Category: Salter

They Don’t Understand How Science Works

Misunderstanding about science.  And other news.

The outrageous hypocrisy of Greg Johnson.  Re: this.  Johnson should do us all a favor and prune himself.

Granted, there is much to question here.  At this point, Trump’s instincts are possibly  better than Fauci’s. We’ll see. But, let’s be honest here – Fauci has always cast doubt and skepticism on the veracity of the models; in press conferences, he always stressed that the models are only as good as the assumptions that went into building them, and the data used.

True enough, Fauci’s recommendations are not in synch with the evolution of the model predictions.  But he’s not a politician, and the decision of what to do is a political decision. It’s the same in warfare in American history; a general can make recommendations, but the President makes the ultimate decision. The most important point is that Fauci made very clear, multiple times, that the models are just the best “guesstimate” for a given snapshot in time.

The problem ultimately is that Der Movement – including and especially its HBD faction – does not understand how science works. They misunderstand the whole process.  They do not seem to grasp hypothesis testing, the culture of skepticism, the need to question, the rejection of dogma, the whole scientific method of applied empiricism. They see only black and white, and not the shades of gray that constitute the scientific enterprise.

True enough, there are some things we can be reasonably certain of. The Earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. The sun is not a giant burning lump of coal, but rather generates energy through nuclear fusion. Very well.  But such things are the exceptions that prove the rule; they are the small islands of (more or less) established fact floating in a great sea of uncertainty. The details about a novel virus are going to be part of that uncertainty. Thus, if the models are wrong, then that’s because of flawed assumptions, insufficient data, and/or perhaps the models were incomplete.  It does not mean that the experts are all stupid or mendacious or that there is a conspiracy, a hoax, and/or some dastardly cabal manipulating public perceptions so that “Jew doctors” can “sodomize our babies with toxic microchipped vaccine needles” and “give them autism.”

Indeed, one wonders if the models incorporated changes in viral virulence. If the models of mitigation only considered transmission, in the context of fixed virulence, then certainly death rates could be over-estimated.  If the mitigation, by inhibiting transmission, selects for a less virulent viral strain, that can explain much. Note that the places heavily hit (so far) – the Wuhan area of China, Iran, Italy, Spain, New York – were places in which the virus was able to spread unimpeded for a significant period of time before serious mitigation was enforced. Other areas that initiated mitigation early – even if less stringent like Sweden – put barriers up to transmission and this exerted selective pressures on the virus. Granted, some data (e.g., Washington State) don’t neatly fit the pattern, but it is a hypothesis that can be tested.  Maybe it’s wrong.  Who knows?  But you cannot jump to “it’s a hoax!” just because the modeling was inaccurate or incomplete.

Note as well that this blog never championed full lockdowns or a shutdown of the entire economy- (nor did it oppose them. My criticism of China Plague deniers and minimalizers has always been with their lies and distortions – not about policy recommendations per se. True, I am more on the side of prudence, but one should be willing to listen to arguments in favor of lesser restrictions if those arguments are made in good faith and with available data and with an understanding of science. Hysteria about “the predictions were off, it’s just a cold, a hoax to implant microchips” does not suffice. Making Fauci into some sort of cackling Bond villain also does not suffice as an argument. Note as well that some of the minimalizers were willing to “open up the economy” even if the original predictions were true – but they were not consistent, shifting between that view and the “it’s an over-stated hoax” position. If we assume that Italy and New York, etc. represent the outcome if the virus was allowed to spread unimpeded (before the necessary steps were taken), then the threat was not over-stated. What has happened to hard hit areas should dissuade sane individuals from talking about a “hoax.”

The problem is that HBD and the fetishists, etc. do “science” by starting with the conclusion that they want to be true, and then work backwards to cherry pick and/or distort and misinterpret data to fit their preconceived, dogmatic conclusion. Facts that don’t fit are ignored, misinterpreted, or unjustifiably discredited. They believe everyone doing real science behaves the same way; therefore, any changes, errors, honest misinterpretations, controversies, etc. are chalked up to either conspiracies or gross incompetence. The idea that hypotheses are being tested, data interpreted, hypotheses rejected or modified, and uncertainty and debate about findings exist, is anathema to them.

The TROPICAL world of COLOR once again complains about White racism.

The existential meaning of Asians is hatred of Whites.

Even liberals are not allowed to criticize The Holy Orientals in the slightest. When were the Chinese elevated to godhood?  Inquiring minds want to know.

How long will we be in lockdown?  Milady does some epidemiological modeling.  Oh no wait, that’s men who are doing that.

Read this.  That’s bad enough.  But Derbyshire promotes the idea of Whites race-mixing with the bizarre, tropical, incredibly alien dog-eating aliens who inflicted the coronavirus plague on humanity.  If White-Iranian miscegenation is a crime, then what can we say about White-Chinese?  

See this.  Remember when I discussed how the American scientific establishment was taken over by Asians and that they indulge in ethnic nepotism to target grant funding to their co-ethnics? The NIH chickens come home to roost.

For Easter dinner, I had a glass of red wine, a pizza, and a slice of cheesecake. Regardless of my location, it has become a tradition for me.

Important ideological considerations, no doubt.

In 2018, I was living in Ukraine and was getting to know a woman from an online dating site.

This specimen is an ethnic Dane.  Thus, he was living in someone else’s nation, taking their women.  Eastern Europe as a bordello for the Quota Queen crew.  Ethnonationalism!

American sailor murdered by China.  America’s response: Nothing.

Dear god…what a lineup of horrors.  Empiricist quotient of zero.

And somewhere, someplace, a sweaty Andrew Fraser ejaculates.  An Irish response.  I was amused by the (correct) diagnosis of narcissism.  Back in the Legion Europa days I coined the term Self Absorbed Ethnic Narcissism (SAEN), a disorder that is particularly developed among certain European subraces and ethnic groups – interestingly enough, the same ones that pat themselves on the back about how “individualist” and “disinterested” they are.  Indeed, they are very ethnocentric in celebrating their lack of ethnocentrism! The absence of self-awareness is almost comical.

 

Rewriting Hood, Wolff, and Kersey.

Less accurate:

More than 12 million immigrants came through Ellis Island from 1892 to 1954. Almost all were white, though many were Italian, Eastern European, Jewish, or otherwise different from the Northern Europeans who founded the United State

More accurate

More than 12 million immigrants came through Ellis Island from 1892 to 1954. Some were white, such as the Italian and Eastern European immigrants, although many were Jewish aliens.  All were different from the British colonists who founded the United States.  Earlier Northern European immigrants, such as Irish, German, and Scandinavian, were also different from the British colonists who founded the United States, albeit different to a lesser degree. However, Irish immigration was strongly opposed by nativist elements, and individuals such as Ben Franklin frowned on (non-Saxon) German immigrants and considered everyone except for the English and Saxons as “tawny” and “swarthy.”

Ben Franklin (emphasis added):

Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionally very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.

“Race realists” like the Amren crew are dishonest by nature.

Meet Der Right. Summarized: Religious, anti-science, conspiracy-obsessed, delusional, anti-empiricist, and hypocritical.  Hypocrisy: You see, they are all for “freedom” but when that “freedom” conflicts with their religion (e.g., abortion, physician-assisted suicide, etc.) then all of a sudden the power of the state comes crashing down on you.  Both leftists and traditionalist rightists are filth.  Only Type II futurist rightists have integrity.

Behold Milady, Behold Der Movement

Odds and ends.

That’s right, blame Trump because you and your husband are/were a couple of retards.

It’s not clear how much chloroquine the man ingested, and Banner Health said he and his wife ingested a version of the chemical that’s used to clean aquariums.

To this day, my morning routine consists of exercising while listening to some of my favorite metal bands like Manowar, Bathory, and Goatmoon. 

Type I alert!

While living in Eastern Europe…

As an ethnic Dane, violating the ethnic homogeneity of other peoples.

As white people of European descent, we are expected to play a game where everyone else is allowed to cheat but we are the only ones forced to play by the rules. And what are the rules? The unspoken rules are that white people aren’t allowed to have an identity or be proud of our heritage. White people aren’t allowed to have an in-group preference or freedom of association.

Does “freedom of association” include Eastern Europeans rejecting having this scumbag use their nations as brothels?  Does it include Hungary deporting John Morgan?

Through the years, I’ve made a lot of mistakes in my careers, relationships, and overall priorities in life.

Writing for Counter-Currents, for example.

In a recent article Arndt discussed women’s tactics in attracting men, such as dressing to show breasts.[ii] Her story, appropriate titled “Busted: The Politics of Cleavage and a Glance”, combined anecdote, interviews and behavioural science. She drew on research on male–female differences in sex drive to argue that women who dress sexily in public are flaunting their sexual power…

Behold milady (emphasis added):

A young man and woman are having a friendly chat after a yoga class. The fresh-faced blonde seems totally relaxed but then she freezes. ”Did you just look at my chest,” she asks angrily, arms firmly folded.

”Yep,” mutters the bloke sheepishly. Her response is fierce. ”Can’t I go to one yoga class without being ogled by some jerk?”

