In der news.
See this. That’s fine as far as it goes and helps to explain much Der Movement behavior. But what about leftist conspiracy theories and the flawed thinking therein? Such as:
- Race does not exist
- Institutional racism (in the absence of race, by the way) exists, and is what holds back Coloreds (instead of their well-documented deficiencies)
- Biological men can get pregnant
- Some guy running around the capitol building dressed like a buffalo was a dire threat to democracy
- Police are killing thousands of unarmed Blacks every year
- Months of protests that caused over a billion dollars of damage, and which included arson, assault and battery, murder and attempted murder, were “mostly peaceful”
- Trying to storm the White House, forcing the President into a bunker, and then burning down the church across the street was not insurrection and neither was setting up an autonomous zone in Seattle
- White Privilege is a real thing
- Man-made global warming must be real and if you question it you’re crazy
- Lying about population genetics to obfuscate White identity is good
- The popularly elected Viktor Orban is an “authoritarian leader”
Should I go on?
An enlightening interview. A leftist political beginning, influenced by Jews (and alienated from “stuffy country club Republicans” – a bit of innate anti-WASPism?). The time in Jamaica, etc. He talks about collectivist Jewish behavior of group controls enforcing social conformity – the exact same types of behavior he ascribes to “individualist” egalitarian NW European societies.
Laugh at this: [Note: Shortly after being posted, the Jeelvy Counter-Currents article about Lady Diana’s phenotype was taken down. It is still down at the time (9/21/22) that this EGI Notes post is out. Was the article’s deranged Nordicism too much for even Counter-Currents? If not for that reason then why was it pulled? Will it be going back up later, perhaps in edited form? Who knows. But you can enjoy the relevant excerpt below; keep in mind there was much else equally, if not even more, ludicrous, in the deleted article. The excerpt:
If I met Lady Di — blue eyed, her blonde hair worn boyishly short or in the ‘80s blowout with a hint of Margaret Thatcher, with a slender figure and rarely disfiguring her strongly Nordic figures with makeup — on the street, I’d assume she was Danish. Lady Diana Spencer had a wide smile full of perfect pearly whites and delicate arms and legs, and always the hint of an eating disorder about her — never excess flab, but she had it where it counted. Contrast her with Diana, Princess of Wales, at home in Balmoral and Buckingham as well as her London flat, the pinnacle of Norman womanhood, her ancestors more noble and more ancient than the upstart Windsors themselves…the delicate-limbed, Nordic-featured, blonde and blue-eyed Diana Spencer…
Reverse Sallis’ Law in action again; in every possible circumstance, Nordics must be praised. No wonder High Trusters believe that they are Eloi, swans, and angels when they have fetishists like Jeelvy and their worshipful groveling. Der Movement’s typical obsessions duly noted.
In the broader American society, White ethnics experienced a one-two punch. First, they were insufficiently White, discriminated against, and occupied lower strata of society. Later, as they underwent assimilation and exhibited upward mobility, they were then begrudgingly classified as White and then, as “White bigots,” were subjected to ethnic cleansing via racial integration of the cities and had the professional advancement retarded by affirmative action, which disproportionately impacted urban Whites.
In Der Movement, White ethnics experienced a three punch combination. First, the left jab of being considered non-White. Then the right cross of being begrudgingly classified as White but placed in a lowly subaltern stepandfetchit position below their “masters,” and, finally, the left hook of once again being considered non-White and placed in status below Jews/Coloreds in WN 3.0.
I can concisely and without (too much) ad hominem summarize my differences with MacDonald, re: individualism. It comes down to how one defines individualism. I define individualism as most people do – prioritizing the autonomy of the individual over the demands of the group; thus, the focus in on supporting the opinions, desires, and identity of individuals over that of their community. Individualism promotes the independence of the individual, allowing for their self-actualization regardless of what the group requires of the individual. According to this, any group that is conformist, suppresses individual autonomy, and strictly enforces group social norms via social pricing including ostracism (or worse!) cannot, by definition, be “individualist.” Such a pattern would be considered collectivist and completely inimical to individualism. It seems to me – and maybe you would consider this to be ad hominem – MacDonald is defining “individualism” as encompassing all behaviors typically exhibited by Northwest Europeans and then works backwards from there; in contrast, I believe that you first need to establish a reasonable definition of individualism and then you can investigate what groups actually exhibit such individualist behavior.
I also see MacDonald’s focus on families and marriage with respect to individualism as being irrelevant in the current day. I look at extant European-derived peoples and everywhere I see nuclear families and marriages based on individual personal preferences. In America, all White ethnic groups are primarily intermarrying with other Whites ethnic groups, and have been doing so for many decades. The idea that Southern and Eastern Europeans are, like NECs, marrying their cousins in arraigned partnerships to further clan networks is, frankly, bizarre. It is a non-issue, a diversion.
