Category: Occidental Observer

Citizenism and Mainstreaming Failure

More fails.

Trump so far has illustrated the underlying flaws of Sailler’s “citizens” (warmed over civic nationalism).  While Trump proved that, under the right set of circumstances, there was a narrow electable window for citizenism to come into power, he is also proving how utterly useless citizenism is – and will be – once elected.  Citizenism is “weak sauce” – half measures, compromises, furtive implicitness, which at its best would only slow the decline and delay the inevitable day of reckoning.  However, the Left – nay, the entire Establishment – views citizenism as equivalent to neo-Nazi White supremacy, and thus they oppose and sabotage even the most modest citizenist initiatives of Trump. Thus, while citizenism has proved electorally successful – at least this one time, with a very unconventional candidate – it is inherently doomed to fail, caught as it is between two pincers.  On the one hand, it really cannot solve the Race-Culture problem, because that’s not what it meant to do; on the other hand, it triggers the whole Establishment the same as if it really could effectively deal with Race and Culture.  It’s the worst of both worlds – not radical enough to actually achieve the required outcomes, but just radical enough to trigger a vociferous opposition that prevents even the most modest outcomes from being achieved.

Meanwhile, the “label Antifa as a terrorist organization” has passed the required number of signatures to be considered by the White House.  The ball is in your court, Mr. Trump – as is the question why you have to be forced to consider it (assuming he actually does, and doesn’t blow it off) rather than just doing the right thing to begin with.

I can’t think of a more wonderful test of Trump’s “God Emperorness” than this.  At what point will the sweaty homoerotic fanboys give up on their hero? This is something he should have done after the Inauguration riots.

They never learn.  Electoral failure, inability to appease opponents, unlimited ability to disgust the base. Mainstreaming is a perfect example of what happens when adherents to a plausible hypothesis refuse to give up that hypothesis even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

That applies to almost everything about the “movement,” by the way.

Advertisements

Durocher in Der News, 7/10/17

Der Movement marches on.

An analysis of race, nation, and culture in the writings of Herodotus could in theory be an interesting exercise, albeit one not directly relevant to actualizing our goals in our present (and future) reality.  Durocher’s Part I didn’t set off any alarm bells, but I knew it would just be a matter of time. Here we have Part II.  Let’s look at this self-contradictory paragraph, with the offending sections highlighted:

I would argue that Herodotus’ observations are eminently compatible with a scientific and evolutionary perspective on race/genetics and ethnicity. Race is, especially in geographically contiguous land masses, typically a clinal phenomenon, with gradual change in genetic characteristics (i.e. allele frequencies) as one moves, for instance, from northern Europe to central Africa. While intermarriage tends to spread genes, gene flow is slowed by geographical and ethno-cultural boundaries, leading to significant racial-genetic clumping and differentiation.

First, “northern Europe to central Africa” is not a “geographically contiguous land mass” – being interrupted by that thing usually called “the Mediterranean Sea.”  Further, while Africa itself is “contiguous” the Sahara Desert can impede gene flow.  So, “northern Europe to central Africa” is hardly the best choice for any discussion of clinal changes in gene frequencies.  Then he shifts gears and talks about factors causing “clumping and differentiation” including “geographical…boundaries” – which would actually be something to cite Europe-Africa about, rather than for clinal differences.  So: clinal or clumpy?

Which is it?  Answer: genetic differentiation tends to be more clinal within continental populations and more “clumpy” between such populations, although in some cases there could be some “somewhat clinal” clumpy differences within continental population groups and “somewhat clumpy” clinal differences at the edges separating some such groups.

Consider this from Durocher:

The birth of a nation, ethnogenesis, occurs when linguistic, cultural, and possibly genetic drift leads a particular population to acquire an ethnic identity distinct from its neighbors. Cultural chauvinism and ethnic sentiment work together in this, magnifying one another: cultural traits such as language and customs become more and more similar within the in-group, while differences with out-groups become more and more marked. Thus, a point on the genetic cline is hardened into a more-or-less discrete ethno-cultural node and genetic cluster: a nation. The degree of nationhood is defined precisely by the population’s level of genetic and cultural commonality.

Where did we ever read that before?  Oh, here:

Thus, over time, genetic boundaries can become ever-more-aligned to political and cultural boundaries, particularly when those boundaries are fairly impermeable, distinguishing quite distinct national, political and socio-cultural entities. 

