Category: Western Destiny

Dissecting the Fundamentals, Part I

Another look at “the fundamentals.”

Pan-Europeanism as the major focus will replace other more narrow “isms” – be they national, ethnic, subracial, etc.  The narrower “isms” will not disappear, they can continue to exist, but at a lower level than the overarching pan-European unity.  The two fratricidal world wars of the 20th century wrecked Europe, the West, and the White race, and those who continue to promote division even now, are, whether they know it or not, working for the enemy, working for the Death of Europe and for the destruction of the worldwide fraternity of the European Peoples.  Therefore, all those who preach division within the European family – be that division genetic, phenotype, cultural, historical, religious – are the enemies of European Man and enemies of the West and enemies of our Identity and our Future.

Pan-Europeanism is the First Principle, the non-negotiable, the underlying thesis, the Idea of Yockey (opposed by those ethnonationalists who make pretense of being some sort of Yockey acolytes, presumably for fundraising purposes), the organic evolution of the West. Now, as Yockey stated, and I certainly agree (as does Lowell and others), narrower forms of Identity can and will exist within the context of pan-Europeanism, but these will be local and secondary.  The European, the Western (in the broadest sense, not equivalent to the modern decadent West nor even to the current Faustian High Culture, which we must overcome and supersede, as it is dying, if not already dead) Identity must be primary and existential.

Let’s quote Yockey here:

Our European Mission is to create the Culture-State-Nation-Imperium of the West, and thereby we shall perform such deeds, accomplish such works, and so transform our world that our distant posterity, when they behold the remains of our buildings and ramparts, will tell their grandchildren that on the soil of Europe once dwelt a tribe of gods.

That’s what is important, that’s the inspiring vision for the future, not a dismal future of squabbling ethnonationalists ready to “ethnically cleanse” each other over disagreements about “sovereignty.”

Now, I must stress: to a large extent this Yockeyian vision is for elites.  Nietzsche was willing to grant the masses their Christianity, their religion of resssentiment, if they so required, but the elites, the Overmen must eschew such childish crutches.  Similarly, the masses can have their ethnonationalism for the time being, as they are slowly weaned off of it; better ethnonationalism than globalist universalism.  But the nationalist elites have to be true acolytes of the pan-European Ideal, and eventually lead the masses in the correct direction as those masses become improved and enlightened over time.

Genetic kinship will replace racial “purity.”  As per Salter, ultimate interests are genetic interests, and genetic interests are based upon genetic kinship.  Only genetic kinship is relevant for biopolitics.  This contrasts to the unscientific strawman of racial “purity” which is usually derived from some a priori comparison to a picked parental population.  Since all genetic differences, regardless of their derivation (e.g., “admixture” [real or an artifact], selective pressures, genetic drift, etc.) influence genetic kinship, measurement of such kinship is the most inclusive and definitive approach for understanding our ultimate interests.  We accept the European genepool for what it is now and strive to improve it in the future.  To use Yockey’s terminology in a new way, we completely replace outdated and unscientific “vertical” concerns with “purity/admixture” with “horizontal” concerns with genetic kinship and genetic interests.

The “movement” will resist this, no doubt.  Some precincts of the “movement” play lip service to this idea, but as always look at that they do more than what they say.  Look what posts they present, what authors they promote, what memes they spread, what their commentators are saying – it doesn’t match their ostensible “position” on this matter.  Remember Horace: “You may drive out Nature with a pitchfork, yet she still will hurry back.”  Unscientific fetishistic fantasies will collapse under the edifying light of science, the reality of facts, and no “movement” flim-flam and sweaty fossilized dogma will stand up to truth in the long term.

How to fuse these horizontal concerns with genetic interests with Yockey’s vision, which was flawed by its blithe dismissal of “materialistic” race concepts?  See this.