Instead of being cowed, he takes her on, launching into a passionate defence of his action: ‘If you really didn’t want me to stare at your beautiful breasts, you’d be wearing something other than a purple sports bra covering maybe one-third of your perfect tits,” he argues, suggesting, among other things, that he’s biologically programmed to scan for life-giving breasts for his future offspring. He’s cute, passionate and ultimately convincing. She ends up asking him out for coffee.

But when young women stand in front of mirrors on a Saturday night, adjusting their cleavage, seeking ever greater exposure, maybe they need to think more about what they are doing. While there are women who claim they dress sluttishly just to make themselves feel good, the fact remains that, like the protesters, the main message sent is about flaunting women’s sexual power.

It’s an ”UP YOURS” gesture of the most provocative kind.

This girl hasn’t a clue but plenty of other women know exactly what they are doing, as they make clear in internet discussions of this issue.

”I luv my 36DDs and show them off. I like to see men drool.”

”It’s so funny when some men get caught cos they have that ‘Am I in trouble?’ look on their face!”

”It is a tease thing … men are so weak.

”We have such power over them.”

Jean* is a 33-year-old, extremely attractive Sydney divorcee completing her PhD in physics. She has a fit body and large breasts, which she likes showing off in revealing clothes. When she ”gets the girls out”, she enjoys the subtle looks, even a discreet compliment about her body from the right man.

”A quick glance from them, a little moment of recognition, and then back to the conversation. It’s part of the dance, hinting at a possible connection,” she says.

Are some allowed to look and others not?

”Well, I think there’s a sort of sexual food chain and I prefer to engage with people on a similar level as me. Sometimes it feels sleazy when I’m way out of the observer’s league, like if they’re really old or fat or ugly.”

That’s the problem. She’s advertising her wares to the world, not just her target audience, and somehow men are expected to know when they are not on her page. Jean describes at length the subtle dance, based largely on non-verbal behaviour, that she uses to show men when attention is welcome. But as we all know, many men are lousy at that stuff – the language totally escapes them.

”In one of my workshops, I remember a guy describing women flaunting their bodies as a form of ‘biological sexual harassment’ towards men, to which most of the group gave a collective nod,” Tiller says. 

The internet is bristling with men writing about what they regard as women’s sexual arrogance. Provocative female attire is an assault against men, writes Giovanni Dannato for In Mala Fide, an online magazine of heretical ideas. He argues women exposing…amounts to ”an act of aggression in which they use the power of their sex as a weapon”, he writes.

F. Roger Devlin, a political philosopher who writes challenging material on gender issues for The Occidental Quarterly, points out these beta males have long been tearing their hair out trying to discover what on earth they have to do to make themselves acceptable to the girl next door. They get the message that what women instinctively want is ”for 99 per cent of the men they run into to leave them alone, buzz off, drop dead, while the one to whom they feel attracted makes all their dreams come true”.

But surely men have a right to show what it’s like to be on the receiving end. There’s a great scene in the animated television comedy Family Guy, where Peter Griffin, the overweight, ugly, blue-collar dad, lets fly about Lindsay Lohan putting on her little outfits and jumping around on stage throwing ”those things” in front of his face. ”What am I supposed to do? What do you want from me?” he asks plaintively. But he knows the answer all too well: ”I’ll tell you what you want. You want NOTHING. We all know no woman anywhere wants to have sex with anyone and to titillate us with any thoughts otherwise is just bogus.”

Griffin’s howl of protest is based on the simple truth that some men spend their lives in a state of sexual deprivation, dealing with constant rejection. Roy F. Baumeister is a psychology professor at Florida State University who has extensively researched gender difference in sex drive. ”Sexual frustration is almost inevitable for the majority of men and not just occasionally. They won’t have enough partners or even enough sex with one partner to satisfy their wishes,” Baumeister writes, concluding, ”the tragedy of the male sex drive” is men’s state of perpetual readiness, which so rarely meets its match.

Of course men are going to want to look – ”it feels like there’s a magnet in her chest” one man complained. 

”He tells the story of a meeting with a young woman wearing a fairly fitted yellow dress, ”popping out of the top”.

”The conversation was about the rate I was going to charge them for advertising. As I looked down at my notebook and did some basic sums, I realised that she was leaning forward, deliberately showing her tits, presumably to throw my concentration.” He called her bluff.

”I started to laugh and made a comment about putting her body on the line for the business!”

She backed off, embarrassed, and he got his deal done.

She’d yell abuse at guys catcalling from cars at her. ”I can wear whatever I want!” Only now does she think about the confused young men she left in her wake, the mixed messages she’d sent them. ”Deep down I was much more aware of my power than I actually let on.”

But, remember men – don’t objectify milady!  Don’t distract milady as she works hard to solve the mysteries of the cosmos and create new cultural artifacts. Joan of Arc!  All of this demonstrates that homosexuals have no business whatsoever discussing heterosexual male-female relations and no business discussing the role of milady in the general society. Only heterosexual men have a full understanding of the malicious scope of female perfidy.

Spencer is right here…of course, this blog said this first.

Mudshark Annie – Quota King retard.

It’s a nothingburger!  Wrong, wrong, they’re always wrong.

How does that HBD cognitive elitism look now?   Meanwhile, it’s Sallis who has always been right – the existential meaning of Asians is hatred of Whites.  Yellow or brown it doesn’t matter – Asians gonna Asian.

Case in point.  Asians are psychopathic. Right, “Tricky Dick” Lynn?

Let’s assume for a moment that at least some of the crude anti-Asian comments by Whites actually occur. What’s the net political outcome of that Bunkerism?  True enough, it can have some beneficial effects. For example, it can provoke Asians into revealing the seething anti-White hatred that defines the existential meaning of the Asian peoples. It can inflame White-Asian hostility and expose Derbyshire’s “Arctic Alliance” for the absurdity that it is. However, on the other hand, given White weakness and pitiful SJW tendencies, this Bunkerism creates undeserved sympathy for the monsters who have infected the world. Unfortunately, this latter effect will likely predominate over the former. So, it’s best to eschew crude Bunkerism that has no real beneficial political effect and concentrate instead on political anti-Asianism. Instead of mindless cursing, how about arguments being made to throw Asian-“Americans” into internment camps or, better still, repatriate them to their ethnic/racial homelands? Those arguments not only have the same net effect of strengthening White-Asian animus, but can provoke debate and discussion. Let the Asians explain why they should not interned or repatriated, and, no doubt, by their hysterical hate-filled reactions will display to open-minded Whites precisely why that should be their fate. That’s a lot better than Bunkerite mindless cursing.

Something ominous = Chinese people.  Those bizarre aliens (ET phone home) will one day kills us all. They’re killing many of us today.

Colored is as colored does – the TROPICAL Japanese as part of the rising tide of color TROPICAL ALLIANCE against Whites.

Are Asians exempt from this law?  They’ve been bragging online about terrorizing people with fake coughing.  How come they get a free pass?  Yellow Privilege?

When are German troops going to go there to aid the Turks and help force migrants into Greece?

E. Michael Jones is an absolute moron and a turd, but this excerpt from a comment left at Counter-Currents provides food for thought:

And Jones may rant against Jews but I prefer that to Jared Taylor’s quietism. Sometimes I wonder if the neo Wasp Taylors aren’t waiting to make a new deal with the Chosen People – one that will leave ordinary whites of lower IQ’s including Anglos at the bottom of the some High Anglo – Jewish libertarian matrix.

But now I think I may be ranting myself. That is because lately I have begun to wonder if the WASP isn’t undercover in WN and articles like this that dismiss Jones as crank and ranter increase this suspicion So I just need to say = and even the Germanophile Jones won’t say this -the WASP’s contribution to white civilization in the last century was to team up with the Jew to bring down fascism – the fascism which was the white’s chance to save our civilization. That is not a good recommendation for a neo WASP resurgence in WN. WASP’s give it up to the Jew.

Andrew Fraser weeps. 

The “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action program and the HBD-Nordicist-ethnonationalist alliance are both criticized in one fell swoop with that comment – although the letter writer doesn’t know he/she/it has done so.

It would be a good idea to better understand why different people, even of the same age cohort, can have such radically different disease courses with the China Plague. There should be studies done comparing people matched for age, underlying co-morbidities (or the lack thereof), sex, etc., with the individuals tested for (a) genetic ethnoracial ancestry (via population geneticists not “testing companies”), (b) full genome sequencing looking for gene variants, and (c) full human gene microarray analysis looking at gene expression (protein arrays can also be performed given the possibility of regulation of gene expression at the translational level – after all, ultimately, what we are looking at are proteins and their functions [with the exception of, e.g., functional RNAs]).

Youth, Fairness, and Democratic Multiculturalism

Food for thought.

