Category: politics

Race and Movement News, 7/13/19

In der news.

Another good Taylor video. I had to laugh about the “warpath” part.

Excerpts from another “emotional nerve” comment left at the HBD “West Coast White nationalist” Counter-Currents site,  emphasis added:

The problem is, aside from cattiness, that they always feel the need to bring up Greeks (ancient only, for they know not a thing about any other era, and really, they know very little of even the ancient ones), Italians (they are ESPECIALLY and GLEEFULLY brutal to Italians), Spaniards/Portuguese, etc. Why not just leave it out and just STFU about them? You cannot prove your point with repeating lies about meds (or slavs)???? Really, you can’t?

“……….Pan-Europeanism is our only way out.”

It can’t work BECAUSE of this BS.

@Ash
“I seem to have struck an emotional nerve with you and a few others.”

Typical response really. When a repeater of nordypoo nonsense is called out, always surprised that meds dare to take their own side in a fight, there is talk of “emotion.” But my dear, dear Ash, there was no need to repeat that lie. The whole post could’ve been done without that usual, tired, jealous jab. I understand that nordies feel put upon and cowed by non-whites and anti-white propaganda; but they always try to pump themselves up by ripping on meds and slavs, who played no part in that propaganda, do not attack nordies at all and are not anti-nordy….so WTF?????? Such catty swipes seem to be currency in these circles.

I agree with all of that, and it is good some folks have answered the original inane post. Certainly, the fetishists have a particular sweaty animus toward (Southern) Italians – to them, several rungs below Negroes and Australian Aboriginals on the racial scale.  And the indirect allusion to Sallis’ Law is always correct – Der Movement will always bring up their attacks against Southern (and Eastern) Europeans regardless of the context. If “Ash Donaldson” wrote an article about the weather, or the price of milk, or the design attributes of the Atlas ICBM, or whatever…there would have to be the obligatory mention of admixture in Southern (and/or Eastern) Europe. What self-respecting “movement” post would be without it?

And I agree, pan-Europeanism is not going to work as long as there are people who openly lie about racial history and population genetics to fuel their obsessive dogma, which they proselytize with all the fervor of a crazed priest of the Spanish Inquisition or a modern-day cultist.

We’ve certainly come a long way since the days of Larry Scott, eh?

Di, Di, Di…versiteeee…..

We’ve certainly come a long way since the days of Christy Mathewson, eh?

Di, Di, Di…versiteeee…

Advertisements

A Duel of Wits

Between unarmed opponents.

See this.

There is some good here, but also considerable nonsense. If the characterization of Richard Spencer’s racial views is correct, then Johnson’s racial views are sounder from an empiricist-materialist standpoint. However, there is much lacking here from a more hardcore scientific standpoint (the wages of “Traditionalism” I suppose). 

The whole “transplanted brains” scenario is absurd and meaningless intellectual masturbation.  What could one do? There are racial – and subracial (cue Durocher’s heavy breathing) – differences in brain structure that can be identified via imaging methodology.  If one were really determined to obtain a definitive identification, a small brain biopsy can yield DNA to assay for genetic ancestry and thus prove whether or not the brain tissue was of Negro origin. As far as the ridiculous question as to why build a community on race instead of other characteristics, I point both interviewer and interviewee to Salter’s On Genetic Interests. Adaptive fitness is the ultimate interest of evolved organisms (such as humans), and any group that promotes their ultimate interests will outcompete and replace those who do not. And, after all, one can always form these narrower communities within your racial group while preserving EGI, but the opposite is not possible.  One can form your little group of Tolkien fans among Whites in an all-White ethnostate, but a multi-racial Tolkien group that is not stratified by race (by definition, if it is multiracial and stratified only by Tolkienism, it will not be stratified by race) will constitute a loss of genetic interest.  Smaller groups within a White ethnostate will retain the advantages of a concentrated EGI; on the other hand, smaller groups of Whites in, say, a multiracial Tolkien Fanboy state, will suffer as a result of a loss of EGI, itself a consequence of the multiracialism of such a state. In the latter case, the situation can be retrieved only by racial separation – so why not  divide on the basis of race to begin with?

