Category: Western Destiny

A Response To An Incoherent Argument

Answering rambling incoherence.

An Alt Right blog attempts to make arguments about “autochonthous” peoples.  I respond.


Of course some argue that European populations aren’t really indigenous, since Europeans have invaded and colonized one another’s societies for thousands of years. The indigenous people of England, for example, were invaded and colonized by Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and Normans before the present waves of Africans and South Asians. So why should the descendants of Anglo-Saxons or Normans be considered any more “indigenous” than Jamaicans and Pakistanis?
The problem with this argument, of course, is that it still admits that some Europeans are indigenous. Moreover, since all European peoples are descended from the same racial stock, which is indigenous to Europe, when Europeans move from one part of Europe to another, they are not “displacing indigenous populations.” They are the indigenous population, which is merely reshuffling itself.

Of course “indigenous” has already been defined, in a reasonable manner, on my Western Destiny blog. But as I have “nothing useful to say” (as opposed to endlessly repetitive ethnonationalist blather), let’s ignore it, and make arguments of the fungibility of Europeans that (1) essentially refute the entire ethnonationalist argument in Europe, (2) goes way beyond anything a “crazed” pan-Europeanist like myself would say, and (3) if I had actually written anything like that myself, I would have been accuse by the usual suspects of some sort of “Medicist” agenda.


First, it presupposes that mere presence in a territory is morally meaningful. The autochthony argument states that the first inhabitants of a land have a clean title. They did not have to displace anyone else through violence and trickery. Later occupants are illegitimate if they displace the first occupants and usurp their territories.
But if mere first presence in a territory confers rights, then why is this confined to biologically modern humans? Other animals are merely present where they live as well. Didn’t Cro-Magnon man displace the Neanderthal? Didn’t mammals displace the dinosaurs? Aren’t practically all living things illegitimate interlopers in previously occupied ecological niches, until we get back to the original denizens of the primordial soup? But does it make sense to regard the entire history of life on this planet as a ghastly moral offense? So much for evolution, I guess.

What a silly, juvenile, intellectually lazy, and morally obtuse argument.  As humans, with interests as evolved organisms, should we equate our own interests, and the morality of our genetic continuity with that of dinosaurs or the “primordial soup?”  Salter in OGI dismantles the “animal rights” argument from the standpoint of human genetic interests.  And then, inconsistently, after the snide remark “So much for evolution, I guess,” we get a cartoonish misunderstanding of natural selection:

A Darwinist, of course, would argue that one organism can displace another only by being better adapted for survival. Thus evolution is a process of improvement…

Improvement?  First, a “Darwinist” is not “arguing” anything.  A “Darwinist” supports a theory that is bolstered by many decades of observation and experiment. Organisms do replace each other, and that replacement is itself “being better adapted for survival” – the “being better adapted” is not the “mechanism” of replacement, better said the other way around.  Second, there needs not be value-implied terms like “improvement” used.  “Better adapted” is with respect to a particular environment at a given time.  The environment can be altered virtually instantly (e.g., volcanic eruption, fire, a bulldozer passing through), after which the “improvement” can become a “hindrance.”

…rather than a fall from an original state of innocence. 

Oh, that Golden Age!  We are now in the Age of Iron!  Kali Yuga!  Savitri Devi!  The men who can’t tell time!  That’s the reality, and don’t you forget it!

Social Darwinists argue that the conquest of the dark races by whites is evolution in action. And, if the darker races are now turning the table and conquering whites, that too is evolution in action. For Darwinists, success in the struggle for power is by definition the best outcome, no matter who ends up on top.

Stop confusing “Darwinists” – people who support a scientific theory that is backed by impressive data – and “Social Darwinists” – meme promoters who commit the naturalistic fallacy.

The autochthony argument holds, in essence, that the first organism on the scene is in the right, and all who follow are illegitimate interlopers. The Darwinist would argue that the last organism on the scene is in the right, simply because it is successful, and that all that came before have no legitimate claims, simply because they failed. Both arguments are equally morally absurd, because there is more to right than just being present at the beginning or the end of a struggle for power.

And what are these other moral rights?  More laziness.


Second, the autochthony argument does not distinguish between occupying and appropriating territory. Just being on a piece of land does not necessarily make it one’s own. To appropriate land, one has to do something. One has to make something of it, and in doing so, one takes responsibility for it.

