Actualized Definitions

Words have meaning.

Long time readers know that I agree with Roger Griffin’s definition of fascism as palingenetic ultra-nationalism and that I also agree with his careful distinction of genuine fascism from para-fascism such as that of Franco, Salazar, Antonescu, etc. Further, I oppose the mindless expansion of the designation of fascism to include not only para-fascists but even more absurd examples, such as Latin American military dictators, Donald Trump, etc.  My readers also know that I strongly object to Greg Johnson’s attempt to redefine “White nationalism” to merely mean a collection of individual European and European Diaspora ethnonationalisms, as opposed to the more traditional definition, that I accept, of an Our Race Is Our Nation generalized racial nationalism that transcends (but not necessarily replaces, and can co-exist with) the aforementioned more narrow ethnonationalisms. Further, there are specific definitions of National Socialism that I adhere to that others may disagree with, etc.

It is obvious that political definitions and categories cannot be viewed as purely objective, empirical entities. When defining beliefs and ideologies, some subjectivity is involved, but of course it cannot be absurdly subjective; for example, trying to define National Socialism in terms of liberal multiracial universalism would be ludicrous. That said however, one cannot define political ideologies with the same level of empiricism as one can certain STEM-related entities.

Ultimately, what is likely is that political definitions will be determined by how they are actualized in reality through the beliefs and actions of those who profess adherence to those beliefs.  I call this “actualized definitions.”  Let us use “White nationalism” as an example.  If my definition, the traditional definition, of White nationalism is that which is accepted, believed in, and practiced (including attempting to achieve this form of White nationalism in real world political state entities), then that definition will be the one that is associated with White nationalism and the adherents of Johnson’s view will need to eventually accept the use of, say, “ethnonationalism” to define their views. Thus, White nationalism would no longer be practically associated with the Johnsonian worldview.  In contrast, if the Johnsonian definition of White nationalism is (unfortunately, tragically, destructively) widely accepted and practiced by those who identify as White nationalists, then the term “White nationalism” would be actualized into a new definition, and as a result of this redefinition, those who adhere to the older form of White nationalism would need to term it, say, “Pan-European racial nationalism” or something else that distinguishes it from a term that merely means a collection of individual narrow ethnonationalisms. The principle of “actualized definition” can apply to fascism or to any other creed.

Some will argue that this is meaningless, that we should adopt Shakespeare’s “a rose by any other name” attitude and not worry at all about labels and definitions.  I disagree, because I do not see that approach as practical with respect to real world politics and to human behavior. Like it or not, the language we use shapes our perception of reality; therefore, our labels and definitions of political ideologies can shape our perception of the political world, and may even modify, even radically change, people’s belief structures (in some cases, unconsciously). If people identify as “White nationalists,” some of them, perhaps most of them, those who are more conformist, may shape their beliefs around what the most commonly accepted definition of “White nationalism” is at a given time, rather than (as they should), independently adhering to a belief system purely on the basis of the merits of its underlying ideas. This is what makes attempts to redefine commonly accepted terms so (potentially) dangerous. For example, see the idea of “linguistic relativity” –

The idea of linguistic relativity, also known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis (/səˌpɪər ˈhwɔːrf/ sə-PEER WHORF), the Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, is a principle suggesting that the structure of a language influences its speakers’ worldview or cognition, and thus individuals’ languages determine or shape their perceptions of the world.

The following quotes from Gene Wolfe’s The Book of the New Sun (coming from its protagonist Severian) are of relevance here.  Please note that Wolfe was a strong Catholic (convert) traditionalist whose work reflects his beliefs; despite (or because of?) being an engineer by trade, Wolfe apparently valued Faith over scientific Materialism. Therefore, these quotes must be viewed with that in mind; however, they have meaning even for those who reject Wolfe’s specific Catholic worldview.  First:

Certain mystes aver that the real world has been constructed by the human mind, since our ways are governed by the artificial categories into which we place essentially undifferentiated things, things weaker than our words for them. 

