Category: populism

Welfare Chauvinism?

Various issues.

Laugh at this.

“Welfare chauvinism” has been a particularly potent trend among far-right parties in recent years, combining xenophobic rhetoric with promises of lavish social safety nets. Such parties often claim, for instance, that too much immigration puts a strain on welfare resources and they promise more spending on “deserving native” voters if borders can be closed to “non-deserving” migrants. Our findings lead us to think that neurotic voters could end up being a key target for such tactics. Neurotics, after all, do seem to take social policy very personally.

That’s typical leftist pathologization of rightist dissent and nationalist-populist politics.

How about this – leftist politics is a real psychological pathology since it is objectively maladaptive from the standpoint of biological fitness, causing Whites to be demographically replaced by other peoples, destroying the genetic continuity of the ethny of the White leftist while increasing the fitness of genetically distant competitors. That’s suicidal masochism – let’s have some studies on that.

Let’s see – what is more biologically adaptive – to use your state’s resources to support the well-being, continuity, and reproduction of your own people, or to import genetic aliens and to use the resources to support them at your own expense?  The Left thinks that the former is ”neurotic” why the latter is perfectly normal and admirable.

And do you know who else uses “neuroticism” to pathologize opponents – HBDers like Dutton (e.g., re: “Vegan Gains” [*] – my own labelling of Dutton as “neurotic” is mocking him for his antics in that regard).

Isn’t it nice to have all these “Arctic Alliance” “cognitive elitists” living amongst us?

The subjects of the checks appear to be members of the public who were unlucky and got too close to the man, a 30-something local resident who went to Wuhan to visit relatives.

But, hey, a vast pandemic is a small price to pay so that “awkward squad” omega White males can get laid with Asiatic females who have the secondary sexual characteristics of prepubescent boys.

Not a lot of sexual dimorphism there, huh?

How to stay safe from the Wuhan Plague?  Quarantine China.  Repatriate all individuals of Chinese descent living outside China to China. Derbyshire weeps.

Criticizing the Alt Right diet from 15:47 to 17:30.  Pepe weeps.  Kek puts down the milk jug.

The short-sighted:

Greg Johnson
Posted January 23, 2020 at 5:23 am | Permalink
I think the internet has largely made printed pamphlets obsolete, and online censorship is not so severe that people cannot find our sites with a little effort.

Yeah…those printed pamphlets are obsolete up until the point that online censorship reaches the same point payment processing deplatforming is today.  Having a hard copy analog capability is simply sound contingency planning (something the Quota Queens are abysmal at) and, even today, demonstrates a real world presence that tells folks that the “Far Right” is not just a bunch of guys sniggering like Beavis-and-Butthead in podcasts.

*I do not support veganism nor “Vegan Gains” but that’s not the point.  The language used by ‘Vegan Gains” is just typical Millennial posturing.  If that’s “neuroticism” then the majority of your wonderful Alt Righters are neurotic as well. Also, no doubt, the fellow was (justifiably) triggered by Dutton’s typical HBDer behavior – obnoxious arrogance, absolute moral certitude while stating factually incorrect nonsense, insulting comments, and the pathologization of opposing opinions and ideas.

Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark

Another failure for mainstreaming.

Sallis: Mainstreaming doesn’t work, one reason for that is that the Center-Right can co-opt your lukewarm positions and scoop up your votes as the “safe” alternative.

But the situation is even worse than I had written – Denmark shows that even the Left can co-opt weakly moderate “anti-immigration” positions – and of course later betray those positions, leaving the stupid hoodwinked voters high and dry and leaving the Far Right out of power (as usual). If you cannot even distinguish yourself from Social Democrats, then isn’t that the most searing indictment of mainstreaming possible?

The riposte will be that in Europe, with their “hate speech” laws, more aggressive campaigning is not possible.  Even there, Sallis is right once again:

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?

Der Movement argues how wonderfully the ethnonationalist heroes, with their carefully worded mainstreaming, are doing in Europe.  Sallis argues that this vaunted success is an illusion and that mainstreaming is a disaster, and that without the ability to speak freely – that for the most part European nationalists do not even have as a part of their political platforms – nothing significant can be accomplished.

Sallis – correct; Der Movement – wrong.

But that’s OK, keep on supporting the Quota Queens, those empty vessels who have all the depth of a piece of tissue cut by a microtome and all the heft of a rotifer.  Affirmative action and all that. Meanwhile, enjoy the fruits of mainstreaming in Denmark.

