White Fright

Racial fear is a complicated thing. It’s worth trying to break it down, without blinking too much.

As one regresses through history, and into pre-history, the pattern of encounters between large-scale human groups of markedly distinct ancestry is modeled — with ever-greater fidelity — upon a genocidal ideal. The ‘other’ needs to be killed, or at the very least broken in its otherness. To butcher all males, beginning with those of military age, and then assimilate the females as breeding stock might suffice as a solution (Yahweh specifically warns the ancient Hebrews against such half-hearted measures). Anything less is sheer procrastination. When economic imperatives and high levels of civilizational confidence start to overwhelm more primordial considerations, it is possible for the suppression of other peoples to take the humanized form of social obliteration combined with mass enslavement, but such softness is a comparatively recent phenomenon. For almost the entire period in which recognizably ‘human’ animals have existed on this planet, racial difference has been thought sufficient motive for extermination, with limited contact and inadequacy of socio-technical means serving as the only significant brakes upon inter-racial violence. The sole deep-historical alternative to racial oppression has been racial eradication, except where geographical separation has postponed resolution. This is the simple side of the ‘race problem’, but it too begins to get complicated … (we’ll pick it up again after a detour).

For the moment, we need only note the archaic, subterranean ocean of racial animosity that laps upon the sunless chasms of the brain, directed by genomes sculpted by aeons of genocidal war. Call it racial terror. It’s not our principal concern here.

Racial horror is something else, although it is no doubt intricately inter-connected. Horror of the very phenomenon of race — of race as such — is both a larger and a smaller topic. It is at once an expansive affect that finds no comfort in biological identity, and a distinctively ethno-specific syndrome. When positively elaborated, racial horror explodes into a ‘Lovecraftian’ cosmic revulsion directed at the situation of human intelligence by its natural inheritance. The negative expression, far more common today (among those of a very specific natural inheritance), takes the form of a blank denial that any such reality as race even exists. We are fully entitled to describe this latter development as racial white-out. Any Critical Whiteness Studies of even minimal seriousness would concentrate upon it unrelentingly.

HBD, or human biological diversity, is evidently not reducible to racial variation. It is at least equally concerned with human sexual dimorphism, and is ultimately indistinguishable from an eventual comparative human genomics. When considered as a provocation, however, the translation of HBD into ‘race science’ or more pointedly ‘scientific racism’ drowns out every other dimension of meaning. What is found appalling about HBD is the insistence that race exists. It is a ‘trigger’ for racial horror. Social outrage, certainly, but beyond that cosmic distress, tilting into a panic without limit. HBD subtracts the promise of universal humanity, so it must — at any cost — be stopped.

Because this is no more than a preliminary blog post, I will restrict it to a single modest ambition: the refoundation of Critical Whiteness Studies on a remorselessly Neoreactionary basis. White people are odd. Some especially significant group of them, in particular, have radically broken from the archaic pattern of human racial identity, creating the modern world in consequence, and within it their ethnic identity has become a dynamic paradox. Whiteness is an uncontrolled historical reaction which nobody — least of all anybody from among the complementary anti-racists of Critical Whiteness Studies and White Nationalism — has begun to understand. To begin to do so, one would have to comprehend why the essay in which Mencius Moldbug most explicitly repudiates White Nationalism is the same as the one in which he most unambiguously endorses human racial diversity. It requires an acknowledgement of difficulty, which — because it demolishes irresistibly attractive but hopelessly facile solutions on both sides — few are motivated to make.

The signature of indissoluble White difference is precisely racial horror. HBD is uniquely horrible to White people. Until you get that, you don’t get anything.

Play with this for a while, or for more than a while (it does a huge amount of unwanted but indispensable work). To begin with:

(1) Critical Whiteness Studies, whatever its ethno-minoritarian pretensions, is all about ‘acting white’. Insofar as it criticizes ‘white privilege’ essentially, it does so by reproducing an ethnically singular mode of universal reason which no other people make any sense of whatsoever, except opportunistically, and parasitically. ‘Whiteness’ tends to become a religious principle, exactly insofar as it lacks the recognizable characteristics of racial group dominance (“race does not exist”) and sublimes into a mode of cultural reproduction which only one ethnicity, ever, has manifested. To quote Alison Bailey — tilting over into the raw psychosis of systematic ‘whiteness’ critique (repeated link):

In its quest for certainty, Western philosophy continues to generate what it imagines to be colorless and genderless accounts of knowledge, reality, morality, and human nature. Perhaps this is because academic philosophy in the U.S. has been largely driven by analytic methods and the legacy of Classic Greek and European thinkers, or because philosophy departments are white social spaces where the overwhelming majority of professional philosophers are white men. In either case, it’s likely that most members of the discipline have avoided racial topics because they believe that philosophical thought transcends basic cultural, racial, ethnic, and social differences, and that these differences are best addressed by historians, cultural studies scholars, literary theorists, and social scientists. The absence of color talk in philosophy is a marker of its whiteness.

Supremacist white racism goes so deep it is absolutely indistinguishable from a complete absence of racism — quod erat demonstrandum.

(2) White Nationalism finds itself stymied at every turn by universalism, pathological altruism, ethno-masochism — all that yucky white stuff. If only you could do White Nationalism without white people, it would sweep the planet. (Try not to understand this, I know you don’t want to.) Heartiste is picking up on the pattern:

Where is this thought leading? The native stock of the West is clearly suffering from a mental sickness caused by too much outbreeding. Universalism is the religion of liberal whites, and they cleave so strongly to this secular religion that they are happy, nay overjoyed!, to throw the borders open and bequeath their hard-won territory and culture to battalions of Third Worlders and other temperamentally distant aliens, who of course given large enough numbers will promptly, whether wittingly or consequentially, execute its destruction.

(3) All White people need is an identitarian religion. Is that not approximately the same as saying: a counter-factual history?

(4) Those wacky libertarians, with their universal schema for human emancipation that’s so easily confused with a washing-powder advertisement — it’s so dazzlingly white. Deny the whiteness and self-destruct in bleeding-heart abasement and open-borders insanity, or affirm it and head into post-libertarian racial perplexity.

Destiny is difficult — not least racial destiny. I don’t think many people want to think about this, but I’m determined to be as awkward about it as I can … (it’s probably a white thing).

ADDED: Notable race sanity from Neovictorian here and here.

March 29, 2014admin 94 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations , Neoreaction

TAGGED WITH : , ,

94 Responses to this entry

  • Izak Says:

    Hi. I like this blog.

    I’ve spent most of my internet time commenting on and reading the more intelligent White Nationalist blogs out there. I can even taxonomize some of them and point out their various strengths and weaknesses.

    This blog post here hits upon my biggest issue with the White Nationalists, which is that they view whites in the most condescending possible terms as soon as they view them generically (and not according to each specific ethnicity). They basically play Captain Save-A-Ho with the entire white race. “Whites *want* this and that, but they don’t know that they want it. And by George, we’re going to give them what they don’t know they wanted all along, even if they have to be brought along with us kicking and screaming all the while!” (The smarter White Nationalists actually say this!)

    I think that the most important thing that the current Critical Whiteness Studies people have to say is this: whiteness has always historically been a category expressed in negative terms. As soon as Europeans developed a larger geospatial understanding of the world, they realized that they were surrounded by non-whites, the “world” stopped being just Europe, and whiteness was born out of the need to find a concise way to say “not…. those other guys.” And White Nationalism has done little to change that. In fact, if White Nationalism ever picks up any traction, it will be because of the negative definition of whiteness currently pervading everyday life — ie, “white people are the people who don’t qualify for such-and-such government service or leg-up program and then get yelled at for privilege.”

    So far the closest thing to a concise, positively-expressed idea about who Whites are is the “Faustian” model by Oswald Spengler. But Spengler sees the West and Russia as totally different entities, and the White Nationalists think that Russia should gang up and become friends with the rest of Europe. Good luck with all that!

    I’ve seen some nice preliminary attempts to change that mentality — Colin Cleary over at Counter-Currents has done some work examining Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization. He also has been trying to answer the question of why Europeans started making cave art while no one did so before. I think these kinds of questions are important. But there’s not enough of this in White Nationalism. There’s far too much A) self-deprecating Jew-baiting (IE, “the white race — who are really a bunch of naive humdrum do-gooders unlike us, the great White Nationalists — were all tricked by the intellectually superior yet nefarious evil Jews!”) and B) insistence that whites are in an existential battle for their own survival. Most smart people find the idea absurd for the simple reason that they (quite logically) view populations in total numbers, not as percentages. The White Nationalists have also not been able to come to terms with the fact that the Jews have basically swallowed the same brand of cyanide-laced universalism Kool-Aid that they’ve been prescribing to everyone else, and that consequently, they, too, are diminishing in numbers alongside the European Goyim. The reason White Nationalists hate discussing this is because the Jews are the necessary antagonists in the genocide narrative that they have fabricated.

    I find all of this stuff pretty disappointing. Ideally, the White Nationalists should try to figure out a solid descriptive model before they go around attempting to say “rah rah rah” about themselves. Instead, they say, “It is too late in our waning final hour! We whites must organize and swiftly build the foundations of our new, geopolitically worthless White Republic, where Yanni and Enya will be the official musicians, NASCAR will be the official sport, and Norman Rockwell will be critically reinterpreted as a great artistic purveyor of implicit whiteness!” Well, then! That doesn’t bode well for me, because I do everything slowly!

