Category: strategy and tactics

It’s Der Dutton!

And other news.  And a statement of principle.

This is how Dutton responds to criticism:

Credentialists tend to be low IQ and uncreative. This is why credentials are so important to them. The aim of science is consilience, hence all important thinkers pursue areas they lack formal qualifications in. You interlocutor is a credentialist and thus a nobody.

No neuroticism there, no siree.

But, hey, I agree, we should fundamentally critique ideas, not credentials or the lack thereof.  Dutton should be eschewed because – independent of credentials – he is a typically dishonest and ignorant HBDer who covers up the vacuity of his “thought” with his shtick of juvenile jackassery.

Further, by Dutton’s logic, Ted Sallis has just as much right to comment on issues such as HBD and race science as does Dutton, Lynn or anyone else. EGI Notes is consilience, don’t you know. I lack formal qualifications in psychometry; hence I am an important thinker in the field (Duttoninan logic). Lynn and MacDonald then are credentialed hacks – just following the logic of Mr. Hello Hello Hello.

Dutton’s appeal to reverse snobbery obviously has its limitations. When a paper in the scientific literature is peer-reviewed, that review is typically performed by someone with expertise (“credentials”)  in the relevant field, so as to (in theory) submit an informed judgment. The fact that HBD’s Asian gods pervert the process through rampant ethnic nepotism does not alter the validity of the idea behind the process.  When the military wants better nuclear weapons designs, they go to nuclear physicists and nuclear engineers, not to plumbers.  Altering gene expression via CRISPR might more dependably be done by a molecular biologist rather than by a florist. A chemist might be a better source of information on how to synthesize novel organic compounds than a janitor.  

Yes, it is true that all ideas must be evaluated on their own merits, but dispensing with the value of expertise through ad homenim perjoratives like “credentialism” would so distort the signal-to-noise ratio as to make scientific and technical progress virtually impossible.

But, you see, HBDers don’t care about scientific or technical progress and they certainly don’t care about the truth. HBD is a political movement aimed at replacing kinship-based racialism with a form of aracial “cognitive elitism” that benefits Jews and Asians.

I view HBDers with the same sort of visceral disgust that the average person would view a festering wound swarming with maggots.

Dutton fits in well with Spencer.  Two tragicomic imbeciles.

This is a good Taylor video.


Read this.

The rise of the Ultras to prominence is an understandable response to news that Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte has granted permission for two migrant NGOs to land refugees at Italian ports, intends to reintroduce benefits and protections for asylum seekers that were previously scrapped by Matteo Salvini, and will reinstate residency permits for illegals.

Conte’s actions will inevitably further inflame a precarious situation, especially after a group of Nigerians dismembered the body of eighteen-year-old Pamela Mastropietro in Macerata, three migrants raped and murdered sixteen-year-old Desiree Mariottini in the San Lorenzo area of Rome, and a recently arrived Ghanaian man is convicted of desecrating the Basilicas of Santa Prassede, San Giovanni de Fiorentini and San Vitale.

I don’t understand.  The great and good Sir Desmond Jones has told us that Italy is 100% homogeneous and will remain so until the end of time, forever and ever, amen.


Nigerians?  Ghanaians?  Pfah!  Simply some Sicilians and Calabrians.  Nothing to get worked up over.


See this. Remember, Greg Johnson has stated that Trump is a sincere man of genuine greatness, so it must be true!


Watch this.  Someone forward that to The Master of Disaster, who is no doubt shedding trust fund tears over the tail-between-his-legs exit of King Andy Eggroll from the Presidential race.


Now, a statement of principle, given once again, for the benefit of newer readers.  


You may have noticed that this blog is sharply critical of (among other things) what I call Der Movement.  My critics – the Quota Queen grifters who sponge off of the “D’Nations” stupidly given them by naive retards – call me “crazy and bitter” and given to “the paranoid style” and “with nothing positive to contribute” (When I was writing for their own websites, indirectly helping them to rake in the shekels, then I was A-OK, of course. Of course).


I will explain, once again, what the criticism is about. I have been involved in the “movement” – in WN racial activism – since the mid-90s, that’s ~25 years, a quarter-of-a-century.  That’s been both analog and digital activism, I’ve met with or corresponded with all sorts of “big names” (including a private face-to-face audience with The Great Man), I’ve written for all sorts of racialist websites and journals (including those of people who call me “crazy” today), I was interviewed for Griffin’s book, I’ve seen all sorts of activists and organizations and websites come and go, and I’ve been following all of the “movement” politics and drama, from the days of Pierce vs. Covington to the days of Johnson vs. Spencer.  I’ve seen it all, so to speak.


And so I am telling you now, based on all of that experience, and based on my considered judgment (that honest readers can discern is generally sound), that the “movement” as it exists today has an ABSOLUTE ZERO chance of getting anything constructive done. It’s a joke, it’s a grift, it’s a dead end, it’s a cul-de-sac.  Continuing to “throw bad money after good” (figuratively as well as literally) with this failed “movement” will lead to total defeat and to racial destruction.


We need a NEW MOVEMENT that:


1. Is based on sound principles

2. That rejects the affirmative action policy and has a merit-based leadership

3. That eschews defectives and defective paradigms

4. That thinks strategically, with long term plans and plenty of contingency planning as well

5. That not only engages in (real) metapolitics (not grifting), but also electoral politics (where and when appropriate), and (real) community building (not homosexual hook-ups at meetings)


There is only so much niche space – as long as Der Movement exists, a New Movement will not really be able to get off the ground.  Hence, Der Movement needs to be opposed, and if that opposition must take the form of mocking ridicule and deconstruction, so be it.