Panmixia is NOT required for a better alignment of European genetic interests with actualization of a High Culture.  Given a strict “in/out” barrier, over time, given natural processes of low-level gene flow within both “in” and “out” coupled with drift and selection increasing distances between “in” and “out,” the relative genetic distinctiveness between “in” and “out” will increase, and any potential areas of genetic overlap between “in” and “out” will no longer exist. 

We have gene-culture evolution becoming gene-High Culture evolution as well as gene-political system evolution. 

Hence, the association between genes and political boundaries goes in both directions.

How about this from Durocher:

One does not need a population with an absolutely “pure” lineage for ethnocentrism to be evolutionarily adaptive. On the contrary, one needs only sufficient genetic and cultural similarity for the members of the community to form a common identity and become a solidary in-group, and there must be greater average genetic similarity among individual in-group members than there is between individual in-group members and the members of out-groups they come into conflict with.

That sounds familiar as well:

However, regardless of how modern gene pools came to be, people are not genetically identical – there are differences in genetic kinship and hence in genetic interests, and it is there that we need to focus our attention. 

Premise 1 is false. Race does not depend on “purity.” Race can be defined different ways, but is essentially a genetically distinct subpopulation that is characterized by a suite of heritable (i.e., genetic) phenotypic traits distinguished from other such groups. There’s nothing in any reasonable definition of race that includes the idea that a race has to be a hermetically sealed group, absolutely isolated from all other groups from the beginning of time. Thus, racial preservation deals with races and their gene pools as they actually exist today, “warts” and all. The possible existence of past admixture does not in any way suggest that future admixture is inevitable, necessary, or desirable. The ethnic and genetic interests of any group are forward-looking, based on the present and looking toward the future. How the group came into existence – including via admixture – does not change the interests that group has in its continuity and preservation today. 

Of course, the concept of ethnic genetic interests (EGI) represents an argument against future admixture, particularly against admixture across wide racial lines; i.e., across a large genetic differentiation. EGI is forward-looking. Genetic interests are considered in the present, to influence decisions that affect the future. Admixture in the past affected the genetic interests of the people at that time. We cannot go back in time and alter decisions made by past peoples that created the ethnies and individuals that exist today. 

Today’s peoples are what they are, with genomes that are what they are. We cannot change that. We can only change what future generations will be like, what their genomes, and consequent phenotypes, will be. Genetic interests always look forward. So, again, any individual or ethny today, with whatever ancestral mix, has genetic interests, regardless of how their genomes came to be.

I could cite more, but sifting through my old writings to find either:

1) Ideas generated later regurgitated by the “movement” or

2) Any of the endless series of predictions I’ve made that have come true

Is a tiresome exercise.  Not as tiresome – predictably tiresome – as Der Movement, Inc. is though.

DNA Testing and Jewish Sophistry

DNA tests.

For example, I’ve come out 95 percent Ashkenazi Jewish (not a geographical population, but a gene pool with its own minor genetic idiosyncrasies due to history) and 5 percent Korean.

There are two major points to derive from this, both that I have discussed before (and labeled as “sophistry” by a Mexican lunatic).

First, as I’ve said before, these commercial tests irresponsibly assert imply a level of accuracy that they really don’t have, specifically for minor “admixture.”  And Der Movement, full of Nutzis and nitwits who do not understand the fine points of DNA testing, are equally irresponsible in believing that, for example, a Finn who tests as “100% European” is meaningfully different from another Finn who is “99% European and 1% Asian” (the former being a pureblood and the latter a mongrel – even if the two are brothers).

It was not clear exactly what tests Marks took (assuming he is truthful about his experience), but we can assume that he is not “5% Korean.”  That 5% could reflect some degree of deep Asian ancestry in the Ashkenazi genepool OR it could just be statistical noise (dependent on the test) OR it could be (as it often happens) dependent on the parental populations chosen to designate “pure” groups – an artifact of genetic distance of populations, or subgroups of populations, from those groups chosen to genetically calibrate group identity.

It is very possible to explain the 5% Korean results without going to the mendacious extreme of asserting that DNA testing is objectively meaningless in its totality. So, Marks is outrageously irresponsible but others are irresponsible as well.