And then we have America:  Trump will be monitoring the situation.  Stay tuned!

I’m fair-minded, and will praise Der Movement when it is warranted.  Thus, in the midst of the horrendous pile of written garbage that now passes for Counter-Currents is a thoughtful essay that I believe has real value – see here.  This attitude, to be actualized into reality, will require community activism, focusing on real social and economic problems instead of nonsense about “Kali Yuga,” and will require an adoption of populist “lefist” economic positions instead of “conservative-libertarian” posturing about “sweet business deals” (the latter coming, perhaps not coincidentally, from the pro-Jewish HBD side of the “movement” aisle).

Youth and the Left

Whither idealism?

Why are young White people (in the West, or whatever is left of it) typically leftist?  One argument is that it is youthful rebellion against parents, who are themselves typically more conservative due to the effects of family formation and increasing responsibility (and general experience with life and the realities of human nature). It is interesting that this scenario always seems to work in one direction – the children of leftist parents never seem to rebel by moving to the Right, if anything they may become even more radically leftist than their parents are.  So, it can’t be simple rebellion against parental authority.  Is it rebellion against a conservative society?  Well, today, the System is so far to the Left and so anti-White, that actual rebellion would mean that young Whites should all become neo-Nazis; “movement” fantasies about “Generation Zyklon” aside, that is not happening.  Is it because System propaganda portrays itself as exhibiting “systemic racism” and the youth perceived a Far Left System as being Far Right?  Is the rebellion against a perception rather than against a reality?

Or maybe it is not just rebellion – youth are by nature idealistic, and the Left traffics in idealism, as opposed to the stuffy, reactionary Right, which stupidly advertises itself as “standing athwart history yelling stop.”  What an inspiring image!

The reactionary Right needs to be displaced by the revolutionary Far Right and an inspiring ideology and worldview needs to be promoted.  By the way, “traditionalism” “snug in one’s hobbit hole” is not such a worldview.

Sunday News

In der news.

All together now: Cuckadoodledoo!

Didn’t I warn you that this guy is a buffoon and a fraud?

The last chance for White America!  The God Emperor!

Spencer is correct: Trump as any sort of “change agent” is finished.  I could have told you that (and did) three and more years ago, but, hey, better late than never.

Hey, Ann, I could have told you all of that back in 2015.

Once again, Sallis is right.  Mainstreaming always fails because your more centrist position can always be co-opted by the System and/or by other, more moderate, populists.  If you stake out a radical position that truly represents what you are (or should be) about, then one of two things happen – either you distinguish yourself from the opposition and thus stand alone or you force the opposition to shift toward you, moving the so-called “Overton Window” in the proper direction.  As to the cries – “oh, you won’t’ win” – please tell me about the success of President Le Pen.  You should win or lose standing on principle, rather than lose as a compromised fraud.  At the very least, if you stand your ground, you know that any success is authentic and due to shifting people toward you, rather than vice versa.

Note to micks who still identify as “liberal Democrats” and who spite WASPs by identifying as “oppressed Hibernians in solidarity with People of Color.”

Watch this.  Of course, Greg Johnson was telling us it was really a “win” for Trump (and, implicitly, I suppose, for all of us), because those wonderful Republican “didn’t lose as badly as they could have.”

Reality here – not delusional debate about “when we will win our victory.” Things are bad and getting worse.  I assume the mindset of the “optimism crowd” – if we assume that they are sincere and not merely boosting their egos and cash flows – is that despair will lead to inaction and surrender, so we have to give people hope. Unfortunately, constant disappointment, and constantly dashed hopes, leads to disgust, and, yes, despair and inaction; falsely inflated hope that “all will be well” also can lead to inaction as people believe that “it’ll all work out in the end regardless of what I do or don’t do.”  Reality is best.

Kevin, if you are going to talk about gravity, it is churlish not to mention Einstein and General Relativity.

I’m no fan of Einstein or his ethny, but fair is fair.

“I’m not surprised you’ll get different results from different companies,” Dr. Jennifer Raff, Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Kansas told TechCrunch back in September. “They have their own proprietary info based on those samples. If one of them has lots of individuals from a particular region and the other company does not, you’re more likely to show up as having ancestry from that region whereas if the other company doesn’t have that data represented in their database, it’s going to show up as a different population.”

What the parental populations are is going to significantly affect the results.

