Mar 11, 2016

Who Are We? Nordics, Aryans, & Whites

via Counter-Currents

White Nationalism presupposes an answer to the question “Who is white?” White Nationalism is a political movement, whereas white identity is a metapolitical question. A precise answer to this question provides the foundation for effective white advocacy. False or imprecise answers, however, lead to confused and ineffective efforts. I wish to deal with two such misleading answers: “Nordicism” and “Aryanism.” Both attitudes undermine White Nationalism by introducing confusions about white identity.

The archetypal Nordic is tall, long-headed, and fair-skinned, with blonde hair and blue eyes. Nordic types and traits are found throughout Europe, but as the name suggests, they are more prevalent in the North. As I define it, Nordicism is the view that the Nordic type is the model, paradigm, or archetype of whiteness, with the implication that non-Nordic is non-white, or white to a lesser degree. The most childish Nordicists actually imagine that the only way Europeans could acquire dark hair, eyes, and complexions is through racial admixture.

The Aryans were the creators of a particular language and culture. Their homeland, apparently, was in Eastern Europe, somewhere between the Baltic and Black Seas (an area now populated by Slavs and Balts, whom some Nordicists consider inferior breeds). In the second millennium BC, the Aryans began to migrate West into Europe, South into the Middle East, and East as far as India and China, diffusing their language, culture, and genes in the process. Because of the expanse of this diffusion, Aryans are also called Indo-Europeans. The original Aryans are thought to have been Nordic types, hence the same physical traits are described as Aryan and Nordic. Just as Nordicism regards the Nordic as archetypically white, the Aryanist makes Indo-European languages and cultures normative.

What’s wrong with Nordicism? Nothing really, if one is a Nordic. It seems perfectly natural and healthy for Nordic people to prefer the company of genetically similar people. Indeed, the brain is hard-wired to do so. I am a Nordic type, and I am most comfortable in northern climes among Nordic people. Other things being equal, I would prefer a Nordic mate who shares my recessive traits and can help pass them on to the next generation. These attitudes would only be objectionable if I expected non-Nordics to share them as well. This would be to take a natural preference that is relative to a subracial group and turn it into an absolute standard for all groups.

I don’t even object to the idea of Nordic superiority. If groups really are different, then every group is bound to be objectively better than others by some standards. But we must remember that this also implies that the same groups are bound to be inferior by other standards. Nordics are objectively superior at creating prosperous, egalitarian, high-trust, low corruption societies. As a Nordic, I am most comfortable in such societies, and many other peoples are attracted to such societies, if only as sponges and plunderers. Nordics, however, are proving objectively inferior at preserving our societies due to low ethnocentrism, high trust, and extreme credulity in the face of predatory tribal peoples out to dispossess us. Nordic superiority becomes objectionable only if (1) we assume that Nordic excellences are the only criteria for judging societies, and (2) we forget that Nordics are not superior in everything.

Although such White Nationalists as Wilmot Robertson and William Pierce were strongly Nordicist, and their attitudes linger on, in my experience Nordic White Nationalists are the most aware of the weaknesses of our own people. Beyond that, the Nordics that have the most naive and ingrained supremacist attitudes tend to be the liberals and Leftists who believe that non-white immigrants can become citizens of Nordic societies, that they want to become citizens, and that apparently we don’t even have to try to assimilate them, because the Nordic way of life is so intrinsically compelling that everyone would spontaneously and voluntarily want to adopt it (without, I might add, divesting themselves of their own ethnic identities, which are apparently only superficial matters of clothing and food anyway).

Nordicism is problematic for White Nationalists because it undermines cooperation and trust among different European groups. This damages the ability of White Nationalists to advocate for white interests in European colonial societies like the United States and Canada, which were peopled by many different European ethnic groups which are increasingly blended into a generic “white” identity. In Europe itself, it also undermines the pan-European solidarity necessary to prevent European infighting and to unify Europe in the face of extra-European threats.

Imagine, for instance, the feelings of a Greek or Italian American toward William Pierce’s National Alliance if he read Pierce’s Who We Are, in which he laments that the Nordic invaders of Greece mongrelized themselves with the indigenous European populations rather than exterminating them to keep their blood pure — an exterminationist agenda that he envisioned for the future in The Turner Diaries. Such attitudes follow logically from the premise that Nordics are the only authentic Europeans, which implies that non-Nordics are lesser men. The National Alliance accepted non-Nordics as members, but such people could legitimately ask if the organization could really take their money and represent their interests in good faith.

The idea that Nordics are authentically and archetypically white is simply an intellectual error.
  • First, there is no reason to think that the first Europeans were Nordic.
  • Second, even if the first Europeans were Nordic, there is no reason to suppose that all departures from the Nordic type represent a decline from the ideal.
Nordics are just one branch of the European family tree, and are no more or less authentically European than any other branch.

Another error that is allied to Nordicism is what I call the son-in-law fallacy. Many whites operate on the assumption that the only truly white people are those they would have marry into their family. And since most people’s attitudes about such matters are based on genetic similarity, the son-in-law fallacy is really just a form of unconscious sub-racial chauvinism. It is perfectly natural and healthy to want to marry people who are genetically similar, so one can more reliably pass on one’s genes and culture to the next generation. But this does not imply that groups one would not wish to marry into are less European or less white.

Aryanism is an even more problematic attitude than Nordicism. Again, Aryanism is the view that Indo-European language and culture are normatively white. At its most childish, Aryanism leads to the false inference that Basques, Finns, Hungarians, and Estonians are “not white” because they do not speak Indo-European languages. Equally childish is the inference that non-European Caucasians (Persians, Armenians, Indians) are somehow “us” because they speak Indo-European languages. The reductio ad absurdum of Aryanism is a European who feels more kinship with Persians and Hindus than Hungarians or Finns because of common linguistic roots. Of course, due to colonialism there are also millions of Africans, Amerindians, and Asians who speak Indo-European languages and even carry European genes. Logically, the Aryanist should also prefer these people to Basques or Estonians, but let us hope they shrink back before this absurdity. Europeans can learn a great deal about our own pre-Christian language and culture through the study of Aryan offshoots among non-Europeans. But those who bear these languages and cultures today are still non-Europeans — not “us.”

There is no reason to presume that Indo-European language and culture are normatively European. The Aryans were a branch of the European family that split off from the main stem, evolved a distinct language and culture in isolation for untold millennia, and then migrated back into the European heartland, as well as into the Near, Middle, and Far East.