Wuhan and Movement News

The Yellows will infect us all, while Der Movement continues to be ludicrous.

Read this.

If even  – IF – this current virus turns out to be nothing too serious, it’s a “dry run” for some future killer pandemic that will emerge from the swarming hominid petri dish that is China. Forget about asteroids, super volcanoes, or nuclear war, the end of humanity will likely occur as the result of some Chinese virus.

In a perfect world, the civilized nations of the Earth would use whatever means at their disposal, up to and including military force, to end the Chinese disease threat to humanity. That nation would be put under foreign-led martial law, all of the outdoor food markets, pig farms, and other breeders of disease would be destroyed, and proper levels of hygiene forced upon the population – for a start.

Unfortunately, China’s military might – mostly copied from other nations – including nuclear weapons (a military funded by the trade imbalance of the Chinese selling their cheap junk and “medical” poisons here) makes such an approach impossible.

The only alternative is a total quarantine of the Middle Kingdom.  But we can’t have that, can we?  It might disrupt the “economy” and interrupt the flow of flat-chested, estrogen-deprived Chinatrices for ”awkward squad” omega White males to have sexual access to.  And it would be “racist” against a “people of color.”  The Tropical Alliance may get all worked up about that.

Gray
Posted January 24, 2020 at 10:29 am | Permalink
Our ideas are already out there. The problem is that they are considered very low status (lower than pedophiles) and publicly admitting to them is quickly becoming a one way ticket to homelessness and destitution. This is the primary problem that needs to be solved. We need to be able to access financing and secure the ability for people to express these views without being assaulted or having their lives ruined. This means having things like credit unions and legal advocacy groups. Until then, trying to “change the culture” or “move the overton window” is just spinning our wheels and getting nowhere.
Reply
Greg Johnson
Posted January 25, 2020 at 4:26 pm | Permalink
Metapolitics = propaganda + community organizing. What you are describing falls in the latter category. We definitely need institutions that will help lower the costs of open white advocacy.
Legal defense/lawfare organizations and payment processors are two very important types of institutions to create.

No kidding; that’s what has been advocated here for years.  It is obvious this needs to be done, even the affirmative action cases realize this, but after decades of “activism” and millions of dollars wasted, nothing has been achieved.

It is an obvious failure of leadership; but with a moronic rank-and-file, a characterless “leadership” that has zero accountability and takes responsibility for nothing, and the strict ethnic affirmation action policy, change does not seem likely.

You’ll just get more of this.

Laughable comment:

I would like to personally ask Dr. Johnson why he himself cannot become involved in politics? I know the many answers to that question, to include his own lack of desire in or taste for the carnage and stupidity of electoral campaigning. But I believe he is exactly what we need…

Reply

Greg Johnson
Posted January 26, 2020 at 5:56 am | Permalink
I am flattered, but I am not cut out for politics.

You see – Johnson and I do agree on some things!

Greg Johnson
Posted January 23, 2020 at 2:37 pm | Permalink
You are right RE funding.
But deplatforming has made it very difficult for CC to depend simply on many small donations, which is what a tithe would be.
We really need large patrons to step forward if we are going to fund new institutions.

The Battle cry: There’s no money!  There’s no money!  Yeah, right.

“Large patrons.”  Hmm, like this?

Greg has it backwards. In reality, FIRST you need to build something useful and appealing with the ample resources you guys already have and have had for decades. THEN, perhaps some “large patrons” will have the confidence that their money won’t be utterly wasted like Regnery’s has been.

According to the most recent (year 2017) VDARE Foundation tax form 990 filing that is posted at ProPublica, Brimelow’s compensation for that year was $148,303. Oh, the poverty!  After all, he’s accomplished so much with that type of money over the years that all the “large patrons” are scrambling to be the first to give “D’Nations” for more such accomplishments.

Der Movement can be showered with money and still fail because it is led by Quota Queen affirmative action incompetents with a long record of proven failure.

Oh, and I notice that “The Master of Disaster” is no retweeting Bernie Sanders.  Has he tired of Princess Tulsi Coconut and King Andy Eggroll?  Will the next endorsement be of Sir Bernie Redjew?

Odds and Ends, 1/24/20

Various issues.  In all cases, emphasis added.

Very cognitive, very elite.

Read this.

He is the intelligent man of action, the taciturn, unflappable Nordic explorer.

Yes, you know, like Magellan.  Note that Johnson originally wrote that for the Jew HBD Unz site.  Once again, the ethnonationalist-HBD-Nordicist alliance is on display.  Sallis: Always right.

Read this.

So if White Nationalists aren’t quite ready for politics, how do we prepare ourselves?

Assuming the conclusion. Nothing stops “White nationalists” getting involved right now in politics in a variety of ways – running for office in the right contexts, getting involved in the political campaigns of right-wing populists, etc.

We must identify the necessary conditions for becoming a political force. Then we must assemble those conditions, to the best of our ability. We must begin with things that we can do right now, and we must prepare ourselves to do harder things in the future.

Give dem “D’Nations.”  “Trevor Lynch” needs to go to the movies. Tickets are expensive.

Let’s begin with the obvious. If White Nationalism is going to be a political force, we need more White Nationalists.

That’s the type of sterling political analysis that justifies you guys funding Counter-Currents to the tune of $100,000 in the past year.