This reminds me of a personal anecdote. A family I know – normies not Nutzis – asked me to take a look at some confusing ancestry data they got from a company that shall remain nameless.  No problem with paternity – child has 50% chromosome match with father as well as mother, etc.  The ancestry percentages for the child are very crudely plausible based on the parents. So far, fine as well as it goes.  But the chromosomal fragments do not match.  Thus, for example, the child inherits some percentage of ancestry “X” from the mother and not the father (who lacks it, according to the test). But, the mother’s “X” is on, say, chromosomes 3, 5,and 6 (I don’t remember the exact details) and the child’s “X “is on, say, chromosomes 10 and 16. That of course is at the lower confidence levels.  At the highest confidence level, all of those chromosome fragments are “unassigned.”  So, putting aside a historically novel medical finding of mass chromosomal translocations resulting in a normal child (a probability roughly equal to picking one specific atom out of all those in the observable universe), we are left with the reality that the chromosome fragment identifies at the low confidence intervals are being assigned with the precision of a coin flip.  A fragment may be “X” but very likely could be “Y.”  Or maybe the father actually has “X” – and this is where the child is getting it – but the father’s chromosome fragment is instead labeled “Y” at the low confidence interval and “unassigned” at the higher.  Thus, maybe it is really the father who has “X” at the chromosome fragments that would match the child but the test is assigning those fragments to a different ancestry, while perhaps the mother has little or no “X” at all. If you take the low confidence level data at face value, then this all makes no biological sense at all. Recombination normally takes place between homologous chromosomes, not between non-homologous ones.

These companies would be better served to just estimate ancestry from SNP frequency data and/or genome-wide correlations of SNP frequencies (genetic integration) rather than making low probability guestimates of chromosome fragment identity.  However, the latter method is I suppose better for telling crazed cat ladies that they are descended from Pocahontas, so there’s that.

In addition, the companies’ “timeline” estimates are ludicrous, and cannot be used to “time” admixture, even if the admixture is real and not artefactual.  Putting aside the question as to whether the chromosome fragments are properly identified to begin with, and whether the boundaries between purported different ancestral fragments are also properly identified, an important point is being missed (many academic population geneticists make the same possibly incorrect assumptions).  In a large panmictic population, certainly over time you’ll have sufficient scrambling of ancestries so that in an individuals there will be sufficient possibility for meiotic recombination to mix fragments between homologous chromosomes and this breaks up ancestral blocs over time, allowing for an estimation of the arrival of the intrusive elements. But if a small population was interbreeding in isolated communities, then it is possible to have individuals with very high ancestral proportions of the original intrusive stocks, and given mating over time between such individuals any exchanges of chromosome fragments would likely be between fragments of like ancestry.  So large blocs of a given ancestry can be maintained over time, and only start degrading in size relatively recently, given increased human movement.  But let’s not have real life possibilities interfere with the business model.  Send in the shekels!  Pocahontas awaits!


How any of this is any better than DNAPrint (was flawed as well) is unclear to me.

Soak the Rich?

In a word, yes.

There’s some difference of opinion about economic issues in Der Movement, between what I would call the populist wing and the laissez-faire wing.  The former group would in general support, at minimum, a mixed-economy, or in more extreme cases, a corporatist or national socialist economic regime. These right-wing populists tend to support such economic strategies such as social credit, citizen’s dividend, guaranteed minimum income, a cap on salaries, a sharply progressive income tax, single-payer healthcare, and a racial interests-first modulation of the economy.  The more extreme members of this group would like to confiscate the wealth of aracial and anti-White wealthy Whites (never mind non-Whites) and send the ex-wealthy race traitors to work camps.

The latter group are more consistent with the typical hyper-capitalist amen corner of global capital represented by the Chamber of Commerce puppets of the GOP.  This wing preaches unrestricted free market policies, predatory capitalism, “sweet business deals,” and rail against social welfare protections even for their own race by using the pejorative label “socialism” (that is supposed to scare us away from any policies that benefit the mass of our people as opposed to the wealthy few).This latter wing tell us that attacks on the wealthy are based on “envy.”

I identify with the former group.  I have discussed economics in previous posts, but here I will focus on responding to three arguments that the laissez-faire stepandfetchits make in defense of the fatcats feeding like maggots on the corpse of America.

