Racial Resentment, anti-Colonialism, and the White Future

Food for thought.

I’m no fan of Instauration, but I have no argument with this.  The interesting (in hindsight, obvious) point is that all of these Third World revolutionary movements were based on resistance to racial humiliation, and, in some cases, to racial-sexual humiliation.

Movie scenes of relevance: for Vietnam, see this.  For Cuba, see this.

Also, note the racial-sexual humiliation motivation of the North African Clement Dio character in The Camp of the Saints: “his grandmother, a black harem slavegirl, sold to a brothel for French officers ...”

All of the Third World anti-colonial resistance movements, wars of liberation, etc. were based on the sense of humiliation felt by Colored peoples by White political dominion.  It didn’t matter that Europeans ruled Black Africa better than the Black Africans did after the end of colonialism. It didn’t matter that British rule of India was efficient, or that American money contributed greatly to Cuba’s economy. Nor did whatever benefits brought to Vietnam by the French, or by White Americans, matter. The Coloreds wanted independence, they wanted an end to the humiliation, an end to paternalistic rule by an alien people, an end to seeing their women sexually used (willingly or not) by the racially alien men ruling their nations.  

On second thought, that White rule was seen as more efficient than native rule did matter, being actually more of a reason to end White rule – the humiliation, the constant attack against native self-esteem, to constantly be faced with the reality of White superiority, to have it constantly rubbed in their faces that these aliens could rule them better than they could rule themselves.  And added to all of these sources of resentment was the bitter tinge of racial envy, of hatred of Whites for being White, and all that entailed with respect to the manifest superiority of Whites. Have you ever read any of the anti-White bile that emanated from Black African and Black Caribbean “revolutionary theorists?”  Or how about the hatred toward Whites from Black Americans, from similar sources of racial resentment, the “Civil Rights Movement” being a form on internal, intra-American anti-colonialism (and the same applies to anti-White hatred coming from other non-White “American” peoples).

That’s where the conservative Right always gets things wrong, particularly with their emphasis on “economic theory” and “standard of living” and “rational choices.”  A purely rational, economic choice by non-Whites is to be ruled by Whites, but they reject this because there are things more important than purely material well-being. Racial pride, racial integrity and preservationism, a sense of identity, self-esteem, an end to the pain of national humiliation, you can call all of those things “irrational,” but they are powerful motivators nevertheless.

Will this paradigm one day apply to Whites?  Will Whites continue to be bought off by the System through material well-being (which is, by the way, has a limited shelf-life as the West spirals increasingly out-of-control)?  Will Whites continue to allow themselves to be subject to racial humiliation, including racial-sexual humiliation, without resisting?  Will they allow racial aliens to continue ruling over them?  Do they even recognize that this is the case?How “manifest” is “White superiority” if they do not even recognize, much less resist, the same sort of racial subjugation that non-Whites clearly identified and fought when it was their turn to do so?

Are Whites really and truly inferior after all?  Why do they put up with dispossession, humiliation, and subjugation?  Today the West is being colonized by the Third World. Where is the White anti-colonial movement?

Holding Whites Accountable

It didn’t “just happen.”

See this.

But here’s the problem with this complaint – which by the way I can 100% identify with, having lived through similar times myself (in that case, mostly with various types of Negroes and of mulatto Hispanics, rather than Mexicans) – how did this state of affairs come to pass?

That is not a rhetorical question, nor am I being facetious.  Let’s answer the question.  Whites have been – and continue to be – a majority of the American population, a majority of voters, and a majority of the population of places like Iowa.  Whites used to be a clear majority of the population of California.  Whites vote.  What happened?  Who elected the politicians who enabled this disaster to occur?  Who looked the other way for decades?  Who ignored the problem as long as it was in someone else’s backyard and not their own?  Who ignored the plight of urban Whites (particularly if those were “White ethnics”)?

All of this didn’t “just happen.”

Please study this video, and pay particular attention to the 40 seconds from 3:20-4:00 – McCain’s infamous “build the danged fence” campaign video, made when Amnesty John was facing some heat from his right on immigration.  I remember noting that video at the time, and thinking to myself: “the GOP voters of Arizona can’t be that stupid, can they?  I mean, it’s obvious – obvious – that McCain’s lying to them, and he’ll go back to shilling for amnesty, and against any enforcement, once elected.  I mean, he’s being playing that game for a long time; surely, they are wise to him now, right?  Indeed, the GOP as a whole does this, feinting right for elections, and then governing like liberal Democrats.”