The Aryans certainly contributed to European civilization but they did not create it. Indeed, when the various waves of Aryans returned to Europe, they were rightly regarded as barbarians. They even regarded themselves as barbarians. Agriculture, ceramics, metal-working, written language, clocks, calendars, astronomy, irrigation, urban life, the wheel, refined arts and crafts, monumental architecture — all of these were pre-Aryan inventions. Europe’s first high civilizations arose in the Fertile Crescent and around the Mediterranean shore, not in the North. Its creators were subracially Mediterranean, not Nordic. And when the Aryans returned to Europe, they were awestruck by the superior civilizations they found and eagerly to assimilated them, culturally and genetically, until Aryans in the pure form became extinct.

Europeans today, culturally and genetically, are more or less composites of Aryan and pre-Aryans. Thus it is a form of false consciousness — of inauthenticity — to identify ourselves, individually or collectively, with the Aryans, an extinct people who live on only as genetic and cultural ingredients of modern Europeans. The Aryans are part of us, but they are not us. Dreaming that we are Aryans is like a dog dreaming that he is a wolf.

Who are we then? Who is white? Who is European? A simple but pragmatic answer is that we are the branch of the Caucasian race that has inhabited Europe since the last Ice Age. Although the search for our origins is an ongoing scientific question, it appears that Europeans are all descendants of the Cro-Magnon people who painted the paleolithic caves of Spain and France.

Objective evidence may always alter this picture, but in the meantime, I find this a highly satisfying answer for pragmatic-political and cultural-spiritual reasons. Pragmatically, this common ancestry embraces all groups that we recognize as Europeans, but also excludes the non-European Caucasians in the Middle East, the Caucasus Mountains, and Central and South Asia. Beyond that, I find the idea that Europeans are descended from the people who first created art and domesticated the dog intuitively plausible and quite appealing. Collin Cleary’s idea that Europe is where human self-consciousness — the self-consciousness of nature itself — first emerged is a salutary myth that I hope withstands scientific refutation.

Europeans and non-European Caucasians apparently had common ancestors. But when I speak of the European or white race, I am referring to the subset of the Caucasian race that emerged in Europe. Although there are liminal cases, where the two sub-races blended, non-European Caucasians are culturally and genetically distinct from Europeans. Furthermore, non-European Caucasians exist in vast numbers and unlike Europeans, they are in no danger of extinction. Although breeding between European and non-Europeans Caucasians is not race-mixing in the strict sense, it should still be discouraged, since it erodes the genetic distinctness of an already threatened race.

Whites are united by a common origin, common enemies, and a common threat of extinction. The only common thing we lack is a way to prevent our complete genetic and cultural oblivion. The purpose of White Nationalism is to give our race a future again. Changing the course of history is no small task. It requires white consciousness and solidarity, as well as organization and world-historical action.

White solidarity need not conflict with particular regional, national, and sub-racial identities. Indeed, the whole purpose of White Nationalism is to protect such differences. But sub-racial and national chauvinisms — and imaginary identifications with extinct ancestors and non-Europeans who speak Indo-European languages — do conflict with the solidarity we need to save us. Nordicists and Aryanists are slated for destruction with all the rest of us. Which means that such attitudes are ultimately self-defeating. They are luxuries and indulgences a dying race can ill afford.

Economics Old and New

via West Hunter

When I reviewed Hive Mind, I mentioned that its thesis ‘IQ matters for national prosperity’ was more true today than it had been in, say, 1970, because of the fall of Communism, which was quite capable of making a country – even a smarter-than-average country – a lot poorer than it otherwise would have been. If you consider other circumstances, for example far earlier times, IQ mattered even less. If you look at a near-Malthusian society, one in which population size is near the carrying capacity (as set by the current knowledge and available resources), average IQ shouldn’t influence prosperity (in terms of food availability) at all. A smarter society might have more elaborate forms of entertainment, might have more sophisticated tools and crafts, but as long as technological progress (that affecting food production) was slower than population growth, no improvement. A higher standard of living is a short-run outcome of disasters like the Black Death.

And other changes mattered as well. Today countries with no significant natural resources can be very successful, if they have high human capital. Sometimes they can achieve this by pursuing strategies that don’t require much in terms of traditional natural resources – insurance, finance, and software are good examples. In some cases, countries with abundant human capital have found ways to fake up effective equivalents for traditionally-necessary natural resources. The most important example is the Haber-Bosch method of making ammonia: another is the development of mass production of synthetic rubber by the United States and Germany in WWII. This kind of substitution has become increasing possible over time.

In a world where transportation costs are low, international trade is fairly free (a function of political environment: not true in 1942!), a country can develop industries that require natural resources that don’t exist locally at all. So Japan could have a big steel industry, even though Japan has only a little low-grade coal and no significant iron ores. That is, it can if it has sufficient human capital. Japan does: many countries don’t.

Although it once had little effect on living standards,average national IQ now has a big influence. The world changed. Of course, it’s going to change again.

Screeching Jews and Their Manufactured Taboos

via Age of Treason

Ex-ADL chief: Trump’s ‘raise your hand’ gambit was deliberate, Nazi-style ‘fascist gesture’, The Times of Israel, 7 March 2016:
“It is a fascist gesture,” Foxman said. “He is smart enough — he always tells us how smart he is — to know the images that this evokes. Instead of asking his audience to pledge allegiance to the United States of America, which in itself would be a little bizarre, he’s asking them to swear allegiance to him.”
. . .
“What scares me is he’s broken all these taboos and it’s helped him,” Foxman said. “That frightens me. It frightens me that there are all these things that we’ve worked so hard on, but one after another he breaks these taboos and the people applaud him and come back for more.”
Despite Foxman’s fears, the ultimate taboo remains unbroken by Trump and the bulk of his White supporters, who have so far demonstrated little explicit recognition that jews are the driving force behind the “political correctness” they so despise. Indeed, though Trump knows the elites are thoroughly jewed and hostile to Whites, and could expect applause for speaking that truth, he has not done so and likely never will, because his family is very much a part of that jewed, hostile elite.

The irony is that jews are doing what Trump won’t. In reaction to his rise they have provided several pointed op-eds expressing their alienation and antipathy in explicit in racial terms, specifically against Whites. Here are three examples.

