Category: multiculturalism

Hypocrisy vs. Democratic Multiculturalism

Salter right, Counter-Currents wrong.

First, please note the hypocrisy of Counter-Currents here (yes, I know – using “hypocrisy” and “Counter-Currents” in the same sentence is a perfect example of redundancy). That site is the premier focal point of ethnonationalism in Der Movement, strongly promoting atomized ethnic identities.  Then they run an article criticizing Irish and Italians for identifying ethnically instead of racially.  Inconsistent much?  Oh, they’ll argue that they refer to Europe with respect to ethnonationalism and Cuomo lives in America, not Italy – but so what?  Isn’t the basic principle the same?  And what about Gerry Adams?  He’s an Irishman from Belfast. According to ethnonationalism, he’s Irish, period.  Why critique him then for eschewing some sort of pan-European “Whiteness?’’  Or is it that the ethnonationalism of Counter-Currents has a purely personal, and not ideological, basis and thus has no underlying political consistency?  

Second, if we consider approaches to “democratic multiculturalism” then we can say that what Cuomo did was not 100% wrong.  Maybe 90% wrong, but not 100%.  First, he was in error in making an issue out of a non-issue: “Fredo” is not an ethnic slur; indeed, Don Trump, Jr. is labeled as such, and he’s of German-Scottish-Czech ancestry.  Second, Cuomo was even more in error in making it an ethnic rather than a racial issue – instead of complaining about an Italian-specific grievance, it should have been put into the context of being attacked for being a member of an European ethny, an anti-White attack, or at least, an attack against White ethnics.  Or, even if it was put in the language of an ethnic-specific grievance, race could have been introduced in the context of (truthfully) asserting that similar remarks (if we assume the remark actually was offensive, which it was not) would not be made to Blacks and Jews, etc. There are many approaches to a strategy of democratic multiculturalism that benefits Whites as a whole, and not just making it a narrow ethnic appeal to victimhood. Of course, this gets back to the first paragraph above – race-based approaches ultimately have to reject petty nationalism and the whole ethnonationalist mindset.

The key to “democratic multiculturalism” is to delegitimize multiculturalism by making it a tool for majority interests.  As Salter states, multiculturalism as practiced in the West consists of minority group mobilization coupled to majority group atomization and the complete neglect of, and opposition, to majority group interests. Thus, any move toward majority group mobilization runs counter to the entire underlying premise of “Western” multiculturalism.

I have detailed a number of approaches, and responses to leftist reactions, with respect to “democratic multiculturalism.” I urge serious and strategic thinkers – by definition, not individuals who are committed members of Der Movement, Inc. – to consider the overall strategy as well as the specific tactics described to help achieve the goals of that strategy. Remember the saying – “if everyone is my brother I have no brother.” By analogy, if everyone, particularly the majority, partakes of multiculturalism, then there is no multiculturalism. By that point, it is pure sociopolitical chaos, heightening the contradictions of the System, which is what we want (or should want). The key is for people to participate specifically and openly as Whites, to make it clear that this is majoritarian multiculturalism, and not merely atomized White ethnies pretending to be non-White grievance groups. There’s nothing wrong with noting a specifically ethnic component of your complaint, as long as it is in the context of it being a White ethnic group.  Again, a pro-White Cuomo, in response to a real (and not imagined) ethnic slight, could call out the slight as an anti-Italian slur BUT at the same time note that the reason why such slurs are acceptable to the Left is because Italians are a White ethnic group (contra the Nordicists, but that’s another issue), and that Italians are attacked as part of the System’s anti-White bias.  And the same holds for the Irish or any other European-derived ethny. So, the problem is not an ethnic-based complaint, the problem is when the complaint begins and ends with ethnicity, and is not broadened to include race. Ethnicity should simply be a wedge to leverage the issue of race into the conversation. It’s not anti-Italian or anti-Irish bias that is to be presented as the real issue, but anti-White bias manifesting in particular cases as attacks against Italians or the Irish.

By the way, as an aside, this is what Hampton believes “looks very White.” Now, there are of course some Hispanics who are White – people who have no New World admixture and are essentially the same as their European ancestors, as well as some people with very low levels of New World admixture that is not significantly higher than those White Americans whose “Indian Princess” stories are in fact true. So, “White Hispanics” do indeed exist; unfortunately for Hampton, Jessica Alba obviously is not one of them (or at least, does not look like one of them – and it is by physical appearance that Hampton made his comment to begin with).

The Yang Problem and Other Issues

In der news.