To change people’s minds, we need to know their minds. We need to understand the ideas and values of people who are already White Nationalists, and the ideas and values of people who might be converted to White Nationalism. Then we need to map out how to bring the latter into our camp. We also need to understand the ideas and values of our enemies, if we are to decrease their opposition to us. Armed with such knowledge, we could launch educational campaigns that would move us closer to our goals.

I’ve been saying for years that we need information, we need empiricism, and have advocated opinion polling and serious analysis to understand why people join, why others do not, and how we can retain the former and recruit the latter.  None of this is going to happen if large amounts of “D’Nations” money is being funneled to useless tragicomic Quota Queen affirmative action “leadership” losers.

One could argue, of course, that we have been doing a pretty good job without such knowledge. 

Only a grifting fraud would argue that.

Based simply on introspection and personal experience, a lot of us have become quite skilled at converting people. Furthermore, the rising traffic of various movement websites can be taken as testament to this success.

Absolute nonsense. Where are all these new recruits?  Does this “leader” actually “think” that “rising traffic” actually translates into actual followers?

But how much of this rising traffic is due to our outreach, and how much of it is due simply to the problems endemic to multiculturalism and globalization?

Most likely: Former – none, latter – all.  Let’s do the polling and find out.

How much is rising white ethnocentrism due to our persuasive pull, as opposed to the system’s dystopian push? 

Most likely: Former – none, latter – all.  Let’s do the polling and find out.

That is another question that we really need to answer if we are to become serious contenders for power.

How about opinion polling, instead of this?  It’s a zero sum game for the available money in Der Movement. Use it in a manner analogous to an intelligent investment, or waste it on “happy penguins.”  Your choice.

To do a serious study of the public mind, we need to create an institution, staff it with people with the necessary skills, and fund their studies.

To do such things, we need serious leadership, not a bunch of incompetent affirmative action grifters.

We also need some sort of institute to craft White Nationalist positions on public policy issues.

Hey!  I thought we had the NPI!  The Charles Martel Society!  What happened?

No matter what the outcome of the election..

Hey!  I thought that Greg thinks that “Trump is toast no matter what” and then the “race war” will kick in.

…we can emerge as the champions of the more than sixty million mostly white people who voted for Trump in 2016 and may show up again in 2020. Thus we should comport ourselves accordingly.

Thus: Scream “Kek!” while chugging gallons of milk.

It is fortunate that the 2020 election is a golden opportunity for presenting our ideas, since it is all we really can do at present. If we want our votes to matter someday, we need to start building the institutions necessary to turn truth into power.

Sure!  How to begin – dump the current “leadership” and elevate people to leadership based on their merit, ideas, abilities, and accomplishments, instead of them being of Anglo/Germanic/Scandinavian ancestry.

Yes, indeed, he is – a neurotic nitwit.

The Importance of Identity

Not for you White Man.

We have read and heard about some of the important downward trends in White well-being – White Americans being the only racial group in America with increasing mortality rates, Whites devastated by the opioid epidemic, White men with high rates of suicide, opinion polls reflecting White pessimism, all consistent with Whites acting like a defeated, despairing people.

Identity is an important component of the psychological well-being of people.

…groups provide individuals with a sense of meaning, purpose, and belonging (i.e. a positive sense of social identity) they tend to have positive psychological consequences.

Certainly, that’s celebrated for “minorities”– and that’s the point. Non-White well-being is maximized by expressions of ethnoracial Identity, while Whites are not allowed to do the same.

If Whiteness is stigmatized, if Whites are told that they have no positive group racial identity and that Whiteness is a myth that exists merely to subjugate others, if Whites are told that they are uniquely and inherently bad, if Whites are denied the same rights of group racial Identity and the ability to organize around that Identity and around group interest, will that not be psychologically harmful?  If Identity is so important for psychological well-being, isn’t the denial of White Racial Identity – e.g., in America – an attack on White well-being and an important contributor to the problems discussed above?

One can look at places of employment, academic institutions, various other organizations and social entities and observe the fanatical attachment to expressions of Identity by non-Whites. For example, in the academic/education setting the hysterical, obsessive, navel-gazing, laser-like focus by non-White students on their racial and cultural identities is well-known and quite remarkable in its psychological intensity. These people find emotional release in expressions of their Identity and are quite aggressive about it – not only are these expressions typically characterized in the form of opposition to Whiteness, but White students – themselves deprived of the opportunity of equal expressions of group Identity – are forced to watch, and sometimes participate in, expressions and celebrations of non-White Identity. Similar scenarios play out in the workplace as well, from smaller companies to large, multinational corporations. It’s in the general culture as well; it is everywhere.

Indeed, in such a setting, every group has an organization, every such group has special events celebrating their Identity, every such group has a “history month” – every group has that, except for Whites, except for people of European descent. They are singled out as not being allowed to have an Identity or to participate in any expressions of that Identity, but instead are singled out as “privileged” – the ones who are not allowed to have an Identity, not allowed to organize, not allowed to express pride and defend interests are “privileged” while the ones allowed all those thing are “oppressed.” Is it no wonder Whites are in despair?  