Trump’s America is bad, very bad, for the Jews, The Times of Israel, 26 February 2016:
In other words, Trump’s base tends to be white, male, undereducated, and struggling financially. But that doesn’t necessarily explain Trump’s appeal. After all, if economic self-interest were their only motivation, such voters might well support Bernie Sanders, who blames big business and crony capitalism for the inequality that has suppressed wages and decimated the working class.
But put it all together, and you get a chunk of the electorate for whom the New America is hardly America at all. If you were to create a composite from the Pew stats, you’d have a white guy who has almost nothing in common with the kinds of characters in Master or Transparent — that is, brown, Jewish, nontraditional, college-educated, pluralistic. These shows don’t represent to him what’s new about America, but what’s wrong with America. And worse, the seeming success of these characters, he feels, comes at the expense of “real” Americans like him.
Trump’s real ideology is murky, but his targets are clear: Immigrants bring problems and take away jobs. Muslims represent the worst kind of threat: an internal one. America is corrupt and fallen, and by opening its doors to foreigners, tolerating difference, and insisting upon “political correctness,” it has suppressed the very people — that is, middle-class white families — who once made the country great.
Donald Trump Is Winning Because White America Is Dying, Huffington Post, 29 February 2016:
Noam Chomsky, the renowned scholar and MIT professor emeritus, says that the rise of Donald Trump in American politics is, in part, fueled by deeply rooted fear and hopelessness that may be caused by an alarming spike in mortality rates for a generation of poorly educated whites.
“He’s evidently appealing to deep feelings of anger, fear, frustration, hopelessness, probably among sectors like those that are seeing an increase in mortality, something unheard of apart from war and catastrophe,” Chomsky told The Huffington Post in an interview on Thursday.
. . .
“[They] are sinking into hopelessness, despair and anger — not directed so much against the institutions that are the agents of the dissolution of their lives and world, but against those who are even more harshly victimized,” he said. “Signs are familiar, and here it does evoke some memories of the rise of European fascism.”
Trump’s Triumphs Demolish Netanyahu’s Fortress GOP Strategy, Haaretz, 3 March 2016:
The Jews will run away from Trump because he scares them. Because his demagoguery is ominous, his willingness to slash and burn anyone standing in his way is disturbing, his tendency to incite his supporters against other ethnic groups from rapist Mexicans to terrorist Muslims, is a source of deep anxiety. Beneath the great wave of popular support for Trump one can make out with increasing clarity the dark undercurrents of rage and resentment and xenophobia that is often seen morphing into White supremacism and abhorrence of African Americans and then, on the outskirts, bad old hatred of the Jews. The allusions to Germany in the 1930’s are absurd, no doubt, but nonetheless surfacing with ever-increasing frequency.

With Open Gates: The Genocide of Europe

via Solar General

After gaining a million and a half views in less than five days, the Open Gates video (see end of article) was taken down by YouTube following a copyright infringement. Although the rights company involved in the claim has been named in allegedly spurious claims in the past, there is no reason to suggest that is the case with this video. This article now links to a video mirror on Dutch website Dumpert.

The forced collective suicide of European nations’, a slick, hard-hitting film about the European migrant crisis is going viral in Europe, already watched at least half a million times.

Although the 19-minute film may feel like a dispatch from the future, it is cut entirely from recent news reports, police camera footage, and interviews. Kicking off with scenes of a modern car ferry disgorging thousands of illegals into Greece, the film then cuts to dozens of aerial shots of columns of migrants marching north into Europe.

The film then changed to the harrowing testimony of one young Greek woman who was unable to hide her horror and despair at the scale of the migrant crisis sweeping over her home island of Lesbos. Just six miles from the Turkish coast, the island was subjected to migrant riots in September as newcomers turned on their hosts for not moving them to mainland Europe fast enough.

As Breitbart London reported at the time, the tearful woman tells a news crew: “We are in danger, every day, every minute. We need someone to protect us. They come into our houses. I want to go to work, but I can’t. Our children want to go to school, but they can’t. They have stolen our lives!”.

Also featured is American presidential hopeful Donald Trump, who gives his opinion on the migrant crisis: “I’ve been watching this migration, and I’ve seen the people.

“I mean, these are men. They are mostly men, and they are strong men… they look like prime time solders. Look, Europe is going to have to handle, but they are going to have riots in Germany.

“I always thought Merkel was a great leader, but what she’s done in Germany is insane”.

The video is being rapidly shared on social media and online message boards and has been viewed at least half a million times, having been uploaded to platforms including YouTube and Facebook among others dozens of times.

Although the main thrust of the film is to goad native Europeans against mass migration and the negative effects of multiculturalism, the film also paradoxically takes a swipe at one European minority group who stand to lose almost the most from mass Muslim immigration. It also includes a short clip of discredited, anti-Semitic politician Nick Griffin, former Member of the European Parliament and leader of the British National Party.

The inclusion of Mr. Griffin, an unpopular figure even in Britain’s nationalist right and the rapid success of the film in the Netherlands suggests the film may not have been edited by a British citizen.

Breitbart London has reported at length on the rising tide of anti-Semitism in Europe which has arrived with mass migration. From Jews being specifically targeted for degrading house-invasion rape-thefts to Jews being excluded from Holocaust commemorations because of Muslim attendees hijacking events, migrant-Europe is now hostile towards Jews at a level not seen in decades.

Below the video on YouTube, uploaded on Monday by anonymous user Death of Nations, the editor warns: “This video will not be online long, download and mirror it while you can”.

“At current immigration levels and disappearing birth rates native Europeans are destined to become a minority in their own countries within decades. This is already the case for many of Europe’s largest cities.”

“Millions of young Muslim men leave behind their family, pay thousands to criminal traffickers to reach the land they have been promised by European politicians illegally.

Dubbed by the media as “refugees”, they cross through 6-10 safe countries to reach wealthy nations like Germany or Sweden where they hope to receive a better life at the expense of the taxpayer.

Only a fraction of them are Syrian, as they enter unfiltered, without any documents and without any legitimate right to claim asylum. Women and children are rarely seen, except in the cherry-picked sob stories of the media”.

At the end of the lengthy call to arms, the writer concludes:

“We are still at a point where you will not get imprisoned for your political opinion in most European countries, but this will change very soon. Do not be apathetic, do not be weak. Be someone that can be proud to call himself European”.

Trump Dukes It Out with the Media and Wins Again

via The Occidental Observer

Donald Trump is repeatedly attacked by his enemies and gently critiqued by well-wishers for being an ill-informed, brash, broad-strokes kind of politician. But careful analysis suggests that he is actually a lot more intelligent than both friends and foes realize. A careful look at his speech patterns reveal that he has a whole meta-view of language that make his opponents seems retarded by comparison, as described in this dissection of his speech patterns.

Yet further proof of Trump’s genius can be found in the way he has handled the David Duke controversy and various calls to “disavow” David Duke’s supposed endorsement. It has been reasonably argued that Duke did not endorse Duke, and in a strict sense he hasn’t.

But it is clear that Trump is in fact the preferred candidate of White advocates and race realists, like David Duke, and this position brings with it a two-fold danger.
Firstly, there is the obvious danger of being associated with views that are still regarded as toxic by many voters, and, secondly, there is the opposite danger of disavowing too strongly.

With regard to the first danger, this will be more of a problem after he wins the Republican nomination, assuming that the momentum stays with him and the Republican Party hierarchy limits itself to petty chicanery in its attempt to derail him. After that point, in the head-to-head contest with the Democratic candidate, he will have to win over large numbers of people who will be put off if the accusation that he is a “racist” can be made to stick.

