including the mass of the area of current-day Italy, that’s a different story. Migrants (non-European) were not settling, in any substantial number,  in “backwaters.” There were slaves working farms, but those were hardly settled people who were reproducing (and were unlikely to have been spindly, flabby easterners in any case).

The city of Rome – no surprise. The entirety of “Rome” is not, obviously, going to reflect the same “diversity.”  By the way, population changes in Rome thousands of years ago do not obligate Italy – or any other nation – to accept immigrants today.  And, also, Ancient Rome itself was under no obligation to accept newcomers from its empire. They stupidly had slaves, yes, but as regards voluntary migrants – why accept them?  Just because you rule over various peoples does not obligate you to accept them as migrants. Even when universal citizenship was granted, it could have been enjoyed in place. There was no need or obligation to accept any influx into the city of Rome itself.

This is amusing though:

Then, starting about 1,700 years ago, the empire entered a phase of gradual dissolution. The Roman empire split in two halves and the capital moved to Constantinople. Around this time, the inhabitants of Rome changed their trading habits — and the new trade routes seem to have brought a fresh influx of ancestry into the region, Pritchard says. “People aren’t just trading with the north and the west, but their population is being replaced by new people coming in from those places.”

Race replacement!  But alas for “movement” narratives, the “race replacement” coinciding with “a phase of gradual dissolution”- the decline and fall – was coming from “the north and west.”

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.

Get this, from that same article; Pritchard describing the data:

…a pleasant surprise…

Pleasant?  

Value judgments about scientific data? That crosses the line separating science from politics. I’ve always said that population genetics is a highly politicized field and this article is yet more evidence. These guys can’t just report their results. They need to “interpret” the data to the great unwashed – pontificating about the wonderfully surprising “diversity” of ancient cities.  Population shifts and replacements – pleasant.  And of course Pritchard is not alone. Ever notice that papers stressing the Middle Eastern ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews, and the consequent asserted continuity of modern Jews to the Levant, tend to come from Israel? Papers that stress continuity between ancient and modern Greeks tend to have Greek authors?  Papers that stress differences between Northern vs. Southern Italy tend to have Northern Italian authors? Papers that stress admixture and population shifts are typically about Europe?  That Chinese population geneticists are not going out of their way to interpret data to delegitimize the Han Chinese ethnography of their nation?  Coincidence?

I’m not saying the data are false and/or fabricated. Instead, similarly to what I have written about ancestry testing companies, the types of samples used and the types of analyses performed can determine the direction of the findings. Choices of parental populations, choices of analytical methods, underlying assumptions, etc. can create marked differences in the data output.  Further, how these people choose to interpret the findings can be highly subjective.

Never mind that all these guys are allergic to genetic kinship assays.

In any case, how about this for an interpretation – the city of Rome was “diverse” and the Roman Empire collapsed, a “pleasant” correlation there.

Hey, here’s your “alpha” Supreme Court Justice, Alt Right retards. Maybe we can have more analysis from Roissy of Trump and Kavanaugh shaking hands or how each one stands up straight (or in the case of “big paunch” Trump, does not).  

This is a good Strom piece, but if he believes all of this, why doesn’t he openly and explicitly denounce the Jewish-Asian HBD cult?

Let’s rewrite some of it.

….what Sir John Harington said about treason in the 17th century. Harington was wondering why one hears so little about treason; he asked Why does treason not prosper? It must not be prospering, since we never hear about it — right? Wrong. Harington said: “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

Similarly, today, few dare call into question the promotion of open borders, racial mixing, mass immigration, and slavish support for Israel and all things anti-White by the supposed “American” media — and few dare mention the real ethnic loyalties and background of the billionaire media elite — because to do so would bring smears, economic repercussions, legal persecution and sometimes even physical violence down on the truth-teller.

….what Sir John Harington said about treason in the 17th century. Harington was wondering why one hears so little about treason; he asked Why does treason not prosper? It must not be prospering, since we never hear about it — right? Wrong. Harington said: “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

Similarly, today, few dare call into question the promotion of slavish worship of “high Jewish and Asian IQ,” aracial cognitive elitism, intra-European division, “race realist” lies and fairy tales, Jeurasian mongrelization, outrageously transparent pseudoscience, and all things anti-White by the supposed “movement” HBD faction— and few dare mention the real ethnic loyalties and background of the HBD elite — because to do so would bring smears, “movement” repercussions, and labels of “crazy and bitter” on the truth-teller.

If you tune in and see some Republican or Democrat talking head promoting another war or promoting more immigration or pretending he opposes more immigration on the television, and you switch it off immediately and more importantly forever, that doesn’t make the traitors stop existing. But it does give you a chance to perceive the world primarily with your own eyes and ears, and to draw your own conclusions instead of having them spoon-fed to you.

If you go online and see some HBDer talking head promoting intra-European division or promoting Jew-Asian worship or pretending he opposes more Asian immigration, and you switch it off immediately and more importantly forever, that doesn’t make the traitors stop existing. But it does give you a chance to perceive the world primarily with your own eyes and ears, and to draw your own conclusions instead of having them spoon-fed to you.

See how easy it is, Kevin?