Here Wolfe is saying that the labels, the definitions, the categories we use to “bin” real entities are not only “artificial” but that they are harder, more concrete, more distinct and differentiated, and stronger than the real world entities themselves.  The real world entities are weaker, more undifferentiated, than the words, labels, and categories we use for them, and that by giving concrete differentiated labels to “essentially undifferentiated things,” we are mentally constructing the “real world.” Whether Wolfe actually believed that, or is just engaging in the type of philosophical speculation common in this work, I do not know. We can argue about the extent to which this describes reality as a whole.  But it does partially describe political reality.  While I do not believe that political ideologies are “essentially undifferentiated things,” I do believe they are relatively weaker and more undifferentiated than the more distinct and differentiated categories – mental constructs (as are the ideologies themselves) – that we use to define them. Thus we help construct political reality by how we define ideologies.

Then:

We believe that we invent symbols. The truth is that they invent us; we are their creatures, shaped by their hard, defining edges. When soldiers take their oath they are given a coin, an asimi stamped with the profile of the Autarch. Their acceptance of that coin is their acceptance of the special duties and burdens of military life—they are soldiers from that moment, though they may know nothing of the management of arms. I did not know that then, but it is a profound mistake to believe that we must know of such things to be influenced by them, and in fact to believe so is to believe in the most debased and superstitious kind of magic. The would-be sorcerer alone has faith in the efficacy of pure knowledge; rational people know that things act of themselves or not at all.

Here Wolfe is saying that we as people are shaped by the symbols we follow, they invent us, rather than the other way around. Again we can debate the extent that this is literally true in general reality, but it does have some believability in the world of politics (broadly defined), where the “hard, defining edges” of these symbols, these labels, these definitions, these constructs helps shape weaker and more undifferentiated people into manifestations of those symbols, followers of the symbols, true believers who attempt to actualize the meaning of those symbols into reality.

The symbols we use to represent our beliefs, our goals, the myths and artifacts that are put forward as representing our ideals, all of these can shape and mold us in the real world.  They invent us.  And whether we define a term as “X” or as “Y” therefore has profound significance.  The name of the rose is indeed important it if influences how we perceive its smell.

Long time readers of my work may accuse me of inconsistency here. Long ago, at Majority Rights, I engaged in frequent debates with John Ray. The conservative Ray, if I recall correctly, dogmatically defined “right-wing” according to his own beliefs – a mix of classic liberalism, free market capitalism, libertarian individualism, civic nationalism, neoconservative foreign policy, spiced with “HBD race realism” (smart Jews and Asians good, stupid Negroes bad), and so forth. If someone, like me, opposed that view, and instead promoted racial nationalism and National Socialism, Ray would label them as being “leftist.” My impression was that Ray thought those he labeled “leftist” would start weeping and groveling, begging to be called “rightist” (*) and pleading that they would agree with Ray’s kosher conservatism just so they can be “right-wing.” My own response to being called a “leftist” was “OK, so I’m a leftist” and that “I’m more concerned with ideas than with labels.” It is that last thought that some may find inconsistent with the themes of the current post. 

However, I make three counter-arguments.  First, stating that ideas are more important than labels does not logically imply that labels are unimportant, merely that ideas are more important. Second, not everyone agrees with my more enlightened attitude on this subject; many (most?) people may pay lip service to the idea of the preeminence of ideas but in reality actually care more about labels.  Third, in order to effectively discuss ideas, we need to have agreed upon common definitions of those ideas; therefore, words, definitions, and labels have innate importance for that reason.  Therefore, there is no inconsistency.

To summarize, it is important to properly define words, terms, and phrases, and to appropriately use labels to describe political ideology.  I will continue to fight for what I believe is that proper use of terms such as “White nationalism, and urge you to do the same.

Notes:

* This book describes the same phenomenon from a radical National Socialist perspective, of people having so much invested with respect to their personal identity in being perceived as “right-wing.”

I believe there is much to be said for the various forms of fascism, including National Socialism, to be views as syncretic political forms that transcend tradition designations of “right” vs. “left.”

Odds and Ends, 1/7/24

In der news.