Well, no, the GOP voters of Arizona were fooled once again, and even though they howled their betrayal, they still continued to support the evil scum McCain, and are crying bitter tears over his death.  

This has been the Republican playbook for decades.  They dog whistle implicitly on race - VERY implicitly – to gather White support for Necon agendas and for the same big business interests bringing in the hordes to begin with.  And the rubes fall for the scam time and again.

Here’s where I part company with Bowery and all the rest: Whites need to be held accountable for their stupidity, fecklessness, and painful naiveté.  

The key part of that man’s lament, from the short essay Bowery presented:

Am I racist? Jesus, am I becoming one of those guys. I sure sound like one of those guys.

“Those guys.”  You see, the only people who have a solution to the problem (let’s ignore for the moment that Der Movement, Inc. is a fraud; I’m referring to racial nationalism in general) are considered “those people,” as alien as the Latinos, freaks to be dismissed and despised.  This fellow sounds like he considers being one of “those people” just as bad – nay, even worse! – than what has happened to his town, his community, his nation.  “Jesus,” indeed.

One wonders who this fellow voted for.  McCain?  Romney?  Maybe even Obama?

Accountability?

Every time I read, or hear, a lament like this, every time some anti-White outrage occurs, every time the borders are opened even more, what I do – and what I suggest we all do – is trace things back to the beginning.  Why are these things allowed to happen?  Answer: Those in a position of leadership allow it to happen; in many cases, they support and promote it.  

Well, then, how and why are they in this position of power to begin with?  If elected, it is because an electorate that is majority White elected them (and the same applies overseas – who elected Merkel?).  If they are in a position  of power economically, it is because a consumer base that is majority White continues to purchase their goods and services; Whites being incapable of organizing boycotts on the basis of racial interests like any other group.  If the power derives from fame and celebrity, it is because a majority White population provides that fame and celebrity.

Oh, you will cry – “It’s the Jews!  The Jews!”   Trace that back.  Who let the Jews into America?  Who let the Jews rise to prominence and seize the media?  Who kowtows to Jewish interests?  Who serves as the Shabbos goy traitor class?  We’re back again to the White elites – the politicians elected by Whites, the moguls funded by White consumers, the celebrities whose fame derives from White fan worship.

The same applies if you want to scream about “moneyed interests” or “the managerial class” or “The Federal Reserve” or “the SJWs” or whatever pet peeve you have: these things didn’t “just happen.”  To paraphrase Pareto: if a wolf is eating you, it is because you chose to be a sheep.  If Whites choose to be a race of sheep, they should not be surprised about all the wolves gorging themselves on the white-flocked sheeple.

Trace things back to first principles.  Things do not “just happen.”  And screaming about “the Jews” is a crutch to avoid dealing with the need to hold Whites accountable for their own lowly position.

And I have to laugh at the Roissyite HBD Nordicist gamesters getting all hot and bothered about a single German (of course) rally – yes sir, “the Saxon begins to hate!”  How about “the Saxon” voting for even the milquetoast moderate right-wing Alternative For Germany (never mind the NPD), instead of putting Merkel in power over and over again?  Another example of Der Movement’s victory psychosis, and their Germans on White Horse Syndrome.

I suppose it’s another example of White fecklessness that they are “represented” by a “racial movement” composed of retards and fetishistic morons.

The Six Percenters

Lost opportunities.

Read this.

Consider the condition of White America today and the continued deterioration of the White racial position.  6%?  Six?  It should be, at least, 60%.  What kind of pathetic maladaptive sick losers are White people?  Whites are positively subhuman in their lack of adaptive fitness, in their pathological altruism, in their demented and disgusting self-abasement.  And even if the 6% is a low figure, because “people are afraid to give honest answers in the survey,” would it really speak better of Whites if it was, say, 8% or 9%?  And do you really expect people who are afraid to even answer a survey honestly to be useful potential recruits for an activist cause?

However, even if the 6% figure is shockingly low, it still translates into millions of people, as many as 11 million.  How is Der Movement utilizing this potential pool of recruits?  Consider if Der Movement was just able to mobilize 10% of those people to start with.  That’s 1.1 million White Americans – a considerable activist force if properly utilized and motivated.  If each of those contributed just $10 per year (just $10!) that would be $11 million added to “movement” coffers (putting aside that current “movement leaders” would waste the money).  If each gave $100 per year – that’s $110 million.  If these activists and their donations were in part utilized to recruit more of the remaining group of the “racist 6%” then all these numbers would grow dramatically.  