We have to assume that Trump is aware of this danger and is developing a strategy to deal with it, possibly drafting in Ben Carson as a running mate. As someone living in Japan, I also noted last year with some interest that Trump’s Miss Universe organization oversaw the selection of the first mixed-race “Miss Universe Japan.” Would it be too tin-foil-hat to speculate that Trump himself may have been behind that decision, in order to have it ready to pull out at some point in the campaign to prove his non-racist bona fides?

But while being seen as racist is the most obvious danger, the second danger, that of “disavowing” too strongly, is more interesting and revealing. For a start, it has two distinct aspects. Firstly, it puts Trump in the position of dancing to someone else’s tune and therefore looking weak, and secondly it risks alienating racially aware or partially racially aware supporters.

Regarding the first aspect, Ramzpaul has described this as a “compliance test” set by organizations like the ADL to demonstrate their hegemonic power over Trump. Regardless of the racial aspect, for Trump to jump up and down on command and jump through hoops detracts from one his main appeals — the fact that the voters think he is his own man. In fact, it could be argued that bending over backwards to reassure voters he is “not racist” would even lose him some Black votes, as many Blacks are attracted by Trump’s alpha male qualities.

The second element is, of course, racial. For many White voters, their support for Trump is a form of coded or masked White advocacy — a textbook example of implicit Whiteness. From his statements, Trump himself does not seem to be a racially aware person and can best be described as a civic nationalist. Evidence of this might be his Jewish son-in-law, although his comment that “this was not in the plan [I didn’t really want her to marry a Jew and become Jewish?], but I’m very glad it happened [this definitely helps my image of not being racially conscious?]” could be construed a number of ways. But, despite his lack of strong evidence for White consciousness, his campaign, with its themes of sensible immigration control and it anti-politically-correct tone, has become a lightning rod for White discontent.

Trump’s awareness of this racial aspect must remain an open question, but his handling of the David Duke controversy suggests that there is at least some awareness. In this case the timing was very significant, with the media deciding to raise this issue in the immediate run-up to Super Tuesday, with polls showing Trump locked in battle across a range of important Southern States with Ted Cruz.

A few days before Super Tuesday, the Duke question was put to Trump on CNN’s “State of the Union” by Jake Tapper, who asked him, “Do you condemn David Duke and say you don’t want his vote or that of other White supremacists in this election?”

Rather than doing what other politicians would do in this position — namely leap at the chance to show their anti-racist credentials and get a pat on the head — Trump refused to answer the question directly and instead reframed things along the lines of “Why are we even talking about this?”

The end result of this was that those looking for ammunition to call Trump a “racist” were left grasping thin air, but, more importantly, racially conscious Whites as well as Trump supporters who feel in their bones that this election is in fact about race were left feeling that Trump “understands.”

In subsequent encounters, Trump more or less tacked between these two points of denying his opponents easy “racist” ammunition while dog-whistling to racially motivated supporters that he was not a hoop jumper for the ADL.

The subtlety and sense of Trump’s approach was revealed both on Super Tuesday and the following primaries, where he scored narrow victories over Ted Cruz in key Southern states, including Lousiana, David Duke’s home state, where we can deduce that his refusal to go overboard denouncing Duke probably bolstered his vote by a few vital percentage points. In Arkansas he beat Cruz with 33% to 30% of the vote, in Kentucky by 36% to 34%, while in Louisiana it was 41% to 38%.

If Cruz had managed to take these three states, Trump would be looking a lot less dominant and presidential than he is now. It is reasonable to suppose that Trump’s refusal to throw Duke under the bus so conveniently provided by the mainstream media in the immediate run-up to these important contests aided his victories. It also demonstrated the candidate’s tactical cunning and high intelligence.

Closing the Toy Store

via traditionalRIGHT

A friend of mine recently sent me some back issues of a prominent defense magazine, IHS Jane’s International Defence Review, which I enjoyed going through. Jane’s Fighting Ships was one of my favorite books when I was young, though I find warships have become less interesting as they have grown more hi-tech. If only Germany would complete the Mackensen-class battle cruisers…

But as I looked through the magazines, two thoughts came irrepressibly to mind. The first was that virtually none of the systems discussed or advertised have anything to do with real war, which is to say Fourth Generation war. They are useful only against other state armed forces, which is to say for jousts.

The second thought was that these weapons, sensors, etc. represent enormous amounts of money. Just as the knights’ armor became most elaborate and expensive when the knight was passing out of war, so the equipment of state armed forces has reached its highest prices just as those forces themselves become militarily irrelevant.

Here we see two serious threats to the state itself and to a world made up of states. On the one hand, the state’s armed forces cannot defend the state against Fourth Generation entities, which leaves states defenseless against their most dangerous threats. On the other hand, maintaining those armed forces has become so expensive that doing so is a major contributor to the bankruptcy of states.

The world economy is now a bubble of bubbles, public and private debt piled to the sky as politicians seek to give clients something for nothing, ordinary people try to hold on to shreds of a middle-class existence as real wages fall and central banks create ever more liquidity. We have seennthis pattern before, and it always ends up in the same place: a major, long-lasting debt crisis, a great fall in both public and private resources, and, in the end, hyper-inflation.

Soon, very soon I expect, no state will be able to go to the toy store anymore. The hyper-priced military systems we read about in Jane’s will be unaffordable. Governments will simultaneously face two facts they can no longer ignore: defense budgets must be cut drastically (along with the rest of the state’s budget) and their armed forces cannot win the wars that count.

Wise governments, and wise leaders of state armed forces, would not wait until the full crisis is upon them. They would begin now the reforms that must come later. Institutions do better when they can follow a plan rather than having to respond to panic.

What would such a reform program contain? First, it would move the state’s armed forces away from planning for war with other states and focus on the real 4GW threat. That means, among other things, pushing Second Generation militaries into the Third Generation as a necessary precondition for facing the Fourth. That at root requires a change in institutional culture. Second Generation military culture is inward focused on processes, procedures, orders, etc., it is highly centralized, it prefers obedience to initiative, and it depends on imposed discipline. Third Generation culture is focused outwardly on the situation, the enemy, and getting the result the situation requires. Decision-making is decentralized, initiative is prized over obedience, and it all depends on self-, not imposed, discipline.

Few state armed services will be able to make this transition. Their failure, ironically, will open the door to solving the budget problem. Simply defund, entirely, any service that cannot move beyond the Second Generation. As Mark Twain said of the male teat, they are neither useful or ornamental.

In their place build new armed services suitable for 4GW. Because the main 4GW threat is on home soil, most of these will be National Guards. Ground forces will be light infantry. Most personnel will be fighting men, who also have skills, drawn from their civilian lives, that are vital in restoring order and functionality to communities disrupted by 4GW (cops are especially useful). Almost all equipment will be off-the-shelf civilian goods modified as needed. Nuclear forces will remain hi-tech, but once built they don’t cost much and their bang for the buck is unrivaled.