Identity is so important to people that when Whites are deprived of authentic expressions of Identity, deprived of expressions of genuine tribal attachments, they pathetically grasp for substitutes. The issue of atomized ethnic attachments and questionable ethnic identities is discussed below. In addition, there are identities revolving around abnormal sexual preferences and other various types of deviant behavior, and of course there are sex-based female identity groups. That is one reason –  besides personal self-interest – that White women, particularly young White women, focus Identity around “woman’s issues,” and all declare that they are “feminists.” However, since feelings of group solidarity are best released by kin-based tribal-like affiliations, I doubt that White women really get much from inauthentic multiracial “woman’s groups” in which they are no doubt lambasted for “White Privilege” and held back as lacking the “intersectional” advantages of their colored “sisters.”

The hostility toward race-based expressions of White Identity can be contrasted to the relative acceptance of atomized White ethnic group identities. Let’s consider a thought experiment, taking place at some American university. A group of Asian students want to form an Asian-American Student Union to express their Asian racial-cultural identity. Would the school have any problem with that? Of course not; indeed, it would be encouraged, promoted, and celebrated. What if, instead, a group of specifically Japanese-American students wanted to form a Japanese-American Student Union for like purpose but restricted only to the Japanese ethny, excluding other Asian groups?  While the school would likely not overtly oppose that endeavor, the move may be considered somewhat controversial, with administrators, faculty, students, and staff wondering why other Asian students are excluded. I’m sure there would be calls for pan-Asian unity and such pan-Asian attitudes would be encouraged by the university, or at least not opposed.

On the other hand, if a group of White students wanted to form a European-American Student Union that would be vehemently opposed at all levels as a “fascist,” “racist,” “Nazi” affront to decency. If not rejected outright, the group would be subjected to official and non-official persecution and ridicule. The doomed history of the European-American Student Union (EASU) from the mid-late 1990s proves that this thought experiment has value.

On the other hand, atomized White ethnic student groups – Italian, German, Irish, Greek, Slavic, French, what have you – would be, if not encouraged, at least somewhat more palatable, as long as there was no cooperation or interaction between them. For adults in the broader society, one can also consider that Italian-American, German-American, Greek-American, Irish-American, etc. celebrations and organizations are mildly acceptable, but any European-American equivalent is hysterically opposed as “Nazi” and “racist” and “fascist.”

So, on the one hand, a pan-Asian Identity would be encouraged and atomization of that Identity viewed askance and perhaps discouraged, while a pan-European Identity would be discouraged if not actively rejected (and perhaps opposed by student violence on campus), while atomization of that Identity would be encouraged, at least as an alternative.

Further, given the realities of inter-European ethnic mixing in America, atomized ethnic identities are actually quite inauthentic for most White Americans. If a person is a mix of several European ethnic groups, what do they do?  Pick only one, ignore the others, and join one ethnic-based club or organization?  Join all of them?  None?  Meanwhile, typically mono-ethnic Asians are allowed to form pan-racial groups and revel in racial solidarity. What is worse is when people on the Right question the validity of Whiteness as an organizing principle and promote intra-European division, thus doing the dirty work of the System. Ethnonationalists are part of the problem with respect to forming a racial White Identity.

Fighting for the right to express a positive racial and cultural/civilizational “White” (pan-European) Identity is a reasonable and feasible activist approach, consistent with Democratic Multiculturalism, and related to the points made here.

This is a project that can bridge the generational divide, uniting dastardly Boomers, angelic Millennials and Zoomers, and Purgatorial Xers in an across-the-board societal-wide battle for White Rights: in the schools, colleges, and universities, the workplaces, the churches, and the wide culture.  For example, at the academic level, Millennial and Zoomer students can fight to establish European-American student organizations and events, with support from Boomer and Xer parents, faculty, and others.  That would be a place to start, success there can spread throughout horizontally and vertically throughout society.

Whites have the right to express a positive racial Identity, but they have to earn that right through struggle.  The hostile System won’t give them that right, they have to seize it.  Their well-being depends upon it.

Security and Coordination in a Clandestine Organization

Important reading.

Some background information.

Maybe Der Movement should be reading things like this instead of screaming “Kek” and chugging gallons of milk, but what do I know?  Obviously, I’m not in tune with “youth culture.”

We develop a model of an underground organization. The model is designed to highlight the tradeoff between the operational capacity and operational security of clandestine groups. The underground in this paper is defined by a collection of individual cells that are united by a network of internal communications. The attributes of this network, we show, have important implications for the vitality of an underground group in the face of regime efforts to identify and target its component cells. We examine the implications of various network designs for group performance in the short run, and the implications the group’s short run performance will have for its operational prospects in the long run. In the final section of the paper, we discuss the conditions under which a conflict between a regime and an underground organization will reach three alternative equilibria. The results of this paper will be useful to those interested in both the design and dismemberment of clandestine organizations.

When reading the paper, please do not be misled by footnote one, which describes the entity under consideration as one that has illegal goals and uses primarily illegal means. Pro-White activism, particularly in America, is in the unique situation in which the primary goals and means are (at present) legal, but nevertheless sharply persecuted by both governmental and non-governmental actors. Thus, the article applies just as much to the legal goals and means that are persecuted by the System as to illegal ones.  In addition, it is possible to adapt the information presented for the types of situations similar to that experienced by racial activists, even if these are different from what is described in the paper.

