Category: mendacity

Jews, the Decline of MacDonald, and Other News

Jews and other news.

An excellent Joyce piece about Jewish self-glorification.

Jews have a joke among themselves that goes something like this: A class of schoolchildren is asked to produce an essay about giraffes; little Tom Smith hands in a piece on the neck; little John Baker writes about its diet; others write about the tail, the environment, and so on. Then little Benny Cohen hands in his paper, and it is titled “The Giraffe and the Jews.”

The joke, little-known among non-Jews, conveys an important truism — that, for Jews, everything, no matter how distant or abstract, often comes back to the idea and feeling of being Jewish. In other words, it is a joke about Jewish ethnocentrism. That non-Jews aren’t very familiar with the joke speaks to the fact that Jewish ethnocentrism is something that is very frequently discussed and celebrated by Jews, but also something that is frequently downplayed, obscured, or even denied when queried by outgroups.

Indeed.

A particularly interesting aspect of the study by Brown et al. is the response to increasing rates of intermarriage among American Jews. Jewish intermarriage has been raised as evidence by some scholars objecting to analyses of Jewish ethnocentrism, most notably and recently by Nathan Cofnas.[6] However, as Brown et al. note, given more than a century of intense assimilation and acceptance by the host population and a population size of only around 3%, “an endogamy rate [among Jews] of 50% is surprisingly high.”

People familiar with my work over a long period of time may remember that I did a quantitative analysis of this, graphing various White American ethnic groups for proportion of the population (X axis) and outmarriage rate (Y axis). A linear relationship was established – the smaller the group, the greater the outmarriage rate (since the greater the chance of a partner of a different ethnicity). I then tried to place Jews (in America) on that line and saw that they didn’t fit; indeed, their outmarriage rate was depressed compared to gentile groups of similar population size (who had outmarriage rates of greater than 70%). Of course, the more ethnocentric Jews practice endogamy, and if ethnocentrism has, at least in part, a genetic component, this trend would have the effect of increasing Jewish ethnocentrism over time.

One can note that arguments about Jewish outmarriage rates, while perhaps relevant to Jewish genetic strategies, are not directly relevant to the effects of Jews in White societies. Even if Jews are destroying their ethnic integrity through outmarriage (which is questionable) that doesn’t obligate other groups to endure Jewish destructive behavior toward those other groups for the period of time that Jews are still extant.

And speaking of self-glorification, isn’t that what Jewish involvement in the HBD cult is about?  When is Joyce going to denounce that cult and denounce “pro-White activists” who seemingly care more about Jews than about European-derived peoples?  Both Joyce and Strom write good things about the general subject of the Jews, but when it comes to criticizing people on the (Far) Right who are slavishly pro-Jewish, they suddenly become reticent.

And then we have this nonsense:

TOQLIVE: JAMES EDWARDS HOSTS KEVIN MACDONALD: INDIVIDUALISM AND THE WESTERN LIBERAL TRADITION

What that basically is, is MacDonald going hardcore, ultra-Nordicist. And why not?  I’ve predicted a convergence of HBD, anti-panEuropeanism, Nordicism, etc., with the net effect of alleged anti-Semites being puppets being manipulated by the likes of Hart and Unz.  And, a per the vast majority of my other predictions, I’ve been proven right.  MacDonald is so hysterical in his HBD-Nordicism that he makes ludicrous comments.  One example is the Kempian talking points about complete population replacement in Rome, which is not only factually incorrect but logically inconsistent with the idea that North/South European differences have been place since the Neolithic. Another example is the idea that Southern Italy is “collectivist” while the truth is that the amoral familism there is inherently anti-collectivist – there is no sense of civic duty or ethnic loyalty or nationalism, just loyalty to smaller family units.  I wrote about that at my old Richard Lynn’s Pseudoscience blog:

Amoral Familism is Not Ethnocentrism
This Afrowop defect is not the same as this.
That the HBDers are apparently unable or unwilling to distinguish amoral familism from ethnocentrism does not reflect well on their intelligence or their honesty.
Whether amoral familism is a step on the universalism-ethnocentrism spectrum, or represents an independent entity (in which case we would have at at least a triangle rather than a straight line representing the possibilities), is open to debate.
However, it should be clear that in many ways amoral familism is, practically speaking, as opposed to ethnocentrism as universalism is.  Universalism rejects ethnocentrism because it sees the ethnocentric view as too selfish and narrow, amoral familism rejects ethnocentrism because it is too broad and selfless.
For EGI, ethnocentrism is the “sweet spot,” and the other two options are defects.  From the standpoint of building a civil society, amoral familism is the worst, ethnocentrism is the best in a (relatively) homogeneous state but leads to problems in multiculturalism.  Universalism allows for temporary smooth functioning in a multicultural state, but long term leads to ethnic replacement of universalists by ethnocentrists.  Universalism in a homogeneous state is not stable, since it will eventually lead to alien immigration and multiculturalism.
A moderate degree of ethnocentrism in a (relatively) homogeneous state is more optimal than the alternatives.
There is also a question of the relative hereditability of these behavioral patterns.  The more genetically influenced, the more the pattern should hold with migration and existence in multicultural societies. The two extremes of universalism and ethnocentrism may be most heritable.  Contra the HBDers, aside from a dwindling number of mobsters, Afrowops in America really don’t practice amoral familism, while Jews and other Asians definitely still practice ethnocentrism. Thus, I doubt that amoral familism hereditability of these behavioral patterns.  The more genetically influenced, the more the pattern should hold with migration and existence in multicultural societies. The two extremes of universalism and ethnocentrism may be most heritable.  Contra the HBDers, aside from a dwindling number of mobsters, Afrowops in America really don’t practice amoral familism, while Jews and other Asians definitely still practice ethnocentrism. Thus, I doubt that amoral familism is strongly heritable.  It seems like a very plastic behavioral phenotype.
While it may be extremely difficult to make ethnocentrics into more disinterested civic-minded people, hopefully the more universalist and ex-familistic can be “trained” to become more ethnocentric, in competition to those with an innate sense of extreme ethnocentrism.
This isn’t the kind of analysis one would get from a HBDer, who instead would be pathetically groveling in front of the Altar of Asia, and worshiping a pile of yarmulkes.