Poor Jane’s will be reduced to writing about ultra-light aircraft, modified trawlers, and duel-use bulldozers. But perhaps someone here or there will use a bit of the money saved to build something interesting. Wasn’t there supposed to be a fourth Yamato?

Christianity Isn’t Anti-White: A Response to Todd Lewis

via TradYouth

This is one of these “for the record” posts, published only because Todd Lewis is repeatedly insisting that my disinterest in going around in circles with him is proof that he’s vanquished me. This eccentric anarchist anabaptist has been trying for years now to drive a wedge between being pro-White and pro-Christian. For the monomaniac, everything’s a dichotomy. In his mind, I must choose between my worldly love for my extended family and my transcendent love of Christ. Why not both?

Mr. Lewis fancies himself a master of rhetoric and theology who’s got me on the run with his blistering critiques. This fancy of his would be far more plausible if he were actually arguing against my position. He is not.

His essay, Unorthodox: Matt Parrott, Orthodoxy, and Ethno-Nationalism is his latest salvo.
The main bone of contention will be miscegenation. Does the Orthodox Church condemn or allow racial mixing?
I have never asserted that the Church condemns racial mixing. That’s not my assertion. The Church is Universal, meaning that it’s for all nations and identities, including hybrid identities and folks without any coherent ethnic identity at all. My assertion is that the Church does not condemn national identity and does not condemn those who choose to refrain from political, geographical, and sexual admixture. My assertion is not that Orthodox Christianity is only for White Nationalists. My assertion is that the Church is also for White Nationalists.
Does the Orthodox Church condemn ethno-nationalism?
Within the canonical American archdioceses, the Orthodox Church does indeed condemn ethno-nationalism for White Americans and only White Americans. These same archdioceses actively promote ethnic and national pride and political action for any and all other identities, while also welcoming those with an absence of defined identity.
From the perspective of Matt Parrott, nations should be constructed upon ethnic grounds i.e., Syrians and Greeks should not be allowed to live in the same state.
The etymology of the word “nation,” related to “natal” implies a genetic dimension. Even within Orthodoxy’s empires, nations were afforded degrees of autonomy and sovereignty. Imperialism doesn’t necessarily entail or demand the dissolution of the nations under the imperial aegis. In fact, Orthodoxy’s very survival in its heartland relied upon preserving ethno-national identity under the Ottoman Empire’s Greek ethnarchs within the overarching imperial context.
I will show that the Orthodox Church is not a tribal religion, unlike the ancient Hebrew faith, but is a global imperial faith and as such must of necessity condemn miscegenation.
Does he actually mean that this “imperial faith” must of necessity condemn people who don’t miscegenate? He’s obviously made a forgivable error here, but what he was actually trying to say is surely no less erroneous.
If Mr. Parrott insists that the Orthodox Church has a history of tribalism, then he needs a refresher course on Orthodox history. The first example of an Eastern Orthodox political system was the imperial system of Rome. The universal scope of the Eastern Church was encapsulated in the imperial motto, “One God, one Lord, one faith, one church, one empire, one emperor.” This imperial system was perpetuated by the Muscovite state in the mid-15th century with its official origin with the panegyric written by Philotheus of Pskov to Grand Duke Vasili III. From its origins, the nature of Byzantine political order was universal and imperial; by definition, anti-tribal.
Has he conveniently forgotten the client kings of the Roman Empire, whose sovereignty was over their respective ethnic nations while simultaneously being under Roman control? They figure pretty prominently in Christian history, so it would be quite an oversight for Mr. Lewis to overlook them. Slipping back into his sola scriptura habit, he takes a bundle of quotes out of historical and universal context to confirm the wild assertion that Orthodoxy is interminably globalist, uncompromisingly open borders, and hostile to the preservation of any and every identity.
More could be said on the universal salvific nature of the Byzantine Imperial model, but suffice it to say enough information has been produced to destroy Mr. Parrott’s flimsy claim of thousands of years of Orthodox tribal nationalism. To be clear, there was nationalism, but it was imperial Roman and Russian nationalism, not petty tribal nationalism.
Of course, there’s a wealth of nationalism in Orthodox history, but it doesn’t count because it’s petty and even Greece, the bedrock nation of Orthodox Faith, is petty, you see?
Mr. Parrott might appeal to the petty Balkan states of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece for examples of Orthodox nationalism. Firstly, they are latecomers after the second millennium A.D.; secondly, rejecting the dominant Roman culture in the name of petty tribal identities led to the collapse of the Byzantine Empire; thirdly, when the Bulgarian Church got ideas like Mr. Parrott’s into their heads, their actions were condemned as phyletism by the 1872 Synod of Constantinople.
Now for the “phyletism” thing. We have never advocated for nor attempted to deny the Mysteries to anybody on account of their identity. That’s all that was condemned in the 1872 Synod of Constantinople, which has seen been grossly mischaracterized as a blanket condemnation of White (and only White!) identitarianism. Our struggle doesn’t belong in the Church, and we never asserted that it does.

Did the Council imply Mr. Lewis’s hysterical interpretation, that all national borders and identities are heretical? In light of the historical context and commentary surrounding the Council, the proposition is too asinine to entertain. Beyond a handful of radical Marxists and some fundamentalist cults in America (which Mr. Lewis belongs to), nobody in the time of this Council seriously entertained the dystopian vision of a borderless, raceless, and nationless world.

He quotes an Ancient Faith Radio podcaster’s attempt to promote the Ameridox position.
“Phyletism is, again, placing one’s worldly identity, identity as a pilgrim in this world, above his identity as a member of the Kingdom of Heaven, as a baptized Christian who is no longer a member of this world, first and foremost, but is a member of the Kingdom of Heaven. And we have the words of the Apostle Paul, which we all I’m sure know, but which is good to recall. “There is neither Jew nor Greek for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” And just before that he says: “You are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.””
Mr. Lewis doesn’t even know about King Herod, apparently, so it’s no surprise that Fr. Peter’s deliberate and malicious distortion of scripture went unnoticed. Fr. Peter paraphrases the verse to achieve his worldly political agenda, redacting it to, “There is neither Jew nor Greek for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The verse actually reads, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

The complete verse in its complete context confirms that St. Paul was emphatically not implying that ethnic identities are heretical. After all, for that interpretation to work, the Orthodox Church would necessarily confirm that allowing different roles and treatments of males and females are also heretical. It’s abundantly obvious why Holy Scripture was abused here, as it confirms my position. It confirms that we ought to all be one in Christ without negating our racial, ethnic, national, and gender identities.

Faith transcends race and nation. It does not negate race and nation.