This is affirmative action on display.  Sigh…the point is not that there are “strings attached” if an activist receives his $1000 per month handout (but after all the recent deplatforming, and the direction this country is going in, you’d be foolish to think that the UBI would never be cut off to public activists). The point is that Yang’s plan is meant to buy off White anger (to the extent that this anger exists or will exist in the future) over their dispossession. The point is not that Yang’s plan poses a danger to activists, but instead that his plan is a danger to the ability of activists to recruit from the White masses The point is, a la Salter, that we want multiculturalism NOT to work, not make it work more smoothly through “a minority-majority America is A-OK as long as some of my tax money is funneled back to me (and to the endless stream of invaders Yang supports) via UBI.”

“Movement” leaders are as “deep” as a piece of tissue cut by a microtome.

Of course, it has crossed my mind that the immature frathouse boys are merely trolling us, that it is just more Beavis-and-Butthead “lulzing.”

Others think so:

Bernie

Posted March 11, 2019 at 9:45 am | Permalink

Gotta say, I was bewildered and disappointed by all the dissident right support for Yang. After all, the guy is a fairly standard leftist and anti-white on all the racial issues. But now I see it is (mostly) a joke/meme and have learned to laugh at it (a bit).

Then again, maybe not.  Remarkable.  Guess what, Richie, back in 2016, Trump was “worthy of support” because he was going to build dat dere wall, and he was possibly going to crack down on “legal” immigration as well.  Wha’ happen?

Either way, it is bad.  These guys are either demented as regards judgment or they are imbecilic immature idiots.

Should salaries be winsorized?

I am reading Crime and Punishment, and it is amusing that there is a male Russian radical character stating the belief that woman are equal to men in every way, including physical strength.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This here does not in any way change the genetic interests of the English people; EGI is forward looking and how current genepools came into existence is not the issue.

Why I despise White people, particularly White males (not men).  Yes, international sales contributed, but the bottom line is that if Whites, particularly males, boycotted it, it would tank.  These are the people who are going to bring us Total White Victory (+/- 50 years)?

Whites are a hopeless omega race – lower than omega, the leucosa race.

But if they hate Whites (and they do) – that’s A-OK!  MAGA!  Pepe!  Kek!

Trouble in Colored Paradise.  It’ll all be good when Whitey is not around to kick around any more, right?

Eggroll?  Sounds familiar.  As for the meme itself, well…

Roissy: What’s the common thread?  Gee, I don’t know Beavis…maybe, cuck naggers?

How’s that “last chance for White America” thing coming along?  If the Quota Queens had any character whatsoever, they’d leave racial activism and go retire to some place they’d be comfortable (Israel or China are two prime destinations).

Behold the wopess – this couldn’t happen to a more deserving person. The Left devours its own.  I also enjoy Warren making noises about “breaking up” the Big Tech SJWs. Excellent.

Look at this nonsense, while remembering this written previously.  And this. Two points from the main piece.  First, this fellow claims to be middle-aged.  I always imagined him to be a Millennial, given he writes like a callow youth.  Second, note the part about gays, particularly that “committed” homosexuals should find an opposite sex gay person to reproduce with.

You see, gay apologists like to stress that “it’s biological.”  OK.  So, if it is biological, then by reproducing, they’ll be passing it on. Does a “White Ethnostate” need more homosexuals?  Also, if a man is a “committed” non-bisexual homosexual, meaning he is only sexually attracted to men, how is he going to “get it up” with a woman, much less a lesbian?  So, is it really “only biological” in that case?  And if this is the case of a man who can “perform with anything” in a Negro-like fashion, is that what we want reproducing?

I suppose this can be with artificial insemination – “turkey baster babies.” That’s great!  What a wonderful family unit!  Dad jacks off to gay porn and Mom has that semen placed into her fetid yeastbucket.  What tales they can tell “junior” about his (or her) conception!  Traditionalism!  Is that what a “White Ethnostate” should be about?  

Lots of deep thinkers among the current crop of Counter-Currents writers, of that we can have no doubt.  

His riposte would no doubt be: “I have personally seen it happen more than once.”  Interesting people this individual associates with.  His anecdotal claim then brings us back to the same questions and comments made above.

Then there’s the comments:

Madison Grant never had kids. Adolf Hitler never had kids. Were they losers? Were they failures?

Do I really need to answer that?

…the Movement is made up of and attracts men who are weirdos and spergs…

True.

…saying to young WN men that we should get married and have kids is advice that’s dead on arrival. And to be clear, I’m not saying that nerds and spergs should be catered to or coddled (truth be told, we should submit to voluntarily sterilization after we create the White Ethnostate.