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 29th, 2014 at 7:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • piwtd Says:

    “HBD is uniquely horrible to White people.” HBD is horrible to civilized people in general (pre-historic savages had no inhibitions to slaughter each other based on race), which whites are in larger numbers, because HBD is true. Play with this for a while. This is an application of more general paradox of civilization: civilization is self-inhibition of violence. The violence of laws and cultural norms is directed to inhibiting ordinary apish violence, such as tribal warfare, we can see this in places where civilization disintegrates and people default to their animal impulses and start massacring each other based on ethnicity.

    This self-negating essence of civilization then produces “degenerate solutions” to the paradox. The degenerate solution on the left is “tolerance to intolerance”, i.e. white liberals opening borders to the flood of immigrant who then bring their medieval values abolishing the liberal civilization which allowed it, this is “the cathedral”. The degenerate solution on the right is trying to be a particularist about a race who’s most distinguished particular characteristic is its tendency to universalism, this is “white nationalism”. The proper non-degenerate resolution of the paradox remains to be articulated. Here is a rough sketch: it is imperative to affirm the universalim, but not by a “noble lie” of denying HBD but by building the foundation of civilized morality on grounds not contradicting biology, racism (defined not as affirming HBD, but as inferring form it abolition of universal human rights) and pathological liberalism (“tolerance to intolerance”) are both to be equally avoided, it is perfectly valid to assert cultural superiority of one group of people over another, in fact it is necessary to do so, precisely because there is a universal human morality to which particular groups can either fail or succeed to conform.

    [Reply]

    Konkvistador Reply:

    Self-inhibition against violence is civilization? Perhaps. But violence is truth revealing. Remember my words, as war proceeds uncertainty collapses.

    Self-inhibition against violence is the cousin of self-inhibition against truth. We certainly are self-inhibiting against truth as hard as we can. Every neuron in Academia dedicated to containing and boxing away bad, mean, violence inducing truth.

    [Reply]

    Nobody Reply:

    Self-inhibition against violence IS civilization, but always keep in mind that self-inhibition is contingent upon definition and maintenance of Self. Civilization by itself is not negating, liberalism is in it’s incapacity (or unwillingness) to distinguish foreign bodies (in the civilizational sense).

    Men are cells, civilizations are multi-celled organisms, economy is metabolism, violence is allergy and liberalism, in all forms, is a vector of civilizational immunodeficiency.

    [Reply]

    piwtd Reply:

    Maybe there is a confusion caused by my poor grasp of English prepositions but in my original comment I purposefully used term “self-inhibition OF violence” not “against violence”. Civilization is violence being organized so as to be reduced – policeman arrests a criminal (violence) to keep peace in streets (absence of violence). Civilization is therefore a paradox – violence used to abolish itself. This creates paradoxes of self-referencing negativity when the violence abolishing violence starts abolishing the violence abolishing violence etc. Any argument having to do with violence can therefore be used to argue two opposite conclusions: “violence is bad, therefore we need more police officers to keep the streets peaceful” or “violence is bad, therefore police should really be more restricted in their ability to use it”. Any position that does not take into account this formal symmetry is half blind. The cathedral is blind on its right eye, reactionaries are blind on their left eye. Seeing through the dogmas of the cathedral has thrown people here into the opposite imbalance.

    Nobody Reply:

    Same difference, it seems to me. Both reduce to inhibition for the purposes of quarantining violence, unless I’m missing something (english isn’t my first language).

    My point was that this seems paradoxical only if you ignore Classification (statistical and immunological, not marxist). Civilization is what happens when a population farcically relaxes the conceptual constraints of Self a little bit more to include a whole host of other individuals that aren’t immediately related, thus forming a meta-organism, of an incrediby freakish chinese-room type but an organism nonetheless. Police is lymphatic, military is muscular. Thus a particular civilization is self-affirming, to the point of dominance and tyranny, but you have to be aware of what kind of Self I’m talking about here. HBD is terrifying to whites because they were the first to really commit to playing the part of neurons in something quite greater.

    Europe didn’t care about violence when it tried to fuck the rest of the world, but it did get nihilistic neurosyphilis in reward of it’s promiscuity though.

    I also don’t think absence of violence is the primary motivation so much as productivity and self-perpetuation, both for the benefit of individual cells and the Beast itself, which are what actually figures into the calculus of power, and thus we get legislative impediments and several other softer forms of coercion and obstructionism to many kinds of activities, not just physically violent ones.

    As for the blindness thing, I agree. Excessive force is an autoimmune disorder, excessive laxity is immunodeficient.

    Konkvistador Reply:

    In the long run nothing can stand against truth. Certainly nothing as fragile as civilization.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 29th, 2014 at 7:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    The dynamic paradox is at best a few decades old, modern society was created by whites for whites.

    European society was for Europeans until a few decades ago, so I’m not sure I agree with the premise or not.

    “the modern world in consequence, and within it their ethnic identity has become a dynamic paradox.”

    It’s a problem now but we’re talking about a tiny space of time, really only 20-30 years Hate Whitey gained any credibility. And it happened during a period of degeneracy and insane decadence that we have yet to recover from, and may well rapidly when the Baby Boomers are at last dead. It’s happening during the same period that porn went from being a vice to a utility, it happened during a period of peak self-loathing that is well not entirely native to whites but shall we say immigrated here from Eastern Europe a century ago.

    So this is a problem that exists now and may only for this point in time.

    Also it affects the White elites far more than the general stock, and the White Elites come what may are not long for the world. Perhaps they don’t want to make it, they certainly don’t act as if they do.

    [Reply]

    Konkvistador Reply:

    “The dynamic paradox is at best a few decades old, modern society was created by whites for whites.”

    Exactly. Racial sentiment was on the rise in Europe in the second half of the 19th century. In many places for the first half of the 20th too. The industrial revolution didn’t produce deracination, it produced mass standardized raciation, see Nationalism.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Signs of people trying to wriggle off the hook. Need … more … hook.

    [Reply]

    RiverC Reply:

    Hades is a big fish, you’ll need a serious hook to get ‘im

    Izak Reply:

    @VXXC The mentality probably won’t die out with the boomers. Most of the millenials seem to be far, far worse, at least from my experience. I also am not really sure the “hate whitey” stuff is a byproduct of self-loathing. If I hold racelessness as the grand ideal, and I criticize whites while speaking from a position of racelessness, then I’m not self-loathing; I’m self-aggrandizing. There’s an Eminem lyric that goes like: “How the fuck can I be white? I don’t even exist.” I think it sort of hits upon the mentality. By not even existing as a temporal subject, I’m actually higher than everyone else, because I’m everywhere and nowhere all at the same time.

    You mentioned internet porn, and maybe we could say the same thing about that?? I see it as a voyeuristic activity; it’s not about “living vicariously” through the actor (as many fans claim) or simulating an experience of cuckoldry. It’s more of an attempt at empowerment via self-denial.

    You’re probably right about low (hipster) white fertility, but they could retain cultural/symbolic power for quite some time despite waning numbers. They might be like the sterile priesthood, part of but separate from a (I think) fertile class – you join when you’re feeling that extra special bit of resentment and anger at the world.

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    No shortage of white self hatred in 1890. The British were defeated in Egypt by Muslim outrage demanding white apology and self abasement, which was forthcoming.

    Ebonics, the doctrine that Black English is equal but different, originated in the 1870s. It was part and parcel of imperialism, the doctrine that empire was to benefit the non whites at the expense of the whites.

    The campaign against colonialism and in favor of imperialism (imperialism then being a left wing anti white doctrine, subsequently demonized as right wing due to the ever leftwards movement) achieved psychological dominance around 1830 or so, and gained the political upper hand around 1857.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 29th, 2014 at 8:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    And now that I’ve been responsible do send me a critical whiteness syllabus.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 29th, 2014 at 8:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Konkvistador Says:

    “HBD is uniquely horrible to White people”

    Something that has been pointed out in a joke. It inspires laughs to hide discomfort. Excellent post, everyone should read. So here is a completely serious completely unserious post intended to produce discomfort. Some intellectual frolicking.

    While white people’s out bred ways precedes the 1940s, until then they mostly had a strong if ideologically malleable racial identity. Notice that for the entire second half of the 19th century, as the vastness of space grew exponentially, as time became older and older, as unseen rays pierced flesh and bone, as the universality of the universe sparked enthusiasm and terror, through all this the feeling Westerners experienced was racial sentiment rising. Happiness is the feeling of power rising. Can it be extricated in hominid minds from the feeling of ingroup rising?

    1945. It keeps coming back to that, a race war, yes. But not the one we imagined. It wasn’t crazy Nazis against the world.The Nazis wanted to be Mongols, they wanted to be Normans laying waste to Saxon England, they wanted to be ancient Jews. They wanted to be Human; Competent and industrially empowered but tribal killer apes. It was a war against Cthulhu.

    So what where the allies? In 1945 Cthulhu finally found his Fish People. The politics of the second war where the politics of horror. The Nazis weren’t terror, they where a desperate failed jump away from the yawning chasm of Fish People metamorphosis. Germany was a V2 flying to the edge of space on its way to London. So close, yet so far from the right escape velocity. If they wanted to remain human they should have aimed for the Moon instead. So here modern Germany is. In London. In Innsmouth.