HBD: the enemy of truth.

MacDonald is essentially trashing his legacy in his old age.  While it is sad to see, and unfortunate, it doesn’t obligate me to pull my punches when I comment on such mendacity.

Trump’s campaign antagonism toward the military and intelligence world was at best a millimeter thick. Like almost everything else he said as a candidate, it was a gimmick, designed to get votes. That he was insincere and full of it…

But, hey, according to Greg Johnson, Trump’s sincere, a man of genuine greatness, who could have won with Jeb Bush’s political views.  Even Trump himself refutes the latter, as chronicled at this site.  But Johnson continuously insists otherwise. Is that rent-seeking behavior?  Is Johnson using the Counter-Currents platform to gaslight his readers in order to safeguard his own reputation and the flow of “D’Nations?”

Not a bad Zman essay…particularly as it repeats points made here years ago.

After all, she’s of great benefit to all humanity. Why would anyone think otherwise?  How dare you!  In all seriousness, the positive attitude of Der Movement to that obviously unbalanced little Ladogan is truly tragicomic and pathetic. It is also confirmation of the validity of my criticism of Der Movement.

Hey!  Giovanni Gentile had that Ray Luca-John Gotti-Judge Napolitano puffed up hairstyle.  It’s in the blood, apparently.

Advertisements

They’re Lying to You

Can’t get their stories straight.

From a previous post, we remember this nonsense.

Now, here’s a key part:

There is a right-sizing to assimilating and naturalizing other peoples. Rome did well with assimilating Europeans with Indo-European/Early Farmer genetic stock, had more problems when it came to Indo-European/Western Hunter Gatherers from the north, and they didn’t assimilate Jews at all.

The implications of that is that the Romans (and other European peoples they assimilated well; for example, the other peoples that were located in what today is Italy, as well as the Greeks) were predominantly “Early European Farmer,” and these peoples were distinct from the more problematical northerners who were predominantly “Western Hunter Gatherer” (with low levels of “Indo-European” in both). This is consistent with the idea of the HBD-Nordicists of a North-South European difference in place dating back thousands of years, since the Neolithic.

Ahh…but the mainstream Nordicists of Der Movement, the Kempian Nordicists, have long told us that the ancient peoples of the Mediterranean – Romans, Greeks, etc. – were Nordic.  The original Roman stock were akin to Dolph Lundgren in a toga.  Except, now, the HBD-Nordicists say, well, that’s not the case, the folks in the togas were “Early Farmers” and the Dolph Lundgrens were “Western Hunter Gatherers.”  No, no, a thousand times, no!  What would Arthur Kemp, David Duke, and Ash Donaldson say?  Blasphemy!  March of the Titans!  Pierce weeps!  Who We Are!  

Taking all of these fetishists as a whole – and they should be taken as a whole since they post on the same blogs and are in fundamental agreement on most things and won’t even openly acknowledge the contradiction outlined above – we can see that they cannot get their story straight.  And when folks cannot get their story straight, what does that tell you? That they are LYING to you. Der Movement has been openly lying to you about race for many decades.  Lie after lie after lie and now they cannot keep their lies straight, so they practice cognitive dissonance and pretend that their views are not internally inconsistent. Assuming that they are not so stupid (or deluded by blind fanatical dogmatic faith in their fetishistic belief systems) that they cannot realize the contradiction, then they must hold you in utter contempt, assuming that you won’t notice it (to be fair to them, most “activists” actually do not notice it).

Also note how this guy uses the term “Early Farmer” while the correct term used in the literature is “Early European Farmer” – have to delegitimize the “European bonafides” of that group, eh?  Wipe that sweat off your forehead, fetishist.

Sweden’s native population contains the most Western Hunter Gatherer DNA, and Sicily’s people have the most Early Farmer genetic material. Sweden’s population is highly individualistic, but operates with a societal consensus, while Sicily has strong families but little cooperation at the societal level.

Gee, you think that the long history of invasion and foreign domination in Sicily may have something to do with it as well?  Also, there is my theory of genetic heterogeneity, which builds upon the observation that diversity decreases the willingness to invest in collective social goods. This may hold true even in certain mono-ethnic societies, if the ethnies in question possess significant genetic heterogeneity, which is processed by members of that society through the proxy of phenotypic heterogeneity. The more different members of an ethny seem to each other, the less their willingness to invest in the broader society, and the greater the urge to invest in more “safe” concentrations of genetic interest, such as the family. Southern Europe has greater genetic heterogeneity than the North. Of course, ethnocentrism may play a role as well; although the North is more homogeneous, there are still some Bromstad/Bjork types there, who apparently do not trigger any anti-collective urges.  It is no doubt complex.

