Category: TOO

More Silk Road News

More anti-Silkism.

More over-sensitive Asians.  Colored is as colored does.

Realities of Jews and China and the Chinese threat to the White race (emphasis added):

…to demonstrate the vicious, dangerous and ruthless nature of today’s China and its determination to spare no means in order to realize its dream for global dominance and to bring the White western people to its collective knees in the process…while China is actively and vigorously employing the “subversive divide and conquer strategy” among other crafty means on its adversaries, those at the receiving end of the Chinese stratagems are actually not awakened enough to the scenario and certainly not repaying China with the same means, at least far inadequately. On the contrary, China has been consistently favored and shielded and subsidized by the Jew directed Western political and economic establishment on the both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

Of course, the Silkers say we need to grovel to Chinese power, let the Chinese colonize White lands, and have Chinese girls with guns enforcing the borders of the West.  Madness, sheer madness.

Here’s another wonderfully productive and patriotic “British Asian” helping the UK be more “resilient,” don’t you know.   Cue the Silkers posting pictures of anime figures proudly standing by the Union Jack.  All hail dat dere British civic nationalism!  Just stay out of the doctor’s office…

Advertisements

The Message as Well as the Messenger

Being right is not enough.

This essay (the current one in TOO, not the original 1989 version) by McCulloch is fine as far as it goes.  The logic is good and the moral reasoning is sound.  One cannot easily criticize the fundamental argument from a theoretical standpoint.  The only real objection at the current time is empirical: moral arguments, on their own, have not worked to convince White people to pursue their racial interests.

It is not merely, as the essay asserts, that Whites do not care because they do not know, or that they do not know because they do not care.  One can find Whites who will reasonably agree to the premise that genocide against any group is wrong and, as a matter of course, that every group has – or should have – an inherent right of self-preservation.  Very well. But if you then – using facts, logic, and the language of moral persuasion – attempt to convince them of the reality of White genocide, and the moral imperative of resistance, you will typically encounter immediate and unalterable hostility. They will deny the reality of White genocide regardless of facts and logic; Whites have been conditioned to automatically reject and deny any appeal to racial self-interest.

And I use the word “automatically” advisedly.  No matter how much the person had previously asserted their agreement with anti-genocide and pro-preservationist premises, as soon as those premises are explicitly linked to specifically White interests, their minds close down and self-righteous hysteria and moral posturing – usually using the language of cant – ensues. One can make arguments such as those suggested by McCulloch in this essay, and yet all these people will hear is “blah-blah-blah-racist hate–blah-KKK-blah-Nazi-blah-blah-blah.”

I have no easy answers for overcoming this conditioning.  I would suggest that Hitler did state what is likely a fundamental truth with his assertion that the masses are decidedly feminine in behavior.  Thus, the messenger is as important – or perhaps more so – than the message.  Now, I do not like stating that.  As a rationalist and an empiricist, who judges arguments by their memetic content, the idea that the messenger should rise to an equal or greater level of importance as the message strikes me as one step along the road to idiocracy.  It is irrational.  But as Yockey tells us, life is irrational. In this sense, the existentialists (using the broadest sense of that word) are correct: when viewing reality from the human perspective, there are limits to the rational, limits to empiricism, limits to positivism; man is inherently irrational.

Therefore, what would be helpful is coupling a sound message with appealing messengers: attractive, confident, successful men, speaking from a position of strength, well-liked and respected, and resistant to the inevitable backlash, thuggery, and social pricing resulting from their pro-White position. One could imagine some popular celebrity – actor, athlete, or respected political figure or businessman – being better received than the typical pro-White activist.  Of course, such people, even if they were pro-White, would likely be resistant to expressing these opinions – they would fear an end to their careers, an end to their social standing and reputation (even, thus retired celebrities would be hesitant), and so only marginal dissident figures publicly express pro-White views, a situation that the masses perceive as a lack of legitimacy.

Context is important as well: the feminine masses want to see strength, virility, defiance, success – a “winner.”  The same message with the same messenger will be differently perceived and received dependent upon the context surrounding the message’s delivery. Thus, a messenger who stands his ground and is able to deliver the message without disruption, and who of course never backs down under pressure, will more effectively deliver the message than the exact same messenger, with the exact same message, who is shouted down, chased off-stage, punched in the face, is surrounded by a motley crew of cosplay-wanna-bes, has a urine-filed bottle bouncing off his head, has his rally cancelled, and, especially, backs down under stress. On a purely rational basis, the content of the message, its inherent truth, should be independent of these external factors; however, the irrational reality is that these external factors are as important, or more so, in convincing the masses, than the message itself. I wish it weren’t so, but it is what it is.