Total biocultural Identity will replace as narrower biological and cultural identities as the major focus of European Being.  The narrower identities will still exist, but as part of Identity, and the narrower identities will become increasingly aligned with that of Identity.  Biological and cultural classifications by themselves are not disjunctive, only total Identity is disjunctive. The ultimate solution to any discordance between Identity and biological identities is this: we will align our biological/genetic interests with Identity by closing the borders and stopping non-European gene flow into European territories.  Thus, over time the genetic boundaries between Europe and the Others will become ever larger and more distinct; the genetic commonalities between Europeans, compared to the Others, will become larger and more integrated.  The same applies to any potential cultural overlaps between The West and The Rest.  Examples of this possibility, as exemplified by the Levant and by China, are shown here.

This is an important point, and an answer to sweaty fetishists using minute difference in Fst values – ignoring that Fst is a flawed metric for measuring genetic differentiation – to make asinine comments about negligible levels of relative ethnic genetic distances.

Biopolitics will replace the old fraud of Right vs. Left.  We care not if any specific policy of ours, or our entire program, is deemed “rightist” or “leftist” or whatever outdated label.  We are not conservatives, reactionaries, not in any way beholden to “right-wing” thought.  We are revolutionaries, striving to create a new order.

This should be self-evident.  We are not conservatives, reactionaries, or traditionalists.  We look to the future, not to the dead past.  This leads to:

Futurism, not Traditionalism.  Unlike some of the more reckless statements in support of Futurism, we do not call for the abolition of museums, the disregarding of our past and the great deeds of our ancestors.  Past, Present, and Future are all linked.  However, we look to the Future, our real Golden Age is that which we will make in the Future, it is not some sort of delusional Traditionalist fantasy set in the Past.  We will not reject the deeds of our ancestors, but these are not the sum of our being, we do not settle for them – we must surpass them.  We remember the Past, but for the purpose of spurring us to achieve greater deeds in the Future. 

One of the most unpleasant aspects of the “movement” is its obsession with gnostic esoteric “traditionalism” and with a Lord of the Rings style romanticization of feudal values.

Rational realism and empiricism is for facts, values and objectives can be irrational.  Thus, we reject the old, timeworn, factually incorrect knee-jerk beliefs, memes, and paradigms that have defined to so-called “racialist movement,” particularly in America.  With respect to facts, history, knowledge – the age of “movement” dogma is over.  We reject the misanthropic freakishness and lies of the old movement.  With respect to facts, we depend on rationality, on realism, on empiricism – on real Science.  But these things cannot provide us with our values and our objectives – they are merely tools.  Our values and objectives can be irrational as they spring forth from our vision of the reality we want to come into being.  But we cannot confuse what we want with what actually is – nor can be settle for what is instead of what we actually want.  What is – that is the current reality, which must be discerned with empiricism.  What we want is derived from our values, irrational as they may (or may not) be, and for these objectives, empiricism is only a tool, a means, not an end to itself.  As part of this, the fantasies of Traditionalism – which invents false facts – must be put aside in favor of empirical facts and the irrational objectives of an enlightened Futurism.

This gets to the core – one core at least – of my criticism of the “movement,” and why “movement” “leaders” have made me persona non grata in their circles.  My message is blasphemy and, what’s more, gets in the way of “business as usual,” and the concomitant tin cup panhandling that is facilitated by giving “movement” “activists” the dogmatic “red meat” they crave.  The “movement” wants to continue dwelling in its little cul-de-sac of crazed religious fervor with its fossilized memes; but this is an dead end, a recipe for failure, and anyone who actually wants to win, and actualize their ideology into reality needs to understand – truly understand – what that reality is all about.

Preservationism plus eugenics replaces static preservationism.  We are not interested in preserving a racial stasis…We wish to promote eugenics to improve the stock and, also, allow for the creation of new stabilized blends of European stocks – while also at the same type preserving the original stocks – to increase the diversity of European Man. Ethnic genetic interests are compatible with (gradual) genetic change within the race…