All this potential, all this opportunity: wasted.  Instead we get prancing quota queens with their Unite the Right cosplay rallies, their bizarre fossilized dogma, their errors and stupidities and obsessions, their complete lack of security, their Jew-worship and Yellow Supremacy, everything designed to repel and repulse potential recruits.

Only new leadership, with fresh ideas, strategic vision, and a commitment to long-term planning can win over the six percenters.  The “movement” has had its chances, and failed time and time again.

Celebrating Their Own Demise

Partying at a funeral – their own.

See this horror.

Technical points:

1.  More details about these data would be helpful. The main story does give some details but these are not enough.

2. To what extent are pro-diversity White responses informed by a desire to be “PC” and a fear of being labeled “racist?”

3. To what extent are pro-diversity White responses affected by being exposed to a virtual monopoly of pro-diversity propaganda from the news and entertainment media, academia, public schools, celebrities, politicians, with virtually no dissenting views heard and/or taken seriously and/or labeled as anything other than “White supremacism” and “hate?”  Is the increased pro-diversity sentiment expressed by more educated Whites an indication of academic brainwashing (as well as smug "goodwhite" scorn for blue collar Whites)?

4. How stable will the White pro-diversity data be over time?  As Whites become a minority and suffer the consequences of being a hated subaltern group in a degenerated Third World America, will optimism continue to prevail?  Note that Whites as a minority in a majority non-White America cannot be expected to be catered to as are non-White minorities in the current majority White America: no affirmative action, no “PC” double standards for their benefit, no organized minority mobilization via a multicultural apparatus, no bending over backwards for minority rights, no favored status for minority immigration.

5. Just because a people believe something will be a good thing does not logically mean that it actually will be a good thing.  One would think that should be obvious, but it is (obviously) not.

Now, let’s consider the main take-home point: the utter and complete failure of the Right to make the argument, the utter and complete failure of American rightists, particularly the Far Right, to make the case against diversity and in favor of White preservationism.

Yes, yes, there is point #3 above, the monopolization of System messages, and the pathologization of dissident opinions.  But whose fault is that?  Note that majority-minority status is viewed more askance in Europe that lacks free speech than in America that ostensibly has it. I know the Type Is and their affirmative action leadership will make excuses as they always do, and claim that this supports rather than refutes their approach, claim it affirms ethnonationalism because most European nations have relatively monoethnic native populations while White America is an ethnic mix.  The same old story (and note that while expressed public opinion seems healthier in Europe it is not actualized in electoral results and in policy in most cases; note as well that White America elected Trump even with Trump’s phony veneer of being a “racist fascist bigot” – the story is more complicated than “movement” simplicity) – which ignores the elephant in the room: decades of “movement” failure, millions and millions of dollars of wasted money, millions of man hours of wasted effort, the stupidity, lies, and cowardice (SLC) of Der Movement, Inc., its utter failure to achieve anything of value.

The quota queens have the nerve to mock mainstream conservatism as Conservatism, Inc. – as a group of “beautiful losers” – a “loyal (pseudo) opposition” – not really interested in winning but just to make money and live off the donations of naïve and deluded suckers.  Pot calling the kettle black perhaps?

I attack the tin cuppers and their panhandling, particularly the happy penguins at VDARE, but consider: VDARE gets the lion’s share of “movement” money for doing nothing other than what other people do for free.  VDARE is a blog, for heaven's sake  Brimelow is the editor of a blog that he occasionally writes for.  That’s it!  A blog writer and editor!  That’s something many people do for nothing, do for free, yet you retards are supporting his blue state lifestyle, and flushing the shekels down the VDARE toilet.  Do you understand how stupid that is?  It’s one thing if VDARE was an integrated activist organization actually getting things done.  It’s a blog.  A blog!  Pierce for all his faults (and failures) at least made the pretense of heading an activist organization; today’s quota queens simply run websites and expect in return to be supported in lifestyles superior to many of those giving donations.

Decades of a degenerating racial situation for Whites, the breakdown of law and order and civility in America, the utter chaos in Europe as another example of the perils of multiculturalism, the promise of balkanization from the Rise of Trumpism – all that for naught.  To the extent that opinion poll has any validity whatsoever, the (Far) Right has utterly failed, but as always there is ZERO accountability.  Given that a lack of accountability is a hallmark of affirmative action and its recipients, this is further evidence supporting the Sallis view that Der Movement, Inc. – a money-making scheme – is built on a foundation of affirmative action and ethnic quotas as regards “leadership” – and if you think about it, as regards ideology as well.