If this is true, then great care must be taken in choosing the right messengers and also choosing the optimal environment within which to deliver the message, to invoke perceptions of strength and success.  It also follows that recruiting celebrities and other public figures, and convincing them to speak out, successfully and without a damaging backlash, without backing down, would yield more benefit than the typical preaching-to-the choir that goes on online – the powerless and marginal engaged in memetic group onanism.

Again, how to actualize these suggestions is beyond the scope of this essay. I honestly do not have the answer to this puzzle.

Ragnarok II

More.

Read this. 

We demand legislation forbidding all US companies from adopting politically correct terms of service and employment. All private companies must be forced by law to respect freedom of speech and thought.

That is essential, but expect the System to fight that tooth-and-nail.  In the absence (yet) of overt “speech laws” due to the First Amendment, social pricing is the number one method to keep White folks in line.  Antifa violence and all the rest is nothing by comparison, a firecracker compared to a thermonuclear device.

Once people are free to express dissident opinions without fear of workplace punishment, the System’s biggest stick collapses, and they simply no longer have sufficient carrots for all the disaffected Whites.  So, yes, we need a “political opinion protection act.” 

The current administration could have been the best hope for that, but with Trump/Sessions trying to out-virtue signal the worst of the GOP cucks, it seems unlikely.

We should not give up though.  Extended First Amendment protections to the private sphere is probably the single most important idea of this post.  With that, the dam cracks and eventually collapses.

On Trump.

I feel like vomiting after watching this video.
The Alt-Right attempted to hold a peaceful rally in Charlottesville, VA. We had to get a federal court order to be able to exercise our First Amendment rights. After arriving in Lee Park, we were attacked by violent Antifa while the police stood down and watched. Gov. Terry McAuliffe declared a “state of emergency” and riot police pushed us into hordes of violent leftists who attacked dozens of people.
In response to this outrage, Donald Trump has condemned us, praised the Virginia State Police and said nothing about the actions of violent Antifa groups who will only be further emboldened to attack his supporters all over the country. While Donald Trump talks about restoring “law and order,” the reality of the matter is that police departments in leftwing cities are standing down and ceding the state’s monopoly on violence to lynch mobs. We saw this happen in Portland and Charlottesville the last two weekends.
Everything I have said was captured on video. For two years now, Donald Trump has said nothing while violent lynch mobs have attacked his supporters all over the country, not only in Charlottesville, but also in Washington, DC during the inauguration and Berkeley and many other places. A disabled man who supported Donald Trump was even kidnapped and tortured on Facebook Live in Chicago and he said nothing. President Trump talks about “equal rights,” but the truth of the matter is that White Americans in his country are routinely subjected to censorship, physical violence, employment discrimination, intimidation and massive civil rights violations while the Trump administration looks the other way. It does so because it is afraid of the power of the mainstream media.
The Alt-Right will stand with White Americans who are under siege in Trump’s America who have been deserted by their president. The Trump administration showed today that it is more interested in moving forward with its agenda of massive tax cuts for the wealthy than in defending our most basic constitutional rights. Sadly, President Trump’s chilling message will only stoke the flames of the violent Left and will strike fear into all those who dare to speak out against it who know they will inevitably be attacked now and portrayed as wicked racists by a vicious and hostile media cartel.
Donald Trump has given a green light to Antifa. He has sided with a group of people who attack us on sight and attempt to kill us and for that the Alt-Right can no longer support him. What Donald Trump has done today is an unforgivable betrayal of his supporters.

Devlin is a smart fellow and I always liked his writing, but at some point we need to stop making excuses for Trump.  Yes, his press conference wasn’t bad, but the fact is he and Sessions never cracked down on Antifa and they both denounced us all.

King Cuck?

Where’s the EGI?

