Announcement

 FYI.

Because of medical issues that need to be prioritized and resolved I will not be blogging or Gabbing for a period of time. At minimum a number of weeks, very possibly months (or longer).

Odds and Ends, 1/29/22

In der news.

Sir Nordic is displeased with Dalton.

Some years ago I used my 1967 high school yearbook to calculate the proportion of blonds in my graduating class, many of whom I’d know since elementary school. I limited the survey to those of presumably northern European ancestry and found that 48% of the 224 males and 43% of the 266 females were blond.

With scientific analyses like that it's no mystery why Der Movement has gone from one success to another.

See this.

...higher rates of false positives on one-to-one algorithms for Asian and African American faces than Caucasian faces. Depending on the algorithm, those rates could be "10 to 100 times" higher, the researchers said.

First, don't use "Caucasian" to describe people of European descent, you anti-White racist scumbags. Why don't you use Mongoloid and Negroid as well?

Second, the reason for the "false positives" is that the stereotypes are true - Asians all look the same and Blacks all look the same.

"(In late 2020, Hall said call delays in California were partly related to Nigerian cyberattacks.)

Your biometric data are really secure then.

ID.me has attempted to address concerns by publishing technical reports such as a 25-page white paper defending the technology's use in promoting "access, equity and inclusion... 

So, it's all good!

Here's a thought - how about cracking down on those who commit identity theft (a heavily non-White group) instead of making White citizens jump through the hoops on hours-long verification programs?

Anarcho-tyranny, indeed.

Sallis' Law is running wild on this Amren thread. Please keep in mind that the topic of the article is someone being banned from YouTube, re: covid comments, and it is now about "racially mixed Sicilians."

It's a perfect textbook case of Sallis' Law.

So, in the mini-series The Pacific, John Basilone is played by strange-looking Puerto Rican Jon Seda. Gee. there must be a shortage of Italian-American actors, eh? Goes to show you - you can win the Medal of Honor and Navy Cross, and die for your country, but you'll still be racially humiliated by Hollywood. Just another Afrowop, amirite?

Left out of this recreation is the widow telling the parents that their son would be portrayed by a Puerto Rican 65 years later

Gaston from Gab:  

1)>According to types 1: (southern) Italians are highly collectivistic.

>According to reality: Wops' problems stem from a lack of interest and engagement in collective social goods.

2)>According to types 1: (southern) Italians are Jews' partners in hollywood.

>According to reality: it is almost easier to find a triple digit IQ negro than an actual ethnic Italian playing an Italian character.

It's harder to get the facts wronger than der Movement.

Indeed.  I've long argued that amoral familism is completely different from collectivism.  I'm not alone in thinking that, and it is not only swarthoids who question the "movement" consensus. As far as Hollywood goes, it seems that they more often pick a non-White to play a wop than they actually choose an actual wop.

See this.

...how the beautiful, blonde-haired, blue-eyed sub-race of Nordics seems to be specifically targeted for replacement. "

My wife’s father was an ashkenazi jew....My wife...is of course genetically 1/2 ashkenazi, and thus our children are, on average, genetically 1/4 ashkenazi.

Rather than having me point put how that all fits with the HBD-Nordicist alliance, I'll let you ponder it.

Rosie and the Kids!

More of the Same, 1/27/22

TOO again.

Henry Savage alerts us to this.  Excerpts:

And their striking physical appearance came to be the visible sign of such a noble personage. In this way, blue eyes, blondness, and very white skin came to be seen as good, rare, desirable, and beautiful—perhaps divinely-inspired, perhaps godly.[3]

When it came to formalizing the official gods and myths of the various European cultures, then, it is unsurprising to find that the southern Europeans, in particular, would construct their gods and heroes in the image of these divine northerners. 

...it shows that the Nordic/Aryan aesthetic is not just a matter of “good looks.” It is a reflection of a long genetic history in northern climates, and is a parallel marker with several positive human qualities: creative, trusting, culture-building, sociable, intelligent. The same evolutionary forces that gave people blond hair, blue eyes, and white skin also gave them a number of salutary virtues.

And then we can look at entire nations. Not long ago, Lynn and Meisenberg (2010) calculated average IQs for 108 countries. Looking just within Europe, we find a significant difference between the four Nordic nations (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark) and, for example, four south-European nations (Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal); the former average 99, and latter 95. Not a huge difference, but still significant.[16] Once again, this is in line with our expectations.

The blue-eyed blonds were smarter, more skilled, more industrious, and more robust.  They were more creative.  They were idealistic and altruistic.  They knew how to build and sustain civilizations.  They were, in short, better people.

But, of course, any observation of "movement" Nordicism and affirmative action is just my "insanity" and "paranoia."

If only the High Trusters would apply these standards with respect to their obsession with Oriental females. But, alas....Rosie and the Kids!

Gaston from Gab comments:

What is absolutely mindboggling is the fact that even a cursory knowledge about Greek mythology (which would later lend its imagery to the Romans) would refute such a delusional claim, as there were more dark haired and eyed gods than fair haired and eyed gods.