I believe that this Jewish ability to hijack altruistic punishment is unstable and only temporary. It is clear to this author that the single largest ethnic conflict in American history is that between Yankees and Jews. So far, the Jews have practiced aggression against the Yankee without receiving any response, but this situation will not continue indefinitely. People will always eventually respond to attacks.

Completely insane delusion.  Actually, according to the Lind thesis of American politics, the “Yankees” have been the most important and enthusiastic allies of the Jews in the destruction of America, and the unleashing of the Black/Brown plague on middle class and working class White Americans.  No, the single largest ethnic conflict is that of the Jewish-Yankee-Negro alliance vs. the White Southerner-White ethnic alliance, precisely what Lind outlined.  “Movement” heroes like John Lindsay, Hubert Humphrey, Elizabeth Warren, and Greta Thunberg are clearly on the side of Jewish interests, and all the sweaty fetishism and padded cell delusions can’t change that fact.

Stop lying, liars.

And if these guys truly believe that these differences between Europeans are so important, and if they will be honest enough to acknowledge the failures of the WHG-enriched “movement leadership,” why don’t they consider that it may be useful to get at least some input and leadership from more EEF-enriched individuals?  Perhaps some new perspectives would be useful?  But no.  They’d rather reinforce their monopoly than let others have a hand in the endeavor.

Yeah…let’s not disguise it.  First, all these types were foaming at the mouth that Trump the “God Emperor” was “the last chance for White America” back when I was openly calling Trump a race cuck and a buffoon and when Strom was telling you not to believe Trump. Second, and infinitely worse, Greg Johnson is STILL saying that Trump was/is “sincere” and is a “man of genuine greatness.”  That’s your WHG-enriched “leadership.”  Apparently, “social cohesion” is built by being painfully naïve, being wrong all of the time, and/or gaslighting readers in an attempt to avoid accountability for your endless failures and monumental errors of judgment.

Odds and Ends, 10/1/19

More of the same.

Zman the liar:

The alt-right never got around to thinking up a new metaphysics. They spent their time recreating an aesthetic from a bygone age that was intended to shock, rather than celebrate a new ideological movement. The closest they came to imagining an alternative Right was borrowing the idea of an ethnostate from fringe Russian thinkers. Otherwise, the alt-right was just a collection of complaints decorated with some racist and fascist language and imagery.

Thus, Zman is parroting Johnson’s lie that the fall of WN 2.0 was mimicking WN 1.0 while the truth was the exact opposite: WN 2.0 represented an entirely new aesthetic – Millennial and Generation Z juvenile jackassery and mindless snark (Beavis-and-Butthead White nationalism).  The major things they had in common with WN 1.0 was the commitment to the ethnic affirmative action program and the usual ethnic fetishism.

And what to make of this?

.. was borrowing the idea of an ethnostate from fringe Russian thinkers.

Sir Humphrey of Ireland was Russian?  Seriously though, hasn’t a “White ethnostate” been a staple of WN thought for decades?  What the hell does it have to do with Russians?  This is what happens when a smug know-it-all drops out of nowhere and establishes himself as a “movement” voice without knowing what the hell he is talking about.

Juri
Do not underestimate the cucked electorate.. Austrian elections results just came in and anti immigration FPÖ is down by 10 per cent and far left greens up by 14 per cent. Greta Thunberg and other screaming lunatics turned entire Austria to far left.

The ghosts of Hubert Humphrey and John Lindsay are well pleased.

Sallis continues to be proven correct. Der Movement is as predictable as an atomic clock.

Germany’s Schettino.  Excerpts, emphasis added:

On a list of historical figures who have left disaster in their wake, few can top Erich Ludendorff. And yet, he was not an incompetent man. On the contrary, he was one of World War I’s most able generals, among the few who recognized that Western Front battlefield tactics would require a fundamental rethinking, especially with regard to combat leadership.
Ludendorff was born on April 9, 1865, in the town of Kruszewnia, near Posen, Prussia. Like most of the border towns split between Polish and German ethnicity, Kruszewnia was a hotbed of Prusso-German nationalism. His parents were middle-class but strongly nationalist. And as young Erich gobbled up military histories filled with romantic legends and nationalist nonsense about Prussia’s struggles against Napoléon or its heroic defeat of the “evil French” in the Franco-Prussian War, his nationalistic fervor soon eclipsed that of his parents. 
The truth was that unrestricted submarine warfare would almost immediately bring the United States into the war. Here again, Ludendorff threw his weight behind the navy’s arguments by insisting the United States was incapable of fielding an effective army, much less deploying it to Europe to fight on the Western Front. His comment to a senior industrialist in September 1916 sums up his understanding of strategy: “The United States does not bother me…in the least; I look upon a declaration of war by the United States with indifference.” Even more astonishing is that in the fall of 1916 Ludendorff was seriously worried that Holland or Denmark might enter the war on the Allied side…The U-boat offensive had failed. It remains one of the more disastrous strategic decisions in human history.
Although Ludendorff managed to build an extraordinary, albeit fragile, force for his coming offensive, he did not have the slightest idea what its operational goals should be. When asked as much by Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria, group commander of the northern forces along the Western Front, Ludendorff testily replied: “I object to the word ‘operations.’ We will punch a hole into [their line]. For the rest we shall see. We also did it this way in Russia.” And that is precisely what the Germans, under Ludendorff’s direction, did. Their impressive battlefield gains were completely devoid of strategic and operational benchmarks, and they constructed no defenses to maintain the greatly expanded front…
…Ludendorff displayed neither leadership nor strategic sense. In September he began casting about for someone to blame for the looming German defeat. His initial target was his staff. By early October, he had shifted the blame to the liberals and socialists. As the German political, strategic and operational situation spiraled out of control, Ludendorff himself approached a complete breakdown. On October 26, the Kaiser dismissed him. Disguising himself in a false beard, Ludendorff fled to Sweden to write his extraordinarily dishonest memoirs.
As a commander, Ludendorff represented the strengths and weaknesses of the German army. “In my final analysis on Ludendorff,” notes David Zabecki, the foremost historian of Germany’s 1918 offensives, “I have to conclude that in many ways he was a reflection of the German army as a whole in the first half of the 20th century: tactically gifted, operationally flawed and strategically bankrupt.”