And he just proves his own self-characterization.  Gee…yes, let’s sterilize all the intellectual introverts, so the whole population will be strutting around like Vince McMahon and sniggering like Beavis and Butthead within two generations. The Alt Right/Game Idiocratic Ethnostate!  I support eugenics, but one has to be careful, since traits are linked.  It would seem to be a good thing to select against manic-depression, neuroticism, anxiety, introversion, etc. – until you end up with an uncreative, laid-back nation of Negrified psychopaths.  Selecting solely for intelligence may leave you with a nation of autistic soyboys. At least promote the breeding of well-rounded and accomplished individuals by suppressing the lowest dregs, without being too narrow in your criteria.

Might as well get it out of the way early on: I’m a young white man with an Asian wife.

American Renaissance awaits!  VDARE embraces you!  What’s the problem? Hail Derbyshire!

Question: Then why doesn’t this person support the Sallis groupuscule, which has been telling the truth about Trump for more than three years?  Do I really need to link to that affirmative action YouTube song video again? Let’s just pretend I did.

Roissy continues to be insanely deluded:

Trump, do something useful this week for your base. Direct your AG to declare the SPLC a hate group which should be monitored nonstop by the FBI.

What is far more likely is that Trump will write a big fat (like him) “D’Nations” check to the SPLC, while tweeting about how the Democrats are so terribly “anti-Semitic.” 

Weasel-faced Roissy still doesn’t get it.  Hey, Roissy – your “God Emperor” (by his actions and inaction, forget the bombastic blustering) supports the SPLC.  He supports Antifa. He betrays his base on a now-almost-daily basis.  Can you give up your sweaty homoerotic fervor for this obese clown?

And now it is all because “Bannon left and was replaced by ‘Javanka.”  Newsflash to the Trumptards: If your obese “God Emperor” was actually a serious right-wing populist and not a blustering buffoon, then Bannon would still be there, wouldn’t he?  Isn’t Trump the masterful alpha male billionaire “Art of the Deal” (ghostwritten) hero leading us into glory?  Is he going to be manipulated by his praying mantis-headed daughter and her skinny Jew husband?  What gives?

Organizing Our Environment

Blueprints of matter and mind.

Excerpt from a useful Counter-Currents comment:

…I realized that there is a likely connection between the way we think/act and the way our environment is organized.

There is something to this of course, particularly for the masses, but likely affecting even the “elite” to as well.  “The way our environment is organized” can include many things.  Obviously, at its most basic level, demographics and culture.  The “behavioral sink” is real.  I’ve noticed that White behavior declines as the non-White – particularly Black and Hispanic – portion of the surrounding population increases.  Now, part of that is simply White flight and selection: many higher-quality Whites flee diversity, leaving behind others more likely to ape (pun intended?) non-White behavior.  But I suspect that is not the full story; to the extent that higher quality Whites live among diversity, their own behavior may be coarsened and degraded by the experience.  No doubt all of the poisonous and vulgar cultural artifacts brought to us by a globalized, multicultural, and vulgar Judaized society affects (negatively) White behavior.

I suspect though that the commentator in his/her comment is concerned more with the physical structuring of our environment: for example, the architecture, the degree of urbanization (or lack thereof), and the entire milieu a person find themselves in.  No doubt one’s way of thinking would be affected living in urban vs. suburban vs. rural environments, and not only because of differing demographics and culture. Architecture would have a large effect: different styles are not only the product of a way of thinking but may feed back and affect the way of thinking itself. One wonders if Traditionalist vs. Futurist architecture and city planning would influence one’s preferences for those opposing worldviews: snug in your hobbit hole vs. reaching for the stars.  My article on avant-garde fascism touches upon some of these matters in more depth.

Understanding of these matters can clarify our realization of how current organizing of our environment affects us and our race, how to resist negative and promote positive influences, and how we may want to physically structure the environment in the ethnostate (or Imperium, eh?) to mold population-wide ideals and preferences in the desired directions.  Aesthetics are important, architecture, planning of living spaces, all of it.  The blueprint of our physical environment can be the blueprint of the ideals we strive for.

Bowery is Right about This

Responding to Griffin.

Read this.

My view is somewhere in between that of Griffin and his critics.  I agree with the critics that Griffin underestimates the immense pressures and restraints imposed on White men, particularly young White men trying to make their way in a vehemently anti-White, Colored Privilege America.  On the other hand, Griffin is correct that there are options other than a quixotic and suicidal gesture such as that of “Sky King.”

