Category: Political EGI

An Inverse Ocasio-Cortez

What should have been done.

The chattering classes. Of both the Left and the Right, have been in a tizzy over the electoral success of “latinx” yeastbucket Ocasio-Cortez, whose platform consists of:

A Democratic Socialist, endorsed by MoveOn, Black Lives Matter and People for Bernie, Ocasio-Cortez favors Medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage, 100 percent renewable energy by 2035, free tuition at public colleges, federal jobs for all who want them, and abolishing an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that runs “black sites” on the Mexican border where “human rights abuses are happening.”

Let’s consider a bizarro world where the Alt Right consisted of serous and thoughtful activists, instead of smug, half-drunk millennial jackasses sniggering like Beavis and Butthead and screaming about Pepe and Kek.  In this alternative reality, the opportunity opened by Trump’s election is taken advantage of by having clean-cut White men – including young counterparts of Ocasio-Cortez – running for political office on a platform, which while not full-throated White nationalism, is on the borderline of explicitly pro-White and further to the right, and more authentic, than Trump’s phony flim-flam.  We’ll assume that these candidates are sane and relatively normal (atypical of pro-White activists), without significant “baggage,” and are, say, running for Congress in a district that affords a reasonable chance of success.

What kind of platform could they have run on?  What kind of platform could they run on today if any such people actually existed?

Immigration: A complete crackdown on illegal immigration.  Build the wall, yes, but also have rock-solid internal enforcement.  Deportations, but even more important – self-deportation by depriving illegals and their offspring of the jobs magnet, of education and healthcare, by making living illegally in American completely untenable.  Expand ICE.  Hold employers who hire illegals accountable, via immense fines and long prison sentences.  Consider “sanctuary cities” and other forms of enforcement obstruction as tantamount to treason.  As far as legal immigration goes, cut it sharply, AND alter the influx sources by favoring immigration of European-derived peoples (an explicitly pro-White position).  State that after 50 years of favoring the Third World, fairness and ethnic stability mandate that the lower levels of legal immigration now must derive primarily from those of European stock.  And also eliminate “birthright citizenship” as it is now interpreted.

Foreign policy: An America First policy that, unlike that of Trump, is actually consistent, avoids bombing Syria, avoids groveling to Israel, repairs relations with Russia, supports elements in Europe that wish to save the West, and that protests against the speech restrictions and other forms of political repression against nationalists in Europe.  Work with sane Europeans to stop the migrant invasion – the survival of Europe is important for America and is thus consistent with America First.

Military: Modernization and expansion of the US nuclear force, with a renewed commitment to the triad, development of a new ICBM, a reversal of the trend toward decreasing warhead/bomb yields, accelerated development of hypersonic weapons, etc.

Space exploration and science: An expansion of both manned and unmanned missions.  An expansion of science funding.  Money spent for science, technics, exploration, and innovation, instead of funding the demographic expansion of “gimme dat” colored parasites.

Economy and social services: Protectionist economics, and a social service net, including healthcare and education funding, based on the “pay in” system.  That is, single payer healthcare and college tuition assistance goes to those families with a proven record of contributing to the economy (based on tax returns, etc.).  No parasite handouts; this is similar to the insurance premium concept, or the annuity concept – the payout is contingent upon having contributed to the funds over the years.  If the funding is government money, only productive people who have been paying their fair share of taxes are eligible for a proportionate share of the proceeds.  Exceptions can be made in particular contexts, such as an academically brilliant student from a poor background.  The “citizen’s dividend” idea should be broached as something to consider as automation eliminates more and more jobs.

Social policy: An end to affirmative action.  An end to forced integration. Primacy of freedom of association.  The only restriction on freedom of association is an expansion of free speech rights – The Political Opinion Protection Act – that protects free speech in the “private” as well as governmental realms.  No more social pricing through the pocketbook, not more people getting fired for expressing dissident views and no more deplatforming either.  Also, a crackdown on leftist domestic terrorists, who will be treated exactly like the domestic terrorists they are, and also subjected to RICO laws.

That’s a start.  More could be added.  Better this than dressing up like Captain America and yelling “Kek!” in Charlottesville.  And needless to say, such a Far Right candidate needs to incorporate the EGI concept into their platform, in a manner appropriate for, and understandable to, the target audience.

Advertisements

The Nazi Next Time, II

Further analysis.

Let’s take another look at my The Nazi Next Time essay from 2015.  How does all of that look now from the perspective of Trump’s election and all the events from the year (and more) since that election?

Before we look back at the main points of that “Nazi” essay, let us consider that now, approximately two years later, certain elements of the System Left are beginning to reach similar conclusions.  Read this Frank Rich piece.