Even more embarassing is that actually ancient Greeks did write about their "racial ideal" in various works on physiognomy (as everyone with a cursory knowledge about such topics would or ought to know) and it wasn't blond and blue eyed, rather it was medium brown haired and eyed, not surprising for a folk almost obsessed with the golden mean ( I am referring to Adamantius's passage often mistranslated to forward nordic revisionism).

On the other hand it is indeed true they also referred to themselves as having white skin, but it's not surprising to anyone that knows how southern Europeans look like (though it seems this isn't the case for many people in der movement).

The mention of fair traits as blue eyes and blond hair isn't rare at all in the ancient literature but again anyone that has taken a stroll even in the very outskirts of Europe knows that neither are they rare in those places, so by analogy and by the results of archeogenetics it is safe to assume fair traits weren't rare in ancient Greece either (a minority but still a sizeable minority), thus the most obvious explanations is that blond and/or blue eyed gods weren't modelled after nordics but trivially after the traits some Greeks had.

I agree.

Getting back to Dalton's essay, I can assume that my critics will respond to my post here by asking what the problem is. They will aver that Dalton is simply expressing opinions and preferences, interpreting ancient authors, and citing some IQ data.  What's the big deal?  Why are swarthoids so "over-sensitive?"

Now, true, Dalton's essay, in isolation, is not a big deal at all, and is not even worth mentioning, apart from perhaps ridiculing it (or commenting as Gaston has done).  However, it is not "in isolation." It is yet another in an endless series of examples of Der Movement's views on these issues, the fundamental fossilized dogma expressed in numberless "movement" books, texts, articles, comments and commentaries, videos, statements, etc. going back to Der Movement's very beginning. These attitudes are the core of why Der Movement has a rigid ethnic affirmative action program that elevates inept idiots and grifters to positions of leadership while rejecting others who are objectively more qualified, it is the reason why White ethnics (particularly Southern Europeans but many Eastern Europeans as well) are eschewed and/or treated with contempt, leading those people to become alienated from pro-White activism, it is part of the endless litany of ethnic fetishism that led to Sallis' Law as well as to The Hermansson Humiliation. So, no, the Dalton piece is not just an isolated opinion piece, but it an expression of one of the (if not the primary) fundamental problems Der Movement has. It is another "brick in the wall" that shuts out the ethnics, it is another pillar of the affirmative action program, it is another statement of Der Movement's intra-European hierarchy and its expectation that White ethnics will play the fool and be content with a degraded, subaltern, second-class (if at that) status.

America is Ready for Some Movement Reality

A riposte to a Counter-Currents article.

First, Robert Wallace:

Your pessimism is simply not grounded in reality, my friend. I suggest you listen to my radio interview and refer to the original article and its comment section. No one has come up with a convincing case against Greg and I yet.

Excuse me you mendacious moron, Greg Johnson censors and bans people from his blog and refuses to debate people who could "come up with a convincing case against Greg and I."

It’s real easy to say opponents don’t have a “convincing case” against you when you ignore said opponents, refuse to engage with them and debate them, and censor/ban them from commenting on your website. Under those conditions, you’ll find a lack of effective ripostes, no doubt.

As we can see, character is not a strong point in Der Movement.

To the essay:

American patriots are hungry for white identity politics. It was inevitable. White nations are being wrecked by non-whites acting as tribal blocs. Whites are being attacked as a tribal bloc. Eventually, whites will start fighting back as a tribal bloc.

Sure!  I have been hearing that now for only twenty-five years now.  See this, which is several years out-of-date already.  White folks are waking up!  They need to wake up a bit faster, since they’ve hit the “snooze” button for at least the last quarter century.

Whites have been slow to respond in kind because of traitorous leaders and the silly idea that identity politics is bad, but only for white people. 

Yes, and also because the pro-White “movement” (Der Movement) has been an utter and complete failure, led by affirmative action grifters and populated by a bunch of freaks.

Still, it was only a matter of time before white Americans woke up and started fighting back as whites. Polling data now shows that the awakening is here:[material deleted]

You can read that alleged evidence and the links in the original Counter-Currents article. The details really aren’t all that important, since typical and predictable Der Movement failure will, with clockwork regularity, waste the opportunity, and, once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The people who are most surprised by this are long-time white advocates, some of whom have been predicting for decades that such an awakening is inevitable. 

Yes, indeed, we’ve been hearing this for decades and it is tiresome.

It is true that white identity was almost nonexistent as recently as the 1990s. 

Were you involved in Der Movement in the 1990s? “Almost nonexistent” is a vast exaggeration. It was less than today - that is true enough. But "almost nonexistent?"

But due to Obama, Trump, Black Lives Matter, the Great Replacement, and open anti-white hatred, whites have caught on to their group interests. 