Some more.

And by the war’s final summer when it was clear that defeat was inexorable, the general slipped into a downward spiral of despair. He exhibited violent mood swings, lashed out at Hindenburg and even reportedly broke down in tears before his subordinates. Some speculated that he was in the throes of a nervous breakdown.

Interestingly, I do not recall any Chris Brand posts about “neuroticism and anxiety” with respect to that episode.  Very selective, eh, Chris?  Brand can’t answer right now, being kept busy in hell and all.

WWI: The Lie to End All Lies

Contra Johnson’s thesis.

Let’s consider Johnson’s absurd thesis that WWI (and II!) had nothing to do with petty nationalistic competition between European nation states, but instead was due to “empires.”

I will now consider this, excerpts follow (emphasis added) with some comments:

The early years of the 20th century saw tremendous growth in Europe of both population and prosperity. With arts and culture flourishing, few believed a general war possible due to the peaceful cooperation required to maintain increased levels of trade as well as technologies such as the telegraph and railroad. Despite this, numerous social, military, and nationalistic tensions ran beneath the surface. As the great European empires struggled to expand their territory, they were confronted with increasing social unrest at home as new political forces began to emerge.

Nationalistic tensions. Well, everyone seems to recognize this reality except Johnson and his band of liars.  The idea that “empire” was a major driving factor is ludicrous.  Consider: In WWI, the British, French, and Russian empires were allies, even though in past decades and past centuries, these empires were in conflict.  What changed?  Simple – the national interests of the states in question. The fact that they were empires were incidental. There were conflicts of national interests, and imperial considerations were just one manifestation of those national conflicts of interests. By 1914, the rise of Germany was the threat that brought together the convergence of British, French, and Russian interests.  Empires or no empires, the shifting constellations of national interests would have existed and led to war.

Rise of Germany

The main issue.

In the resulting Treaty of Frankfurt which ended the war, France was forced to cede Alsace and Lorraine to Germany. The loss of this territory badly stung the French and was a motivating factor in 1914.

Indeed.  A territorial dispute – local European territory not colonial – was a motivating factor in the rush to war.  Petty nationalism, conflicts between neighboring states, historical enmity and revanchism – all in the mix.

Building a Tangled Web

As we’ll see, the “tangled web” of alliances – Johnson’s vaunted “temporary solutions to temporary problems” – led to the war that helped wreck the White world.

With Germany united, Bismarck began setting about to protect his newly formed empire from foreign attack. 

Empire?  Johnson starts breathing heavily. Unfortunately for him, “empire” in this context is the modern German nation state, cobbled together from an amalgamation of smaller entities.  So, at what point is today’s ethnonationalism merely a current interpretation of past imperialism?  Freedom for Bavaria!

“A Place in the Sun” and the Naval Arms Race

An ambitious leader and the grandson of England’s Queen Victoria, Wilhelm sought to elevate Germany to equal status with the other great powers of Europe. As a result, Germany entered the race for colonies with the goal of becoming an imperial power. 

In other words, Germany’s pursuit of a real empire was a result of petty nationalist competition with Great Britain and France.

These efforts to obtain territory overseas brought Germany into conflict with the other powers, especially France, as the German flag was soon raised over parts of Africa and on islands in the Pacific.

Petty nationalism started the process.  Overseas conflicts were a manifestation of this.

A global power, Britain moved in 1902 to form an alliance with Japan to curtail German ambitions in the Pacific. This was followed by the Entente Cordiale with France in 1904, which while not a military alliance, resolved many of the colonial squabbles and issues between the two nations.

Suddenly, “colonial squabbles” lost their importance in light of the German threat.  If the nations of Europe had been confederated, none of this would have occurred.  Instead we got Johnson’s “temporary alliances.”  Followed by a world war.

This pan-Slavic sentiment was backed Russia who had signed a military agreement to aid Serbia if the nation was attacked by the Austrians.

Yet we are told by some (commentators at Amren) that pan-Slavism is an acceptable alternative to pan-Europeanism.

Turning to their ally, the Austrians inquired regarding the German position on the matter. On July 5, 1914, Wilhelm, downplaying the Russian threat, informed the Austrian ambassador that his nation could “count on Germany’s full support” regardless of the outcome. This “blank check” of support from Germany shaped Vienna’s actions.

Always the troublemakers.

Behind the scenes in Berlin, German officials were eager for a war with Russia but were restrained by the need to make the Russians appear as the aggressors.

Surprise!