To briefly summarize the main points of the paper and their relevance:

1. There is a tradeoff between organizational capacity (the effectiveness of the group, its ability to actualize objectives) and organizational security (its ability to evade detection and compromise by the enemy).  This is of course obvious, but is rarely so starkly presented. The more aggressive, open, action-oriented, integrated, and willing to attack the power centers of the enemy, the more vulnerable the group is to detection and counter-attack. The more secure, the more isolated from the enemy, the more resources invested in operational security, the less growth, capacity, and actualized effectiveness there is of the group. Of course, capacity is in the long run tied to security; a group detected, compromised, and destroyed obviously will have no capacity.  However, with respect to the ongoing functioning of the group, the tradeoffs are clear. 

The “movement” has historically compromised organizational security in favor of organizational capacity; unfortunately, the latter has failed to yield any victories.  Essentially, organizational security has been sacrificed for nothing. At the current time, I would advise the “movement” to focus more on the organizational security end of the spectrum; particularly if capacity is going to be limited regardless, an emphasis on security can assure the continued existence of the group and allow for the possibility of future secure growth, and the ability to expand capacity in a sustainable manner. This will of course require an understanding of operational security that includes “extreme vetting” that goes beyond asking “are you Swedish?”

2. As the size of a cell increases, the ability of leadership to exert effective control over the cell decreases.  Codreanu wisely limited Legionary “nests” to thirteen members.  If the group sustains growth, the number of cells must also increase concomitantly.  This of course requires the necessary effective cell leadership to be available.

3. The greater the ability of the cells to coordinate their activity – for example via effective inter-cell communication – the greater the possible organizational capacity.  This comes at a cost of decreased organizational security. Communication can be nonsecure or secure. Nonsecure communication requires fewer resources and allows for more rapid use of organizational capacity; however, organizational security is usually compromised.  Secure communication incurs costs of resource investment (that could have been used for growth and/or action), but allows for greater security. The cost/benefit ratio will of course be influenced by how effective the enemy is in detecting, blocking, infiltrating, and otherwise compromising communication.

Given all of the problems the “movement” has had regarding this, the more secure, the better. With respect to the tradeoff between redundant communication that is robust to enemy blocking but is more vulnerable to detection vs. thinner communication connections that are vulnerable to jamming/blocking but are more secure, the latter is in my opinion preferable at the current time.  A distributed communication system, allowing more cell autonomy in communication – more decentralized – would have to be “secure and thin” in order to maximize operational security, to prevent compromise of one cell to “taint” and compromise others.  Indeed, one major benefit of the cell system is to prevent compromise from spreading (the Hermannson infiltration is an example of such spreading). Thus, a “high level of interconnectivity” can result in increased organizational capacity, but this is usually outweighed by increased vulnerability.  Mathematical modeling by the authors, summarized in Table 1 of the paper, outlines the results of a comparative analysis of different scenarios, including that of variation in communication connectivity and security. The benefits of increased security in the face of a competent enemy are clear.

4. The group can have its man focal point (“headquarters”) at the periphery of the enemy or at the enemy’s central point (e.g., a capital or other major city). The former is more secure but more restrained as far as possibilities for action, the latter is the converse. “Eastern” modes of revolutionary cell systems tend to build in the periphery (e.g., rural) and expand toward the center; the “Western” models tend to start at the inner core of the enemy and expand outward. The latter is worse for security and historically has been more effectively compromised by the enemy.  

Was Pierce therefore correct to go to the mountaintop, despite my criticism?  There are tradeoffs to consider.  I still stand by my criticism.  The National Alliance was (and is) not an illegal guerilla organization. The top leadership of activist groups are public figures, they are not attempting to avoid detection by the System.  So, there is no reason vis-à-vis detection to avoid the central node of the enemy. The major concern is physical security as well as operational security with respect to information gathering since it is expected to be easier for the System to monitor the center than the periphery. All that said, I have previously discussed the advantages of having leadership close to the centers of society and there is nothing in this article that argues against that as long as we are talking about public, overt, legal activity.

5. The group can exhibit growth, with respect to recruiting more members (with a requirement for more cells), or there can be decay, as cells are successfully targeted by the enemy, there is a net loss of members, etc. Both growth and decay can be self-reinforcing, and a present concern is that the failures of the Alt Right have started a self-reinforcing loop of decay.

There are tradeoffs also between investing in growth and investing for the capacity for action.  A group with extra resources can focus on growth while maintaining a certain level of operational action, or the opposite – increasing the frequency and level of action while keeping growth constant.

Essentially, the group has three possible outcomes.  First, an inability to grow beyond its base, in which case it never becomes a viable threat to the System and may in fact get eliminated; second, self-sustaining growth, in which case it becomes a “political contender” and may “defeat and displace the standing regime;” or third, a case in which neither the group nor the System can win outright, and a stalemate is reached, in which control over different parts of the territory is achieved by each side. One can speculate that this third situation is not stable long term, unless actual political separation of the territory occurs. Currently, Der Movement reflects he first possible outcome, primarily due to poor leadership and horrifically bad strategic decisions.

I would like to point out that the authors’ mathematical modeling shows that improving internal security is one effective strategy for ensuring survivability and growth for the group. Internal security being, of course, one of the “movement’s” greatest weaknesses, as the Far Right is seemingly infiltrated at will by the Left, with virtually no effort required.

Conclusion

Even if the organization finds an optimal balance between capacity and security, victory is not guaranteed.  The relative strength of each side is crucial, and an “ebb and flow” of fortunes between the two sides may in fact occur, with a protracted struggle.  A “functional win” by the standing regime can be achieved by, as the authors state, forcing the revolutionary organization back to “an equilibrium position that is sufficiently low to neutralize any threat it might pose to regime stability, even if is able to remain in the game.” This equilibrium may be maintained unless some internal or external change occurs to destabilize the equilibrium – that is undoubtedly why Der Movement fantasizes about various “collapse” scenarios that would break them it out of the pathetic cul-de-sac it has been in for decades.