Funny how the “threats to democracy” all come from the Right. How about these alternative (and real) threats to democracy: Race replacement immigration, in part utilized to subvert democracy by “electing a new people” rather than convincing existing native voters; social pricing and other methods (including violence) to suppress dissident opinions; and the unequal application of the law for political purposes – all courtesy of the Left? And by the way, as regards “the will of the majority” being ignored, how about decades of ignoring majority opposition to mass immigration and affirmative action? How about state referenda being overturned by leftist judges?
A Chilean who is 50 percent Italian, 25 percent Basque, and 25 percent Greek would be considered white as well — though his skin may be darker than a Chilean who is actually less European, such as one who is 10 percent Araucano, 10 percent Incan, 50 percent Spanish, and 30 percent Belgian.
Because of the large presence of Mediterranean whites, the genotype and phenotype of whiteness in Chile do not correlate as neatly as in the Anglosphere. The result of this is that Chileans have a “big tent” view of whiteness; those who are considered white in Chile are certainly majority white, but plenty would not be considered white in the United States or Australia…
…The Basque genetic makeup is easily distinguished, and Basque skin tone is whiter and their IQ is higher than the average Spaniard. Many people find Basque people very attractive.
A person’s work needs to be judged objectively, independent of personal variables, such as an untimely death. Thus, I can seriously question Rojas. The same person (who was Roberts/Rojas) who wrote that Amren article having an Anglo-Nordicist criterion for “Whiteness” wrote a series of articles for Counter-Currents, ending with this.
In that last article he claims that this person is “White” with “no qualifiers.” That woman’s mixed race ancestry is described here. That ancestry is clearly written all over her phenotype.
I understand that people can change their mind about things, but here we have a radical change about a fundamental – an existential – core concept of racial identity, in the context of the general ideology staying the same. Something here is not right. In one forum, he suggests that Old World Europeans from Southern Europe can be darker than outright mestizo types and not perfectly White in a Nordic/Anglosphere sense, and then in another forum he shows an outright Mestiza, obviously non-White, who is likely at least 25% (and maybe 50%?) Amerindian (and maybe part-Black as well), and says that that’s White with no qualifiers and he expects American Whites will one day agree with that absolutely absurd classification.
Either this guy was so confused about race that his opinions were essentially worthless or else all of this doesn’t (to me at least) pass the smell test of sincerity. We’ll likely never find out now what the real deal with that guy was.
The American “civil rights movement” and its aftermath was a perfect example of Suvorov’s Law. When White America held firm with Jim Crow, the Negro and his handlers could make little headway against White survival instincts. But once Whites showed weakness and made concessions, opposing the resistance of the White Southrons and the White ethnics, and suddenly relieving the repression of segregation, etc. than it all fell apart, and fell apart quickly, resulting in a decades-long racial and cultural revolution in America that is only accelerating in its pace. Thus, Coloreds, Jews, and their High Truster junior partners pushed against White America and found very little pushing back. Once that emptiness was revealed, the collapse was inevitable.
E. Michael Jones makes some good points about the ethnic cleansing of White ethnic urban neighborhoods, but then goes off the rails, making it about religion and narrow ethnicity, rather than its reality that was race and ethnicity. Blacks ethnically cleansed the White ethnic enclaves because they were Black and behaved as Blacks, not because they were mostly Protestant. And their Hispanic junior partners in that enterprise were mostly Catholic, so whither religion? Did Blacks make distinctions between White Catholics and Protestants (or Orthodox for that matter)? To Blacks, even Jews are “White.” Of course, the cleansing was mostly focused on White ethnic Catholic areas so in practical terms it was mostly Black/Hispanic vs. White Catholic conflict, but the White Catholics were targeted because they were White, not because they were Catholic, and, yes, while most of those White Catholics were Irish and Italian, they were, again, targeted by the Blacks/Hispanics for being White – not because they were Irish of Italian. If any WASPs or Germans or whatever – even Jews – happened to get caught in the crossfire, they got it too. Now, the fact that the Blacks and Hispanics were weaponized in this fashion by the High Truster-Jew alliance was ethnic and religious (although with the Jews it can be a racial conflict as well, but let’s pass over that for a moment). But it was as much (or more”) ethnic than religious and the race issue loomed large over the whole situation. Again putting aside the racial issue of the Jews, broadly speaking, one can say that the ethnic cleansing was a racial conflict being used as a proxy to fight an intra-White and White-Jewish ethnic conflict (with religion as an identity – not actual practice – being a part of ethnic definitions). But after a while, the race proxy took a life of its own, and the race weapon began to slip out of control; Coloreds became a threat on their own, even independent of the guidance they were initially given. To deny the fundamental racial basis of the conflict is mendacious and cowardly. The ethnic cleansing could take place only because of the race-based behavior and hatreds of Blacks and Hispanics.
eginotes 
