Category: White behavior

The Strange Murder of Europe

Useful review.
Read this.

Excerpts and comments:

The book begins with language designed to shock those only mildly aware of the extent of the problem: “Europe is committing suicide. Or at least its leaders have decided to commit suicide. Whether the European people choose to go along with this is, naturally, another matter” (p. 1). These are simple but important statements. He clearly identifies the disconnect between the European peoples and European leadership and to some degree absolves those being ruled from responsibility for the policies of the rulers. 

Thus, Europe is being murdered, not committing suicide. Mama Markel is one of the prime murderers.  When will there will a Nuremberg trial for her?

And, crucially, he distinguishes himself from the ranks of doom-and-gloomers by suggesting that Europeans are not beholden to false notions of historical inevitability, that there is hope, that they can act to change course. 

The inevitability argument is particularly weak and mendacious in that it presupposes the very thing it assumes is inevitable.  With respect to (non-biological; after all death is – at least for now truly inevitable) human affairs the only things that are really inevitable are those we assume to be so.However, a mere few paragraphs later the central weakness of his work becomes apparent when he writes that:While generally agreeing that it is possible for an individual to absorb a particular culture (given the right degree of enthusiasm both from the individual and the culture) whatever their skin colour, we know that we Europeans cannot become Indian or Chinese, for instance. And yet we are expected to believe that anyone in the world can move to Europe and become European. If being ‘European’ is not about race–as we hope it is not–then it is even more imperative that it is about ‘values’ (p. 5).Murray is a retarded civic nationalist cuck.  Nevertheless, his book still retains some value.Along with this tactic came the “it’s too late now anyway” argument. Mr. Murray quotes the Conservative mayor of London, Boris Johnson: “We need to stop moaning about the dam-burst. It’s happened. There is nothing we can do now except make the process as eupeptic as possible” (pp. 25-26). Murray’s comments regarding such attitudes are perfectly stated. He writes that it seems to have never occurred to men such as Johnson that:. . . there are those who may sustain a degree of anger about the fact that all the main parties had for years taken a decision so wholly at variance with public opinion. At the very least . . . there is something profoundly politically disenfranchising about such talk. Not only because it suggests a finality to a story that is in fact ongoing, but because it adopts a tone more ordinarily directed at some revanchist minority rather than towards a majority of the voting public” (p. 26).Talk of “inevitability” is self-fulfilling.  Indeed, it is…inevitably self-fulfilling.Also related is the notion of immigration troubles as karma, a particularly bad line of attack in that it is an implicit acknowledgement of the problems caused by immigration. Mr. Murray quotes the terrible novelist, professor, and Jew, Will Self: “Up to the Suez crisis . . . most people’s conception of what being British involved was basically going overseas and subjugating black and brown people and taking their stuff and the fruits of their labours. That was a core part of British identity . . .” (p. 33). As the author points out, “in these comments one can hear the authentic and undisguised voice of revenge” (p. 33). Whatever one thinks of the British Empire or imperialism, the author is correct in hearing a tone of vengeance coming from this Jew. Indeed, anyone who has spent any amount of time engaging in debates on immigration knows how quickly revenge and hostility is revealed to be the obvious motivating factor behind pro-immigration advocacy. Only whites who advocate for immigration will do so out of misplaced humanitarian concerns. The rest are out for blood and bounty.This is true.  Only look at Yahoo comments threads, in any story about immigration and declining White demographics.  If the story is about America, there will be snide leftist remarks about Amerindians; if the story is about Europe it will be about colonialism (obvious, comments about the rights of indigenous peoples won’t “fly” with respect to anti-White agendas in Europe, so there it is colonialism).In chapter three, “The Excuses We Told Ourselves,” the author addresses the justifications for immigration. He begins with economics. We are constantly told that immigration is good for the economy with a regular parade of “experts” explaining to us why both what we can easily observe as well as what even the most basic understanding of economics indicate is true is actually false. Even if immigration was truly beneficial for the economy, it is ruinous for the natives and their genetic interests, and a rough economic cost calculation can be performed, such as this.