1. The wealthy earn their money.  To some extent yes, and to that extent of course productive people should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor.  But the problem is that in a free market economy, earnings are based on what the market will bear, on the basis of pure supply and demand.  So, if there is a demand for athletic entertainment and if the supply of highly-skilled athletes is low, then we observe the spectacle of baseball players earning $30 million per year, all for hitting a little white ball with a wooden stick. Is that earning a salary through productivity that boosts societal good?  Is the market always right?  Can there not be inefficiencies in the market?  Even pro-capitalist economists admit that possibility.

Did the Sackler family earn their wealth in a manner we would approve of?  No doubt there were many “sweet business deals” that eventually led to the degeneration of White America via opioids – is that merely fair free market economics?  Is it a fair earning for an actor to get millions of dollars for a movie or for some episodes of a TV series?  We have businessmen who loot the economy, CEOs who profit while jobs are outsourced and their company goes bankrupt, lawyers who twist and distort the legal system in ways the founders never intended…all “earning their money?”  Are they “investing in the economy” or merely investing in themselves?  If their consumerism “boosts GDP” who benefits?  The wealthy and the Chinese who sell us all the junk the wealthy (and we) consume?  Is a growing GDP the measure of a healthy society?

2. People need to be incentivized to be productive, so they must be allowed to have theoretically unlimited earnings; we cannot impose values on people as to what their desire (read: greed) for money should be in order to do “X, Y, Z” that is beneficial for society, or at least the economy.  We are told that the wealthy would not have become wealthy to begin with if they weren’t selfish and greedy. Perhaps, but an intelligent and disciplined person should have limits.  We’ll be told that we cannot measure another person’s greed, and that we cannot know what level of compensation would be required to incentivize another person to strive in ways that enhance the public good. Well, let’s try anyway.  Let’s consider marginal utility.  How much do you need?  Greg Johnson once proposed a one million dollar per year salary cap (adjust for inflation), and I think that is reasonable.  Is more really necessary?  At what point is a $30 million salary necessary?  How much more enjoyment will they get from that thirtieth million, compared to the societal good that can be accrued if the excess money is utilized in ways that benefit race, people, and nation?  If a person needs an ever-expanding salary to do their job well and be satisfied, then there is something wrong with their character, and with the character of the broader society in which they live and work.  At what point does a minute gain in satisfaction – in many cases nothing more than an ego-boost – justify the concentration of fiscal resources in the hands of a few, a few who cannot possibly utilize that money in a manner that is reasonably necessary for judicious and balanced life satisfaction?

And there is the old, crude yet true, statement: Don’t shit where you eat.  At some point, the shenanigans of the selfish wealthy destabilize society to an extent that it puts the long term well-being of the wealthy themselves into question.   Again – marginal utility. And here we get into negative marginal utility.  If you can have a one billion net worth and enjoy it in a stable society or wreck that society in pursuit of ten billion, is it worth it to choose the latter?  We go back to the excuses made above – “if they weren’t greedy they wouldn’t have made one billion to begin with” and “who are you to say where a person’s economic striving should end?”  I respond that if a person can make one billion by being a selfish destroyer then something is wrong with the economy and that the striving should end at the point where the organic solidarity of the society is wrecked, to the detriment of most, if not all.

3. The wealthy can do what they want with their money and/or they do societal good with it.  Is unbridled hedonism and conspicuous consumption a societal good? How about rent-seeking behavior to influence the political process so that billionaires can make some more billions off the backs of the dispossessed American worker? What about rent-seeking support for cheap labor, both insourced via mass migration or outsourced via globalist economics?  What about open support for anti-White causes – something many, many wealthy Whites do?  How many wealthy Whites do we know who support pro-White causes?  Other than Regnery, I can’t think of a single one.  They can do what they want with their money?  No, not when “doing what they want” is socially and racially destructive.  Or illegal or immoral. Would we say it is OK for the wealthy to, say, buy child sex slaves?  Obviously not.  There are limits to “doing what you want.”  

Obviously, I have no problem with Whites who accumulate wealth through hard work, disciplined saving, and prudent investing – the White upper middle class. I have no problem with Whites who are very wealthy through talent, productivity, and inventiveness. Of course, in both cases, the “no problem” depends upon that those in question were not indulging in aracial hedonism, greedy rent-seeking, or, worse, explicit support for anti-White causes – there I would indeed have a problem.  But otherwise, and even more so, if the well-off Whites were pro-White to some degree or another, they deserve their wealth, we should celebrate their success, and they should enjoy that success and keep their earnings.

But as regards the rest – the hedonists, the greedy, the rent-seekers, the anti-Whites – after “the revolution” they should be dragged out of their mansions, their wealth and assets confiscated, and if they are lucky, they will be allowed to live and make use of themselves doing forced hard labor in work camps.  Balancing the books, and all that.