The Dominoes Fall

While the German military clamored for war…

I’m shocked, shocked I say.

Early on July 31, Russia began a full mobilization of its forces in preparation for war with Austria-Hungary. This pleased Bethmann-Hollweg who was able to couch German mobilization later that day as a response to the Russians even though it was scheduled to begin regardless. 

My being shocked continues. 

Though it was unlikely that Britain could have remained neutral if France was attacked, it entered the fray that next day when German troops invaded Belgium activating the 1839 Treaty of London. 

Those pesky treaties and alliances again.

On August 6, Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia and six days later entered into hostilities with France and Britain. Thus by August 12, 1914, the Great Powers of Europe were at war and four and a half years of savage bloodshed were to follow.

Thank you, petty nationalism.

Comment left at Counter-Currents:

HungarianFashionista
Posted September 29, 2019 at 12:59 pm | Permalink
(Health warning: The first 30 minutes of this podcast contains a large dose of WW1 Entente propaganda.)
I wish Western nationalists would stop pontificating about and lecturing Eastern Europe. We take care of our corner of the white world, and you take care of yours, that should be the rule in nationalist politics.

They should stop pontificating about Southern Europe as well, a topic about which they clearly know nothing.

We take care of our corner of the white world, and you take care of yours, that should be the rule in nationalist politics.

You would think that “ethnonationalists” would inherently understand that, but, you see, in reality they are ethnoimperialists.  For example, the British-Saxon hybrid John Morgan believes he has the right to live in Hungary, despite not being an ethnic Hungarian, while pontificating about Hungary and lecturing to Hungarians, all the time lauding the alleged virtues of “ethnonationalism.”  It’s “ethnonationalism for me but not for thee” for these imperialistic invasive hypocrites.

Let’s Count the Lies

Counter-Currents represents the greatest Far Right threat to White racial interests.

After the roll call of suckers (i.e., “donors”), we observe a defense of petty nationalism; thus:

1. Johnson complains (with respect to pan-European unity) about “permanent solutions to temporary problems.” There’s two issues with this. First, some of these “temporary problems” are such that they are likely to last for generations, and likely longer; the threat of China is one example. Temporary?  Second, and more fundamentally, why does the idea of confederation or “Imperium” have to be in the context of negativism – responding to some sort of threat?  Why can’t it be about Actualizing a High Culture, as Yockey had as the fundamental foundation of his Imperium idea?  Something else positive?  Space exploration?  High Technics?

2. Then there is the “idea” that the “war threat” of petty nationalism is over, there is no threat of “brother wars” at least in Western Europe – so those concerns are of little worry.  Right…we have Johnson talking about “ethnic cleansing” among Europeans, we have hardcore Nordicism, we have the British fuming over Polish plumbers while embracing Commonwealth Desis and Negroes, we have the ethnoimperialist hypocrisy of certain European ethnies (and Far Right activists) thinking they have the right to colonize the lands of other Europeans. What if the “national interests” of a “sovereign nation” in Europe includes making an alliance with China against a competing European nation?  Do we then descend into Johnson’s war and ethnic cleansing?

3. Johnson’s comments about WWI are completely ahistorical – or perhaps just more Johnsonian gaslighting. No, the cause of WWI was not because there were conflicting empires.  It was, ultimately, about national competition between Great Britain and Germany, the inherent conflict between the rise of Germany and British decline, and then there was the fear and hatred of France for Germany – French revanchism.  And then Johnson has the nerve to talk about WWII and “empires” – while WWII was a PURE example of petty nationalism, of German hegemony and Hitler’s desire to take other people’s lands, of British “balance of power” politics, of French hysteria about Germany, about Italy’s grasping for a national power not based on the actual quality content of people and state, etc. Johnson is being fundamentally dishonest here. How can his donors give money to support his gaslighting?

While I do not agree with everything here, the fundamental thesis is likely correct.  It was the (petty) nationalism of Germany that precipitated the crisis – although I believe others should share the blame; I cite the petty nationalism in other European nations as contributing as well.  But Germany as the focal point makes sense. Just like they wreck Europe today with their self-righteous pathological altruism, back then they wrecked Europe with their aggressive lunatic nationalism. That’s all blasphemy of course for a “movement” that literally worships everything “Germanic.” In any case, Johnson’s thesis about the world wars is a stupid as his thesis about Trump.

4. It is also an outright like that a pan-European confederation would abrogate local sovereignty.  Yockey denied this, I have frequently discussed this – Johnson and his crew of merry liars simply ignore all of this.  

And the rest of the podcast was superficial and imbecilic.  Johnson – “people like us practically work for free” – what a liar, after he talked about the $59,000 he raised so far from his suckers this year.  Some bloggers do indeed work for free but not you, liar.

And can you believe Morgan talking about people living in other people’s nations when this hypocritical invader violates the sovereignty and ethnic homogeneity of the Hungarian people?

Retarded comment:

inq

Posted September 28, 2019 at 8:59 am | Permalink

“How can Europeans band together to defend their collective interests while preserving their independence and sovereignty?”

They have already done it – it is called NATO.

The next step is to accept the inevitable and disband the UE supranational structure that has been designed to fail and nowdays even threatens to blow up the US/Europe NATO by actions of the same two countries that were responsible for the UE idea in the first place.

Err, idiot, Johnson and his colleagues oppose NATO.  Did you listen to the podcast?