However common the ground of Democrats and Trumpists when it comes to economic populism, they will still be separated by the Trumpists’ adamant nativism, nationalism, and racism. The liberal elites who continue to argue that Democrats can win by meeting Trump voters halfway don’t seem to realize that those intransigent voters have long been hardwired to despise them.

The pot calling the kettle black?  Who despises who?  It was the Democratic Party’s abandonment of the White working class, in favor of Colored Identity Politics, which set the stage for right-wing populism to begin with.  Working class and middle class White Americans rightly perceive that the Democrats despise them, so why not return the favor?

Looking to the future in his 60 Minutes White House exit interview, Bannon said, “The only question before us” is whether it “is going to be a left-wing populism or a right-wing populism.” And that is the question, he added, “that will be answered in 2020.” Give the devil his due: He does have the question right. But there is every reason to fear that our unending civil war will not be resolved by any election anytime soon in the destabilized America that Trump will leave behind.

But the long-term threat is bigger than the potential arrival in the Capitol of radicals like Moore or the conspiracy theorist Kelli Ward, a possible inheritor of Flake’s Arizona seat. By illuminating a pathway to power that no one had thought possible, and demolishing the civic guardrails that we assumed protected us from autocrats, Trump has paved the way for far slicker opportunists to gain access to the national stage. Imagine a presidential candidate with Trump’s views and ambitions who does not arrive with Trump’s personal baggage, his undisciplined penchant for self-incrimination, and his unsurpassed vulgarity. 

Yes, I can imagine it: that’s why I wrote the “Nazi” essay; the vision was clear in my mind…and still is.

Finer-tooled instruments — smarter and shrewder demagogues than the movement’s current titular head — may already be suiting up in the wings.

Oh, we can only hope.  I do believe eventually, we’ll see that.

In any case: Sallis was prescient once again.

Now, back to the 2015 Sallis piece.

The hysterical angst of the Republican Establishment concerning the rise of Trump is glorious to observe.  Of course, the interesting thing is their complete lack of self-awareness, their lack of understanding that they themselves are responsible for the predicament they find themselves in.

I was I believe too kind to the GOP then.  Or, perhaps, I realize now that the Republicans don’t care about winning; they only care about being part of the System’s anti-White agenda.  Trumpism in the 2016 election gave the GOP sweeping victories at every level, leaving the Democratic Party in complete disarray.  2016 was a stunning confirmation that right-wing populism is the path for continued Republican electoral dominance even in the face of the changing demographics that the GOP itself has been complicit in promoting.  Trumpism can build a solid White voting bloc, with strengths among demographics (working class Whites, White ethnics) who were part of the Reagan coalition, but who have been straying from the GOP after decades of Neocon-corporate-cuckservatism, as exemplified by the Bush family, “plastic man” Romney, and execrable filth like John McCain (and the pink-frilled Lindsey Graham).  And how has the GOP reacted to this good fortune?  By doubling down on their anti-Trumpism, by obstructing what little the Grand Cuck Trump (this revealed after the election) wants to accomplish in a positive sense, by joining in with the absurd moral panic over “Russian interference,” by cucking to an extreme degree, by doing everything possible to throw away the fruits of the 2-16 electoral sweep an alienate and discourage Trump’s base.  So, now, I believe that they have awareness and understanding – it’s just that they are part of the same corruption, and always have been.  It’s always been a fraud, a scam, a con game run on the White American voter.  The GOP really isn’t in any predicament at all; they are simply playing the role assigned to them, playing it with relish.

Of course, all else being equal. The GOP would prefer to win elections, as they would like to enjoy the power and perks of elected office.  They also want to convince the rubes of the viability of the “two party system” and they want to keep the political donations and campaign contributions flowing in.  But winning is not an existential issue for them, but being anti-White is. If given a choice between winning with an explicitly pro-White agenda and losing as pandering cucks, they’d pick the latter every time. When the choice is put into those stark terms, the real Republican agenda comes into sharp focus.

Consider: after the startling electoral success of 2016, GOP cucks still pretend that association with right-wing populism will somehow damage the party – they will be ‘”toast.”

Still think they really want to win?

