Men's Rights Manifesto on Abortion

Thoughts.

If women want the "right to choose" then they must also have the responsibility for raising the child if they want it and not demand that the father pay "child support." A exclusive right to choose obligates an equally exclusive responsibility to support.

On the other hand, if fathers are to be obligated to pay child support, at least in certain circumstances, then they must have the right to contribute to the decisions about pregnancy. What if there are conflicting views? If the woman wants the child and the man does not, then she can go ahead and have the child but with no support, economic or otherwise, whatsoever from the father. If the woman wants an abortion and the man objects, the woman can have the abortion but must pay the man reparations equal to whatever child support payments he would have been obligated to pay for the child until that child's independence.

It is time for men to take a stand on this issue.

Milady weeps.

Sender Males Carrier Females

Salter’s Blank Slate Hypothesis.

Back in my Legion Europa days I discussed Salter’s “Sender Males Carrier Females” “Blank Slate Hypothesis,” also mentioning how underlying issues in that hypothesis illuminate inconsistencies in certain Nordicist paradigms at that time. I will revisit the Salter paper in this post.

See here.  Abstract:

The article introduces and elaborates the hypothesis of carrier features, characteristics which in females are attractive to males as mate-choice cues. Female carrier features increase paternal resemblance and are ultimately attractive because they help pair-bonded males distinguish genetic offspring from those conceived by mates in extra-pair copulations. The proposed kin recognition mechanism, whether culturally evolved or innate, facilitates discriminatory paternal investment, and hence male fitness. Carrier features would be attractive to males in monogamous species where paternal investment is high, and cuckoldry represents a significant risk to male fitness. Logical space exists for male sender features, which tend to be expressed in offspring regardless of female characteristics. Conflict of genetic interests between the sexes should favor the evolution of carrier, rather than sender, features in both sexes. The argument centers on humans, for whom candidate carrier features are discussed with regard to physiognomy, behavior, recessive traits, and body odor. Criticisms are discussed, and testable predictions enumerated.

The best summary of the hypothesis is in the opening of Salter’s paper itself:

Imagine an individual possessing a heritable characteristic of such a form that when the individual sexually reproduces, offspring tend to show enhanced resemblance to the other parent in that characteristic. To use the metaphor of radio communication, this hypothetical characteristic could be called a carrier feature, because it acts to transmit a distinctive characteristic of a mate to offspring.

Now, males who find carrier features attractive as mate-choice cues in females should be better able to discriminate their own offspring from offspring conceived by their mates in extra-pair copulations (EPCs). Female EPCs lower paired males' objective confidence of paternity. When paternal investment is significant, the phenomenon is often called cuckoldry and the victim a cuckold (a male who does not invest in his mate's young by provisioning or defending territory cannot be cuckolded, because he has nothing to lose) (Trivers 1972; Alexander 1974). Given these factors, males predisposed to choose as mates females with carrier features should experience an increase in relative reproductive fitness over males who are not so predisposed, so long as some anticuckoldry mechanism exists whose efficiency is improved by enhanced recognition of genetic offspring. Assuming these preconditions, genes and/or knowledge predisposing males to choose carrier-females as mates would tend to spread throughout the whole population. By the same logic, enhanced male characteristics that tend to express themselves in the offspring of any female, would be selected. To continue the radio analogy let us call these sender features, meaning characteristics with forms that tend to be expressed in offspring more than alternate forms.

Possible candidate carrier characteristics would be:

Facial appearance – female beauty (male preference) is typically associated with less distinctive faces with more average proportions; indeed, facial averaging methodologies (e.g., overlaying photos, computer morphing of composites, etc.) result in more attractive female faces than actual individual females, suggesting that individual females that have faces that trend more toward the non-distinctive average look would be considered more attractive.  Note that small noses, small chins, etc., are considered attractive in females, while more distinctive and masculine traits like larger noses and chins and the “manjaw” are considered unattractive in females. Symmetrical faces are typically considered attractive, although the data are stronger (as of the time Salter wrote the paper, 1996) for non-distinctive (“average”) features as opposed to symmetry, with respect to female features being more important than that if males.

Note that paternal relatives are typically particularly interested in noticing ostensible father-child resemblance. Further, some researchers have postulated differences in paternal vs. maternal gene expression on offspring, favoring paternal expression and resemblance, as a selected mechanism for assuring paternal investment.  Of course, as sender traits spread in a population, a male cannot be sure the sender traits in offspring are from him or another, similar man – there is no definitive proof of paternity other than genetic analysis. There is merely altered probabilities, and given the immense costs and benefits for fitness, probabilities are sufficient to be the target of selective pressure and altered paternal investment in offspring.

Behavior – attractive female behavior is more subdued and demure, and less idiosyncratic, than male behavior.

Recessiveness – eye, hair, and skin color, etc. Of course, as recessive traits spread in a population, paternity detection via sender traits becomes more difficult. When both the male and female are “monozygotic recessive” for a trait this becomes a problem. Also note that if a dark-eyed male is heterozygotic for that trait, it is of course less dependable than is homozygotic for that trait.  In the absence of gene sequencing, the male would have to look at his extended family – if everyone has dark eyes, without fail, it is more likely he is homozygous; on the other hand, having some number of light-eyed blood relatives increases the probability that he is heterozygous and hence that trait is a less dependable marker of paternity.

Male vs. female strategies would differ based upon how frequent recessive traits are in a population.  In populations that exhibit a high frequency of recessive traits, a female prone to cheat would want a recessive mate and recessive lovers so as to obscure paternity. However, females who want to maximize paternal investment via a “fidelity strategy” would choose a mate with dominant traits to make paternity “less ambiguous.” In populations that exhibit low frequencies of recessive traits, cheating females would want dominant mates (and dominant lovers) to obfuscate paternity; however, here, females choosing fidelity would prefer a recessive mate so the man can be more confident in recessive offspring (given that most potential male lovers for the female would be phenotypically dominant).

Body odor – this has the advantage that it can work subconsciously, without the male needing to even think about paternal investment in a conscious way.

Therefore, males would prefer and select females who have more recessive, more average (less distinctive), and/or less intense physiological (“carrier”) traits so that offspring resulting from mating with such females would reflect the more dominant, distinctive, and intense male (“sender”) traits of the (assumed) father, thus enhancing confidence in paternity (hence, an anti-cuckoldry mechanism). Carrier traits would be selected in females. What about males?  Male behavior would select for male sender traits. If females wanted to assure the male of paternity and enhance paternal investment in offspring, females would choose males with more pronounced sender traits. On the other hand, given female hypergamy, the optimal female strategy would be to choose male mates with carrier traits so paternity is obfuscated; alternatively, evolution of sender traits in females would favor female hypergamy interests by also obfuscating paternity (male paternity confidence is typically maximized by more sender traits in males and more carrier traits in females). Thus, there is a divergence of sex-based interests, resulting in competing selective pressures.  Of course, offspring are a mix of traits, so a sender male would see his sons be “more carrier” than himself (negative), compensated by daughters who are “more carrier” (positive) – for carrier females the calculation is of course different, more unattractive daughters with more sender traits from the father but compensated with sons with more sender traits. There is constant selection and counter-selection here, and it is not difficult to see how recessive carrier traits can spread in a population, particularly in populations in which paternal investment is high and in which the environment favors the maintenance of recessive traits. On the other hand, in societies in which paternal investment in low and cuckoldry doesn’t impose a large fitness cost to males, then there is less selective pressure for carrier traits – that these societies are often in tropical areas like Africa makes the maintenance of recessive traits more problematical in any case.

Patriarchal societies that enforce proper female behavior and control female hypergamy would have less need of the sender-carrier selective pressures, while more matriarchal and/or “liberated” societies would result in more female hypergamy, more cuckoldry, and increased selective pressure for sender-carrier selection.

Salter answers a number of potential criticisms and then makes predictions via testable hypotheses. These testable hypotheses are:

1. Carrier features should be independent of “health signs.”  As we know, many features considered attractive in humans, particularly in females, are markers of health.  Of course, the two may be “additive” – but there should be some additional carrier utility above and beyond health. This needs to be determined.

2. Carrier features in females should promote male sexual desire and mate bonding – this seems to be the case.

3. There’s some question as to whether carrier features would peak at a certain age and then diminish – e.g., at the peak of female youthful fertility – or should continue to ensure long-term mate bonding. This needs to be determined.

4. If strategies to control cuckoldry impose costs, then societies that have other mechanisms for controlling cuckoldry would have less need for the sender-carrier distinction. One can consider Middle Eastern societies that are very patriarchal and in which female sexuality is tightly controlled – females tend not have many carrier features compared to the males. More research is needed.

5. If “displays of fidelity” impose costs as well, one would expect populations that have females with many physiological carrier traits would also have females who feel less need to display behavioral cues of fidelity – the carrier traits are enough.  One could consider phenotypically recessive Northern European populations with “feminist” “liberated” females who are not pressured to act chaste.  Meanwhile, in other, less recessive populations, with fewer female carrier traits, females may be under increased pressure to act chaste to make the man confident in paternity through a (deluded?) perception of female fidelity. More research is needed. On the other hand, Africans have few female carrier traits and also very unchaste female behavior, but there is low paternal investment there (see below), so no need for carrier traits or displays of fidelity.