Stupidity about gender-specific nations also fails – I remember Bowery writing (correctly) long ago that gender/sex is not a genetic interest.  A man has more genetic commonality with female relatives and co-ethnics than with male non-ethnic strangers. One could subdivide a racially pure state by gender (for what purpose?) but the racial stratification must come first if one is concerned with biological fitness. If you are not concerned with fitness, fine, but that’s not an evolutionarily stable situation. You’ll end up in the dustbin of genetic history, replaced by more ethnocentric others. These are reasonably obvious arguments.  I would also point out that sexual reproduction has evolutionary advantages via increased genetic diversity. No doubt that a sufficiently advanced technology could artificially impose independent assortment and recombination on a single-sex artificial reproduction regimen, but, again, for what purpose?  While eliminating the yeastbucket requirement would no doubt be advantageous in many ways, what would be the sexual outlet for such an all-male society?  Widespread homosexuality?  I’ll take a pass on that. There are probably some things best left unchanged in human nature and the division between two sexes for reproduction is likely to be one of those.

And what’s with this obsession with Rushton and Lynn?  Look, the broad theories of both of them are likely true, but that’s as far as it goes. R-K theory on race (that I independently came up with in the 1980s after reading an ecology textbook) is undoubtedly true on the general level of – Blacks and Browns have more offspring and invest less in them; Whites and Yellows have fewer offspring but invest more in them. And, as well, Blacks and Browns have faster life histories (earlier maturation and reproduction and earlier death) than do Whites and Yellows. If Rushton had stuck with that, instead of trying to shoehorn every racial characteristic (including penis size) into the formulation, he’d be more respected today. Likewise, Lynn is likely correct that there is a general association between national IQ and economic productivity (as measured by GDP) and general accomplishment; the problem occurs when he falls too much in love with his theory (as did Rushton with his ideas) and tries to fit every data point into the pattern, with ludicrous “estimates of IQ,” racial history fairy tales about admixture, and hand waving “just so stories” to explain anomalies. The problem, I suppose, is that the broad theories are a bit too obvious and common sense, plain to any reasonably intelligent and honest observant individual, and so there isn’t much “intellectual prestige” in merely stating the obvious.  Therefore, ego-driven “intellectuals” have to build castles of sand to demonstrate how very clever they are.

Counter-Currents commentary:

Craig
Posted July 1, 2019 at 8:07 am | Permalink
Yang was a joke who never should have had any support from the Dissident Right in the first place. Those who did have made public fools of themselves.

Craig, meet Greg Johnson. And Richard Spencer. And many more.

Also, what’s the big deal about Gabbard? Oh she’s good on foreign policy. But so is Trump. He not once, but twice, averted war by outmaneuvering the warhawks in DC. First with Syria and now with Iran. He’s the peace candidate you should be voting for.

There’s no reason to pay attention to any of these clowns with a (D) in front of their name.

Craig, meet David Duke.  And Richard Spencer.

Then there’s John Morgan:

John Morgan
Posted July 1, 2019 at 6:33 am | Permalink
Rep. Gabbard seems to be the least bad (notice I’m not saying good) of all these people. It’s also worth mentioning her connections to/support of Hindu nationalist groups in India like the BJP and RSS (since she is a practicing Hindu herself). This doesn’t necessarily equate to sympathy for nationalism for white people, but it suggests she may at least have the vision to not be completely averse to it. In practice that may not mean much, however. But as Mr. Hampton wrote, she has no chance of getting the nomination this time around, anyway.

You know she supports reparations for Negroes, right?

A one, a one, a one two three….

Ted Cruz at least spoke up about this.  Antifa Don Trump, The God Emperor?  Silence.

MAGA!  Pepe! Kek!

Readers of this blog know that I am no apologist for homosexuals (of either sex) but I’m no apologist for hypocrisy either.  I mean, really….  Apparently, “homophobia” – “vile” or otherwise – is perfectly acceptable in the service of “movement” feuds.  Perhaps, Antifa can be critiqued in other ways than their penchant for sending gay Asians to the hospital.

Race Denial Incoherence

And other news.

Denier:  There is no such thing as race!  It is merely a social construct with no biological basis!

Realist: Then how do you distinguish those nasty privileged White racists from those nice and humble oppressed Blacks, whose lives, as we are told, matter ever so much?

Denier: Look, there are some people who happen to have dark skin and others who happen to have light skin – and that’s the only difference between them – and the former are placed in a “Black” socially constructed group that is victimized, and the former band together as a socially constructed privileged “White” oppressor group.