It’s going to be a bumpy ride…right down into the Third World sewer - with feckless, misinformed Whites grinning like idiots and blushing with embarrassment.  Don’t worry though – in the meantime, “movement” “leaders” will live well, lounging around in the leafy suburbs, going on international trips, buying dog food and movie tickets, living the good life while sponging off of hard-working fools and suckers.

White Privilege is Leftist/Colored Bullying

Lessons of the schoolyard.

I have written on this topic before, but it is useful to set down a brief but comprehensive summary of the problem.  Therefore, here I make three arguments:

1. White Privilege, as defined by the Left as racially-specific advantages possessed by Whites, does not exist.

2. Even if White Privilege existed, it would be justified.

3. Attacks against Whites, re: White Privilege, are simply bullying against Whites because Whites, as a race, are a bunch of pathetic, mewling, cowardly weaklings.

1. The argument that White Privilege does not exist can be briefly subdivided into three parts.

A. A people being demographically dispossessed in their own nations – even in their ancestral homelands of Europe – are obviously not privileged.  Mass immigration into White nations, against the wishes of the populace and imposed by a hostile elite, is not “privilege.”  It is genocide. Declining White birthrates and increasing White suicide rates are not signs of “privilege” – they are signs of oppression and despair.  The opioid crisis among White Americans is not “privilege” – it is hopelessness and despair.  The fact that most politicians in White nations are racially White means nothing, as most of them are openly hardcore anti-White.  The question should be – whose interests do those politicians represent?

B. A people discriminated against de jure by law (affirmative action, hate speech laws in Europe that criminalize natives speaking up in defense of their own group interests) and de facto by political correctness, pop culture, and social pricing, is not “privileged.”

A people not allowed to organize on the basis of their own identity and in defense of that identity and its interests are hardly “privileged” – it is the complete opposite.  A people whose racial spokesmen are attacked in the streets with impunity, mocked by the leftist establishment, ridiculed in their own nation by aliens, deplatformed by corporations, and selectively targeted by the legal system – such a people are the opposite of “privileged.”  The English in Rotherham were, and are, not “privileged.”  White Americans and Europeans who cannot safely walk the streets of their own cities are not “privileged.”  Compare James Watson – reduced to selling his Nobel Prize after being “unpersoned” for merely suggesting the possibility of racial differences in intelligence – to Al Sharpton – whose activist career is summarized here – who was a friend of Presidents (Obama), speaker at political conventions (Democrat), a mainstream political commentator (MSNBC) – and we see the reality of Colored Privilege vs. the fantasy of White Privilege.

C. Although I disagree with Sailer about the census, he is correct about “The Flight from White.”  You see, Whites are so privileged that groups petition to NOT officially be counted as White.  South Asians previously successfully removed themselves from the White category, and the MENA group wants to do the same now.  People with any hint of “Indian Princess” ancestry in their family trees are desperate to be seen as non-White.  Whites pose as non-White, trying to “pass” in the other direction.  It is a strange sort of “privilege” indeed that people are so very eager NOT to partake of; it seems that the “invisible backpack” is a burden too heavy for anyone to want to carry.

2. Even if it did really exist, White Privilege would be justified, because it would not be “privilege” at all, in the sense of an undeserved largess (which actually describes Colored Privilege).  One would not call Bill Gates “privileged” at Microsoft – it is his company.  The Chinese are not “privileged” in China – it is their own country.  Likewise, Whites are not “privileged” in their own nations – instead, it are the alien peoples given advantages in White countries who are the ones truly privileged.  And if White Americans are “privileged” because they have a higher per capita net worth than Blacks and Hispanics, then Jews and Asians are privileged even more.  Oh, the latter have their goodies because of “intelligence” and “hard work.”   Yeah, and Whites are pretty smart and hard-working too, by the way – building nations that Jews and Asians want to migrate to.  

3. If accusations of White Privilege are absurd - and they are – why do they exist?  It is the lesson of the schoolyard: those who are weak and allow themselves to be bullied will continue to suffer so.  Accusations of White Privilege made in the context of White Oppression and White Powerlessness are a form of bullying from the Left/Colored Alliance.  Because Whites are a race of pathetic mewling cowards and never push back against this bullying they can expect more of it, just like the boy who allows himself to be pushed around in the schoolyard can expect nothing but more abuse.  If the boy fights back, even if he loses, the bullying will likely stop, especially if he gets some good “licks” in; bullies do not like victims who fight back, since they prefer the meek and powerless.  The abusive bullying of Whites as a race will decline in proportion to the extent that Whites actively and explicitly defend their interests as a race.