One reason is that the GOP has been complicit in the demographic changes that have put them “in between a rock and a hard place,” politically speaking. On the one hand, Republicans look at America’s growing colored population and see the need to appeal to that demographic. On the other hand, the GOP base of support is conservative White Americans, particularly right-of-center White men.  To pander to minorities runs the risk of alienating the base; to secure the base runs the risk of alienating the coloreds. Up to this point, the GOP strategy has been to pander to the colored minorities, while throwing “bones” to the base in the form of phony “implicit Whiteness” and “dog whistling” rhetoric with no real-life political consequences. Heretofore, the GOP has mastered feinting right during the primaries, running centrist in the general election, and, in the rare cases of GOP Presidential victories (since Ronnie Raygun, we have had only the two failed Bush men being elected), governing from the left. Base anger has been silenced by “they have nowhere else to go” “lesser of two evils” electoral considerations.

But now, the rise of Trump is an ill wind blowing in the direction of the GOP elites: the base is starting to awaken and will not be forever willing to “vote for lesser of two evils” and support anti-White leftist Republican candidates.

Whatever else Trump is or does, this alone justifies supporting his 2016 campaign, which I did.  Even if he is a completely self-interested phony, his reliance on right-wing populism “let the toothpaste out of the tube” and the System, however it may try, cannot get it all back in again, long-term.  They may win some battles here or there, tactical successes, but the tides of war will go against them.  By this, I mean the war to make multiculturalism work smoothly, and have White blithely accept their own dispossession.  The System may still win in the end, but their victory will be a Pyrrhic one, a bloody mess that will leave a nation essentially ungovernable long term as any major power on the world scene.  They may suppress right-wing populism short-term (and likely, not even that), but, like a bed penny, it’ll keep on popping up again.  Trump is a catalyst, a “John the Baptist” foreshadowing things to come.

But there is something else. The problem with Trump is seemingly not only his ideology of right-wing populism (real or fake), it is also because the Republican Establishment – with some justification – see Trump as an ill-informed, vulgar, obnoxious, childish buffoon, with no self-control and an embarrassing lack of gravitas.  Very well, but in response to those concerns I have two words: Pat Buchanan.

Like Trump, Buchanan ran for President as a right-wing populist Republican. In fact, there is considerable overlap in overt ideology between the two men’s campaigns. While lacking Trump’s “alpha jerk-boy” charisma, Buchanan has certain advantages that you would think would endear him to the GOP elites: Buchanan is a well-informed, articulate, religious man, with strong Establishment connections, and prior political experience in previous Republican administrations. Buchanan has always been an “inside-the-Beltway” man, and is not an obnoxious buffoon.

And how did the GOP elites deal with the more polished and political Buchanan?  With the same disdain and hysteria that they now reserve for “Der Trumpening.”  The Elite made it clear that they would never accept Buchanan as the nominee, they panicked over his early successes, they sabotaged his campaign (as I recall, they even prevented him from being on the ballot in some states), etc.  So, the case of Buchanan proves that the problem with Trump is not so much his repellent personal aspects, but his core of right-wing populism. Anything that appeals to Whites is anathema to the GOP, which is of course self-destructive given the nature of the GOP base (it is not for nothing that Sam Francis labeled the GOP “the Stupid Party”).

As stated above, the GOP would rather lose as anti-Whites than win as pro-White.  It’s a well-established trend dating back decades.

The point is that the GOP lost anyway with Bush and Dole in 1992 and 1996. While it is understandable that the incumbent would be favored in 1992, there was no excuse for favoring the “living mummy” “civil rights Republican” Dole over Buchanan in 1996. Favoring Buchanan would have solidified the GOP base and could have put the party in the direction of a right-wing populist track that could have genuinely benefited White Americans.

That is anathema to Establishment Republicans.

But, no. The elites sabotaged Buchanan and they suppressed right-wing populism for several electoral cycles. Now it has erupted in a more “virulent” form with Donald Trump. Instead of learning their lesson and understanding that the base cannot be taken for granted, instead of understanding that they need candidates that appeal to the base, the GOP elites are hell-bent on sabotaging Trump and suppressing right-wing populism for another couple of electoral cycles.

They may succeed but they are playing with fire.

They couldn’t stop Trump from winning, but they are fairly successful in teaming up with Democrats to block Trump’s ostensible agenda. Here, they are getting help from Trump himself, who betrays his base at every opportunity.  xxThere are some who say that there is evidence that Trump is sincere in his right-wing populism: he gave up his easy billionaire lifestyle to run for President. But that in and of itself means nothing.  It ignores issues of ego and the lust for (political) power. By analogy, we can ask why billionaires all don’t just ease up and enjoy the “good life,” why do most of them continue to strive, “wheel and deal,” obsess over money, and engage in rent-seeking behavior, including political lobbying, designed to further increase their wealth and power?  That’s the nature of the rich and powerful: they are never satisfied; they always want more (and that is one reason that they become rich and powerful to begin with).  If such people are given the opportunity to go into the history books as US President, would they eschew that opportunity?  Trump’s Presidential ambitions tell us nothing about his sincerity.  The fact that Trump ran as a right-wing populist may reflect his real views, or it may simply reflect his realization that the only way he could stand out from the established field of GOP cucks was to give the base the “red meat” that they were craving.  If Trump is really the shrewd businessman his admirers says he is, then he must have noticed the open political niche space to the political right of the GOP candidate field.  Trump’s sincerity would be better displayed by an honest and consistent effort on his part to fulfill his campaign promises.  That he is not doing; instead we get jackass tweeting, half-heated measures, backpedaling, a disgraceful waste of political capital, and waffling on issues like DACA.  If there is sincerity there, it is awfully hard to see.