Really?  Yes, I know opinion polls and other pieces of evidence are moving somewhat in that direction.  But to conclude that “whites have caught on to their group interests” is delusional.  This is the result of people in their little cul-de-sacs, fueling their beliefs, and reading too much into an uptick in White disillusionment, which may or may not be permanent.  If “whites have caught on to their group interests” Trump would have won in 2020 (putting aside accusations of election fraud), and Whites would be more actively resisting the Left.  Further, the “whites have caught on to their group interests” is not evenly distributed among the White population. Such a “catching on” is enriched among less educated, working class, red state Whites, and less extant among educated professionals. I can tell you that the antics of the pro-White “movement” have alienated STEM people. There is a vicious cycle in which the subset of Whites that Der Movement focuses on, and the behavior of Der Movement, alienates other elements of the White population, including elements that will ultimately be required for eventual victory. The more those people are alienated, the more we have pro-White Whites being concentrated on the aforementioned red state elements (think FOX News viewers and Gab users), resulting in more alienation of others, etc. This is not a blueprint for success.

This will only intensify as white Americans continue to be assaulted, and there is no reason to think that our enemies have the foresight and self-control to moderate their attack.

Perhaps. It may be that those “enemies” have at least a vague, even unconscious and incoherent, understanding of Suvorov’s Law – of they pull back and moderate, this would empower the pro-White side and give pro-Whites legitimacy and momentum.

Of course, this awakening is a cause for celebration for white advocates. 

Of course – the typical victory psychosis of Der Right. Prematurely celebrate false, empty victories.

But we can’t rest on our laurels. 

Particularly since you haven’t actually accomplished anything yet.  All of the “good news” - to the extent it is real - has come from sociopolitical trends and events that Der Movement had little to nothing to do with.

Now is the moment to push harder than ever. 

Yes, more Pepe and Kek, more Spencer screaming, more Gaslight Greg fundraising, more $340K “executive compensation” for Mophead, and more multiracial Rosie and the Kids White nationalism.

Although white Americans are hungry for our message, in the upcoming elections, the Republican Party and conservative movement are poised to harvest white discontent–and then channel it into more business as usual: tax cuts for billionaires, giveaways to Our Greatest Ally, Platinum Pandering to non-whites, and color-blind civic nationalism for whites. 

And that’s exactly what will happen. The safety valve will release some White discontent, Bubba Gabster will declare victory, and Der Movement will gibber about “Savitri Devi,” Kali Yuga,” and being “snug in your hobbit hole.”

But responding to anti-white identity politics with Republican pabulum is like taking a knife to a gunfight. 

This Wallace seems like a relative newcomer to Der Movement who breathlessly prattles trite memes like this, commentaries that some of us have been hearing for decades.

It is time to face the truth: these people promote a losing strategy because they want us to lose. Stop listening to them.

Yes, but it is not only Republicans who fit this description. What about the Grand Poobah Quota queens.

What should white advocates do?

Drop Der Movement and join with reasonable activists to build a New Movement.

First, we need to keep promoting our message…

More of the same, more of the same endless failure, freakish behavior, and other nonsense. And of course, send more money to the Quota Queens.

…whites are being attacked as whites, and we need to defend ourselves as whites. 

More of the same old message. Forget about the last quarter century, Der Movement has been saying these things since at least the days of Rockwell.

When the Republicans are swept back into power in November, millions of whites will want to go back to sleep. 

Most likely they will.

We won’t let them.

How?  By repeating the same old tired phrases?  By the same old dogma?

Second, although we have made enormous gains in the battle of ideas…

Evidence?  And don’t cite opinion polls – that has more to do with “Obama, Trump, Black Lives Matter, the Great Replacement, and open anti-white hatred” than any ideas percolating from the utterly failed “movement.”

…we need to convert public opinion into political gains. 

Again, how?  Look at the Trump failure. What is going to be different this time?

Thus the next step is to create a policy institute with two primary goals.

1. More money for Greg?  2. More money for Greg?

First, white identity politics currently exists as a mere “specter,” a bogeyman evoked by the establishment. 

Finally, some truth in this essay.

To turn that specter into a real political force, we need to know how many of us there are, where we are, and how committed we are. 

Yes, and decades of work and millions of dollars of “D’Nations” and you guys still don’t know that and I’m sure you will continue not to know it.

Only then will our votes matter as much as our ideas.

Sure. How do do it?  Talk is cheap.

Second, we need to propose concrete policy solutions to counter the negative effects of globalization and multiculturalism.

Again - and decades of work and millions of dollars of “D’Nations” and here we are in the year 2022 and we are told by this person who has suddenly emerged on the scene that we need “concrete policy solutions.” Gee… wasn’t that what the National Policy Institute was supposed to be about?  Tell me again what credentials and qualifications Dickie Spinster has to be made the leader of that.

I see nothing in this piece that hasn’t been repeated previously and has ended up resulting in nothing.  But, hey, we can be open-minded; if this new institute does some good, great, but I suspect it will be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Listen to this nonsense.

We need fundraising!  Of course!  Fifty million dollar investment!  Lots of movies for Trevor Lynch! Prospective donors get in touch!  Money, money, money!

Wallace wants to monopolize all support and investment into a SINGLE organization – Counter-Currents’ organization of course. I oppose that completely – Counter-Currents is the enemy of the sort of White nationalism I support; Johnson and Counter-Currents are a pernicious influence, and they must be unalterably opposed, and their agenda of putting all pro-White eggs in their destructive basket must be fought in an unrelenting manner.