Ironically, it is precisely because Whites are not privileged that they are accused of being so.  If Whites had true privilege no one would dare bring it up in fear of the consequences.  It is only because Whites are a subaltern low-caste group that they can be bullied and gaslighted by being accused of having “privilege” while they are in reality a vilified powerless group losing their nations and their future.

I suppose that the real, hidden meaning of "White Privilege" is the privilege of being born as someone of European descent, and all that means racially, and with respect to being a legitimate heir to the Classical and Western/Faustian High Cultures.  There's racial envy and resentment involved, and a desire to tear down those that the Guks view, at least subconsciously, as better than themselves.

Internal Refugees?

The next liberal cause celebre?

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

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

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

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

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

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

You read it here first!

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

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

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

Who knows?  

Only time will tell.

Fundamental Basics of Salterism

Truth so basic and obvious that only politically motivated mendacious anti-Whiters would try to “refute” it.

Previously, I wrote a lengthy “Defense of Salterism” against particularly mendacious and/or retarded “critiques” of the EGI concept.

This post will be more fundamental: essentially to demonstrate that “Salterism” is based on four basic principles, all of which are not only true, but obviously true, even trivially true. While science should be defined by skepticism and rigorous hypothesis testing (which is why HBD is not science), it is also true that at some point, certain facts and ideas have been so well established that one can accept them as, to the extent we can perceive them, reality.  Although one can of course keep an open mind toward future findings in astronomy, planetary geography, etc. it is still reasonable to accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not vice versa, and that the Earth is essentially spherical and definitely not flat or “Frisbee-shaped.” Arguing about such established facts does not advance science or human progress. Salterism is based on principles which begin to approach that of “the Earth revolves around the Sun,” which should tell you something about the (political) motivations of those who deny such obvious facts and established ideas.  Thus:

1. Population groups differ genetically; there are differences of genetic kinship between groups (with some groups being more or less similar or distant than others).  This is true; there isn’t the slightest doubt on this obvious fact, apart from the mendacious or the mad.

2. On average, members of groups are more genetically similar to their group than to members of other groups. I say “on average” because this depends on how similar the two groups are.  For very dissimilar groups, like the major continental population groups (races), the greater within group similarity is virtually always true, for more closely related groups (say, Germans vs. French) there will be some overlap, but even there, on average, it holds.  In summary; with sufficient markers, when considering the major population groups, there is always greater intragroup vs. intergroup genetic similarity.

3. From a pure fitness standpoint, identical by state is the same as identical by descent; identical = identical.  For ethnies, identical by state vs. identical by descent is sort of a distinction without difference - or a difference without distinction - because in that case identical by state is identical by (relatively) distant descent (when talking about the distinctive genome). This is obviously – basically, trivially – true, although I guess you can always find politically motivated con artists who claim that identical does not mean identical, that a DNA sequence of GCTAGG is not the same as GCTAGG.

4. Genetic continuity (and expansion) is adaptive.  This is basic biology, the basic definition of biological fitness.  This is at the core of the Darwinian (or Neo-Darwinian) perspective.  That’s what life is about.

The basics of Salterism can be boiled down to one sentence:

“True enough, it is an evolutionarily better strategy to spend beneficial behavior towards fellow ethnics than towards outsiders, because you are more closely related to them.”

Who wrote that?  Frank Salter?  Ted Sallis?  No.  It was written by liberal academic Ingo Brigandt, a critic of the idea of ethnic nepotism.  You may be confused: why would someone critical of ethnic nepotism write an admission of the adaptive value of ethnocentric behavior?  You see (to make a long story short), the Brigandt types promote the bizarre idea that if a specific behavior could not, and therefore did not, “evolve,” then actualizing that behavior is impossible. So, by analogy, since humans did not evolve with computers, obviously you are not reading this post on your computer screen.  Impossible!  The riposte to that would be to argue that evolutionarily novel behaviors, such as computer use, are possible courtesy of evolved general behavioral and cognitive suites, such as intelligence and problem solving.  Indeed.  Therefore, even IF ethnocentrism is not an evolved behavioral trait, humans can (and do!) behave in an ethnocentric manner if they perceive that to do so is to their advantage.  Why would they perceive that advantage?  See the four points listed above.  Now, I would argue that ethnocentrism could and did evolve (the amygdala response to racially alien faces is evidence for this, and see the next link below), but even if it is not an “evolved behavior” it can still occur, and be adaptive, derived from more general behavioral and cognitive mechanisms, which, we all agree, are evolved. 