Mr. Lewis makes several mistakes in his essay, but none is greater than pasting this excerpt which underscores my point, that phyletism is about ecclesiastical matters and the Mysteries. It was never intended as a radical political statement.
Rev. Fr. Stephane Bighamhere says also:
“Phyletism is the name of an ecclesiological heresy which says that the Church can be territorially organized on an ethnic, racial, or cultural basis so that within a given geographic territory, there can exist several Church jurisdictions, directing their pastoral care only to the members of specific ethnic groups. A Church council in 1872 officially defined and condemned this heresy. It reacted to a proposition made by Bulgarians of the Patriarchate of Constantinople who wanted to establish a Church jurisdiction, sanctioned by the Turkish government, on the territory of the Patriarchate: The formation in the same place of a particular [local] Church based on race which only receives faithful of that same ethnic group and is run by pastors of only of the same ethnic group, as the adherents of Phyletism claim, is an event without precedent.”
For the Ameridox clergy to be as phyletically subdivided as they are by their non-American and non-White ethnic identities, and to deny us the Mysteries on account of our White American identity, requires a staggering degree of deceit, dishonesty, and dishonor. You can be proud to be Greek, proud to be Black, or proud to be Eskimo and the Church will gladly smile and clap along. But if you’re proud to be a White American, they’ll drop the chalice in abject horror.
I guess Mr. Parrott really does not understand that ‘all one in Christ’ thing when he divides the Orthodox by seeking to prevent miscegenation.
I can’t be bothered to even bicker about the rest, as he goes into a long digression on the false assumption that I believe interracial unions are heretical. I do not. I do believe that interracial unions are generally unequal yoking, and I believe they should be socially and even politically discouraged in sovereign nations which seek to preserve their ethnic identities. But I don’t believe Orthodox Christianity should treat mixed-race families any differently than they treat any other families. Orthodoxy is a catholic faith, and there’s no imperative for it to choose between identities.

Stop X Means X Has Got It

via BUGS

I have been through about fifteen presidential election campaigns.

I seem to be the only living person who remembers the simplest things that happened in them. Many, many, many times the media didn’t like the frontrunner, whom I’ll call “X.” Or they just got bored with the frontrunner. “X is still ahead” is a tiresome thing to keep repeating. 

So then there develops a “Stop X” movement.

In every election I remember, fifteen or so, a “Stop X Movement” always preceded the victory by X anybody with a memory knew was coming. “Stop Trump” is at its height.

As they did with Goldwater, the Republican establishment will abandon their candidate in outright treason.

In 1964, it was the liberal and moderate Republicans who did the open betrayal. This time, it will be National Review cuckservatives. Liberal Republicans then, in 1964, were terrified the New York Times would call them names if they went with Goldwater.

The traitors this time will do it for exactly the same reason: they will sell their mothers if it means the media won’t call them “racists.”

Barry Goldwater’s response to this betrayal was to turn the Party back over to the people who had betrayed him.

Reagan’s first act as Republican nominee was to turn the future of the Party over to George Bush.

I hope Trump will not react to cuckservative treason and will show some cojones. Reagan and Goldwater embraced the traitors. Trump may not.

They will betray him and defeat him in 2016.

If he shows the balls that Goldwater and Reagan lost, his group will take back the Party in a few years and win with it one or two elections from now.

Anyway, because the media is so anti-Trump, nobody interests anybody EXCEPT Trump.

The Stop Trump campaign means that Trump has got the nomination.

X Files and Bigoted Opinions

via Gornahoor

Due to the flare up of a chronic condition, I realized how difficult it is to think while in physical discomfort. Not that I missed it much … So I put that down time to good use by studying several manifestations of popular culture. This post is the best I can do with such a poor starting point.
I read a depressingly inane magazine article by a Logical Positivist … The burden of his teaching seems to be this:
“Since we cannot really say anything about anything, let us be content to talk about the way in which we say nothing.” That is an excellent way to organize futility.
After all, even nothingness has its dignity: but here not even the dignity of nothingness is respected. There must be the mechanical clicking of the thought machine manufacturing nothing about nothing, as if even nothing had at all costs to be organized, and presented as if it were something. As if it had to be talked about.
The atheist existentialist has my respect: he accepts his honest despair with stoic dignity. And despair gives his thought a genuine content, because it expresses an experience—his confrontation with emptiness. But those others confront only the mechanical output of their own thinking machine. They don’t have the imagination or the good sense to stand in awe at real emptiness. In fact, their rationalizations seem to be a complacent evasion: as if logical formulas somehow could give something to stand on in the abyss.
And now: just wait until they start philosophizing with computers!
~ Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander, Thomas Merton

X Files Philosophy

In the TV Show, X-Files, the two agents hold radically different metaphysical positions. The female character, Dana Scully, is a committed logical positivist, certain that there is no reality beyond what material science can prove. Fox Mulder, on the other hand, believes in paranormal phenomena, conspiracy theories, and so on.

Although Mulder’s point of view is not a valid alternative to positivism, we could let it stand as strictly entertainment. However, a somewhat serious thinker was recently brought to our intention. He claims to be an idealist, but by that he means little more than a more systematic and sophisticated version of Mulder’s philosophy. Specifically, he seems to treat philosophy as a scientific hypothesis except, in his case, he regards consciousness as independent of matter and hence a causative factor in the material world. Hence, he accepts all sorts of “psychic powers” as “proofs” of his philosophy.

Unfortunately, that is not at all what we mean by “philosophical idealism”. Rather, the fundamental premise is that the world can be known by thinking about it; hence, it must be rational. This is the opposite of scientific positivism, which sees the world as the result of random forces, so that even thinking itself arises from non-rational causes.

With 7 billion people on the planet, why is there not one of them who can guess the 4 digit code to unlock that iPhone via psychic powers?

What he said

In Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander, Thomas Merton tells the story of a Governor’s visit to the Monastery. The Guv said, “You monks know you cannot be happy because you have material possessions.” Certainly, it was poorly phrased, so Merton decided to take a literal reading of it. A novice monk protested, “But that is not what he meant.” Merton drew this lesson:
How true it is that everyone instinctively pays attention not to what a politician actually says, but to what he seems to want to say.
Gornahoor draws a different lesson:
How true it is that everyone instinctively pays attention not to what a politician actually says, but to what they would like him to say.

Bigoted Opinions

I’m amazed at the emotional involvement that some people have for their preferred candidate, even though there is little or no benefit for them personally. But then again, democracy is the worst form of government, except for those that will follow afterward (to paraphrase someone). That’s bad news for those hoping for a reversal of current trends somehow.

That’s because in a democracy, everyone is entitled to his own opinion. But if those opinions are simply random products of evolution, what value have they? Obviously, such opinions may have practical reality if they work to hold society together. Yet that is unsatisfactory to most people since they are convinced that their opinions are factually real. I’m afraid you can’t eat your Darwinism and have it, too, which what the educated class seems to want.