The HBD race realists are somewhat illogical. First, they promote an ideology in which people/hominids are judged based on a hierarchical ranking of traits such as IQ, behavior, etc. Then they tell us that Asians are superior to Whites by all such standards. Finally, they then label themselves “pro-White advocates.”  Huh? If they believe that value is inherent in specific traits and if they believe that Asians are superior in those traits then the HBD race realists should be pro-Asian advocates. If, on the other hand, they value Whites because Whites are their racial kin, then they should jettison their slavish adherence to HBD and make kinship-based racialism their priority. They can get away with this incoherence within Der Movement because of the affirmative action program and because they refuse to debate their critics among the Dissident/Far Right. But once these issues are hammered away at by the Left, then the Quota Queens will need to deal with it.

Wolfe’s The Book of the New Sun is disliked by Der Right because, unlike Tolkien, he makes a traditionalist society look like an unrelenting catastrophe, and unlike Herbert, he makes archaeofuturism look like a dystopia with no redeeming qualities. Wolfe’s work is disliked by Da Left because he is accused of “misogyny” and of having traditional Catholic (a convert) conservative values. The masses in the Center can’t understand Wolfe’s dense and indirect writing. Jack Vance’s style, although unique, is more direct, and sometimes strands of anti-fascist civic liberalism creep through, but because of his near-perfect rendition of female behavior, he too has been accused of “misogyny.” You see, if you are a White male writer who does not have 100 pound female characters effortlessly beating up 250 pound muscular male super-soldiers then you are, by definition, a “misogynist,” and don’t you forget it! If anything, I can criticize Wolfe and Vance for creating female characters who are too unrealistically positive. That’s why Vance is near-perfect and not perfect, re: milady.

Amren hates YOU (emphasis added):

truthgiverofhumanity

…mass immigration of Jews, Italians & Irish.

“It is interesting to note that the original Indo-European descended Romans viewed anyone who was dark with suspicion. The Roman proverb Hic niger es, bunc tu, Romane, caveato (“He is black, beware of him, Roman’’) is recorded by Horace as being a common saying amongst Romans of the time. (Saz., i. 4, 85).”(March of the Titans).

Even the fair Brittonic, Pictish & Germanic men fought off the Roman Empire because they wanted to protect their fair colored women & children from the invading Black-haired dark-eyed Romans who wished to conquer & integrate with them. Fair-colored women like Boudica also lead the resistance against the blackening force of the Romans especially after her two fair daughters who raped by Black-haired Roman soldiers while she was beaten by them.

Sallis is always, always, ALWAYS right. Today’s Nordicism is a Nord-Colored alliance against YOU. Your reaction? Nothing.

Note the Sallis’ Law at Amren – a discussion about Irish riots against Colored immigration in 2023 devolves into a (Colored-led) discussion of March of the Titans and racially mixed Romans mongrelizing innocent Nords 2000 years ago. But – Rome conquered England. So by this logic – the English are dark colored mongrels?

Genetic evidence on Roman pigmentation shows that “fairness” has either been stable since the Iron Age/Republic or increasing, not decreasing,

Wrong, wrong, they’re always, always, ALWAYS wrong.

This is an old and tired schtick – non-Whites, South Asians and other NECs prominent among them, promoting radical Nordicism to divide Whites, with the willing cooperation of the Eloi, who get their vanity petted, to assuage their deep-seated feelings of personal inadequacy.

In this scenario, the Eloi are worse than the Brownsters. They must be opposed.

It is typical of Nordicists that they take comments from Roman satirists and poets and try to derive racial meaning from them. Let’s look a bit closer at the quote from Horace; emphasis added:

The title is taken from Horace: “Absentem qui rodit amicum, qui non defendit, alio culpante; hic niger est; hunc tu, Romane, caveto – He who attacks an absent friend, or who does not defend him when spoken ill of by another; that man is a dark character; you, Romans, beware of him.”, suggesting that the subject has betrayed a friend.