Which Way 2019?


Is the new focal point of the American “movement” in 2019 going to be the Alt Wrong?  Is the new focus the emerging Counter-Currents-Amren-VDARE-TOO-HBD axis?  How much damage will that do to the “movement” before it collapses as did its Alt Right predecessor?

This is actually a very serious threat, potentially more damaging to (American) racial activism than was the Alt Right.  The Alt Right did damage activism, but that was mostly through bad optics, public humiliation, and wasted opportunities. In “economic” terms, the opportunity cost of investing in Alt Right stupidity was such that it set back activism for years.  However, the damage was not ideological.  It could have been worse.  If the Alt Right took Johnson’s advice and followed a Big Tent-Alt Lite strategy, serious ideological damage could have occurred.  But, thankfully, that did not happen. The Alt Right collapsed under a pile of Pepes, Keks, and alcohol bottles, but did not become subsumed into civic nationalist mainstreaming right-wing populism.

On the other hand, domination of the “movement” by the Alt Wrong can do very serious and lasting ideological damage. Here, the threat is that White nationalism will become hijacked by HBD race realism, Judeophilia, and Yellow Supremacy.  While Spencer was tarred as a “tool of Moscow,” the Alt Wrong reality is that of “White nationalists” becoming tools of Tel Aviv/Jerusalem and Beijing.  Instead of pursuing the racial interests of Whites, we’ll just get puppets dancing on the strings of their Jewish puppeteers, as well as Derbyshirian “measured groveling” to Asians.  Hora-dancing Romanians will be out, while Hora-dancing Jews and inscrutable Orientals will be in.  Derbyshire’s “Arctic Alliance” will come to fruition, with a segment of the White population being the subaltern caste junior partners to their Jewish-Asian masters.  

Of course, it won’t be that blatant, but the end result will be the same. That’s where my critics fail with their talk of my “insanity” when I write about things like this in such stark terms.  They erect a strawman in which they assert that I am saying that we will literally see pro-White leaders on their knees before Jews and Asians and that these leaders will openly call for Jewish/Asian dominance.  Of course, they are not going to do that, and some of them may be so naïve that they don’t even realize how they are being manipulated.  But I am not talking about surface optics.  I am instead talking about the fundamental underlying reality, the ultimate consequences, of a course of action.  So, yes, the Alt Wrong will be more careful about optics than the Alt Right.  Yes, they will be careful so as to make their destructive memes palatable to Type I nitwits and sweaty ethnic fetishists. No, they will not be so blatant in that the ultimate outcome of their agenda is easily seen as a form of activism very palatable to Jewish and Asian interests. It does not matter. The final outcome will be the same, even if they don’t literally grovel before the Altar of Asia, even if they don’t literally worship a pile of yarmulkes.  Look behind the curtain, dear reader, and observe the sneering Levantines and grinning Orientals, all benefiting from activism ostensibly meant to benefit Whites.  Observe a “movement” hijacked to serve Asiatic interests. This is a danger far deadlier than Beavis-and-Butthead Alt Righters and their drunken podcasts.

If any WN 1.0 folks read EGI Notes, I hope they heed this warning, and prepare for the Alt Wrong (and Alt Yellow) assault against White nationalism. You guys still have some “pull” in the “movement” – I do not and never had.  It’s your responsibility and obligation to battle the Alt Wrong – doubly so, since you are in part responsible for the affirmative action program that results in EGI Notes having no “pull” in Der Movement.  You want to be leaders?  Then act the part.  Finally, speak out against HBD and the Alt Wrong.

Question: Will the Silkers make peace with the Alt Wrong, and look the other way as regards Jewish influence, as long as Asian interests are being served?

Question: Will the Alt Wrong be so clumsy – and not quite as optics-friendly as I wrote above – that they’ll let Jews and Asians play a more direct and public role in White racial activism?  I would predict that will eventually happen IF there is no pushback against the Alt Wrong, if they become over-confident, and if they believe that they have defeated the Ourselves Alone pro-White faction of the “movement.”  On the other hand, if they are more subtle and clever, they’ll only work behind the screen of Derbyshire and various other White HBDers.  In either case, expect Derbyshire – as long as his health allows – to play a larger role going forward. Amren and VDARE will also be expected to be proportionately more prominent.  HBD will be pushed and possibly we’ll see more articles similar to Munro’s “hit piece” against Romanians.  Never forget: pan-Europeanism is the deadly enemy of the Alt Wrong and vice versa, and the HBDers will continue to divide Europeans against each other, and attempt to set up the Jeurasian future with a subset of Whites. The Derbyshire family, in conjunction with the Hart-Weissberg crowd, is the future the Alt Wrongers want. More HBD, more Arctic Alliance, more ethnonationalism – no surprise that the Alt Wrongers wanted to subsume the ethnonationalists, anything to divide Whites – that’s what one can expect.