Is “the economy” going to be boosted sufficiently to pay off trillions of dollars (in real value, money backed up by real productivity, not worthless inflated money hot off the printing presses) to natives?  So what if GDP goes up due to a Ponzi scheme of inflated population numbers of consumers?  If a people are being replaced they do not in the long run benefit.  Others do.

The next common argument for immigration he tackles is that it is needed to replenish aging native populations. Like the economic argument, this too would quickly fall apart in the minds of average people with even a bit of common sense without being strategically preempted by a parade of “experts.” It is true that white Europeans are not reproducing at replacement rates. The first thing that should come to someone’s mind when hearing this is the half century’s worth of environmental concerns related to overpopulation. As Mr. Murray points out, overpopulation used to be a major concern among Leftists and environmentalists. He writes: “It is a point of minor interest that as third-world immigration to Europe has swelled, the Green movements have ceased to argue for population caps or to campaign for restrictions on reproduction” (p. 45). This is hardly a point of minor interest. He goes on: “While happy to tell white Europeans to stop breeding, they become somewhat reticent about making the same request of darker-skinned immigrants” (p. 45). The same is true in all historically white countries and the reasons are the same: no cause–even one regularly presented in terms as urgent as the life or death of our planet–is more important to the globalist elite than the marginalization (even to the point of eradication) of whites.[2] In any case, as the author notes, there is no reason to assume that population growth needs to continue: it does not necessarily improve the quality of life for native populations. Immigrants flock to already heavily-populated areas thereby increasing the stresses on already stressed infrastructures. “Anybody concerned about quality of life for Europeans would wonder about how to lessen their populations, not substantially increase them” (pp. 45-46).

Good points.

But, the author asks, what if immigration is required simply to maintain current population levels? The sensible thing would be to determine whether the native population was not having children because they did not want to or because they couldn’t. Evidence indicates that the latter is the case. It seems as if Europeans are not having many children because they cannot afford to do so (pp. 46-47). The author adds that it is possible that part of the concern is that would-be parents “may not appreciate the endless amount of ‘diversity’ in their local schools and may want their children educated around people from a similar cultural background” (p. 47).

Yockey’s Culture Parasitism.  Westerners being replaced by others.If they cannot afford to live in such an area, they forgo having children. They also forgo having children when their vision of the future is bleak. Mr. Murray writes:
If European governments are really so worried about population decline that they would contemplate bringing in higher-reproducing populations from other parts of the world, it would be sensible for them first to work out whether there are policies that could encourage more procreation among their existing populations. In Poland, for instance, the Law and Justice Party has in recent years raised child benefit in order to raise the native birth rate and diminish any reliance on immigration. At the very least, governments should examine whether there are things they are currently doing that are making things worse (pp. 47-48).That was of course never done.  It was never “we’ve tried everything to increase the native birthrate and failed, so now we turn to immigrants” it was instead “we’ve made the country unlivable for natives and crowded them out with the wretched refuse of the Third World, and, hey, look those natives are not reproducing – time for more immigrants.”  And, if the “free market” was so powerful, there should have been free market incentives and solutions capable of increasing the native birthrate, so that the “we need immigrants” fraud would never even had to be broached.  But we’re all fungible, right, Big Money? (Actually, the Third Worlders are considered more pliant labor).

He ends this section by pointing out the blindingly obvious fact that immigrants get old too and that this argument is little more than a pyramid scheme which will require more and more immigrants to sustain it.