The non-White invaders into White lands today will claim they are making something of the land, and taking responsibility for it.


Third, the autochthony argument also ignores the distinction between nomadism and settled occupancy. Often times, the first people were merely passing through. Nomads don’t own land, they merely inhabit it, as do the buffalo. They do little to it, and they take little or no responsibility for it. Nomads are less tied to a piece of ground than settled people, and nomads can share the use of the same region, whereas settled ways of life require exclusive ownership. This is not to say that nomads have no interests and rights that more settled people need to respect. But to own land, is it sufficient merely to be on it, or does one have to do something with it—i.e., to improve it and take responsibility for it?

From the standpoint of genetic interests, that’s not relevant.  One could argue that settled peoples increase carrying capacity more than nomads, but that’s not a moral argument per se.

Fourth, the autochthony argument overlooks the fact that if one owns land, one can therefore disown it. If indigenous peoples actually own their homelands, then they can alienate them to newcomers. For instance, not all North American natives were dispossessed through wars of aggression. Many natives began by selling some of their lands to newcomers, and only later did conflicts arise. Moreover, American Indians were sometimes dispossessed after losing wars they had started. There is a huge moral difference between stealing land outright and securing one’s own people by dispossessing and banishing aggressive and implacable enemies. Sometimes indigenous peoples lose their lands fair and square.

Well then, can’t the same be said of Western peoples today?  They elect politicians that promote the dispossession of their own people.  Wasn’t Merkel re-elected? They rally to “welcome refugees.”  They sit and do nothing as they and their posterity lose control of the lands won, in one manner of another, by their forebears.

Fifth, the autochthony argument presupposes that legitimate ownership derives solely from the past (first occupancy) rather than from the future (what one is likely to do with it). For instance, even if the American Indians were the first people on this continent, they weren’t doing much with it.

So, rights to land depend upon what someone else thinks about what you’ve done with it?  Is this the Greg Johnson Law of Historical Eminent Domain?  Hey, maybe Muslims don’t think that European infidels are doing much with their territory, being unbelievers who do not follow the Koran.  Therefore, they should be disposessed.  Why not?  Maybe the Chinese think they can develop Vancouver better than the White natives.  Yellow replaces White.  Why not?  Who decides?

It strikes me as a moralistic absurdity to declare that the farms, factories, highways, power plants, towns and cities of America, plus all of the cultural and technological achievements of Americans, from bluegrass music to the space program, are somehow illegitimate because there was a thin population of Stone Age people on the continent when our ancestors first arrived.

There’s a difference between declaring those things “illegitimate” and declaring that the fundamental genetic interests of Native Americans were harmed, in an irreversible and existential manner, by White colonization of America.


Even if we grant that first occupancy confers rights, doesn’t later use also confer rights? And what is more important: how our people acquired our homelands or what we made of them? Given that the first occupants of all lands are primitives, whereas later occupants are usually more socially and technologically advanced, doesn’t the autochthony argument contain a built-in bias against civilization, progress, and the races that can produce and sustain them? Why should whites, of all peoples, accept such a stacked moral deck? Encounters between radically different peoples almost always end up badly. But at least if one creates something great, the suffering and strife need not be in vain.

Some would think that a Eurabian Ummah is something great to be created out of the “suffering and strife” of European dispossession.  Who judges?  What value system is used and why?


Sixth, the autochthony argument is usually offered in bad faith, as part of a swindle. In the United States, for instance, American Indians who did not suffer from the acts of white colonists in centuries past, demand apologies and favors from whites (including recent immigrants), who never did anything to harm an Indian.
The last thing these Indians want is for whites to take their guilt trip so seriously that they erase the wealth they created and leave the continent as their ancestors found it. Instead, Indians wish to increase their share in the bounty of white civilization through moral blackmail, which just happens to impeach the legitimacy of that civilization’s very foundations. The Indians are untroubled by the moral contradictions of their position, but their aim is not justice but unearned wealth.

That may well describe the “Indians” of today – many of whom are part-White and even mostly-White hybrids. But I imagine that the pure-blooded Indians fighting dispossession in the 19th century would have been satisfied just to have their old ways back, their continent back, and see the “pale faces” long gone.