I’ll give Taylor credit for making good videos of this sort. I’ve had some success with some degree of “redpilling” (*) of Millennials and Zoomers – specimens previously “progressive” SJW types – with these sorts of videos.  The youth of today are obsessed with the idea of “fairness” – they believe in a fairy tale version of reality where all is “fair”and “equal” – hence their propensity for leftist politics and SJW hysteria. However, the same idealism can be leveraged in our favor by pointing out how the System is unfair to Whites and is actually slanted in favor of the truly privileged – “people of color” and Jews (the latter of course not addressed by Amren, but we can productively start with the former). Of course, it helps when the youth become a bit older – thus, even despite (or because of?) the hardcore indoctrination in college, college students are easier to “redpill” than high school students, and, of course, post-graduate folks are easier still. In general, the more experience people have in life, the more they are inclined to more sane politics. They may even, in their older age, understand that life is inherently unfair, and that true justice has to be fought for, and true equality is earned and not granted by fiat.

In any case, this is all consistent with the idea of “democratic multiculturalism” promoted by Salter and championed by me here at EGI Notes.  I’ve written about this in detail before, so you can read on it through this blog’s archives; the point I’d like to make here is that Millennials and Zoomers are particularly well suited for this approach given their aforementioned obsession with “fairness.” We need to ditch Type I objections (**) to this strategy and make it an important part of the activist toollkit.

*Although I usually despise all of the “pill” talk, it is appropriate given we are talking about the younger generations here.  Further, “degree of redpilling” is essentially moving people from the SJW Left more towards a populist centrist view; one can envision taking SJW Sanders supporters and moving them in the direction of grumbling about unfairness toward Whites and complaining about some of the excesses of political correctness. It’s a start.  If the point is reached that these folks watch Taylor videos and say “he usually makes sense”  that is a step in the right direction. Taylor should emphasize work like this instead of HBD crap. Once these youth are centrist populists willing to listen to moderate voices on race (like Taylor), then they’ll be ready to move even further to the right with the proper prompting.

** These fools complain that by using democratic multiculturalism – ”We are dishonoring our ancestors” by “whining.” According to these types all they need to do is wave around their trusty Viking battleaxe and all will be well.  Idiots.

Odds and Ends, 2/12/2020

More issues.

Observation: Have you noticed how the attitude toward the US military and veterans has changed?  We went from saliva-spewing hatred and “baby killers” to groveling adulation and “thank you for your service.” You see, when the US military stopped fighting the enemies of America, and started fighting the enemies of Israel, then suddenly the projected attitudes from the mass media and pop culture changed and the lemmings changed with it.  

That’s great, Hood.  Why don’t you forward that to The Master of Disaster? Further, why don’t you admit that not only was your vaunted Alt Right wrong about Trump, it – and your whole affirmative action “movement” – wasted the last four years and accomplished absolutely nothing positive?

And what if your hero Trump wins in 2020?  What about 2024 and beyond?  It’s time for real world politics, as I have been calling for here, not just pathetic grifters who use the term “metapolitics” as an excuse to milk living expenses from their deluded cash cow followers.

Oh, yes, Hood, you admit the “movement” is not ready for the repression to come.  The problem, Gaslighting Greg, Jr., is that your writing makes it appear as if the “movement” is something that’s just popped up over the last few years, rather than being a fixture, in its current form. for more than a half-century, and well-funded enough to waste millions of dollars, and to have one hero earn more than $140,000 in a year to edit a blog and sit around on lawn chairs with a race-mixer.  $148,303 – worth every penny, no doubt!

I mean, how can you live with yourself, Hood?

This is HBD:

JohnEngelman  

I expect China to achieve world hegemony by the end of this century, if not sooner. I expect the United States to be dominated by a high IQ cognitive elite composed disproportionately of Jews and Orientals.

And the purpose of HBD is to achieve that objective as quickly and efficiently as possible. White enablers of HBD are traitors to their race and their treason will never be forgotten nor forgiven. Count on it.

Once again, absolutely classless, tasteless, and self-serving:

Remember Us in Your Will

Finally, we would like to broach a very delicate topic: your will. If you are planning your estate, please think about how you can continue helping the cause even after you are gone. The essay “Majority Estate Planning” contains many helpful suggestions.

Remember: those who fight for the Golden Age live in it today.

Thank you again for your loyal readership and generous support.

Greg Johnson

Editor-in-Chief

Counter-Currents Publishing, Ltd.

Hey!  “Trevor Lynch” needs to but some more movie tickets!  Why leave money to your loved ones who are left behind?  They are not going to usher you into the Golden Age!

As long as the Chinese murderers exist, of course this will be true.

Quite Right.  And in Der Movement, we have the HBD-ethnonationalist-Nordicist alliance, centered around sites like Unz, which has scum like Durocher and Johnson writing there.

The happiest nations will be ethnically homogeneous.

Hungary must be real unhappy and all what with the alien John Morgan living there.

Who is responsible for the Equifax hack?  Do you really have to ask? Don’t worry!  You might be dead from Chinese coronavirus before Chinese identity theft causes you any problems!  Hail HBD!

The monsters are killing American children.  When will the civilized nations of the Earth take action against The Land of Monsters?

Does the Counter-Currents crowd know this?

Her father came from Sardinia and her mother came from Sicily.

No, no, a thousand times no!  Forget about that ebony-skinned Black African and let’s have more posts about why we need more Greta Thunbergs. After all, Greta is of great benefit to all humanity!  Just ask Durocher.

Seriously though, if any of the readers of this blog from Italy have connections with Brothers of Italy, you need to make Meloni and other leaders aware of the work of Frank Salter.

Has The Master of Disaster moved on already from Sanders and is ready to support Bloomberg? 

It’s been quite a ride!

Princess Tulsi Coconut

King Andy Eggroll

Sir Bernie Redjew

The Honorable Mike Doomturd

How’s that affirmative action program working out for all you peanut gallery types out there?

Greg Johnson: Trump is a sincere man of genuine greatness.

Ted Sallis: Trump is a Negrophilic race cuck (I said that as far back as 2016, before the election)

Who’s right?  Do you really need to ask?

Johnson: Wrong, wrong, ALWAYS wrong.

 

Sallis: Right, right, ALWAYS right.

Laugh at this.

I was living in Eastern Europe…

He’s of Danish descent.  Counter-Currents: The home of ethnoimperialist hypocrites.

See this.

Given that hair length may well be the only external cue distinguishing Chinese “males” from “females,” one can imagine the social disruption that would ensue if the hair-shaving practice became widespread in order to stem the transmission of the disease. Without differential hair length, what are they going  to do?  Walking around topless certainly would be useless for sex-identification there. Genital examination may be useful – possibly – but that’s going too far for a casual interaction. Serious stuff there. Definitely not a “nothingburger.”  Particularly for the HBDers and the Silkers.  How are they going to choose their future mates and/or border guards of the West?

Gaslighting Greg and Other News, 12/19/19

Odds and ends.

MAGA!  Pepe!  Kek!  Hey!  Trump needs to survive the Senate trial – after all, Kanye West, Kim Kardashian, and Benjamin Netanyahu no doubt have more policy objectives they need fulfilled.

Ronnie Raygun himself was standing up to the Soviet Union, not “Russia,” and Jewish liberal congressmen were fighting Reagan every step of the way on that.

See this. Do you need any more demonstration of why conservatives always lose?  Look, I despise Trump, but consider – when have American liberal Democrats EVER organized an effort – never mind an actual PAC – to oust a sitting Democrat President, even at the cost of also having Republicans take Congress as well as the Presidency?  Never. The Left may fight among themselves, but when it comes to a showdown with the Right – even rightist frauds like Trump – they come together and make common cause. Leave it to the cuckservative Right to make common cause with the Left against a Republican President.

Sallis right once again.  I told you that the real problem with drugs was NOT “Big Pharma injecting vaccines into people” but instead the endlessly prescribed maintenance medicine Americas are being drugged with.  But, alas, the vaccines – that actually are necessary and do good – come from those scary needles, while the drug pushers have the nice appeal of simple-to-swallow pills to entice the zombies with.  Any comments, Strom?

That’s all we need, more Spencer in the news.

Once again, the Type Is shill for winter and cold weather.  You know, like Duke living in Louisiana and Zman living in Baltimore.  Jeelvy can always leave the Balkans and immigrate to Alaska.  All these guys do is constantly rehash The Fate of Northernkind ADV broadcast.  I don’t know – Neolithic Jeelvy may not have all of his winterish bonafides in order.  Not a true northerner, Jeelvy, you swarthoid.

H. Keith Thompson did have one characteristic that would have allowed him to fit in well with Counter-Currents, and it was NOT his pan-Europeanism.

Gaslighting Greg (emphasis added):

When Brexit won and I heard “Land of Hope and Glory” played at one of the celebrations, I found myself tearing up, much to my surprise. Of course, it makes sense. England is my ancestral homeland. 

And that’s why Johnson has a sinecure as a Quota Queen leader, due to Der Movement’s ethnic affirmative action policy.  Of course, if Johnson were to move to Europe, he’d likely go to Hungary, not England.  

Let’s see: Johnson, Spencer, Duke, Pierce, Taylor, Brimelow, Derbyshire – the variation in ethnic ancestry there is matched only by the variation in their level of success (or lack thereof).

But actually feeling it came as a surprise. It was one of those “Welcome to the human race” experiences.