Thus, by irresponsibly over-interpreting low % results (one cannot take too seriously 5% or less results for many of these tests, unless there are VERY solid reasons for assuming otherwise), both the companies and Der Movement leave an opening to filth like Marks to delegitimize the very idea of DNA testing, which itself is scientifically valid if responsibly interpreted (majority ancestry or high levels of “admixture” – albeit not in exact percentages – typically are more or less valid).

Second, the fantasy of absolute purity helps, ironically enough, to delegitimize the reality of race, thus:

Premise 1: The reality of race and the legitimacy of racial preservation depends upon absolute racial purity.

Premise 2: Absolute racial purity does not exist (as scientific studies tell us).

Conclusion: Therefore, there is no such thing as race, and racial preservation is illegitimate and irrelevant.

The fact that one can detect ancestry in these identities does not mean that they are products of nature.

Absolute insanity – proof positive that Jews are an evil, deceptive people.  I wondered how the System would “spin” the FACT that commercial DNA testing – with all its flaws – absolutely demonstrates the reality of race and can determine, with almost absolute certainty, a person’s major ancestry. Answer: DENY OBJECTIVE REALITY.  Just use REAL sophistry, deny reality that is right in front of people’s eyes, and spin a fantasy that hard reality is meaningless.  Difference between Right and Left: the Right adjusts ideology to hard reality; the Left attempts to adjust – nay, distort – reality to hard ideology.  Who do you trust – a fast-talking Jews who attempts to tell you that a Jew testing as a Jew is not “a product of nature” or Ted Sallis who tries to give a reasonable and balanced view of DNA testing?

Indeed, the word “trust” and “Jew” in the same sentence should make all your alarm bells go off.  And, really, in the end, consider – Marks is an Ashkenazi Jew and he tested as “95% Ashkenazi Jewish” – which would seem to me to be a solid result – and yet dismisses the biological validity and meaning of the results.  Focusing on the highly questionable minor “admixture” results to the exclusion of the rock-solid majority identity results is typical of the type of mendacious hand-waving characteristic of a certain ethny.  And the idea that one can just “look in the mirror” is destructive and absurd as discussed here.

Hmmm…a Jew who promotes destructive and absurd memes – who would have ever guessed?

Hunter-Gatherers Again

It’s dem dere hunter gatherers!

More of the same.


The main part of my talk traces to evolutionary roots in the hunter-gatherer culture that is especially prominent in northern Europe.

Yes, sir!  Unfortunately suicidal pathological altruism seems especially prominent in Italy as well.

Must be all those Celto-Germanic Nordic Northern Italians!  Salvini looks like Dolph Lundgren’s younger brother!  Of course it’s the Salvini types who are the ones most in opposition to the invaders…

And the “movement” wheel just goes on turning, turning, turning….

In all seriousness, look at this chart (and note where it was posted!).

On the individualism-collectivism scale, Italy is in the same range as Sweden, and is more individualistic than the hunter-gatherer-enriched nations of Germany, Austria, Estonia, Poland, and Finland – never mind Russia!.  If we want to look outside Europe, then Northeast Asians, who are, so we are told, descended from Asian hunter-gatherers, are sky-high on the collectivist side.

To put it mildly, looking at that chart one cannot see any clear correlation between hunter-gatherer ancestry and individualism.

That is one major problem I have with Der Movement, particularly its Alt Wrong HBD faction. They are so emotionally invested in their theories (hello, Richard Lynn!) that they are not willing or able to deal with contrary data. The whole Popperian scientific method is foreign to them; instead, they are highly Kuhnian indeed.  They have their paradigm, and they’ll continue making up ad hoc explanations for poor data fits until the whole intellectual edifice collapses.

Isn’t it better to refine – or change – the paradigm before that happens?  Isn’t it better not to wait for anti-White leftists to point out the obvious flaws?  Isn’t it better to first listen to rightists who repeatedly warn you that there are serious flaws in your paradigm?  If you have scientifically valid explanations, then give them?  Just repeating the same things over and over again does not address the issues at hand.

Silk Road News: 6/24/17

More Asian perfidy.

Another law-abiding cogelite.

Duchesne’s work.

Duchesne found it hard to avoid the conclusion that today’s Detroit is no more part of the West than ancient Egypt had been under the rule of a tiny Greek-speaking elite. The same goes for majority-Chinese Vancouver, where the remaining Whites are being forced into small apartments as foreign Chinese millionaires buy up the city’s housing stock, pricing them out of the market. A city can no longer meaningfully be considered Western when the majority of its population is pursuing interests opposed to those of its European-descended inhabitants.