6. Populations that have more male mate choice of carrier females should exhibit more “paternal discrimination based on resemblance” (behavior that is genetic and/or cultural) than other populations.  This needs to be determined.

7. There may be group differences in sender-carrier features. Societies that have more female choice, then males would have more carrier features, since females would tend to pick carrier males who are easier to cheat on (except in populations that have mostly dominant sender characteristics, see above). Are egalitarian Northern European populations with bossy women examples of this – since the males have recessive features as well?  On the other hand, in societies with low levels of paternal investment, there is less need for the sender-carrier distinction. Note that sexual dimorphism in facial features is less in low-paternal-investment Africans compared to European and South American populations in which paternal investment is higher (particularly among Europeans); see this:

Sexual selection, including mate choice and intrasexual competition, is responsible for the evolution of some of the most elaborated and sexually dimorphic traits in animals. Although there is sexual dimorphism in the shape of human faces, it is not clear whether this is similarly due to mate choice, or whether mate choice affects only part of the facial shape difference between men and women. Here we explore these questions by investigating patterns of both facial shape and facial preference across a diverse set of human populations. We find evidence that human populations vary substantially and unexpectedly in both the magnitude and direction of facial sexually dimorphic traits. In particular, European and South American populations display larger levels of facial sexual dimorphism than African populations. Neither cross-cultural differences in facial shape variation, sex differences in body height, nor differing preferences for facial femininity and masculinity across countries, explain the observed patterns of facial dimorphism. Altogether, the association between sexual shape dimorphism and attractiveness is moderate for women and weak (or absent) for men. Analysis that distinguishes between allometric and non-allometric components reveals that non-allometric facial dimorphism is preferred in women's faces but not in faces of men. This might be due to different regimes of ongoing sexual selection acting on men, such as stronger intersexual selection for body height and more intense intrasexual physical competition, compared with women.

On the other hand, Asians tend to have low sexual dimorphism with higher paternal investment, which brings up issues of mate choice in those populations. These are complex issues with counter-acting selective pressures.

8. High status males should have more sender features and low status males more carrier – high status males have more choice in mates; the low status males have to be content with females who pick carrier males more prone to cuckoldry. There will be of course ethnic and racial considerations here, as some populations have a very high frequency of certain carrier traits. Prediction number eight would be most appropriate for populations that exhibit a higher degree of carrier traits. More study is required.

America is an interesting laboratory for Salter’s entire thesis, as it contains widely varied populations with a spectrum of sender-carrier traits, genetic and phenotypic differences of all types, evolved behavioral differences, differing levels of sexual dimorphism, etc.

On the whole, Salter’s hypothesis has merit and deserves closer examination and testing. This hypothesis compares favorably to related hypotheses, such as that of Frost, and, likely, these various hypotheses are complimentary, rather than in conflict.

As I wrote long ago, this all puts into question certain Nordicist paradigms.  On the one hand, Southern Europeans are said to be phenotypically dark and unassimilable, completely different in appearance from Northern Europeans.  On the other hand, Southern European men are said to be (mostly in America, I presume) engaging in mass cuckoldry of Northern European men via extra-pair copulations between Southern European men and Northern European women (who are the long term mates of Northern European men). But where is the evidence of the cuckoldry, even if we accept the alleged large phenotypic differences?  How can both be true?  If Southern Europeans are so phenotypically different and distinct then the offspring of such cuckoldry would be easily detected and the extent of the cuckoldry would be public knowledge and dealt with in some fashion.  Or, if the cuckoldry is hidden, then the phenotypic differences must be so small that the offspring of the cuckoldry cannot be easily distinguished, and, hence, there is essentially full phenotypic assimilability between the two groups.  Which is it?

Odds and Ends, 7/20/22

In der news.

Social science is an oxymoron.

[FOXNews link about Negresses attacking a White woman on a NYC bus blocked, since FOX is a Far Left Negrophilic organization]. Any White person with experience living in a vibrantly diverse American city – and certainly not only New York – understands that incidents like that are commonplace and have been such for the last 50-60 years. The only difference today is that everything is recorded, and can be spread on the Internet.  In the past, such incidents were ignored or met with shrugging shoulders – it was “business as usual,” to be expected, part of the “White tax” of living in the big city, and police would literally respond with laughter at the suggestion that such should be investigated as a “hate crime.”  No, it was simply considered a normal part of city life, like noise, pollution, traffic jams, and rats.

Given the role of Jews in promoting this via their “civil rights” agitation, you cannot expect me to have any sympathy when Moishe gets his yarmulke knocked off by Tyrone.  Go Tyrone!  You get ‘em!

Indeed, incidents like that happened to me, family, and friends. I knew one person who had a close relative murdered by a Negro in a racially-motivated attack. Another person I knew of was beaten so badly - multiple attackers of course - that he suffered permanent brain/spine damage and lived out his life as a complete invalid in a home. I for one will NEVER forgive the Jews and their High Truster junior partners for unleashing this nightmare on innocent people. It would have been more merciful if they had merely nuked us. Am I bitter? You're goddamned right I am.

The Counter-Currents genetics idiot thinks people are going to understand and accept an identity based on the decomposition of genetic variation into principal components when those same people cannot understand and refuse to accept the much more straightforward concepts of genetic kinship and "child equivalents" from Salter's EGI. Face facts - the average person is an idiot and the average Far Righter is both an idiot and a jackass.

Behold the female.

American cultural eras do not always align with chronological decades.

• Thus, the 30s in this sense started with the stock market crash and ended with Pearl Harbor.
• The 40s started with Pearl Harbor and ended with the Berlin Blockade.
• The 50s lasted a long time, from the Berlin Blockade to the JFK assassination.
• The 60s then was from JFK getting his head blown apart to the Watergate break-in.
• The 70s was from the Watergate break-in to the election of Reagan in 1980.
• The 80s and 90s were the most aligned with the years, with the 80s being from Reagan in 1980 to the break-up of the Soviet Union and the 90s from the Soviet collapse to 9/11.
• 9/11 was the start of The Twilight of America era and the 2015-2016 Trump campaign and his 2016 election was the start of The Great American Deconstruction.

Good comment on Counter-Currents:

DorfmannJuly 19, 2022 at 11:42 am

I get the impression that Yockey’s views on race, like Evola’s, were a reaction to the extreme Nordicism of the Hitlerists.

Bingo! We have a winner! All of Yockey's stupidity about race was because he saw the hierarchical "vertical racism" of Nordicism as a threat to (Western) European solidarity. Yockey wanted "horizontal" distinctions across the divides of High Cultures, not rankings of superiority within each culture.

Odds and Ends, 7/3/22

In der news.

Sallis' Law of Tropism: Particular metapolitical or political entities tend to attract particular types of supporters above and beyond the ostensible raison d'etre of the entity.

Thus, for example, while American Renaissance and Counter-Currents are both ostensibly pro-White sites, American Renaissance comments threads are full of pro-Asian comments, including those of Asians attacking Whites while Counter-Currents comments include those that are pro-LGBTQ, defending homosexuals and other deviants, pro-female White knighting, supporting transgenderism and "radical gender theory" or posts about movies with gay or cross-dressing characters. Each entity attracts people drawn to certain underlying aspects of the entity above and beyond the surface veneer of its purpose.

Gab correspondent Gaston alerts me to this. You see, it is always “the other fellow” who is “admixed.”  Until the time when someone says that your ethny, or some other ethny you worship, is admixed, and then there’s a problem.  Just like the “other guy is admixed” folks when some German-Americans were getting Asian admixture with the old DNAPrint test.  Yes, that test was flawed – as are the ancestry tests of today – but that’s not really the point.  If DNAPrint was saying the Southern Europeans were 50% Nigerian, the same people would have said “you see, we told you so.”  The outrage only hits when it is too close to home.

See this. Let's discuss the Salomon Morel case again; Jewish dual morality in action:

In 1998, Poland requested that Morel be extradited for trial, but Israel refused. A reply sent to the Polish Justice Ministry from the Israeli government said that Israel would not extradite Mr. Morel as the statute of limitations had expired on war crimes.

Hmmm... a statute of limitations on war crimes? Release that 101 year old man then.

Behold milady.

Laugh at this. Hilarious. Nordicist Stoddard and Southern/Eastern European-hating Counter-Currents think that the corrupt Anglo-Irish Tammany Hall was A-OK, and so very amusing, and anti-Tammany reformers were a bunch of problematic stuck-up prigs. Of course, Stoddard and Counter-Currents are all horrified no doubt by Negroid Afrowop Mafia corruption - those no good greasy penned up chicken Morlocks.

You can't surpass Nordicists, fetishists, and Anglomaniacs in their Who? Whom? double morality - worse than their senior partners, the Jews.