In truth, indigenous peoples who present themselves as “historical” victims aren’t victims at all. 

Even Salter in his writings spoke of the dispossession of Native Americans and that the wealth brought by Europeans doesn’t compensate for the loss of an entire continent (!) for the exclusive use of the expansion of your progeny.  What kind of absolute nonsense denies genuine victimhood to peoples deprived of carrying capacity land?  I guess we can just turn around and say that “diversity” and “the economic benefits of youthful immigrants to Europe” means that dispossession of the original peoples of that continent is justified and Europeans are not victims?

I do not argue Whites need to feel guilty or give the land back.  But they should not dismiss legitimate claims of victimhood either. Native American dispossession happened.  From their perspective, it was a world historical calamity.  Why belittle that reality?


For instance, there is every reason to reverse the recent colonization of Europe and European diaspora societies by non-whites. There is every reason to reverse Chinese colonization of Tibet. In every case, the colonists have homelands to which they can return. 

Native Americans would argue that Whites can return to a Europe in which non-White colonization has been reversed.

…we can create an ethnonationalist world order…

I veto your dream.


Addendum: 


In another post by the same author at the same blog, we observe the usual ethnonationalist hypocrisy and incoherence.  A few brief excerpts:


For visitors and temporary residents, white and non-white alike, as well as for white minority groups living within their borders, ethnonationalists do not want or encourage assimilation. 


Alright, but then:


Immigration between white societies should be minimized. Practically all cases would be due to marriage.


Let’s have an “out” for certain ethnonationalist ethnic imperialists who live in other people’s nations and take the women of these other people.

Expatriates from other white nations should be allowed, in limited numbers, as long as they respect the dominant culture and the natives need not interact with them.


This allows ethnic imperialists from certain European ethnies to colonize the “warm clines” of other European ethnies.  Of course, respecting “the dominant culture” includes Deasy disrespecting Bulgarians after visiting Bulgaria, and Leonard promoting intra-Italian separatism while living in Italy.


In addition, are members of that blog, who are not ethnic Hungarians, living in Hungary not interacting with any natives?


However, once whites feel that we have a future again, we will be able to take the risk of accepting less than fully homogeneous societies…


Let’s go through all the trouble of over-throwing the System just so we eventually can start the same problems all over again.

Advertisements

Advice For the Young Activist

Navigating the madhouse.

What advice would I give a (real, not infiltrator) newcomer, particularly a young one, to the “movement?”  Since most, albeit of course not all, such newcomers would be expected to be relatively young, and since younger, less experienced, individuals would be more likely to be vulnerable to errors of judgment, I entitle this piece: “Advice For the Young Activist,” although it applies to all people who find themselves in The Movement Madhouse.

Based on plenty of experience (most of it negative), I would start off with the following.

Be careful of who you deal with, who you have confidence in, who you trust.  In more than 20 years involved with racial activism, I can honestly say that there have been only two people I’ve known in the “movement” that I have had complete confidence in, who I would consider 100% trustworthy.  One of these is someone I’ve known for nearly 20 years, the other is someone I worked with very closely for several years before he passed away. That’s it.  Two in 20+ years, of the dozens and dozens (if you can online commentators, hundreds) of people I’ve encountered.  If we relax the criteria and ask how many people in the “movement” I have reasonably solid confidence in, people I’d be willing to invite over for dinner, interact with personally – maybe half-a-dozen total (including the two already discussed).  The point: be very careful who you associate who you trust.  You will meet some of the best people you will ever know in the “movement,” but also some of the worst, and the latter will outnumber the former.  A dissident movement will by its very nature tend to attract marginal personalities, and that has been amplified by freakish dogma, lack of quality control, and piss-poor leadership.” Combine that with outright trolls infiltrators, and agent provocateurs, as well as the weak-minded who join for dubious reasons and then leave – without being able to keep their mouths shut about it – and you have a recipe for disaster unless you are very careful. Then one hears rumors of “homosexual grooming of young boys” at “Alt Right pool parties” – I have no idea if that is true or not, but young men should exercise caution.  The same applies to young women entering the “movement” who may be the center of attention from the sex-starved heterosexual activist contingent.