James Bowery has, I believe, a good perspective on this.  After citing this publication, Bowery states:

Young white males are well advised NOT to “suck it up and buckle down to serve the economy and social stability,” as Dr. Griffin does, but rather to organize in such a way as to destabilize society and do so identifiably as young white males.

This is consistent with my call for approaches that enhance societal and demographic balkanization.  Remember Salter’s dictum: the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is a multiculturalism that does – since the latter efficiently and quietly, without much fuss, manages the race replacement of native White populations.  If multiculturalism does not work, it may produce enough societal pain to induce cowardly and feckless Whites to begin to understand the problem and do something about it.  

So, young White males should destabilize society and they must do so in a racially identifiable manner so as to heighten the contradictions, provoke responses, and balkanize society along racial lines.

To paraphrase that Batman movie – “some people just want to watch the world burn.”  

Indeed.

Inherent Racism of Multiculturalism

More Salter analysis.

I am going to quote, and comment on, several excerpts, not to critique the entirety of the whole piece, but rather to illuminate certain points important to this blog and to the interests of Whites in general. In all cases, emphasis added.

This article follows from my review for Quadrant of the SBS documentary Is Australia Racist? which was hosted by Ray Martin, funded by Screen Australia (and therefore the taxpayer) and aired on Sunday, 26 February 2017.1 The program was grossly inaccurate and biased against Anglo Australians. In other words, it was typical of the wide-borders multicultural propaganda awash in the mainstream media over the last half century. 

Here, I look behind the program’s glossy façade to examine another long term feature of multiculturalism: its academic enablers. I look more closely at the program’s four academic experts, their on-screen claims and previous writings. It is important to look behind the smooth opinions of laymen such Ray Martin if we are to discover whether the linked policies of massive immigration and minority privilege have any basis in reason and scholarship.

That’s what Salter’s essay is about.  Let’s look at certain important excerpts.

Prof. Dunn’s publication list is a window into academic multiculturalism. His research is funded by the academic and multicultural establishments. He researches racism and ethnic discrimination but, it seems, only when committed by mainstream Australians. He is not interested in Anglos being victimised, only in their transgressions against others, which includes denials of racism and privilege. These, together with immigrant victimhood, are treated as axiomatic. For example, he states that the “new racism” is a distinctly Anglo view of the nation as assimilationist, ethnocultural, or egalitarian. He argues that it is racist to assert the equality of all Australians, because this (supposedly) denies white privilege…Jakubowicz argues that multiculturalism is a fraud because it benefits the (allegedly) dominant Anglo population. British and Australian governments have claimed that their societies have been tolerant of diversity, reflecting genuine expressions of Anglo-liberalism. In fact these governments “disguise systematic structures of racialised inequality masked by surface egalitarian discourses.” 

This account resembles Dunn’s view that egalitarianism is a form of Anglo racism.

This is astonishing, and reflects the extreme radical drift of the Left on racial issues.  The old bywords of equality and egalitarianism, once a bulwark of the leftist worldview, are now considered forms of “Anglo” (i.e., White) racism!  Multiculturalism, which oppresses the White majority while empowering non-White minorities, is a “fraud” because it “benefits” the very group it viciously oppresses.  The very things leading to White demographic displacement – let us be frank, White Genocide – mass migration, assimilation, multiculturalism – are now considered by the Left to be manifestations of “White racism” and “White Privilege.”

The Left has drifted so far into the fever swamps of revolutionary madness that slow White genocide is not only insufficient but akin to White Supremacy – not only must the pace of displacement be increased, but Whites must be constantly humiliated, disempowered, subjugated, slandered, and tormented, all the while being gaslighted by being told they are privileged racists living in a White supremacist society.  In truly Orwellian fashion – nay, even to extremes Orwell could not imagine – a majority group being systematically dispossessed and destroyed is told that the System destroying them is a pro-majority fraud working for majority benefit and reflecting the majority’s selfish racism!  By analogy, Auschwitz was a bastion of Jewish Supremacy, and the Holomodor an example of Ukrainian Privilege.

By any objective, rational standards, the Left is stark, raving mad.  But, perhaps it is not madness bit just pure, crystalline, rock-hard hatred.  The fundamental basis of the modern Left is an unquenchable racial hatred of Whites, and the need to humiliate Whites while destroying them.  Destroying Whites alone is not enough; Whites must be made into a subaltern, despised caste, while all the time being told they are “privileged.”

