Category: TOO

In Der News, 6/9/18

Der news.

Sunic foreword to Bolton’s Yockey book.

That’s the foreword to the book itself; insofar as I know, currently, I am the only one who has written an independent review of this important work.  That speaks volumes about the pathetic, low-rent “movement.”

Getting back to Sunic’s foreword, I’d like to say that Tom is one of the finest people involved in nationalist activism.  I don’t agree with everything he’s ever written of course, but people can disagree on issues but still think highly of each other, respect fine work, and note their essential decency as human beings.  Indeed, I sometimes disagree with Salter on some issues (as recently chronicled in posts here), but I cannot think of anyone whose work I respect more.  As I’ve said a number of times before – Salter deserves a Nobel Prize for his work on ethnic genetic interests; in a fair world, one not dominated by anti-White leftist politics, that Prize would be awarded.

By the way, Sunic probably doesn’t remember it, but he and I had a pleasant phone conversation many (15+) years ago.  A good man.

More evidence (if you needed any) that Sallis is right once again: the Danish left is farstreaming right.  Evidence to support mainstreaming: zero.  Evidence to support farstreaming: Trump, Orban, Denmark, etc.

Best Amren comment, in response to this article:

Jason Lewis • 10 hours ago
Right after they tell you that population numbers are concerning they’ll tell you that there aren’t enough babies being born in Western countries requiring a endless flood of immigrants.
Advertisements

In Der News

More omissions, disappointments, and stupidities.

Nowhere in this rambling essay is the suggestion that part of Derbyshire’s problem with KMacD’s thesis is the whole idea of group evolutionary interests, racial competition, and evaluating such competition in tribal terms, rather than “high IQ cognitive elitism” and other tropes of HBD political activism.  In the end, KMacD’s original theories puts into jeopardy the acceptance of the Derbyshire kids by White America, and we certainly can’t have that, eh Johnny?

Perhaps Steadman can blow on his Viking horn and make the walls of Turner’s prison crumble, analogous to Joshua’s army blowing on trumpets at Jericho.

Truer words never said: Sessions is absolutely worthless.  “America’s Senator” – not quite a Man on White Horse, but a Man on White Pony Syndrome candidate.  His entire tenure as Attorney General can be summed up by the image of him standing around helplessly with a dumbfounded look on his face.

Trumps seems to be cucking to the Colored Man once again. Mudshark Annie should be happy about this.  And Costello can cook both of them breakfast (aka cuckfast).

The Scorpion and the Frog

Europeans are the Frog.  Guess who the Scorpion is.

A summary.

A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was in its nature to do so.

Read this – Quinn’s finale on the MacDonald-Cofnas dustup.

See this article from 2010, which is relevant to the questions and criticisms of Quinn.

Ultimately, in a sense, Quinn is correct in that whether the Jews are, or are not, acting on behalf of their own evolutionary group interests is irrelevant from the perspective of the victims of Jewish behavior.  Maybe the Jews hate Whites more than they love themselves.  Maybe the Jews are dooming themselves by their embrace of, and promotion of, the poisons they are using to undermine European survival.  It could be irrational; it could just be their nature, as like the Scorpion in stinging the Frog.  In Mein Kampf Hitler asserted that if the Jews succeeded in destroying Aryans, they would turn on each other next, in hate-filled struggle.  Of course, whether or not the Jews will destroy themselves does not obligate Europeans to allow themselves to be destroyed as well.  For the victim of murder, a murder followed by the suicide of the murderer is not more palatable than murder alone.

Perhaps Europeans should worry more about defending themselves against Jewish behavior rather than worrying whether or not that behavior is, or is not, evolutionarily beneficial to Jews.  We need to shift the focus on us rather than on them.

Jew-Jitsu

How to leverage against the chosen ones?

Following up on this

Quinn’s latest.

If I may make a constructive suggestion, a bit of constructive criticism: analysis is good, but at some point, we need to have less of historical and theoretical analysis and more of current and practical analysis.