Don’t fall in with personality cults.  Note to the “movement”: there are no “rock stars” – or there should not be any; no one is infallible; and although there are some important personages who have done real solid work, which should be respected and appreciated, no one is above criticism.  The idea that we should, on the one hand, critique “the personality cults of Jewish intellectual movements” while, on the other hand, mimic the same type of personality cult among racial activism, is outright hypocrisy and demonstrates a stunning lack of self-awareness.  If you read or hear “rock star” in reference to anyone, if you see, read, or hear anything that tells you that criticism of certain people is forbidden, then run as fast as you can.  That’s a cult, not a genuine movement.

Think for yourself, don’t mindlessly swallow fossilized “movement” dogma. The same admonitions against cultism applies to dogma that is above criticism.  We all know the official dogma: Nordicism, ethnic fetishism, Ostara-like “racial history,” HBD, etc. If there is something you are not allowed to criticize, then that’s a cult, not a real political movement.

Be wary of real-life public meetings and rallies, know very well what you are getting into and be prepared.  There are a number of dangers here.  First, even in the absence of leftist opponents, you will likely be exposed to some “sincere” unsavory characters.  Second, the leftist problem exists and comes in two flavors.  There’s the “infiltrator” flavor and then there’s the overt “in your face” flavor, the latter of which runs the spectrum of merely loud protests, and the taking of pictures and filming, to actual physical assault. Most likely, your personal self-defense will be your own responsibility, and don’t expect any real security to weed out infiltrators or to even to prevent someone sticking a cell phone camera in your face.  Weigh the costs and benefits of such meetings, look at your own personal situation carefully, understand the implications and consequences, and go from there.  If you do attend meetings at which there is no confidence of security (most of them), you at least would want to consider investing in some “technics” to obfuscate identity if you do have that cell phone camera in your face.  It goes without saying that unless you want to play a leadership role – and you know you would be accepted as such based on your merits (see below on “affirmative action”) – then do protect your pseudonymity.

Take care of yourself first.  When you travel by plane, you are told than in case of emergency, you put your own oxygen mask on first and then you help the person next to you.  The same principle applies here.  If you and your life are a mess, you’ll be little help to anyone, including “the White race.”  Education, career, financial security, family, health – all come first, racial activism comes second.  That’s not “selfish individualism”  – is it just good sense and putting yourself in the position of being the best you can be, which will be of benefit to everyone around you.  Be wary of the siren song: “I don’t know why people bother going to college or saving for retirement – don’t they know that the System is going to completely collapse in five years?”  They’ve been saying that same nonsense for more than 50 years now.  Ignore them.  Essentially what they are saying is: “Don’t take care of yourself – take care of ME instead.”  They want your time, your effort, and, above all else, they want your MONEY.  Don’t fall for it.  In many cases, calls for “selfless altruism” are actually self-interested appeals for the altruist to sacrifice himself for those doing the calling.

Don’t buy into the “Armageddon” rhetoric that “the collapse of the System and the revolution” is just around the corner, within five years it’ll all collapse.  As noted above, they’ve been saying that for more than 50 years

Don’t waste time with online comments threads flamewars.  That speaks for itself.  That’s all a waste of time, unproductive, revolving around personalities and not issues, and this time sink will get you more involved with activist freaks than you would ever want.

Don’t have unrealistic expectations and then get “burnt out” when you don’t see victory right around the corner. I’m not necessarily echoing Spengler’s “Optimism is cowardice,” but you must be realistic.  This is a long-haul endeavor, anyone who promises quick fixes ad immediate gratification is either delusional or a charlatan.

Be persistent but know when to change strategy and tactics when a “dead end” won’t budge.  Don’t be a fossil.  Be flexible.

Don’t throw good money after bad. Many “movement” outlets have their hands out; they are very good at pan-handling.  You may feel like: “I’ve already invested so much into these people, I can’t give up now.”  No, it’s a sunk cost, accept it and move on.  This applies to the investment of time and effort as much as the investment of money. Avoid the “denial of sunk cost” trap – which you are afraid to “break” with a failed group, etc. because of the perception that you’ve sunk too much into it to leave it now.  You will just sink deeper and deeper into failure.  Accept sunk costs and move on.