Interesting coincidence as well with my recent comments about Tammany Hall at my Gab account and now this Counter-Currents nonsense. Also, it is mighty strange to see disinterested high trust altruists admire and excuse ruthless political corruption. Akin to the explanation that Scandinavians are collectivist conformists because they are so individualistic, the HBD Nordicists will probably claim that Stoddard admired Tammany corruption because he was so ethical and trusting. And, lest we forget, disinterested and altruistic as well.

Asians on the March! At this point, Amren has become a parody of itself. The site is, quite literally, slavishly obsessed with Asians.

OK, I'll accept Johnson at his word that he didn't know that a single person (Rojas) was multiple identities. But rather than merely saying how wonderful it is that one person worked so hard, how about questioning how big and successful Der Movement really is when the pool of ostensible "hard working activists" is likely much smaller than believed? And there is a whiff of - dare I say dishonesty? - in secretly being several personas at once, since it gives the impression to the readership that particular views and ideologies are more widely accepted among those "hard working activists" than is really the case. For example, are there really NX number of HBD race realists or really only X number, each with multiple personas? And as regards the Washington DC area movement circles that Johnson suspects contributed to Rojas' problems - isn't that ultimately the cohort of Millennial and Zoomer (and late Gen X) Alt Right juvenile jackasses and "movement" apostates that I typically critique? How are those people so much better than dastardly Boomers and Early Gen Xers? Finally, given the time since Rojas' death - when is a cause of death going to be announced? As I wrote earlier, it is important to know whether or not foul play was involved, and whether or not the "movement lifestyle" and politics broadly defined were involved.

This is important.  MacDonald:

Make no mistake. It is critical for Russia to win this war.

Now, that viewpoint is 100% opposed to the strongly anti-Russian, pro-Ukrainian view of the war by Greg Johnson and most of the Counter-Currents crew. Is Johnson going to "punch right" in this case and critique MacDonald's view? Or does solidarity among the "good old boys network" take precedence here and thus MacDonald gets a pass for a view that would be critiqued by the Counter-Currents crew if it was promoted by a less august (non "rock star") personage?  Why doesn't Johnson debate MacDonald, re: Russia-Ukraine?

That's something that really bothers me about these "leaders." They put "movement" politics and personal relationships over principles - but only for their co-ethnics (broadly defined). Personal relations don't protect White ethnics from having the Whiteness questioned every five minutes and obviously "movement" politics can care less about the ethnics (that is an indictment of the ethnics as much as that of the "movement" - they're held to no account). But to be criticized in the "good old boys network" typically requires Dickie Spinster-level catastrophic errors and/or you have to be "small potatoes." The upper echelon are immune from serious criticism as long as they don't exceed the Spinster threshold.

My view: A Russian win would be a victory for anti-White Eurasian multiculturalism. A Russian defeat would be a victory for anti-White globalist multiculturalism. Since the latter is a greater threat to the West than the former, that supports MacDonald's view. On the other hand, universal nationalism, ethnic self-determination for Ukrainians, Ukraine's desire to be part of Europe and not Asia, and the Putin regime's negative attributes that represses genuine Russian nationalism, argue in favor of Johnson's view. Then there is the specter of war-induced "famine" being used as an excuse for another migrant wave into Europe. Whatever the outcome, it is a catastrophe for Whites, who have no effective leadership.

When Yockey was referring to "religious pan-Slavs" (as opposed to Marxist believers) as the true anti-Western leadership of Russia, he was presciently looking forward to someone like Putin. Unfortunately, pan-Slavism as devolved into Eurasianism.

Counter-Currents: 

...Western or Northern European white, which is the least tribal and most individualistic group of people on the planet.

First - evidence, please?

Second - if true, that means such people should not (exclusively) be leaders of a collectivist ethnocentric racialist movement and it is moronic to focus such a movement exclusively on recruiting from that group while rejecting other Whites. Isn't that obvious? Who's the "midwit" who cannot understand the consequences of their own dogma?

Disgusting Amren lie, from Hood:

The truth may be simpler. People respond to incentives, and heterosexual whites (and successful Asians who don’t claim victimhood) do not get benefits from the Potomac Regime. 

Asians...yeah. The same group that is considered "socially disadvantaged" by the government and is eligible for goodies Whitey cannot get. Another lie:

The Potomac Regime treats Middle America with the same disdain as Russia and China.

Liar. "The Potomac Regime" has outsourced our entire productive economy to China and allows mass immigration of the Chinese.

If Amren had a flag it would show a White male "race realist" getting ass-reamed by an Asiatrix with a colonoscope-sized strap-on.

Amren = All Asia, all the time.

Gee, someone else rejects the Kool-Aid:

Schindler’s Guest Listsays:

June 30, 2022 at 4:32 pm

I deeply respect Kevin MacDonald and all he has done. But I could never stomach this notion of European Individualism. It seems to me a post hoc rationalization to explain why modern Whites are so deracinated and cucked. Were the Crusaders individualists? What about the Spanish Empire in the Americas? Or the Puritans? People will make the case that Protestantism is, but the mid century Germans were largely Protestant and it’s difficult to see them as libertarian individualists. America, owing to unique historical circumstances, may be individualist to some degree, with its opposition towards centralized power, and a high degree of autonomy afforded by an empty continent. But that seems the result of historical contingencies, not biological impulses. Yet even in the US, the Jews were highly aware of and wrote extensively about the rigid societal standards and White Anglo Saxon ethnic particularism they encountered in America (as has MacDonald himself). i would also note that the “only minimal [WASP] resistance” MacDonald describes occurred after a New Deal revolution (heavily infiltrated by Jewish radicals) that reshaped American government and purged much of the old guard, followed by a genocidal European civil war fought largely over the Jewish Question which resulted in Nuremberg making it de facto illegal to be right wing, ethnocentric or antisemitic. That’s not mild. But even all that didn’t quite do it. Jews had to take total control of media and make it the all pervasive narrative-forming machine that it is today before we start to see America become a “melting pot” and “propositional nation,” and Whites truly begin to see themselves as atomized economic units saying how they “don’t see race” and “live and let live.” It is this bacteria pumped into the brains of Americans that has made them so hapless and feeble, which is then exported to Europe (which appears no more historically liberal than anywhere else). If anything, the issue is not so much the uniqueness of the European mind, but that of the Jewish mind. Add to this the emergence of globalism, managerialism and the triumph of finance capital, developments Jews were uniquely adapted to and which largely harmonized with their cosmopolitan elitist worldview.

Blasphemy!

Odds and Ends, 4/18/22

In der news.

The hobbit hole crowd would like to ascribe the B-2 comedy (and I suppose the earlier FOGBANK fiasco) to the end of a "Faustian impulse." (note - then why isn't Musk's SpaceX an indication of a surging Faustian impulse)?

The hobbit hole argument is not very persuasive. The time interval between knowledge/no knowledge was very short; true that civilizations can decline very rapidly at the end, but in this case other explanations seem more likely. The amount of effort required to retain the knowledge was minimal, if the will to do so was present. The will to do so had less to do with Faustian drives into the unknown and more do with national security interests and basic technological expertise.

American science and technics, like America itself, is dead because it was MURDERED, not because of a "natural death" from a loss of Faustianism. The Jew-High Truster alliance, together with their colored pets, have made the entirety of the American STEM enterprise, including military/aerospace, into "diversity, equity, and inclusion." The American military, literally, cares several orders of magnitude more about "social justice" than about B-2 bombers. We have a Jew-High Truster hyper-capitalist ethos that only values immediate profits (apart from social justice, I suppose some loss of profits in the same of equity is allowed, but STEM will always be sacrificed for money). We have a darkening and dumbed down population, a pathetic educational system, and a corrupt culture.

You can ascribe all of that to "a loss of Faustianism" if you wish, but I doubt any of it would be a happening in the absence of Jews and the absence of the "Yankee" Puritan tradition of moralistic outrage.

Let's compare the hobbit hole high culture to my vision of the overman high culture, which is summarized thus

No more “proud, tragic” failure in “striving for the unattainable” in the “Faustian” culture – instead the Overman Culture will be characterized by the proud successful attainment of the infinite. That is what a hopeful individual can project as the new High Culture of the West, with links to the Classical and the Faustian, but surpassing both in the aim and objective of the human spirit. That is what Western Destiny can and should be.

Two people get it.  See this.  Also see this.  Steuben's trash post was one of the worst ever at Counter-Currents, and that's saying something, considering how badly the site has degenerated. One MUST understand - Steuben is expressing the underlying worldview of Der Movement's "traditionalism" - they WANT to live in 10th century hobbit holes. Actually, they THINK they want that - if they had to give up all the perks of modern life, they'd collapse into a fetal position and weep softly. Yes, type on your computer and spread nonsense over the global Internet while advocating a return of the Dark Ages 

There are three choices:

The System - to the sewer

Der Movement - to the hobbit hole

Sallis Groupuscule - to the stars

Quo vadis?

See this.  Also see this.  Liddell and Cochran weep.

See this.  Of course men have more "love at first sight." Men care about physical appearance. So, milady, men don't care about your "personality" (sic), your "intelligence" (sic), or your "accomplishments" (sic). The ONLY thing that matters is how you look. So, think about that as you waddle to your fridge to take that pint of ice cream out of the freezer.

Blasphemy of the day: The excesses of German National Socialism ruined fascism, wrecked the West, and put the White race in its current dangerous situation.

Now, there is nothing wrong with the basic principles of national socialism, which I agree with. But combining it with German fanaticism and militarism is what led to all of the problems.

When German fascism should have done was simply expel all of the Jews and other aliens (one way or the other), build up the country internally (which was done in the 1930s), and form alliances with fascist movements in other nations, and of course with Fascist Italy itself. These alliances would be defensive, not for conquest, and to help fascists come to power in other nations of Europe. Merger with Austria was appropriate, as that was popular with ethnic Austrians (ethnically akin to South Germans). As regards German minorities in other nations, they should have been repatriated to Germany, as opposed to seizing the territory in which they lived. The "Polish Corridor" should have been dealt with diplomatically. The alliance of fascists, perhaps in conjunction with Western democracies not threatened by German expansionism, could have put together an anti-communist and anti-Soviet alliance.

Ted Sallis translation services:

White supremacy = Whites defending their legitimate interests, the same as every other group does

Saving White children from White supremacy = brainwashing White children to disregard their own group interests, and sacrifice themselves for others who hate them.

Odds and Ends, 4/8/22

In der news.

First Sallis Groupuscule blog post.

The real purpose of good fiction – ranging from an epic novel (or movie) down to a short story or even a high quality comic book – is to induce reflection on the nature of realty and on the human condition, and to ponder how that affects one’s view of past, present, and/or future. Certainly it can be, and indeed should be, entertaining, but if fiction is merely entertaining than it is no better than a sitcom.

Ted Sallis translation services:

Man cave = place of refuge from nagging harridan

Wife = nagging harridan

Biological clock ticking = woman wants man as a sperm donor and as a beta male provider

Defending your woman’s honor = let’s you and him fight

Female hypergamy = alpha fux

Marriage = beta bux

Happy marriage = fiction

So, CNN has no problem talking about an "authoritarian" leader being re-elected. That's likely a more honest election than what we have here in the USA, and reflects the will of the Hungarian people, but Orban is "authoritarian." What do we call Western European nations that ban free speech, ban political parties, and throw people in jail for tweets? Is that "liberal democracy?"

A rare useful Amren article.  Cue the retards in the comments telling us that conspiracies are real. Napalm and mustard gas!

A rare useful Amren comment:

Someguy

Oliver, I am not trying to claim anyone is on par or better than anyone else. I'm really highlighting the under-performing nature of East Asia. I'm pretty sure the Islamic golden age has more mathematicians than China ever had. The point is that an overfeminine race that thinks extremely holistically and is ultra conformist is ultimately entirely useless in adding to any sort of technological progress at a macro scale. I was shocked that Daxing airport was designed by an Iraqi woman. It shows that in all of China there is not one person creative enough to design such a thing.

HBDers weep bitter tears.

What Der Movement fails to realize about milady Marine is that winning by itself (assuming she does win) does nothing to validate the mainstreaming approach. It is only winning combined with useful action while in office that would constitute some validation. Now, if a hardcore explicit racial nationalist was elected, I would say that the victory itself would be of disruptive value, but Skullface Marine is hardly a Nutzi, is she? And, by the way, even if mainstreaming was ever validated (at least once), that does nothing to disprove that farstreaming is a superior approach, with more proven success.

My attitude toward Der Movement is akin to what Nixon's is here, re: the press.

Odds and Ends, 3/22/22

In der news.

Laugh at this.  Rome had "immoral decadence." In contrast to all those clean-living, honorable Germanics with their genes for altruism. Indeed, even today, the word "vandal" connotes the type of high-trust constructive altruism to which we all aspire.

Unz commentator:

The time for debating what percentage is White, etc… is after we have the actual power to make those decisions on our own...

Undoubtedly a racially smug High Truster who believes he has the God-given right to decide upon, and bestow, "whiteness."

100% WRONG. You do not get to retroactively define your "army" after the war is won. The battle lines are drawn before the conflict, and everyone involved must know exactly where they stand and who and what they are fighting for.

If you can't even define your group before you expect group members to fight, then you are not worth fighting for to begin with.

I said the same thing long ago.

Leaders and organizations who are vague as regards what Euro-ethnies they do or do not represent and who are contradictory as to what is their actual “ingroup” need to be replaced by those who are honestly “transparent” on such questions. After all, if a person of group x supports an organization which is really hostile to the ethnic genetic interests of that group, this would be a significant loss of ethnic genetic interest for the activist. Comments such as “these issues will be resolved after a total white victory” are completely inappropriate; people need to know now where to invest their activist energies, and they need to know now where and how their specific ethnic genetic interests will be met.

See this. Some things never change – the High Truster love of Coloreds (as compared to their hatred toward White ethnics) as how this love is never reciprocated.

One English leader, George Thorpe, was especially insistent on kindness to Indians, and even publicly hanged dogs whose barking had frightened them…Indians carried out a carefully-hatched extermination plan, turning on the colonists with whom they worked, killing as many as they could. In some areas, they lost the element of surprise and therefore killed only 400 of Jamestown’s 1,200 whites. For Thorpe, the special friend of the Indians, they reserved a particularly cruel death and elaborate mutilation.

Surprise!

….British reformers redirected their zeal overnight to putting down the “ungrateful wogs."

Ungrateful wogs? South Asians, or Patler and Tommasi?

Another 17th century Englishman wrote of Africans that “the men and women go so alike, that one cannot know a man from a woman but by their breasts, which in the most part be very foule and long, hanging downe low like the udder of a goat.” One Caribbean planter wrote that when African women bent over to tend crops, their breasts touched the ground, giving the impression from a distance that they were six-legged creatures. It would be hard to find such harsh descriptions of people of other races.

Well, not much has changed with the Negro, except they are fatter now.

I have to think of the howling Societies at home who have sympathy with all black men whilst they care nothing for the miseries inflicted on their own kith and kin who have the misfortune to be located near these interesting niggers.

White SJWs today come to mind.

…prominent people split over the Amritsar action, with men who knew India backing the general. Churchill condemned the shootings…

But of course. Only Europeans should be shot at, right Winnie?

One incident from the final days of the Raj showed just how far the former rulers had fallen. While the last viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, was negotiating the final withdrawal, his wife Edwina was carrying on an affair with Jawaharlal Nehru, the most prominent nationalist after Gandhi, and India’s future prime minister.

We can always depend on milady!

And what to make of this:

Indians appear to have been reasonably content to be ruled by the British, but wanted their culture and religions left alone. Men like Kipling, who spent years in India, understood that “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet….

Doesn’t that imply a rejection of Neil Kumar?

Please see footnote 64 here. This nonsense has been going on a long time. Are the endless decades of utter failure any surprise? Footnote 67 is also of interest. High Trust homosexuals vs. White ethnics has been going on since the early 1970s. Nothing new under the sun.

China is watching the conflict in Ukraine not only, re: Taiwan, but, re: Siberia, which they also covet. The Russian military has exposed its conventional ineptness. Based purely in conventional forces, China can take the Russian Far East, no problem. Russia would then be in a position of having to threaten with nuclear weapons, meaning Chinese nuclear retaliation against European Russia. Would Russia endanger its core to defend Siberia? Meanwhile, having alienated the West, Russia couldn't depend on Tom Clancy-novel-like scenarios of help against China. Putin's invasion is a strategic blunder of world historical proportions.

Whatever the final outcome of the Russia-Ukraine war, the White man will lose. The White man has been losing, non-stop, since August 1914.

Thanks, ethnonationalists.

Note: The reason I harp on being historically correct about fundamental issues such as the Alt Right, mainstreaming, Trump, Putin, etc. is not because of arrogance or ego. It is to point out how destructive Der Movement's ethnic affirmative action program is, which is made worse by Der Movement's blacklist.

Odds and Ends, 3/11/22

In der news.

Behold the female!

See this, brought to my attention by Catiline. But, remember – the “movement” affirmative action program is just a figment of my paranoid insane old crank imagination.  Certainly, any wop has the same potential to be an American “movement” leader as does a founding stock WASP, and don’t you forget it!  Just dig up the corpse of Joe Tommasi and ask him.

See this. Real reason - hinted at with mention of "white flight" - mass transit in urban areas is infested with feral Coloreds - Blacks and Hispanics - who terrorize human passengers; commit crime; produce noise, litter, and graffiti; fare jump; and don't produce a tax base that can effectively maintain a technological system. And to the extent they themselves staff the system, it will be an incompetent mess. The reason why "express buses" exist in some urban areas is to cater to remaining Whites afraid to use low cost public mass transit. The bulk of Whites live in the suburbs and commute via car or things like Metro-North.

Behold the hypocrite.

Our enemies can’t defeat us in fair intellectual debates, so they have to resort to censorship...

So writes the person who refuses to debate me and bans me from commenting at his blog.

But we are still here, two years later, bigger and badder than ever.

Well, badder, certainly.

Because our audience, staff, and ambitions have grown, in 2022 our fundraising goal has grown as well, to $300,000.

Hey! You're getting close to Mophead's annual executive compensation! Counter-Currents headed to his ultimate objective? D'Nations!

Retarded nonsense

When well-informed Italian Americans express disdain for the film, they are referring to its negative media image. That is all. In no way, shape, or form are they comparing a fictional Hollywood movie to the genuine historical sufferings of other racial or ethnic groups.

Ah, you see, wops never had any “genuine historical sufferings” – that’s the sole reality of Coloreds and Jews, right, you mendacious dago?

New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia…

A Jew.

 …appointed Jane Bolin the first Black female judge in the nation…

That’s a good thing?

Here we are with the time change again (March 13), the idiocy of changing the clocks forward or back one hour twice a year, with different polities doing it different weeks and some not doing it at all. Here’s a suggestion using some swarthoid common sense. How about everyone agrees to a one time change of 30 minutes, splitting the difference between the Fall and Spring time extremes, and then just leave it at that, never changing it again. Sounds reasonable to me, although I’m sure my High Truster betters would have some long-winded explanation as to why such an eminently sensible solution is “insane.”

Advantages that China has:

• 1. Relatively homogeneous population with the Han majority firmly in charge
• 2. Nationalist population
• 3. Authoritarian leadership committed to national greatness
• 4. The West being weak, liberal, and multicultural

Note to the Quota Queens - if you are boosted to leadership based on affirmative action, then you may as well try to do good in your position, rather than just being a greedy grifter.

Given all of that, if the Chinese were really the cognitive supermen of HBD fantasy, they would have achieved complete world dominance decades ago.

Counter-Currents commentator:

And I’m being generous in my definition of “white”, including not only racial Nordics like Trump, Biden, Dr. Johnson (and me), but all indigenous Europeans, including Iberians, Sicilians, Montenegrans, Greeks, etc, many of whom are scarcely indistinguishable from many lighter-skinned Turks, Persians, and Latinos...

and...

...as well as all East Europeans and ethnic Russians (many of whom have some portion of “Tartar” {ie, Central Asiatic} blood).

My response is this: Fuck you and your "generous" definition. Non-Nordic Europeans do not need or want the condescending "generous" attitude of racially smug Nordics bestowing "Whiteness" on other Europeans as if it is their God-given right to do so. That is exactly the kind of self-satisfied arrogance that creates intra-European animus and distrust. If by "White" we mean "European" then "Iberians, Sicilians, Montenegrans, Greeks" are "White" regardless of your opinion of what you think they look like. And Eastern Europeans are "White" as well, regardless of how you think they are "tainted" compared to your imperial purity. Thank you and please shut the fuck up now.

By the way, I consider this statement, vulgarity included, to be among the most important I have ever written, since it summarizes the attitude of non-Nordic Europeans to the ill-concealed racial arrogance of Nordics in the "movement."

Genuine cooperation among Europeans will not be possible as long as some perceive the existence of an intra-European hierarchy/caste system (with themselves at the top of course). No one of pride and character would be willing to accept a second -class, subaltern position - and they would be worthless as an ally if they did.

Odds and Ends, 2/26/22

In der news.

That sterling Counter-Currents judgment once again.  By the way, when is John Morgan going to stop invading Hungary?

Brief FOX News report:

Putin links Ukraine to Nazi Germany

Russian President Vladimir Putin compared the current government of Ukraine to Nazi Germany, saying that there are currently Nazi nationalists in the country that oppress the people of Ukraine.

Hey, Strom (and the other Putin fanboys) – how’s Putin's “deep chess game” coming along? Why is it that Der Movement is wrong about, literally, virtually everything?

My “take” on the current Russia-Ukraine fiasco is as follows. Russia has legitimate grievances.  However, the spectacle of one (majority) White nation invading another, in the context seen here, is unacceptable, and a line has been crossed. Der Movement may think different, but that’s my opinion. While I understand that the degenerate West may pose a political-cultural threat to Russia, the existential demographic-military threat comes from the East and the South. To invade Ukraine while turning a blind eye to Chinese infiltration of the Russian Far East is bad enough, but to pathetically try to curry favor with Jews, globalists, and unrepentant Russian communists by invoking Ukrainian “Nazis” is so pathetic that I’ve lost any and all respect for Trad Vlad. "Nazis?" Really? Why not call them “racists” as well?

Now, I don’t have too much sympathy for the Ukrainian people either – after all of their history, after what the Jews did to them, after the Holomodor, are they are so incredibly stupid to humiliate and debase themselves by selecting a Jew for their leader?  Apparently, yes, they are. Some "Nazis!" Everyone involved in this fiasco deserves condemnation. And note that while the Russians screech about non-existent “Nazis,” they are making a martyr out of the Jew. Further, European nationalists who had friendly relations with Putin are now being undermined.  A loss-loss for the White man.  As usual.

However, I can understand the timing, I can understand why Putin is doing this now.  He is not getting any younger and he no doubt believes that it is “now or never” if he ever was going to act against the Ukraine and fulfill some of his geopolitical ambitions. If he wanted to do it, it had to be done before the 2024 US Presidential election (a calculation China is likely now making about Taiwan), given the chance that the next US President may be someone else than a doddering dementia-ridden imbecile whose “woke” military cares more about gender pronouns and “White racism” than about winning wars. Optimally, getting this done before the 2022 mid-terms is best, and that is in fact what Putin is doing. Trad Vlad looks at Diaper Brandon, the giggling whore retard Harris, and congressional Democrats, and realizes that he needs to strike at a time of maximal political ineptitude in America. Given my own health problems, I also wonder if Putin may not be as healthy as his bare-chested-horse-riding-in-Siberia makes him appear. Is that another reason to get moving with his grand strategy?  That’s pure speculation on my part, and I may be merely projecting my own health woes on someone else.  I'll give credit to Putin for having "balls" - this is one hell of a gamble. It may backfire. But he probably didn't want to be in a position post-2024 regretting that he didn't pull the trigger on the invasion when he had the chance. Again, China is watching. I doubt Xi wants to have similar regrets, re: Taiwan.

However, while Putin may be successful in the (very) short-term, I see this action as a long-term catastrophic miscalculation.  People are not going to forget or forgive this, and by people I mean not only globalists and their lackeys, but also many nationalists who heretofore may have been at least somewhat favorably disposed to Putin. There are also some in Russia dissatisfied, and if this action goes sour at some point, things can become unstable there. 

By the way, this is all a very good condemnation of Johnsonian ethnonationalism as well. A stronger state invades a weaker, and all of the alliances and promises and good will of others means nothing. If Ukraine was part of an authentic pan-European Imperium, then an attack on Ukraine would be an attack on the entire Imperium and would absolutely necessitate a counter-attack by that Imperium. Of course, if Russia was also a part of the Imperium, then the whole fiasco would not occur in the first place, since a state is not going to attack itself.

The hypocrisy of America and of the “West” here is astounding.  Russia invading Ukraine is bad, but America invading Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein (which I strongly opposed at that time, if anyone reading this remembers Rienzi’s posts back then) was good.  Why?  Why does so-called “international law” oppose Russia but supported America?

One more thing, can the globalists stop saying that they are defending “freedom?” In America, Whites cannot control who they live with or who their children go to school with, there is no freedom of association, and a person who says the wrong thing is “cancelled.”  In Europe and Canada, a person who says the wrong thing is arrested and imprisoned.  In Europe, political parties are banned and sitting members of the Greek legislature are thrown into jail, merely for their opinions and political views. How is that any better than Putin?

Is Tucker Carlson legally blind?  Or is there some sort of cognitive deficiency there?

There is no place on Earth, outside of American colleges and newsrooms, where Sandy Cortez would be recognized as a "woman of color," because she's not. She's a rich, entitled White lady.

"Sandy Cortez" is OBVIOUSLY non-White, what with being a brown-skinned Hispanic with a wide, flaring nose and other phenotypic features suggesting significant levels of Negro and/or Amerind ancestry.  Do you remember Carlson’s absolute stupidity about Afghans as “White guys with beards?” He apparently believes that any person who is not, say, full-blooded Nigerian or Chinese is ‘White” and is the equivalent of any European. Does Carlson believe that if "Sandy Cortez" was walking around Madrid that she would be mistaken for a native Spaniard (*)?  It’s not like we are talking about Cameron Diaz or Marco Rubio who, regardless of the details of their actual ancestry, phenotypically present as White. Ocasio-Cortez is obviously, openly, no-doubt-about-it, racially mixed and non-White.

I realize that Der Retarded Right is, well, retarded, and being conservative makes you stupid, but this is all a bit too much. What’s next?  Jesse Jackson is an entitled White man?  Maybe he’ll tell us that Whites have no demographic crisis; after all, there are more than a billion Whites in India alone!

*In the 1990s I was at a scientific conference and was talking to a native Spaniard from Spain who was presenting a poster. The conversation went into various directions and it ended up with this young Spanish scientist telling me how offended he is that Americans confuse “those Puerto Ricans and other Hispanics with people from Spain like me.” Wherever that guy is today, let’s hope he doesn’t hear or read Carlson’s stupidity or else he might get apoplexy.

See this.  Apparently, Carlson has no problem with “White supremacists” not being able to find work for their entire lives; his only problem seems to be if someone is falsely accused of being a “White supremacist.”  Freedom!  Democracy!

I’m also tired of Carlson and other FOX News cuckservatives with their screeching about “freedom,” including the hysteria over the Canada trucker protest and Trudeau’s authoritarianism.  Yes, I agree with the concern about Canada.  But it’s not like they had any “freedom” there in Canada before covid.  They have, like Europe, restrictive “hate speech” laws that allow people to be imprisoned for expressing dissident opinions on controversial topics. Freedom? How about America, the good old USA, that hasn’t had freedom of association since Brown vs. Board of Education, and even more definitely not since the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Freedom?  And how is free speech doing in America these days, as private entities, with government guidance, deplatform and “cancel” dissidents, and as the authorities enable leftist thugs to attack legal rightist rallies?  That’s all OK with the cucks, but as soon as someone tells them that their delicate shoulders need to be “jabbed” with the “toxic killshot" then hysteria ensues. Blacks are, literally, a thousand times more dangerous than any covid vaccine, but enforced racial integration is met with benign smiles from the cucks, while vaccination during a pandemic is what they’ve decided to make their stand on, re: “freedom.”

See this.  I’m actually more concerned about the opposite – people of part-Italian ancestry or, worse, no Italian ancestry, some of whom are non-White (including mixed race – some of the part-Italians fit here), posing as Italians.

Look at this incredible stupidity.

(BTW, Danza is 80% Italian, 10% Greece/Albania, 7% Middle East, and 3% Cyprus.)

Translation: Testing company parental reference samples are deficient in Southern Italian (particularly, Sicilian) samples; thus, someone like Danza gets results such as that shown, which is not accurately and precisely reflective of his actual ancestry. That sort of testing is supervised admixture analysis. Thus, based on the reference samples in the company database, Danza’s genome appears to be “80% Italian, 10% Greece/Albania, 7% Middle East, and 3% Cyprus.”  Once the company does an “update” and changes the composition of the parental samples, those percentages will no doubt also change.  Likely, if the company added several thousand Sicilian samples to their "Italian database," Danza’s results would be in the 95-100% "Italian" range. Stop taking these results, particularly the minority percentages, at face value. The testing companies are in my opinion misleading the public if they are promoting their products as an accurate and precise measure for all customers.

Of course, given the large genetic distance between sub-Saharan African and European (e.g., British) genetics, and the hefty representation of “Anglos” in company databases, the Gates and Crews measurements are probably in an approximate range of reasonableness (given statistical error). Others, like Danza, are not so lucky.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that most Blacks, with their mixed DNA, are closer to being WASPs than we are – Tony Danza doesn’t have an ounce of English genes.

Huh?  If one was to consider actual genealogical ancestry, or consider specific chromosome blocs, then that statement may have some validity.  But by using the word “closer” this buffoon is suggesting genetic distance.  Of course, any European, including Italians, are going to be “closer” to WASPs than are “African-Americans” with 15-50% “WASP” ancestry. Identical by descent and identical by state is still identical; further, when talking about members of the same broader race, identical by state is simply a deeper, and more ancient, form of identical by descent. One doesn't need "English genes" to be genetically closer to English than is some mulatto. Genetic similarity can exist even without a recent ethnic-genealogical connection. It’s good to see that complete ignorance of subject matter doesn’t prevent Mancini from commenting on issues that he knows nothing about.

See this. Well, gee, imagine that. You become a “Playboy Bunny” and then you claim (years later, of course) that some nasty sex-related things happened to you. Assuming that the claims are true – what did they expect?  This is why some of us claim that women have no agency.  At best they are silly children; at worst, they are malicious harpies (still with the mentality of children).

Of course they were.  God forbid that men as teammates can maintain their friendship without women ruining it.

The truth will be known.  But of course HBD filth will continue to peddle Chinese lies. HBD is nothing more or less than a political movement to promote Asian and Jewish interests over those of Whites.

See this.

One reason I advocate “big tent” nationalism is that you really can’t purge people from a decentralized movement anyway…

Why not?  It’s worked with the dastardly Ted Sallis, no?

…so it is best to try to live with them.

You mean, instead of "banning" them and calling them "insane?" What a disgusting hypocrite.  Let’s purge Johnson instead..

And after all of the failures, after the collapse of the Alt Right and Alt Lite, Johnson still promotes “big tent." Ah, well, why not?  It increases the scope for D’Nations. Uppity White Folks White nationalism!  WN 4.0!

Basically, my attitude toward Fuentes/America First is the same as for the Alt Right.  I oppose it, I, think it is stupidly juvenile and destructive, and believe that it has a limited shelf-life.  I’m going to sit back and watch it all implode. Then we can enjoy the spectacle of Johnson/Counter-Currents pretending that they never promoted Fuentes, and that they never advocated for a big tent including the wonderfully uppity and effective America First.  You just watch.  I don’t know how long this may take – the 2024 election cycle may sustain America First for a bit, particularly if Trump runs.  But the idea that this is any way metastable and will last significantly post-Trump is, in my opinion, untenable.

Readers know I support fascism, including a pan-European form of National Socialism. That does not mean I envision a potential future fascist America as a copy of Nazi Germany. The historical experience of fascism was that it manifested differently in different nations. An authentic American fascism, even as a  racialized national socialist state, would be in many ways quite different from what manifested in, e.g.,  Germany. Thus, American fascism would likely be less regimented, less overtly controlling, than historical European fascisms.  After all, if the state has de facto control over the news and entertainment media, as well as the education system and academia, you can get people to do what you want without being a 1984-style, overtly controlling, “jackboot” state.  Look how successful the Jews have been in controlling the sheeple while allowing the sheeple to think that they have “freedom.”

A completely lunatic foray into the most extreme fever swamps of irrational, counterfactual Nordicism. With all of the archaeogenetic studies out there, in addition to population genetics studies of modern populations, the fact that such shameful stupidity appears at TOO certifies that MacDonald is hopelessly lost. And of course, the anti-White HBD Jew Unz site features that article, which invokes the usual Sallis' Law lies about Ancient Rome and Italy.

Analytical Fascist Folly

A poor analysis. Emphasis added, reference footnote markers deleted.

See this.

Fascism believes in the superiority of the nation.

Is that it?  Nothing else?

“The nation” refers to a collection of people bound together by race, ethnicity, or culture. 

See below for my critical analysis of a nation based on religion. This idiot contradicts herself on these matters, as we shall see.

Germans and Italians are examples of nations. 

Tell that to the Left.

The way to achieve national superiority is through the state. The ultimate goal of the major fascist regimes that have existed, like the regimes of the Italian Fascist Party and the German Nazi Party, was to pursue national greatness. 

Since Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were the only fascist regimes that ever existed, the word “like” wasn’t necessary. Is pursuing “national greatness” the only aim of fascism? If that’s the case, then the majority of nations throughout history have been fascist. Trump’s MAGA agenda is therefore fascist, China is fascist, Singapore is fascist; most colored nations today are fascist. That is absurd. Roger Griffin’s definition of fascism as “palingenetic ultra-nationalism” is more realistic. “National greatness” is a superficial definition.

Mussolini intended to “guide the material and moral progress of the [Italian] community.” Hitler planned to return the German nation to its position as “the culture-founder of this earth.” Hitler and Mussolini wanted to place the nation above all other bases of loyalty, including class relations and religion.

That’s more than just run-of-the-mill “national greatness.”

The type of state needed to fulfill this goal is anti-democratic and totalitarian. 

Sounds more and more like today’s America.

Such a state is anti-democratic because it eliminates democratic institutions, like the electoral, parliamentary, and multiparty systems, that frustrate this goal of national greatness. Democratic elections are problematic because the masses elect candidates who appeal to the masses’ self-interest. 

The naiveté here is amazing. Democracies to a large extent have become elitist oligarchies where self-interested elites control the electoral process, and when the “masses” elect someone, like Trump, who are not to the elite's taste, then the elites sabotage the candidate's agenda and prevent the “self-interest” of the masses from being actualized.

This does not guarantee that the candidates have the nation’s interest in mind. 

When do they ever?  Again, it are the interests of oligarchic elites that the candidates have in mind.

This weakens the state and, ultimately, the nation.

Indeed.

Parliament is problematic because the parties in it spend more time arguing than implementing policies. Indeed, Hitler referred to Parliament as a “twaddling shop” for this reason. Other parties are problematic because, by competing with fascist parties to gain power, they prevent fascist parties from pursuing the ultranationalist goal. The state is totalitarian because it controls aspects of citizens’ lives, such as their leisure time, education, and political activity, to ensure that the citizens support the regime’s goal. Fascism, as defined in this paper, is the ideology of nationalism upheld by an anti-democratic and totalitarian state.

Again – is today’s China fascist?  The definition given here is inferior to that of Griffin.

Some Enabling Conditions for Fascism

Fascism generally flourishes in countries with strong nationalism and weak democracies. 

Did Italy have “strong nationalism” before fascism?

Strong nationalism attracts people to fascism’s ultranationalist goals. “Weak democracy” has two meanings, both of which enable fascism to flourish. A democracy is weak in that it is incompetent and unresponsive. 

Hello, America! 

Consequently, citizens become disenchanted with it and are willing to abandon it for another regime type. 

Sounds a lot like today's America.

A weak democracy also refers to a democratic tradition that is fairly new and not strongly entrenched. This also enables fascism to flourish because it is easier to replace this type of democracy with another regime.

There may be some truth here, but in my opinion it is not a major issue.

Enabling Conditions Applied to Italy and Germany

All these conditions apply to the political and social situations in post- World War One Germany and Italy. Nationalism, in the form of national resentment, was potent. Italians and Germans believed that their national pride had been humiliated. Italians felt this way because they believed their country had not been awarded the amount of territory it should have been awarded after World War One ended.

So?  I don’t think that’s sufficient for “strong nationalism.”

Germans felt this way because their government had accepted the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty required Germany to accept the blame for starting World War One and imposed harsh reparations, as well as substantial territorial concessions, on Germany. The Fascist and Nazi parties were appealing because they promised to restore the national greatness that citizens felt was lacking.

Appealing?  Isn’t “appealing” to the people something “democrats” would support?  See below for the author being contradictory when she claims that extant rightist parties cannot be fascist if they appeal to citizens' interests (as if the interests of citizens and that of the nation never overlap), yet here we see that the Fascist and Nazi parties were doing just that.  After all, why can't citizens have a strong interest in the greatness of their nation?

Italian and German democracies, and democratic traditions, were weak. Both countries had unified and become democracies relatively late. Italy unified between 1860 and 1870, and Germany unified around 1870.

Yet they had “strong nationalism?” Really?

Their parliaments were rather unresponsive to citizens’ needs. For example, neither the German nor Italian parliament was able to stem the post-World War One economic crises, and rises in unemployment, in their countries. As a consequence of all these factors, Italian and German citizens were willing to support fascism.

Well, then, the desires of the masses were actualized.  Democracy in action!

Extreme Right Parties and Fascism

Extreme right parties in Europe share ideological aspects with fascism. For this reason, they are sometimes considered neofascist parties: parties that are the contemporary incarnation of fascism. For instance, the extreme right parties desire to advance the nation by getting rid of all immigrants. The parties believe that immigration ruins the nation. The parties contend that immigrants cause citizens of the host country to become unemployed. 

All true.

As Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the FN (Front National) in France, once said, “1 million unemployed- this means 1 million foreigners too many.” Immigrants also allegedly ruin national culture by preserving their own customs instead of adopting those of their host country. Ridding the country of immigrants will stop these problems and ultimately benefit the nation.

Note that in this analysis there is no mention of demographic replacement. See why you can’t trust leftist analysts?

Immigration engenders a condition that enables fascism to arise: national resentment. The extreme right parties’ unfavorable views regarding immigrants reflect the citizens’. 

Again – democracy in action. Why shouldn’t the citizens’ views be respected? Why should so-called democracies support oligarchic elite interests over those of citizens? Note that the author admits a convergence of national interests, as perceived by Far Right political parties, with the interests of citizens, with respect to immigration..

In addition, many citizens believe that immigrants appropriate welfare benefits that should go to citizens instead. Immigrants are also commonly believed to commit crimes against citizens. 

All true.

Indeed, the national resentment directed towards immigrants is a combination of indignation and fear. It should be noted, however, that the condition of national resentment by itself is not sufficient to engender fascism. The combination of national resentment and weak democracy offer a better opportunity for fascism to rise.

This analysis reads like a middle school term paper written the night before it was due.

The democratic conditions within which these parties operate ultimately do not allow fascism to flourish. 

Well, sure, if “democratic” nations ban free speech, imprison dissidents, actually arrest and imprison elected officials, enable gangs of leftist thugs to attack rightists with impunity and then arrest rightists who defend themselves, and in some cases, openly ban “fascist” parties, then I suppose that these “democratic conditions” won’t allow dissident politics “to flourish.”

Democracy is more deeply entrenched during the contemporary era than it was in the post-World War One era. 

See my preceding comment.

While Nazis and Fascists managed to overthrow the democratic regimes in their countries, there are now supranational and national barriers that discourage this from happening. 

So - "supranational and national barriers," in other words, coercion based on state power. And then we are supposed to be surprised that "democratic conditions" prevent the rise of Far Right dissident politics?

Many extreme right parties operate in countries that are part of the European Union: the FN of France, the AN (Alleanza Nationale) of Italy, the BNP (British National Party) of the United Kingdom, and the FPO (Austrian Freedom Party) of Austria (among others). As members of the European Union, these countries are required to have, and maintain, a democratic regime.

In other words, repression of dissent and oppression of the interests of the native majority population.

Moreover, the general mindset within many of these countries is democratically predisposed.

Yes, which is why they require state power and coercion to maintain being “democratically predisposed.”

Indeed, the extreme right has “sought to render [itself] acceptable in an age assumed to be democratic.” The extreme right parties have had to conform to citizens’ expectations of their governments in order to gain electoral support.

Excuse me, you mendacious retard, the parties would be banned and/or otherwise forcibly suppressed if they acted otherwise.

Democracy prevents fascism. In order to implement fascism, a state needs to be anti-democratic. 

These sorts of childishly simplistic statements do not benefit serious analysis.

However, given supranational and national conditions, the state in European countries is democratic. 

And if you disagree, you’ll be fined or jailed, you Nazi!

If fascism were to adapt to these democratic conditions, it would cease to exist. 

How about that dissidents try to evade authoritarian state coercion?

Indeed, it would become a new ideology: national-populism. National-populism results from “a conscious effort to update fascism and render it viable in changed [democratic] conditions.” The AN exemplifies this transformation. Before it became the AN, this party was called the MSI (Movimento Sociale Italiano). The MSI was considered neofascist because it was a descendant of an earlier, quasi-fascist party. However, once the MSI “accepted democracy as a system of values,” it morphed into the AN, a national-populist party.

That is one example. We all know about mainstreaming and we all know it always fails.  In any case, if being openly “fascist” means that the party will be banned and its leaders and members jailed, then what do you expect?  And then, if the fascists respond by forming an illegal underground movement, that’s considered “evidence” of “violent tendencies” and used to justify more anti-democratic repression.

The extreme right parties, which are often called neofascist, are actually national-populist.

Do they have a choice?

Moreover, democracy changes the nature of the goal that national-populist parties and fascism share in common. According to fascism, the way to advance the nation is to have a leader who embodies the will of the people. This person, not the people themselves, knows best what is in the nation’s interest.

Didn’t this idiot earlier write that Italian Fascists and German Nazis appealed to the desires of the people?

National-populist parties do not take this approach. Instead, they advocate direct democracy initiatives, such as the referendum, because such initiatives enable citizens’ preferences to be heard.

And because if they advocated otherwise their parties would be banned and their leaders and members jailed, you mendacious moron. And didn't Italian Fascists and German Nazis also "enable citizen preferences," which you suggested above?

However, from a fascist perspective, these preferences only take into account the citizens’ individual interests, not the collective interests of the nation.

That statement is made after the she wrote that historical fascists appealed to citizens’ desires and interests, and after she wrote that the anti-immigration views of extant “nationalist-populist” parties - that would be in “the collective interests of the nation" - are shared by many citizens..

Individual interests are different from the national interest.  

All the time? What about immigration? That statement contradicts what she already suggested.

So national-populists are not advancing the nation when they advocate direct democracy. Ultimately, then, they are not fascist in practice or in theory.

Read all of the above, including my critiques. The analysis here is pitifully flawed. This “analyst” doesn’t understand the protean nature of fascism and its ability to manifest palingenetic ultra-nationalism in different ways in different environments. That’s not to say that I believe that the nationalist-populist parties of Europe are fascist.  However, the author’s reasoning and argumentation are flawed to the point of delusion (or extreme mendacity).

Radical Islam and Fascism

The conditions within which the extreme right/national-populist parties operate are not identical to those in which the Fascist and Nazi parties operated. However, the conditions are at least comparable. 

This statement in my opinion essentially seriously weakens, if not invalidates, some of the major arguments made by the author above. It is unrealistic in the extreme to expect identical conditions between eras and nations; by that standard, reproducing almost any political movement would be impossible. Identical conditions never exist. However, comparable conditions can exist and that is the most that can be reasonably expected.  Therefore, if “the conditions are at least comparable,” then that is sufficient to allow for the possibility of similar political developments.

This is not the case for radical Islamic movements and the Fascist and Nazi parties. Religion was not a significantly important issue during the time the Fascist and Nazi parties of Italy and Germany were active. 

So?

Although the Nazi Party’s extermination of Jewish people appears to be religious persecution, being Jewish was considered a racial, rather than a religious, trait. 

That’s so obvious to any student of Nazism, what is the point of writing “the Nazi Party’s extermination of Jewish people appears to be religious persecution?” This entire piece reads as if it was written by a cognitively deficient middle school student.

To determine whether radical Islam is a manifestation of fascism, one must analyze its ideology.

No kidding.

Radical Islam is similar to fascism in terms of the type of state it envisions.

Really?

The radical Islamic state is anti-democratic. 

That’s the definition of a fascist state? 

I’m going to skip some of the more unimportant discussion of Islam and fascism as it is not of significant interest to the Sallis Groupuscule. The key points for this section are as follows.

Another way to understand fascism and radical Islam’s beliefs on what takes ultimate precedence is to look at what they think is the most important quality in an individual or group. Since the nation takes ultimate precedence for fascists, national origin is the defining quality of an individual. 

Or race. But then, White nationalism should mean Our Race Is Our Nation, so then race and and nation can mean the same thing.

Fascism led people to believe that their job position or social rank was not fundamentally important. Whether or not they were German or Italian, however, was crucial.

The racial aspects of German National Socialism complicates this. Germanic foreigners, particularly Nordics, were not really in the “alien” category.

The same pattern applies to radical Islamic groups. Since Islam is paramount, Muslim identity is the defining quality. Hamas, for example, claims to welcome “every Muslim who embraces its faith, ideology, [and] follows its program.” The Muslim Brotherhood works “to achieve unification among the Islamic countries and states.” The fact that the nationality of Muslims who can join Hamas, or of the countries the Muslim Brotherhood wants to unite, is not specified suggests that it is not as important as the religion. Given the goal of the radical Islamic movements, as well as the relative unimportance of national origin, radical Islamic movements are not fascist.

That is such a laughably simplistic and childish argument I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.  How does one define a nation?  If Fascism is “palingenetic ultra-nationalism” (or even taking this author's definition about "national greatness") and if some Muslims define a worldwide faith-based Islamic nation, then why are “radical Islamic movements” not fascist by this “national origin” criterion? I’m not saying that these movements are fascist, just that the author’s argument is stupid. 

Note what the author wrote above: “The nation’ refers to a collection of people bound together by race, ethnicity, or culture.” Religion is part of culture. So, this author completely contradicts herself.  

Basically:

• She says a nation can be based on culture.
• Any reasonable person will consider religion as part of culture.
• She suggests that radical Islamic movements typically consider every faithful Muslim to be part of the group – a culture (religion)-based group membership – thus, a culture-based nation.
• The author then says that these movements are not fascist because they are not based on national origin.
• Thus, the original assertion that a nation can be based on culture is contradicted by the idea that a religion-based grouping is not a nation and hence, not fascist.

I understand that women are irrational and illogical, but this rises to laughable levels.

However, there is a subset of fascism called clerical fascism. Clerical fascist movements are as religious as they are nationalistic. The Hungarian Arrow Cross, which was active during the 1930’s, can be considered a clerical fascist group, in that it believed religion and nationalism were equally important. 

OK.

Indeed, the Arrow Cross believed that religion was a pillar of the nation. Ferencz Szalasi, the leader of the Arrow Cross, explained that “when the Army sees that in the nation the three pillars of Religion, Patriotism, and Discipline have been shaken, then it is the duty of the Army to force the nation back on to these pillars.”The Iron Guard, a Romanian group that operated around the 1930’s, is also thought to be clerical fascist. The Iron Guard “saw the Romanian Orthodox religion as coterminous with Romanian nationality….”

My readers know that I am a strong supporter of the Legionary Movement (which this ignorant author summarizes as merely “The Iron Guard, a Romanian group that operated around the 1930’s”), even though I an anti-religion and anti-Christianity. That’s because the main foundation of that movement was not the Romanian Orthodox religion but The New Man.  Yes, religion was one fundamental pillar of the movement, and, yes, The New Man was to be a Christian in their worldview, but, still, the (religious) characteristics of The New Man are secondary to the concept itself, which can be adopted to other, including non-religious, contexts.

Although these groups gave equal priority to both nationalism and religion, they are still generally considered fascist. Are radical Islamic movements examples of clerical fascism?

A balance between nation and religion in radical Islamic movements is difficult to discern. Religion is paramount for the radical Islamic movements. For example, although the Muslim Brotherhood operates in Egypt, its mission statement hardly ever refers to Egyptians. When it does implicate Egyptians, it refers to them as Muslims, not as Egyptians. The mission statement says, “Indeed, the present atmosphere of suppression, instability, and anxiety has forced many of the young men of [Egypt] to commit acts of terrorism….we request all Muslims to abandon such actions and return to the right way.” Moreover, some radical Islamic movements operate in different states simultaneously. Al Qaeda, for example, is active in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. It is difficult for such a widespread movement to claim that its religion, like the Romanian Orthodox religion, is uniquely coterminous with a particular nationality. Ultimately, then, these radical Islamic movements are neither fascist nor clerical fascist.

See my critiques above. This argument by the author is based on confusion between nation and state and is also based on a strictly ethnic basis of a nation. Now, I agree that such an ethnic (broadly defined as "ethny") basis is historically typical and is desirable from an EGI standpoint, but, again, I see no reason why nation, and, hence, nationality, cannot be based on a religious identity. Consider the Jews. Does the author agree with the Far Right standpoint of Jewish ethnic-racial identity?  If not, then are Jews not a nation? And can't the definition of “Jew” include both ethnic identity as well as religious belief?  What is the basis of Israel?  Note that Israel accepts Jews who are racially alien to the core Ashkenazi-Sephardi-Middle Eastern core ethny. So, if a “Jewish nation” exists that has an Ashkenazi-Sephardi-Middle Eastern core ethny but accepts others who share the same Jewish religious identity as the ethnic core, then why can’t Islam similarly be a nation with an non-European Caucasian (NEC) core ethny with associated non-NEC groups that share the same the faith?  Once again: “The nation’ refers to a collection of people bound together by race, ethnicity, or culture.”

Conclusion

Neither extreme right parties, nor radical Islamic groups, are fascist. Indeed, in regards to the extreme right, or nation-populist, parties, democracy appears to be an effective antidote to fascism. 

Imbecilic analysis. If democracy is just an “effective antidote to fascism” then why do such “democratic” states need to use de jure (“state power” so beloved by Griffin) – as in Europe – and/or de facto (social pricing, violent attacks by groups implicitly supported by the System) – as in America – approaches to suppress fascism? If fascism is so weak and impossible against the “effective antidote” of democracy, then why does the vaunted democracy need to use coercive, anti-democratic (“fascistic?) methods to prevent the growth and popularity of fascist movements? Why not just have a free marketplace of ideas and let fascism fail because of its alleged weaknesses against resurgent liberal democracy? What are liberal democrats so afraid of?

However, just because democracy has proven to be successful against fascism in this particular situation, it does not guarantee that democracy will always be successful. One cannot predict with certainty what democratic conditions will be like in the future or what types of political parties will exist. 

So, here the author essentially backtracks on the major points of this essay. What a mess. What’s the point of this “analysis” then?  Yes, at the current moment in time, the situation is not propitious for overt fascism. So?

Similarly, while the ideology of radical Islamic groups is not currently compatible with fascism, or even clerical fascism, there is always a possibility that the radical Islamic paradigm will evolve so that it does become fascist in some way.

Huh?  After telling us – in an incoherent illogical fashion – that radical Islam cannot be fascist, now we are told it could be “in some way” if it “evolves” to do so. How? To become associated with particular racial or ethnic groups?  But the author has told us that cultural national groups are sufficient for fascism, and if religion is part of culture, and I think most people would say it is, then the conditions exist for Islamic fascism today, even without a need to “evolve.”

Ultimately, just because fascism does not presently exist in these scenarios does not mean it never will.

Then the point of this essay is what exactly? The essay makes a number of (sometimes self-contradictory) arguments, and then ends by saying, well, everything concluded from these arguments may change and it all could no longer be valid.  Female analysis at its finest.

The real conclusion is that genuine fascists should take comfort that they are so poorly understood by anti-fascist analysts, including academics. These analysists are so blinded by their ideological biases that they cannot analyze objectively, and they are so emotionally invested in liberal democracy, and so repulsed by authentic manifestations of fascism, that they cannot approach the subject with the intense, up-close (objective) scrutiny required, and they cannot effectively approach and interface with genuine fascists (at most, they interview moronic Quota Queens who leverage publicity for money and power within the “movement”). That the analysts are personally inept – and in some cases are women – further damages their ability to effectively dissect real extant fascism. 

And that’s all for the good.