The real answer is nihilism. The consequence of nihilism is that there are only bigoted opinions vying with each other. I’ll leave you a longish text by Harry Neumann for you to ponder without comment. Read it as Merton reads the atheist existentialist and develop contempt for those complacent evaders.

The New Religion

I discovered a channel on satellite radio that euphemistically goes by the name the “Catholic Channel”. However, to a large degree, it is unlike any religion I know. For example, there was a discussion about whether burying a statue of St Joseph in your yard would help you sell your house.

I’ve noticed that has developed a cottage industry of converts and reverts who tend to dominate blogging. Unfortunately, their enthusiasm cannot overcome their ignorance of Tradition. They lack that sense of Tradition that lingers, even in apostates like Santayana and many others. They tend to jumble things together, treating all teachings as having equal importance. I have to assume that RCIA classes are quite unhelpful.

One such woman today was talking about gluttony and Oprah Winfrey’s battle with fat. Of course, Oprah has a “food addiction” since “gluttony must be a very rare sin”. In a more sane era, the hostess would have been yanked off the air. What exactly is a food addiction, medically? It describes a behavior, not a condition. Sin is hard to talk about today, but it entails an inner bondage to a behavior. In other words, a food addiction. More on this later, but for now I would recommend Sin Revisited by Solange Hertz.

Filling the Pews

On another show a Jesuit was waxing ecstatic about how great the Church would become with woman deacons who could give sermons on issues of concern to them. For good measure, he suggested that acceptance of homosexuality would also be nice. Now with estimates of up to 50% of priests of that orientation, I can’t imagine it is a problem.

I’ve been told that most parishes are already dominated by women, so what is the issue? The real problem is the lack of young men in the pew, for obvious reasons. That Jesuit talked about encounter and other squishy words and used “privilege” as a verb. He can’t imagine how off-putting his language is for most men.

Ted Cruz and Tradition

Ted Cruz belongs to a religious movement called the New Apostolic Reformation. They are very OT oriented with menorahs, stars of David, and shofars used in their services. As a sort of ape of Tradition, they seek to restore the offices of Priest and King, except they have a very democratic view of those roles. Their ultimate goal is dominion of the culture in its seven domains: religion, family, education, government, media, arts & entertainment, and business. Ultimately, they will manifest preternatural powers on the earth.

In the abstract, that sounds traditional. They seem serious, with a few million adherents, and a plan. Compare that to NRx, which consists of a few guys meeting in a bar. Logic is just one of the liberal arts and it is ineffective without rhetoric. Logic is actually easier, so much more time should be spent on rhetorical skills. The first step is to learn to recognize it.

The Sense of Wonder

In esoterism, there is the distinction between knowledge and understanding. On the one hand, there is the mere accumulation of facts and information, the other is grasping the whole which links the facts together. Idealist philosophy is “knowledge of the whole”, not the development of super powers.

Ultimately, it is a matter of “seeing”. You can’t argue with the complacent evader, but you may get him to “see”. If you don’t see, then spend some quiet time and think about existence. Boris Mouravieff writes:
Exterior man feels the transcendent character of the Love arising from the Absolute I and Absolute II. The first in essence reaches his consciousness in the form of a perception of existence. But he considers the beauty of the Universe and its life as mere information, instead of as a marvelous gift capable of constantly stimulating his sense of wonder and kindling his gratitude.

In Defense of Bachelors, Virgins, and Autists

via Alternative Right

St. Thomas Aquinas, progenitor of Western
civilization, lifelong bachelor
When I first became aware of the various online outlets of the manosphere four years ago, I was struck by an inexplicable rhetorical contradiction frequently on display.

For a group ostensibly dedicated to combating the ills of cultural misandry (that is, the nearly ubiquitously socially enforced, gynocentrically-inspired loathing of all aspects of traditional masculinity), there was an underlying implication to the effect that it was in fact important, even needful, for men to strive to please women. In fact, the assertion was frequently made that, since women in truth adore “alpha” badboys and despise “beta” niceguys, it was therefore incumbent upon men to practice “game” in order to give the ladies what they want (and thus be enabled to score frequently, since chastity is apparently for suckers).

I first critiqued this perspective in my 2012 piece "In Defense of Squares," a response to an article penned by Jack Donovan. Later, manospherian Francis Bardamu (an earlier incarnation of the man we now know as Matt Forney) weighed in, and I responded with another piece at Counter-Currents. In both of my articles, I stressed three essential points:
  1. A man should not alter his personality, his set of interests, or anything about his essence in an effort to become more appealing to women.
  2. It is ridiculous for a group of supposed anti-feminists to tell men to change who they are so that they can be better enabled to attract women, instead of encouraging them to be true to themselves (as goes the overused but still quite useful saying, minted by Shakespeare’s classic scheming busybody Polonius), and generally to refrain from catering to what women want.
  3. Broadly speaking, changing oneself in an effort to enhance one’s appeal to others (absent a morally compelling reason to change) amounts to committing a fearful degradation to one’s soul, a selling out of one’s integrity, a contemptible capitulation to conformism.


In the past four years, much has changed. A broader critique of manospherianism has emerged from within the burgeoning ranks of the alt-right. The recently-recorded dust-up surrounding Roosh testified in part to this new paradigm. Although in Roosh’s case much of the sound and fury was due in some degree to a spasm of collective oleaginous white-knighting over the prospect of some exotically swarthy Lothario seducing "our women," the more substantial objection regards the entire notion of pick-up-artistry as a skeevy practice, unworthy of men who aspire to virtue and nobility.

Instead, it is said, we must look for a wife. It’s time to settle down, son. Time to begin reproducin’! Get on it, already, young man! Etc.

Now, rather than talking about the best way to get a woman to go home with you for the night, advice is instead being dispensed on how to win the woman of your dreams for life. If you play it right, a comely Aryan princess will come along with whom you can sire a gaggle of wholesomely white, “23 and me”-genetically sanctioned children, and start a family over which you may reign as a proud and lordly patriarch. Indeed, an entire podcast series on Soundcloud has now been given over to discussion of how to move up in the world, from a presumably “lowly” bachelor to a real man, the sort whose notch count consists in more ostensibly “mature” social attainments.