The idiots claim that in the 1990s there was no white identity politics or racial friction except in…Louisiana.  Can you believe that utter nonsense?  What about the racial tensions in major cities dating back at least to the 1960s?  Well, since much of that involved White ethnic-Colored friction and since Der Movement considers White ethnics more of a problem than Coloreds, then it makes sense.

Note the “take” on Trump. They say Trump was a fraud who did nothing for Whites, but Wallace points out that Trump, with his rhetoric, helped with metapolitics, essentially balkanization and stimulating White recognition of interests. That is 100% on accord with what I have been saying since 2016, and 100% against Johnson’s idea that Trump is a sincere man of genuine greatness. Wallace says that Trump helped the “movement” – I agree, the idea that the “movement” helped Trump is a delusion.  Der Movement benefited from Trumpism. It was a one-way street.

Gottfried like a father to Wallace – is Wallace someone you can trust?  And both of them stress that they are not critiquing the average Jew in the street (their words) - they are only against "Jewish power" (which comes from where? doesn't the average Jew in the street support that Jewish power?).

This is all actually another black mark in Spencer's ledger - his complete failure with the National Policy Institute (NPI) left the opening for Johnson to move in with his own project.  If NPI was a robust enterprise, it would have filled the "movement" organization niche space and left no room for this aggressive power play by Counter-Currents to monopolize the ideological, political, and activist energies of the "movement."

An institute that promotes destructive ideas and that monopolizes the niche space, inhibiting the emergence of potentially superior competitors is obviously a negative, and worse than not having any institute at all. We have to wait and see what this institute does and if there is anything positive, fine, support it, but if not, if it is negative, then it must be opposed as the perfidious infestation it may very well turn out to be.

Given that this is coming from Counter-Currents, the low point, the pit, of Der Movement, can you trust what they would do?  Consider their constant dishonesty; the following is just one small example of many. More lies from Counter-Currents. No, mendacious Counter-Currents scum (more succinctly: Counter-Currents), in the early days of covid the System was NOT telling us we were all going to die. Instead, all of them, including weasel Fauci, was telling us that covid was no big deal, concern about it was xenophobia and anti-Asian racism (a point the HBD-addicted pro-Asian "movement" would like to forget), and that we should all go to Chinatown and patronize Asian establishments. At that time, it was Trump and the Right ringing the alarm bells, while Trump was denounced as a xenophobic germophobe for stopping travel from China. Then at some point, someone must have planted the idea with Trump that worry about covid would tank the economy and ruin his re-election chances, He started dismissing the importance of covid, at which point the anti-Trump hysterics of the Left changed direction completely and fixated on covid as an INTERNAL threat, targeting coloreds. That's the real time line, and don't rewrite history to match your hobbit hole Luddite conspiritard narratives. The whole covid thing was politicized from day one, but the simplistic narrative that the Left/System was always hysterical about covid is WRONG. Counter-Currents lying scumbags.

As to why Der Movement always has these problems - I have discussed many reasons at my blog, including but not limited to the affirmative action, faulty dogma, grifter and freaks, etc.  But also consider what I term The Bel Riose Syndrome. People in power do not like, indeed, fear, subordinates who are too competent - the see those subordinates as potential rivals and threats; at the very least, when the subordinate is more capable than the leader, it makes the leader look bad by comparison, diminishing that leader's legitimacy. So, the competent and the independent-thinking are eschewed, and mediocre sycophants are the best you get.

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.

Brief Notes, 1/22/22

Two issues.

As part of Der Movement antics, Amren interviews van de Camp of all people.

I’d really like to see the USA with a 90 percent-plus white population that identifies with the Anglo-Dutch-German founding stock.

The micks, wops, and hunkies can all go to hell.

Much leftist thought isn’t just Jewish ethnic aims, though.

Of course not. it's Amren.

Ta-Nehisi Coates is a pretty good writer. 

As good as Lipton and Jayman?

I’d like to see the 1964 Civil Rights Act stuck down.

Stuck? Stuck down where?  

And what does van de Camp want?

Higher birthrates in all parts of the world.

Sure! Africans aren't reproducing enough.

See this.  Hood writes a long diatribe, akin to Lawrence and Brahmin, that could have been more succinctly written as a piece a fraction of its current length.

Creators were they who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life. Destroyers, are they who lay snares for many, they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them. Where there is still a people, there the state is not understood, but hated as the evil eye, and as a sin against laws and customs. – Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Easy for Nietzsche to write that when the White race was ascendant, and unthreatened from without or from mass immigration within.

Our opponents recognize this. That is why they make every effort to portray women, non-whites, homosexuals, and other protected groups in ways to ensure they can “see themselves” positively. Critics loved Black Panther because its “Afrofuturist” vison spoke to blacks’ myths about themselves. Similarly, the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s movie about “Shang-Chi” wasn’t just the latest in this never-ending franchise, but an “empowering” message to Asians.

And Hood writes for the HBD race realist site Amren, which is, fundamentally, “but an ‘empowering’ message to Asians.”

If the argument is that Western myths, stories, and heroes are so universal they belong to the world, this is an implicit admission of white cultural superiority. The Arthurian tradition, Greek dramas, Roman history, Shakespeare’s plays, Western royalty — many non-whites find these stories more interesting than their own pasts. Compare Haitian “emperor” Jean-Jacques Dessalines to Emperor Napoleon.