Greg Johnson and the Very Idea of HBD Privilege

Two part post.  Emphasis added.

First, Johnson’s HBD Scandza talk. I agree with more than 90% of it; so I’ll just comment on the few points of disagreement, as well as points that require more exposition.

I want to thank Frodi and the rest of the Scandza team for making this event possible, as well as all of you for coming out to hear me. 

Or not.

I am honored today to be speaking alongside these distinguished doctors of the human sciences. 

Who?  MacDonald?  Dutton?  “Human sciences?”  How about real STEM?  Zero.

My Ph.D., however, is in philosophy.

Qualified no doubt on this subject.

Philosophers don’t do scientific research. Instead, we stand back and try to talk about the big picture, including the meaning of scientific discoveries for politics and morals. 

How can you talk about the meaning of those discoveries if you don’t understand them?  If you believe that pseudoscientific trash is real science?

The main reason to reject the claim that America is a white supremacist society is the fact that some non-white groups—chiefly East Asians and certain communities of South Asians—do better than whites in key indicators of success, such as educational attainment, income, and law abidingness, and they did so before anti-white discrimination and non-white tokenism became rampant. 

HBD says they are our masters and betters!  Better start your measured groveling.

If American whites were intent on creating systematic white privilege and supremacy, we failed miserably. White racism is not a sufficient explanation for differing racial outcomes in America.

We have an alternative hypothesis based on the science of Human Biological Diversity. The differing levels of education, income, and law-abidingness—to name just three factors—among racial groups in America are precisely what we would predict given measurable differences of IQ and sociopathic personality traits between the races. For a survey of the effect of IQ on a wide range social outcomes, see Richard Lynn’s The Global Bell Curve. On racial differences in personality traits beyond just IQ, including psychopathy, see Michael Levin’s Why Race Matters (Oakton, Vir.: New Century Books, 2016).

HBD is NOT science.  Science includes vigorous hypothesis testing, not cherry picking data to support pre-conceived sociopolitical beliefs. For examples of HBD pseudoscience, see the posts here. In particular, see this.  And how come Johnson doesn’t mention his buddy Rushton in this speech?  Because he knew Dutton would be in attendance?  Thus, Johnson is either a coward for not mentioning Rushton if he still believes Rushton’s work is valid, or he is fundamentally dishonest for not publicly admitting that he (Johnson) was misled by Rushtonian fraud.  Which is it?

The science of Human Biological Diversity also explains why some non-white groups excel in white societies, even though they too have trouble finding flesh-colored band-aids.

Uh-huh.  HBD – NOT a science – is a political movement meant to subordinate Whites to Jews and Asians – no more and no less.  Useful idiots like the Amren and Counter-Currents crowd are ultimately working toward that end.

Every human being deserves a home, where he can be himself free of the interference of others. 

Does this include Hungarians being free of Morgan?  Romanians being free of Munro? Poles being free of Anton?  Italians being free of Farrell?  The ethnonationalists can’t even exemplify their ideal in their own private lives.

There is no moral imperative to destroy our homelands to accommodate strangers. 

Strangers like John Morgan in Hungary.

There would be no such imperative even if it were possible. 

Hungarians – deport Morgan.

And there is certainly no imperative to destroy real homelands in pursuit of the impossible dream of a society in which all peoples feel equally at home.

Yes, Bulgarians don’t need to hide their faces and wear sacks over the heads so Deasy feels at home when he visits there.

But there is one place where all the peoples of the world can feel at home. It is called the planet earth. This planet is big enough for all races and nations to have places they can call their own. This is the ethnonationalist version of utopia. 

The ethnonationalist version of utopia – living in other people’s nations, criticizing the natives, taking the women, and mocking the culture.

Second, more HBD stupidity:

The HBD-ethnonationalist-pro-Jewish-yellow supremacist alliance continues, this time presented by an estrogen-enriched effete French ”man” and a Lombard wanna-be. The “differences in intra-Italian IQ” are a figment of Lynn’s imagination. Intra-Italian genetic differences are real (as are other, albeit smaller, genetic differences throughout Europe), but are to be expected given the geographical structure of that nation and the various population movements throughout history.  Nevertheless, genetic kinship analyses – at least those I have seen of individuals’ genetic data – consistently put “Italians” as the closest population for peoples from different parts of that nation, including having S. Italians having top kinship hits with “Italians” (Bergamo) and “Tuscany.” You won’t see that in any of the sweaty ethnic fetishist articles.  As far as Ancient Rome goes, we await the Moots paper.  In any case, expect months of heavy breathing about the Italian genetics paper cited in the Amren post, even though it really doesn’t say anything fundamentally different than other papers of previous years.  The fetishists are positively deranged when it comes to Italians, particularly Southern Italians.

I suppose Amren is the centroid of the Jewish attempts to leverage their HBD fraud to divide Europeans and wreck racial activism.  After all, people with a four thousand year old history of nation wrecking are precisely the ones you want pulling the strings of your “nationalism,” eh?  

Absolutely despicable. We won’t forget what the HBD traitors are doing.  Pro-Jewish shills and peddlers of embarrassing Semite-approved pseudoscience.

Treason never prospers…well it does in the short-term, but dishonest evil, like HBD, tends to have a short half-life.