You’re not there yet, Greg.

I was similarly delighted with the outcome of the latest UK general elections, which was good for the National Populism and ethnonationalism not just in Great Britain but around the world.

Ethnonationalism!  Less Poles and more Blacks and Brownsters!  Forward Rotherham, forward!

White nations want National Populism: sensible social conservativism + a state that is willing to intervene in the economy to protect the working and middle classes from plutocracy and globalization. The cosmopolitan elites that rule us want just the opposite: social liberalism + globalization and oligarchy.

If White nations want National Populism – true National Populism – all they need to do is vote for it.  That they have not yet done so (Boris Johnson is no true National Populist) shows that Johnson is full of it.

Thus our ruling elites have made an art of not giving the voters what they want. In 2016, the UK voted for Brexit, and the political establishment has done everything in its power not to deliver it. In 2016, the American people voted for National Populism and elected Donald Trump, but the political establishment simply dug in its heels against Trump’s National Populist agenda, although they did allow him to deliver tax cuts to billionaires, pardons to Jewish criminals, and basically anything Benjamin Netanyahu asked for.

Hey!  I thought that Trump is a sincere man of genuine greatness!  Which is it, Greg?  And how did those “ruling elites” become rulers in the first place?

As an ethnonationalist, I support the right of all European peoples to their own sovereign homelands.

Except Hungarians.

Different peoples, even closely related ones, really are different.

John Morgan is different from native Hungarians. When is he leaving that nation and allowing Hungarians to have homogeneity and sovereignty?

Thus they are more likely to come into conflict if they have to live in the same system. If England and Wales want to leave the EU and Scotland and Northern Ireland don’t, then the only way for all parties to get their way is to break up the UK.

Then we can separate West and East England, and then North and South England.

A common objection to secession movements in our circles is that Brexit or Scottish independence won’t really change immigration. But if immigration will happen with or without Brexit, then it is not really a relevant issue in the first place.

Johnson is such a despicably dishonest gaslighter than it is truly breathtaking. Johnson leaves out that all of the leading UK Brexit leaders support “Commonwealth” immigration of Blacks and Browns, and that the only immigration they don’t like is intra-European.  Boris Johnson – very English he! – is all for more immigration.  Immigration may occur with or without Brexit, but the choice will between Poles and non-Whites. True enough, Poles don’t belong in the UK either, but if we accept Johnson’s blithe shrugging off of immigration occurring no matter what, then the less damaging immigration streams should be accepted.

Brexit will, however, allow the British to set their own immigration policies rather than Brussels.

Indeed.  Fewer Polish plumbers and more Pakistani child sex groomers.

Scottish independence will allow the Scots to set their own policies rather than London. Under such circumstances, the policies they choose may not suit you, but they are more likely to suit the UK or Scotland.

Or Nigeria and Pakistan.

White freedom and self-determination will happen one white nation at a time. Thus White Nationalists should applaud Brexit and Scottish independence because they uphold the ethnonationalist principle and demonstrate that national sovereignty can be attained without violence. We want as many such precedents as possible.

Yes, and then maybe Hungary can deport Morgan.

The British people have spoken, yet again. But Boris Johnson’s battle has just begun. Now he has to keep his promises in the teeth of the globalist establishment that opposes him. Nationalists of all nations wish him well.

Particularly African and South Asian nationalists who want their co-ethnics to colonize the UK.

Politics, as they say, is the art of the possible. There is no better proof that something is possible than an example of it being actual. When Brexit passed, suddenly it became conceivable in the minds of millions that Trump could be elected. And surely that change of sentiment actually helped him get elected.

I thought that the “Alt-Right memed Trump into the Presidency?”

Boris Johnson’s victory now makes Donald Trump’s re-election seem possible, and that makes it more likely. 

And yet another reason to utterly despise Johnson and his fundamental dishonesty.  It was only a few months ago that he was stating “Trump is toast in 2020 no matter what” (no matter what!) and “He will lose in a landslide.” You know, the usual Type I Quota Queen absolute certitude and arrogance that I criticized him for here back then.  Now, of course, he pretends he never wrote that, and so “..makes Donald Trump’s re-election seem possible.”  And “more likely.”  More likely, no matter what, I’m sure. Why oh why do all you nitwits out there still support Counter-Currents and send them money?

I have linked to this before, but it is worth listening to again.

Mudshift Part II

Salter takes on Kaufmann again.

I have previously discussed Salter’s excellent Part I analysis of Eric Kaufmann’s anti-White screed Whiteshift. I will now evaluate part II of Salter’s analysis. Excerpts (emphasis added) are presented below, with my comments. You are also encouraged to read Salter’s original entire Part I and Part II essays, linked to above. 

I: Introduction

In Part One of this review, published in Quadrant (September 2019), I set out the thesis of Eric Kaufmann’s book, Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities, and connected it to his earlier writings. In this second part I expand on some points of criticism. I noted that Whiteshift repeats the view originally expressed in Kaufmann’s 2004 book, The Rise and Fall of Anglo America (2004) that left liberal elites should allow conservative whites to express their identity. In Whiteshift he adds that if whites wish, they should be allowed to huddle together as their societies inexorably become majority non-white and panmix into hybrid populations. “Unmixed whites may persist in rural backwaters, Eastern Europe and a few tight-knit diasporas”.1 

Hey!  Why allow those isolated White populations, Kaufmann?  I’m sure you can do some nice social engineering to make sure the populations of “rural backwaters, Eastern Europe and a few tight-knit diasporas” also become bizarre hybrids such as yourself. That’s what it’s all about, isn’t it? Embittered hybrids, seething with animus toward the original Old World population stocks, particularly those from Europe, can never be at peace with themselves and their inner turmoil, with their constantly warring internal nature, unless they work to make everyone as miserable as they are.

Kaufmann thinks that cosmopolitan values such as non-discriminatory immigration and rule by post-ethnic liberal elites are non-negotiable. 

He thinks that because that is what he wants. Whenever you read or hear someone state that some social, political, or demographic trend is “inevitable” that is because that is what they want to occur. It’s “non-negotiable” after all.  Kaufmann is a mixed-race hybrid with an apparent animus toward unmixed Whites; thus, for him, long-term racial preservation is unacceptable.

But the chains of political correctness should be loosened a bit, at least while white conservatives have the numbers and resources to fight back. Otherwise they could become restless and disrupt the transition to a borderless hybridised global society.

Kaufmann’s genocidal objective is therefore confirmed. His body of work is all about hoodwinking Whites to get them to acquiesce to racial dispossession. A key diagnostic tool to identify anti-White genocidal criminals is this – do they promote memes that delay White response to dispossession so that it will be too late for Whites to save themselves?  For example, that is the key to “race denial” propaganda. After all, the only target for such propaganda are Whites – who else believes such nonsense?  Not the people who peddle that stupidity – do you really think that any educated and informed person really believes that “race is a social construct with no biological basis?”  The whole objective of the “there is no such thing as race” paradigm is simply to confuse gullible Whites, to delay a response to their racial dispossession, to make Whites believe nothing will be lost if they are replaced, to disrupt racial solidarity, etc. – it’s a delaying tactic. Once racial dispossession is irreversible, believe me, the “there is no such thing as race” nonsense will evaporate.  It’s a political tactic with a political objective. The same applies to calling “The Great Replacement” a “conspiracy theory” while at the same time crowing about declining White demographics. Kaufmann’s entire body of work on race is nothing more or less than a delaying tactic to prevent a full-throated White response to dispossession, to ensure that dispossession is irreversible before Whites fully realize what is happening to them.

His message to fellow cosmopolitans is, if you want to avoid future Trumps and Brexits, then take your boot off the neck of white ethnics while they have some kick left in them. But the pressure should only be released symbolically. Whites should on no account be permitted to erect pro-white or pro-Christian immigration policies. Let them preserve some dignity but under no circumstances allow them to remain white.

I am gratified to see that Salter is taking a tougher line with Kaufmann in Part II. That is generally consistent with my own view of Kaufmann – that view being that he is a White-hating genocidal lunatic, guilty of crimes against humanity. Kaufmann should be tried in international court, with the same sanctions on the table for a guilty verdict as existed at the Nuremberg trials post- WWII.

If you think this criticism of Kaufmann is too extreme, or in some other way unfair, consider this from my previous Mudshift essay:

In another publication, Changing Places (2014), he and his co-author Gareth Harris described and attempted to explain the extremely high level of white opposition to immigration in England and Wales (80 per cent).[22] They searched for ways to “remedy” this opposition. In other words, they treated white opposition to mass immigration as a problem to be solved, not as the expression of legitimate ethnic interests or democratic will.  

That is the ENTIRE point of my criticism of Kaufmann. His work is an attempt to “remedy” the “problem” of White opposition of racial extinction.  Whether or not his “remedy” can work or not is immaterial with respect to his moral and legal accountability in promoting White genocide.  By the standards established at international courts, starting at Nuremberg, why is Kaufmann not a criminal?