Hood is reading too much into this. Essentially, the “Coloreds cast to replace Whites” paradigm is just another System method of abuse and humiliation of Whites – and the System doesn’t need to make arguments such as what Hood suggests. Basically, it works like this. The casting is done to erase White history, attack Whites and White culture and morale; it is ritual humiliation. It is also done to habituate Whites to accepting Coloreds as a natural and integral part of White nations.  If anyone complains, they are “racist” and will be cancelled. Making arguments like Hood is making - "an implicit admission of white cultural superiority" – will be considered “racist” and ignored or attacked. People are cowed by the social pricing attacks. OK, Hood will say it is implicit, so no one needs to actually say it; it is implicitly accepted.  But, then, so what? People, privately, as atomized individuals, may roll their eyes and think arguments like what Hood has made, but it doesn't change anything. In fact, it may in one sense make the situation worse. When people are publicly forced to accept something that they privately know to be absurd, that rots the soul and destroys character and morale. Again - it is ritual humiliation. Implicit admissions are nothing positive.

Tolkien didn’t just speak to the mind, but to the soul. His work was rooted in the mystic chords of memory that define a nation. 

Of course.  Der Movement’s obsession with Tolkien is one of its major characteristics.  Although, that’s a Type I thing.

Odds and Ends, 1/20/22

In der news.

A Gab correspondent who is a friend of this blog alerts me to this. Note that many other versions of that have already been deleted from YouTube and so this may not be up that long. That is your “movement.” That’s the vaunted WN 2.0 and WN 3.0 that Greg Johnson assures us is so much better than backwoods WN 1.0.  Victory is nigh!  Just give some D’Nations!

Ever notice that whenever one of the Quota Queens gets angry at someone of a different ethnicity, the elitist superiority resentment pours out of them?  Sort of like Taylor here.

Zoltan is a Hungarian name, so it’s unlikely his ancestors came over on the Mayflower…Foreigners tell the American founding stock how benighted and deserving of oblivion we are…

Would he say that about the myriad Jews who do the same?  What about Asians?

Also, Spencer's tirade against Fuentes reminds me of his octoroon speech.

We are coming back here like a hundred fucking times. I am so mad. I am so fucking mad at these people. They don’t do this to fucking me. We are going to fucking ritualistically humiliate them. I am coming back here every fucking weekend if I have to. Like this is never over. I win! They fucking lose! That’s how the world fucking works.

Little fucking kikes. They get ruled by people like me. Little fucking octoroons ... I fucking ... my ancestors fucking enslaved those little pieces of fucking shit. I rule the fucking world. Those pieces of fucking shit get ruled by people like me. They look up and see a face like mine looking down at them. That’s how the fucking world works. We are going to destroy this fucking town.

If a wop made tirades like that, we'd hear "movement"/HBD pontifications about "gesticulating Meds" who have "anxiety and neurosis."  But, hey, in this case...means nothing.  Sort of like the HBD hysteria over Schettino, followed by a deafening silence after a Korean ship captain did the same thing. 

See this. Well then, cuckservatives could easily point out that this ruling means that sanctuary city and sanctuary state laws are unconstitutional, as they interfere with federal immigration enforcement, and that any state (or other local) interference with federal immigration enforcement, like what occurred under Trump, is also unconstitutional. Or is it “unconstitutional” only when the end result is actual enforcement?  But, alas, cuckservatives aren’t making these easy arguments.  Wonder why?  Is it because they actually want illegal immigration and their grandstanding about (faux) enforcement is electoral politics to fool the rubes?

I give credit for Trump for actually using the word "White" in the sense of defending Whites against medical care discrimination. Amusingly, the "fact checkers" "refute" Trump by merely trying to explain and defend the discrimination - they can't deny it exists.So, Trump is "wrong" because they approve of what he complains about, not that his statements were factually incorrect.

Hey! I thought this was "fact-checked" and was a "KKK Trump" fantasy. If so, why is the "fantasy" being reversed under pressure?

By the way, this a good sign of White group self-awareness.

Andrews’ Democratic Multiculturalism

Food for thought.  In all cases, emphasis added, except where indicated.

See this.

We need to remember what Salter wrote in On Genetic Interests, that the only thing worse, from the perspective of a majority being replaced, than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does work. Democratic multiculturalism is a tool to use to ensure that a multiculturalism that does not work. What is democratic multiculturalism?

I have previously written about, and advocated for, Salter’s idea of “Democratic Multiculturalism” – that White majorities should demand a seat at the multicultural table and use the System’s mechanisms of multiculturalism to advocate for White interests. Multiculturalism is defined (as Salter reminded us) as a system in which minorities are empowered and are encouraged to mobilize for their interests, while majorities are disempowered and demobilized. If that is so, then forcing the multicultural system to allow for majority mobilization will, by definition, make that system untenable, destabilize it, and heighten the contradictions, and lead, eventually, to its demise. There is a saying – “if everyone is my brother, then I have no brother.” Likewise, if every group tales advantage of multiculturalism, then there is no multiculturalism.