Of related interest, by the same authors, on recruitment:

We examine the role played by popular expectations in the process of political mobilization and the dilemma this poses for nascent revolutionary organizations. In any target population, we argue, there will be a small ‘hard core’ minority of unconditional supporters of each side. The large majority of individuals (though they may have definite sympathies toward one of the two sides) can be influenced to support either side depending upon their predictions of others’ behavior and their related estimates of each side’s prospects. The conditional nature of such support, we argue, poses an early mobilization problem for revolutionary challengers. The revolutionary opposition begins the struggle from a position of weakness. The expected returns to membership are, therefore, quite low and the expected costs of association are correspondingly high. Why would anyone join such a high risk enterprise in the first place? Revolutionary groups attempt to overcome this challenge through the use of symbolic violence. Group violence is used as a surrogate variable by would-be supporters to estimate the size and relative prospects of the armed opposition. This process, if properly managed, can result in a situation in which agent expectations eventually become self-confirming, permitting the group to ‘jump start’ the mobilization process and achieve a self-sustaining level of revolutionary activity.

The “movement” can, at the current time, substitute “successful activity” for “symbolic violence.”  If Unite the Right had been successful, that may have been a step forward, but since it was a botched disaster, it had the opposite effect.

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.

Democratic Multiculturalism and Title VI

Title VII and Title IX as well.

See the definitions of these “titles” here at this link.

I have previously written about, and advocated for, Salter’s idea of “Democratic Multiculturalism” – that White majorities should demand a seat at the multicultural table and use the System’s mechanisms of multiculturalism to advocate for White interests. Multiculturalism is defined (as Salter reminded us) as a system in which minorities are empowered and are encouraged to mobilize for their interests, while majorities are disempowered and demobilized. If that is so, then forcing the multicultural system to allow for majority mobilization will, by definition, make that system untenable, destabilize it, and heighten the contradictions, and lead, eventually, to its demise. There is a saying – “if everyone is my brother, then I have no brother.” Likewise, if every group tales advantage of multiculturalism, then there is no multiculturalism.

Always remember Suvorov’s Law of history – revolutions do not typically occur during the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed. That is why it is imperative to put pressure on the System, at its weakest points, to force concessions and force relaxation of the repression.  Exploiting the “titles”- VI, VII, and IX – is an excellent place to start.

I will concentrate on Title VI here, but what is written applies equally well to the others.  All are ripe for exploitation by a properly leveraged attack of Democratic Multiculturalism.

Read this.  That is open anti-White hatred and discrimination at an academic institution that no doubt falls under Title VI (as well as VII and IX).

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. All federal agencies that provide grants of assistance are required to enforce Title VI. The U.S. Department of Education gives grants of financial assistance to schools and colleges and to certain other entities, including vocational rehabilitation programs.

Examples of discrimination covered by Title VI include racial harassment, school segregation, and denial of language services to English learners. A fuller list of Title VI issues OCR addresses appears here. The U.S. Department of Education Title VI regulation (Code of Federal Regulations at 34 CFR 100) is enforced by the Department’s Office for Civil Rights.

The Title VI regulation prohibits retaliation for filing an OCR complaint or for advocacy for a right protected by Title VI. Title VI also prohibits employment discrimination, but the protection against employment discrimination under Title VI is limited. As a result, most complaints OCR receives raising race, color, or national-origin discrimination in employment are referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

A fair and just reading of Title VI clearly shows that White students are being targeted for repression at Western Connecticut State, and a legal case can and should be made that that institution is in violation of Title VI and should have all federal funding and assistance cut.

If an institution attacks Whites to such an extent that they would attempt to expel a student for saying “it is OK to be White” then this can be construed as a Title VI violation against Whites.  One can think of a myriad of other anti-White academic activities that constitute a hostile environment for White students, and for which the institution should be sued under Title VI.  There are lawyers and legal foundations who have in the past taken on academia from a rightist legal standpoint, we need more such persons and foundations, ones even more “vanguard” in their outlook, willing to begin and sustain an unrelenting legal assault on academia on this issue.  It doesn’t matter if, in the short term, such legal actions will meet with defeat.  The actions, and the resulting publicity, will put pressure on the System at a weak point. It will mobilize Whites. It will heighten the contradictions. It should be supplemented with political, social, and economic activism targeting the academic institutions in question. There should be a multi-pronged assault on the issue, continuous and unrelenting.  Why should these institutions get federal aid if they are so openly violating Title VI for Whites?  No more assistance!  No more financial aid for the students of such a racist institution!  The very act of filing these Title VI suits – regardless of the initial outcome – will be a step in the right direction, a step toward majority mobilization as part of Democratic Multiculturalism. The time to start is now.

Again, remember Suvorov’s Law – revolutions do not occur at the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed.

Worse is not always better.  

There are of course mighty obstacles. The System with its legal apparatus has already tried to define anti-White discrimination as “non-discrimination” and thus acceptable. Let us look at this, returning at the end to discuss how all of it can be leveraged against the System. 

Thus, let’s consider what Whites are up against, how “non-discrimination” is utilized to viciously discriminate against Whites, particularly White men – a tactic successful mostly because feckless, cowardly Whites refuse to fight back, refuse to sue, refuse to protest, and refuse to utilize whatever social, political, and economic power they do have to exert force for change.  