    Universalism became fully universal, the United Nations where born, rising out of the deep dark mental waters of Massachusetts and New York. Von Braun chained and selfishly happy to serve a mad master as ačways, took Innsmouth to the Moon. Don’t believe me? Its right there on the plaque http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Apollo-11-_Plaque-replica.jpg The stars where right.

    We are trapped in Innsmouth. White nationalists are hatching natives who don’t want to follow the transformation to its conclusion. Nonwhite people are tourists… for now. The Fish People will eventually come for them as well. That the rest of mankind doesn’t unite in horror against the masses of deracianted white people in the year of our lord 2014 is a sign they don’t think white people really are post-racial. They assume this is just an extra special hoax, a brilliant gambit intended to trick them. Hahahaha, what a silly gig they play to con and frighten us, with the make up and prosthetic gills… right?

    So white nationalists are people. The only white people in whiteness. What are non-white nationalist rightist white people?

    Fish People vs People. Zombies vs. People. The comfortable racial framing reestablished for fully transformed Fish People who want to leave Innsmouth. Their perverse minds already acclimatized to the concept of anti-fish people fish people, anti-zombie zombies, they chew on fish people instead of participating in the black masses chanting praise to Cthulhu. Some want a cure. Some do not.

    Fish people fully removed from Cthulhu’s influence might become people once more. Or not.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    This has remarkable truth value for a horror yarn.

    [Reply]

    Konkvistador Reply:

    That was the intention.

    [Reply]

    peppermint Reply:

    White people will be horrified by race as long as White people and race exist. There are two answers: destroy White people, or use genetic engineering to assimilate the rest of the world to White values.

    [Reply]

    peppermint Reply:

    Needless to say, the second option will be preferred by our current elites. After all, they firmly believe in the universal appeal and application of White values.

    [Reply]

    Konkvistador Reply:

    This is simply not true. White people were not horrified by race in 1900. Or 1800 for that matter.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    They were demonstrably predisposed to be horrified by it, as Occidental cultural history indicates.

    lotus Reply:

    “I know not whether others share in my feelings on this point; but I have ofter thought that if I were compelled to forgo England, and to live in China, and among Chinese manners and modes of life and scenery, I should go mad. The causes of my horror lie deep; and some of them must be common to others. Souther Asia, in general, is the seat of awful images and associations. As the cradle of the human race, it would alone have a dim and reverential feeling connected with it. But there are other reasons. No man can pretend that the wild, barbarous, and capricious superstitions of Africa, or of savage tribes elsewhere, affect him in the way that he is affected by the ancient, monumental, cruel, and elaborate religions of Indostan, &c. The mere antiquity of Asiatic things, of their institutions, histories, modes of faith, &c. is so impressive, that to me the cast age of the race and name overpowers the sense of youth in the individual. A young Chinese seems to me an antediluvian man renewed. Even Englishmen, though not bred in any knowledge of such institutions, cannot but shudder at the mystic sublimity of castes that have flowed apart, and refused to mix, through such immemorial tracts of time; nor can any man fail to be awed by the names of the Ganges, or the Euphrates. It contributes much to these feelings, that southern Asia is, and has been for thousands of years, the part of the earth most swarming with human life; the great officina gentium. Man is a weed in those regions. The vast empires also, into which the enormous population of Asia has always been cast, give a further sublimity to the feelings associated with all oriental names or images. In China, over and above what it has in common with the rest of southern Asia, I am terrified by the modes of life, by the manners, and the barrier of utter abhorrence, and want of sympathy, placed between us by feelings deeper than I can analyze. I could sooner live with lunatics, or brute animals. All this, and much more than I can say, or have time to say, the reader must enter into before he can comprehend the unimaginable horror which these dreams of oriental imagery, and mythological tortures, impressed upon me.” – de Qunicey, Confessions of an English Opium Eater

    Lotus Reply:

    – at least one example, and a diagnostically interesting one (in my opinion).

    Also potentially of interest given Admin’s current residence, and his relation to a certain Anglo tradition (De Quincey –> Poe –> Lovecraft)

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Neither of those is an answer. They are effective solutions to the “problem.” But unsolved contradictions are the engine of the Left. So neither solution makes sense.

    [Reply]

    RiverC Reply:

    Yes, lower contradictions are replaced by ‘higher’ contradictions with higher moral feeling and stakes, and greater cultural ruin. It’s the dialectic, baby.

    Posted on March 29th, 2014 at 8:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Konkvistador Says:

    The racial destiny of Fish People is a fascinating question.

    Will their black masses raise, Cthulhu from the sea once more, drowning the world in blood, as superhuman progressive AI rises to rule an eternity of souls tortured in hell?

    Will Fish People mutate in a way resistant to the siren call of their master and mother? And what will they then become.

    Will evolution swiftly eliminate them as Western civilization collapses, its maintenance neglected by the now insane cultist race. Once Darwin’s cleansing is done people both brown and even a few white would remains and history returns to its track.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 29th, 2014 at 8:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    The trouble with white nationalism is that it is demotic. The trouble with our brahmins is that they are demotic.

    If, seeking power, you propose to give all white people a microslice of power, you will be outbid by those seeking power who propose to give everyone a microslice of power.

    White nationalism is moderate leftism, and moderate leftism will always be outbid by immoderate leftism

    Today’s white nationalism is yet another variant on the Republican program of backing away from the left singularity in infinitesimally tiny steps. This runs contrary to the natural ever leftwards dynamic, so always turns into program for heading into the left singularity at a slightly slower pace which in turn turns into a program for heading into the left singularity at an ever accelerating pace – mainstream republicanism.

    White nationalism, being demotic, tends to become national socialism. National socialism kills people not because it is nationalist, but because it is socialist.

    That said, it is necessary to apply different laws to different people on the basis of superficial characteristics. For example a black man taking certain drugs is overwhelmingly likely to be markedly more dangerous than a white man taking the same drugs. So, in practice, we have very restrictive laws that are theoretically applied to everyone, but are, in practice, applied selectively – the alternative to racially aware enforcement being suicide.

    Would it not be a lot fairer to issue identity cards, and openly have different laws for different groups, with some groups having laws that were simpler, harsher, more restrictive, and more swiftly enforced?

    Of course that would be fairer, more just, more effective, than our current hypocritical system.

    And if we had that, would not white nationalism be part of the air you breathed, so that all whites would be white nationalist without thinking about it or being aware of it?

    Obviously it would. And obviously that is the system that we used to have. We used to all be unthinkingly and naturally race nationalist, the alternative being obviously stupid and suicidal. And we drifted away from that system, replacing it with elaborate hypocrisy and pretense, because white nationalism is leftist, and Cthulhu swims always left.

    You can move leftwards from that system to socialism, and wind up murdering people by the truckload, or move leftwards from that system to what we have now, and white people wind up being ethnically cleansed. On the whole, the latter leftwards movement is markedly preferable to the former leftwards movement.

    Whites are not naturally a tribe. To make them a tribe, you would need an identitarian religion. That religion would have to become the state religion, and then forcibly convert all whites to that state religion.

    But state religions that forcibly convert everyone are intolerably oppressive, and tend to have extremely bad economic effects. A more workable program is what we have now, where the official religion is high status, all deviations from it are low status, and if you want to get a job in government, or quasi government, or go to the more prestigious universities you have to pretend to subscribe to the official religion.

    Now if we had an identitarian religion, and it was the state religion, then after a few hundred years or so, nearly all whites would subscribe to it, much as they subscribe to our current official state religion, and then rule of that religion would effectively be white nationalism.

    But, lacking such a religion, whites lack tribal identity, so white nationalism will always fail the way it has already failed.

    Been there, done that, prohibited from wearing the t-shirt.

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    Whites are not naturally a tribe. To make them a tribe, you would need an identitarian religion

    Nah. Not really. It all depends on the context of racial diversity and animosity.

    Whatever the social context, people tend to form rival subgroup coalitions

    That’s why in mixed-heritage schools or prisons, all the gangs are ethnic. The people most likely to perceive a white identity and desire white nationalism are often those who live in diverse contexts and witness the results of a lack of homogeneity, but not those who see the benefits of homogeneity, who inevitably and spontaneously discover some other fissiparous principle.

    On the other hand, when everybody is white, coalitions still form on alternative bases, like class and socioeconomic status. And even when the whole community is black or hispanic, the gangs break up into Bloods vs Crips, or MS13 vs. Nuestra Familia.

    People are always going to split up and fight about something, no matter how trivial. It’s best if you give them something as benign as possible to absorb those tribal energies, like sports and commercial brands.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 29th, 2014 at 9:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • Handle Says:

    Ἀλκιβιάδης: Whoa to we Athenians! The continuance of the Delian league was a grave error, and now the city paths are crowded with the despicable men of Thasos, Lemnos, and, good Gods, don’t even get me started on Rhodes. Things are going to hell! We’ve been inviting the world, and soon we’ll be invading the world and go in hock to the world, and even the pathetic Latins will conquer us!

    Σωκράτης: Yes, there are some worrisome signs, but what cause do you suspect is the origin of our hell-bound path?