To summarize: The Right can no longer assume that their opponents are merely sincere but deluded egalitarians who foolishly, but goodheartedly want equality for all peoples.  No, the opponents are revolutionary extremists so consumed by hate that the complete eradication of the hated White enemy is not good enough; Whites must be ritually humiliated as they are being eradicated.

Jakubowicz also shares Dunn’s assumption that Anglos dominate Australia’s racial hierarchy. “In most Western societies Christian values or Christian social institutions dominate public debate and public practice.

Case in point.  By some mysterious circumstance beyond our comprehension, the dominant group is being demographically and culturally displaced, while being castigated by the likes of Jakubowicz.  That’s some strange dominance, I’ll tell you that for nothing.

In Jakubowicz’s view Anglo Australians have no legitimate ethnic interests. Their only ethical option is complete acquiescence to minority demands, which do represent legitimate group interests. His call for Chinese-Australian inclusion makes no reference to numbers. Like other mainstream multiculturalists, he treats the displacement of Western populations as not worth mentioning. Note also his cavalier attitude towards Australian security despite acknowledging the growth of Han nationalism and its linkage to Chinese economic and military power. These potential threats can only be exacerbated by the growing Chinese presence in Australian politics and business, which Jakubowicz sees as an encouraging trend.

Pure hatred of Whites as Whites.

It is relevant that Beijing is already utilising Chinese-Australian individuals and organisations as agents of influence in this country, a development that is alarming security analysts. Chinese voters have been swayed by ethnic interests for many years, an example being Prime Minister John Howard’s loss of the seat of Bennelong in 2007. Sam Dastyari, a Labor powerbroker, was forced to resign from parliament after he allowed improper influence by local Chinese businessmen; his foreign policy pronouncements were slavishly pro-Beijing. Chinese community leaders helped defeat the Abbott government’s attempt to reform the draconian section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. It is true that apart from the important matters of identity and security, Chinese have been in the main high quality immigrants with stable families, an admirable work ethic, low crime rates, and strong educational outcomes. 

That last part: Oh, no; just…NO.  Maybe Salter has a reason to be moderate here and praise Chinese qualities, akin to the slavish obsessions of HBDers.  But these positive qualities – even if we were to assume they are all true – are not the point.  Even the loyalty issue is not the point.  The point IS Salter’s own paradigm of ethnic genetic interests; Chinese are a biologically (and culturally) alien intrusive subspecies in the Australian human ecology and for that reason – and that reason alone should be sufficient regardless of other considerations – Chinese immigration must be prevented.

But the Chinese population has risen from close to zero to about five percent of the population since the 1970s, concentrated mainly in capital cities. This success largely invalidates attempts to portray them as victims. Instead the issue of greatest import to Australia concerns their loyalty. If Markus and other academics had asked the obvious questions the political class would be informed on Chinese ethnicity and business cohesion, matters of national security at a time when China has become the world’s second largest economy and is increasingly activated by nationalism. Decades ago they would have realised that many Chinese Australians feel, or will come to feel, allegiance to their ancient homeland. Some would have come to respect Australia’s founding leaders for sparing the country a large Chinese minority. They would have been right to ask what madness led governments to squander this social capital by introducing a potential fifth column into the country?

True, but how about squandering the genetic capital?  One can debate the presence, and place, of non-Anglo Whites in Australia; that’s one issue – but as regard non-Whites the situation should be unambiguous and not even a required topic for debate: they do not belong.

Some factor is missing from the picture. Why the bias against Anglos?

The most overtly Marxist of the four, Kevin Dunn and Andrew Jakubowicz, may have replaced the bogey of the capitalist exploiter with the bogey of an ethnic exploiter, Anglo Australia. 

And what did the old time Marxists want to do with the “capitalist exploiters?”” What did they do once coming to power?  That’s what the Racial Marxists of today are planning for Whites.

Professors Markus and Paradies have different theories but arrive at a similar conclusion, that white racism is the main risk to the joys of permanent open borders and multiculturalism…One thing we do know is that Dunn, Markus and Jakubowicz were willing to work with Martin and Paradies, self-declared ethnic loyalists, in making a documentary that dealt in part with the latter’s identity group. It is not obvious how individuals motivated by leftist ideals could cooperate to make a program that furthered an ethnic agenda. Jakubowicz has called for Chinese Australians to establish an ethnic lobby.

An ethnic lobby for “Chinese Australians” would no doubt be welcomed by the “HBD race realists.”