The despicable hater of Southern Europeans Ash Donaldson:

Ash Donaldson

Posted September 26, 2019 at 11:37 am | Permalink

Yikes, Islam is “right about women”? I seem to have boarded the wrong train. Islam and Globohomo are equally worlds apart from the natural relationships between men and women among the Celts, Germans, and Slavs before universalism took root. God (or Gods) save us from all this nonsense about the sanctity of the Muslim womb.

“Celts, Germans, and Slavs”…after all dem wops are just Globohomo Muslims, all of dem dere two foot tall scurrying swarthoid roaches. Counter-Currents promotes Donaldson because Counter-Currents hates Southern Europeans.  Let’s put the cards on the table. Keep on sending in those “D’Nations” you shabbos sud stepandfetchits.  Keep on sending money to people who openly hate you: Johnson, Morgan, Donaldson.  Hey Donaldson, you declare yourself the enemy of Southern Europeans, then they’ll reciprocate.

From the breathless Counter-Currents review of Donaldson’s trashy novel (emphasis added):

Southern Europe has its place in From Her Eyes as well. Despite often appearing as Christian villains, the Romans play a big part in the narrative, since Donaldson and the characters themselves rely heavily on Roman sources such as Plutarch and Tacitus. The ancient Greeks are remembered perhaps more fondly, with Xenophon, Herodotus, and the Delphic Oracle figuring prominently in the story. Aethelstan’s adoptive father is named Leonidas, after the Spartan King who faced the Persians at Thermopylae.

Leonidas is also where the Slavic connection comes into play. Leonidas was Hungarian by birth and took part in the defense of Budapest against the Muslim invaders as a teenager.

Putting aside that Hungarians are not Slavic, you idiot, well, yes, Southern Europe does have a role to play here – as villains, as historians commenting on those noble Celts and Germans, as folks who give their names to others (Leonidas the Hungarian – laughter).  So – what?  Essentially, Southern Europe’s role here is the same as that of Muslims and Negroes, enemies of Ash Donaldson.  Enemies of Counter-Currents as well. But, again, when you declare someone as your enemy, don’t be surprised when they respond in kind.  I hope that any Italians, Greeks, Iberians, Balkan peoples, etc. reading this blog post understand full well that Counter-Currents and Ash Donaldson are your enemies.  Not because you ever did anything to them; simply because they hate you for what you are. There is nothing you can do, therefore, to end their implacable hatred for you, so you may as well return it.

More news:

See this.  Strom’s criticism of Trump is good, as well as his open declaration that Trump’s right-wing populism during the campaign was simply a calculated ploy to win votes – something that everyone today realizes and admits, except those whose egos and pocketbooks are tied to lying otherwise.

Strom knows full well that he is not the only person on the Far Right who was openly skeptical about Trump as far back as 2016-2016.  I frequently cite Strom as a fellow Trump-skeptic; it would be good if he would return the favor.  I say that not out of pettiness or ego, but out of principle.  If you guys want your racial nationalism to be successful, then you should support those who show good judgment, and criticize those who do not.  Indeed, we have some on the Far Right who today still lie that Trump was “sincere” and “a man of genuine greatness.”  Surely, Strom knows this.  Why doesn’t he call it out?  

Strom’s comments about socialism are also correct, and akin to my own ideas on the subject, discussed at this blog previously.

See this.  That’s good, but note two things.  First, it is the administration of Donald “the last chance for White America” Trump that is doing this; can any of the slavish Trump supporters on the Far Right admit that they were wrong about him?  Second, we note that it is the ADL that is opposed to Amren and to White advocacy and who uses lies to achieve their goals. It’s not Romanians or Italians organizing to shutdown Amren, but a certain other group.  Are we learning yet?

Well, well, well….  Blasphemy!  Remember as the Quota Queens tell us:  #Greta is right!

The Dispossessed White Ethnics

Some accountability to balance the books.

Who was it who wrecked Europe and the entire White world?  Who wrecked the West? [Note – let’s not just blame “the Jews” now, shall we?]. Who was ultimately responsible, ethnically and nationally speaking, for the two World Wars that has put us all on the path to destruction?  What two European nations engaged in a selfish struggle between a rising land power and an established sea power, said struggle leading to the aforementioned wars?  Who is it who lurches from one extreme type of fanaticism to another, from extreme nationalism to extreme universalism, forcing the rest of Europe to go along for the ride?  Who was it who delegitimized racialism, nationalism, and fascism through their uncontrolled lunatic behavior?  Who tainted racialism with the label of genocide, tainted nationalism with the label of hegemonic war, and tainted fascism with the labels of hate, totalitarianism, and wanton destruction? Who refused to follow the cooperative path of the Montreux Conference, and instead had to go on their own way of bloodshed and military conquest (against other Europeans)?  That wasn’t Mussolini and Italy, or Codreanu and Romania. Choose again.  Who today opens the doors of Europe to the Third World?  Who has made the EU into a gulag for Europeans, for a vehicle for European dispossession?  Swarthoids?  Hunkies?  Other such “Outer Hajnal vermin?”  No, choose again, it wasn’t them.  Who was it in America who made common cause with Jews and Negroes for “civil rights” and “racial integration?” Who collaborated with Jews and Coloreds to wreck American cities?  