There are a number of important points here, all of which focus on a forward-looking, palingenetic view of race (i.e., futurism, not traditionalism).  Contra to misinformed complaints that a concern for EGI leads to “genetic stasis,” here we see an overt call for eugenics (albeit a prudent form of eugenics that seeks to avoid both unnecessary loses of genetic interest and unforeseen negative consequences to designating traits – and the alleles that code for them – as worthy of replacement or increase without understanding possible consequences of such changes), and the call for “the creation of new stabilized blends of European stocks…increase the diversity of European Man.”  As long as original stocks are maintained, there’s nothing wrong with creating new variants of European man, in diaspora regions such as America.  When such crossing create excellent new strains, such can be cultivated as new ethnies to be preserved and improved; if negative strains (however defined) are produced, they can be selected against.  The creation and selection of new dog breeds can be a model for this process. Gradual genetic change that eschews mixing across continental population groups (broadly: races) and that preserves the vast bulk of genetic interests is a natural part of the lifecycle of evolved organisms, is part and parcel of genetic interests, and is wholly compatible with a prudent and well-informed eugenic scheme.


Camel, Lion, Child Redux

Nietzsche’s three metamorphoses.

I believe I already wrote about this, but for the benefit of new readers (and for cognitively deficient Type I established readers) I will repeat this concept, and its relevance to what the long-term objectives here are.

Read Zarathustra.

A reasonable explanation.

These are a metaphor for the three stages men have to go through, in their path towards moral self-sufficiency.The camel is a “beast of burden”, that is, it carries a weight someone else has put on it. When the person is the “camel”, they don’t follow their own moral judgement, but have instead a set of external rules they’ve been told are right. “Thou shalt” and the dragon refer to the Ten Commandments and the Church.

Someone becomes the lion when they realise those rules they’ve been taught through their lives aren’t necessarily immutable truths. The lion looks at the conventions and morals he thought were the only possibility and tears them apart. “There is no Good, there is no Evil”… This is that “sacred no”; the realisation that these are man-made concepts and the choice to reject them.
However, the lion can only destroy, it’s just an act of nihilism. After the lion has done away with those morals imposed from outside, the child will be the one creating new values. Not out of duty to an external force or out of rebellion against it, but for itself. The child is pure creativity. That is his “sacred yes” to life.

The camel accepts established dogma and bears the burden of working within a constrained tradition. The lion rebels against that dogma and tradition, realizing that there is no reason to accept those dogmas and traditions as “immutable truths.”  The lion deconstructs, rejects, destroys.  Finally, the child enters the scene and creates new values, new traditions – “pure creativity.”  Over time, this process can repeat itself, if necessary.  The child’s creation may fossilize into a dogma, burdening camels, and leading to lions.

So, I spent many years as a “movement” camel, accepting dogma and following flawed “leaders.”  Much of the work of EGI Notes is the lion phase – what fossilized Type I activists call my “crazed bitterness” – deconstructing, rejecting, and opposing the “movement,” with the objective of destroying the Old Movement, to make way for the New.  And, finally, some of my work at both EGI Notes and Western Destiny is the child creative phase – creating a New Movement based on a fresh set of values – the Fundamentals.

What’s In Store For 2018?

It’s an uncertain and volatile situation.

What is likely to occur in the American scene (and in the “movement” as a whole)?  Needless to say, I do not see any realistic chance of progress as defined by the EGI Notes-Western Destiny groupuscule: therefore, little or no chance that the ideas, memes, strategies, and paradigms promoted here will be accepted by, and influence, Der Movement to any significant degree.  The American scene, and Der Movement as a whole, will continue to be dominated by Type I activists and all their associated stupidities.  I am doubtful that any grand epiphany will strike “movement” leadership, or its rank-and-file, no lightning flash illumination of their errors and the direction, the correct path, which they should take.

Given the preponderance of defectives in American racial activism, the dismal and flawed “leadership,” the lack of long-term strategic thinking and prudent contingency planning, and the “do nothing” attitude of the cuck Trump regime toward leftist extremism in America, one can reasonably expect that something – at least one thing – will go significantly wrong for Der Movement in 2018 (I realize such a prediction is almost as bland as saying “I predict the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning”).  Will it be a failed rally, beset by violence?  Will some Alt Right personage be physically targeted akin to what was discussed in a breathless schadenfreude email between a certain blog editor and his Jewish correspondent? Will it be another outrageous case of infiltration?  A major betrayal?  A feud gotten out of hand?  As I am “out of the loop” in Der Movement, functionally “blacklisted,” it’s difficult for me to predict more precisely what is likely to go wrong, as I am not privy to “movement” plans for 2018 and the latest trends or gossip (thankful for the last).  I just see it as highly unlikely that a “movement” as dysfunctional as the American scene can stumble through an entire year without some sort of disaster – at least one.  After all, 2017 saw several: Charlottesville, deplatforming, hysterical feuds, and, perhaps, worst of all, the infiltrations (and subsequent denial of accountability).