Andrew Markus is Professor of Jewish Civilisation at Monash University, a chair funded by the late Richard Pratt, a generous philanthropist for Jewish causes in Australia, Israel and elsewhere. As the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted on Pratt’s death, many of his philanthropic gifts went to Israel’s universities, the integration of new immigrants (all of whom are Jewish due to Israel’s strict immigration laws) and disadvantaged Israelis. That shows love for his people, a noble sentiment. But what is Markus, supposedly a radical cosmopolitan, doing accepting funds from an ethnic nationalist? Would not a cosmopolitan shy away from a vertically integrated ethnic enterprise in which a Jewish academic is paid by a Jewish donor to study Jewish affairs? Markus has spent his professional life criticising Australia and other Western countries for immigration policies that were mildly discriminatory compared to Israel’s. Yet it seems he has never criticised Richard Pratt or the Israeli leadership, all dedicated ethnic loyalists. Indeed, he has co-authored a paper praising Israel’s discriminatory immigration policy.2

Jewish dual morality; the enemy revealed.  But some on the “Far Right” tell us that Jews are “White Men of the West.”  Do you, dear reader, really believe that?

Multiculturalism was always a regime imposed on a reluctant majority by a triumphant left-minority alliance. 

How did that alliance become triumphant?  One cannot exempt Whites themselves from blame; indeed one must place significant blame on this race of cowardly lemmings.  The failure of the “movement and its inept “leadership” must also be held accountable.

…Anglos and whites in general are rapidly being reduced to minority status due to bipartisan immigration policies imposed by the major parties and the cultural establishment. If Anglos are dominant and racist, as Dunn insists, why have they been cowed and silenced by political correctness? There is no doubt that Anglo-Australians are the prime target of the human rights apparatus. As observed by Stephen Chavura, a political scientist at Macquarie University, “Multicultural discourse is about silencing any who would dare to criticise the way immigration and integration have been conducted since mass immigration shifted from Europe to Asia and the Middle East in the mid to late 1970s.”14 Anglo-Australians look very much like a subaltern ethnic group, leaderless and prevented from complaining even while losing their country.

And yet they are “dominant” and “privileged.”  

IV

Conclusion and Policy Implications

One lesson of this review is that Australians should not be intimidated by academic titles and media fame. Individuals with high positions and the title of “professor” can peddle transparent falsehoods, as can the university courses they teach. Policy makers should be looking for ways to circumvent the leftist censorship in the social sciences and public broadcasting and re-establish a robust market of ideas.

But how?  We need concrete proposals.

The deep state has been dragging Australia down with suicidal ethnic policies for half a century…The vanguard of the new morality are the elites. Indeed, capture of the elites has been a triumph for the broad and disparate progressive tide. In Australia, like the US, elites in government, business, the public service, and civic organisations are embracing progressive ideas […] The sheer size of the professional class now dealing with the new morality is immense.27

And while this professional class was being assembled, the mainstream Right was babbling about “tax cuts” and “economic growth” while Der Movement was pontificating about Kali Yuga, subfractional admixture percentages, the racial provenance of Leonidas, the “men who can’t tell time,” cephalic indices, Pyramids of Atlantis and Ultima Thule, and “being snug in your hobbit hole.”  Plenty of blame to go around, no?

The leftist professional class described by Kelly consists of several mutually-supporting components. The main sources of personnel are university departments of humanities and social science. Left-dominated universities develop doctrine and train professionals to man the many positions in the media, bureaucracies, unions, political parties, and schools used to suppress Anglo resistance under the cover of human rights. The mainstream media play a vital role in instructing the public and intimidating majority activists. An important arm of the infrastructure is equal opportunity and affirmative action offices employed by universities, corporations and unions, who develop and manage multicultural programs at state and federal levels.

How to dismantle this?  How to build Rightist equivalents?  And, also, we need an analysis on how self-serving affirmative action “infrastructures” were built within the “movement.”

Again, it is not surprising that multicultural ideologues fear the rise of parties that could begin to build an ethnic infrastructure for the majority. The greatest danger to them is not temporary defunding of particular projects, but the creation of a professional class of national activists able to work in and with government agencies to neutralise and then replace the system of minority-left supremacy. 

A danger they seem they will not have to worry about for some time.