My critics will accuse me of some sort of animus (projection) or assert that I’m just as much as a divider as those I oppose, with the same sort of narrow ethnic agenda (albeit of a different specific kind). Not at all.  Long time readers of my blog are well aware that I am just as critical, if not more so, of the “ethnics,” even to the point of advocating elimination of fractions (~10-20%) of those populations in order to induce much needed eugenic improvement (of course, this can be achieved via sterilization of that population fraction, which is what practically should be done). However, one must speak the truth about EVERYONE, including Der Movement’s favorite ethnies; there needs to be counter-balance to Der Movement’s fossilized dogmas, to their rigid narratives. There has to be accountability, for a proper balancing of the books.

And dishonest hypocrisy has to be exposed. You have certain European types who blithely go about not only destroying their own nations, but do the same to those of others. And then, when some of these types wake up and become frustrated about the damage done (by their own people) to their nations, they blame others for the situation. It’s dem dere “unassimilable ethnics,” all those three foot tall “needle workers,” who are responsible for dispossessing Americans true majority!  It’s dem dere swarthoids who are endangering “Nordish” preservation!  You have folks whose ability to wreck nations and civilizations rival that of the Jews (although, unlike the Jews, these people also wreck themselves), but they project their frustrations outward and they never accept responsibility for what they have done and are still doing.

I am particularly bemused by the Type Is who leave comments on racialist blogs concerning American White ethnics asserting that – “they have to go back.”  Really?  Go back where? To the nations you destroyed, and are still destroying? You have dreadlocked German whores forcibly invading Italian territory to dump off African migrants. So the American wops should go back where?  Norwegians sail the Mediterranean desperately looking for any Afro-Asiatics they can “rescue” and dump into Southern Europe. The swarthoids should go back where?  Richard Gere can’t wait to aid the invasion of other people’s nations.  Go back where?  Mama Merkel’s pronouncements not only invite the invasion of her own nation but those of the Southern half of Europe. Go back where?  Hey, if you say “they all have to go back,” then maybe you should leave them nations to go back to, instead of actively and avidly wrecking those nations like you’ve wrecked everything else.

Quo Vadis pan-Europeanism?

Whither pan-Europeanism?

Anyone else notice that Amren is really pushing the work of McCulloch recently?  Once again Sallis is proven correct, as I predicted that the HBD-Nordicist alliance, with Jewish/Asian interests in the background, will always attempt to divide Europeans against each other. Der Movement is tiresomely predictable, and the HBDers most of all.

Comment from the threads:

Miss Annie  

Southern and Eastern Europeans are admixed with Asian and Arab blood due to wars and invasions during the Middle Ages onward. For example, Spain and Portugal were conquered by Muslims in the eight century. It took eight centuries to get rid of the Muslims, but they still left their legacy in its inhabitants which, in turn, slowed the country’s economic growth as well scientific and literary progress.

Evidence of Siberian/East Asian admixture in Northern Europe – which even the radically hardcore Nordicist Durocher now admits exists (although he claims it is “beneficial” to all humanity) – is of course excluded from such screeds.  

Note to White ethnics – leave Der Movement ASAP.  

Now, let’s look at input on this matter from everyone’s favorite dishonest commentator Silver: 

For some people, the racial and cultural differences become too significant to paper over as one moves from northwest Europe to southeast Europe. Although pan-European ideals hold some degree of personal appeal for me, I think it’s terribly unrealistic to expect most people to ever share them. Pan-Slavism had more going for it than pan-Europeanism, but even that never really got off the ground.

Slav is technically not a racial term, but I am not opposed to its use in this way. There is less racial variation among the people encompassed by the linguistic term Slav than there is in the racial term ‘white’, after all.

I have the impression that people tend to run away from Slav as a racial identifier in a bid to avoid association with the sorts of things that WNs have historically regarded as backward or inferior in Slavic cultures. This is especially so if they are coming at WN from a national socialist angle.

Despite the numerous factors in its favor, pan-Slavism would, I agree, have served as little more than a vehicle for the promotion of Russian interests, simply given the sheer weight of numbers on the Russian side.

It’s easy enough to proclaim European unity, especially in internet comments, but achieving actual unity in real world activism is rather more difficult.

A racial movement is not like other movements, in which membership is determined by the views a person claims to hold. Membership is decided by visual identification. No amount of pleading will ever persuade some people to accept those they visually identify as too racially divergent, nor do constant reassurances do much to assuage the doubts of those whose inclusion is questioned.

The history of racial activism has amply demonstrated, I think, that any real world get-together will always be infected by such hardliners who will invariably express their views and question other people’s inclusion, leading to bickering and self-doubt – at which point any presumed ‘unity’ goes out the window.

The only way I can see for a racial movement to surmount this problem is market itself as a cultural movement – to promote a European cultural identity – and trust that, essentially, only whites will ever really be attracted to it. Misgivings about visual identifications would not then be the barrier to unity they are in a strictly racial movement. The very racial hardliners that make unity so difficult in a racial movement would also likely self-select out of a cultural movement, which would also ease the way to unity.

If you knew nothing about Silver’s past history, these comments would seem somewhat reasonable, even though we may disagree with the recommendations he makes. Unfortunately for him, some of us have long memories, and statements from him like “Although pan-European ideals hold some degree of personal appeal for me…” rank among the most dishonest in the history of the Internet.  Silver has been a bitter enemy of pan-Europeanism for the past dozen years, and has been mocking, attacking, and deconstructing pan-Europeanism, often in the most mendacious and or infantile fashion, ever since he started infesting the Majority Rights comments threads in the mid-2000s.