Who will come after Trump?  Who will be the next right-wing populist?  As even worthless and weak Whites become more aggressive out of sheer desperation, who will they turn to next?  Someone more extreme and firebrand-populist compared to Trump to the same degree Trump is compared to Buchanan? 

It won’t be “the fire next time,” but it may well be “the Nazi next time.”  The GOP elites had better hope that their country clubs are well fortified indeed.

Will Trump’s constant betrayals and failures discourage his base?  Or, as Rich suggests, whatever the outcome of Trump, the base will only become more energized?  The latter, we hope.  But we must realize that the trauma of Trump has immunized the System against the “virus” of right-wing populism; they’ll be on their guard against it, and will try and nip any further manifestations in the bud.  Where they will fail, I believe, is that the System is, at its heart, anti-White; they cannot muster up any real “red meat” to satisfy a growing sense of White Identity Politics that will become ever more resistant to Democratic attempts to divert race with economics or GOP attempts at implicitly White “culture war” dog whistling.  The toothpaste is out of the tune, so to speak.

But, the System may not be able to win over the Trump base, but they’ll use their power to sabotage future political manifestations of right-wing populism.

In the movie The Day of the Jackal, the Jackal tells the OAS leaders: “Not only have your own efforts failed, but you’ve rather queered the pitch for everyone else.”  One can say that about Trump perhaps (and about the “movement” more generally, certainly).

Now, right-wing populism, essentially civic nationalism, is not the answer.  It is best a precursor or at least a stop gap, and at worst a diversion, a cul-de-sac, a competitor to what is needed – which is explicitly prop-White racial nationalism – White nationalism.  At this point in time, we can work to ensure that right-wing populism serves positive functions, as a precursor to White nationalism (the membrane separating the two is thin; it is one step from civic nationalism to racial nationalism, but an big step many do not make), or at least as a stop gap as racial nationalism begins to develop (Trump is in a sense a stop gap; one other benefit of his election, besides all “breaking the ice” for more extreme politics and increasing balkanization an chaos, is that he prevented a Clinton election that could have led to more repressive conditions for the development of racial nationalism – worse is not always better).

I would suggest that at this point, right-wing populism is best suited for Presidential campaigns and also for Senate and Governor races, and for lower level races in areas in which the White population is not sufficiently “prepared” for more radical approaches.  However, in selected areas and selected times, we should begin to consider explicitly White candidates – even racial nationalist WNs – ranging from school board elections all the way up to the US House of Representatives. Some successes there can lead to consideration of WNs for the higher level races.  The value of political WN campaigns exists regardless of the electoral outcome: promoting balkanization, recruiting, propaganda, organization, normalization of racial nationalist discourse and “pushing the envelope,” forcing the civic nationalists to get off the fence in one direction or another, a whole host of advantages.

Political campaigns would benefit from effective local organizing and vice versa.  It’s been said, and I believe it to be true, than in some locales, WNs love near each other but do not know of each other’s existence. Even if some fraction of these are kooks, freaks, defectives, Nutzis, fetishists, etc. there may still be a critical mass of useful like-minded people in certain areas.  The trick is to get them together, to work together, and to organize, safely, without the threat of infiltrators exposing them all.  How to do it is uncertain.  Existing meetings with their “extreme vetting” are ludicrous jokes; real extreme vetting would help, but I’m not sure that Der Movement has the competence or discipline to pull it off.  Anyone who is able to put together an effective plan for local organizing is going to be at an enormous advantage.  In the competition for racial nationalist leadership, those who can perform effectively will rise, and those who are laughably inept will fall.  

WNs cannot depend on a “man on white horse” civic cuck “hero” to save them.  The Nazi Next Time is not going to descend from Valhalla, complete with blessings of Saint Adolf; instead, the “demagogues” of the future will come to the fore as a result of hard work, discipline, and commitment.