There have been many attempts to explain the nature and cause of the intolerant Left’s dominance of the universities…These accounts fail to explain why cosmopolitan, anti-Western ideology has prospered. A satisfactory explanation remains elusive. The academic literature on the subject agrees that the left’s takeover of elite culture began early in the twentieth century. Sociologist Eric Kaufmann has traced the starting point back that far in the United States. The process lasted for two or three generations, ending in the 1950s to 1960s when the takeover of elite universities was completed.31

And all doing this time the Right did nothing.  In my lifetime the two periods in which the Left has grown by leaps and bounds (after the 1964-1974 leftist political explosion) was during the Reagan and Trump Presidencies (the latter we see unfolding on a daily basis).  Does that tell you anything? The Right declares victory and then sits around and does nothing while allowing the Left to roll up one real victory after another.  The Right is not serious.  After all, look at the stupidities that Der Movement concerns itself with.

As already noted, there is some doubt that multiculturalism is unambiguously leftist. The SBS program’s attack on Anglo-Australians reveals that, despite its rhetoric, it can be seen as coming not only from the Left but also from individuals well to the right of One Nation. Multiculturalists mobilise ethnic constituents, their tribes, by warning them of threats from another tribe, Anglo Australia, which they vilify with accusations of racism.

But what to do about it?  We all know this is true.  What now?

It will be difficult to correct the social sciences and humanities while respecting the autonomy of scholars and the universities that employ them. Another hurdle is the fact that Australian academe is connected to international disciplines that are themselves politicised. If a way could be found, governments would be justified to defund intellectually corrupt courses and academics. The funding instrument might also be used to establish centres of excellence that champion science and disinterested scholarship over ideology. These centres would offer students real alternatives, and society real experts. Such reform will not be possible while governments of both sides of politics remain under the thumb of the powerful multicultural lobby. A parallel approach might work to reform public broadcasting.

But how exactly to get started?  We can never “get over the hump” from proposing these obviously beneficial ideas to even the slightest beginning of any real progress.  We require fresh ideas and careful planning, followed by competent implementation.

Screen Australia should be abolished or, preferably, reformed to defend traditional values. It should be feasible to reduce the high level of inaccuracy evident on ethnic and cultural themes in public broadcasting. Programs such as Ray Martin’s should not progress beyond the proposal stage. Their poor scholarship and ethnic bigotry should have ruled them out. The media and academic elites examined in this review give first loyalty to political values ahead of curiosity and intellectual openness. They and their enablers need to be exposed before Australia can begin to rebuild its national identity and social cohesion.

You can expose them, but to oppose them you will need your own competing infrastructure. I do not see anyone on the Right capable of building such.  Given the current inept “leadership” any budding infrastructure would be infiltrated by the first Swede or movie critic who walks in the door.

However, as philosopher Michael Walzer has noted, it is not feasible or desirable to abolish ethnocentrism in an open society. Instead, the multiple ethnic loyalties found in Australian society must be balanced. Decades of impotent criticism of the ABC show that balance can only be achieved among channels, not within individual channels. And that can only be achieved by establishing a counterweight, a network that take the side of Anglo Australia.

Another good analysis by Salter.  Imagine if all the money that has been wasted on the Happy Penguins had gone instead to fund Salter, so as to allow him to commit full time to ethnological/nationalist analysis and also to advising political activists worldwide.  If you want to contribute to Salter’s work, do so as described here.  Give generously.

The Alt Wrong’s Final Exam

What is their priority?


UPDATE: Israel is now saying it is suspending the agreement, not because of the damage that would be done to the West, but because of internal “right-wing” pressure about allowing half the Africans to remain in Israel.  I will still run the post I have written, because it is relevant given the underlying Israeli/Jewish attitudes.  For example, get this:

Netanyahu named Germany, Italy and Canada as examples of countries that would accept the migrants, though German and Italian officials said they had no knowledge of any such agreement.

Original post:

Readers may be familiar with this news story.

The Far Right has long accused Jews of hypocrisy: while the Tribe pushes for diversity and alien immigration into Western nations, nations, nations thus headed for minority status for the current White majority, Israel is a Jewish national state, with a resistance to the same mass migration of aliens that Jews foist on Whites throughout the globe

Israel’s determination to deport African migrants back to Africa, where they belong, fits into this paradigm.  However, under pressure from the “United Nations” (United Coloreds would be more accurate). Israel’s “right-wing” government has blinked.  However, they are not keeping all their poor, persecuted Africans.  No, sir, only half.  The other half will be dumped on “Western nations” – I’ve read that Canada, Germany, and Italy are possible destinations.

This is quite remarkable.  If Israel does not have the moral courage to take the steps to safeguard their demographic stability, then that is THEIR problem, and one richly deserved given the predominant role Jews have played in undermining Western demographics.  But, no, even in their hour of defeat the Jews strike out at their eternal enemies, the European peoples, using Black Africans as a biological weapon to undermine the racial and cultural basis of the West, while relieving themselves of half their problem.

