Wednesday, April 25, 2018

In Der News

Odds and ends in der news.

Some old news, but still relevant.

The USA continues to follow the insane directives, promoted especially by the Obama administration, to continue to decrease yields of US nuclear weapons.  Last I read, they wanted to get rid of all the low megaton range B83s – which themselves can’t destroy deep targets – and replace them with low yield “dial-a-yield” weapons.  I have nothing against the “dial-a-yield” concept, as long as megaton range yields are included in the spectrum, which was NOT the case for the leftist Obama-pansy military planning.  Meanwhile, Russia continues to have high-yield weapons, and with improving accuracy.  They’ll be able to take out fortified targets, while US bombs would be hard=pressed to mimic Hiroshima.  Another example of Western weakness and degeneracy – but let’s put ‘Western” in scare quotes.
“Even nuclear weapons have limited effectiveness at destroying the deepest or widely separated underground bunkers,” reads a 2005 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists. “For example, an earth penetrating weapon using the 1.2 megaton B83 warhead—the highest yield weapon in the U.S. nuclear stockpile—could crush underground bunkers to a depth of about 1000 feet. Deeper bunkers can be constructed with modern tunneling equipment, and are essentially invulnerable to nuclear attack.”


Pan-Europeanists = early Rome.

Ethnonationalists – Greek city states. Didn’t Stoddard compare WWI with the Peloponnesian War?

Excerpt of comment from AltRight.com:
I prefer Spencer's speeches to Jared Taylor citing stats about how Jews and Asians are smarter than Huwhites.

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Der Movement’s Dangerous “Minds”

SLC News.

In an otherwise fine book review and analysis by Johnson, we find two disturbing bits.

First:
This is why I don’t regard Alexander Dugin and Richard Spencer as contributing anything to White Nationalism, which is the advocacy of ethnic self-determination for all white peoples. 
That’s an incredibly misleading, actually mendacious, description of what White Nationalism is, essentially equating White Nationalism as the sum of all the various intra-White ethnonationalisms added together.  Instead, what most honest people in the “movement” consider by “White Nationalism” is exactly what the term literally implies – a form of nationalism centered on race rather than ethnicity; the ORION principle: Our Race Is Our Nation.  Thus, for White Nationalists, the ultimate form of nationhood, and the highest form of national allegiance, is to the race as a whole; individual ethnic allegiances are secondary.  In this sense, White Nationalism is the antithesis of narrow ethnonationalism.
Instead, they are simply apologists for Russian imperial revanchism. 
Dugin yes.  But Spencer?  That’s going too far.  By the way, who has it been promoting the work of Dugin over the years?  All the Type Is out there, all the “traditionalists,: certainly not me.
Spencer regards ethnonationalism as “petty”….
He’s right about that. 
…siding with the UK against Scottish independence, the EU against Brexit, and Spain against Catalan independence. 
I disagree with Spencer here and go along with Yockey: In an Imperium there can be whatever local autonomy people wish, and if Scots and Catalans (or whoever) want such autonomy, fine, as long as all these regions and micro-nations are confederated into the Imperium.
But although he opposes the UK leaving the EU, he opposes Ukraine joining it. He praises the EU as a transnational, imperial organization — but not NATO. 
Spencer can explain his UK vs. Ukraine views himself.  The EU in principle is not a bad idea; its execution is globalist and anti-White, so I oppose it.
Clearly, he is more interested in shilling for Russian geopolitical interests than in setting forth a coherent moral and political framework for white survival.
Is White survival instead advanced by setting forth coherent moral and political frameworks of White nations ethnically cleansing each other?

Then we have this:
Beiner then quotes Spencer denouncing “fucking middle class” values and proclaiming “I love empire, I love power, I love achievement.” We even learn from a Jewish female reporter that Spencer will sometimes “get a boner” from reading about Napoleon.
If any of that is true, what can I say that I haven’t said before?  All you Type I Nutzis and heavy breathing fetishists out there are responsible for that, you are the ones who enable the affirmative action program.  You made your bed so now lie in it (albeit not along with Spencer reading about Napoleon).



Monday, April 23, 2018

A Person of Tallness

About height.


Preferences for height were and are certainly not just due to an association between height and social status (and health and good nutrition).  It is likely that height was selected for, and appreciated, at least for men, because increased size gave men an advantage in combat, both for mate competition and also in warfare (this during pre-technic periods of human evolution).  Selection for height also includes extreme sexual selection by women for male height (which continues to this day); this preference is no doubt an evolved one, given the superiority of larger males in combat, providing protection for the women and offspring, and the ability to pass on these genes for tallness to the woman’s male offspring.  Further, as has been noted in a recent book review at VDARE, given that women select (or at least used to) for male intelligence as well as height, there seems to be a general trend for height and intelligence to correlate, although of course the bell curves overlap to a considerable degree.