Back to Salter:

In Part One I also discussed some major implications of Kaufmann’s analysis. The first is his assessment that white ethnics were subordinated by left liberal elites decades ago, a thesis documented in The Rise and Fall of Anglo America. Whites’ marginalisation within the establishment allowed their opponents to dismantle pro-white restrictions in the 1960s and 1970s in the U.S., Canada and Australasia. Kaufmann’s description of white majorities as “dominant ethnicities” just means they are in the majority, not that they are dominant.

The second implication is that whites still have the possibility to resist their demographic submergence. Why else seek to placate white rebelliousness? As Kaufmann stated in an interview about Whiteshift, the reason progressives should not push against white identity is that doing so only produces more white identity, and this translates into greater support for nationalist populism, such as Trump’s election victory.2

Kaufmann is, in my opinion, guilty of crimes against humanity. He is, in my opinion, a vicious, hateful, anti-White genocidal lunatic. Question – if White “demographic submergence” is so obviously “inevitable” then why do people like Kaufmann work so hard to make sure it occurs?  Why, for example, search for “remedies” to White opposition to immigration to the UK?  I mean, it’s “inevitable,” right?  Does it matter if hapless Whites object?

Even ostensibly conservative governments such as Australia’s Liberal-National coalition have relied on the formalities of citizenship to engender social cohesion. This fallacious approach has become a mainstay of multicultural theory, probably because it helps justify indiscriminate largescale immigration.

Why “ostensibly” conservative?  Conservatism is a defeatist ideology and is certainly not incompatible with mass immigration.

Though Kaufmann is no identitarian, in his own way he adopts some of the cosmopolitan, universalist components of Mill and Bryce. Now some critical remarks.

II: Pop Evolutionary Psychology

Kaufmann’s attempt to connect genetic fitness to policy choices is amateurish. He dips into evolutionary psychology now and then, for example to report twin studies indicating that political orientation has a large genetic component. It is a pity he did not use more of that discipline.

Kaufmann does acknowledge that favouring those who share our genes paid off in the evolutionary past, but contends that in mass societies it pays off, presumably in fitness terms, to “transcend narrow tribalism”.9 A typical scenario, he states, was when a society was conquered and its members confronted with difficult choices: “Those who repressed their tribalism to adapt to these larger units may have been able to pass their genes on more effectively.”10 

Kaufmann is being so mendacious here, it is almost unthinkable that this is not an intentional anti-White display of sophistry.  Expansion of tribalism to large units is adaptive only if the population components of the larger units are relatively genetically similar and if adaption to the large units does not result in genetic dispossession and enormous losses of ethnic genetic interests for the constituent tribes. Consolidation of closely related European tribes into nation states does note equate to creating “nations” based on mixing radically different continental population groups.

This scenario lacks theoretical grounding. Instead of citing authorities on the subject he relies on a non-specialist, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. When discussing evolution he relies on Richard Dawkins, a populariser who throughout his career misrepresented and politicised the evolutionary analysis of ethnicity.11 Ignored is William D. Hamilton, a founder of sociobiology who also developed a theory of ethnic solidarity in the 1960s and 1970s.12 Hamilton’s theory of inclusive fitness is a mainstream evolutionary approach to understanding altruism among kin. Since ethnic groups show substantial kinship between members, their growth and decline affect members’ fitness. Kaufmann’s genetic argument would have been more convincing if he had compared the aggregate kinship of families and ethnic groups.13 That would have helped him ask a better question. Would conquered individuals pass on more of their gene variants by forsaking their children or their fellow ethnics or striking a balance between the two strategies? Answering that question requires consideration of the number of copies of gene variants carried by families and ethnic groups. Kaufmann also needed to consider the genetic difference between conqueror and conquered. Accepting incorporation of one’s family or tribe into another would have less fitness cost if the conqueror were closely related because a similar gene pool carries many copies of the conquered people’s genes. The same goes for accepting immigration.

Kaufmann’s weakness in evolutionary theory leads him to advocate grossly maladaptive policies, ones that do not preserve group reproductive interests. He does not take seriously the issue of genetic fitness, the ultimate criterion of adaptiveness. Cultural fitness is reduced to retaining a few myths and reminders of Christianity. Kaufmann’s model conservative is someone complacent about the fate of his ethnic kin so long as some cultural markers are passed on.

Salter very effectively summarizes the EGI argument and why Kaufmann is an outrageous liar. The EGI Firewall is a key principle here – the “model conservative is someone complacent about the fate of his ethnic kin so long as some cultural markers are passed on” scenario would be impossible if preservation of EGI was considered an absolute requirement for any political scenario.

III: No Conflicts of Interest

Kaufmann’s poor evolutionary psychology allows him to avoid the tough political and ethical issues that arise when interests collide. He maintains that compromises are possible without describing the various interests of ethnic groups and cosmopolitans. His call for tolerance of white identity is compatible with evolutionary principles. But it is absurd to pretend that ethnic group fitness is unaffected by receiving replacement-level immigration. To acknowledge that mass immigration can be an existential threat necessities discussion of the large store of genetic kinship found within ethnic groups.

I doubt Kaufmann is really unaware of this.  I believe that he simply wants replacement-level immigration to occur.

The reality is that racial diversification of white societies harms their group fitness because it encourages intra-societal conflict and reduces the relative size of their gene pools. In avoiding that loss it can be necessary to cause others to lose out. Win-win outcomes are not always available. Kaufmann expects common descent to continue its path of diminishing importance. National cohesion, he suggests, will be based on cultural more than racial similarity. 

But that of course will apply only to previously White nations.  One cannot but help notice that Kaufmann is not writing books entitled Jewshift or Yellowshift, he doesn’t target other groups for his agenda. A purely cultural definition of “national cohesion” only applies to what used to be the West.

True? Let us examine his argument.

Early in his book Kaufmann defines ethnicity. An ethnic group consists of individuals who believe they descend from the same ancestors, “and differentiate themselves from others through one or more cultural markers: language, racial appearance or religion.” Thus he appears to include racial ethnic markers as cultural, a fundamental error. But a few pages further on he states: “Physical differences likewise erode only over generations, through intermarriage”,14 which implies that racial differences are genetic. To resolve the conflict Kaufmann states: “Cultural tradition, not genes, tells us which markers matter and which don’t.” That is true to a degree.

Only to a degree.  Do we need culture to recognize the important differences between, say, Derbyshire and “Rosie?”

As Kaufmann says, the prominence of different markers can be raised or lowered culturally.

So why can’t we use culture to heighten racial distinctions?

On the other hand, racial recognition is universal to the species, slow to change and in some respects hard wired. 

IV: Ethnic interests undeveloped

Also notable is Kaufmann’s undeveloped the concept of ethnic interests. He does not go much further than a head count. A basic ethnic interest is the welfare and status of fellow ethnics, the driving motive of the civil rights movement in the United States. Another is simply feeling at home among a particular people, usually one’s own. 

A fundamental ethnic interest is control of a territory with which a people identifies. Perhaps the most intractable conflicts are between ethnic groups that lay claim to the same homeland, such as in Palestine. 

And yet Kaufmann is not writing books suggesting that Israeli Jews will – and should – become dispossessed and hybridized out of existence, and that some faint memories of “Jewish culture” can bring “national cohesion” to an Israel in which ethnic Jews no longer exist.

Another ethnic interest is inter-generational ties and traditions, including religion, and their reproduction down the generations. Describing these interests would have reinforced Kaufmann’s assertion that civic nationalism is a weak tie compared to ethno-nationalism.

Someone who is familiar with the sociobiological analysis of ethnicity should have been alert to research into ethnic interests. Kaufmann discusses Pierre van den Berghe’s theory of ethnic nepotism, which is a fine start. Richard Dawkins, who he references more than van den Berghe, is not a serious researcher of ethnicity or race. Unreferenced altogether are biosocial scientists such as Irenaeus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Robin Fox, William Hamilton, Henry Harpending, Doug Jones, Richard Lynn, Kevin MacDonald, Philippe Rushton, Tatu Vanhanen, Michael Woodley of Menie, and more. 

Some of those are/were frauds and/or incompetents. Others are/were fine people.  Irenaeus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, William Hamilton, Henry Harpending – those I know are/were good quality academics.  The others are either people I do not know or those that I unfortunately know all too well.

Kaufmann should be informing his readers that ethnic groups are reproductive interests for their members because they are pools of genetic kinship analogous to families. That makes ethnic stratification doubly upsetting and radicalising because it signals that some kin groups have higher status than others.

Due to patchy use of evolutionary psychology, Whiteshift downplays race as an ethnic marker. That was settled decades ago, for example by van den Berghe’s analysis of ethnic identity and J. P. Rushton’s analysis of the sub-conscious attraction of similarity. 

Given Dutton’s work of Rushton, it may not be the best strategy to invoke Rushton here, even if this component of his work was not fraudulent.

In both these theories racial markers are recognised along with cultural and linguistic ones.

Despite agreeing that racial characteristics are genetically inherited, Kaufmann denies that white identity has a genetic component.19 He writes: “Whites are not primarily attached to those of their race because they are genetically closer to these people: there are no discrete biological races so our tribal impulses have no obvious boundaries.”