If some individual/group/organization is unable to clearly define who their “ingroup” is, who they are for, run as quickly as you can.  In particular, if you are in any way unsure whether you yourself are “in” why would you waste any investment of time and resources if a group of mendacious liars or indecisive dithering idiots?  You have the right to invest in your own genetic interests.  You are not there to be the extended phenotype of someone else, defending their genetic interests at the cost of your own.  Demand transparency and reciprocity regarding interests, and if you don’t get it, take your business elsewhere.  Don’t fall for the “we’ll sort all this out after the revolution.”  No, sort it out NOW.  And if you find some individual or group trying to renegotiate the ingroup after the fact, suggesting that maybe you don’t belong after all, AFTER you’ve already invested your time, effort, and money with them, then they are utterly devoid of character, and you need to leave them ASAP, regardless of what they “decide” about ingroups.  Deciding on the ingroup is the FIRST thing – the DEFINING thing any group must do.  The definition of a group is meaningless without a clear “in/out” and if the “in/out” is going to be redefined midstream, then the definition of the group is also meaningless.  Don’t waste your time with meaningless groups….or with meaningless individuals.

Don’t waste time with “man on white horse” syndromes, magical thinking about quick fixes, and that mainstream leaders are “secretly on our side.” They’re not.

Don’t be afraid to call out “movement” “leaders” when such fail time and time again. They’ll get hysterical, “ban” you from their sites, call you names (the pot calling the kettle black), they’ll do anything to protect their money stream.  After all, we can’t let the rubes know how they are getting fleeced now, can we?  As a corollary don’t buy into, or yourself promote, the “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action policy. If any “movement” precinct declares that groups A-M are part of their ingroup, and groups N-Z are not, well and good, but then leadership of that precinct should be able to come from any qualified person derived from that ingroup (A-M).  Any “movement” group that has a caste system within their ingroup – run.  They are being disingenuous; they really want an ingroup narrower than they outwardly proclaim, and are just fishing for more money sources and other forms of support.  Again, don’t be someone else’s extended phenotype.

If I think of any more advice, a follow-up to this post will be produced in the future.

Durocher in Der News, 7/10/17

Der Movement marches on.

An analysis of race, nation, and culture in the writings of Herodotus could in theory be an interesting exercise, albeit one not directly relevant to actualizing our goals in our present (and future) reality.  Durocher’s Part I didn’t set off any alarm bells, but I knew it would just be a matter of time. Here we have Part II.  Let’s look at this self-contradictory paragraph, with the offending sections highlighted:

I would argue that Herodotus’ observations are eminently compatible with a scientific and evolutionary perspective on race/genetics and ethnicity. Race is, especially in geographically contiguous land masses, typically a clinal phenomenon, with gradual change in genetic characteristics (i.e. allele frequencies) as one moves, for instance, from northern Europe to central Africa. While intermarriage tends to spread genes, gene flow is slowed by geographical and ethno-cultural boundaries, leading to significant racial-genetic clumping and differentiation.

First, “northern Europe to central Africa” is not a “geographically contiguous land mass” – being interrupted by that thing usually called “the Mediterranean Sea.”  Further, while Africa itself is “contiguous” the Sahara Desert can impede gene flow.  So, “northern Europe to central Africa” is hardly the best choice for any discussion of clinal changes in gene frequencies.  Then he shifts gears and talks about factors causing “clumping and differentiation” including “geographical…boundaries” – which would actually be something to cite Europe-Africa about, rather than for clinal differences.  So: clinal or clumpy?

Which is it?  Answer: genetic differentiation tends to be more clinal within continental populations and more “clumpy” between such populations, although in some cases there could be some “somewhat clinal” clumpy differences within continental population groups and “somewhat clumpy” clinal differences at the edges separating some such groups.

Consider this from Durocher:

The birth of a nation, ethnogenesis, occurs when linguistic, cultural, and possibly genetic drift leads a particular population to acquire an ethnic identity distinct from its neighbors. Cultural chauvinism and ethnic sentiment work together in this, magnifying one another: cultural traits such as language and customs become more and more similar within the in-group, while differences with out-groups become more and more marked. Thus, a point on the genetic cline is hardened into a more-or-less discrete ethno-cultural node and genetic cluster: a nation. The degree of nationhood is defined precisely by the population’s level of genetic and cultural commonality.