    Ἀλκιβιάδης: It is the Rhodians! We must be rid of them! I say, Athens for Athenians!

    Σωκράτης: Only the Rhodians?

    Ἀλκιβιάδης: Yes, mostly the Rhodians! They have corrupted us with their foreign ways, even those that have lived in Athens for generations and are the products of intermarriage with us. Still, they hold themselves apart.

    Σωκράτης: Do not many groups hold themselves apart in some manner, even some Athenians from others?

    Ἀλκιβιάδης: Certainly, but the Rhodians worship in their vile cult of Hades, and they spread this cult throughout Athens to the detriment of blessed Athena! Have you not seen how her temples are emptier with every festival season?

    Σωκράτης: Do not Thasos and Lemnos also worship with the cult of Hades? Do they not also create their own crude shrines to Athena, more even than Athenians go to temple these days?

    Ἀλκιβιάδης: Do not make me laugh. Men of Thasos and Lemnos are good only for helot work, or are merely criminals who cannot maintain their households in accordance with the guidance of Hestia.

    Σωκράτης: Do not many Athenians behave in such a manner?

    Ἀλκιβιάδης: Yes, but that is certainly the fault of the Rhodians and their cult of Hades! Anyway, it is the Rhodians who have become as our masters! Is it not they who control the money changing, usury, and drama trades? Is it not they who have become many amongst our great families and houses? You will see, Socrates, they are not fond of your teachings which they consider heretical to The Way Of Hades, and they will have you drinking Hemlock before long!

    Σωκράτης: Do not many Athenians also worship the cult of Hades? Should I not worry about my own kin’s fondness for Hemlock administration?

    Ἀλκιβιάδης: Well, yes, but that is because of the Rhodians!

    Σωκράτης: Did not many of the most prominent Athenian houses belong to the cult of Hades even back to the time of Homer, long before the Rhodians arrived?

    Ἀλκιβιάδης: That is true. But that was before Hades worshipers became completely crazy and dangerous, which was after the Rhodians arrived in large numbers!

    Σωκράτης: If the Rhodians were made to leave, why would the prominent Athenians who worship Hades cease in their worship of the dark lord, as has been their way for many generations?

    Ἀλκιβιάδης: Well …

    Σωκράτης: Do you have a plan to either convert them away from Hades worship, or reverse the degredaation in their practices and tame them in a way that will preserve the old ways in a stable manner, without somehow degrading again?

    Ἀλκιβιάδης: I concede, I do not know how to remove or reverse their currently vile mode of Hades worship. Perhaps we can merely pass a law! Even if not, then surly there is a way, and it requires some study. However, were that accomplished, I feel confident that, without the Rhodians around, the cult would wither and the degradation cease, so that unfortunate History will not repeat itself, and the city-state and the Athenian people shall be saved!

    Σωκράτης: Is you can find a way to disabuse the High Athenians from their love of the cult, why would this way not also work on the Rhodians?

    Ἀλκιβιάδης: Because of their Rhodianess! But, I admit that I still have work to do besides advocate for the removal of the Rhodians. Henceforward I shall begin to think about the problem of the worship of Hades by prominent Athenians.

    Σωκράτης: And I hope that you will persist; although I have fears, not because I doubt you; but I see the power of the cult, which may be too much for both of us.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Handle@,

    Which is why names not groups.

    It’s not only unjust, it’s stupid and counterproductive. The guilty wish to hide within their thede, in the case of the Nihlistic Hades worshipping Rhodians all these quite encouraged predations, appealing to the worst in people, have a follow up game plan.

    We could call the follow up escape plan Marrano. It’s not a name, it’s a method.

    A method applied a few decades ago, and hardly spoken of now.

    Nope. No playing other peoples games, no matter how it looks tempting.

    Play your own game for good or evil, or necessary evil.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 29th, 2014 at 9:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • Toby Says:

    Victory comes to those who govern whiteness effectively. The Europeans may have blown it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 29th, 2014 at 10:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ex-pat in Oz Says:

    What a thread!

    This has always been THE existential NRx/DE question. If one admits the validity of even certain aspects of HBD, one must adapt social ordering arrangements as a consequence. And yet, a Bell Curve is just that– merely a distribution across a spectrum which invites outliers in both directions. Outliers don’t disapprove the general theory but they do require a response, which is: A is generally but not always likely to X. However less likely, there are also instances of B likely to X as well. Therefore, Ax & Bx are equivalent and must be treated as such.

    Is it not possible to consider HBD like the weather– a general guide to environment but not 100% statistically accurate? Where we’ve lost the plot is focusing on A & B and not X (X=characteristics which define civilized behavior). This was the baseline which society operated in synch with prior to the 60s and it worked pretty well. It was only a crusade for the “New Man” which demanded we all resemble Cathedral avatars, whether we wanted to or not.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 29th, 2014 at 11:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rorschach Romanov Says:

    The great irony of universalism is that in the rush, demonic in its velocity, to include the being of the Other, this non self relational outsider, the identity of that which is attempting to be preserved, is in fact preemptively destroyed (See “Kant, Capital and the Prohibition of Incest”). For, where the being of said Other is itself rooted in exclusivity relative to “its” Outsider, universalism by default destroys the identity of this Other (to whom the universalist is the Outsider) before contact.

    Comical were it no so insidious- universalists, our progeny of Christianity (Christ-less of course… a la Dawkins), believe that they are soteriological warriors. Dissenters are cheerfully burned at the stake.

    I am reminded of the final scene in Larry Clark’s film “Kids.” There is, amidst the ramifications of a polite variation of “120 Days of Sodom,” a moment, a realization, crystal in clarity, that the game everyone had had so much fun playing, even and perhaps especially where dissenters and innocents were existentially castigated, raped, beaten, has come around full circle- universalism, especially of the “anti-racist” bent, is its own Captain Ahab.

    Pray that our universalist brothers and sisters come to a similar Colonel Kurtz-esque moment of realization.

    In the mean time…what’s the cost of ammunition these days?

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 30th, 2014 at 12:07 am Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    Universalism is indeed a fundamental part of “whiteness” and always has been.

    But it wasn’t always a problem. It used to be…hm…something else.

    Universalism can mean different things and this should be kept in mind. Not all universalist ideologies are made equal. Superficialy they may look the same, but as they say, the devil is in the details…

    White people have always been universalist and this has been somewhat overlooked by NRx. But back then, it was a different kind of universalism. Back then, the universalism of the white race was expressed by its ambition to export its civilization across the globe. It was the ambition to make white european civilization the only civilization there is. Yes, it was universalist, but it wasn’t a problem from an HBD perspective. The logic back then was: “We know not everyone is white and can’t have the same level of civilization as us, but that is why we should conquer and civilize them, i.e. ‘make them as white’ as possible”. It was a positive universalism, contrasted to the negative universalism of today.

    “Everybody should be white” vs. “Nobody should be white”

    Even white nationalism when taken to its full conclusion is universalist. White nationalists fetishize Nazi Germany, which had one of the most obviously universalists ideologies ever. “White supremacy” is a profoundly universalist concept that dates back to the period when the white race was busy colonizing the whole world. That was establishing white supremacy. White civilization conquering the universe.
    When you seriously think about it actual white nationalism (white socialism) is a profoundly anti-white ideology. White people build empires, not communes. (some more on this below)

    The fact that white nationalism is the only alternative to progressivist (negative anti-white) universalism, just shows how massive the triumph of Cthulhu has been. The only alternative to leftist socialist demotism is surprise, surprise, not so leftist socialist demotism.
    The original form of white universalism has been completely corrupted by the disease and has been turned on its head and against itself. “Inverted universalism”

    From expanding the race to erasing it.

    From “we will civilize you”, to “de-civilize us”.

    From conquering, to being conquered.

    From a positive, expansionistic and creative universalism focused on advancing the civliziation and moving forward and expanding it through new frontiers, to a negative, destructive universalism focused on de-scaling civilization back into primitivism, back into Rousseau’s “noble savagery”.

    Isn’t it funny, how everything has been inverted? We are truly living in Orwell’s world today.
    Even the world “progress” doesn’t mean what it used to. We shudder at the sound of it, because it has been completely corrupted, but it used to mean something (profoundly) different. Progress used to signify genuine civilizational advancement and expansion. But we all know that’s not what it means today. “Progress” in today’s meta-political language means regress. Back into savagery, ravaged by the third-world barbarian hordes, raping and pillaging western civilization presented to them on a silver platter by leftist (negative) universalism.
    Even the language we use has been so profoundly corrupted that the rules of possible discourse are set entirely by ‘them’. For what we are dealing with here, cannot be adequately named (at least not until It still sets the rules of discourse and is in complete control of the meta-language). Is “It” a progressive? Yes? But surely, by the standarts of times long forgotten it is we who are the actual progressives and It is not. (remember, Rousseau was actually somewhat of a reactionary). But I digress…

    At any rate, white nationalism is a sham. Either white nationalists are closet universalists who want to achieve the supremacy of european (white) civlization once again, in which case calling it “white nationalism” is intellectualy dishonest and inaccurate, or it is genuine nationalist tribalism, in which case it is not “white” at all, because it is not expansionistic.

    Empires vs. communes.
    A crucial difference.