This is a form of moronic race denial, which has been addressed at this blog many times. Here Kaufmann reveals his cards, since race denial is a typical “delaying tactic” aimed specifically at Whites, to confuse Whites’ sense of racial identity (and solidarity) just long enough for the process of racial dispossession to become irreversible.

This reflects Dawkins. It is muddled in three ways. First, it dodges the question whether there is a genetic component by diverting to whether it is “primary” and clearly demarcated. But ethnic attachment need not be primary in any way to be significant. Ethnic attachment is usually a weak social force compared to family bonds, but influential when multiplied across populations. Kaufmann’s statement is incomplete concerning boundaries. Yes, racial boundaries are often blurred but they are frequently razor sharp. When closely related peoples mingle it can be difficult to tell them apart. But when races and cultures meet that have been separated for many thousands of years and form geographical races, the contrast is usually apparent to all. And recall that race is but one ethnic marker. Cultural boundaries are usually more disjunctive.

This last part is important and touches upon a point I have made many times here. It is not just race, not just ethnicity, not just culture, not just phenotype. It are all these things together, interacting synergistically, that determine Identity, and when all of these distinctions are considered together, at the same time, boundaries can become disjunctive. Try convincing Chinese vs. Japanese or Israeli Jews vs. Palestinian Arabs that the boundaries between them are fuzzy and “blurred.”  The flim-flam is only targeted to Whites, if you haven’t already noticed.

The concept of genetic relatedness also needs clarification. Ethnicities are descent groups whose members therefore have some degree of genetic similarity. That fact should be explored, not obscured.

Kaufmann wants to obscure the fact, because he has an anti-White genocidal agenda.  By the definitions of the UN Genocide Convention, Kaufmann is a criminal.

V: Ethno-nationalist Intellectuals

Kaufmann’s scholarship is also deficient regarding ethnic nationalism, perhaps explaining his dismissal of related policies. His coverage of conservative thinkers is extensive, but not of ethno-nationalists. For example, he mentions white advocate Jared Taylor, a leader of the ethno-nationalist movement in the U.S., but fails to examine any of his ideas. He does not mention Kevin MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist and a leading theoretician of white ethnic nationalism. These two intellectuals’ ideas correspond to two gaps in Kaufmann’s analysis.

The main thread in Jared Taylor’s world view is “race realism”, acceptance of scientific findings on population differences. Related disciplines include physical and evolutionary anthropology, psychometrics, and behavioural endocrinology. 

Readers of this blog are aware of my criticisms of the work of Taylor and MacDonald.  I have outlined numerous logical and factual flaws in “HBD race realism” and have discussed the political motivations behind HBD.  One needs to make a clear distinction between real racial science and HBD.

No subject has been subjected to more intense cultural warfare or stronger taboos than race differences The Marxist left insists on universal equality and elements of the right insist on difference. An associated debate concerns the heritability of IQ differences. Again, the left denies robust heritability and the right accepts the results of mainstream psychometrics on the subject. Taylor argues that racial differences make some populations incompatible, for example due to differences in intelligence and crime.

As Taylor tells us, East Asians are “more intelligent” than Whites, and “have lower crime rates.” Are they then compatible with White societies?  Or should Whites step aside and let themselves be disposed by “high-IQ” “cognitive elites” from Asia and elsewhere? I would argue instead that populations are incompatible when they derive from different continental population groups and different High Cultures (civilizations).  It’s both due to genetic kinship as well as deep culture.

Kaufmann does not discuss any of Taylor’s ideas, despite stating that group differences are important for assessing immigrants. Kaufmann declares about the migrants who entered Europe in 2015: “I am sure they are disproportionately endowed with entrepreneurship, intelligence and grit.”

Even if that was true, so what? Do Europeans have to be race-replaced because the invaders have a lot of “intelligence and grit?”  Besides that, the fact that Kaufmann is so obviously wrong about the main streams of immigration into Europe, his characterization of the migrants is so comically absurd, that it reflects upon his fundamental dishonesty. He sounds just like the Clement Dio character in The Camp of the Saints.

Retired psychology professor Kevin MacDonald is not mentioned by Kaufmann, despite being in the intellectual vanguard of white ethno-nationalism in the United States. In The Culture of Critique, a peer reviewed monograph published in 1998, MacDonald argued that a number of Jewish intellectual movements led the assault on white identity in the twentieth century.22 In Whiteshift Kaufmann denies seeing any systematic evidence of Jewish influence on liberal immigration, a subject MacDonald has extensively researched.23 Kaufmann is aware of this because he publicly debated MacDonald on the subject in 2009.24

I’m not going to repeat my criticisms of MacDonald here. I will say that Kaufmann is part Jewish in ancestry and therefore may have a personal objection to realistically considering what Salter rightfully terms the “Jewish influence on liberal immigration.”

A serious review of ethno-nationalism would have included a broad spectrum of contributions, some inadvertent, to the empirical, theoretical and ethical analysis of the phenomenon. Contributors have included political scientist Jerry Z. Muller (The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism), sociologist Ricardo Duchesne (The Uniqueness of Western Civilization), Jared Taylor, the popular vDare.com website and a number of alt-right intellectuals. 

Isn’t “alt-right intellectuals” an oxymoron?  The work of Salter himself would be better.  Ted Sallis would be better.  Strom would be better.

And that’s only in the U.S. Many more could be chosen from Europe, such as three recently deceased scholars: Guillaume Faye26 in France, Tatu Vanhanen27 in Finland, and Irenaeus Eibl-Eibesfeldt in Germany. This would inevitably have raised issues not adequately discussed in Whiteshift, such as the sociobiology of ethnic solidarity. It is disappointing that Kaufmann draws disproportionately on authors who are within the cosmopolitan tent such as Dawkins and ignores better informed conservative analysts.

I wouldn’t necessarily classify those analysts as “conservatives.”  And Kaufmann ignores them because he’s a hack, a fraud, a political soldier fighting for the cause of White genocide.

Weakness of theory might have caused Kaufmann to write-off white nation states. 

Salter is being too charitable here.  Kaufmann writes off “white nation states” because he does not want any to exist.  Ultimately, he does not want Whites to exist.  In a fair world, Kaufmann would be on trial for crimes against humanity.

An example is his prognosis, discussed in Part One of this review, that white ethnic states are impossible because the worldwide white population will decline to become a “speck” by the end of the century. This overlooks a point that any of the aforenamed intellectuals could have provided, that borders can perpetuate national identity.

It’s not “overlooked.”  He does not want White national identities perpetuated.  He wants them destroyed.

VI: The Inevitability of Replacement Migration

Kaufmann portrays immigration as unstoppable, except where it has been stopped. 

Of course.

He explains why he limits his analysis to Western Europe and the Anglosphere. “[I]mmigration is less important outside the West because migrants tend to avoid or pass through Eastern European states.” (Chapter 1) 

That proves that Kaufmann is an incredibly dishonest (and despicably evil) piece of filth. He purposely avoids talking about successful defense against immigration, simply because he does not want Whites to put up such a defense.  This reminds me of Kaufmann’s (partial) co-ethnic Alon Ziv. In his book extolling the wonders of racial admixture, Ziv left out academic studies (e.g., Udry) showing mixed-race youths having all sorts of mental and physical problems. When called out about that on Majority Rights, Ziv engaged in the same sort of swarmy Levantine hand waving dishonesty as Kaufmann, which demonstrates a political agenda and a complete lack of honest academic and intellectual rigor.  Is lying in their blood?

This omits to describe Hungary’s and Poland’s tough border protection policies. It seems that majority white society is doomed only in those societies that fail to control immigration. 

Thus, Kaufmann’s agenda is telling Whites that they cannot control immigration. Once again, Kaufmann WANTS “white society” to be “doomed.”

This blind spot in Kaufmann’s analysis occurs despite his zeroing in on immigration as the central cause of rising white populism.

Oh, he knows very well what he is doing. It is not a “blind spot.”

A cause of white populism, Kaufmann argues, is that for decades the major parties have refused to offer the public the choice of slowing non-white immigration. This has led to rapid ethnic change and created an opening for populist politicians, such as Trump and Nigel Farage. Kaufmann’s suggestion that pro-white politics is limited to populism is condescending. In the past it was normal for white people, like people around the world, to support restricting immigration. In Western democracies that involved voting for centrist politicians. Less than a century ago in Australia and the United States large numbers voted for labour parties that defended the white working class against low-wage non-white immigrants. The immigration issue was central to the early Labor Party in Australia, where the White Australia Policy remained in the Party platform until the 1960s. In the U.S. the great union leader Samuel Gompers was steadfastly restrictionist regarding non-white immigration. From the beginning of the Republic immigrant was limited to free white persons. From the late nineteenth century Asiatic immigration was restricted, and from 1924 to 1965 a quota system was enacted to restrict immigration to traditional European source countries. Expulsion also occurred. In the early 1950s large numbers of illegal Mexican immigrants to the U.S. were repatriated, culminating in over a million deportations under Operation Wetback in 1954. That was during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, an establishment conservative.