Consider: KMacD is the world’s leading critical expert on Jews and Jewish behavior.  His work and understanding constitute a crucial intellectual resource for Europeans fighting against the Jewish power structure.  So, instead of TOO’s current direction (*), wouldn’t it be more productive for KMacD to formulate strategies, based on an understanding of Jewish behavior, of leveraging against Jewish psychology to benefit Europeans and combat the Jewish power structure?  If not him, who?  If not now, when?

Learning about the Jewish “culture of critique” should not be an end in itself, but a means to an end: defending European ethnic interests.  We learn about Boas and Freud so as to better understand how to combat Soros.  It’s time for a bit less of the former and a bit more of the latter.  

Long time readers of my own work have no doubt noted that this blog has moved in a more practical direction over the last few years.  Although there is still some interesting and useful theoretical work to be done (and I recently looked at genetic integration of human population genetics data), the fact remains that, ultimately, the promotion and defense of ethnic genetic interests will have to be actualized out in the real world, in the rough-and-tumble of politics (in all its forms, including some of what is termed “metapolitics”) and in the cut and thrust of ethnic competition.  Rightist academics can be of most utility in the service of assisting in the development of cutting edge political, metapolitical, and social technologies to deal with the reality of our racial and cultural dilemma.

Note:

*Much of which is, unlike MacDonald’s work on the Jews, of limited predictive value.  All of the rambling about “northern high trust hunter gatherers” actually has little real world predictive value.  Indeed, taking all of that at face value, you would predict that, e.g., Italy and Greece would be blasting migrant invader boats out of the water, instead of meekly rescuing the migrants and welcoming them into the homeland. There also is no clear correlation in Europe between the Paleolithic Hunter-Gatherer vs. Neolithic Farmer divide and the success, or lack thereof, of ethnonationalist parties and politics within nations.  And while it’s true that Sweden is particularly “cucked,” one can argue that Denmark is healthier with respect to defending ethnic interests than are Italy, Greece, or Spain. One can further argue that a major reason Northwest European nations are further along on the road to race replacement is not so much that the native populations are more “high trust altruists” than the fact that those nations are more prosperous and orderly, and hence more attractive to immigrants, than the disorderly tragicomedies of feckless and lazy dumb dagoes.  Now, one can also argue that a reason why the northerners are richer (besides higher IQ) is precisely the fact that they are “high trust” nations and hence invest more in social goods, and can engage more productively in economic activity. Very well, but then, isn’t that more collectivist?  Granted, high trust is not necessarily orthogonal to individualism, but it strains credulity to argue that orderly, high trust societies are more individualistic than disorderly madhouses where atomized swarthoids are bouncing off each other like air molecules in a heated kettle.  More fundamentally, and getting back to the main point, the “high trust hunter gatherer” paradigm has little predictive value with respect to responses to race replacement and mass migration. And if this is so, why make it such a major focus of analysis?

Recent KMacD Controversy

On the Jews, MacDonald is correct.

Read this.

And this.

Contrary to the idea that I am always critical, I will point out that Quinn’s writing, re: the MacDonald vs. Cofnas issue shows maturity and reasonably good analysis.  That is similar to some of the things I was writing 10-15 years ago, when I was defending or opposing various “movement” memes.  These days, while I will still defend Salterism, given its importance and solid scientific legitimacy, and while I may occasionally still dive into certain debates, I’ve grown cynical over the utility of some of these online arguments.  For example, on the issue Quinn writes about, when all is said and done, and regardless of what arguments are made in both directions, the Far Right will still, by and large, support MacDonald, and the rest of the political spectrum will oppose MacDonald and support Cofnas and Peterson. People “choose their teams” on these issues for reasons based on subjective rational interests as well as irrational (yet wholly legitimate if they affect Identify and pursuit of interests) impulses; I have yet to see any significant “changing of teams” based on objective rational arguments. The same holds for, e.g., pan-Europeanism vs. Nordicism or pan-Europeanism vs. ethnonationalism.  I haven’t seen much movement in any of these directions based on arguments; people defend their ideas and that of their ideological “tribe,” and there really isn’t a big pool of third party observers to be swayed one way or the other.