Where did we ever read that before?  Oh, here:

Thus, over time, genetic boundaries can become ever-more-aligned to political and cultural boundaries, particularly when those boundaries are fairly impermeable, distinguishing quite distinct national, political and socio-cultural entities. 

Panmixia is NOT required for a better alignment of European genetic interests with actualization of a High Culture.  Given a strict “in/out” barrier, over time, given natural processes of low-level gene flow within both “in” and “out” coupled with drift and selection increasing distances between “in” and “out,” the relative genetic distinctiveness between “in” and “out” will increase, and any potential areas of genetic overlap between “in” and “out” will no longer exist. 

We have gene-culture evolution becoming gene-High Culture evolution as well as gene-political system evolution. 

Hence, the association between genes and political boundaries goes in both directions.

How about this from Durocher:

One does not need a population with an absolutely “pure” lineage for ethnocentrism to be evolutionarily adaptive. On the contrary, one needs only sufficient genetic and cultural similarity for the members of the community to form a common identity and become a solidary in-group, and there must be greater average genetic similarity among individual in-group members than there is between individual in-group members and the members of out-groups they come into conflict with.

That sounds familiar as well:

However, regardless of how modern gene pools came to be, people are not genetically identical – there are differences in genetic kinship and hence in genetic interests, and it is there that we need to focus our attention. 

Premise 1 is false. Race does not depend on “purity.” Race can be defined different ways, but is essentially a genetically distinct subpopulation that is characterized by a suite of heritable (i.e., genetic) phenotypic traits distinguished from other such groups. There’s nothing in any reasonable definition of race that includes the idea that a race has to be a hermetically sealed group, absolutely isolated from all other groups from the beginning of time. Thus, racial preservation deals with races and their gene pools as they actually exist today, “warts” and all. The possible existence of past admixture does not in any way suggest that future admixture is inevitable, necessary, or desirable. The ethnic and genetic interests of any group are forward-looking, based on the present and looking toward the future. How the group came into existence – including via admixture – does not change the interests that group has in its continuity and preservation today. 

Of course, the concept of ethnic genetic interests (EGI) represents an argument against future admixture, particularly against admixture across wide racial lines; i.e., across a large genetic differentiation. EGI is forward-looking. Genetic interests are considered in the present, to influence decisions that affect the future. Admixture in the past affected the genetic interests of the people at that time. We cannot go back in time and alter decisions made by past peoples that created the ethnies and individuals that exist today. 

Today’s peoples are what they are, with genomes that are what they are. We cannot change that. We can only change what future generations will be like, what their genomes, and consequent phenotypes, will be. Genetic interests always look forward. So, again, any individual or ethny today, with whatever ancestral mix, has genetic interests, regardless of how their genomes came to be.

I could cite more, but sifting through my old writings to find either:

1) Ideas generated later regurgitated by the “movement” or

2) Any of the endless series of predictions I’ve made that have come true

Is a tiresome exercise.  Not as tiresome – predictably tiresome – as Der Movement, Inc. is though.

A Diaspora Future For Whites?

A similar viewpoint.

I’ll chalk up the similarity of this piece to my essay here with the old adage: “great minds think alike.”

Putting aside the issue of memetic precedence and considering content, I believe the fundamental idea underlying both pieces need to be taken into serious consideration by those few serious-thinking activists.  Our future may well be more like For My Legionaries and A People That Shall Dwell Alone than The Turner Diaries or some other piece of chest-thumping “movement” nonsense.

Political EGI, Part IV: Origin Myths?

Latest anti-racist lunacy.

The latest anti-White poisonous meme being promoted (in a recent issue of Science, for example) is that of the “myth of origins” in defense of mass migration.  In other words, peoples (i.e., White people) have the “erroneous” idea that they have a single point of origin, which leads to “bias” against “migrants.”  Instead, we are told, peoples are the product of “multiple migrations” with no single origin, hence – and this is really a non-sequitur – there is no rational justification to oppose migrants.

Now, my first response to this “argument” was – “hey, does that mean we don’t have to worry about all the oppressed indigenous peoples anymore?” You know what I mean here – all of those (carefully defined so as to exclude Europeans) indigenous peoples that we – and the United Nations! – need to worry so much about.  Amerindians, native Hawaiians, Australian aboriginals, etc. – no need to “feel bad” about their displacement by the White man!  After all, all those peoples are merely the product of “multiple migrations” and so the arrival of Europeans should have been met with great joy and welcoming. 