Realist: So the only difference is the skin color of these groups, a mere superficial element?  No other similarities within and differences between the groups?

Denier: That’s right.

Realist:  But there are people from, say, South Asia, who have skin as dark or darker than many Black Americans, and there are some people from, say, Northeast Asia, who have skin as light or lighter than many White Americans. So are Koreans and Japanese privileged Whites who are oppressing Black Indians and Bangladeshis?

Denier: No!  When I talk about “Whites” I mean, you know, Whites, and “Blacks” mean Blacks.  You know what I mean.

Realist: No, I don’t know what you mean.  Please explain.

Denier:  I mean that “Whites” are relatively lighter-skinned people of European descent who look like Europeans, while Blacks are relatively darker-skinned people who have African ancestry and look like people from sub-Saharan Africa.

Realist: So these “socially constructed” groups are based on people who look somewhat similar to each other and who derive from particular continents – continental population groups?

Denier: They are ethnicities, not races!

Realist: Putting aside that your “ethnicities” are based on continent of origin and physical appearance that goes beyond mere skin color, I ask – are English, Germans, Italians, Greeks, and Russians all the same ethnic group?

Denier: Whatever. Those are socially constructed groups – part of the “White” social construct.

Realist:  Again – are they all the same ethnic group?

Denier: No.

Realist:  So, we have different ethnic groups that are binned together because they look approximately similar and originate from the same continent.  Population genetics will show similarities at that level as well, in a global context.  Obviously then, this group of “Whites” – which we can call a race – has a biological basis and is not merely some sort of social construct.

Denier:  You’re a racist!  You should get elbowed in the face just like Richard Spencer!

This demonstrates the problem with ancestry testing companies.  Assume European ethny “X” that has some Siberian/East Asian admixture.  A testing company has “X” as one of its parental populations, well represented in their database, and as part of their “European” category.  A person of “X” ancestry – someone who has the same Siberian/East Asian admixture – gets tested, and since they match the “X” parentals, they get a result of “100% X,” which the company interprets as “100% European.” In this manner, the Siberian/East Asian admixture is hidden, because it is part of “X” ancestry and “X” is a “European parental population.” The individual, who may well look like they should be eating with chopsticks, goes on Amren comments threads to pontificate on their “racial purity.”

Now, you may argue that if “X” is an indigenous European ethny, and if the admixture took place long ago as part of the ethnogenesis of “X,” then it is fair to call all “X” ancestry as “European.”  Very well, but then you have to accord the same status to the ethnogenesis of other European ethnies, including the cringing subhumans from the South.

Just in time to fool the rubes in 2020.  The Republican playbook: Campaign Right, Govern Left.

So much winning!  Never fear!  Trump is monitoring the situation, monitoring very closely

It is staggering that all of the heroes of Der Movement (with a few exceptions) did not realize early on that Trump was a fraud and a buffoon.  With respect to being a fraud, we have all of the evidence: His Jewish family connections, his fondness for Negroes, his socially liberal “New York values,” and his past support for leftist Democrats. As for being a buffoon, his debate performances were clear indication of that; for example, his clownish ignorance when asked about America’s nuclear triad strategic deterrent (of which he clearly knew nothing), compared to his great interest in talking about the size of his hands.  Why did anyone take this fat retard seriously?

He won the election because many White Americans were desperately hungry for red meat right-wing populism, and were heartily tired of the GOP Establishment and the non-choice of elections. They took Trumpian rhetoric at face value. I supported his election because it was obvious that Trumpsim was accelerating the breakdown of America and disrupting the multicultural consensus. I also stupidly (or naively) thought that Der Movement would be able to take advantage of Trumpism to further the promotion of explicitly White interests. I should have known better; that foolishness is to my eternal shame.

Just like Derbyshire – someone with a sense of entitlement who believes that their entire social milieu should change to accommodate their (wrong) life choices.

It is also amusing to see stereotypes conformed – the huge White whale has a Black “husband.”  White fatties and Negroes – who would have ever guessed?  All that’s missing from this picture is a bucket of fried chicken and Captain Ahab.

White Nationalism, Free Speech, and Legitimacy

Defending White nationalism.