Question: are the snide remarks of Silkers about “Puerto Ricans in the movement” aimed at Duchesne as retaliation for Duchesne’s steadfast opposition to Asians colonizing Canada? After all, as we all know, Asians absolutely have the right to colonize Western lands, which is of course somehow consistent with “European EGI.”

Another member of the “evil party.”  Evil is as evil does, eh Silkers?

No problem!  Once we institute the Silk Road White Nationalism program, Asians living in White lands can have White slaves to toil for them!  It all helps “European EGI,” don’t you know!

Here’s an example when we should all support the police.

Fool’s Gold: Netherlands Conference and Misunderstanding Epigenetics

“Movement” stupidity.

Yes, a bunch of HBD/race realists and a “greed is good” “National Capitalist” bodybuilder whose YouTube channel tells us:

This is a channel dedicated to how glorious and magnificent I am.

Sharing some of my divine wisdom when it comes to obtaining an ultimate physique worthy of the Gods!

Yes, the new golden age is just around the corner!

Consider this moronic comment left by a fact-devoid gamester commentator:

Consider two factoids, in lieu of long, drawn out arguments:

1. An organism’s form: tissues, organs, systems – the whole architecture – is epigenetic (meaning beyond DNA). The difference in size and shape of a tulip and a blue whale has nothing to do with DNA and is wholly epigenetic. (Thus, you can have identical twins with the same DNA – one born with birth defects w/o any arms for ex., while the other can have a full body and be a pro athlete.)

2. Fascinating studies have been conducted in embryos whereby the DNA is extracted before first cell division. According to the “DNA is king” crowd, the organism should be absolutely dead right there. It’s not. The embryos can continue developing for hundreds of cell division, even forming early-stage tissues, before eventually it does die off.

1. This is completely and absolutely wrong, another example of the solipsism in Der Movement: just stating something makes it true, don’t you know. 

“Factoid” – Epigenetics modifies the expression of the genetic information encoded in the DNA, it does not replace it.

The identical twins example; such an occurrence would be exceedingly rare even if theoretically possible. It’s theoretically possible that epigenetic modifications of genes that control bodily development could cause birth defects (but why pray tell would it affect one identical twin in utero and not the other given they are in exactly the same environment?). So what? Maybe you’d get one in a million blue whales born without a flipper because of an epigenetic modification due to ocean pollution, but you sure as hell am not going to get a blue whale that looks like a mouse…or a tulip. DNA is the main player; epigenetics is the sideshow. 

Anyone with at least a room temperature IQ would realize that epigenetic modifications are modifications of DNA and of the RNA produced by the DNA; it’s not “beyond DNA” you rambling idiot but OF DNA.  Epigenetics is modifying the expression of genes encoded by DNA sequences, it is not some mysterious force floating around independent of those same genes. And what does the epigenetic modifications?  Acetylases, deacetylases, methyltransferases – enzymes that, like all other proteins, are encoded by…DNA sequences.

6/11/17 Notes

Some notes.

As I’m planning to begin tackling Heidegger’s Being and Time over the next several months, I found this interesting:

But if the change we desire is already on the way, does this mean that we can simply sit back and let history do our job for us? No, because some of us are not just called to dissent, we are called to fight. But we go forth into battle with the assurance that the change we fight for is already in some sense real, and it is coming to meet us.

I agree with that assessment…or sentiment.

I have some concerns here about this:

In Year Seven, John Morgan of Arktos Media came to work with me full time at Counter-Currents.

…but everyone does their own thing; I have no say on how Counter-Currents is run, so good luck with all of that. Of course, the “back story” there may inform the recent flare-up of the Johnson-Spencer-Friberg/Arktos feud, but what do I know?

Here is an interesting Durocher piece.

Note that as regards bison, phenotype/morphology/phenotype is not enough – the actual genome matters.  Durocher seems to support that view.  Very well.  Sound familiar?  I’ve been preaching the priority of genotype over phenotype nearly my entire time online and writing for racialist journals.  It is of course common sense and biologically reasonable and consistent with adaptive fitness.  Of course, when I do it, I’m labelled “crazy “and with an agenda.  Perhaps Durocher will have better luck- the fact that he specifically mentions Northern Europeans may make his comments more palatable to a “movement” that sees no difference whatsoever between Southern Europeans and Africans, or Eastern Europeans and Asians.