A second response would be to ask whether this leftist logic applies to non-Whites: so that Africans, Asians, etc. all should welcome displacement and race replacement.  Good luck with that.

With respect to actually answering the “argument” itself, I state that:

1. Any reasonable definition of “indigenous” – including and especially my own definition – should be based upon the act of ethnogenesis, which itself takes into account those migrations that are part of the history of virtually all peoples (some more than others, of course).  It simply does not matter in the last analysis how a people came to be – they exist, and if their ethnogenesis is tied to a particular territory, and if they are the oldest extant people on that territory, then they are indigenous to that territory, and their origin there is a reality, not a myth,

2. Regardless of how different peoples came to be, they differ genetically and culturally, and they have an inherent right to safeguard their uniqueness, an inherent right to their own territory, and an inherent right to resist displacement and race replacement.

3. It follows then that the actual mechanisms of origin, and the actual mechanisms generating a people’s genetic and cultural uniqueness, are irrelevant to their Identity, and to their self-conception tied to a territory and to an origin in that territory.  Group interests are inherent to group existence, and anyone who attempts to delegitimize those interests – for example by delegitimizing a sense of origin and a sense of identity – are threatening the group’s existence and are thus promoting genocide.

White racial activists like to bring up the United Nations Genocide Convention and how it applies to White displacement.  They need to get more serious about it.  As part of Political EGI, nationalist politicians should openly accuse their opponents of promoting genocide, and assert that those opponents need to be hauled into court for crimes against humanity. Not that this “hauling into court” will occur (for now, only nationalists are so “hauled”), but it is excellent political rhetoric and sets the tone for the future.

Part V will continue this discussion.

What Is the Purpose of Nationalist Electoral Politics?

What should be the strategic purpose of nationalist electoral politics?

The purpose of nationalist electoral politics is not a mainstreaming “Hail Mary Pass” all-or-nothing approach to elect a national leader, compete with doom-and-gloom predictions in the case of (inevitable) defeat.  Of course, if it is possible to elect a nationalist as a President or Prime Minister, and enact change from the top down, then fine, do it. I’m not saying that we should eschew any such opportunities that may present themselves. However, taking advantage of such unexpected and unlikely scenarios does not constitute a long-term, stable strategy.

Instead, I see participation in electoral politics as serving two purposes:

First, as a means of propaganda, proselytizing, recruitment, and normalizing our message to the masses.  

Second, as a means of electing nationalists to secondary positions, ranging from, at the top, Congress/Parliament (including EU Parliament) down to very local elected positions, to infiltrate positions of authority as much as possible.  And the strategic purpose of this second objective is so that these elected officials use their positions to provide “cover” and assistance to the main thrust of nationalist activity.  And that main thrust would be building an actual, real-world movement, ranging across the breadth of modern life, including but not limited to: a real-world “street” presence and community organizing, a robust online presence, overall infiltration of the System, the building of alternative communities, and the formation of an elite pan-European Legion that represent the political warriors necessary to move the entire project forward.  Elected officials can use their power to protect and assist the growing movement as much as possible, and obstruct as much as possible attempts by the System to crush the movement.

These two major purposes of nationalist political participation are what I see to be reasonable, possible, strategically viable and compatible with more “vanguard” approaches, as described above.   And having all these instrastructures in place, if an opportunity presents itself to elect a national leader, we would be in a better position to do so than from starting from nothing in place to begin with.

No doubt, any electoral contest needs to be carefully chosen; no need to waste time and resources in an area where there isn’t the least significant chance of victory.  Even if the campaign is being done for objective one – recruiting and propaganda – you still want fertile ground and a decent showing for your candidate.  Your message will be better received in that case than in some leftist district or state where you would be lucky to get a few thousand votes. You would also need the right candidates – intelligent, articulate, attractive individuals well versed in the issues, courageous to take a stand in favor of race, culture, and nation, capable debaters, and individuals willing and able to campaign on an overtly and explicitly (right-wing populist) pro-White platform. The days of implicit mainstreaming are over, and there’s no educational value in promoting indirect and vague implicit themes. Instead of folks ever-so-carefully trying to stretch the Overton Window, we need folks willing to smash through it.