There are of course costs to height, which may explain why, despite advantages to being taller, some ethnies are shorter than others, on average.  For example, looking at the well-known difference between taller Northern Europeans and shorter Southern Europeans (the latter, as Der Movement tells us, are low-IQ cringing subhumans), we can consider some selective pressures against height.  Larger people tend to do better in cooler climates rather than in the warmer clines of the south. Further, larger people require a greater caloric intake to maintain their mass, which necessitates more calorie-dense foods.  Northern Europe’s generally cool and wet climate allowed for agriculture that provided a diet rich in calorie-dense foods, such as (red) meat and dairy.  In the warmer and drier south, a more plant-based diet would have been insufficient to maintain a significant fraction of the population of larger size; in this latter scenario, smaller people would have had a long term survival advantage that more than balanced out the advantages (combat and mate competition) of height. Thus, the advantages of male height are a net evolutionary gain only in circumstances in which the environment can maintain a sizable fraction of the population being larger and with greater caloric requirements.

As Sailer suggests, cancer rates are higher in the tall; it may be in part cell number as he mentions; in addition, the increased caloric needs of the tall may help fuel cancer growth through diet (there are associations between diet/energy consumption and cancer, particularly between caloric-dense foods and cancer), and increased growth signaling, particularly in the young growing stage, may prime the body for later cancer, not only by increasing cell numbers, but, possibly, by epigenetic and other changes in the cells themselves.

However, this cancer link is generally not counter-selective against height, at least not in human evolutionary history, as cancer typically is a disease in the older (Sailer’s case being one exception, as are childhood cancers and some of those due to inherited mutations), past prime reproductive age, individuals.  It is a cost of height, though, at the individual and public health levels.

As to Sailer’s main thesis, why “heightism” is not a SJW issue, we must consider that Female Privilege plays a role.  Milady always gets her way (Roissy being correct about the “Fundamental Premise” – females being considered more valuable, and catered to, because eggs are more valuable than sperm).  Male height is a female preference, so discrimination against short men is socially acceptable.  Female thinness is a male preference, so that is socially unacceptable “fat shaming” – instead we must celebrate “curvy women” – an euphemism for disgusting piles of sweaty lard, with the BMI of a neutron star, rolling around the landscape, each consuming more calories in  a day than the entire world population of blue whales does in a year.  When you consider that men really can’t do anything about their height, while women can certainly lose weight, the fact that an immutable characteristic is “shamed” while a changeable one is not tells you all you need to know of the raw dominant power of Female Privilege (aka, the Yeastbucket Advantage).


Sunday, April 22, 2018

Ethnonationalist (Non) Responses to Salterism

Three examples.

I sometimes contact activists – usually ethnonationalist types since they are in the vast majority in the "movement" – in the White world to “proselytize” the EGI concept (“Salterism”); and the “response” typically falls into one of three categories:

1. Completely ignore the contact email.

2. “I’ll take a look at it” – afterwards no further response and of course no indication that the EGI concept was understood or incorporated into nationalist activity.

3. One activist, from a White nation whose name I won’t mention (although you may be able to figure out for yourself what it is, or at least what part of the world it is), answered: “this doesn’t apply to us; all our enemies are White.”

That last comment deserves a brief counter-commentary.  Even if the claim “all our enemies are White” was true (which it is not, I can assure you), it is still irrelevant as far as the basics of EGI go, since genetic interests exist at every level of genetic differentiation, and EGI applies to intra-racial group differences as well as inter-racial. Of course, the intra-racial differences are shallower, and one must be careful of kinship overlap when distinguishing genetic (and other) interests of very closely related groups; however, the basic principles of EGI still hold.  So, the casual dismissal of EGI in point #3 reflects typical ethnonationalist knee-jerk reflexive closemindedness and anti-Whiteism, an automatic rejection of anything which even “smells” as having something to do with White solidarity (whether it actually does or not), and it also reflects typical Type I activist anti-intellectualism and superficial “thinking.”

True enough, I haven’t really found pan-Europeanists who take EGI seriously either, but there are so few genuine pan-Europeanists that the small sample size makes the lack of interest virtually meaningless to form any conclusion.  However, the lack of interest among ethnonationalists is meaningful, and tells us all we need to know about ethnonationalist quality (or the lack thereof).

Saturday, April 21, 2018

Griffin Reviews Hawley

A better book review.

Robert Griffin, who phone interviewed me a long time ago for one of his books, seems to me to be a good man and an honest academic.  I am pleased he has written a critical analysis of Hawley’s Alt Right book, a review that is perhaps more objective than the more positive reviews given by (ego-driven?) individuals interviewed by Hawley and featured in the book and who no doubt are positive about the publicity (good for panhandling drives, I guess).