Who is going to be the “mainstream movement” opposition to the Alt Wrong? Will Strom finally – finally! – speak out against Jew/Asian worshipping HBD?  Or will we only have the tragicomedy of Parrott and his “Sieg Heil and pass the beer” crowd as opposition to the “Yellow Supremacy and pass the wine and cheese” crowd?

Or will the Alt Wrongers try to appease the WN 1.0 by appealing to their vanity and ethnic fetishism?  They’ll tell the WN 1.0ers that, don’t worry, you guys are so much better than those Hora-dancing Romanians.  Just throw the “outer Hajnal” crowd under the bus, get yourself a nice Asian girlfriend, and you’ll get invited to all the HBD conferences, where you can rub shoulders with that Aryan superman Professor Hart.  What’s not to like?    Better Hart than Codreanu, right?

Who will Greg Johnson feud with next?  Will the Alt Wrong alliance last through the end of 2019?

Who is the next prominent HBDer to either die and/or be exposed as was Rushton?  Will 2019 be the year of Lynn?


It is clear that the movement needs to do fine grained empirical studies and publish them to assess the impact of events, so we can prevent liars like you from claiming that “[Propaganda disaster X] was actually good for the movement.”

That costs money.  Which tin cupper will part with some of their proceeds to make this happen?

I’ll give Johnson credit for his online debating with Parrott.  Who’s going to be next on the comeback trail after Parrott and Heimbach?  Derek Black?  Who? Hal Turner? Patrik Hermansson?  The mind boggles.  Maybe the reincarnation of Dan Burros?  Getting back to “labor leader” Matt: For godssakes, Parrott, just go away.  JUST. GO. AWAY.

Maybe that will be a theme of 2019: Movement Zombies and Vampires – discredited and/or humiliated “movement leaders” and other personalities who rise from the activist dead to suck the blood and life out of what’s left of (American) racial nationalism.

What will be the next sex scandal in Der Movement?  Will it happen in 2019? Heterosexual?  Homosexual? Bisexual?  Transgender?  Inter-racial?  Adultery/cuckoldry?  Pedophilia? S and M?  Bestiality?  Necrophilia? Some combination thereof?

One possible scenario: A “movement leader” is accused of having S and M sex with male and female dead puppies and kittens.  These puppies and kittens were the sexual playthings of another “movement leader” (cuckoldry!) and now both “leaders” declare they are transgender and involved with Negro transgender lovers.  After several months both “leaders” re-emerge with tweets telling us everyone else in Der Movement, Inc. has it all wrong – only they, the disgraced “leaders,” are the fount of all activist wisdom.

Will Kessler organize Unite the Right III?  And will anyone show up if he does?

What are the chances that the various “movement” bigwigs will win the Unite the Right civil case?  Not good, I think.  If I had to bet, I’d bet on a loss.  That’s not because they are in the wrong; in this case they are not wrong – the case against them is ludicrous. But in Trump’s America, the rule of law is meaningless and the Left is triumphant. 

Which Way Trumpian Man?  Will 2019 lead to impeachment?  Resignation?  Or just more blowhard tweets with nothing at all getting done?  Will Roissy finally turn against his man-crush Trump?

How much of the “wall” will be built in 2019?  No, I mean the “fence.”  No, that’s not right, I mean the “metaphor.”  Yeah, yeah – “metaphor” – that’s the ticket.

Hey, Antifa Don – assuming you’re running for reelection in 2020, and won’t be in prison enjoying the attentions of DeShawn, then all those voted from your disillusioned and disgusted base will be a “metaphor” as well.  You’ll make Goldwater on 1964 look like a victory lap by comparison.

What failure of mainstreaming – and success of farstreaming – will European politics present to us in 2019?

Cue “movement” comments about Moops, Hora, and Mongols.  After all, when Whites turn on each other, the Alt Wrongers are waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces.