A sensible point and one I’ve made a number of times myself, both here and at The Occidental Observer.Finally, Mr. Murray arrives at the argument for immigration based on its inevitability, one that he seems rightly to find especially reprehensible. There are a few ways in which this line of thought tends to go: insistence that it is Europe’s duty to improve living standards for those in other countries who want to come to Europe (despite numerous studies demonstrating that the very poor tend not to migrate because they cannot afford to pay the smugglers); another is that migration controls actually increase rather than decrease immigration–an assertion, the author notes, which is somehow only ever made by open-borders advocates (p. 58). The most common form this argument takes, however, is in the form of globalism as a new and permanent paradigm in which the free movement of peoples across the world cannot be stopped. This, Mr. Murray believes, can be refuted by the example of Japan. He writes:
. . . if globalisation really has made it impossible to prevent people travelling to Europe from across the world, it is worth noting that this global issue does not affect other countries. If the cause is economic pull, then there is no reason why Japan should not currently be experiencing unparalleled waves of immigration from the West. In 2006 the country was the world’s third largest economy if measured by nominal GDP, putting it ahead of Germany and Great Britain. But of course, despite being a larger economy than any in Europe, Japan has avoided a policy of mass immigration by implementing policies that stop it, dissuade people from staying there, and make it hard to become a citizen if you are not Japanese. . . it is obviously possible for even the richest countries not to inevitably become points of attraction for migrants from all over the world (pp. 58-59).Obvious point.

Though this is an over-simplification to say the least, it is fundamentally true. There is absolutely no reason why European countries could not implement policies similar to those of Japan, other than the impediment of traitorous leadership. He ends this discussion by warning that when concerns of the public are not addressed, resentment grows. And immigration has been a major concern of the European public for many years. “If the response is not just to ignore the concern but to argue that it is actually impossible to do anything about it, then radical alternatives begin to brew” (p. 60). Indeed.

Your elites.

The next two chapters give accounts of the events that transpired at the beginning of the immigration crisis of the 2010s and the situation on the ground at two major arrival points for migrants, Italy and Greece. 

But according to the great and good Sir Desmond Jones, those nations are 100% ethnically homogeneous, and will remain so, forever and ever, until the end of time, amen.

What he describes is horrific chaos. Following the “Arab Spring” of 2011, the Italian island of Lampedusa began to be flooded with hundreds and even thousands of people per day, arriving from North Africa. The vast majority were young men who came from all over the Middle East and Africa, even China and the Philippines. The refugee center was overflowing, fights and riots broke out between migrants (he notes that among migrants there is a distinct racial and ethnic hierarchy, with sub-Saharan Africans being considered the lowliest–even being made to stay in the holds of the boats in which they travel)…

Well, I guess Der Movement would consider Middle Easterners, North Africans, and sub-Saharan Africans to be racially identical to Italians, so homogeneity is maintained.  No problem!

…and the Italian residents of the island who initially had been very welcoming…

But, but, but….I thought they were ethnocentric Neolithics, not “high trust Hunter Gatherers.”  How is this possible?…began to grow increasingly nervous. The situation was similar in Greece. But the migrants quickly learned how to play the game more effectively, thanks in part to NGOs who provided advice on what to do and say when they arrived (pp. 62-72). Migrants, for example, now know that it is better to arrive without papers and they know that certain nationalities are prioritized over others so, for example, claiming to be Syrian even if one is not is beneficial. “The truth is that once you survive Lampedusa’s waters you are in Europe for good” (p. 72). He also discusses Angela Merkel’s devastating impact on the problem with her call for the acceptance of these people into Europe and the support she received from the media and political elite, as well as how these elites began to propagandize for war in Syria using the “refugee” crisis as a pretext (p. 82).But Mama Markel is an Aryan uberfrau, so no criticism, please.  Lest you think I joke, think back to the beginning of the Merkel-refugee crisis, at which time this blog was actively criticizing Merkel from the beginning, and Der Movement was “strangely” silent for many weeks (and I even noted that at Counter-Currents).  Yes, they criticize her now, but there was an extreme reticence to do so from the start. Wonder why (sarcasm)?

With chapter ten, “The Tyranny of Guilt,” Mr. Murray begins to drift away from a primary focus on descriptions of the situation and towards what he believes are the causes. He begins by asking why Middle Eastern, African, and Asian Muslim countries have taken in no refugees. The answer is that their leadership understands that it would be disruptive to their societies and have explicitly stated so. He writes: “What is strange is that the default attitude of Europe is to agree that the Gulf States and other societies are fragile, whereas Europe is endlessly malleable” (pp. 158-59). This, he believes, is a result of “a unique, abiding and perhaps finally fatal sense of, and obsession with, guilt” (p. 159)…The author believes this to be a “specific and common European mania” (p. 165) and lists the consequences of such a mania: the lack of a national will; the danger of being overtaken by stronger countries who have not succumbed to this mania; and the transformation of patriotism into shame or ambivalence (pp. 165-69)….As we can see, he locates these problems internally. For him, it is a sickness within European peoples. If these symptoms were to be found in an individual, one would probe deeper for underlying causes: abusive situations in which he might be currently living, childhood traumas, or the presence of disease. He deals with the first masterfully but the only “childhood trauma” he is really comfortable handling is the decline of Christianity and the idea of Europe having a “disease” in the form of a parasitic race which has weakened its immune system is seemingly inconceivable to him.

Jews. Jews. Jews.  And the philosemitic globalist Gentile elites.  Yockey’s Culture distortion, enabled by culture retardation.

He turns again to more horror stories in chapter twelve, entitled “Learning To Live With It.” He describes just a glimpse of the new normal in Europe including regular knife attacks, shooting sprees, machete attacks, bombings, the executions of priests, rape epidemics (including rapes of the elderly, young girls, and young boys), and what are now almost commonplace terrorist attacks. The perpetrators are often Muslims of some race or other but also, unsurprisingly, there are high rates of crime among black African immigrants. And these are covered up by governments and their police in order to combat the rise of racism, nationalism, and to ensure adequate compliance with the push for the further opening of borders.

“Covered up.” Those are your elites. But, you know, nationalist politicians and “Far Rightists” do in fact point out these facts and incidents.  Do the masses listen?  Truth can be found online.  Does anyone look?  Do they care?  If the elites are a problem, the masses enable it.

Again, he uses Sweden as an example: in the same year it had become known that the Swedish press had for years covered up rapes and sexual assaults by immigrants at various public events, “the then ex-PM gave a television interview in which he said that the Swedish people themselves are ‘uninteresting,’ [and] that borders are ‘fictional constructs” (p. 251).

Those are your elites. It is clear that the elites are a major – if not THE major problem.  But, who elects them?  Who tolerates them?  Who refuses to rise up against them?  Pointing a justified finger at elites does not excuse the stupidity and laziness of the masses.

Again, he blames such attitudes on the relatively quick and dramatic weakening of Christianity, which, for many if not most people, found its substitute in liberalism–a universal system that provides meaning, purpose, and organization to one’s life and, instead of an afterlife, “a veneer of immortality suggested by the admiration of your peers” (pp. 270-71). 

Yeah, sure.  The fact that liberalism is just secular Christianity, and the Pope has nothing better to do than shill for alien immigration and to wash and kiss the dirty feet of migrant scum is, of course, irrelevant. Sigh.

Once the immigration crisis began to be too large to not acknowledge as at least somewhat problematic, the responses from politicians and the media were tepid and disingenuous; emphasis was placed on platitudes instead of substance and avoidance of the major questions instead of honest confrontation. 

That last part is the same as how Der Movement deals with its own problems and failures.

The author provides a brief account of some of these responses in chapter seventeen, “The End,” before moving on to the next chapter, “What Might Have Been,” in which he offers his ideas on how European leaders could have handled the immigration crisis differently and more effectively. Among some logistical proposals (such as temporary asylum and foreign aid for refugee centers outside of Europe), he believes that they should have considered more seriously whether Europe should be open to anyone in the world, whether it should be a refuge for anyone fleeing war, and if it is the responsibility of Europeans to provide anyone who desires it access to their standard of living (p. 294). These are not necessarily simple questions (particularly for those who accept the premises of popular sociopolitical discourse) but, as he points out, concerns for justice undergirded all such discussions and were always one-sided: “The absent party in all this, for whom justice was never considered, were the peoples of Europe. 