You may argue that Brigandt talked about the “costs and benefits” of ethnocentric behavior evolving, but those calculations have been done (the aforementioned link), and support the dominance of ethnocentrism over alternative competing behaviors; further, the “laboratory of human reality” demonstrates ethnocentric behavior being a longstanding reality of the human experience, and one cannot help but notice that ethnocentric groups like Jews and Chinese are doing very well for themselves, with the Jews surviving as a group through all sorts of tribulations (if Brigandt wants to argue that those tribulations are due to the Jews’ ethnocentric behavior itself, let him do so, which would admit that ethnocentric behavior has been evolutionarily stable in that ethny over a period of many centuries).

Now, why do these types promote anti-Salterian memes that are, to an objective viewpoint, patently absurd?  Because their objections are, in my opinion, not objective but subjective.

Thus:

1. If Salterism is correct, then Whites (*) have the absolute right to pursue ethnocentrism in pursuit of their adaptive fitness.

2. If Whites behave in an ethnocentric manner, then “Western” multiculturalism will collapse.

3. They do not want multiculturalism to collapse; therefore, Salterism must be incorrect and refuted.

You, dear reader, are under no obligation to accept that con game.

That Whites are so detached from any perception of their own self-interest that the Salterian analysis is even necessary - do you really need to be told and taught something so trivially true that the genetic continuity of your group is adaptive? - is disturbing.  That Whites actually try to delegitimize these obvious facts, or buy into the ethnically self-interested critiques of non-Whites, does nothing but confirm the objective worthlessness of the White race from the standpoint if adaptive fitness.  Time to wake up, guys (or should that be goys).

In addition, there has also been some controversy over the term “race” with the politically-motivated race-deniers picking apart some of the (in some cases, admittedly deficient) definitions put forth by some on the Right.  I would propose that:

A race is a population group consisting of smaller population groups and the individuals therein that are, on average and in toto, more similar to each other with respect to genotype and phenotype than to other groups; members of a race tend to share more most recent common ancestors with each other than with members of other races, and racial groups tend to be indigenous to particular continents or sub-continents in which they came into being (“ethnogenesis”).

*This holds for all groups, but for some strange reason ethnocentrism becomes a problem only when Whites practice it.

Steinle and the Bullied White Dalits of America

Lessons from the schoolyard.

Read this.

Whites are a subaltern caste; actually, no, not a caste at all, untouchables.

Whites are the Dalits of America.

The appropriate and respectful response to this travesty was this, not shameless panhandling.

Of course, what really should have happened was for the Steinle family to come out and forcefully denounce the verdict from a racial basis.  Instead, according to the AltRight.com piece, this is what happened:

Meanwhile, so far, even the parents of the dead girl are coming out against the “hate shrine” dedicated to their daughter.

I don’t know about you, but the self-loathing and cowardliness of most Whites is difficult to witness day in and day out.

One day - who knows when? – Whites in this situation will actually behave normally, as every other group would behave in like circumstances, and speak truth to power.  A family who has faced similar tragedy and similar injustice will speak up in defense of White racial interests and denounce the genocidal anti-White System we suffer under.  Until then, we must endure the spectacle of the cringing White untouchables of America groveling before their masters.  Who knows when the other shoe will drop – will the Steinle family publicly embrace and forgive the wetback who killed their daughter?  After all, that would be the “Christian” thing to do, no?  That’ll really show dem dere dirty racists their lesson!

Lesson from the schoolyard: Someone who is being bullied will continue being bullied until they fight back.  All Whites know is surrender and appeasement, and so the anti-White bullying by their privileged Colored/Jewish overlords never ends. Whites need to organize, politically and metapolitically, and start acting like a normal people, with normal and natural interests, once again.

All else is folly.

A Failure to Leverage Advantages

Inability of Whites to leverage any of the remaining economic and political influence they have.

There has been much hysteria about Negro athletes (and SJW supporters) “kneeling for the national anthem” – much sound and fury signifying nothing.  Without the willingness of the complainers to follow through on their convictions at least to the extent of not watching their precious football (America’s real religion), then who cares about all the pseudo-macho chest thumping?

More to the point – what connection is there to mainstream politics and then to the “movement” itself?

First, with respect to sports, the bottom line is this: if all the pathetic, jock-sniffing White sports fans who are upset at the “disrespect to the flag” would actually have the initiative and discipline to utilize the power of the purse, then the problem that enrages them would be very rapidly solved.  If a significantly large fraction of these fans would STOP going to the games, STOP watching the games on TV and cable, STOP buying related merchandise, STOP patronizing and talking and obsessing about football and other sports 24/7; if they would instead boycott the NFL, etc. and boycott any companies that advertise on TV during the games, then you would see some real effects, indeed. And I’m not talking about some paltry (and no doubt highly temporary) 10% decline in viewership, but a long-term decline of at least – an absolute bare minimum – of 50%, then you would see quite an effect.

Likewise, of a significant fraction of Whites would use their still considerable economic power to punish companies that promote anti-White memes and policies and use their still considerable voting numbers to reward pro-White politicians (if one could find any) and punish those (almost all) who are anti-White, then you would see real political change.  And no, blindly supporting the cuck fraud Trump does not constitute part of the solution; it is in fact part of the problem: Whites view politics like they do sports, there is “our team” and “their team,” a substitute for tribalism, in which leaders and groups are blindly followed regardless of what they do and what they represent and believe.

So, no, Whites in the end are incapable of abandoning their beloved Negro behemoths on the football field, and, no, they have no discipline to boycott anything, and, no, they can’t even restrain themselves from voting for phony cuckservatives just because they are, presumably, “the lesser of two evils.”

Likewise, White racial activists, predictably (and I did predict it), are unable to cut ties with failed “movement” leadership, even after the Hermansson fiasco.  It’s “business as usual” – move along, move along, there’s nothing to see here. If only a significant fraction of activists would stop giving handouts “(“donations”) to panhandling artists (“movement leaders”), stop patronizing their sites, stop buying their books and other paraphernalia, then the economic and social pressure would force real change in Der Movement.  But, no. Just like in sports, just like in mainstream politics, White racial activists are too lazy, feckless, conformist, hobbyist. Ignorant, and weak to actually act upon their convictions, control their behavior in order to control that of others, as take control of a “movement” hijacked by con men, grifters, the incompetent, the crazed, and those who simply want to sponge off the productivity of others while pretending to be defending the racial interests of those “others.”

What exactly does “movement leadership” have to do to be abandoned by the rank-and-file?  Make the same mistakes over and over again?  Demonstrate laughably poor judgment?  Make no progress for decades?  Fall for the whole “man on white horse” syndrome scam over and over again?  Be infiltrated, and then be humiliated by having the infiltrators participating in “vetting” or giving “movement” lectures about the dangers of infiltration?  Gambling away donations?  Using “membership dues” to engage in serial monogamy on the mountaintop?  All these things and more have happened, are happening, and will continue to happen, but, like smiling retards, the “movement” masses cheerfully continue to go along for the ride.  They’re being “taken for a ride,” indeed.” A ride to nowhere.  

So, it is all connected.  The same race that invented the modern world, landed on the moon, and was, at least in the past, fearsome warriors today cannot even be motivated to give up watching Negro behemoths collide on a football field, cannot have the discipline to refrain from re-electing a John McCain or a Lindsey Graham to the Senate over and over again, and certainly cannot refrain from being awestruck by the quota queen “rock stars” of Der Movement, said awe manifested in part by showering these incompetent and self-interested “rock stars” with the awed activists’ hard earned money.

More fundamentally: America (and all Western nations) has a System whose essential cogs are Made up of Whites, particularly White men.  If a significant portion of those cogs refuse to function, the System fails.  Likewise, if a significant portion of the “movement” rank-and-file refuse to go along with “business as usual,” then the whole rotten edifice of Der Movement comes crashing down.

But they just don’t have what it takes to do that, do they?

A race of weaklings and morons.

Revisiting Putnam

No White racial solidarity.

Let’s again consider Putnam’s oft-discussed findings about diversity eroding societal trust and repressing social engagement and investment in public goods (similar to findings by others and a topic often brought up by Salter).

Putnam not only found that diversity decreased trust between groups but within groups as well.  That latter finding is somewhat counter intuitive, since one could reasonably assume that increased diversity, and the consequent increased distrust between groups, would strengthen a tribal “us against them” mentality and therefore increase trust within groups. But the opposite occurred, at least with those examples Putnam studied. 

How can we interpret the counter intuitive finding that diversity erodes trust and societal cohesion within groups as well as between groups?  This depends on whether this “within group” problem applies to all groups, or only to Whites.  Perhaps those more familiar with the nuances of Putnam’s work – which I read some time ago and have no interest in revisiting as Putnam is a disgusting excuse for an academic who hid his findings for years and only published it with an accompanying screed promoting social engineering to grease the wheels of White dispossession (*) and my hypothesis here will require more data in any case for a fair evaluation – know more of this.

My hypothesis is as follows. 

If within group trust is eroded by diversity for all groups, then this phenomenon reflects a general human (or should I say “hominid”) trend to withdraw and “hunker down” when faced with diversity,

If the effect is restricted to Whites (which I believe will be the case if a careful quantitative study is done), then this is a strictly White mental phenomenon.  And how does this happen?  The hypothesis suggest the following.