Recent events paint a dark picture for White nationalism.  Censorship.  Deplatforming. The Left-Corporate Alliance.  Government persecution.  Congressional hearings attempting to label White nationalism as akin to domestic terrorism, part of a global terror threat. The ability of leftist thugs – supporting by Big Business and by the Political Establishment – to attack rightists with impunity.

Now, the paradigm equating White nationalism with terrorism is absurd, and others have cogently pointed out that the “data” supporting that paradigm is, at best, flawed, and, more likely, intentionally mendacious.

And, of course, this is all highly hypocritical, since the real violence mostly comes from the Left. Thus, while leftists assert that “words are literally violence,” they ignore the actual global leftist terror network that attacks rightists – even political candidates – and they are careful not to apply the same standards of guilt by association to Islam or to Black activists. 

Indeed, if the government wants to investigate a global terror threat, they’d be better off concentrating on Burger King – an international corporation that encouraged the use of its products for political violence in the UK – rather than on a small handful of relatively powerless and underfunded White racialists.

But we have to understand that this is all about criminalizing an ideology. All else is merely an excuse. That is why an insulting letter to an alien congresswoman is considered “terrorism,” while Richard Spencer being physically attacked in the street because of his political views is not.  Who?  Whom?

Yes, there have been some isolated instances of White nationalist violence. However, White nationalist terrorism – to the extent it actually exists – is due to White nationalists not being allowed to participate in the political process (politics broadly defined). The repression censorship, deplatforming, leftist attacks, etc., are the cause of Far Right violence, not its consequences.  Any objective and sane understanding of cause and effect and an honest appraisal of the order of events clearly demonstrates that manifold instances of political repression and social pricing, over decades, have left some White nationalists desperate and with no confidence whatsoever that their concerns can be effectively addressed via legal political processes.  Thus, some engage in foolish acts.

Thus, it is obvious that suppressing the non-violent expression of Far Right ideas will only cause more (not less) violence coming from that direction. Now, unintelligent Arab congresswomen and moronic Puerto Rican congresswomen are likely too stupid to understand this, but the Jews behind the scenes surely must.  The latter are callously setting the stage for more violence and more victims in order to justify further repression. The brown puppets blathering in public are just for show.

One can argue that Suvorov’s Law of History – the observation that revolutions do not occur during the period of greatest repression but when that repression is suddenly relaxed – is one reason why the System dares not let up on its repression of the Far Right (see more below).  Be that as it may, the point still holds that the sporadic outbursts of Far Right violence are due to the pre-existing repression. Relaxing the repression may cause “revolution” but that “revolution” can be social and political; it does not have to include violent terrorism.  If the concern is with terrorism rather than simply the success of Far Right ideas, then more repression will cause more terrorism (likely leading to more repression, etc.).  If the Left was sincere about avoiding violence and terrorism from the Right, then they’d lessen the repression. That they want to increase the repression reveals their true motives – at least the true motives of the wirepullers behind the scenes.

And we must also consider the association between legitimacy and political participation, a participation that requires free speech and free assembly, both of which are incompatible with the criminalization of any ideology. Even some mainstream and/or leftist commentators understand that free speech and open political participation are tied to System legitimacy.  If you want people to accept the legitimacy of the outcome of the political and social process, then you must allow them free and unfettered participation in that process. That includes them expressing their views, organizing (meetings, conferences, activist groups, political parties), engaging in the electoral process as candidates, and not having their views labeled as “terrorism.”  Let’s consider what a legal scholar with a Jewish surname has to say on the issue of free speech and legitimacy, emphasis added:

Ironically, however, hate speech restrictions can undermine the legitimacy of antidiscrimination laws, both in terms of their popular acceptance but even more crucially with respect to the morality of their enforcement. For instance, laws forbidding people from expressing the view, as is the case in several European jurisdictions, that homosexuality is immoral or disordered, can destroy the moral justification of enforcing laws against sexual orientation…Conversely, the ability of Americans to freely oppose antidiscrimination laws by publicly expressing bigoted ideas about groups protected by these laws strengthens the legitimacy of enforcing these provisions even when doing so infringes upon deeply held religious convictions….I have argued that by impairing the opportunity for dissenters to participate as equals in the public debate about such matters as race, ethnicity, immigration, and sexual orientation, hate speech laws and public order provisions in force in many liberal democracies have significantly diminished political legitimacy, in both the descriptive and normative sense. Specifically, for those inhibited by these laws from expressing their opposition to antidiscrimination measures, these upstream speech restrictions have diminished, and in some instances may have destroyed, their political obligation to obey these downstream laws. Even more troubling, these inhibitions on equal political participation may have in some cases rendered immoral what would have otherwise been a moral use of force to make these dissenters comply with these antidiscrimination laws.

Let me again remind you that the people talking about “domestic terrorism” have the real objective of criminalizing an ideology. They are not really concerned about “acts of violence,” such acts coming to a significant degree from their side of the political divide and of which they say nothing.  In the end, and as shown by the censorship and deplatforming, it is really an issue of free speech, public assembly, and the right to organize on the basis of White racial interests. Thus, what Weinstein writes is wholly appropriate – the issue has always been whether someone like Taylor, Spencer, or Johnson can have a public forum; whether or not shooting up a synagogue is “domestic terrorism” is merely a smokescreen. After all, let us follow this logic to its natural conclusion.  Mr. Inner Hajnal Nutzi shoots up a synagogue, claiming White nationalism as a reason.  Domestic terrorism!  Then anyone who supports White nationalism, writes or speaks in favor of it, donates to it, etc. is a supporter of domestic terrorism and, hence, a criminal.  An ideology criminalized.  QED. Of course, no one would apply the same standards to Islam or the Left, but we understand it is all about power and not about fairness or the rule of law.

And, speaking as a (law abiding) White nationalist myself, I can assure one and all that, yes, I consider the System and its edicts as completely illegitimate, and that I follow those edicts only under coercion.  I assume many Whites – including civic nationalist types and other on the Right – believe and act the same. There is a widespread legitimacy problem for the System and it will only grow as the repression continues.  In the short term, the System can simply use coercion to enforce its edits and ignore the issue of legitimacy.  That’s likely not sustainable in the long run. Keep in mind that by saying this I am not saying “victory is inevitable,” I’m not one of the grifters trying to “white pill” supporters in order to ensure that the “D’Nations” continue.  I’m predicting eventual chaos and collapse, not victory.  As the USSR demonstrated, a System that has lost legitimacy is headed for collapse, even with coercion.  As a last resort, they loosen the chains of repression to salvage what they can, and, according to Suvorov’s Law of History, that sudden relaxation of repression heralds the final disintegration.  Alternatively, an illegitimate System can try and maintain the repression, and find that significant fractions of the population adopt passive aggressive disinterest in response, undermining social cohesion and political effectiveness. In the case of the USA, it will be precisely the most productive elements of the population that will begin to exhibit a tacit withdrawal and subtle subversion, making eventual decline and possible collapse even more likely.

Some will object – what about Europe?  They have repressive speech codes and aren’t the national governments there considered legitimate by the people?  First, I can’t speak for rightist Europeans – it is very possible that the growth of populism there is indicative of a growing element that does indeed consider the System illegitimate. And, second, the USA, with its particular history of, and alleged commitment to, free speech, is expected to exhibit a much stronger association between free expression and political legitimacy than do nations that have histories of kings, dictators, strongmen, and laws against lese majeste. What about the argument that European nationalists have had success despite the speech codes there?  What success?  In some nations, there has been a temporary slowdown in the degeneration, which can be quickly reversed by any subsequent leftist government; at best, there have been victories by civic nationalists and moderate petty nationalists.  The “grand success” in Europe is a figment of the Nutzi imagination.  And I can turn the argument around – imagine how much more successful the European Right could be if they could actually express their real views without fear of being fined or jailed?

So, no, the pathetically flimsy “successes” in Europe – which in any case have limited relevance to the American situation – in no way disprove the thesis put forth here.  Given the concerns of White nationalists, the situation in Europe remains dire. Demographic replacement is still “baked into the cake” there. Can European nationalists freely and frankly discuss these concerns?

And we must remember that the concerns of White nationalists are real; in fact, not only are they real, but they are the most important concerns of all, dealing as they do with the ultimate interests of national existence and genetic continuity.  Whites are in demographic and cultural eclipse, and will become minorities even in their historic European homelands. The United Nations openly advocates “replacement migration” targeting White nations (while Whites are told, at the same time, that any mention of that is “conspiracy theories”).  Whites are the only people on Earth not allowed to organize on the basis of racial self-interest; indeed, in majority White nations this expression of racial self-interest is either already criminalized or subject to social pricing (that is not good enough, it seems for the American Left, as they are now pushing for criminalization).  How is this repression consistent with legitimacy?  Obvious, it is not.  The System simply has no effective argument against the basic premises of White nationalism; therefore, it must use coercion.  However, as argued above, political coercion in the context of “democracy” is illegitimate and will erode the basis for peoples’ willingness to invest in the collective good.