    [Reply]

    Nobody Reply:

    Universalism is Imperialism, inevitable post-biological endocytosis. White nationalism is not anti-white in it’s seemingly more passive compromises, it’s a hand trying to amputate itself away from a sick body, with predictable results. It’s not one (closet universalism) or the other (base tribalism) either, they’re making a sincere compromise but it’s beyond obvious for everyone else that it wouldn’t stay that way, at the first sight of a conquerable opportunity.

    Expansionism (express but implicit desire for growth, continuity, longevity) is a fundamental component of all civilizations at one point or another, the chief and primordial component of Life itself, not exclusive to whites (nothing is, really, aside from perhaps slightly increased competence).

    Progress is also the same as it has always been, the advancement of a particular set of ideals in reverence to some idealized (invariably utopian) vision, even if the dominant vision itself changed. Past proponents thought slavery and subjugation cheap costs for their view of civilization while post-modern ones consider self-annihilation the same. Same stuff (I MUST grow MY view of civilization), different substrate (Traditionalist higher culture vs post-modernist low-base-mean equality), you think it’s different just because you’re on the “wrong” (read momentarily weaker) side of “Herstory”, surrounded by increasing cataphylaxis of some organs you identify with.

    Guns don’t become pretty when we’re the ones firing them, romanticizing european colonialism (latin americans like me could tell you about the nonsense inherent in that, even if I’m one of the ones that don’t look too disfavorably on it) is cheap comfort, even if it is less absurd than dogmatically demonizing it.

    [Reply]

    Ivan .M Reply:

    Expansionism was not unique to the Faustian Order, certainly. It may not have even been distinct in the sense of conquerors regarding their policies toward the conquered as “improvement” for its own sake.

    Perhaps guilt, then, is the salient quality here? Did proto-Kiplings reflect upon the lot of distant aliens and feel their consciences writhe in their breast, secreting that icky awareness of divine favor until it filled whole thoraxes and the psychic… things burst forth and scuttled away, having absconded with tribal prudence?

    I dunno, really.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 30th, 2014 at 12:45 am Reply | Quote
  • 'nonymous Says:

    Excellent thread.

    But I wonder – is it possible to be a non-white neoreactionary? That seems to be my situation.

    I’ve been following NRx, HBD, techno-commercialism, etc. for a while now. I generally accept the basic premises – “Progress” is fatally dumb and will eventually trigger the collapse of Western civilization, if it hasn’t already. Western countries would be substantially better, and non-suicidal, under a more traditionalist (or techo-commercialist) system.

    But if the essential question of neoreaction is that of race, would I be unable to grok it?

    Even if I have a significant amount of White DNA?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    If you’re pursuing neoreactionary thought-trains without allergy, that’s the end of the matter.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 30th, 2014 at 2:42 am Reply | Quote
  • MF Says:

    Interesting point you make that, “Yahweh specifically warns the ancient Hebrews against such half-hearted measures” I’d love more information about this: what exactly does the Old Testament say about this? Do you have a book, chapter, and verse? Thank you 🙂

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Deuteronomy 20:

    16 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

    17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites …

    [Reply]

    Erik Reply:

    Admin mentions the Deut 20 passage where Yahweh provides rules of engagement. In short: first give the enemy a chance to surrender, if they don’t surrender then kill all their men, this is the rule for faraway cities, but for the near cities in the land promised to you, accept no surrender and kill everyone, yes, everyone, utterly destroy them, “lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations”. So there is more than one rule – sometimes you have to make with the utter destruction (utter destruction is a recurring theme here), sometimes it’s acceptable to be a bit less heavy-handed with the crushing.

    Deut 20 is hardly the only such, though. Deut 7, When Yahweh brings you into this land that shall be yours, and gives its inhabitants into your hand, you shall conquer them, utterly destroy them, show them no mercy, make no agreements with them, and enter into no marriages with them. Or else they will turn you away from Yahweh, and Yahweh will destroy you.

    Instructions of this sort go back quite a way actually. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+33%3A50-56&version=NKJV"Numbers 33, “When you have crossed the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their engraved stones, destroy all their molded images, and demolish all their high places; you shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land and dwell in it, for I have given you the land to possess” … followed by noting the consequences: “But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall be that those whom you let remain shall be irritants in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land where you dwell.”

    Shouldn’t forget Numbers 21, where Israel makes a vow to the Lord: “If You will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.” Cue the Lord delivering that people into the hand of Israel, and Israel utterly destroying their cities, so that the area became known as Utter Destruction. Then there’s some travelogue before the next round of utter destruction:
    33 And they turned and went up by the way to Bashan. So Og king of Bashan went out against them, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei. 34 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Do not fear him, for I have delivered him into your hand, with all his people and his land; and you shall do to him as you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who dwelt at Heshbon.” 35 So they defeated him, his sons, and all his people, until there was no survivor left him; and they took possession of his land.

    Utter Destruction continues being the rule of the day for a while, in Joshua 8:
    24 And it came to pass when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness where they pursued them, and when they all had fallen by the edge of the sword until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned to Ai and struck it with the edge of the sword. 25 So it was that all who fell that day, both men and women, were twelve thousand—all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back his hand, with which he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. 27 Only the livestock and the spoil of that city Israel took as booty for themselves, according to the word of the Lord which He had commanded Joshua. 28 So Joshua burned Ai and made it a heap forever, a desolation to this day.

    [Reply]

    Erik Reply:

    Gah, botched a link. Numbers 33. Admin, any chance of a preview feature or perhaps a brief edit window on comments?

    Bonus round of UTTER DESTRUCTION! for this comment: Joshua 10.

    28 On that day Joshua took Makkedah, and struck it and its king with the edge of the sword. He utterly destroyed them—all the people who were in it. He let none remain. He also did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho.

    29 Then Joshua passed from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, to Libnah; and they fought against Libnah. 30 And the Lord also delivered it and its king into the hand of Israel; he struck it and all the people who were in it with the edge of the sword. He let none remain in it, but did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho.

    31-33 [ditto. utter destruction from Libnah to Lachish]

    34-35 [ditto. utter destruction from Lachish to Eglon]

    36-37 [ditto. utter destruction from Eglon to Hebron]

    38 Then Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to Debir; and they fought against it. 39 And he took it and its king and all its cities; they struck them with the edge of the sword and utterly destroyed all the people who were in it. He left none remaining; as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir and its king, as he had done also to Libnah and its king.

    40 So Joshua conquered all the land: the mountain country and the South and the lowland and the wilderness slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel had commanded.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 30th, 2014 at 4:04 am Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    But I wonder – is it possible to be a non-white neoreactionary? That seems to be my situation.

    There are a lot of Jewish and some east asian neoreactionaries, some fairly whitish mestizo neoreactionaries, and at least one distinctly black neoreactionary (He hates black people too)

    The big obstacle for east asian neoreactionaries is that east asians tend to gentleness and respectability, while neoreaction is harsh and disreputable

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Now that’s unexpected.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    @spandrell

    Not really.

    [Reply]

    Konkvistador Reply:

    @VXXC It isn’t?

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    I was referring to Jim’s comment, and no it’s not a surprise.

    Posted on March 30th, 2014 at 8:14 am Reply | Quote
  • Sergio Guadaro Says:

    One way to deal with the racial issue, when discussing political systems, is to ignore it and then see how other desiderata constrain the options.

    In my preferred system, I doubt that affirmative action, Zimmerman hysteria culture and extensive anti-discrimination legislation would be prevalent, although maybe they would if it turns people like these things and they increase our wealth. I imagine that the ability to sign restrictive covenants of a racial kind would be controversial, or maybe “not a good idea”, rather than utterly out of the question. Immigration would probably be freer and easier. Apart from that, I wouldn’t expect remarkable changes.

    I think ideological anti-racism is consistent with my preferred system, although hampered by a shift away from social legislation, but improbable because in its entirety I doesn’t increase any ethnic group’s welfare. I don’t envy Africans or African-Americans in 2014, and not including Critical Whiteness Studies I can see some easy ways to make them better off; I don’t think there’s an objective basis for the overbearing anti-racist ideology that would exist apart from status/stability/religious ends.

    My preferred type of political system is arguably less suited than the modern structure to absolute Brazilification, the creation of a uniform race of coffee-coloured people. I would argue that neither the creation of this uniform race nor a multicoloured race should be the guiding principle of humanity’s social organisation, according to popular ethical theories. I think adults in a position of responsibility should be able to put aside their biases about things like this.

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    In practice, you cannot treat unequal groups equally before the law, because the differences are too large, and pretending to do so is hypocrisy. In America, 98% of marijuana busts are black, although there is no very large difference in marijuana use between blacks and whites. In Australia, alcohol is banned in some areas and not others. Guess which areas.

    Attempting to do so necessarily leads to moral inversion, where laws are openly unequal, and the inferior group is openly treated better than the superior group, and bad behavior of the inferior group is valorized while good behavior of the superior group is demonized, for example VAWA, the violence against women act.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 30th, 2014 at 11:35 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    HBD – the Universal Anti-Universalism- The New Religion.

    Now nothing personal, but we really must have an end to “must”. My last encounter of note being ‘we must live up to our ideals.’

    For instance – not personal –

    “If one admits the validity of even certain aspects of HBD, one must adapt social ordering arrangements as a consequence.”