Principle 4: Financial Aid To Create Diversity

America is unique because it has forged one Nation from many people of a remarkable number of different backgrounds. 

America is certainly unique.  It is also in terminal decline – and for the reason stated.

Many colleges seek to create on campus an intellectual environment that reflects that diversity. 

Now, how does “different backgrounds” affect the “intellectual environment?’’ Only if that “diversity” leads to diversity of thought and ideas.  But the exact opposite occurs.  As schools become more demographically diverse, intellectual diversity dwindles to nothing – it  is in fact actively suppressed – to reach the real goal of a demographically diverse student body who share exactly the same social and political beliefs.

A college should have substantial discretion to weigh many factors – including race and national origin – in its efforts to attract and retain a student population of many different experiences, opinions, backgrounds, and cultures – provided that the use of race or national origin is consistent with the constitutional standards reflected in Title VI, i.e. , that it is a narrowly tailored means to achieve the goal of a diverse student body.

Who defines “narrowly tailored?” Why is a “diverse student body” desirable?  What about political diversity?

There are several possible options for a college to promote its First Amendment interest in diversity. First a college may, of course, use its financial aid program to promote diversity by considering factors other than race or national origin, such as geographic origin, diverse experiences, or socioeconomic background. Second, a college may consider race or national origin with other factors in awarding financial aid if the aid is necessary to further the college’s interest in diversity. Third, a college may use race or national origin as a condition of eligibility in awarding financial aid if this use is narrowly tailored, or, in other words, if it is necessary to further its interest in diversity and does not unduly restrict access to financial aid for students who do not meet the race based eligibility criteria.

Laugh – “does not unduly restrict access to financial aid for students who do not meet the race-based eligibility criteria.” They can’t get the aid, but, hey, they are not unduly restricted by that. The argument will then be that schools have unlimited financial resources, so there is no zero sum game, which is an outright lie.

Among the considerations that affect a determination of whether awarding race-targeted financial aid is narrowly tailored…

Again, “narrowly tailored”  is never defined.

…to the goal of diversity…

Why is that a goal?  What kinds of diversity?

…are (1) whether race-neutral means of achieving that goal have been or would be ineffective…

Of course they are ineffective, because some groups are less intelligent and less competent than are others.

….(2) whether a less extensive or intrusive use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid as a means of achieving that goal has been or would be ineffective; (3) whether the use of race or national origin is of limited extent and duration and is applied in a flexible manner; (4) whether the institution regularly reexamines its use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid to determine whether it is still necessary to achieve its goal; and (5) whether the effect of the use of race or national origin on students who are not beneficiaries of that use is sufficiently small and diffuse so as not to create an undue burden on their opportunity to receive financial aid.

If any of those criteria were fairly considered from the perspective of Whites having legitimate interests as do all other peoples, then such programs would not pass the Title VI test.

If the use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid is justified under this principle, the college may use funds from any source.

Sure!  Not for you, Whitey!

Principle 5: Private Gifts Restricted by Race or National Origin

Title VI does not prohibit an individual or an organization that is not a recipient of Federal financial assistance from directly giving scholarships or other forms of financial aid to students based on their race or national origin. Title VI simply does not apply.

The provisions of Principles 3 and 4 apply to the use of race-targeted privately donated funds by a college and may justify awarding these funds on the basis of race or national origin if the college is remedying its past discrimination…

Who decides whether there was past discrimination?  Answer – those getting the money and those eager to give out the money.

…pursuant to Principle 3 or attempting to achieve a diverse student body pursuant to Principle 4. In addition, a college may use privately donated funds that are not restricted by their donor on the basis of race or national origin to make awards to disadvantaged students as described in Principle 1.

The students who get aid, and who are also given preferences in admission, are “disadvantaged.”  Those being actively discriminated against are “advantaged” and “privileged.”  Got it!

Finally, the burden on those who are excluded from the benefit conferred by the classification based on race or national origin (i.e., non-minority students) must be considered. 

Laughable. In reality, the only consideration made is that if Whites suffer, that is good.  White suffering is an essential feature of the system in play here.

Id., at 171. A use of race or national origin may impose such a severe burden on particular individuals – for example, eliminating scholarships currently received by non-minority students in order to start a scholarship program for minority students – that it is too intrusive to be considered narrowly tailored. See Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. at 283 (use of race in imposing layoffs involves severe disruption to lives of identifiable individuals). Generally, the less severe and more diffuse the impact on non-minority students, the more likely a classification based on race or national origin will address this factor satisfactorily. However, it is not necessary to show that no student’s opportunity to receive financial aid has been in any way diminished by the use of the race-targeted aid. Rather, the use of race-targeted financial aid must not place an undue burden on students who are not eligible for that aid.

Who defines “undue burden?” That’s right – those in favor of handouts to Coloreds.

A number of commenters argued that race-targeted financial aid is a minimally intrusive method to attain a diverse student body, far more limited in its impact on non-minority students, for example, than race-targeted admissions policies. Under this view, and unlike the admissions plan at issue in Bakke, a race-targeted financial aid award could be a narrowly tailored means of achieving the compelling interest in diversity.

“Compelling interest.”  Laughable.  How come there is no similar “compelling interest” for intellectual and political diversity?” Why is the “compelling interest” only to have a demographically diverse group of students all of who have – or pretend to have – exactly the same sociopolitical views as each other?