What outrageous errors will the Quota Queens make in 2019?  What leftist will they label an “alpha shitlord” (trust the phyzz!)?  What leftist academic or movie director will they label “a man of the Right?”  One can imagine some Old Kingdom Egyptian mummies getting gene-tested as 85% Middle Eastern and 15% sub-Saharan African, and the peanut gallery will declare – “Arthur Kemp was right!”  The mind boggles!  Possibilities, possibilities!

Prediction: White women will continue acting badly in 2019, and Johnson will continue to mumble about “Joan of Arc.”  It’s sort of like Whites and Blacks – the men who defend women the most are the ones who have the least experience and interactions with them.

Bad news.  What happens when you reward bad behavior?  You get more of it.  Good going, all you Type I rank-and-file nitwits.

Epilogue – a retard looks back and makes predictions:


Because the Democrats will be shifting their focus to winning the White House in 2020, the censorship trend will take a different turn, as the tech giants begin to censor the Left. Look for the social media companies to begin cracking down on the BernieBro wing, in an effort to boost the standing of party approved candidates. Suddenly, groups like Antifa are going to find themselves without the protection they have enjoyed. They were always corporate tools, they just never knew it. In 2019, they find out who signs their checks.

We’ll see about that.  Frankly, I’m skeptical, but who knows?

This is the time of year when lazy writers post about the comings and goings of the previous year, usually in the form of a listicle. “The top-10 events of the past year” is column that used to turn up in every newspaper at least once. Then you have the predictions for the coming year, which no one ever mentions as part of their year in review posts. With technology being what it is, you would think a new genre of year-end post would be the review of futures past type of post, but that has not happened.

And so Zman essentially proceeds to do what he just criticized.

One thing I got very right is the continued growth of nationalist and populist parties in Europe. It is easy to forget that the smart people were all talking about the populist wave having crested last year, so going the other way was a bold prediction. Not only have the populists displayed staying power, new movements from the Left are turning up. The Yellow Vest thing in France is much more of a leftists cause, especially in Paris, than a right-wing phenomenon. That’s something to watch for next year.

Yellow Vests!  The new heroes!  The Yellow Vest on White Horse Syndrome!  At least Zman has more sense than some other idiots on the Right and correctly labels the Yellow Vesters as more leftist.  In contrast,one can imagine Roissy identifying “alpha shitlords” among some Marxist Yellow Vesters, or Johnson pontificating about the need for a big tent (a circus tent would be most appropriate) to include such people.


Summary: I think it’s a reasonable prediction that 2019 will be another year of “movement” failure, humiliation, and wasted opportunities.

The AI and White Revolution

Mobilizing the disaffected.

Read this.

I recently listened to a podcast talking about the massive changes in the workplace and society due to Artificial Intelligence (AI)-induced human obsolescence (*).  For example, read this.

One third of able-bodied American men between 25 and 54 could be out of job by 2050, contends the author of “The Future of Work: Robots, AI and Automation.”
“We’re already at 12% of prime-aged men without jobs,” said Darrell West, vice president of the Brookings Institution think tank, at a forum in Washington, D.C. on Monday. That number has grown steadily over the past 60 years, but it could triple in the next 30 years because of new technology such as artificial intelligence and automation.

And it is not just “low-skilled” labor – even radiologists can be replaced by AI that can read CT and MRI scans, never mind analyzing something as relatively simple as X-rays. Robotic surgery is being increasingly utilized.  AI can certainly replace accountants.  This is the new reality.  And talk of re-training is ludicrous, as I have discussed here previously.  First, a large fraction of the population does not have the cognitive ability for such re-training, and some fraction of the economically obsolete will be too old to retool their careers, even if they have the IQ to handle it.  Second, even the jobs these folks will be re-trained for will also eventually become obsolete due to AI. And what are radiologists and other very high-skilled workers going to be retrained as?  Third, even if people can be retrained, the economic and societal costs will be enormous, and even under a best case scenario, the fraction of the population that is out of the workforce will still be significantly increased compared to today.

This of course brings opportunity.  Prime age White men, disenfranchised economically to go with their racial dispossession and societal-cultural deconstruction – this is a potent brew, an army of the disaffected looking for someone to blame, and looking for someone to give them purpose.

Remember how Saint Adolf mobilized disenfranchised German men to fill the ranks of the SA – the Nazis who rode the tide of the Depression, and the resulting societal upheaval, into power.  

And a clever movement – a real movement with real leaders – can very well show this army of disaffected White man how their futures, how their lives, and how their nation was stolen from them.  Class resentment merges easily with racial resentment, particularly since Jews and Asians are at the top of the human energy pyramid, over-represented in the professions (which will be the last jobs to be replaced by AI), with disproportionate wealth and opportunities, and who will be in a position to leverage societal upheaval to their own benefit.  Indeed, Jewish places in the System may be among the most AI-resistant, and as the wire-pullers, they can direct the flow of AI-induced dispossession away from themselves and toward blue collar and white collar Whites.  Lawyers, media executives, economists, etc. will still float at the top of a society dominated by AI, and one can expect clever and ethnocentric Jews to quickly fill, and dominate, those few professions left relatively unscathed (at least at the beginning) by the AI revolution.  Asians may be somewhat more vulnerable than Jews, since their niche professions are somewhat more easily filled by AI, but even then, they are, per capita, much less vulnerable than Whites, given Asian wealth and over-representation in professions that will be among the last to be lost.  Further, Asians can be a useful target for racial resentment if one focuses on the stereotype of the “Asian computer nerd” as being responsible for developing intrusive AI technologies (**).  On the other hand, the AI revolution can also breed White resentment against the Blacks and Browns, who will be competing with Whites for remaining employment, with the advantage of affirmative action and other programs; further, one can expect Black-Brown criminality to increase even more than its current astronomical levels given increased societal chaos and economic obsolescence.  In addition, downwardly mobile Whites will be intersecting with Blacks and Browns and competing for niche spaces, in general terms, in this re-ordered society. Thus, Whites can be shown how all their hard work was used to trick them, disenfranchise them, their wealthy stolen by White traitor fat cats, Jews, Asians, and the Colored underclass.

What we need are populist demagogues who can take advantage of these upcoming changes to fan the flames of chaos, hatred, and unrest.  What we need to avoid like the plague is any connection with traditional conservative hyper-capitalist economics.  We need to eschew Boomer “White advocates” preening about their “sweet business deals,” and we need to eschew Millennial libertarians (the same retards who populated the defunct Alt Right), and we need to eschew “pro-White” Jews and their call for laissez-faire free-trade Jeurasian states.

I’ll give credit to Greg Johnson here for talking about social credit – these are the sorts of ideas and solutions we need to be promoting, not warmed over crony-capitalism and ever-increasing wealth disparities and the creation of globalist elites.  Economic populism has to go hand-in-hand with racial-cultural populism. There needs to be consistency and authenticity – how can a racial demagogue leverage economic crises to fan the flames of ethnoracial hatred if that same demagogue is a proponent of the capitalist system causing the problem?  And the problem is NOT ‘science and technology” as the Type I traditionalist retards will say – a racially and culturally homogeneous nation could leverage the economic productivity of AI and automation to provide its citizens with a citizens dividend, coupled with shorter working hours, cultural production, and useful make-work and entertainment for the left side of the Bell Curve.  A sane racially unified society can make the AI revolution into a well-managed positive (**), instead of the dystopian nightmare we are headed toward as large numbers of men, of all races, find themselves made obsolete, all mixed together and competing in a multiracial madhouse created by the Jews and their White globalist collaborators. In this latter case, the AI revolution can lead to a real revolution – the question is, WHOSE revolution?  If we want it to be of the White Right, and not the Jew-Colored Left, we had better prepare now, to link the AI Revolution to White Revolution.

This is not something that needs to wait – we can get started now, with the already high numbers of men – that includes White men – out of the workforce, and who are not only economically and racio-culturally disenfranchised, by sexually disenfranchised as well, by a society that combines, feminism, female “empowerment,” and female hypergamy in the sexual marketplace.  Stop with the stupidity about Kali Yuga and cephalic indices and start mobilizing the disaffected – a mass of disaffected that contains some fraction of useful right side of the Bell Curve folks looking for a purpose, for meaning in life. Either we give them that purpose or someone else will do so.


*Needless to say, of course, all of this makes immigration not only economically unnecessary but economically harmful – just adding to the population that will be in the category of having been made obsolete by AI.  

**While we should embrace, and not reject, science and technology, we can still, as suggested above, slyly suggest to the left-side-of-the-White-Bell-Curve crowd that Asians and their fetish for computers and robotics are to blame for human economic dispossession. We could distinguish between creative White technics that empower people and destructive Asian technics – originally copied from Whites and then degenerated into negativism – that are used to create a faceless, insect-like, hive society in which people are dominated by machines instead of vice versa.