KMacD wrote up something about Steve King’s recent comments, and I have some comments of my own about it.  Emphasis added:

However, in explaining what he meant in a follow-up interview (where super liberal Cuomo states “[America is]known … as a bastion of diversity and it is an unqualified strength for us”), King makes it clear that he is all about cultural and genetic assimilation — that he opposes setting up of isolated ethnic/religious enclaves that remain isolated from the rest of society even after 2 or 3 generations. Indeed he looks forward to the day when all Americans look the same as a result of intermarriage, presumably some shade of brown, with genetically recessive blondness entirely eradicated. 

One can make all sorts of hand-waving excuses for King, but that is really inexcusable. Cuomo we know is a hardcore leftist – the over-rated and unassimilated son of an over-rated and unassimilated father. But for King to say such things is pathetic, and puts the latest “behold the King!” Alt Right hero worship in its proper perspective.  If we are going to have Third Worlders, better they remain in their enclaves than to mix their genes (and their bizarre and alien cultural mores) with White America.  

I’m of a mixed mind with respect to King’s comments with respect to the long-term strategic effects. On the one hand, on balance, his comments are a net positive, shifting the discussion in a more “rightward” direction than anything uttered by the “God Emperor: himself.  On the other hand, King’s cucked Alt Lite culturalism harms European genetic interests and diminishes the positive value of his original comments.  Criticism of King – even with the constraints he no doubt believes he has in speaking his mind – is justified since no one asked him to make the comments to begin with.  He decided to broach the subject and he has the responsibility for the direction he takes those comments, and he is thus responsible if the discussion does into a sterile cul-de-sac of cucked civic nationalism and aracial culturalism.  If he believes he will be “compromised” by going too far, then he could have hedged a bit more artfully, without throwing genetic interests completely out the window.  If he’s not capable of being artful and cagey when discussing these matters, then he should keep his mouth shut and his tweets off the Internet.

Here is where the “EGI Firewall” could have been helpful.  If King (and others) had an understanding of genetic interests and if he – and others – internalized the attitude that genetic interests are ultimate interests and that defense of those interests are fundamental and non-negotiable, then he would not have gone off in the aracial civic nationalist Alt Lite culturalist direction.  The EGI Firewall would have blocked off any temptation to throw race and blood “under the bus.”  He would realize that genetic assimilation, intermarriage, and the “browning” of White America were completely incompatible with the most important and basic considerations for the interests of his people.  He would have the theoretical underpinning to reject maladaptive memes, giving him the confidence and moral courage to defend the primacy of race and blood.  Ultimately, there is why Salter’s work is so important: if one internalizes the EGI worldview, then one will never put culture, economic growth, cognitive elitism, or any other proximate interests above the ultimate interest of biological fitness.  Thus, the “movement’s” relative disregard for Salter’s work proves destructive.  If the “movement” was immersed in EGI, then it would have percolated into the Alt Right and from there 

Perhaps, given his original comments, his views are closer to ours than he dares (publicly) admit; however, if so, he perhaps should have considered whether if it was worth making the comments to begin with if he was not willing to go all the way with them.  As I said, I see it as a net positive, but still, there’s some negativity mixed with the positive and the negativity could have been avoided if King had refrained from commenting to begin with if he was not ready to fully and unconditionally assert the primacy of a biocentric view.  It would seem that this will be the job of someone else, in the future, someone who will take the baton from King and run further (to the “right”) with it.

Cuomo then presses the point, asking if Muslims, Jews, Christians, Italians, etc. are Americans, and asserting that “they are all equal … We don’t need babies from any one of those groups more than from any other of those groups.” Rep. King then seems to say that, although everyone is equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law, not all groups contribute equally to society: “Certain individuals contribute more to society than others, and certain groups of people will do more on the productive side than other groups, that’s just a statistical fact.” Cuomo, being your standard liberal, says that these differences are entirely explained by differences in opportunity, whereas King puts the blame squarely on culture. But in any case, according to King, it has nothing to do with race: “It’s the culture, not the blood … it’s never been about race.” If children from other cultures were adopted into American homes (i.e., assimilated American homes), they would all grow up to be good Americans.

Again, I’m of two views here.  I can see the benefit of King stretching the bounds of discourse and making things easier for the next person to make more explicitly racial assertions.  But, still…to make such racially destructive comments, it’s not clear whether King perhaps should have not said anything at all if he couldn’t come out and support the primacy of race and blood.  You see, his comments are a double-edged sword – on the one hand, yes, it possibly eases the way for some future public figure to be more explicitly “racist,” but on the other hand, this scenario can be viewed as setting limits to discourse in that one can only broach these topics if one disavows explicitly biological arguments.  It is not clear, when all is said and done, which interpretation will win out – is King opening the door for race/blood/genetics or is he shutting the door?  I hope the former.  Given my oft-cited note that revolutions more typically occur when repression is suddenly relaxed, rather than when repression is greatest, if King can survive and prosper from his “controversial” comments, that can be viewed as a relaxation of repression making even more “extreme” public comments that much more plausible.

Rep. King is certainly pushing the limits of acceptable discourse in mainstream America. His talk about “other people’s babies” certainly does sound like he is referring to DNA, but he deftly dodged the bullet by framing it in terms of cultural assimilation.

One can give him the benefit of the doubt if we assume his intention is to stretch the discourse in a direction supportive of European racial survival. One wonders what would have happened had he pushed the limits past the boundary of race and DNA.  In the Trump era, it is not clear that the repercussions would be what they could have been before.  After all, the Left views his comments as they currently are as “racist White nationalism” – would their reaction would that much worse if he had gone “full racist?”  Maybe, maybe not…but we’ll need to wait for another incident to test those boundaries.

In the wake of the election, even some liberals, finally realizing this, began to call for an end to identity politics. Those who sow the wind reap the whirlwind. Identity politics is profoundly antithetical to the liberal traditions of the West based on individualism.

This is why they are so intent on shutting down any hint of White Identity.  It is also why the Sallis Strategy of chaos and balkanization is as realistic now than it has ever been,

On the other hand, from an Alt Right perspective Rep. King’s comments fall short of the mark. 

Yes, indeed.

And neither King nor Cuomo deal with the reality of race differences in IQ and impulse control which are so essential to success in navigating the complexities of contemporary society. Within American society, the racial gap in academic achievement continues, unaffected by the hundreds of billions of dollars expended on uplift programs for low-achieving minorities. European societies are now seeing the same pattern with African and Muslim immigrants.

But kinship differences trump (no pun intended) these proximate HBD-style concerns. EGI is more important than levels of achievement, IQ, and impulse control.

Does anyone seriously think that importing millions of Black African converts to Judaism would maintain Israel as a Jewish state?

Despite King’s disclaimers, he seems quite aware that the left is eagerly awaiting the demise of White America. In a radio interview, he stated, referring to people like Latino activist Jorge Ramos, “Their effort here is to be celebrating because the United States is moving towards becoming, the whites becoming a minority, a majority-minority within the country according to what their plan is.”King also recommended that listeners read the novel, The Camp of the Saints, by French author Jean Raspail, “a book about Europe being overcome by immigrants which has also frequently been referenced by top Trump adviser Steve Bannon. The book has been criticized as presenting a racist view of immigration.”

That at least is quite positive.  Note in that book Asians lead the way to the dispossession of Whites. Life follows fiction, as always.

On the whole, then, King would seem to be at least implicitly White and probably, if you got into his heart of hearts, he really does get it. Realizing that non-Whites are eagerly awaiting Whites becoming a minority has a way of doing that.

Also, King’s saying that Western culture is superior does flirt with the possibility that something about European genetic uniqueness fed into the triumph of the West. And if there is indeed something genetically unique about the peoples who created Western society — a genetic basis for Western individualism, then of course one could not recreate European civilization with peoples from a different gene pool. What’s so amazing is that liberals like Cuomo believe with absolute certainty that this could not be the case. It’s an a priori  moral certainty, not subject to debate and immune to all the data from behavior genetics and the long history of ethnic and religious conflict. And if you don’t subscribe to such ideas, you are an evil person — a moral cretin rightly outside of the morally defined ingroup.

This is all true.

Although I’m critical of a strictly “culturalist” view, I certainly am not one of those people who say: “when I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun.”  However, culture is not enough. Indeed, genetic interests are ultimate interests, so that race is more fundamental than culture.  No doubt culture is important, the most important proximate interest.  One cay crudely say: race with culture is vulgar; culture without race is effete.  More to the point is the realty that race and culture, genes and culture, are intertwined. A culture is the product of a specific genepool; however, that genepool is obviously influenced by culture, since the environment, of which culture is one prime component for humans, exerts selective pressure on the genes, hence shaping racial development and ethnogenesis.  It’s foolish for King and the Alt Right to pretend that a culture can thrive and grow with assimilated aliens; on the other hand, Nutzis act like vulgar barbarians when they dismiss out of hand the value of culture.

Of Boycotts and Snubbing

Consider the implications.

With all the talk about anti-Trump boycotts, companies dropping the products of his daughter Ivanka, and his other daughter Tiffany being “snubbed.” I was planning to put together an essay about those issues from a Far Right perspective.  And then this article came out, which touches on subjects of a related nature.  Let’s look at some points from the article (in italics) with my comments interspersed (plain font).  Then, I will discuss the boycott/snubbing issue from the rightist perspective, as the issue is much bigger than merely the current attacks against the beta race cuck Trump.

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

And the Left is not susceptible to ridicule?  Merkel taking selfies with NECs while German women are molested in Cologne?  Antifa thugs who style themselves as Marxist anarchist champions against “the man” while they are openly working for, and sometimes funded by, “the man?”  Anarchists working hand-in-glove with the Big Government Deep State, Marxists working hand-in-glove with billionaires and Big Business?  That’s some low-hanging fruit indeed.  Blue hair fatties, freaks of every shape and form, cucks, etc. as your opponents?  Ridicule?  You bet, unless of course you’re stuck with a “movement” more interested in debating how many times Savitri Devi passed gas per day, or Julius Caesar’s cephalic index, or some breathless fantasizing about “high trust hunter gatherers.”

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

I’ll give credit to Roissy and the other gamesters for their ability to personalize – or should I say Scalzize – the opposition, and make targets of them for intense ridicule.  Actual WNs can learn something from the oil-drilling hedonists.

“Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”

This is one very large difference between Left and Right, and one that I’ve often mentioned before. The Left has stamina, discipline, and a long-term focus.  The Right has none of these things; the Right looks for any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to declare victory and go home.  The Left wins real victories, changes and dominates the entire culture, imposes genocidal demographic changes on White populations, and they are never satisfied.  They keep on pushing, keep on fighting, always pressuring, never letting up, always keeping the Right on the defensive.  And given how craven, defensive, and cowardly the Mainstream Cuckservative Right has been, this pressure has worked. The Far Right can learn a thing or two from the Left – if they are capable of learning (which is currently doubtful).

“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

That all should be self-evident.

“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”

Thus, Left success over the past half-century.

Now, in theory, the Right could benefit from applying those same principles (if they weren’t the inept losers, unable to effectively organize, as pointed out by Pleasureman at MPC). How about the issue of boycotts and snubbing, the original impetus for my post?

Why can’t the Right – including and especially the Far Right – effectively utilize such tactics? I know the response from the Left (in a snarky arrogant tone) and from the Right (in a defeatist, depressed tone): The Far Right is tiny, powerless, ostracized, and useless. They’re all trailer trash anyway – who cares what they boycott?  It’s laughable!  The Left welcomes any Far Right boycotts!  The Left welcomes rightist snubbing – who cares about being snubbed by an ostracized, powerless nobody?  You get the idea. 

To which I respond in three ways:

1. As the saying goes, every journey starts with the first step.  The Far Right may not now have the numbers and power to engage in economically relevant boycott and socially relevant snubbing.  But you have to start somewhere; if you do nothing, failure is guaranteed.

2. There are benefits to be conferred by conducting rightist economic boycotts and social snubbing, even if the immediate effects are not substantial.  One must practice organizing, one must practice trying to herd the cats of the Far Right – and associated more moderate masses (see point # 3) – in a useful direction.  Such an endeavor builds collegiality among a Right sorely lacking that trait (and, yes, I know the finger can be pointed at me – even for the end of this essay itself), and, more importantly, can build discipline and a sense of purpose, and of community.  Exclusion (boycotts, snubbing) by its very nature presupposes a contravening inclusion among those doing the boycotting and snubbing.  

Isn’t that a constructive suggestion that my critics say I never make?  

Let’s start community building by marshalling whatever economic and social power we do have in a constructive direction.  The more we flex and use that “muscle” then the stronger it will become.  And, in the event, especially if we can mobilize the groups in comment # 3, the boycotts and snubbing eventually have some positive effect – well, isn’t winning grand? Success breeds confidence and more success – and confidence and success are much needed in the failure swamp of the “movement.”  If we want to be a force to be reckoned with, can we at least organize sufficiently to engage in economic and social pressuring of the other side?

3. If this project expands to not only include the Far Right but more broadly Paleocons and, more broadly still, general Red State and White ethnic Blue State Trump supporters, then we are no longer talking about a tiny and powerless group.  The problem is to get that inert mass of atomized individuals, who think that since “we won” nothing more needs be done, off the couch and into the realm of activism.  The Far Right can be the vanguard, if they act sanely, reasonably, and intelligently (in other words, completely out of character).  We’re talking about, potentially, millions – tens of millions – of people here. If the Right eschews use of economic weapons – as they eschew the use of doing virtually anything and everything – the Left winds by default.

Indeed, in response to “A Day Without Immigrants” how about “A Day Without (White) Americans?”  If the other side is so intent on dispossessing us, how about giving them a taste on how things would be like without us around to support them?  Even if a small fraction of rightist White Americans participated, the economic impact would be considerable.

Now for a bit more anti-collegiality.  I must ask why the Far Right doesn’t already  have the infrastructure to be a force to be reckoned with.  I have already discussed that in detail at this blog.  The cry of “we haven’t had the support, where’s the money” falls flat, given the millions of dollars shunted into the “movement” and especially into the Soft Right Alt Wrong of the CT “happy penguins” and other assorted flotsam and jetsam making a living off of do nothing.  And let us not forget the more hardcore group, involving such useful investments as living on the mountaintop with serial monogamy with a series of Eastern European women, or gambling away the proceeds in casinos. It’s been shortage of mature, intelligent leadership more than a shortage of cash and support.

One definition of insanity – keep on repeating failed activity and expect a different outcome. Also, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.  It is obvious that current “leadership” – and that of the last half-century – have failed over and over again and are likely incapable of organizing anything I’ve described.  Hence my criticism is warranted and completely justified, regardless of whether it strikes a nerve within Der Movement or not.

This criticism is justified.  You know – as well as I know (how I know!) – that my current post will fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes).  Even if someone mumbles “that’s right” no one will actually do anything.  The “happy penguins” will continue to collect their millions, the Alt Wrong will continue to rhapsodize about Asian IQ superiority, the WNs will continue to breathlessly discuss Kali Yuga, cephalic indices, subfractional admixture percentages, the alleged “Jewishness” of their “movement” adversaries, the racial provenance of Julius Caesar, Julius Evola’s bathroom habits, “high trust hunter gatherers” and all the rest.  How can anyone in Der Movement accuse anyone else of “LARPING?”  The entire “movement” is one big LARP.  Am I wrong?  I hope so.  Prove me wrong.  Let’s organize the boycotts, the social disgrace of the Left, let’s actualize ideas into real world realities.  I won’t hold my breath for anything to actually be put in motion by “leadership” though.

It’s All One

The Asian menace.

We can ask why this execrable and ugly Filipina turd is even doing infesting America, like a flea on a dog.  But how is that hate-filled Asiatrix any different from those infesting White (sic) nationalism?  In response to Sunic’s fine essay at TOO, that Chinese Nationalist Maiden creature, who keeps on turning up like a bad penny, pops up to lecture Europeans on our ethnic differences.  Excuse me, but we do not need some Cantonese slut pontificating to Europeans about our business, thank you very much. Likewise, we do not need hate-filled Japotrices lecturing us about how we need to “inflict harm” on Russians in order to serve Asian interests.

Inflict harm on Russians?  I for one would love to see Russians inflict some harm on Asians, particularly on those mangy yellow dogs infiltrating into Russia’s Far East.  Let’s have some brawny Slavs go there and grab those diseased Chinamen by their scruffy necks and toss them back over the Amur.  If Russia had a real nationalist leader, the Asian contagion would have been cleaned out of Russian territory long ago.

So, in the end, how do these infiltrators of WN differ from Felarca?  Answer: they do not. Unfortunately, WN is infested with the same sort of mewling yellow fever faggots that characterize White males (not men) these days, who will, in a breathless and sweaty fashion, say or do anything to keep estrogen-deficient Asian females around.  Further: how do these infiltrators of WN differ from the Chinamen oozing into the Russian Far East like raw sewage leaking through a home’s cracked foundation?  Answer: they do not.

It’s all one.  All one and the same.  The yellow fist of hatred manifests itself in many ways, but in all cases, represents an existential denial of the West and blinding hatred of the White race.  From the Asian perspective, that denial and hatred might be normal, but Whites are under no obligation to accept it, much less facilitate it.

Sunic’s Reasonableness vs. Ethnonationalist Dishonesty

Good sense vs. stupidity.

Tom Sunic makes good points about the need for pan-European cooperation and against narrow and divisive ethnonationalism.

Here are Sunic’s main points:

My main point is that various European national identities should from now on play a secondary role. I argue that our first priority should be to what is sometimes conveniently referred to as our common biocultural identity, or to put it in different words, the salvaging of our common and collective heredity as represented by the broader family of interrelated European peoples…
…it is outdated for the Croats and Serbs, or for the Poles and Germans to wage war with each other or to dwell endlessly on their mutually exclusive historical grievances…
…European small-time nationalisms, with a flurry of national identities of sorts, inherited from the 20th century, must no longer play a crucial role in our new identity building process…This can best be observed in Ukraine and Croatia for instance, where a Croatian or Ukrainian nationalist often continues to frame his national identity on his anti-Serbian or anti-Russian sentiments respectively. Such obsolete and often conflict- prone “negative” identities are no longer acceptable in today’s Europe.

Please note that Sunic accepts the reality of narrow identities and states that such identities should be accepted:

For example a Flemish national cannot be a Walloon national – just as a South Tyrolean nationalist must not be denied freedom to show his German roots to his Italian nationalist colleague.

So, what is the ethnonationalist reaction to Sunic’s reasonable essay?  We get this hysterical comment, emphasis added:


Yes, European cooperation is absolutely necessary. But different ethnic groups banded together to face off predation against other more unified powers, hence England unifying against the Vikings, Germany against the French &c. German dominance of the EU, by virtue of geography, size and industry, is a proof of the continuing legacy of ethnic division of power within Europe. Why should an Englishman want to be legislated for by Albanians or Kosovans, my European ‘brothers’?
These national divisions are reinforced by language. The United States does not contain groups of different nationalities speaking their own languages. Different ethnicities came to the U.S. and formed a new ethnic group, speaking English. If an American goes to Europe, people are not going to identify him as a genericised white, but as an American.

I can’t quite see where in Sunic’s essay that he states, suggests, or implies that Englishmen should be legislated for by “Albanians or Kosovans” or anything else. It’s pure invention; unfortunately, someone reading the comment and not the essay would think that Sunic is advocating some sort of highly centralized European super-state smothering national identifies – rather than simply advocating “European cooperation” and accepting national identities. One reason I am so hostile to ethnonationalism is my long experience with ethnonationalists and other opponents of pan-Europeanism who are typically dishonest – fundamentally dishonest.  Lies, distortion, strawmen, illogic, stupidity – the calling cards of the unrepentant ethnonationalist

And the idea that, under pan-European cooperation, Albanians or Kosovans (groups, as mostly Muslim Europeans, may not be part of the European biocultural group as defined by most WNs) are going to be browbeating Englishmen, is ludicrous.  If any group has been dictating to the English, and other Europeans, it is the Germans.  As Sunic states:

The political roots of this morbid “welcoming culture” (at the core of which is the culture of guilt) are not difficult to trace. The roots of these self-destructive policies are legally embedded in the decades following 1945. It is not difficult to imagine that the policy pursued by German Chancellor Merkel was formulated precisely to exorcise the ghosts of the nightmarish past. As a result, she may find herself compelled to shield herself by pursuing what might be called a destructive extremism going in the opposite direction.

But typical “movement” Nutzis are “not allowed” to criticize Germans, so we need to engage in fantasies about “Albanians or Kosovans.”  The idiot quoted above admits that Germans dominate the EU (their industry!  their industry!), but that’s used to justify narrow identity, while the “problem” of EU opposition to national sovereignty is from “Albanians or Kosovans.” Pathetic.

Then we have this stupidity:

The United States does not contain groups of different nationalities speaking their own languages. Different ethnicities came to the U.S. and formed a new ethnic group, speaking English. If an American goes to Europe, people are not going to identify him as a genericised white, but as an American.

What about a Negro “American” speaking English?  So, obviously race is important, the White American will be identified as a White American.   Finally, Sunic is giving a prescriptive argument, not a descriptive one, but don’t think that the ethnonationalists recognize the difference.

Until such time that ethnonationalists can conduct honest and intelligent discussions, they should be ignored and scorned.