Is Horace talking about race? Is he suggesting that Romans not trust dark-eyed, dark-haired people?  Is “character” appropriate to be inserted in the translation?  I say yes, because it is quite clear from the context – “He who attacks an absent friend, or who does not defend him” – that Horace is referring to defects in character, in behavior, and there is no implication of a literal meaning of phenotypic complexion or race/ethnicity in general.  If the “hic niger est; hunc tu, Romane, caveto” was spoken in reference to, say, immigration into Rome then the meaning could be interpreted differently, but here Horace talks about a faithless friend of bad character. Further, even if you want to extrapolate that certain cultures, including the Roman, associated “dark features” with a bad character – and there is no implication of that in this quote – then it is more likely to refer to dark complexioned non-White aliens, such as NECs, rather than to dark-eyed, dark-haired Romans that could be the immediate family of lighter-complexioned individuals (as is common in European populations). To extend Horace’s comment to Roman race is ludicrous. 

In the context of the entire Horace quote, it is quite clear that “niger” refers to character and not a literal reference to complexion. If you hear someone refer to “dark humor” does that mean a Negro comedian? Does “a black day in history” mean Marcus Garvey’s birthday? A more relevant question – is a positive trisomy 21 status a prerequisite for membership in Der Movement?

Let’s apply the standards Der Movement applies to the Roman Empire to the British Empire. Disraeli as prime minister? Proves that 19th century Britain was populated by Judeo-Semitic Levantine mongrels, a fact supported by Jewish graveyards in London’s ghettoes. Random quotes from Oliver Twist will confirm the degeneracy of the population. Hence, the British Empire collapsed because of racial admixture. QED.

Some things (among) many in Der Movement that are annoying. First, labeling people you disagree with as Feds, CIA assets, Jews, Russian shills, etc. – while at the same time ignoring the open infiltration of Der Movement by non-Whites. Then we have individuals (“Hood” and the late “Roberts” being prime examples) who write under different personas at the same time. The last annoyance to be mentioned here is the opposite of what was just mentioned – in this case an individual is incorrectly associated with other personas; in other words, actual different people (two or more) are assumed to be a single individual (this has happened to me several times). Interestingly, the same types who make incorrect accusations that “X” is really “Y” never catch on to the “Hood” and “Roberts” types.

People who obsess over “racial admixture” in Southern (and Eastern) Europe have a blind spot when it comes to those areas they favor. I’ve previously posted links to papers showing North Asian/Siberian ancestry in Northern Europe and have posted pictures of celebrities whose phenotypes are consistent with such ancestry. Let us consider another case. Actor Charles Bronson’s ancestors came to America from Lithuania. However, his father was of Lipka Tatar origin, which likely explains Bronson’s phenotype. However, let us be realistic – the only reason this detail is known is because Bronson was a famous actor (and one with an unusual appearance), so someone went digging into his background. Otherwise, he’d just be a “Lithuanian-American” and that’s that. It is also obvious that Bronson’s family were not the only people in Lithuania with such ancestry. So, in addition to the more ancient Asian/Siberian ancestry, the Baltic states no doubt have some more recent Tatar influences as well (that no doubt crossed borders into neighboring countries). But we are not “allowed” to discuss such things in Der Movement; it takes away from mentioning True Romance every 15 seconds. The reality is that low levels of admixture exist throughout Europe and Strom is right in that racial purity is something we need to strive for in the future, not some state of grace we fell from in the mythical past.\\

It’s all well and good to say that we should be infiltrating existing community organizations. But you really need at least several people acting as a coordinated unit to make it work. The real underlying issue is how to form local groups of trustworthy pro-White activists to begin with; social pricing, infiltrators, and possible spiteful apostates turning against the cause and against you are all impediments. I suspect that in any locale with a reasonably significant White population there will be at least several pro-White activists who do not know of each other’s existence and would not know how to safely establish contact. They could be neighbors or co-workers and they would not know it. For all I know, I could have neighbors and co-workers who are regular readers/listeners of my work, and I would never know it. The System/Left and their minions have created – intentionally – an atmosphere of fear and mistrust, and this is a problem. Facilitating networking would be an important role for pro-White organizations, but I’m skeptical that Der Movement could effectively do it even if they wanted to. Der Movement’s history with infiltrators and apostates is rather depressing.