As per Hawley, Griffin notes his obsession about “racism” and “supremacy” and, indeed, anyone who, like Hawley, would write the following is intellectually suspect:
Throughout this text, I use the term ‘white nationalist’ largely because that is the term used by many on the Alt-Right to describe themselves.  But I acknowledge the critique that white nationalism was a term invented to make white-supremacist views more palatable.
True enough, Hawley uses weasel words such as “I acknowledge the critique” without openly saying whether he agrees or disagrees with it (although his fulminations against “racism” is a possible clue here). The bottom line is that the “critique” in question is politically-motivated libel and slander, and is objectively false.  An honest academic would have pointed out the emptiness of the critique and the clear differences between nationalism and "supremacy," but, as Griffin suggests, Hawley may have been more concerned about his upcoming tenure application as he is about White “racism” and “supremacy.”

I give Griffin’s review a 10 out of 10.





Friday, April 20, 2018

Happy Saint Adolf Day 2018

SLC News.

“World Brotherhood of Europeans” - excluding Afrowops and Romanohorians of course.

Did you ever notice that:

***When Americans fight wars that benefit Jews (e.g., WWII, any of the Middle Eastern wars that benefit Israel), then veterans are good and noble, and popular culture fetishizes veteran worship; however, when Americans fight wars that Jews disapprove of (e.g., Vietnam or even the entire “Cold War” military endeavor), then veterans are despicable “baby killers” to be scorned, while anti-war protesters and draft dodgers are lionized.  Funny, that.  It’s almost as if the entire American culture is modulated to reflect Jewish concerns and Jewish views. 

***In a typical modern American classroom, half the students have attention deficit disorder and the other half have a peanut allergy.  And most are overweight.

More SLC News:

The Alt Right’s “generational warfare” is ludicrous from my perspective for many reasons, foremost among them is that virtually every White Millennial I have known (many in fact) is not only an extreme leftist, but they all are hysterically ultra-SJW extreme leftists, oozing with the most virulent anti-White attitudes imaginable.  Boomers may be cucked cowards, but many (most?) Millennials are open enemies.

The roots of what we now call the Alt-Right lay in the Ron Paul movement.
And that is why the Alt Right is doomed to fail.  It was tainted by libertardism from the very beginning.

Read this, emphasis added (from the original book):
….the degree of genetic differentiation among Indian jati groups living side by side in the same village is typically two to three times higher than the genetic differentiation between northern and southern Europeans.
Let’s unpack that for a moment.  Typically, population genetics tells us that the greatest genetic differentiation in Europe is along the north/south axis, being a bit larger than east/west; the first axis in PCA is north/south, the second is east/west.  However, that differentiation, the north/south, in Europe is two to three times smaller than that between Indian brownster “micro-castes” who live “side by side in the same village.”  

Chuck the gamester pussy pedestalizer.


Thursday, April 19, 2018

Internal Refugees?

The next liberal cause celebre?

The more rational of White leftist “progressives” should be wary of their enthusiastic defense of the “international law” assertion of the (virtually unlimited) rights of refugees to migrate and the equally expansive obligations of (White) nations to host them.

How about applying the same standards to internal refugees, officially called “internally displaced persons?”

Such people are not currently “legally” considered refugees, but, like anything else, properly applied SJW hysteria, Jewish activism, pressure groups, media campaigns, etc. – the whole System acting in concert – can change that.  

Imagine if “internally displaced persons” are given all the rights of international refugees.  Why, perhaps, White liberals in their gated communities and in their leafy blue state suburbs will be legally obligated to take in some ghetto Negro refugees from the inner city, Negro migrants fleeing the “urban warfare” of, say, Detroit and Chicago.  Open your doors wide!

Even more painful for the liberals would be if White bigots fleeing urban colored violence would be considered refugees, and the homes of White liberals had to be opened to take in the great unwashed of bad-White racists.  Not to worry, though, no chance of that scenario, just like, for example, White South Africans are mysteriously not accorded the same rights, and welcomed as refugees, as are Middle Easterners or Africans.

But the first scenario?  Forced racial integration and abrogation of White property rights, and the even more pernicious abrogation of private freedom of association (public being lost long ago), under the guise of “refugee rights?”  Not only possible, but increasingly likely, given continued and unabated SJW hysteria, Colored Privilege, and White cowardice.

You read it here first!

This is the lesson of the schoolyard: If someone is bullied and refuse to stand up for themselves and refuse to fight back, then they WILL be bullied continuously, without end.  However, if they do stand up for themselves and do fight back, get their licks in, do some damage to their opponent, then, even if they lose, it is unlikely that they will be bullied again.  Bullies tend to be cowards and look for easy prey, they look for those will won’t fight back. In other words, cowardly bullies target cowardly victims.

Whites as a race are akin to a cowardly bullied pansy who doesn’t fight back, won’t stand up for himself, and is therefore marked as easy pickings.  Whites being bullied to now accept feral coloreds as obligatory internal refugees would be just another example of White uselessness and cowardice.

But, perhaps, just perhaps, the Trump election was just the tip of the iceberg, and at some point, especially after being disappointed and betrayed by the globohomo milksop cuck Trump, there will be a growing White backlash that will make Trumpism seem like a mild political hiccup.

Who knows?  

Only time will tell.