    No, one actually mustn’t do any such thing unless one is a social engineer with a personal agenda of advancement, or psychopathic personality interface to fellow men, or both.

    We should allow people to order their own personal society, that’s called Freedom of Association.

    Note I don’t say we “must”.

    I can also say that if a stranger comes into your neighborhood bearing “must’s” you should hang him from a tree with a sign that says “It’s over for Must”. Notice I say you should, I don’t say you must.

    When someone mentions Must you should reach for your pistol. However it’s unreasonable to demand you must reach for your pistol. Freedom of Association and all that. Patchwork, Yes.

    For the definitive takedown on Standard Distributions aka Bell Curve see either Taleb or the stock market risk management models from LTCM 98 forward.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 30th, 2014 at 2:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    @Rorschach Romanov

    LIKE. THIS. MUH

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 30th, 2014 at 3:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nicholas Pell Says:

    Whiteness studies as fertile ground for neoreactionary entryism? I’m of two minds on this:

    Anyone who follows me closely on Twitter knows I’m critical of porting strategy and tactics from leftism. Different ends, different needs, different paths. This strikes me as the second most important criticism of the European New Right; Can the right build a counterculture? Maybe, but I doubt it’s worth pursuing.

    Infiltrating an academic discipline strikes me as similar to this notion. The academy is part of the Cathedral. It’s arguably the stronghold of the Cathedral. More important to me — and perhaps in sharp contradiction to my last paragraph, perhaps not — is the old neoreactionary project of building the Antiversity, which seems to have been thrown by the wayside.

    We need our own institutions. Once we build those, it might be time to talk about colonizing others. I believe that Land has agreed with me on this at various times, so I’d like his thoughts.

    On the other hand, “whiteness studies” is a relatively new discipline and, as such, more open to colonization than “women’s studies” or sociology.

    In the final analysis I fall toward the former rather than the latter. An explicitly neoreactionary (or neocameralist or Tory Anarchist or however one likes to style it) think tank, youth society, etc., seems to be the way forward to me at this point in time. Build that up strong and maybe then it’s time to start talking about colonizing the colleges.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    @Nicholas Pell

    Very much THIS

    “critical of porting strategy and tactics from leftism. Different ends, different needs, different paths.”

    Yes and above all their institutions won’t work for us. Strategy and tactics are often common in struggle however and if you can use a method you should, while recognizing in what context the method works. Protest is useless without the media, with it you can literally fabricate a protest movement – AstroTurf.
    Without you can routinely deliver vast hordes and it’s only an event if it scares them [Tea Party] and doesn’t exist if they don’t want it to [Right to Life marches].

    Maoism is probably useless without the State Dept plugging for you, from Mao himself to Al-Qaeda in the present day.

    And Academia is closed to the Right. It’s the Heart, Mind, and Loins [youth] of the Progressives.
    Them Yankees built a School House before any other building. Ideas don’t matter in Academia. Power, Status, and now money does. You may convince the youth all day long, they are debt slaves and will tailor their politics accordingly. The politics of American College Graduates or students are the politics of the Debt Slave. Forget Academia, it’s over. And in any case is hardly the path of the Right in any case.

    “Can the right build a counterculture?” NO. And one isn’t needed, what is needed is to clear away the rubble, slime and tangled vines of the wreck of modernity to whatever decent foundations remain. They do of course, or we’d already be living in sub-Saharan Africa. That is how malicious our elites are.

    It’s really not the path of any rightest except the moralists and traditionalists proper to pursue any positive course, or dream of a better world [with them running it]. NRxn is essentially a systematic destruction brick by brick of the Cathedral when it’s gaining ground and traction, and when it’s not a fantasist navel gazing contest. None here have power, nor are you going to get it without either 1] destroying your enemy and taking it from them or 2] getting a following/raising enough Hell with the enemy to be worth buying off. These are the ancient paths to power and quite timeless, this is how the Progressives did it themselves, it’s how it was done before them, and it’s how it will be done after them.

    Look at the progress when the shark feeding frenzy on all the Cathedral’s blood in the water was raging, and look at it now since the Sharks have decided to form some sort of debating society. Fear was present before, now it’s as if NRx never existed.

    Dark Enlightenment and NeoReaction will succeed to the extent they harm Progressivism, and that’s all.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 30th, 2014 at 4:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    ” AntiVersity -Build that up strong and maybe then it’s time to start talking about colonizing the colleges.”

    No, all time and effort spent in that direction is wasted utterly. The colleges – aren’t – they’re religious institutions and also an arm of the debt&finance state. The minds of the youth are immaterial for their asses are owned as debt lien.

    The role of ideas is to discredit the priesthood, what is natural and real can rise then on it’s own. The Priesthood is suppressing all of human history, if their hold is weakened at any and all vulnerable points then it’s seen as a charade completely. That doesn’t change the hold on power, it simply discredit’s it. Lenin won with guns, gold and ruthlessness. Not a better idea.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 30th, 2014 at 6:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Blogospheroid Says:

    On genocide, that is another factpr where I believe that the future theocracies and catallarchies (Is that a correct term for a techno-commercialist state?) have an advantage over the ethno-state. In the future, it will become easier to create genetically targeted viruses. A theocracy and a catallarchy would be composed of multiple genotypes and would be able to survive that assault better. A genetic virus targeting a diverse population is indistinguishable from a generic kill-all-humans genetically engineered plague, which I guess everyone would rally against.

    A theocracy or a catallarchy would have to be targeted by memes.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Catallarchies” is excellent — consider it (virtually) stolen.

    [Reply]

    Blogospheroid Reply:

    Feel free. The word wasn’t my creation. it was the name of an old libertarian blog.

    What about the main point – the resilience of theocracies and catallarchies to an attack like a genetically modified virus?

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    *A theocracy or a catallarchy would have to be targeted by memes.*

    Or Rods from God, or nuclear bombs.

    The reasons why states are geographic isn’t going away, so they will continue to be vulnerable to geographic disruptors.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 30th, 2014 at 7:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ex-pat in Oz Says:

    @VXXC

    Spoken like a true Scots-Irishman: “don’t F with me”! And I don’t disagree with that sentiment at all. My original point was offered more in the spirit of “if it is raining out, you >logically< must consider wearing a raincoat or taking an umbrella with you. Perhaps word choice was poor– might I substitute "might" or "be logically inclined to"? I am the farthest you could ever meet in terms of a person desirous of control of others. To me, Hell is other people.

    With that said, I'm all for free association as the organizing principle (which I think you're suggesting)– because you must have some road rules (current road rules=enforced diversity). As my original positions states, I'm fine with dispensing with race as a factor– though clearly it will result in disparate outcomes. We all seemed to accept these unequal outcomes not so long ago and the system was flexible enough to admit right-side-of-bell-curve types of all races.

    All that said, I won't be hypocritical– the proposal for Brazilification horrifies me on aesthetic grounds.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Brazil – do forgive me – is not a model for the United States.

    It would be nice if we adopted their ban on racial classifications, as I understand it they decided to ditch racial classifications. It’s banned in Europe.

    Yes Ex-Pat Oz it was early AM and I forgot to plug Freedom of Association.

    Freedom of Association solves most of these problems and allows people to live in peace. It’s a long established principle that establishes itself anywhere the Cathedral lets it, and is usually appreciated by all sides. It’s so close to natural law as to not matter, it’s our nature.

    Jim Crow does not lead to peace. Which doesn’t mean we keep any of the affirmative action laws. None. People can walk down the street in peace or there’s trouble, we never needed Washington to keep order until it began to enforce chaos. Trouble can be handled locally. We need no positive or negative racial codes, we need no national voting laws, and I’m beginning to question whether we want a DOJ or the Federal Law enforcment appratus at all. The more law became national the more chaos grew.

    Quite frankly the overated nemesis of the Black underclass disappears with the end of the dole and slum clearance. Slum clearance does not require National Authority.

    We don’t need a Right-Wing Cathedral. The abuses will be identical with different justifications.

    Government engineering caused many of our current problems. That’s before the government decided to stop confusing itself with good intentions and went into the extractive looting business full time. It is evil, insane, and must be destroyed. It’s just as well it also tossed the Constitution out the window, this frees those bound by Oath to do what they should anyway.

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    “Jim Crow does not lead to peace.”

    What then do you propose instead of Jim Crow? Kill them all? Return to slavery? Deport them all to Africa?

    The reason no one has ever practiced race blind policies, is that race blind policies are seriously disastrous.

    [Reply]

    Contemplationist Reply:

    What about Rhodesia?
    Isn’t disparate impact enough?

    admin Reply:

    @ Contemplationist — FWIW I strongly concur: tolerated disparate impact is quite enough (but apparently outside the Overton Window for the foreseeable future). It has the added advantage of being workable, which racially-specific legal status simply isn’t.