Put differently, the ego-appeal has thus shifted from the revering the man with the highest “notch count” on his bedpost, to worshiping the man with the hottest wife and most lovely and obedient kids, the sort of man who commands respect from everyone he meets, who takes care of business, kicks ass, and generally doesn’t mess around. While young men visiting the manosphere sites of four years ago were enjoined to thrill to the Don Juan-esque exploits of one claiming to have "banged" entire countries, young men of the alt-right today are informed that if they really want to be of any value whatsoever, they need to become so-called "shitlords," a vague but potent notion, originally derived from derisive feminist rhetoric, connoting raw alpha male strength and power: a pimp, a playa, a high roller, a Gordon Gecko, a Donald Trump, a Jabba the Hutt.
Shitlord of Tatooine


There is progress of a sort on display here. Certainly it is more honorable to strive to become a husband and father than it is to dedicate oneself to serial womanizing. However, in a crucial way, the new gospel of "striving for shitlordery" isn’t terribly different than the old gospel of "gaming for 'gina." Both prescribed pursuits are ignoble in conception, in that each amounts to a base appeal to the masculine ego and a brazen sop to male vanity. Both in fact degrade men by asking them to strive for status and acclaim, rather than dismissing such ambitions as vain and silly. Just as the manospherian pick-up-artists encouraged guys to envy and admire the “studs” who manage to bed beaucoup women, so the would-be mentors of alt-right youth now train their charges to adulate and idolize those supposedly high-and-mighty "shitlord"-tier men.

Moreover, the new gospel, like the old, again ironically pedestalizes women. The notion is once more floated that one should set out to attract the opposite sex by becoming the sort of man they want. Shitlord-striving, like pick-up artistry, counsels that a man ought not a worshipful "beta-orbiter" around the fairer sex; rather, he should be aloof and defiant, because women don’t like men who are wimps or pushovers.

This commonality between the two approaches is striking and significant in this sense: the "negging" is, in each case, a mere act. A man "negs" a woman (that is, he intentionally slights her), because he wants to arouse her interest by convincing her that he isn’t needy, when in truth, his neediness has in no sense been expunged; instead, it only masquerades as its opposite, for merely tactical purposes. That is to say, he only “negs” her to obtain the “poz” result of ultimately winning her over.

Is that not, in truth, quite egregiously “beta” behavior? Wouldn’t an actual "alpha" actually not care, as opposed to merely pretending not to care?

Concomitant with the heralding of shitlordery has been a proclivity to mock, jeer at, and poke fun at the antics of "autists." (Ironically, many of the mockers are admirers of Adolf Hitler, an aspie weirdo if ever there was one, and a childless bachelor to boot, who might well have died a virgin.) Just as the manosperians ridiculed "betas" (i.e., those with low or nonexistent notch-counts) as pathetic losers, so the new alt-right would-be mentors savagely satirize men who display little ability or inclination to attract women. The unstated (or sometimes stated) assumption is that a real man pursues the company of women—whether for the night or for a lifetime, while non-“ladies men” are silly and inconsequential wastes of space, whom it is perfectly proper to treat with contempt and derision.
The Austrian autist
For the new alt-right's self-appointed would-be mentors of men, this anti-bachelor stance is no doubt partly connected with concern about the current low white birth rate in the face of “the rising tide of color”; the admonition to pursue shitlordery is thus no doubt in part motivated in part by an anxiety to reassert Western fecundity by encouraging white men to marry, in order that more white babies will be born within wedlock. But however legitimate these concerns might be in a broad sense— and I can’t help but observe that a good deal of unhelpful alarmism always seems often to creep into demographic discussions lately—the notion that men are of no worth unless they marry and reproduce is highly objectionable on its face.

Those inclined to marry should marry, of course. And it should likewise go without saying that no one should be inhibited from having as many children as they want, if they indeed view child-bearing as part of their mission in life. But there is a place for the childless (male and female), too.

Traditionally speaking, the institution of celibacy has long been held in high regard in the West, equaling, if not surpassing the institution of marriage in perceived importance. Today, even dissenters from modernism tend to be blinded by materialism and carnality, convinced that nothing of value exists beyond the genitals, the womb, and the passage of genes. But culture and civilization are made up of more than genetic reproduction and fertility rates. For this reason, and also for the sake of basic decency, bachelors, virgins, and so-called “autists” ought to be given their proper due.

In the News: Jews, Derb, Der Movement, and More

via EGI Notes

Jewish Neocons against Trump. Surprise!  Also note the mention of Trump’s inept campaign and his omega male dependence on free media, rather than putting on his big boy pants and actually running an effective ad campaign.

I support free speech, but I support White survival more. Thus, I can’t get real worked up over Williams College censorship of anti-White, pro-Jewish, pro-Asian, pro-miscegenation leftist activist John Derbyshire.  Instead, let us congratulate them for showing good sense and refined taste.

The comments section here is of interest.  I side with the anti-big tent view, that we should NOT have “solidarity” with every Jew, neckbeard, troll, or nitwit who professes at least some allegiance to the “right.”  Where I disagree is defining the extent of the problem.  I do not see it as just eschewing fringe problem areas; instead I see the fundamental core of the “movement” as being completely compromised.  Where is the outrage over the fact that Revilo Oliver bemoaned 50 years of failure…in 1969?!!!  Where is the disgust over the fact that the “movement” has seamlessly went from fawning over Putin to fawning over Trump, oblivious to the decades-long record of being politically cuckolded by failed “White saviors riding in on their white horses?”  Where is the introspective self-examination of “movement” “leaders” over their own failures?

I agree with Spencer that the over-the top fawning over Trump is misguided. The part about the servers being non-White (well, it was DC) was amusing.  I remember the suggestion of someone (it may have been Bowery) years ago, re: Amren conventions, suggesting that attendees pack their own food.  Something to think about.

Notice the emphasis of Asian nations hostile to Trump – together with their colored allies in the Middle East and Mexico, as well their White liberal allies among cucked Europe.  Contrary to what cunning Asian female infiltrators, and their infatuated White male step-and-fetchits, tell you, Asians HATE, HATE, HATE Whites.  The existential meaning of Asians is hatred of Whites. Yockey on Japan: denial of the West.  That’s right: Asian = anti-West.  The idea that even a fraud like Trump will get the lowly Whites worked up against their Asian Overlords infuriates the Yellow-Brown haters from the East.  All food for thought, eh?

Meanwhile, the White American voters should make it clear that foreigners do not determine our political choices.

Mainstream TV Commentator, Sukant Chandan, Advocates for White Genocide on Russia Today

via Face of a Dying Nation

The real face of hate: Antarian Muslim,
Sukant Chandan
RT Commentator Sukant Chandan called for "all Black and Asian people" to flock to Europe "by the hundreds of Millions" to turn "Europe black" for the past "crimes" of colonialism and alleged exploitation of Muslim nations on an Interview called "Human Tidal Waves" on RT Crosstalk. He refers to the quote by Muammar Gaddafi who has warned that Europe runs the risk of turning "black" unless the EU pays Libya at least €5 billion a year to block the arrival of illegal immigrants from Africa back in 2010. Europe refused the payment and Gaddafi was eventually assassinated.

In one of his published articles, "Taking over the West", Chandan calls for the complete obliteration of European culture as way to make things right for "past crimes".