Could the opposite be done?  Maybe the USA can send half of its “Dreamers” to Israel?  Turnabout is fair play.  But, no, things don’t quite work out that way, do they?

Now, I will give Amren credit for no longer censoring the comments threads of any criticism of Jews, so some commentators there are venting their well-justified rage over this outrage.  But what about those who run that site?  What about its stable of writers, including “Gregory Hood,” heretofore never afraid to express his opinions on controversial matters?

I would think if some other nation would have connived to dump over 16,000 African migrants into Western nations, the Alt Wrongers would be screaming about it for days.  Will they do so about Israel, and do so in a manner that properly expresses the outrage of the whole situation, put into the context of endless Jewish promotion of Western multiracialism and multiculturalism?  Commentaries?  Podcasts?  A statement of principles?  An acknowledgement that this is an act of demographic warfare, consistent with all that has gone before?  Will they finally speak up on this issue?  To clearly demonstrate that their priority is for Europeans and not Jews, for the West and not for Israel?  Will they do this?

Think of it as a final exam.  Not final as in FINAL, but akin to a final exam in a particular class.  There will be other final exams, on other issues, but, today, the question of Jewish hypocrisy on race presents to the Alt Wrong a final exam on that specific issue.

Stay tuned.

Revisiting Putnam

No White racial solidarity.

Let’s again consider Putnam’s oft-discussed findings about diversity eroding societal trust and repressing social engagement and investment in public goods (similar to findings by others and a topic often brought up by Salter).

Putnam not only found that diversity decreased trust between groups but within groups as well. That latter finding is somewhat counter intuitive, since one could reasonably assume that increased diversity, and the consequent increased distrust between groups, would strengthen a tribal “us against them” mentality and therefore increase trust within groups. But the opposite occurred, at least with those examples Putnam studied. 

How can we interpret the counter intuitive finding that diversity erodes trust and societal cohesion within groups as well as between groups?  This depends on whether this “within group” problem applies to all groups, or only to Whites.  Perhaps those more familiar with the nuances of Putnam’s work – which I read some time ago and have no interest in revisiting as Putnam is a disgusting excuse for an academic who hid his findings for years and only published it with an accompanying screed promoting social engineering to grease the wheels of White dispossession (*) and my hypothesis here will require more data in any case for a fair evaluation – know more of this.

My hypothesis is as follows. 

If within group trust is eroded by diversity for all groups, then this phenomenon reflects a general human (or should I say “hominid”) trend to withdraw and “hunker down” when faced with diversity,

If the effect is restricted to Whites (which I believe will be the case if a careful quantitative study is done), then this is a strictly White mental phenomenon.  And how does this happen?  The hypothesis suggest the following.

One could speculate various mechanisms if this was the case, but consider – a la Ignatiev’s “Race Traitor” paradigm – that Whites are the only group in which large numbers of the group – including a majority of influential elites – act overtly against group interests.  Thus, there is no racial solidarity among Whites, no one you can racially trust unless you really know them – hence, when faced with diversity, Whites will mistrust other Whites because  – given the omega cuckiness of many Whites – one can never be sure whether a given White is “on our side” or “on their side.”  In a homogeneous White community this isn’t so much of a problem (of course political disagreements – including whether or not to import diversity – can precipitate such mistrust, but even so, in a homogeneous community such conflicts would be muted).  However, in the presence of diversity, Whites must tread carefully.  Is your White coworker someone you can trust to share your disgust over multiculturalism, or will they “report you to HR” because of your “bigotry?”

On the other hand, non-Whites (including Jews) can reliably depend on their co-ethnics showing ethic/racial solidarity, and siding with them against “the other” (and particularly against Whites). For Whites, a given fellow White is just as likely to be a Universalist cuck as they are to be someone sharing your beliefs.  

Thus, diversity erodes within group trust among Whites (and likely only among Whites) because Whites are ideologically split on this race-diversity issue, and many Whites are SJW “altruistic punishers, so that in diverse environments fellow Whites may pose a threat since they would identify with “the other side.”

Ignatiev would be proud.

*Salter rightly claimed in On Genetic Interests that for a majority being replaced, the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does work, since the workable multiculturalism will make race replacement more agreeable to those being replaced, while the pain of a failed multiculturalism may wake the majority up to prevent their dispossession.  Putnam is clearly on the side of those who want multiculturalism to succeed.