Regarding his contention that “Membership is decided by visual identification…” that may hold for the McCulloch faction, but many – most? – people in Der Movement go by ancestry.  For example, most people in Der Movement would reject a “Nordish” Jew, but accept a darker, swart cockney “Paleo-Atlantid” Englishman.

With respect to the main point that White unity in Der Movement will always be undermined by Nordicist hardliners who reject and exclude other Whites and by the reaction of those other Whites to that exclusion, I agree. My brief period of thinking that compromise was possible was wrong-headed delusion on my part; I can admit when I have been wrong, and I was wrong in that case.  If that makes some question my judgment, so be it.  Unlike Greg Johnson and the other Quota Queens, I’m not going to hide my errors in an attempt to safeguard others’ opinions of me.

Silver’s recommendations are flawed.  Cultural nationalism does not solve the race problem to everyone’s satisfaction; even if it are mostly Whites who are attracted to it, it still leaves the door open for mass “cultural conversion” and assimilation, attacking the foundations of racial preservationism. One solution, and that which I have advocated, is adding (not replacing) cultural factors to racial ones, instead of replacing race with culture, or vice versa – thus merging the Salterian and Yockeyian viewpoints (note I use Salterian not McCullochian – ancestry not phenotype).

Pan-Slavism has been, as Silver admits, a failure and a vehicle for Russian domination. Further, it can exhibit the same problems as pan-Europeanism. One can imagine neo-Nordicist North Slav types, such as the Polako and Raciology specimens, attacking “racially admixed” South Slavs and making a distinction between “True Slavs” (Poles, Russians) and “False Slavs” (Serbians, Bulgarians). Same problem, smaller scale.

Personally, I’m a pessimist, and believe that Der Movement has already ruined a viable chance at victory.  But, we can still try. What I advocate is that the small minority of activists who are pan-Europeanists (true ones, not Nordicists trying to expand their “D’Nations” base) cut loose from Der Movement and go their own way.

Pan-Europeanists should have their own groups, groupuscules, blogs, websites, organizations, meetings, etc.  They should build a New MovementThey should be hardliners themselves – absolutely eschewing, excluding, and rejecting all Nordicists, fetishists, HBDers and other dividers.  Now, there are possible problems here.  There are so few true pan-Europeanists that there may not be a critical mass for success.  From experience, I know that Nordicists and others of similar ilk will always try to weasel their way into pan-European groups, to subvert the mission and undermine activities. Conversely, there will be pan-Europeanists who will impatiently attempt to expand their influence by accepting these other types or at least by making “alliances” with them. These dangers will exist.  But if Type II pan-Europeanists can perform better than the Type I Nutzis dancing through cemeteries with their swastika-soled boots, then they can  provide an attractive, viable alternative to the failed “movement” and to the hardline dividers to whom Silver refers. A more successful and sane movement can attract high quality people, establishing a positive feedback loop of steady and sound growth, while leaving the failed “movement” to degenerate under the weight of its own failures and insanity.

Do I think this will occur?  No. I think the swastika-soled boots crowd will dance off into the sunset, tripping over a tombstone, hurdling headlong into the grave. The majority of rank-and-file activists – including many who call themselves pan-European – are slavishly addicted to Der Movement and will not break ranks with it until it is too late to do any good.

We’re very likely doomed.  You can’t say I haven’t warned you.  You can’t say that I haven’t been (constantly) offering you an alternative.  It’s been your choice to (constantly) reject that alternative.


I’d like to make one more important point.  If pan-Europeanism is so crazy and unrealistic, then why is that that you have Nordicists – Pierce and Duke being two prominent examples – who always seem to find it necessary to pretend to be pan-European?  I alluded to one possible reason above, the desire to maximize followers and followers’ donations. But I see three more fundamental reasons for this.  

First, although authentic pan-Europeanists are relatively few, they have an influence out of proportion to their numbers.  Consider Yockey – you have the hardcore ethnonationalists of Counter-Currents always promoting Yockey and his work, and the Nordicist National Alliance is now selling Yockey’s masterpiece Imperium. And all these types have not hesitated to make use of my own work in the past.  Second, although there is a significant and very loud hardline Nordicist faction as well as Nordicist-oriented rank-and-file activists, there is also a significant, more “silent,” fraction of activists who are at least vaguely sympathetic to pan-Europeanism, and who would be a mobilizable force with better (and more genuine) leadership.  Third, the White masses already think excluding even the Jews is nutty; thus, excluding Southern and Eastern Europeans would strike many of them as completely unhinged. Many of the things that are acceptable within Der Movement’s “amen corner” would not “fly” in the broader society. I understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive, but if the prescriptive is derived from the counter-productive obsessions of a particular hardline faction, then perhaps the prescription needs to be re-thought.

Therefore, perhaps the problem is not with pan-Europeanism, but instead derived from the fact that the American “movement” had its genesis in Nordicism and Anglocentrism, amplified by the obsessions with Hitler and Nazi race doctrine, and so these paradigms are too deeply embedded within the Old Movement to be effectively opposed from within. The same holds for Old Movement dogma outside America, with Anglocentrism being of course prominent in the Anglosphere “movement,” and Hitlerian thought being prominent among activists in “Germanic” Europe.  However, that all applies specifically to Der Movement – the Old Movement – not to society at large, and not to the nucleus of activists who could, under the right circumstances, initiate the development of a New Movement.

But, again, I’m pessimistic.