Movement Madness, 2/20/17

More “movement” cluelessness.

Someone at Amren asks why it’s considered bad to say “I’m proud to be White.”  There’s a number of reasons for that, some touched upon in that essay and some not.  One thing’s for sure: Der Movement’s enthusiastic embrace of freakishness and hypocrisy of all kinds is not helping.

Speaking of hypocrites and Amren, here’s someone embraced by the Amren crowd.

Derbyfogle has the nerve to ask:

 
Well, all that is a problem for Chinese people. But why is it any problem for us?

And answers it:

I’ve been living among Chinese people for forty-five years. I’ve been married to one for thirty years.

Yeah, Derb, it is a “problem for us” because we have Chinese living in this country.  You’ve contributed to the problem by bringing “Rosie” – who you yourself have admitted is an ethnocentric Chinese – to the USA.  This guy’s mindnumbingly clueless hypocrisy is simply astounding.

But I love my country…

If you’re talking about England, then go back (sans “Rosie” and the kids, who can go to China or Taiwan) and try to help.  As for America, you’re a former illegal alien who has contributed to the Chinese problem you are posting about, so “my country” should not apply for the USA.

German madness – Germany is “not a Western nation.”  What stupidity is this?  Some sort of “Red Fascism/National Bolshevik” nonsense to identity Germany to the East as a “young, non-Western” nation?  As sane people are aware, Germany is one cornerstone of the West (along with the other major Western European nations identified by Yockey); indeed, Germans may have contributed more to Western culture (as defined by Spengler/Yockey) more than any other people.

I really do think Germans had a mass national nervous breakdown after losing WWI and the subsequent period of revolution, instability and inflation, and Weimer degeneration, and have been more or less crazy for the last 100 years or so, veering off from ultra-narrow hegemonic ethnonationalism to ultra-universal pathological altruism, with random nutcases in-between reinventing Western history.  Der Movement had better get over its extreme Teutonophilia until such time that Germany recovers the mental equilibrium it had before November 1918.

Then we have this.

Yeah, the Alt Right can “distance themselves” from Milo all they want, but it’s too late.  Milo and the Alt Right are one in the mind of the public, and the Alt Right can blame themselves for that, with all their talk about “a big tent” and “the usefulness of Milo and the Alt Lite” and “let’s not turn people away from us.”  Net result: more people will end up being turned away than being attracted.

Then we have Roissy:

 
As a White man, I sense that war has been declared on me and my kind. When my enemies bring war to my doorstep, what am I to do?

Well, he has previously answered that for himself:

damn, i’m torn. do i want a thriving society or easier access to sex? yeeeeah… i’ll take the latter and leave the self-sacrifice required of the former for the anti-poolside chumps

Milo and Roissy are two sides of the same coin, one homo and the other hetero (with the exception of Roissy’s comically homoerotic fixation on Donald Trump).  Both are sexual hedonists, snarky and juvenile “shock jock” types, on the periphery of Der Movement, generating self-aggrandizing controversy by flirting with Far Right ideas, but ultimately standing for values anathema to any sane ordering of White society.  Both have influence because of the “big tent” stupidity of Der Movement, which sacrifices standards on the altar of expediency.

Then we have the Silk Roaders, who are becoming increasingly unhinged with their anti-Trumpism. They’ll be addressed in future posts – the only thing to say now for those of you who haven’t been paying attention is that their anti-Trumpism is ALL about Russia.  The Jew/Israeli card is being played to try to appeal to Der Movement’s knee-jerk anti-Semitism. It is hypocrisy, because it we are to criticize everyone groveling to the Jews and Israel, this must include China, India, and all the other lands of the Asian gods.  

I for one long ago identified Trump as a Negrophilic ignorant vulgar buffoon with strong Jewish family connections.  But, he’s not part of Der Movement, is a public mainstream figure, so in this non-“movement” case expediency actually is justification.  What effect does Trump have on White racial interests?  He can be a useful tool.  I’m certainly not going to be anti-Trump solely because Asian nationalists covet the Russian Far East.

The solution to “movement” madness?  How about starting here?