All true.

Kaufmann is open to mainstream parties using immigration policies to court white conservative votes. However, he does not countenance them stopping immigration. The legitimate choice, he thinks, is between moderate and high intakes. 

Basically he wants the parties to hoodwink their constituents.  Kaufmann is evil.  Let’s not avoid moral condemnation where and when moral condemnation is justified.  Kaufmann is, in my opinion, much, much worse than someone who is openly and radically anti-White. There the poison is obvious. Kaufmann wants to sugarcoat then poison so that the victim more readily consumes it.

Repatriation is out of the question partly because this would involve “hunting down those of mixed-race background”.28 

Like Kaufmann himself!  Do we need more evidence that Kaufmann’s ultimate motivation is his inner angst about being mixed-race?  Rather than blame his ancestors, he lashes out against all of us instead.

This leads Kaufmann to envisage the large scale hybridisation he calls whiteshift.

Promote, not just “envisage.”

VII: The Inevitability of White Disappearance

Kaufmann argues that thorough racial mixing is inevitable sooner or later. 

Only for Whites of course.  China can continue being China.

This is a big theme in Whiteshift, inspiring the book’s title. He asks whether white societies will be able to retain their cohesion and escape civil war even as they become highly diverse and then thoroughly hybridised. He thinks they can.

Translation – he wants them to.

Hybridity is essential to Kaufmann’s argument. It helps bridge the gap between relatively homogeneous white societies and their mixed race futures. He proposes that, during the (present) first phase, whites should be able to vent their identity anxieties in harmless ways. In the end-phase, when non-whites are in the majority, the dynamics of hybridity will take over. Kaufmann argues that Western countries’ mixed race populations will identify as white when they become majorities, which he expects to happen by the end of the present century. White ancestry will occupy the foreground of mixed-race identities. When it does, Kaufmann thinks this will allow ethno-traditionalists, conservatives who do not care about race or culture beyond core myths, to feel secure. To them the transformation in genes and culture will not appear threatening.

Kaufmann is an incredibly evil man, a deranged genocidal lunatic.  

This hybridity argument is logical to a point. Naturally some mixing is occurring and will continue. Kaufmann’s ideas about how hybridity will be received are interesting. But he is not convincing when discussing the reaction of ethnic nepotists, individuals who cannot be placated by vestiges of race and culture. He writes them off. For them Kaufmann’s vision is doubly unattractive because he offers no principled way for whites to limit the impact of immigration. He objects to ethnically-based immigration restriction, the only tried and tested method by which national identity can be preserved. Nor does Whiteshift foresee or urge limits to hybridisation. He insists that resistance is hopeless…

Because he wants it to be hopeless.  He wants everyone to be admixed like himself.  Misery loves company.

…declaring that white majorities will become mixed race with or without immigration. 

Interesting thought experiment: Imagine an all-White nation with no immigration.  How will the population become hybridized?  Kaufmann’s wishful thinking?  Or is that that previous influxes have already doomed us even in the absence of further immigration? What about separatism?  Repatriation?

But he then adds that, of course, the degree of admixture will be sensitive to the scale of immigration.

Can we just stop immigration?

This raises interesting questions not adequately treated in Whiteshift. Shall whiteness remain the foreground identity for individuals who are at least, say, half or three quarters white? Or shall ethno-traditionalists be so flexible that they will feel white no matter how marginal their European ancestry and appearance? Kaufmann is unclear. For him there is no line in the sand, no limit to the Third World swamping of white countries, as long as the process is peaceful. In effect he is smoothing the pillow of a dying people. 

He is a genocidal criminal. He needs to put on trial for crimes against humanity.  He is a monster.

He cannot imagine an ethical way for white nations (and only white nations) to continue.

Because he does not want them to continue. White racial preservation is an affront to his mongrel ancestry.

These considerations help us judge Kaufmann’s equanimity in predicting a mixed-race West in one or two centuries. His is a simple extrapolation of population trends over recent decades, a period when cosmopolitan and corporate globalism were triumphant, when European nations were shedding sovereignty to join the European Union super state, when the media’s and universities’ top-down cultural revolutions had taken over the establishment… So we should beware predictions made by a cosmopolitan at the height of cosmopolitan power. Kaufmann admits that linear extrapolations are fallible. Perhaps mass diverse migration will peak and even reverse. We should consider other possibilities. 

Kaufmann opposes those other possibilities.

Another possible future global system might arise from the attractions of social cohesion and belonging. “Normative endogamy” – the expectation of marrying within the group – is universally associated with ethnic identity, though the degree of endogamy varies from culture to culture. Perhaps the mixing of populations will follow the same pattern as that shown within the United States, where ethnic assimilation has occurred much faster within the major races than between them. American sociologist Richard Alba was among the first to notice that white ethnic groups marry each other, as do Blacks, faster than they marry outside their race.31

Many in the “movement” apparently believe we are instead living in 1919 and not 2019, and no intra-White ethnic assimilation has taken place (e.g., in America).

VIII: Naïve Treatment of Anti-white Politics

Kaufmann does not much explore anti-white politics. He attributes the taboo on white identity to left liberal and corporate ideology. There are surely other motives as well. One is religious or racial xenophobia fed by historical grudges…

Like Jews, such as Kaufmann (partially) and Ziv (fully).

…for example due to colonialism in earlier centuries. Another is perception of group competition. Globalist ideologies often portray white nations as obstacles. The United Nations has a long-standing anti-Western bias. Another anti-white motive is feuding among white ethnic groups and nations. The centuries-long conflict between the Irish and the English is an example. These motives were never grounded in reason alone, but in defence of identity, status and homeland. 

And the petty nationalist ethnonationalists admire and promote this “feuding among white ethnic groups and nations.”  They are enemies as well.

Defending whites on the basis of fairness or the common good will not always overcome such intense motivations.

Motivations such as Kaufmann’s personal bitterness over his own ancestry and phenotype.

The same political naivety is evident when Kaufmann tries to answer the excellent question of why white resistance to hostile state elites has been a long time coming, especially in the U.S. He thinks it is due to spontaneous identity processes and the dispersal of immigrants in the U.S., which have not challenged white identity as acutely as in Europe. Nowhere does he connect the delay to hegemonic anti-white cultural elites.

Elites such as Kaufmann himself.  Didn’t he work to attempt to suppress White identity processes? – see the description of Changing Places above.

Elsewhere Kaufmann describes how cosmopolitan elites manipulated public opinion. 

Exactly as Kaufmann himself is trying to do.

The political naivety of Whiteshift is also evident in its weak comparison of policies across states. Kaufmann’s horror repatriation scenario of “hunting down” non-whites does not apply to successful ethnic nations. How do Japan and Israel cope? They are not afflicted by police brutality or mass door-to-door sweeps. They seem untroubled by moral panics, despite the usual dramaturgy from radical left commentators. Neither are they authoritarian states. Their overseas diasporas, free of any coercion, do not condemn their homelands’ immigration policies. It seems that liberalism and ethnic nationalism are not as incompatible as Kaufmann thinks. It is not uncommon for immigrant communities to promote left liberal policies in their adopted societies while simultaneously barracking for ethno-nationalist policies in their home countries. Kaufmann does not discuss the lessons this could teach white majorities.

The solution to this apparent paradox is simple. To Kaufmann, Israel and Japan can, and should, continue to exist as ethnostates.  He has no problem with Jewish or Asian racial preservationism.  His target is Whites. The existence of Whites as Whites seems to enrage folks like Kaufmann and invoke in them a righteous fury that finds no satisfaction except in the dispossession and destruction of Whites as a distinct race.

Kaufmann contemplates a centuries-long assimilation process without discussing all the risks attending balkanisation. He properly notes some negative effects of ethno-religious diversity, but leaves some big ones unmentioned. Race differences is one omission, as discussed. Neither does he discuss the loyalty of immigrant communities. This is especially relevant to Australia, whose neighbours have much larger populations. Should Australian governments continue building up the Chinese and Indian immigrant communities while China and India become powerful regional military actors? Fifth columns and agents of influence have caused serious problems for democracies in living memory. Already China has been criticised for manipulating its diasporas around the world to advance its goals. The same is true of Turkey and its diaspora in Europe. Both attempt to mobilise their diasporas to bring Western countries to heel. So the loyalty of those diasporas is a legitimate issue of investigation. Yet Kaufmann does not discuss the subject. He does not advise white majorities how to protect themselves. He even disapproves of pro-majority immigration, the default policy for the rest of the world. How can white majorities have a future if non-discriminatory immigration leads to their nations losing independence? Whiteshift’s omission of the links between immigration-induced diversity, foreign policy, and national security is a large hole in its analysis.

Kaufmann does not want them to have a future.

IX: Cosmopolitan Elites’ Right to Rule

It is also naïve to assume that cosmopolitans should rule. In Part One I noted that Kaufmann treats left liberal elites as uniformly motivated by cosmopolitan values. Uniformity is a quality he does not attribute to white conservatives, among whom he discerns psychological and ideological differences. He makes further questionable assumptions around this subject.

Kaufmann is aware of van den Berghe’s theory of ethnic nepotism but thinks that only conservatives, not liberals, generalise their intimate nepotistic ties to the national level. “…Kaufmann’s cosmopolitan bias is to present anti-white elites as immovable givens that must be accommodated. At no point does he signpost the alternate pathway of white rebellion and liberation. For him populist nationalism really is deplorable.

That is because he is mixed-race and therefore cannot stand the continued existence of unmixed Whites. People like him have a deep psychological urge to admix everyone, particularly Whites, so as to reduce the inner pain of their own existence.

Whiteshift would have been improved if it had broadened its audience to include white majorities, not just left liberals. 

Kaufmann’s real audience is left liberals and the instruction he gives them is how to more efficiently and safely exterminate Whites as a distinct race.  

White ethnics need advice on how to handle their left liberal persecutors.

Persecutors like Kaufmann.

From their perspective the question is how to deal with intolerant and powerful opponents…

Like Kaufmann

…how to placate them when necessary and how to dissuade them from their ambition to have whites disappear. 

Can we first dissuade Kaufmann?  Can we assure him there is a place in the world for his own bizarre and grotesque hybridization and reason with him that promoting White genocide through mass migration and hybridization will not, ultimately, really make him comfortable with his own ancestry?  Kaufmann’s real, authentic struggle is an internal, personal one, not an external, political one. Whites are not to blame for Kaufmann being Kaufmann.

Whites need strategic advice. For example, if they defeat their leftist and minority antagonists, which settlement would be most advantageous and durable? Could they emulate the left by shaping education, media and immigration policy to make their victory permanent? Kaufmann does not offer this advice because he sees white ethnic survival as entailing the overthrow of his cosmopolitan values.

And endangering his own mixed-race self.

X: Kaufmann’s Bravery

No offense to Salter, but that’s plain nuts.  Kaufmann is simply a more realistic and cunning System apparatchik.  He is part of the hivemind; ultimately, his genocidal agenda is part and parcel of the anti-White system.

The taboos Kaufmann challenges may be arbitrary but they are very real. He is well positioned to detect them because he is in the belly of the beast…

He IS the beast.

… – the mainstream university system. He knows that the taboos he challenges…

He isn’t challenging them.  That’s the whole point.  He’s trying to reinforce them by making them more palatable to their victims.

The left-authoritarian values of Big Tech were exemplified in 2015 when, at a UN event, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg was overheard agreeing with German chancellor Angela Merkel that Facebook users who disagreed with her open-borders immigration policy should be suppressed on his social media website.39 The following year in Berlin, Zuckerberg praised Merkel’s policy and announced that Facebook would censor speech critical of the immigrant influx.41

I cannot forget how it took the “movement” weeks/months to criticize Merkel after I had already been doing so here.

The Atlantic writer hoped the Orwellian measures would be extended further on Instagram to prevent “extremist thought”. Another article in the magazine criticised white baseball players for visiting President Trump when players of colour had refused.43 What is criticised as totalitarianism in the case of Communist China is being promoted by Western cultural elites.

Censorship by social media corporations is a return to the post-WWII establishment liberal consensus that suppressed expressions of white identity. The original consensus involved a monopoly of elite universities, the mainstream press, network television and the popular music industry. This monopoly partially collapsed for about two decades due to the emergence of the internet, but has been largely re-established.

This is the ruthless juggernaut that Kaufmann hopes to deflect with appeals to self-interest. He might appear timid to conservatives but in the present university environment his stance is courageous.

No it is not courageous at all.  He just needs to explain better to the System that his methodology is an approach for managing White dispossession, he just needs to dog whistle to the Left without unduly alarming his White victims. With the entire System backing Kaufmann’s agenda of White genocide, that shouldn’t be too difficult. Kaufmann is not courageous – is a coward and a bully, assisting a powerful System to complete its agenda of racial genocide.

XI: Conclusion

Whiteshift might be part of a trend. The assumption that it is okay to express ethnic pride, that it is not immoral or racist to defend one’s national identity or to preserve society’s ethnic balance, is being extended to whites after many decades in the sin bin. The idea is beginning to appear in other academic works, for example Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin’s National Populism: The Revolt against Liberal Democracy, which won the Sunday Times’ book of the year for 2018. Like Kaufmann, Eatwell and Goodwin address a progressive audience when they urge respectful engagement with national populists.

We can view them not as allies but as useful idiots.  We are engaging in a “cat and mouse” game of intricate strategy here. Those guys are our enemies, they want to ensure White destruction by making the process more pleasant and painless. They want to exploit certain aspects of White complaint so as to superficially treat symptoms of dispossession while allowing the underlying disease to spread and kill the victim.  We, on the other hand, should leverage these people as icebreakers, to begin the positive feedback loop in which legitimization of White interests encourages more pro-White activism, which them further legitimizes more radical viewpoints to be considered.

But the multicultural spoils system is so entrenched that the cultural establishment is unlikely to gracefully recant its double ethnic standard. If Eric Kaufmann’s vision of tolerance is to be realised, if it is to become as acceptable to advocate the interests of whites as it is other ethnicities, whites will need to fight for their rights.

Whites fighting for their rights will carry the agenda far past where Kaufmann wants to draw the line.

One weakness of Salter’s analysis is that he doesn’t include the implications if Suvorov’s Law into his consideration of the implications of Kaufmann’s work.  Thus, as I wrote:

This gets back to a concept I often refer to as “Suvorov’s law”- revolutions do not occur during the time of maximum repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed.

Kaufmann may wish that the acceptance of White identity politics goes only so far and no farther, that it goes only to the extent of narcotizing Whites so they ultimately accept their racial demise. But it is not up to him to determine the extent of reform.  Louis XVI didn’t dream that his initial concessions would lead to the French Revolution and him losing his head.  Gorbachev didn’t have the dissolution of the Soviet Union as his endgame for his own reforms.  Moderate Whites who accepted the initial steps of “civil rights” in the USA in the 1950s and early 60s couldn’t dream how out-of-hand it would get.  No, once you show weakness, once you ease the repression, once you officially legitimize the demands and aspirations of the opposition, once you whet the appetite of the opposition for more concessions and more power, then the direction and momentum of change slips out of the control of the reformers. Kaufmann may wish to slyly manipulate the White Right to acquiesce to “inevitable” racial destruction; however, it may turn out that Kaufmann will be a “useful idiot” paving the way for a more radical, assertive, and aggressive White identity politics. Kaufmann, as the icebreaker for White nationalism, may not foresee the direction his planned pseudo-reformation may go. If he realizes it, he may denounce his own Whiteshift, but the cat is out of the bag now.  

Pro-System sociopolitical technocrats like Kaufmann believe that they can fine tune the level of concessions so as to carefully ease Whites into oblivion, but history demonstrates that it is not that easy.

Note that “The Suvorov Strategy”- trying to force the System to make concessions so as to create momentum in the direction of radical, revolutionary change – is at odds with the “worse is better” approach that forms the foundation of typical terrorist strategy – attack the System to provoke them into increasing repression so as to radicalize the (target) population and alienate them from the System.

Both strategies have potential weaknesses, and the weaknesses of both, in this case (talking about Whites), derive from the particular characteristics of Whites. Whites have become so weak, feckless, and lazy that they may indeed be bought off by a few concessions and therefore Suvorov’s Law won’t come into play.  I have always advocated Democratic Multiculturalism as part of a Suvorov Strategy – and Kaufmann’s ideas, on their face value, can fit into that, but there was always the fear on my part that stupid and naïve Whites would allow fake leaders to co-opt the strategy and lead it into a cul-de-sac. The whole idea of leveraging Kaufmann as the icebreaker of radical change will be a losing proposition if Whites are so pathetic as to be bought off by a few scraps from the multicultural table.

On the other hand, “worse is better” will likely fail because increased repression can simply leave a population completely cowed, fully intimidated and despondent, and here is no evidence that there is any “line” beyond which increased repression would stimulate lazy, indolent, and cowardly Whites to fight back. If Suvorov’s Law is correct, then increased repression would, at least in the short-term, simply strengthen the System.  The long term may be different, but time is running out for White survival.

Odds and Ends, 12/15/19

Various issues.

But, but, but…they’re HuWhite.  And high IQ too!  As long as Strom doesn’t openly critique the HBD cult, is he really a foe of Jewish power?

Onanism material for Der Movement.

This idiot takes these ancestry testing results seriously, even at the level of adding up the percentages as if they’re exact.  See all the posts here.  Hint to idiot: The tests as currently constituted are not accurate; at best, they can give a very rough approximation in comparison to other people tested, but without proper reference (parental) populations,and without presenting data at high confidence levels (with statistical significance and/or error bars provided), it cannot be taken seriously the way you are doing. Also interesting how this mestizo conflates Southern European with non-White and Jewish.  Mixed-race Latinos really have an agenda to muddy the waters (no pun intended) on race, don’t they?

By the way, yes, I am aware of Salter’s continuation of his analysis of Kaufmann and will respond when I am ready.  I do not expect to really say anything new from my last response, but certain points can be re-emphasized.