That said, there is still some utility in speaking truth and defending truth (although Pilate would ask: “what is truth?”) and if a person early in their activist career, like Quinn, wants to “cut their teeth” on such topics, that’s fine as far as it goes.  However, he’s preaching to the choir at Counter-Currents (as MacDonald is at TOO), and no one is likely to be converted.  Of course, there is some value to have these refutations of Cofnas and Peterson online, just so they can be linked to, to deflate the claims of the Left (just don’t expect to convert many people, as I said).  People may of course change their mind on these issues, but they will most likely do so after either joining or leaving Der Movement for other reasons (mostly irrational, I suppose).

Obviously, I support the MacDonald view in these debates; Cofnas is a ludicrously non-objective “scholar” (and thus no better in his irrational and/or subjective interests as any “movement” activist) with a parcel of poor arguments; Peterson is a gravel-voiced over-rated bore, who pretends (LARPs to use Alt Right language) to be some sort of cutting-edge dissident, while actually being just another water boy for the System and for anti-White interests.

I read MacDonald’s Trilogy when it first came out, and although I have serious issues with the direction TOO has gone in the last few years, I nonetheless value MacDonald’s core contributions, his work on the Jews, and on diaspora peoples and on group evolutionary interests in general.

The best way to understand who is right or wrong in this debate is to ask: which view, which explanation, has predictive power?  If you follow MacDonald’s view, you will be able to predict, with reasonable accuracy and precision, general Jewish behavior (of course, there will always be outliers and exceptions); on the other hand, those who follow the Cofnas/Peterson direction, ignoring obvious patterns and the ethnic interests that underlie them, will be wrong more often than they will be right.  A default setting of “Jews as a group in general behave to defend their interests in an ethnocentric manner, typified by a dual morality, and they are very successful in doing so, and Jewish group interests are typically incompatible with those of European-descended people; hence, Jewish activism as a net outcome will be harmful to Europeans” will typically (not 100% of course, that’s not how the world works, but the vast majority of cases) lead you to the right prediction. Following the Cofnas/Peterson direction will make you as easy mark, as you’ll be unable to accurately and precisely predict and understand Jewish group behavior.

I’d like to point out it is safer for Whites to err on the side of caution; it is safer to be unfairly suspicious of Jews even in cases where Jews are ethnically disinterested and not hostile to White interests than it is to be childishly naïve and ignore those cases where Jews are being destructive.  False positives are safer than false negatives when core group interests are at stake.  Better safe than sorry.

Further, the argument can be made – and has been made by some activists over the years – that spotty Jewish “universalism” actually serves ethnocentric Jewish group interests by diversifying their ideological/sociopolitical portfolio.  Thus, the Jews are hedging their bets by not putting all their eggs in one basket, infiltrating intellectual movements in order to bend them to Jewish interests (look what happened to conservatism, or even look at the Alt Wrong in Der Movement), and obfuscating the destructive role of Jewish activism in order to fool the dumb goyim.  As regards the last, think about all the nitwits who agree with Cofnas and Peterson and who let scattered Jewish ideological outliers (who typically have little power to reverse the damage done by their more typical co-ethnics) fool the goyish latrine flies into thinking: “see, see – not all Jews are like that, Moshe Finkelstein is a conservative, he even reads Amren.”  

I’ll be checking out how Quinn completes his series.

Movement Moneyball

Food for thought.

I have a good opinion of Robert Griffin, and not only because he interviewed me for his book.

Putting aside the debates about baseball strategy (who really cares?), the main points are these:

We believe what makes us feel good about ourselves.  Moneyball is a self-confirming experience for its audience.  We get to feel in the know and on the side of the angels and linked up with a cool guy like Brad Pitt, and all we had to do to achieve that status was spring for a movie ticket or a DVD or streaming rental.  And we are safe; nothing goes on that challenges or threatens us.  We are nestled comfortably among the wise and righteous and don’t have to think about anything or do a damn thing.

That’s what Der Movement and HBD does.  It makes a certain subsection of Whites “feel good about themselves” (typically by throwing other Whites “under the bus” so to speak) so as to make the poison easier to swallow.  “A spoonful of sugar makes the cyanide go down” is one way of putting it.

We are basically lazy.  If you are halfway slick you can tell people just about anything that is simple to understand and has a surface level of plausibility (as long as it doesn’t make them feel bad about themselves—these all go together) and be rest assured that they aren’t going to put effort into thinking about it or checking into its veracity or coming up with alternatives to it.

Most “movement activists” are indeed lazy.”  They “drink the movement Kool-Aid” without a moment’s  hesitation.  Thinking for themselves is too difficult.

So what can we do?

We can take seriously my mother’s advice to me when I was a kid: “Robert, you are a nice boy, but you believe everything anybody tells you.  Quit doing that.”

We can differentiate mediated from direct experience.

We can distinguish abstractions—images, words, concepts, assertions — from the concrete realities they supposedly represent.

The Lenny Bruce joke: we can trust our eyes more, our senses, our experience of things.

We can look directly at the people pushing something and ask: Who are these people?  What’s their agenda?  What’s in it for them and theirs if we buy what they are selling?

We can think for ourselves and not let other people do the thinking for us.

We can become mediators of reality ourselves.

Isn’t that what EGI Notes has been telling you all to do regarding the “movement” for years now?

Is anyone listening?

Doubtful, but I’ll still try.  If even one person is converted to reality, it’ll be worth it.

More Brief Comments on Crowley

Type I follies.

Fetishist:

Concerning the Etruscans and their origins, I’ve found the works of Prof. Cavalli-Sforza to be the most convincing. Specifically, he posits that the Etruscans developed in an autochthonous fashion from the earlier Iron Age Villanovan culture.

…support the hypothesis that the genetic structure of Italy still reflects the ethnic stratification of pre-Roman times.

And these are those autochthonous Etruscans – who portrayed themselves as darker than even modern day S. Italians.

There’s a very good possibility that the original peoples of Italy were swarthier, and more dissimilar to Crowley, than are the Italians of today.

Since Crowley is so obsessed with “Viking Supermen” he can reflect on the absence of such men in contemporary Scandinavian populations, which are generally characterized by racial liberalism, pacifism, feminism, openness to invasion, and sociopolitical conformity.  Changes in culture and behavior can occur without Kempian fantasies.  

Frost’s genetic pacification is a more realistic possibility:

Over the last 10,000 years, the human genome has changed at an accelerating rate. The change seems to reflect adaptations to new social environments, including the rise of the State and its monopoly on violence. State societies punish young men who act violently on their own initiative. In contrast, non-State societies usually reward such behavior with success, including reproductive success. Thus, given the moderate to high heritability of male aggressiveness, the State tends to remove violent predispositions from the gene pool while favoring tendencies toward peacefulness and submission. This perspective is applied here to the Roman state, specifically its long-term effort to pacify the general population. By imperial times, this effort had succeeded so well that the Romans saw themselves as being inherently less violent than the “barbarians” beyond their borders. By creating a pacified and submissive population, the empire also became conducive to the spread of Christianity–a religion of peace and submission. In sum, the Roman state imposed a behavioral change that would over time alter the mix of genotypes, thus facilitating a subsequent ideological change.

So, pacified Romans of the 5th century passively watched as Germanic barbarians sacked Rome; today, pacified Scandinavians watch as non-White barbarians sack Stockholm. 

How does that square with the idea that the “high trust hunter gatherers” evolved to be egalitarian altruists from the very start?  No fear, Der Movement Spindoctors will get out Occam’s Butterknife and spread around some more pseudoscientific speculation and it’ll all work out just fine.

How immigration destroyed Rome.  No, not all the “slaves” and consequent “racial degeneration.”  Instead it was the acceptance of unassimilable hordes of German tribes.  The Merkelization of Rome. 


And with that, enough with Crowley and the TOO disaster.