The Department agrees that there are important differences between admissions and financial aid. The affirmative action admissions program struck down in Bakke had the effect of excluding applicants from the university on the basis of their race. The use of race-targeted financial aid, on the other hand, does not, in and of itself, dictate that a student would be foreclosed from attending a college solely on the basis of race. 

Sure! After all, if a poor White cannot afford college but is not eligible for race-based financial aid, that doesn’t preclude them from college!  Take out ruinous loans, Whitey!  Rob a bank!  That’s the ticket!  And if a wealthy Negro gets race-based financial aid, why that’s too bad on you, Whitey!  It’s “narrowly tailored” and all!

Moreover, in contrast to the number of admissions slots, the amount of financial aid available to students is not necessarily fixed. 

Sure! Schools have unlimited funds! Or perhaps they would, if they didn’t pay (anti-White) administrators bloated salaries that far surpass that given to the President of the United States.

For example, a college’s receipt of privately donated monies restricted to an underrepresented group might increase the total pool of funds for student aid in a situation in which, absent the ability to impose such a limitation, the donor might not provide any aid at all.

Certainly!  If the money can’t be given to Coloreds, don’t give it at all!  Let Whitey pump gas for a living!  If a wealthy Negro can’t get financial aid, then no one can!

Even in the case of a college’s own funds, a decision to bar the award of race-targeted financial aid will not necessarily translate into increased resources for students from non-targeted groups. Funds for financial aid restricted by race or national origin that are viewed as a recruitment device might be rechanneled into other methods of recruitment if restricted financial aid is barred. In other words, unlike admission to a class with a fixed number of places, the amount of financial aid may increase or decrease based on the functions it is perceived to promote.

Please read the above paragraph very carefully.  What it is saying is this: Even if you were to strike down as unconstitutional giving race-based financial aid, the schools – in their hate-filled animus toward Whites – would not rechannel that money into race-blind financial aid. They would simply invent new programs to skirt the law so as to enable Coloreds, rechanneling the money to Colored pockets, anything to avoid giving Whites a fair chance for a college degree. It’s the same with admissions. “Holistic review” is just a fundamentally dishonest way of enabling racial (and sex) quotas in admissions in an indirect fashion, to comply with the law in a strictly legal manner, but not in spirit. Anything to screw The White Man is acceptable!

In summary, a college can use its financial aid program to promote diversity by considering factors other than race or national origin, such as geographic origin, diverse experiences, or socioeconomic background. 

Right!  So if you come from a predominantly Black city, come from a high school that is 100% Black, are a member of your high school’s Black Student Union, etc., then, by golly, that’s race-blind admissions!  Holistic review!

In addition, a college may take race or national origin into account as one factor, with other factors, in awarding financial aid if necessary to promote diversity. Finally, a college may use race or national origin as a condition of eligibility in awarding financial aid if it is narrowly tailored to promote diversity.

Again: Who defines “narrowly tailored?”  Answer: The school administering the program.  As well as the leftist judges who rule in favor of viciously racist outright discrimination against Whites.

All of that may be disheartening, but let is take a “glass half full” approach. All those negatives mean that there is much to criticize, much to attack, much “low hanging fruit” for concerted legal, social, and, above all, political methods to be employed to leverage these anti-White policies against the System.  Vulnerabilities for the System abound, if only there was a crafty and strategic opponent willing to exploit those vulnerabilities. Consider Title Vi and academia – coupled to the whole affirmative action scam about admissions – all tailor-made to infuriate White students and their families. It is no coincidence that a major focus of “reverse racism” lawsuits have centered on the educational system.  In addition to what Title VI can do, Title VII can bring the focus of anti-White discrimination and hypocrisy to the broader arena, and Title IX can focus on anti-male discrimination and hypocrisy. The three “titles” together constitute a weak point for the System, a chink (sorry, Derbyshire) in the System’s armor.

Salter stated that – from the standpoint of a majority being displaced and replaced – the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does, thus ensuring the relatively painless race replacement of the majority.  However, as stated above, Democratic Multiculturalism is not stable for the System in the long run, as the whole idea of multiculturalism is empowering minorities and disempowering the majority. A concerted effort of the majority to demand fair treatment under multiculturalism, according to its own standards, would destabilize the entire multicultural system and heighten the contradictions. If the System tries to deny Whites relief under the multiculturalist ethos, the contradictions can be heightened to a point of complete System illegitimacy – and although the System can attempt to maintain the repression, there may be a breaking point at which they’ll have to give in.  If they attempt to relieve the pressure by giving in to some White demands, in the hope of appeasing White demands, then Suvorov’s Law comes into play, particularly if there are legitimate White leaders (and not System ringers – always a concern, something we must avoid) who will never be satisfied and will continue upping the demands. Once concessions are made, the floodgates will be opened, and the legitimacy of White interests confirmed. 

Getting back to the idea of the System trying to maintain repression – the reason why Suvorov’s Law has been actualized so many times in history is that repression is difficult to maintain at a high level for long periods of time, particularly when the repressed group is the majority – or at least a plurality – of the population. That’s why it is important to get started with Democratic Multiculturalism now, with Whites still a majority, and the “titles” are a good place to start.  And remember, I am not saying Title VI legal actions alone, but a concerted effort, including Title VII and IX, as well as all other aspects of anti-White discrimination in society, also using political, social, economic, and other forms of protest.  The struggle must be on a wide front, but it needs to start somewhere.