A real long-term prediction, not one restricted for 2018, is that the other shoe will drop, and at some point some major “movement” “leader” will be revealed as a mole, an infiltrator, an agent provocateur, or will be someone who started out sincere and then has a change of heart, shockingly betraying his (we’ll assume that activists will have the sense not to follow female leadership now or in the future) followers and supporters.  

Der Movement will be well served to develop antifragility; the ability to prosper from the chaos that will continue (note: if I predict anything with any certainty, it is that the chaos unleashed by Trump, and the continued multicultural morass of America and the West, will continue.  The toothpaste is out of the tube, trends are in motion).  Chaos will continue; the question is whether the “movement” will benefit from it.  To give Der Movement some credit, it has demonstrated a greater degree if antifragility that heretofore assumed (by me, or by most people).  Der Movement has benefited from Trumpian chaos, but not to the extent it could have, and whether this can continue is open to question.

On a positive note as regards predictions, if Der Movement can be led with just the slightest degree of competence and imagination, then the inevitable chaos will lead to at least slow growth.  We’ll see.

Given my distinct failure in correctly predicting the outcome of the 2016 Presidential race, I will not make any predictions for the 2018 mid-term elections.  In any case, much can change, politically speaking, between now and November.  I will make one prediction about the election, in the form of IF-THEN.  Therefore, IF the GOP does poorly this November, THEN Trumpism, right-wing populism, and the Alt Right will be (unfairly) blamed for it.  Of course, the reverse did not occur; the aforementioned memes and entities were not credited for the unexpected successes of 2016; the narrative ratchet only moves in one direction.  That’s the power of having the “megaphone,” and it is to the everlasting discredit of Der Movement that it squandered decades, and millions of dollars, without investing in practical matters such as greater access to information dissemination.  And with the power of the Internet, the omission is even more glaring.

I can predict more betrayals from the Trump administration coupled with more crackdowns and deplatforming from the System’s “private” arm, with the Trumpians looking on benignly as their real supporters are suppressed.  Trump will do a good job alienating and dispiriting his working class and middle class White supporters.  The Trump coalition will end up in the dustheap of history with the Reagan collation UNLESS new right-wing populist candidates come to the fore, and take the mantle of resistance away from the cuck fraud Trump.  There is plenty of room to Trump’s right in American politics, viable room, if someone were to seize that territory, occupy that political niche.  Trump himself has ceded the moral high ground (which he never truly occupied), someone must take that ground, and do so quickly.

The overall situation overseas, particularly in Europe, will most likely be even more static than in America.  In four words: more of the same.  More migrant invasions, spiking in the warmer weather; more terror attacks; more SJW hysteria and a lack of a proper response to all the events from sissified and deracinated (Western) European pansies.  Oh, they may well protest in the streets: protest in favor of MORE immigration, protest in favor of migrant rights and against “Nazi racists.”  Of course, one or more unforeseen “Black Swan” events can change the situation dramatically – and of course the same applies to America – and it’s also possible I’m being unduly pessimistic.  I’m much better predicting things based on insights into the character of people – Trump, “movement activist,” Whites in general – than in trying to predict events that may or may not occur, or that may occur eventually, but not in 2018.  Who knows?  Based solely on the attitudes, character, and trends inherent in European populations today, I simply do not see the potential for significant breakthroughs in 2018.  But, watch out for the Black Swan…after all, my assumption of stasis may be “normalcy bias.”

I realize these predictions are not tightly focused, but I’m better, as stated, at making more tightly focused predictions, not general ones for a given year. I will make such more focused predictions, when relevant as time goes on.

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.


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.

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.