When the major difference between America’s “two” parties (actually two wings of a single party) was economics/class, Italian-Americans supported the “working class” Democrats against the “country club Yankee” Republicans. Once the Democrats became the Colored/Left party, Italian-Americans  started shifting to the GOP, on the basis of race and social issues. They were attracted to Nixon’s false “Silent Majority Law and Order” image (some Italian-Americans  were Wallace supporters in 1968) and more so Reagan’s image of semi-populist social conservatism (“Reagan Democrats” = White ethnics) and even more so to Trump’s (fake) right-wing populism. On the other hand, Italian-Americans  have been less interested in the Bush family, Dole, McCain, Romney, etc. Italian-Americans  in general care about “sticking it to the darkies” and not about “capital gains tax cuts.”

Four axioms of warfare:

• 1. Victory is achieved through offensive operations; defense alone is insufficient
• 2. Total victory is achieved through the destruction of the enemy’s armed forces and their ability to resist, not merely by occupying territory.
• 3. All else being equal, and if possible, encirclement and maneuver are superior to a direct frontal assault.
• 4. While both are important, morale is more important than is material.

Now apply that to politics (war by other means).

If you are a graduate of a college/university, and graduate/professional school as well, you may get in the mail the school magazine and you can read the contents, full of far left activism of not only faculty and current students, but stories of how graduates are now engaging in Far Left anti-White, anti-male sociopolitical activism, across a broad front of activities, with not a single example of anything on the Right. The idea that “we’re winning” is again shown to be ludicrous; we’re losing and losing badly. As the Left engages in effective, broad-based real world activism that has real destructive consequences for us, the Right engages in esoteric theorizing and debate, tin foil hat conspiracy theorizing, with the occasional foray into real world activity in doing things like opposing abortion and vaccination. As the Right preaches anti-intellectualism and downward mobility, the Left has a stranglehold on academia and on the professions, and are constantly training new generations of activists. The reality is utterly catastrophic for our side.

See this. I know I posted about that before, but it is useful to look at again. You do not need to stress out over the math, just listen qualitatively to Harpending’s arguments; his debunking of Lewontin is complementary to my own. Also interesting is his discussion of Bushmen having a phenotype with East Asian-like characteristics, with speculation that this convergent evolution was no accident, implying the possibility of a common mechanism. Contra HBD dogma, that common mechanism, if it exists, obviously cannot be “cold, Arctic conditions.” My own theory that the East Asian phenotype is due to selection for neoteny is, unlike the Arctic theory, compatible with the Bushmen situation. It is therefore possible that both Mongoloids and Bushmen underwent selection for neoteny for environmental reasons and/or sexual selection; in the case of East Asians, these adaptions pre-selected them to be able to thrive after some of them moved from warm climates to cold climates in Northern Asia. So, I’m saying the opposite of HBD – Arctic conditions did not cause the Mongoloid phenotype; the Mongoloid phenotype, due to selection for neoteny, allowed Asians to live in Arctic conditions.

Odds and Ends, 5/18/23

In der news.

In Jack Vance’s book The Book of Dreams, Howard Alan Treesong has the title of Lord of the Overmen – being the head of the intergalactic criminal underworld. That’s a somewhat Nietzschean view, not only because of the concept of Overman but because such is defined in the way it is (criminals – remember what Nietzsche said about Cesare Borgia).

Lord of the Overman is a good title – should I adopt it?  Ted Sallis, Lord of the Overmen!