Finally, I have to note that one major reason why White nationalism has reached such a sorry state of powerlessness and repression is the utter failure of its leadership.  The inept affirmative action leadership coupled to defective followers have squandered endless opportunities, and smeared White nationalism with the stench of failure – made more laughable by the endless cries of some of them that we are “moving to victory,”

And some of the leadership have no sensible understanding of the animating mindset of the censors.  For example, it is hard for me to express in words how absolutely foolish Richard Spencer is being here.

How naive can you be to actually believe the System will ever definitively and carefully – much less permanently – clearly state speech codes that can then be worked around.  Let me tell you the obvious – the only speech they want from WNs is silence.  No matter how you try and get around their speech codes, they’ll just keep on changing them to justify censoring you. They will forbid more and more words, and once that becomes untenable, they’ll just forbid “tones” and “implications” – all decided upon arbitrarily to achieve their political goals. It’ll be the race of the Red Queen and you can never win – it’s the gatekeepers of access who will have the power to determine what is acceptable or not. Once there are speech codes that are accepted as a part of society, nothing stops those codes from being constantly fine-tuned to silence opposition.

The only speech code that you can “work around” is NO speech code. You need either a platform that cannot be or will not be censored and/or an extension of “protected class” to include sociopolitical beliefs – with the former being more realistic than the latter.  The idea that the System is going to finalize a set of speech codes that would enable anything other than mild civic nationalism (if even that) is absurd.  Of course, Spencer may claim he is only talking in theory, but advocating for speech codes in theory (however unrealistic) is not anything anyone on our side should be doing.

The future looks grim and I have no easy answers. But I do know that asking for a more snug fit for our memetic straightjacket is not the answer. This is not an athletic contest between gentlemen, with both sides playing by the rules.  The System will continue trying to change the rules in the middle of the game in order to win. The only weakness they have is that the game has spectators, the White masses, and while these are mostly inert, they are not all completely inert. The System’s ability to “cheat” is constrained by their need to appear to be playing fair, to trick the rubes into believing the “free democratic America” still exists.  Thus gives our side some room to maneuver. Begging for better defined constraints is not the direction our maneuver should be going.

Strom on the new wave of censorship.

And what has happened to Mr. Moderation, the wonderfully pureblood Common Sense Counselor?

This account has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube’s policy prohibiting hate speech.

Chastising extremists over how they talk about the Jews didn’t really help you, did it?

A Message for Eric Kaufmann

A brief message.

Following up on this, we read this:

Eric Kaufmann was born in Hong Kong and raised in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. His ancestry is mixed with a quarter Chinese and a quarter Latino. His father is of Jewish descent…

So, the person advising on how to ease the anxiety of Whites so that they can be more easily (slowly) dispossessed and, eventually, race-replaced by mixed-race individuals, is himself mixed-race and half-Jewish. I’m shocked, shocked, I say.

So, here is a brief message for Kaufmann:

Dear Sir,

I do not know your level of sincerity concerning your work on White interests. Regardless, taken to its logical conclusion, and from your own words, the ultimate outcome of Whites following your advice is their slow but inevitable demographic eclipse and their race replacement by a mixed-race population.

I note that your own ancestry is described as “mixed with a quarter Chinese and a quarter Latino. His father is of Jewish descent.”  Even if we were to assume that the “Latino” is Euro-Iberian, then that still leaves 75% of your ancestry of non-European descent. Therefore, by the standards of those who most closely exemplify the pursuit of White interests you pontificate about, you are not “White.”

Very well, you have the right to express your opinion.  So do I.  And my opinion, expressed here, is the same that I have expressed toward other non-Whites attempting to interfere with the expression of White interests by Whites.  

Whites have their own internal debates, their own conflicts (ethnicity, sub-race, religion, etc.), their own consideration of different strategies, and their own concerns. These are OUR affairs, not yours.  These are OUR conflicts, not yours. These are OUR debates, not yours.  And these are OUR interests, not yours.

How Whites relate to each other, how Whites decide to work together (or not), how Whites decide to strategize (or not) in defense of their own interests, that is something for US to do, not you.  Ultimately, WE have to be the arbiters of OUR fate. OURSELVES ALONE.

And, no, we do not need, or want, non-Whites with their every “helpful” advice, telling us that our best option is to slow down our displacement, replacement, and destruction; that we are “dying of Whiteness;” promoting intra-White division; that we need alliances with Asians in which Whites must grovel before their Yellow and Brown masters; that we must have a multiracial “White separatist state;” that we are akin to child molesters and are “latrine flies;” that we must accept the “racial status quo;” that racial preservation for its own sake is “insane;” that we must have a “Red State nation” that accepts “conservative Blacks;” etc. 

Maybe, sir, you can take your advice to Israel, and suggest to the Jews there how they can accommodate their eventual race replacement by Arabs through an increased short-term focus on Jewish interests (hard to say how they can go beyond what they already have), or you can go to China and spread a similar message there – although, contra Frost and the “Arctic Alliance” crowd, the Chinese are hardly in any danger of race replacement.  But, wherever you go and whatever you do, we can do without your proffered chalice, dripping as it is with carefully concealed poison.

Whatever the outcome of the White racial problem, I do not believe the outcome is going to be pleasant for the likes of you. If you are wrong, and Whites quietly go to extinction without any expression of self-interest, then the resulting Colored dystopia will ultimately not be of benefit for the Coloreds themselves.

What if you are correct about the situation? That you are correct that it is untenable to suppress the expression of self-interest by a group whose demographic majority is disappearing? Let’s say I agree with you – even the White omega race may well become ever more demanding of their racial self-interest.  Where I disagree with you is with the idea that this discontent can be effectively managed through a safety valve release of controlled, moderate expression of racial self-interest. 

As Suvorov wrote – revolutions do not occur during the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed.  Louis XVI learned that, as did Gorbachev. Once the expression of White racial interests is legitimized, once the pent-up fury of a wronged people begins to be released, how can it be safely controlled? Once the genie is out of the bottle, and the toothpaste is out of the tube, can everything be safely be put away again once things begin to spiral out of control?

The future is chaos. And your stage-managed attempt at orderly White extinction will only add to that chaos. Enjoy.

Best regards,

Ted Sallis

The Strong Horse is Not My Little Pony

It’s all connected.

When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally want to side with the strong horse. When people of the world look upon the confusion and atheism of the West, they see that Islam is the strong horse.

And what does White nationalism have to offer?  Guess what: The Strong Horse is not My Little Pony.  How is it possible for  White nationalist “leaders” to be so blind, deaf, and dumb to image?

WN 2.0: Effeminacy, childishness, weakness, silliness.  

Could it be that young White men with fundamentally healthy instincts are frustrated because “leaders” are promoting Bronyism and endorsing non-White liberal Presidential candidates?  Can we “understand” these shootings by pointing out that “movement leaders” have completely failed in every way possible, even to the point of becoming cringeworthy embarrassments?  Yang Gang!  Tulsi Coconut!  My Little Pony!  Pepe!  Kek!

Do the folks shown here support The Yang Gang?  We went from Caesar, Charlemagne Napoleon, and the Waffen SS to that.  That should be condemned, not encouraged.

The absolute worst aspects of WN 1.0 are infinitely superior to anything WN 2.0 has to offer.  Given the choice between James Mason foaming at the mouth over Charles Manson or Buttercup Dew mincing around over cartoon ponies, I’ll take the former, thank you very much.

Back to the San Diego shooting.  Great timing numbnut…right after the Congressional hearing.  Could it be any worse? I mean, the confluence of Type I Nutzism and affirmative action does wonders for the “movement.”  Let’s have some more posts about how brain structure proves the superiority of particular ethnies, said superiority no doubt well represented in “movement” “activism.”  But as bad as these people are, the “leaders” are worse. The more sensitive members of the rank-and-file likely look upon Der Movement and see nothing but a barren wasteland of hopeless despair, populated by freaks, weirdos, perverts, Bronies, incompetents, fetishists, and grifters.  So, in response, these young men have as their role models are racialist mass murderers.  Wonderful.  So much winning!

We need to give activists another choice than that between being a “shoot-‘em-up” Nutzi or being an effeminate Brony with more estrogen that a slumber party of teen-aged girls.

Note also the fellow’s disgust with The God Emperor – demonstrating that a disgust with “leadership” (in that case, Presidential) is fueling these episodes.  Another “movement” fail – obsessing over the fat fraud Trump instead of building a real infrastructure.  

These young men should be taking the advice I have been giving for young (and all) activists – take care of yourselves first, get an education, build your career, make money, save, if you want a family than go in that direction – build a real life.  Do not sacrifice yourself for a grifter-freak “movement” or even for “the race” – a mewling omega race of weaklings and losers – unless you can accomplish something that will definitively and significantly enhance your genetic interests.  This fellow Earnest should have finished his education, built his career, saved his money, and then participated in activism in a sane and sustainable fashion. But, alas, misled and let down by “leaders” and in a state of desperation, these types lash out.

How’s that Arctic Alliance coming along, Derbyshire?  That is in my opinion indirectly connected to the shooting as well. Racialists in the rank-and-file are likely disenchanted by rice burners and mustard dippers being spokesmen for Der Movement, and maybe they are also tired of all the money donated being flushed down the toilet, so folks can gamble, watch movies, and sit comfortably on lawn chairs.

On the other hand, I see this as probably being a net positive, even if it was a bit silly and juvenile – non-violent protest that shows the SJWs that their “safe spaces” may not be so safe from dissident opinions after all.

What has happened as a result of Trump’s election is a good example of how difficult it will be to put through a pro-White policy to address the demographic disaster that is unfolding even if a nationalist-sounding politician is elected. From the very beginning of Trump’s administration, he has been beset with investigations and lawsuits, and there has been a torrent of hatred and invective directed at him in the media and on social media like Twitter and Facebook. Comparisons of Trump with Hitler and Nazism have been routine, during the campaign and since he became president. This is unprecedented in American history. Trump has been unable to get any good immigration-related legislation through Congress because of unanimous Democrat opposition and significant opposition from Republicans. And the courts have routinely ruled against him in the many jurisdictions with liberal judges.

But, hey, our victory is just around the corner.  No, wait, in 50 years.  No, wait, we have 200 years.  Well, whatever. Just send in dem dere “D’Nations!”

Then you wonder why folks get frustrated and do stupid things?  And on cue:

Greg Johnson

Posted April 28, 2019 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

What is more useful: envisioning the creation of white homelands as being easy or hard? Because the harder it seems, the fewer people who will consider it possible or desirable.

Let’s give people unrealistic expectations, let’s have the typical “victory euphoria” (even for future victories) – yes, as long as you all send in the “D’Nations.” Remember, things objectively are absolutely terrible, but if you send in money, you’ll be living in the Golden Age today!  Better Gold than Tungsten, eh?

On other notes – 

Jack Vance:

A man desiring a girl will set upon her and beat her black and blue. No one would think to interfere. If the girl approves, she comes the same way again. When he rushes forth to pummel her, she throws herself on his mercy.

Jack Vance was, apparently, not a beta male, a white knighter, or a potential Brony.

Peak Alt Right and Other News

More “movement” madness.

Peak Alt Right.  Affirmative action at its best. One needs to comprehend what is going on here.  One candidate is a Chinaman whose signature policy initiative is to pay off Whites so that they accept their demographic, cultural, political, social, and economic dispossession, and so they won’t “act out” against their Asian masters and betters. The other candidate is a part-Samoan woman who advocates reparations for Negroes.  And that is who the Alt Right faction of Der Movement is endorsing.

Science over Der Movement: Absolutely correct. Duchesne has good intentions no doubt, but the Ostara-style analysis has to go.  Doesn’t look like Arnold playing Conan.  

Johnson censoring further ripostes to Duchesne.  Maybe “Weak” should instead post over at The Unz Review, that deep repository of “movement” “thought.” Maybe they’ll be a few shekels in it for him if he does.

Brown truths.  But, but,. but…Joan of Arc. Actually, Johnson’s constant references to Joan of Arc is interesting considering that a certain august “movement” personage, who shall go nameless, is said to have an obsessive fascination with that historical figure. Whether there is any connection with respect to that, or whether it is merely coincidence, is unknown at this time. However, Joan of Arc was a genuine heroine for the French people, and to invoke her name to defend YouTube Alt Lite bimbos is akin to blasphemy.