This will, I believe, likely require a New Movement that replaces the clown show that currently exists.  I’m not sanguine about that, but this blog will continue to play the role of “loyal opposition.”  Racial nationalism is the future, but that future will only become actualized if we make it so.  

Future installments of this topic will be forthcoming when events and new ideas warrant; note as well there is overlap with the concept of Political EGI, as any pro-White leader who is worthwhile must incorporate (even if indirectly) the concept of genetic interests into their memetic toolkit.

Political EGI VII: Orban’s Speech

Analyzing excerpts from an Orban speech.

I’ve been critical of Orban, but with his continued farstreaming and Jobbik’s continued mainstreaming, Orban may now represent the “far right” of Hungarian politics.  In addition, while I am dissatisfied with the more “implicit” aspects of Orban’s rhetoric, we must understand the limitations – de jure and de facto – for open, free speech in Europe, and the constraints that an elected political leader in the EU has in speaking the truth. Nevertheless, let us take a critical look at Orban’s public utterances.

There are three areas in which it is not enough to support processes, but in which we need a shift in scale, and the move to a fast track. One area is demography, in which we haven’t even reached a break-even point. It is some improvement that for married couples – or male-female couples in general – the fertility indicator expressing the nation’s demographic situation has risen from 1.2 to 1.44 children per couple, and this is promising, but 1.44 is still very far from 2. In order to feel safe demographically, the average statistical ratio of children to Hungarian couples should be 2.1. In practice this is hard to implement, but this is the average figure we should have. Until we reach that point, Hungarians must be seen as an endangered species demographically; and the people – but the Government above all – should understand the imperative which is implicit in this…

Obviously, any appeal to increasing native birthrates has a fundamental underlying foundation of genetic interests.  Using the term “endangered species” to describe any White group borders on ethnic/racial nationalism and is wholly a biological argument.  That may be as close as Orban currently believes he can approach the problem from the genetic standpoint.

…If we speak about a strong country, we must also mention public security. Today this means two things in particular: defence of the borders, and the ability to prevent terrorist attacks. There is no strong culture without a cultural identity.

Culture is of course important, but secondary to ultimate, genetic, biological interests.  Even better phrased: the biological and the cultural are intertwined and influence each other.

However much of a taboo one is breaking by saying it, there is no cultural identity in a population without a stable ethnic composition. The alteration of a country’s ethnic makeup amounts to an alteration of its cultural identity. A strong country can never afford to do something like that – unless some global catastrophe forces it to do so.

Yes, very good.  But – and this is crucial – a change in a country’s ethnic makeup should constitute a problem – indeed, THE problem – itself, and not just because it affects “cultural identity.”  Here, Orban places culture as the ultimate interests, and the ethnic makeup as a proximate concern that affects the ultimate one; whereas it should be the other way around. If it was somehow possible to preserve a Hungarian cultural identity even with population replacement – would that be alright to the likes of Orban?  The reply would be that such a situation would be impossible, but that’s not the point.  It is a thought experiment to explore, identify, and define priorities. Ethnicity or culture?  

Note I have no problem in invoking culture to defend ethnic genetic interests, nor do I lack understanding of the complexities that come with European speech laws and various other de jure and de facto restrictions.  But with Orban cutting so close to the edge here, one has to note the possibility that he sincerely places culture first, and is not only speaking this way out of necessity (which would obviously be more acceptable).

Over the next few decades the main question in Europe will be this: will Europe remain the continent of the Europeans? Will Hungary remain the country of the Hungarians? Will Germany remain the country of the Germans? Will France remain the country of the French? Or will Italy remain the country of the Italians? Who will live in Europe? 

That’s the ultimate existential question.  It is good that Orban is mentioning specific ethnic groups as the rightful inhabitants of specific nations – asking WHO will live in Europe. That is an EGI-loaded question.

This is a historical question which we must face up to today. As regards the specific situation – and this is quite telling about the world that we live in today – there’s no concrete, reliable information on the percentages of traditional indigenous Christians and the incoming Muslim communities living in Europe’s individual countries. In practice it is forbidden to gather information like this. And the data which is gathered is not adequate for us to predict what the future holds for us, as migrants, immigrants, are not evenly distributed throughout the different age groups. So the general figures say little about what awaits us. We should focus most on people under the age of 15, and also those between 15 and 45. From those figures we can project, we can calculate, what the situation will be like in each country in, say, 2050.

Looking ahead, unlike most politicians.  When you farstream, you are forced in that direction; conversely, when you mainstream, you are forced away from that direction. 

Naturally, when considering the whole issue of who will live in Europe, one could argue that this problem will be solved by successful integration. 

No, that’s exactly what we should NOT argue.  It doesn’t matter if aliens “integrate” – or, better yet, we do not want them and their alien genes to integrate.  We do not want them in our nations, carrying their alien genes, unintegrated either.  We do not want them at all.

The reality, however, is that we’re not aware of any examples of successful integration. It’s obvious that migration is not the answer to economic problems and labour shortages.

That’s true even if integration were to be successful.  “Economic problems and labor shortages” are not an excuse for genocidal race replacement.  The natives do not prosper by a “strong economy” when they are replaced by other peoples.  The Alt Right has correctly pointed out the Establishment hypocrisy: on the one hand, we must “save the environment” by having less children; on the other hand, we must import immigrants because Europeans don’t have enough children to “support the economy.”

Interestingly, people in Europe are least concerned about migrants taking their jobs. This probably reflects some form of personal experience.

If proximate concerns like that can motivate a defense of ethnic interests, fine, but of course the problem is much deeper than personal experience and personal grievance about job opportunities.

I can believe there are desperate situations, just like a castaway on the ocean finally giving in to the urge to drink seawater: it’s water, but it doesn’t quench one’s thirst, and only adds to the problem. This is more or less the situation in which those who want to cure their economic ills with immigrants will find themselves. In countering arguments for successful integration, we must also point out that if people with diverging goals find themselves in the same system or country, it won’t lead to integration, but to chaos. It’s obvious that the culture of migrants contrasts dramatically with European culture. Opposing ideologies and values cannot be simultaneously upheld, as they are mutually exclusive. To give you the most obvious example, the European people think it desirable for men and women to be equal, while for the Muslim community this idea is unacceptable, as in their culture the relationship between men and women is seen in terms of a hierarchical order. These two concepts cannot be upheld at the same time. It’s only a question of time before one or the other prevails.

Again, if these proximate concerns motivate ethnic defense, fine, but it obscures the question. If these migrants were 100% on board with current liberal European values, if they were seamlessly integrating, would race replacement – genocide – be alright then? We should be thankful they are not integrating well, that the experience for Europeans is painful enough to motivate ethnic defense. As Salter has written, the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does.  How about talking about European ethnic-racial existence, rather than just culture?  I understand the practical implications for speech in Europe, but one could invoke the language of kin and family here.

Of course one could also argue that communities coming to us from different cultures can be re-educated. But we must see – and Bishop Tőkés also spoke about this – that now the Muslim communities coming to Europe see their own culture, their own faith, their own lifestyles and their own principles as stronger and more valuable than ours. So, whether we like it or not, in terms of respect for life, optimism, commitment, the subordination of individual interests and ideals, today Muslim communities are stronger than Christian communities. Why would anyone want to adopt a culture that appears to be weaker than their own strong culture? They won’t, and they never will! Therefore re-education and integration based on re-education cannot succeed.

Again, it is better that it does not succeed.  Stop talking only in terms of culture for godssakes.  There is room for rhetorical maneuver here, using careful language.  Why should Europeans be race replaced, regardless of “culture and integration?”

…there is a Soros plan. It comprises four points. He wrote it down himself, the Soros Empire published it and began recruitment for implementation of the plan. The plan says that every year hundreds of thousands migrants – and, if possible, a million – should be brought into the territory of the European Union from the Muslim world. The second point is that upon arrival every one of them should be given an amount in euros equivalent to four and a half million forints. The author of the plan would gladly finance this – but that is secondary, although it’s something that’s worth pondering. However, it’s not this, it’s not the business profit that’s the essence of the proposal, but the fact that in this way it’s possible to maintain a continuous influx. So those who want at least a million migrants to come in every year must maintain this mechanism – which in European political terminology is called a “pull factor” – so that they continue to come. And if they distribute them and everyone receives a sum – which is, in fact, higher than the Hungarian annual average wage – there won’t be a problem with reduced flow. The third point in the Soros plan is that the migrants arriving on the continent will have to be distributed among the countries of Europe as part of a mandatory and permanent mechanism.

Soros is of course a “HuWhite man of the West,” right?

A shrewd speaker should approach Universalist, faux-rationalist liberal Europeans and make the argument:

1. Universalism means that all peoples should have the same rights and should be cared for the same

2. You Universalists assert that genocide is wrong and you champion indigenous rights

3. Therefore, you must oppose European genocide – even auto-genocide – and champion the rights of indigenous Europeans

Of course, the Left, and much of the lemming-like masses, would reject such an overt argument, but that would force them to admit an irrational, inconsistent, hypocritical, anti-European worldview.

Political EGI VI: Know Your Audience

Calibrate your arguments.

With respect to introducing EGI to political discourse, I am sure the attitude will be: “most people will not be convinced by rational, scientific arguments; instead they will be influenced by emotional arguments instead.  No one will care about EGI.”

This is truth to that – but I also do not believe that ”most people” are going to be influenced by cartoon frogs or screams of “Hail Kek!”– but I’ve never said that “most people” should be addressed by discussions of gene frequencies or of “Hamilton’s Rule.”

Obviously, if you are addressing who Pierce would call “Joe and Jill Sixpack” then you are not going to be invoking “genetic kinship” and explaining the fine points of On Genetic Interests.  You could, however, invoke the language of family and tribe, stoke the “us vs. them” divide and equate face and family to stimulate protective instincts for the group against those threatening it.  

 As one moves up the intellectual hierarchy then one can be more explicit about EGI, although the “full story” is likely going to make complete sense only to scientifically literate and sane individuals with triple-digit IQs (leaving most of the “movement” out of the running).  Along the continuum of human understanding, knowledge, and intelligence one must calibrate the rhetoric and arguments for optimal receptivity.

So, no, I’m not arguing that one should go to a local town hall with charts of Fst values or what have you, but the fundamental principles can be put forth in language understandable to the target audience, even if one must use analogies and rhetorical proxies for some major points.  In past “Political EGI” posts I gave some examples of calibrated arguments: I’m no politician or speechwriter, and I’m sure those that are can do an even better job of formulating EGI-based arguments that can resonate to even Mr. and Mrs. Sixpack.

One can also argue – and it’s likely correct – that the less intellectual Whites, the Sixpacks, are more inherently tribal and will require less prompting to unleash their instincts in that regard. They just need guidance so as to direct that unleashing in the proper political direction (not to GOP cucks or Trumpain frauds, for example) and they need to be inoculated against “we are all the same” leftist rhetoric that, while they may not believe it “in their bones,” may still confuse them.

On the other hand, it are the more intellectually advanced “professionals” among Whites who lead rarefied lives apart from tribal instincts so it are precisely they – the ones best as understanding EGI concepts – would be benefit from more explicit, albeit still carefully calibrated, appeals to more rationalized EGI arguments.

So in that sense it works out well: those Whites least capable of understanding the more explicit EGI arguments are in the least need of them and those Whites most capable of understanding have the most need.

At this point someone will say I’ve missed the original point, which was one of emotion trumping logic, not one of understanding or not.  That’s true, but consider that the “lower class” Whites tend to be more emotional/irrational and the “upper class” Whites are relatively more rational, and hence rationality and understanding go hand-in-hand.  In addition, remember I’m still advocating calibration even for the upper classes; likely pure EGI is suitable for the highest intellectual groups, academics, top intellectual activists, etc. Some “irrational” arguments may need to be made to the rank-and-file upper class, but these would need to be calibrated differently than those used for the Sixpacks.  Perhaps less raw tribalism and more Universal Nationalism? This post is not the place to evaluate this at that level of detail, but to point out that those with rhetorical skills can make EGI-style arguments palatable to specific target audiences.  It’s more a matter of will – wanting to do it – rather than the rhetorical technics.

Political EGI V: The Australian Case

Not properly using the resources at hand.

This analysis is from a left, hostile perspective, but is nevertheless troubling. Thus we read:

It remains to be seen what influence, if any, Salter may have on the further evolution of One Nation thinking on Islam and immigration. This may become more evident in 2017. To date, however, his contribution appears to have been quite modest. One Nation co-founder David Oldfield, once a close confidant to Hanson but now estranged, recently observed that ”She just doesn’t really read. She doesn’t read serious material.” Oldfield went on to claim that “it’s hard enough to get Pauline to read a single paragraph let alone documentation that’s research or scientifically based.” 

Salter’s academic style is not obviously evident in Senator Hanson’s statements or One Nation policy documents published so far. Instead the core elements of One Nation policies, especially the claim that Islam is not a religion, appear to be largely lifted from American far-right writings which have their origins in conservative Christian evangelist attacks on Islam and the intellectual contributions of a handful of far-right ideologues. Although One Nation is stridently in favour of “Buy Australian” policies, its core policy on Islam is a foreign import.

I do not argue that a political leader needs to be a learned academic, nor a “layman” expert on the work of academics (although that would be helpful). But at least the leader must be conversant in the fundamentals of key material that should – no, must – inform their worldview.  If an academic is available, “on site” so to speak, ready to help, and the leader does not take advantage of that help, you have a very serious problem.  How can the Right compete with the Left Leviathan if the Right refuses to take advantage of even those meager resources it has available at hand?  

Some new leadership cadres are required, I think.

Political EGI, Part IV: Origin Myths?

Latest anti-racist lunacy.

The latest anti-White poisonous meme being promoted (in a recent issue of Science, for example) is that of the “myth of origins” in defense of mass migration.  In other words, peoples (i.e., White people) have the “erroneous” idea that they have a single point of origin, which leads to “bias” against “migrants.”  Instead, we are told, peoples are the product of “multiple migrations” with no single origin, hence – and this is really a non-sequitur – there is no rational justification to oppose migrants.

Now, my first response to this “argument” was – “hey, does that mean we don’t have to worry about all the oppressed indigenous peoples anymore?” You know what I mean here – all of those (carefully defined so as to exclude Europeans) indigenous peoples that we – and the United Nations! – need to worry so much about.  Amerindians, native Hawaiians, Australian aboriginals, etc. – no need to “feel bad” about their displacement by the White man!  After all, all those peoples are merely the product of “multiple migrations” and so the arrival of Europeans should have been met with great joy and welcoming. 

A second response would be to ask whether this leftist logic applies to non-Whites: so that Africans, Asians, etc. all should welcome displacement and race replacement.  Good luck with that.

With respect to actually answering the “argument” itself, I state that:

1. Any reasonable definition of “indigenous” – including and especially my own definition – should be based upon the act of ethnogenesis, which itself takes into account those migrations that are part of the history of virtually all peoples (some more than others, of course).  It simply does not matter in the last analysis how a people came to be – they exist, and if their ethnogenesis is tied to a particular territory, and if they are the oldest extant people on that territory, then they are indigenous to that territory, and their origin there is a reality, not a myth,

2. Regardless of how different peoples came to be, they differ genetically and culturally, and they have an inherent right to safeguard their uniqueness, an inherent right to their own territory, and an inherent right to resist displacement and race replacement.

3. It follows then that the actual mechanisms of origin, and the actual mechanisms generating a people’s genetic and cultural uniqueness, are irrelevant to their Identity, and to their self-conception tied to a territory and to an origin in that territory.  Group interests are inherent to group existence, and anyone who attempts to delegitimize those interests – for example by delegitimizing a sense of origin and a sense of identity – are threatening the group’s existence and are thus promoting genocide.

White racial activists like to bring up the United Nations Genocide Convention and how it applies to White displacement.  They need to get more serious about it.  As part of Political EGI, nationalist politicians should openly accuse their opponents of promoting genocide, and assert that those opponents need to be hauled into court for crimes against humanity. Not that this “hauling into court” will occur (for now, only nationalists are so “hauled”), but it is excellent political rhetoric and sets the tone for the future.

Part V will continue this discussion.

Political EGI, Part III

Part III.

In the previous analysis I noted Steve King’s denial of a racial basis for his comments on immigration and civilization, and his assertion that it is only “cultural.”

How would a more honest and EGI-informed individual responded instead? Perhaps like this:

Of course it is about race – race, ethnicity, and demographics.  I can make the argument – and it is a sound argument – that only the people who create a specific culture and civilization are the ones truly capable of carrying it forward, maintaining it, and building upon it. And Western civilization was built by Whites, by people of European extraction. 

But I’ll go further. Any people have an inherent right to exist, even independent of their cultural, or any other, accomplishments.  All life, and all human life, has an interest in its own continuity – and that’s genetic continuity, not just culture.  We do not begrudge a family its interest in its existence and continuity, in its posterity, its children and grandchildren, etc., and any ethnic group or race is like a very large extended family.  No one would condemn Africans or Asians or Latin Americans the right to their existence and continuity, but it is only Whites, Europeans, who are specifically excluded from the most basic rights of existence and self-interest granted all other peoples.  Why is that?  Who exactly are the haters here?

He could have abbreviated that, if space was an issue, but the major points are clear, and could be expressed in non-scientific language understandable by the average person.  And are these comments so “bad?’  If King was condemned for saying this, would that reflect badly on him or those making the condemnation?

The same principles apply to more openly nationalist politicians, such as in Europe or Australia. Stop conflating everything to “culture” and stop tip-toeing around the issue – which is physical biological, demographic, genetic race replacement.  And more fundamentally: White racial interests.  Read Salter’s book, for godssakes.  How can someone call themselves a (White) nationalist leader and not even have the time, interest. Or understanding for something so basic as EGI?

On Genetic Interests is a mine of ideas, a toolkit, for White nationalists and nationalist politicians (actually, of use for those of any race, but it are Whites who are uniquely challenged today).

Part IV will continue this discussion.