But of course.  Come on, Murray, haven’t you heard?  The whole raison d’etre of the System is hostility to European-descended peoples, worldwide.  A lack of justice for Europeans is a feature of the whole System, not a bug. The EU is concerned with the interests and rights of everyone in Europe EXCEPT for native Europeans.In the final chapter, “What Will Be,” Mr. Murray issues a warning to elites that sounds rather different from what one normally hears from conservatives:
The public may want contradictory things, but they will not forgive politicians of–whether by accident or design–they change our continent completely. If they do so change it then many of us will regret this quietly. Others will regret it less quietly. Prisoners of the past and present, for Europeans there seem finally to be no decent answers to the future. Which is now the fatal blow will finally land (p. 320).His tone and word choice are important. Only superficially is this statement reminiscent of the “tiredness” of which he wrote. It is, in fact, bursting with fighting spirit: there is no ambiguity, no assumption of compassion for the traitors, and a frank admission that for many Europeans complacency will not be an option. There will be consequences. Current elites must be replaced. The example of the French Revolution can be instructive in this regard.  All done by legally convened tribunals of course.

Racial Proximity Theory

New paradigm.

To oppose HBD-Nordicist theories about “Hajnal lines” and “high trust northern hunter gatherers” (I suppose these days “steppe ancestry” is even more important to these types than is WHG), I suggest a new theoretical paradigm for intra-European differences in ethnocentrism – Racial Proximity Theory.

Consistent with my Occam’s Razor ideal that one should not over-complexify theories, and should instead aim for the most direct and simple ideas that have sufficient explanatory power (*), Racial Proximity Theory is indeed more simple than its competitors.

Thus, I suggest that European groups whose ethnogenesis took place farther away from non-Whites, i.e., a greater geographic distance from Afro-Asia, would tend to exhibit relatively less inter-racial hostility but relatively greater intra-racial hostility; in contrast, European groups whose ethnogenesis took place closer to, or at, the periphery of Europe, geographically close to Afro-Asia, would tend to exhibit greater inter-racial hostility than intra-racial hostility.

Thus, Northwest Europeans had an ethnogenesis relatively more isolated from contact with non-European groups and in their case hostile contact with outgroups were for the most part with other Europeans. Here, we would suppose that Northwest Europeans would tend to have a weakened negative response to non-White, non-European, peoples, since there has been little selective pressure and adaptive value in identifying and opposing radically different peoples. On the other hand, therehasbeen selective pressure in identifying and opposing peoples who are similar but distinct.

On the other hand, Southern and Eastern Europeans have been, historically, on the “front lines” in conflicts with Afro-Asia, and thus there has been selective pressure for identifying and opposing radically different peoples. There was also selective pressure for identifying and opposing similar but distinct peoples as well, since Southern and Eastern Europe had conflicts with other Europeans as well as with the Global South.  So, there may be relatively greater overall ethnocentrism in Southern and Eastern Europe, but with most of it targeted toward non-Whites.  In contrast, the relatively lesser ethnocentrism of Northwest Europeans is disproportionately targeted against other Europeans; hence in Northwest Europe we observe tearful welcomes for Afro-Asiatic migrant invaders coupled to sneering contempt for the “greasy wogs” of Europe’s South and East.

Thus, Racial Proximity Theory is asscoated with the relative amount of ethnocentric hostility toward racial (and sub-racial and ethnic) outgroups in nearest geographic and historical proximity. Another example would be the (“Outer Hajnal”) Irish, who seem relatively ethnocentric for Northwest Europeans, but who reserve their primary animus toward the English (and Scots-Irish) with whom they’ve feuded for centuries. Here, with Ireland in Europe’s extreme northwest, and with virtually no historic contact with non-Whites or even with many other more distant European groups, Irish hostility is primarily aimed at (“Inner Hajnal”) Northwest Europeans. The more isolated a group’s ethnogenesis, the more likely that their ethnocentrism is targeted to their closest immediate neighbors. The behavior of the (Irish) Kennedy family in America is instructive as well – “sticking it to the Anglos” with mass immigration, thus favoring non-Whites.

It is theoretically possible that the opposite is true – one could suggest that those evolving closer to more alien groups would be more “resistant” to them and would be less “triggered.” But that is not consistent with actual ethnic behavior. And we must distinguish between simple “fear/threat” responses (such as amygdala activation), and triggers of more complex and actualized ethnocentric responses (or the lack thereof).  It may well be that Northwest Europeans do have a larger “fear” trigger response to non-Whites than do Southern or Eastern Europeans, but if the former still exhibit xenophilia to non-Whites, then the “fear” response is not what we should be measuring here. We need to instead look more for markers of ingroup/outgroup identification, complex behavioral responses to outgroups, etc. We are therefore considering pathological altruism vs. ethnocentrism rather than “fear” triggers per se.

Another possible objection to this theory is that ingroup vs. outgroup is more “digital” and discrete than “analog” and continuous, more of an “all or nothing” response. This objection would assert that Northwest Europeans are simply less ethnocentric in general and that the identity of the outgroup doesn’t matter. This, however, doesn’t match actual ethnic behavior – the welcoming attitude of Northwest Europeans to the Global South contrasted to their sneering hostility toward other Europeans.  One could, for example, contrast German hyper-xenophilia for Afro-Asiatic migrants, Turks, etc. with their contemptuous hostility toward, e.g., Greeks during the debt crisis. That is just one example of many. There is a very strong “narcissism of small differences” behavioral pattern among ethnies that enthusiastically welcome the most alien of peoples but who at the same time shun fellow Europeans. “Polish plumbers” led to Brexit, but Rotherham leads to more Commonwealth immigration. The enthusiasm of some Nordicists for Asians may fit this pattern as well.

If we assume that this is an inborn trait and not merely cultural, one could evaluate differences in behavior and/or brain activity in psychometric testing scenarios exposing persons (including children) of different ethnies to various outgroup “threat” subjects.  But the details of actual testing of the theory is beyond the scope of this post (a post that is theoretical in nature) and it is not my area of expertise. Others would be better suited to devise legitimate tests of the hypothesis.

*This is where clueless critics of Occam’s Razor go wrong when they complain that “the simplest ideas are not always correct” – implying that Occam’s Razor is about always going for the simplest theory in every possible context. No, it is instead about not multiplying entities beyond necessity – emphasis on the word necessityIf theory A is more complex than theory B, but A effectively describes the phenomenon and B does not, then obviously we should go with A.  But if A and C both explain the phenomenon, but C is much more complex than A, with all sorts of superfluous add-ons, then this suggests that A is more likely (not definitively, but more likely) to be the better explanation. The more parsimonious explanation that can explain the phenomenon is more likely to be true compared to one that is unnecessarily complex.  

Innate Tendencies

Food for thought.

I remember reading a comment at some “movement” site (maybe it was Counter-Currents, I don’t recall) in which a commentator was making a point about different environmental archetypes associated with various population groups. To paraphrase, it was something like “Northern Europeans have the archetype of the forest, Southern Europeans have the rocky shore, MENA peoples have the desert, etc.”

Let us consider together. There is at least some superficial plausibility here. Let us assume it has validity. That such preferences can have a cultural basis is fairly straightforward. But does it go deeper?  My impression is that the person writing the comment implied innate (genetic) tendencies, inborn heritable preferences of population groups toward environments that they find congenial to their authentic selves, possibly associated with the concept of racial memory. This could be related to the concept of a “racial soul” that I discussed here, with suggestions of possible biological mechanisms underlying the phenomenon.

This may not be as far-fetched as it may initially appear (especially as it may initially appear to people marinated in the “blank slate” doctrines of the Left). Spring affords ample opportunities to observe animal life in the routines unfolding for them in their new year of life (that is, when they are not dodging Stronza’s “bullets flying everywhere”); these are for the most part activities driven by instinct, by patterns encoded in the brains, the neural networks, of these animals.  The bird and the nest, the spider and the web, the field rodent and its burrow – that is not conscious thought but genetically encoded instinct.

By analogy, can certain environmental preferences be encoded within the human brain, in the minds of varied ethnies, due to the characteristics of the environments in which ethnogenesis of each group occurred? Thus, the Celts and Germanics prefer the forest, the Latins and Greeks prefer the shore and the beckoning sea, the Slavs prefer the steppes and plains and fields, the Semites prefer the desert, TROPICAL peoples such as sub-Saharan Africans and East Asians prefer jungles and rice paddies, and so forth.

That this is not merely culture and not merely childhood exposure to certain environments is suggested by the observation that these preferences seem to continue over the generations even under the novel environmental context of America.  One can consider also where groups tend to settle in the Diaspora – although that can complicate matters (for example, if people tend to settle in American environments that most closely resemble their preferences, then it will be difficult to detangle genetic and environmental factors, since each generation is being exposed from birth to the pre-selected environment. Thus we observe gene-culture co-evolution). One can test results of inter-group admixture and how this affects preferences, and whether where someone lives is influenced by, and/or influences, these preferences.

In this sense, it may be understandable that some types foam at the mouth over Tolkien and “being snug in your hobbit hole in the forest,” while others view that as insipid stupidity. Innate preferences. To each his own I suppose.  One must be careful though not to confuse specific innate preferences with political and metapolitical themes appropriate for all White people.

Advice for the Young Activist, Part II

Quo vadis, White man?

Looking back I note the number of really high quality activists – who I interacted with in both analog and then digital activism from, say, the mid-90s to the early 2000s – who dropped out of Der Movement.

And it must be stressed: These people did NOT drop out (partially or completely) because they had a change of mind about their ideology, a change of heart about the rightness of the cause.  In every case I am aware of that did not happen. Instead, the people got disgusted by “movement” antics and by the selfish and stupid behavior of “leadership,” the foaming-at-the-mouth insanity of the Nutzi elements in the rank-and-file, the flame wars, the personality cults; they also despaired of making progress and saw no real possibility of advancing White racial interests.

They instead adopted, in a sense, a more mature and non-hedonistic version of Roissy’s “sitting poolside” – they would just get on with their life, “ride the tiger,” muddle through as best as possible, and watch – no doubt with grim bemusement – the passing show.

Those of you who think “that’ll never happen to me, I’m so very dedicated to the cause,” please keep in mind that all these other people had the same mindset.  But they got “burnt out” and left.  The very same thing can happen to you, if you do not start – right now – keeping things in perspective, making you and your own life your first priority, not having excessive expectations about “movement” progress, and not “drinking the Der Movement Kool-Aid” with respect to their bizarre dogmas and fetishes and their personality cults and petty “movement” politics, including their childish and catty feuds.


My sound advice can be contrasted to Millennial jackass Jeelvy, advising you to “drop out” and “crash the economy.” That only works if everyone else does it, and don’t worry, “movement” grifters will be taking care of themselves real well. They’ll be taking care of their money real well. Isn’t Jeelvy a lawyer or some such thing?  Didn’t he say he’s working for his “Macedonian mommy?”  He won’t be the man out in the street, that’ll be you if you take his advice.  Those types do quite well for themselves. How about you do the same?  Contra the Alt Right frauds, it is not impossible for young White men to be successful today. And contra Millennial fantasies, things were harsh for young White men in the 1980s and 90s as well.


The Quota Queens want to squeeze every last penny from you for “D’Nations” while, at the same time, preaching a destructive “drop out” mentality – after which, when you have no more pennies to be squeezed, they’ll dump you and take panhandling to the next set of suckers.  Don’t buy it.  


I ask nothing from you.  No tin cup panhandling from me.  I tell you to keep your own money.  Invest it.  Be wealthy and well, if you can.

And by the way, the above comments are not to be viewed as just more typical Sallisian critiques of Jeelvy and Counter-Currents. This is a crucially important topic, with real life consequences for young White men. Do you take their advice, drop out, and become downwardly mobile, or do you take my advice and strive for personal accomplishment and success, while prioritizing yourself and your own life? That is an actual life-changing decision.  Do you go this way or that?   Quo vadis, White man?