The Counter-Currents series on White Normie Brainwashing (as opposed to Der Movement brainwashing) is not only notable for its conflation of Whites and East Asians, but for comments such as this:

As Prof. MacDonald explains in the first chapters of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future, the cold, harsh climate in which northern Europeans evolved both prohibited the formation of extended kinship networks and necessitated the need for intense cooperation among families — often those who were only distantly related, if at all — to ensure survival. This in turn meant that the larger social units into which families came together were not extended clans based on kinship, but moral communities based on trust, reputation, and moral codes that had a more universal character than those of non-European peoples. Hence, to be seen as a moral reprobate and ostracized by the community meant almost certain doom for an individual. Today, although a cold shoulder is no longer synonymous with a cold death, that primordial fear of being shunned still haunts the psyches of those of northern European descent, leading them to fear falling outside the bounds of the moral consensus.

Thus: European = Northern Europeans, implicitly suggesting that other Europeans are akin to “non-European peoples.” Further, to the extent that the description in that paragraph is true – is that “individualism?” Thus – to be seen as a moral reprobate and ostracized by the community meant almost certain doom for an individual. Today, although a cold shoulder is no longer synonymous with a cold death, that primordial fear of being shunned –  is that individualism? Finally, I wonder if this all applies to Der Movement itself – Eloi follow “movement” dogma not only for self-serving reasons of racial pride but because of a (also self-serving) primordial fear of being shunned.

Odds and Ends, 3/5/23

In der news.

I remember hearing the hags gossiping back when I was a child. Talking about a young woman freely dating lots of men, the hags were complaining – “how does she expect to get married if she’s giving it away for free?” Consider the implications of that and then wonder no more as to why I classify marriage as a form of prostitution – albeit one in which men are typically defrauded.

An analogy may be as follows. A dog can be trained to obedience by giving it treats every time it does the right thing. Then, at some point, the owner expects the dog to obey commands without getting the treats. Very well – but what happens when the dog is smarter, stronger, and more capable than is the owner? What happens when that dog demands the treats that it is owed and starts getting restless when such are not forthcoming?

Lest you think the dog analogy inappropriate I actually remember overhearing the word “treats” being used by a woman as a promise to the boyfriend/husband, etc. for his patient behavior at family gatherings. All of that was quite educational for the young Sallis, who saw and heard everything and has forgotten nothing.

See this. Lots of female hand-waving and gaslighting in the story, but ignore that for a moment and consider the “sex strike” as a tactic – virtually always used by women against heterosexual men. When one ignores the aforementioned hand-waving and gaslighting, the only rational conclusions are:

1. Men, and only men, are interested in sex for its own sake.

2. Women’s “interest” in sex is in its utility to control men, as well as for reproduction, using men as sperm donors when milady feels “the biological clock is ticking.”

3. If both sexes valued sex/physical intimacy the same, then the idea of a sex strike would be ludicrous and self-defeating, as it would harm the striker as much as the strikee.

4. This demonstrates the reality of sex relations and sexual power dynamics. Women have something men want (badly) and they’ll leverage that to control men as much or more as one controls a working dog.

Considering the justified stereotypes of:

1. Male incels and female hypergamy.

2. Married women having a perpetual headache (unless they need a sperm donation for pregnancy).

It would seem that a “sex strike” is an empty threat. What’s the difference? And the minority fraction of men who are alpha male bad boys are going to find some (high quality) women wiling to have sex with them (oh the hypergamy!) regardless of any sex strike, so no worries there. Thus, milady has painted herself into a corner on this one.

See this.

You’re not a person. Girls aren’t people. They are soft and pretty and cute and cuddly and warm, but they have no feelings. I was handsome before my face spoiled, but that didn’t matter. I always knew that girls weren’t people. They’re something like robots. They have all the power in the world and none of the worry. Men have to obey, men have to beg, men have to suffer, because they are built to suffer and to be sorry and to obey. All a girl has to do is to smile her pretty smile or to cross her pretty legs, and the man gives up everything he has ever wanted and fought for, just to be her slave. And then the girl—” and at this point he got to screaming again, in a high shrill shout—”and then the girl gets to be a woman and she has children, more girls to pester men, more men to be the victims of girls, more cruelty and more slaves. You’re so cruel to me, Veesey! You’re so cruel that you don’t even know you’re cruel. If you’d known how I wanted you, you’d have suffered like a person. But you didn’t suffer. You’re a girl. Well, you’re going to find out now. You will suffer and then you will die. But you won’t die until you know how men feel about women.

How to realistically deal with the Women Question (WQ)? On a long-term level, if we are going to solve the race problem, and establish the “ethnostate” – an outcome of which I am frankly skeptical but one that all of the grifters tell us is “certain” – then we can establish a society that solves sex problems through restructuring society, education, law, etc. to favor traditional monogamous marriage and family formation and to disfavor working women, easy woman-initiated divorce, etc.

What can we do now? First, we need to push back against White Knighting in the Far Right, and I have been doing so at EGI Notes and at Gab. If more people speak out, the better the Dissident Right milieu will be for men.

We can support mainstream political and social trends favorable to men. For example, the Trump administration’s Title IX reforms were very good and long overdue; unfortunately, these were reversed by the Biden administration (that Spencer supports).

On a more personal, individual level, I would advise men to be the best man they can be within the limits of their abilities and characteristics – physically fit, educated, successful with respect to career, financially as well off as you can be, not afraid to express strong opinions, acting with confidence and not being a beta male simp. Be a man that is desirable to the highest quality women available (yes, I know “”high quality women” is sort of an oxymoron, but we are talking about relative quality), and then demand that those women behave in an appropriate manner. If milady doesn’t meet your standards, then MGTOW. But you need to be in a position where you have leverage to bargain in the sexual marketplace.

And if any White women go the mudshark route, then they are not anyone worthy of you anyway.

Now, as regards artificial eggs and wombs and the sexbots – this may be technically feasible at some point but, realistically, not likely to be acceptable from a societal standpoint. So we can focus on the more realistic things above.

First, see this.  In case leftist FOX blocks the link:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/la-mayor-bass-calls-root-out-right-wing-extremist-police-signals-lowering-bar-new-recruits

Second, see this.

Is anyone going to tell her that the proposed LA policy is illegal in California?

See this. And the link:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/these-51-big-businesses-target-conservatives-heres-what-you-can-do-stop-them

When I read outrage porn like that, I note that they never ask WHY the entire fabric of American society is aligned with the Left. The answer, which they do not want to address, is that the inept grifting Right has ceded one battlefield after another to the Left without even putting up a fight. Academia was dismissed as “pointy headed intellectuals” and today rightists even promote the idea that their followers should not go to college at all. The mass media was always “the liberal media” – as if that was part of the natural order of things and nothing could be done about it. “Big Government” was a dirty word for the Right and became synonymous with the Left, with rigthtist enabling. For decades, the Right smugly assumed that Big Business, Military, FBI, local law enforcement were all “our guys” – until they weren’t, and with the Right doing nothing, those institutions were fully captured by the Left. And after all of that, there are still “small government constitutional conservatives” like Pence who decry the use of state power by those very few people on the Right, like The Meatball, who push back in even the mildest terms. So, I’m tired of the outrage porn about The Hegemony of the Left that fails to explain how and why it happened.

Some people online really have a misunderstanding of the fundamental appeal of “Yockeysim” or even what its ultimate, fundamental thesis is about. Yes, there are some profound stupidities in Yockey’s work – the bizarre ideas about biological race (likely though a justified although completely misguided response to retarded Nordicism and Anglomania), his misunderstanding of basic science, a bit too sweaty about the JQ (although also mostly understandable), Hitler as “the Hero,” the anti-Eastern Europeanism but then also his pro-Soviet attitudes, and of course the knee-jerk Spenglerianism. I freely admit all of that. But to me, all of that is peripheral. I see the essence of Yockeyism as being strident pan-Europeanism (at least for Western Europe – we can now extend that to all of Europe) and the associated Imperium idea. Much of his description is nonsense and some of his short-term prescription is nonsense as well. But his long-term prescription is right on the money. And it is that – the essence of Yockeyism – which is why Greg Johnson ultimately rejects Yockey’s views and calls Yockey an “enemy.” Ultimately, Yockey’s “crime” was being pan-European, and taking Southern Europeans seriously as equal partners in the European project.

Since even a stopped clock is right twice a day, finally we see a worthwhile Counter-Currents article. And, really, if this was all a “hoax” then what was the point of Apollo 13? To make the “hoax” more realistic by faking error? And by doing it for “13” to emphasize the point? Conspirtards are…tards.

What Der Movement REALLY is about – Asian females all the time.  Say what you will about WN 1.0, but at least those guys weren’t into yellow fever fetishism. I don’t recall Pierce posing with Japanese women. So, once HBD infested WN 1.0, that encouraged the transformation into WN 2.0, represented by the Alt Right. Now we have WN 3.0 – multiracial WN. I suppose WN 4.0 will be a full-throated promotion of alien mass immigration and miscegenation. WN 4.0 will oppose the System because the System will be viewed as too White supremacist.

See this.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/ccp-government-intentionally-released-covid-19-over-world-chinese-virologist

OK, let’s follow the logic here:

1. Let’s say China did in fact intentionally spread the virus.

2. This is an act of war levied against the USA.

3. Some HBDers actively pushed the Chinese lie that the virus was an “American bioweapon” and so China must be absolved of all blame.

4. Thus, the HBDers have been supporting China in levying war against the USA.

5. Many people (more than two!) have read and thus witnessed the HBD comments.

6. Thus, by the strict definition of treason as outlined in the US Constitution, the behavior of these HBDers could be construed as treason.

7. There needs to be indictments and trials of the relevant HBDers for treason – if convicted, all penalties, including the death penalty, should be on the table.

Always interesting to observe how the reluctance of majority White populations for race replacement migration is not reflected in voting. There are many reasons for this, one prime reason is that it is never presented to the population in the manner. People vote for political parties and candidates that represent a spectrum of views, with immigration being one of them. Thus, Whites may vote for “Greens” because of environmental reasons, but get the immigration liberalism as a package. Voting for “Labor” or “Democrats” because of economic concerns, health care, abortion, or whatever, is often linked to open borders, even though people voting for those parties do not want open borders. On the other hand, immigration restrictionists often tie themselves to other positions that have nothing to do with immigration, but that are unpopular. Right-wing populism helps to link nationalist tendencies with other popular ideologies, instead of the typical conservative “small government, but tax breaks for billionaires” nonsense. Of course, also, politicians lie to the voters and the media also lie, and in some countries, speech laws make it illegal to actually campaign on a full-throated nationalist platforms (and the speech laws were bundled in with other ideologies, just as open borders were).

See this. Emphasis added:

Some even more peculiar results are obtained for an analysis that focused on Melanesian populations, leaving in only East Asian populations and a single European population, the French. Friedlander et al.’s purpose in presenting this analysis was to analyse the fine-scale relationships amongst the Melanesians whilst accounting for admixture. Our purpose here is to ask what the results imply, when interpreted literally, about the relationships between Melanesians, East Asians and Europeans. For all values from K = 2 to K = 9, the French population is inferred to be a mixture between an East Asian population and a Melanesian one (Fig. 5d, e). Only for K = 10 do the French form their own cluster and still have variable levels of admixture from East Asians (Fig. 5c). Throughout, interpretation of the ancestral populations based on where individuals are geographically today (Interpretation Protocol of Fig. 1) would only make these results more misleading, implying at K = 9 that the French are admixed between East Asians and Papuan highlanders.

Keep that in mind when crazed fetishists over-interpret genetic data.

See this.

The dissent highlights a challenge for the GOP. The party’s future may well depend on broadening its appeal beyond an aging, predominantly white base of support.

No one asks if the GOP can win if it loses the support of a fraction of that “aging, predominantly white base of support.” You see, there is a law of the universe – almost as definite as gravity or Sallis’ Law (the latter being one of the fundamental laws of physical reality) – that says that White folks MUST vote Republican. And since Whites are impelled by this universal law to go to the polls and vote GOP, there’s no reason to appeal to them. Of course, the Democrats have no reason to appeal to White voters either. No one has, actually – and, seemingly, no one does.