    Posted on March 30th, 2014 at 9:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • AWC Says:

    I’m not particularly religious but since I’ve read some of the French essays on identitarian religion I wrote up a couple posts. Identitarian religion (both in its Christian and various pagan forms) seems at present more popular in Europe than in the USA. It could be thought of as counter-factual history, I guess, but the norm for 99% of human history has been ethno-religion (aka identitarian religion). If some outbred NW Europeans have created a more universalist religion (e.g. modern Christianity), there is the larger question whether this religion is, in the long-term, adaptive or maladaptive. And, more specifically, is it adaptive or maladaptive in multi-racial states? Even though religion is often adaptive, it isn’t always so.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 31st, 2014 at 12:36 am Reply | Quote
  • AWC Says:

    Regarding HBD vs White Nationalism

    I suspect that at least some HBD advocates are sympathetic to WN, at least intellectually but not publicly since HBD has higher prestige than WN in the eyes of whites. Granted, HBD advocacy can get you fired, but at least advocates of HBD can at last (rightly) say that they’re interested in truth (a high status value) whereas white nationalism commits someone to be clannish, something outbred NW Europeans have been bred not to be.

    Regardless, in the long term, white nationalism will win, but not because of the efforts of white nationalists.

    Look at it this way. Multi-racial states are big boilers that boil off the outbred / pathological altruism genes in each successive generation. Those with too outbred / pathologically altruistic dispositions will either inter-racially marry, adopt non-whites instead of birthing white babies (which large numbers of fundamental Christians are now doing), or simply won’t reproduce (the white liberal).

    In a couple hundred of years, although the white population might be very small by modern standards, a form of natural selection will have taken place where only the most ethnocentric whites will remain. Those pathological altruism genes will be gone.

    The great irony of outbred Europeans is that this very outbred disposition might well have in part given rise to the Scientific Revolution — the greatest gift to humanity ever — but this same disposition is an Achilles Heel in a multi-racial state. Outbred dispositions only work in small, homogenous states and these states have to be historical accidents, since these outbred whites would never advocate for an ethnostate.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Confronting a “great irony” in this area is a definite sign of realistic apprehension. The nub, I agree, is this: “outbred whites would never advocate for an ethnostate.”

    [Reply]

    laofmoonster Reply:

    See: Golden Dawn

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 31st, 2014 at 1:00 am Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    @AWC

    The universalist vs. identitarian dichotomy might be a false one.

    When people try to attack the universalism of Christianity, they usually go after Galatians 3:28, where Paul says that everyone’s one in Christ. But we find basically the same sentiment in the Upanisads and subsequently the Bhagavad Gita and Advaita Vedanta. It’s just a form of monism; even Crowley said that “every man and woman is a star.” In Hinduism, the innate non-substantive equality of all people was actually used as a *justification* for things like caste systems and war.

    The problem isn’t that Christianity is universalist. The problem is that it became less and less intellectual as the natural sciences grew and the printing press made scriptural interpretation possible for any old schmuck. All of the Hallmark-greeting-card-sounding stuff about equality that convulses liberation theologists today were, at one point, easily qualified and contextualized via Neoplatonic residue by men like St Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas– men who probably understood human nature better than your average Darwinian evolutionist now.

    Unless someone fashions some sort of identitarian religion that’s highly intellectual, and whose (necessary) universalism is highly qualified by some vast and grandiose system of metaphysics which acts as complementary to the natural sciences — enough so that it effortlessly becomes identitarian without being presented as such — then I can’t see how whites would adopt it en masse.

    [Reply]

    RiverC Reply:

    Oneness in Christ exists *because* oneness in Adam is broken (or simply, non-existent.)

    If we understand humans a primarily adamic, we reason to a few conclusions:

    1. Humans expect to be in paradise
    2. Humans expect to be immortal
    3. Humans expect to be united with one another

    Using this measure, we notice reactive/counter-reactive trends in human thought:

    1. Utopian/dystopian : noticing they are not paradise they react against the world to either ruin it for their own pleasure (personal paradise) or try to make it into paradise. When they fail, they make it worse.
    2. Almost all religions deal with immortality in some fashion. Some use reincarnation to create ‘default’ immortality, which removes this conflict. Others propose more or less violent ways to get to it. Nietzsche deals with it by turning the human into an inhuman superman who is like an immortal principle and fixture of history.
    3. When humans discover humans unlike them, they recognize they are not united. They react to restore desired unity. There are a few ways to do this: 1. kill the others. 2. kill ourselves. 3. deny difference. We almost succeeded in #3, but it is crumbling.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 31st, 2014 at 1:08 am Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    Jim Crow does not lead to peace.

    Jim Crow did lead to peace. Jim Crow created a strong black middle class and installed that middle class in charge of black society, resulting in high marriage rates and low, by modern standards, crime rates.

    Today, the black middle class is doing fake jobs on affirmative action, which is just another form of welfare, and welfare destroys the recipient, so no real black middle class any more.

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    In regards to this topic, I strongly recommend Booker T. Washington’s Up From Slavery. It almost makes you cry to think what could have been had his philosophy triumphed.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Yes, and Up From Slavery is still contemporary.

    For you see the mentality spread with the insane turn of the cathedral in the 60s, we’ll have to change the mentality of more than the Black Urban underclass.

    [It also would have been nice if someone had read it before we decided to transform Iraq, which I noted at the time].

    No Jim Crow did not lead to peace, it’s abuses were the main justification for leading us all into Hell, just as Slavery did 150 years ago. The South had as much a hand in our collective ruin as the Yankees. They needed Just Cause to gain power, and you gave it to them.

    Freedom of Association and the end to all racial codes of law pretty much solve the problem, including Affirmative Action. As if we want competent elites now, given that competence=pyschopathic. As if things would improve if we transferred Wall Street to Washington and gave the Quants the rest.

    [Reply]

    peppermint Reply:

    Nothing would have prevented the Yankees from claiming moral superiority. Claiming moral superiority for the Yankees is just like claming to be spreading democracy in foreign interventions today. We’re really making Ukraine more democratic, really.

    Posted on March 31st, 2014 at 7:04 am Reply | Quote
  • RiverC Says:

    Yes, the crux of whiteness is that it seems inextricably entwined with its own negation; However, I would suggest looking at it a different way. The self-negating implicit in ‘whiteness’ is merely a potential ailment resulting from a high degree of self-awareness.

    One of my axioms is that nothing is created evil, or that evil has no positive existence. If something is endemic it is likely that it is not evil itself, but the system has acquired pathology and has fallen short of its intended function(s). Is the sun evil for annihilating anything that comes near it?

    If WN’s succeed they merely restart the cycle, ignoring the fourth caste (merchants) which allows them to generate and spread as they did freely before, creating again, in Ouroborus fashion, the same conflict we now have. For the pagan-types this is acceptable since they view this as the highest good, an immortal Valhalla.

    The degree of self-awareness in whiteness (or probably, in specific ethnic groups within ‘whiteness’) contains within it the seeds both for civilization and its destruction. That ability to step outside the system, whatever it is, and potentially universalize, is itself all of these things. This ability probably exists inl proportions in other ethnic groups, for which great leaders are known.

    Undirected, this ability closes the spiral and eats itself (the ever-eating worm is its symbol.) I do not know if this ability correlates to intelligence, or if it is actually the prime generator of what we know as ‘IQ’ – the soul thirsty to know itself must find that within it is all things, and therefore it must come to know all things.

    Whiteness is spiritual blankness, spiritual blank-slateness, upon which all virtues can be writ but also all vices and evils. Whiteness is the slate that writes itself. Whiteness is the atom bomb of race, and as much as whites, being the ‘blank’ non-race race spiritually, fear HBD and reality of their difference, others also fear the reality of whiteness – like Christianity it is something else, a breaking-into history of an intruder, perhaps exiled from a garden, wanting to find his way back.

    Colors themselves intuit an inequality of being, each suggesting non-interchangeable ideas about what wears them. White is always purity, power, death, anger, void, light. Only if we could create a world with a green sun could we escape it.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Y’all seem to be trying to read a vast teleological significance into the fact that modern Progressives make a big show of their bogus “anti-racism”. Is this something inherent to “whiteness”? Is it something inherent to Progressivism? Then why was Woodrow Wilson so famously racist? Why did Franklin Roosevelt have internment camps for Japanese, but not Germans?

    I see two reasons for the “anti-racism” shtick. One reason is that, after WWII, Progressives were desperate to distinguish themselves from fascists, something that is exceedingly hard to do in terms of economic policy. The other reason is that, after the Great Depression, the Democratic Party discovered that Blacks were easier to con than Whites: less invested in stability, less economically sophisticated, and yes, more particularist.

    Genes may have something to do with this, but mostly it’s just Progressives projecting their own fascist tendencies onto their opponents so they can feel morally superior. Why “anti-racism”? Because NAZIs!

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    I don’t think the significance of the impact of WWII has been fully explored here… I wrote somewhere (in a daze) that it lead to us refusing to teach (i.e. create adults). This relates to admin’s post over on UF, ‘The Fascism that Won.’ I’ve been meaning to read some Lyotard as a result, but I can’t find the cardboard box…

    [Reply]

    RiverC Reply:

    While I agree with you (Peter) in general, and I think a lot of the fever pitch definitely is psychic shock translated into social coping as a result of the WW’s in the 20th century, It would be nice for someone to relate or think through that bit a lot more. However, the history of ‘whiteness’ having significance is quite older than the 20th century (I know we ‘love’ our era.)