Always remember Suvorov’s Law of history – revolutions do not typically occur during the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed. That is why it is imperative to put pressure on the System, at its weakest points, to force concessions and force relaxation of the repression.

See this.

See this.

See this.

See this.

Some work by Salter.

Those essays defend the idea behind democratic multiculturalism and answer some criticism of the concept. Back to Andrews:

Peaceful coexistence of different ethnic groups within one state is certainly possible if none of the groups need fear the domination of others, more generally if none finds itself in a situation of interethnic competition. This is best achieved when each group owns its own land and enjoys sovereignty over its own affairs as is the case in Switzerland. — Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt

True enough, but if you are going to go that far, how about different states?  At least for groups that are highly racially and culturally divergent?

Erecting walls that separate ‘us’ from ‘them’ is a necessary correlate of morality since it defines the scope within which sympathy, fairness, and duty operate. The chief wall is the family/clan/village, but during certain historical periods ethnicity defines the wall.The great achievement of Western culture the Enlightenment is to make many of us peer over that wall and grant some respect to people outside it; the great failure of Western culture is to deny that walls are inevitable or important. — James Q. Wilson

True.

I wish to address the question of how a homeland for Whites can be created on the North American continent. I shall not address the demographic problems of Whites in Europe and elsewhere, since their solution requires an entirely different approach.

Fair enough.

Before stating my proposal, however, I must put my readers in a receptive mindset. In the 1930s, in the midst of the National Socialist revolution, a Berlin Rabbi, Joachim Prinz, wrote the following:

We want assimilation to be replaced by a new law: the declaration of belonging to the Jewish nation and the Jewish race. A State built upon the principle of the purity of nation and race can only be honored and respected by a Jew who declares his belonging to his own kind . . . [Italics in original]

Jewish nation?  Jewish race?  But I thought they are HuWhite?  Whither Taylor?

Rabbi Prinz escaped the slaughter…

Slaughter?

…of the European Jews and later became head of the American Jewish Congress. In America, Rabbi Prinz adopted a diametrically different view of the ideas of national and racial purity. Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of this is the speech he gave immediately before Martin Luther King, Jr. took the podium to deliver his famous “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. This was the high point of American assimilationism, when Nathan Glazer still believed that blacks could fully assimilate. Rabbi Prinz changed his tactics dramatically because times had changed dramatically. So must we.

Jews always do what they perceive is the best for Jews (whether they judge correctly is another issue). So must we. 

FROM ASSIMILATIONISM TO MULTICULTURALISM

For the first 350 years after the European (primarily English) settlement of the present United States, we insisted on assimilation for all new immigrants. Americans saw themselves as “modified Englishmen,” and all European newcomers were required to modify them-selves accordingly. Blacks were excluded because it was assumed that they were a special case and clearly impossible to assimilate into our society. Conversely, assimilation of non-English Whites was expected and often forced, as discussed by Benjamin Schwartz:

Sinclair Lewis recognized the melting pot, in Main Street, as a means by which “the sound American customs absorbed with-out one trace of pollution another alien invasion.” Americanization, then, although it did not cleanse America of its ethnic minorities, cleansed its minorities of their ethnicity.

Since 1965, however, the United States has opened its borders to massive legal and illegal immigration by non-Whites who, like American blacks, will not or cannot assimilate. Because of this, the spirit of the age has become multiculturalism and multiracialism.

OK, I’m not going to argue the main points, although one could quibble with details and emphasis.

TOWARD A MULTICULTURALISM OF THE RIGHT

Why then does the right oppose multiculturalism and insist on assimilation? 

Which “right” are we talking about?  Mainstream? Paleoconservatives?  Civic nationalists. Far Right racial nationalists?

The Left also formerly supported assimilation to create the new American citizen. Some leftists, like Todd Gitlin, lament the fact that multiculturalism is destroying traditional leftist universalism and warn that America is lost unless we drop our obsession with group differences.

If that’s the case, America is lost.  Consider how much the “obsession with group differences” has advanced since Andrews wrote this piece.

It is time for the right to discard assimilationism. First of all, it is not possible to assimilate non-Whites. 

Nor is it desirable, and that should be the major consideration- racial preservation, ethnic genetic interests, etc.

Second, the establishment is not even trying to assimilate them. 

True, but descriptive. Prescriptively, that’s irrelevant (but makes our job easier0.

Third, continuing to insist upon assimilation prevents us from focusing on stopping the flow of non-assimilable immigrants, while we wait for the establishment to insist on assimilation, which is impossible anyway. 

Again, desirability is more important than possibility – although in a sense Andrews may be conflating the two ideas, if he means that the impossibility is not only because of pragmatics and probabilities, but because attempting assimilation would be so destructive it is “impossible.”

Fourth, while non-Whites cannot assimilate our culture, Whites seem all too able to assimilate their culture, much to our detriment. 

True.

Fifth, the presence of large populations of unassimilable non-Whites increases miscegenation, i.e., genetic assimilation, which destroys all distinct races that participate in it. 

See above, on desirability vs. possibility.

Finally, the only way for Whites to preserve their cultural and racial distinctness in a multicultural society is to embrace multiculturalism and insist on our right to be and remain distinct.

Indeed. That’s an overt rationale for democratic multiculturalism, with the covert rationale being to destroy the System as described in my linked essays, above.

Embracing multiculturalism will have many positive consequences for White Americans.

Yes.

Multiculturalism promotes stronger group identities for those who perceive themselves as belonging to a specific group. Based on social identity theory, we should also expect increased group conflict and polarization.

Chaos and balkanization - all good.  Disrupt the multicultural consensus and destabilize the System.

Multiculturalism will also increase the desire for individual and group freedom from perceived oppression and control by more socially powerful groups. 

Right – but you will need to convince Whites that they are oppressed and controlled by others (or at least by hostile White elites allied with the others); thus, the “White Privilege” paradigm needs to refuted and delegitimized.

There will also be an increased desire by successful groups for freedom from blame and the costs of servicing groups that seem unable to participate in the “American Success story” without continued assistance. Once we stop thinking of America as a normatively White country, the backwardness of other groups will no longer look like a social problem we have to solve and more like a cultural difference we have to tolerate.

As I say, America is a dead country with no future. The sooner we convince Whites of that, the better.

The net result is that once we start thinking of ourselves as a distinct group with distinct interests, Whites will be more willing and able to hold our own in ethnic competition.

Note that the approach to attack Whites as such a distinct group is to question the existence of Whites as an actual biological-ancestral-cultural group and also constantly raise the “who is White?” question, dividing Whites against each other. The latter approach will, unfortunately, find allies among Nordicists and other ethnic fetishists in Der Movement, with their hostility toward White ethnics. Any successful pro-White activity, including democratic multiculturalism, needs to define the White Identity, and vigorously defend it.

FROM MULTICULTURALISM TO WHITE NATIONALISM

Another long-term consequence of Whites embracing multiculturalism is that it will contribute to the dissolution of the United States and the formation of a White homeland in North America. Consider these words from Ron Unz:

A social ideology that allots to blacks and Latinos and Asians their own separatist institutions and suggested shares of society’s benefits cannot long be prevented from extending itself to Whites as well. Especially as Whites become merely one minority among many minorities. Before it is altogether too late, those who support this status quo must realize that the diversity prescription contains the seeds of national dissolution.

Mr. Unz wrote that in the pages of Commentary and deplores the idea of national dissolution, but that does not affect the soundness of his analysis.

Yes, Unz is an enemy of White nationalism; this helps us to understand those alleged “White nationalists” who write for Unz’s site and enable Unz’s anti-White agenda.

THE POLITICS OF MULTICULTURALISM

What are the political options for multicultural societies? I suggest that there are only four.

Assimilation: The American tradition except for blacks. This is no longer viable due to the massive non-White immigration since 1965 and the failure of the once all-powerful Anglo-American majority to enforce assimilation or to prevent non-White immigration. Indeed, it is not even desirable given the current demographics of the country.

Domination: The American tradition with blacks under slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow. This is no longer viable due both to massive non-White immigration, the change in American sensibilities, and the loss of will by the Anglo-American majority.

Libertarianism: Basically this is just letting the chips fall where they may, what Michael Levin calls “The Clark Gable Solution.” Of course, it is not a solution at all, but simply an abdication of responsibility, the decision to let others deter-mine our destiny as a people. What are the chances that such a destiny will be anything but the short-run subordination and long-run destruction of our people?

Multiculturalism: Two forms of multiculturalism are possible. A) The first is what we have today: multiculturalism in which Whites do not recognize ourselves as a group and take our own side in struggles with other groups. The result is a transfer of power and assets from Whites to non-Whites. Given race differences, this will require a permanent imposition of Affirmative Action and a continued willingness by Whites to accept blame for black and Hispanic failure, until we exit the stage of power and influence entirely. B) In the second form of multiculturalism, some Whites recognize ourselves as a distinct group, take our own side, and hold our own against other ethnic groups. This should be our goal, because while all multiculturalisms are unstable and prone to breakup, at least this one will al-low us to participate in the breakup as equals or better.

This latter form of multiculturalism is akin to Salter’s idea of democratic multiculturalism.

Assimilation is no longer desirable, domination no longer possible, and libertarianism concedes the game. That leaves only multiculturalism, which, if we embrace it and play our cards right, will result in national separation, which is the desired goal.

This is particularly true due to Suvorov’s Law – successes achieved via democratic multiculturalism and concessions from the System will lead to both an increase in White morale and a delegitimization of the System’s hegemony.

A PRACTICAL PROGRAM

We must foster White ethnic self-consciousness. Some years ago Sam Francis pointed out that as a group we Whites exist objectively…

See above.  The White group has been, and will be, challenged on an objective basis; indeed, and ironically enough, constant challenges about this come from Der Movement itself. That faction that defends a stable White identity will have an advantage over those constantly questioning “whiteness.”

…but not subjectively. This phenomenon is common for dominant groups in most societies and should change as we become less dominant. But obviously it would be better for Whites to become self-conscious before we reach minority status. How do we make that happen?

Acknowledging and defending a stable, coherent, objective White Identity would be a good place to start.

We must insist on the importance of biological, psychological, and behavioral genetics research to public policy, including the writings of Garrett Hardin, Raymond Cattell, and Frank Salter. 

That’s great.  Unfortunately, we have retards in Der Movement who actually question the work of Salter. Amazing.

We should discuss and promote the idea that ethnic and race competition and conflict are normal and predictable features of our evolutionary history and stress they will continue on some level — seen or unseen — no matter how much the preachers and politicos talk of universal love and brotherhood. Though now somewhat dated, the contrast between the visible emotional White and black response to the O. J. Simpson verdict as depicted in photographs in Newsweek and Time is a good example of what I mean.

Sounds good, but how to do so?  We can’t even get people on the Far Right to agree on this.

We should promote white Americans as a specific group with specific interests and contrast those interests with the interests of other groups.

OK, but see all of the problems above.

We should acknowledge as valid the legitimate group interests of other groups and show where and how their interests are often incompatible with our interests. Kevin MacDonald’s works should be a guide for similar approaches to explaining White/black and White/Hispanic conflict.

MacDonald's work on the Jews, not the later work.

We should attempt to redirect social/cultural pressures such that “social justice” will include justice for our group of Americans.

We should use Jews as an example of a group that desires both biological and cultural survival. Given their recent history, is it difficult for most people to call them Nazis or racists because they wish to preserve their biological peoplehood. It will be hard to argue that what is positive for Jews would be a bad thing for Americans.

OK.

We should support and promote the following issues, ideas, and programs — some of which some of us now oppose:

Because of the differential demographic impact of abortion, all who can should support it.

We should support bilingual education.

Black and Hispanic history.

Ethnic Studies and departments. Any type of traditional historical/cultural activities, whether real, such as Scottish Games, or fabricated, like Kwanza.

Any type of exclusionary organization, process, or activity by any group whether White or non-White. For example, Bill Gates’ billion-dollar scholarships scheme for blacks and Indians despite its anti-White bias. In fact, we should support any activity that increases group polarization that does not otherwise weaken us.

We must enthusiastically support the first attempt at a breakaway state. I suspect it will be either Hispanic/Mexican or Hawaiian. We should support that precedent in a fashion that will make our own separation less difficult.

We should continue to oppose certain programs:

Accepting blame for minority failure.

Non-White immigration (let’s keep as much as we can).

We should create an organization and begin planning a new Declaration of Independence entitled something like The New Americas: A Manifesto for the Survival of Freedom and Tolerance. In addition, it should contain a proposed master compact for a new federation of sovereign nation-states and a suggested upgrading of the existing Constitution for our specific new America which will take into consideration what we have learned over 225+years of constitutional history.

A new organization - what?  More of the same failed organizations led by the same failed Quota Queens?

Granted it is a bitter pill, but if indeed multiculturalism is the most potent force available, then we must swallow it to move on to create a homeland exclusively for Whites on this continent.

Those suggestions are reasonable, but only a start.

As regards more immediate practical advice for the individual interested in helping to get this process started, I’d suggest that any time you have the chance to express complaints about anti-White discrimination via anonymous means – such as surveys, complaint lines and sites, etc. – do so, as often as possible (making sure it is based on real data and is plausible).  Of course, if you are in a position to make open, overt, live complaints, that is much better, but comes with more potential costs of course.  Everyone has to judge their own situation. One can do both as well – anonymous and overt – as each situation suggests.  In addition, the more people who make the same complaints at the same entity, the better, and the “strength in numbers” strategy makes open, overt complaints and activism somewhat safer and more feasible. In addition, while a single complaint and complainer can be easily dismissed as an outlier and a crank, multiple such actions become much more difficult to dismiss. Document everything in writing – your complaints and actions and the responses (or lack thereof can be noted).  You can expect that most likely complaints about anti-White discrimination, etc. – no matter how real and well documented – will ultimately be dismissed without effective action to remedy the complaint, and that lack of an effective and reasonable response needs to be documented, and could always be used in any future legal action or publicizing of the issue. Getting legal advice and assistance may (eventually) be necessary, at least for the overt actions.

The education system/academia is a particularly fruitful arena for such actions.

I have tried some of these approaches myself, mostly as a lone individual, with the expected lack of effective remediation, but all has been, and will be, well documented for future reference.  If nothing else, such complaints force entities, institutions, HR departments, etc. to at least formally go through the motions of addressing them, which not only takes time and effort (that they would otherwise use for unsavory purposes) but causes upset, chaos, and disrupts the smooth running of the multicultural apparatus. If well documented, it lays the foundation for, e.g., future legal action. Even if alone, the actions may prompt others to speak out as well – someone needs to “break the ice” – why not you?  Just be careful to judge your situation, and do it openly or anonymously, as the situation warrants.  Always be truthful and have everything well documented.  

You can not only do such negative democratic multiculturalism (e.g., complaints), but positive as well, such as organizing within the multicultural apparatus with respect to White identity and mobilization.  That will be more difficult and will almost certainly require you to be overt. It is possible the negative complaints can lay the foundation for the positive work.  In the unlikely event the complaints are taken seriously, one remediation may be offering Whites a “seat at the multicultural table.”  That can be leveraged as the essays by Salter and I describe.