One could speculate various mechanisms if this was the case, but consider – a la Ignatiev’s “Race Traitor” paradigm – that Whites are the only group in which large numbers of the group – including a majority of influential elites – act overtly against group interests.  Thus, there is no racial solidarity among Whites, no one you can racially trust unless you really know them – hence, when faced with diversity, Whites will mistrust other Whites because  - given the omega cuckiness of many Whites – one can never be sure whether a given White is “on our side” or “on their side.”  In a homogeneous White community this isn’t so much of a problem (of course political disagreements – including whether or not to import diversity – can precipitate such mistrust, but even so, in a homogeneous community such conflicts would be muted).  However, in the presence of diversity, Whites must tread carefully.  Is your White coworker someone you can trust to share your disgust over multiculturalism, or will they “report you to HR” because of your “bigotry?”

On the other hand, non-Whites (including Jews) can reliably depend on their co-ethnics showing ethic/racial solidarity, and siding with them against “the other” (and particularly against Whites).  For Whites, a given fellow White is just as likely to be a Universalist cuck as they are to be someone sharing your beliefs.  

Thus, diversity erodes within group trust among Whites (and likely only among Whites) because Whites are ideologically split on this race-diversity issue, and many Whites are SJW “altruistic punishers, so that in diverse environments fellow Whites may pose a threat since they would identify with “the other side.”

Ignatiev would be proud.

*Salter rightly claimed in On Genetic Interests that for a majority being replaced, the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does work, since the workable multiculturalism will make race replacement more agreeable to those being replaced, while the pain of a failed multiculturalism may wake the majority up to prevent their dispossession.  Putnam is clearly on the side of those who want multiculturalism to succeed.

June 5: Spencer's Video and an Open Call

An open call.

Here is an excellent, and realistic, Spencer video on the latest London terrorist attack. Here, Spencer hits some notes consistent with points I’ve made over the years: objectively worthless (my words, not his) Whites will continue to grovel and appease regardless of the provocations, worse is not better because there is apparently no limit in sight to the level of abuse Whites are willing to take, and that change will require a fundamental alteration in White thinking patterns so activists need to concentrate on basic principles and not overreact to single incidents like this one.

Spencer once again proves his potential as a pro-White leader.

Now, you know, I’m not of the Alt Right  and I (strongly) dislike the brand and its pretensions to legitimate “movement” hegemony.  I could in theory adopt an attitude of schadenfreude about all the divisive, internal Alt Right feuds going on, and if I was really the “crazy” and “bitter” lunatic the Alt Righters claim I am, that would indeed be my attitude.

However, I realize that – until the time comes that the Alt Right fad burns itself out – the Alt Right does have predominance (illegitimate hegemony) in racial activism today, particularly in America but growing in Western Europe as well. This predominance means that missteps of the Alt Right can harm racial nationalism as a whole, and I would like the damage minimized.  That is, we need “damage control” until such time that activists come to their senses (there’s a first time for everything) and realize there’s more to racial nationalism than Millennials, juvenile jackassery, generally superficial analyses, Trump worship, and screaming about Pepe and Kek.

In that frame of mind, I make an open call, I call upon both Spencer and Johnson to put their differences aside, exhibit genuine leadership for the greater good, and, at the very least, stop the attacks against each other and their allies.

Things change in Der Movement.  Not so long ago, Johnson was on good relations with Spencer and with Friberg.  Now, he’s on good relations with Hunter Wallace, a change from the past.  Spencer has refrained from criticizing Johnson until the recent Friberg incident.

Yes, I know, nationalist leaders of the past have had their feuds and falling outs.  Hitler and Rohm, Codreanu and Cuza, etc. But, guys, you are not at their level, your differences do not rise to the level of those historical breaks, and petty feuds mostly about personality and access to money aren’t helping any of us.

Well Then, Brexit is Sure Working Out Well!

Dat dere ethnonationalism working wonders!

Well, you see, as long as dem dere Poles are kept out of the UK, everything will be A-OK!

Now we can wait for the other shoe to drop: marches in London, full of White natives, in support of more Islamic immigration, in support of their “Muslim community,” in support of “diversity” and “multiculturalism,” and against “bigotry and hatred.”

No worries though!  All you need are some more Silker comments posted at AltRight.com accompanied by pictures of female (of course) anime figures standing proudly alongside the British flag. After all, the essence of being "British" is the Union Jack, don't you know.