    Just as an example, in the Aztec religion, Quetzalcoatl was white. No one in that region is white. There are other notable examples and anyone who is not a nominalist or nihilist can’t help but notice that racial coloration has associated metaphysical qualities. However, one also notices that a certain degree of fudging is always present; Quetzalcoatl was ‘white’, but was he pale-skinned like me or you, or was he actually the color white? If you think that is a silly distinction, take a look at the deities in India. Ever seen a normally blue person? [inb4 suffocation/too much silver supplements]

    Anyway, it is still worth exploring (on the other hand) the notion of either high intelligence or a particular quality of that intelligence being highly “self-aware” and the problems associated with it. Jews are stereotyped (and as far as I can tell, it is true often enough to stick around) as being hypochondriacs. This ‘self awareness’ is glossed positively in our society like ‘self esteem’ is, without thinking about the degree of navel gazing for good or ill that improperly trained intelligences will do. I would predict (and I think I could place a bet on this one and win) that all commenters here at one time seriously considered the validity of solipsism. In my case, I seriously considered that there was nobody but myself and all other persons were merely re-incarnations of myself (former or future) – given the number of iterations one supposedly needs to reach enlightenment, it is not impossible.

    In other words, is high intelligence prone to particular types of insanity, or is it a quality of decently intelligent white people (for this purpose, I count Ashkenazi Jews as rarefied whites) more than other kinds? If the latter is true, we have a larger problem on our hands that needs serious consideration.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “… after WWII, Progressives were desperate to distinguish themselves from fascists, something that is exceedingly hard to do in terms of economic policy.” — Acute.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 31st, 2014 at 5:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ex-pat in Oz Says:

    @
    THIS

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 31st, 2014 at 8:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2014/04/02 | Free Northerner Says:

    […] white nationalism is wrong. Related: The unique universalism of whites. Related: A bit more on the […]

    Posted on April 2nd, 2014 at 5:01 am Reply | Quote
  • JPOutlook Says:

    No, the answer is far simpler… We, white people are “afraid” of talking about our race because we know that pointing out something that someone can change is basically fighting words. Like some-one mentioned earlier in the thread we have been bred to not be clannish.

    But, that is why I, and others at B.U.G.S., are doing with the pro-white propaganda. We are letting other white people know that there is a fight going on and that we are losing, it’s White Genocide…

    For all of the commenters calling out “White Nationalism”, shame on you for beating up that straw man for your deeper dislike (or, dare I say “hate”) of proles… Come on, Neoreactionists, that’s day one stuff.

    I will end with that I like Mr. Land’s phrasing for point three A LOT. There is a lot to be done about the sickness that comes with that pathological Rationalising…

    J.P.O.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “… the answer is far simpler” — It really isn’t.

    [Reply]

    JPOutlook Reply:

    Should be “something that some one CAN’T change”… If that helps

    [Reply]

    Izak Reply:

    I was the first commenter to whoop up on White Nationalism. And I made up an obvious straw man and everything (I guess because I was trying to be funny), so I probably ought to address your point.

    My biggest problem with the tactics of WN, if I had to isolate just one, is the genocide narrative you’re trying to push. With no active agent in a genocide, there’s no real genocide. No one normal will ever agree with the point about genocide because the White Nationalists cannot say who’s doing the killing. Is it the Jews? Well , to the average prole — especially in the US, where philosemitism is the rule rather than the exception — you’re a Jew-hater. To an intelligent person, you’re ignoring the overall waning Jewish population. How can the Jews be killing off the white gentiles when A) they’re marrying them at unprecedented rates and B) they, in doing so, are also destroying their own culture as well?

    There’s also the pre-rational connotation of genocide, where people typically imagine gas chambers and concentration camps and mass-killings and stuff like that. So people find the idea of of a cross-continental White genocide, on its face, preposterous. The WN response so far has been: “But ah! You see, we’re using the official UN definition. So we’re taking their own definitions and using their rhetoric against them!” OK, fine. But who does that serve exactly? What are you trying to say? If the WNs are advocating the UN’s policies and saying that the UN and its ideas are great, then where is that in any of the WN writings? How does it fit into the bigger picture? And if they’re just opportunistically using a UN definition for the fuck of it, then doesn’t the whole genocide narrative just turn into a meta-critique of the definition of “genocide” and the usefulness of the UN?

    I’ll make one more point, and it’s a fairly personal one. I myself — full disclosure — don’t give a damn about a White Ethno-state at all. I couldn’t care less about that, honestly. All I would like to see personally is for White people to get their balls back. That’s all I really want, I guess. I’m more interested in seeing a change in mentality where the *possibility* of a White Ethno-state could actually emerge. The Ethno-state itself is of no importance; balls are important. So how, pray tell, are white people going to do that by pursuing yet another typical, bland, generic victim narrative? How are we going to go from Step A (sell everyone a victim narrative) to Step C (Whites regain balls)? Seems pretty impossible to me. The truth is, Whites aren’t victims of anyone at all and they never have been. That’s the disturbing reality that just about no one wants to accept. Whites don’t have “enemies”; they barely have opponents. The great cold war of racism has always been one waged by whites against whites, and every member of every other race has been, at most, a chess piece. If White fertility is so important, then perhaps Whites ought to approach their problems like the way a heroin addict should approach his. Of course there are dealers who will show up and sell you some heroin, and yes, they’re terrible, but if you want to fix yourself, blaming the dealer won’t do anything. That’s a BS rationalization. Maybe instead of zany sloganeering and the encouragement of other types of heuristic thinking, White Nationalists should seriously fix the problem by treating it like a serious one.

    Although the anti-racist Hitler video was good entertainment. I give props there. And FYI, I don’t consider myself a neoreactionary or anything with “neo” as a prefix.

    [Reply]

    JPOutlook Reply:

    The anti-whites are the ones pushing the genocide. This is important rhetoric, even if the theory is too acerbic for schmoozing dialogue. The propaganda machine is the most effective counter-attack and “They’re killing us” is the most dramatic message. This should be self-evident hopefully, but then again I am starting to wonder why more people haven’t done their own investigation into the reasoning and source of all of this pro-white propaganda. For myself, I’ve been consistent in spreading the Mantra but it is somewhat shallow intellectually, so after a bit of activism I’m normally back into the Neo-Reaction world.

    No, when you are on the battlefield for propaganda you are not answering the enemies question as to who it is forcing the genocide. That is a well developed and described “no-no” of the B.U.G.S. community and it’s called tailgating… So, those pushing the genocide are simply anti-whites… But, if you want some sort of theory, since this is a pro-white friendly environment I’ll recommend something I ran into the other day, looking at the way the Cathedral sends forth the anti-whites. http://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-peoples-of-europe/

    If you want to see white people with balls, saying “No” and fighting back in this memetic warfare, I’d recommend doing some work with B.U.G.S. and here’s another link that describes why “White Nationalism” is not the right terminology.

    http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2013/07/20/white-nationalist-or-pro-white/

    “Izak”, you’ll see the comment section for that article is closed and that’s because “Bob” is the coach who wants to see people commenting on the recent articles…

    Best regards,

    J.P.O.

    [Reply]

    JPOutlook Reply:

    “Izak”

    Man, even if you don’t go through those links that I posted in a reply now awaiting moderation, there is one more point I’d like to refute. That is that the strength of the argument or the “teeth” if you will, comes from using the U.N.’s terminology for genocide. Actually, that’s incorrect. The real bite comes from pointing out the contradictions with a bit of humour and victimology thrown in for good measure. If you haven’t read the full Mantra recently it’s worth it.

    J.P.O.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 2nd, 2014 at 2:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    @IZAK,

    THIS. LOL.

    “All I would like to see personally is for White people to get their balls back. That’s all I really want, I guess.” But that’s all that needs to happen_!!

    That and to realize the race war is white on white, and the rest are somewhere between bit players and pawns.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 3rd, 2014 at 1:52 am Reply | Quote
  • JPOutlook Says:

    @VXXC Haha, that’s approximately correct. But, needn’t be so rough as not all of our people are capable of thinking racially.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 3rd, 2014 at 2:59 am Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    What about Rhodesia

    “Equal rights for all civilized men”

    So a black man in Rhodesia could earn equal rights – but most did not.

    So the law treated uncivilized men differently – disparate impact, rather than explicitly race conscious policies, but all men were not equal before the law.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Seems to me that’s a superior model. If it can work in a 90% African-ancestry society, it can work anywhere, can’t it? (Its destruction was clearly exogenous.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 6th, 2014 at 8:03 am Reply | Quote
  • Scope | Laofmoonster Says:

    […] Progressivism is a form of Americanism, and Americanism originates from WASPs*, who take the trend of Western European Whiteness (as described by HBDChick) to its furthest extent. Confronting this reality creates an uncomfortable mental tension, which in other reactionary spheres is often dissipated by Blaming the Jew. (The extent of Jewish participation in the Cathedral has been well covered, so I will not rehash it.) White Nationalism denies its own heritage. As Nick Land notes: […]

    Posted on May 13th, 2014 at 2:58 am Reply | Quote
  • to the left #2 – Antinomia Imediata Says:

    […] 1) Deleuze was damn right about capitalism and schizophrenia 2) “White people are odd” […]

    Posted on May 15th, 2016 at 2:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • a shorter trip through the longer view – Antinomia Imediata Says:

    […] comic irony of white nationalism is simple: whiteness, as such, is defined through a deep refusal of clannishness and tribalism. what makes the “white parts of the town” so interesting […]

    Posted on July 20th, 2016 at 6:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Susto Branco – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on July 25th, 2016 at 11:43 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment