Richard Spencer Auburn University Speech

After a lot of controversy, buildup, and a last minute legal case that forced the university to host the speech, Richard Spencer gave his talk at Auburn University in Alabama.

It’s a great talk, and there’s a lot of wonderful moments in it, but I still believe Spencer would be better off playing these events just a little differently, remembering it’s not just an ‘edgy’ talk for the converted in a lecture hall, but that his speech has a far wider potential audience through live broadcasts and recordings. Currently, I don’t think this is being adequately exploited.

While I value Spencer’s courage tremendously, agree with his message, and condemn to hell the cowardly attacks that have been made against him and his family, I still think there is a style risk of coming across as the arch villain from the Hellfire Club, especially to normies, those who are undecided or just getting into this. A sprinkle of that is ok, but too much, however much we ‘get it’ or like how it triggers the left, is going to switch a lot of other people off and remain a unnecessary wedge between concentric circles of the Right.

As the most famous and visible modern ambassador of the Right, I would like it if Spencer would do a little more of what he has done at his NPI conferences and in his interviews, that is, seek a more positive and dare I say, almost restrained delivery when doing these lectures, or at the very least focusing in on one topic.

Needless to say, this is nothing to do with what I feel about race, or about legitimate anger and emotion we have as white people which should be expressed, or about the essence of the Right which I don’t think we should dumb-down or pretend doesn’t exist, rather it’s about deciding which are the best energies to channel when communicating to and recruiting a wider audience of people.

Is White Nationalism “Hateful” ?

Counter-Currents: One of the most common charges against White Nationalism is that it is an ideology of hatred toward other groups. My answer is: “Yes, but so what?” Yes, because hatred of other groups is definitely one factor in White Nationalism. So what, because hate does not disqualify White Nationalism, for two reasons: (1) ethnic hatred is a universal phenomenon in racially and culturally diverse societies, and (2) unlike the proponents of multiculturalism, White Nationalists actually offer a realistic path to reducing ethnic hatred and violence by reducing racial and cultural diversity…

Continue reading…

World’s Worst interview with Jared Taylor

Described on YouTube as “Editor of American Renaissance, Jared Taylor sits down with ABC News’ (((Amna Nawaz))) on “Uncomfortable” for a blunt discussion of race and racism in America.”

Every time this woman starts to get in over her head with the facts she demands to “move on” to another subject.

Actually there is a worse interview with Mr Taylor with a ridiculous wigger.

Trump must drain the diversity swamp to get policies through

So once again, the price of diversity for a country, even higher IQ diversity, is shown to be extremely high. Two diversity judges: Derrick K Watson, who despite his English name, is a native Hawaiian, and then Theodore D. Chuang have interfered with Trump’s watered-down plan to block Muslims from some countries.

NYT: A federal judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide order Wednesday evening blocking President Trump’s ban on travel from parts of the Muslim world, dealing a stinging blow to the White House and signaling that Mr. Trump will have to account in court for his heated rhetoric about Islam.

A second federal judge in Maryland ruled against Mr. Trump overnight, with a separate order forbidding the core provision of the travel ban from going into effect.

I don’t exactly understand how this works, so forgive me if it’s muddled, but reading the NYT it seems a lawsuit was brought about by Hawaiian attorney general Doug Chin (Chinese) in regards to “an individual plaintiff, Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii” (who it was believed) ” had reasonable grounds to challenge the order as religious discrimination”.

So you have a Chinese attorney general in Hawaii, a native Hawaiian judge appointed by a black president, a Chinese judge in Maryland and a Muslim plaintiff. Then you have a Jewish New York Times declaring it a great triumph of morality.

The only good thing I can see about this is it really does illustrate that diversity will tend to coagulate into an anti-white goo to serve its own interests and will pursue those interests through the machinery of state. Diversity, in positions of authority will try to sabotage even implicitly white policy interests.

It’s just not possible for whites to feel good, virtuous and altruistic towards other groups, share what they have with them and be in control of their own destinies.

Whites have to pick one or the other.

It also underlines some of the limitations of civic nationalism, in that totally sane and justifiable policies which appear to discriminate against certain groups will be obstructed simply on the basis of them being discriminatory:

Judge Watson flatly rejected the government’s argument that a court would have to investigate Mr. Trump’s “veiled psyche” to deduce religious animus. He quoted extensively from the remarks by Mr. Trump that were cited in the lawsuit brought by Hawaii’s attorney general, Doug Chin.

“For instance, there is nothing ‘veiled’ about this press release,” Judge Watson wrote, quoting a Trump campaign document titled “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

I’m not sure what Trump can do to straighten things out, but to fulfill the policies he was voted in on, he really needs more powers. He needs to find a way of melting the coagulated goo of diversity interests out of the machinery of state. And that’s going to be very hard. It’s also hard within the confines of the kind of civic nationalism Trump represents, which while thankfully pushing ideas and values of interests to whites, avoids identifying them as white values.

Trump has come to power with a serious appeal to the American white vote, but non-whites are obstructing his manifesto. He’s finding the swamp needs draining even more that he first thought.

George Lincoln Rockwell

George Lincoln Rockwell

March 9th marked the birthday of George Lincoln Rockwell, and there’s been quite a lot of articles and coverage on him going around. I do think Rockwell was a great and good man, and his assassination an immense tragedy and injustice.

Listening to some of the commentary in this podcast between Matthew Heimbach and Sven Longshanks one can sense the great admiration still held towards Rockwell.

One of the topics discussed was Rockwell’s interactions with black groups. I do think the Right has a tendency with blacks to credit their leadership with more moral agency than they really have.

When we see black goals coincide with our own, we like to say ‘well it’s good if blacks follow their own racial destiny’. Sure it’s fine to say that as a political device, or even to believe as a principle of nationalism, but the problem I have with this, is I don’t accept blacks are really capable of engineering any sort of independent destiny for themselves, especially in America, Europe or any other historically white country.

Blacks will always have a predisposition to disorder and violence, and even on the Right we tend to mistake black rhetorical slickness for black intelligent purpose, and we misinterpret blacks expressing political goals for black ability to maintain those goals over time.

Also, for negroes to be truly free of the white man, would mean them relinquishing the entire support network that provides them with anything at all, including life itself. Without whites, blacks really don’t have anything.

Tony Blair: The poison continues…

One thing that caught my attention recently was an article by our old friend, Tony Blair in the New York Times.

Blair has put himself –or is (((being))) put, at the forefront of a so called ‘centrist’ campaign against what he correctly describes as a popular revolt in the West, culminating in Trump’s election and Brexit, which he of course opposes.

While Blair’s new political activity should be a cause for great concern, there is an immediate silver lining to this cloud. It suggests there really aren’t that many people corrupt and debased enough who can actually take on this role. Blair, despite his absolutely soiled track record with the public, finds himself regularly reused as a frontman for the forces of globalization and anti-whiteness.

Blair says:

The modus operandi of this populism is not to reason but to roar. It has at times an anarchic feel. Yet it has also mobilized a powerful media behind it. Its supporters welcome the outrage their leaders provoke.

The causes of this movement are the scale, scope and speed of change. This is occurring economically as jobs are displaced and communities fractured, and culturally as the force of globalization moves the rest of the world closer and blurs old boundaries of nation, race and culture.

Not that the ‘change’ itself is a bad thing. It’s just the ‘speed’ of racial and national blurring that’s the problem. Blair’s view has always been that if you ‘mitigate’ the effects of globalization, i.e: placate whites with more worthless jobs in call centers or government, provide them with more state handouts, devalued degrees, and more CCTV cameras to try to dissuade blacks, Somalis and Muslims from raping white women, the underlying objections will just go away and whites will welcome their displacement and everything will be fine. They will simply exchange their human dignity, race, culture and values for things that will only hurt them more. Just explain to them it’s ‘modern’ and ‘progressive’. That’s basically Blair’s modus operandi.

Blair goes on:

The same dynamics are splintering the left, too. One element has aligned with the right in revolt against globalization, but with business taking the place of migrants as the chief evil. They agree with the right-wing populists about elites, though for the left the elites are the wealthy, while for the right they’re the liberals.

This leftist populism is a profound error. It has no chance of matching the populist appeal of the right, and it dangerously validates some of the right’s arguments. This only fuels a cynicism that depresses support for the more progressive parts of the left’s program.

Blair’s entire career has been as a fanatical apologist and Mr Fixit for these elites, and that means trying to nullify any arguments against things elites want, like globalization, white genocide and war. What Blair is really saying here, is that our arguments are extremely sound. They are so sound, that parts of the Left have actually found a way to agree with them. That means they are not a ‘nutty right wing conspiracy’, rather they have an observable objective basis, and that makes them extremely dangerous. One of the strategies of people like Blair is to drive a wedge between the Right and the sections of the Left who have the capacity to agree with us, so there can never be any political consensus against these elites that Blair represents.

But this left tendency has gained from the seeming paralysis of the center. The parties and politicians of the center have become the managers of the status quo in an era when people want change. So, the center — in both its center-right and center-left camps — is marginalized, even despised.

It’s despised because it’s caused immense harm. Firstly, the ‘center’ – center-left or center-right, is really just another version of the Left as far as its most zealous ideological advocates are concerned.

‘The center’ is a consolidation of the power between different vectors; extremes of global capitalism on the one hand and ‘social justice’ on the other, that were once at odds with each other, but are now merged into one toxic blob.

Particularly, the center has become ideologically dominated by the cultural goals of the Left, which rely on the cover it provides to appear less-threatening, utilizing less-obvious language to obscure its intentions.

So this ‘center’ is not really a center as it has a specific direction: towards more immigration, diversity, globalization and degeneracy. It never goes away from it. Sure the center-right will pay lip service to going the other way to get votes from whites, but it never actually does anything.

The term ‘center’ is dishonest as the objectives of its most staunch advocates are not politically neutral. The phrase provides legitimacy and cover, making it seem reasonable and moderate rather than its own kind of fanaticism.

After that, the center is really just a coalition of reality-denying white cucks, virtue-signalling to one another demonstrating how eager they are to flood their countries with hostile raping retards from the Third World, and to appease organized Jewish power.

Even when some of them don’t really want to flood their countries with the Third World, the center-right is so scared of being called racist and bigoted it can’t actually stop it anyway. This means the center is not actually in control of any of its own policies. It’s an empty political position, where many of its representatives hold no political authority of their own, where they have deferred power and choices to other groups and lobbyists, the centrists’ role simply being to appease the demands of those other groups. It’s a form of signalling and obedience.

The question is, will this be a temporary phase, perhaps linked to the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and Sept. 11, and will politics soon revert to normal, or has a new political age begun?

There are fragments of truth even in what Blair says. I wonder if Blair too sees 9/11 as a necessary component in laying the foundation for some of things we see today?

The party structures on both sides of the Atlantic have their origins in the Industrial Revolution and the debates engendered by that epoch about socialism and capitalism, the market and the state. These parties have endured because the roots they put down were very strong. But now, there are different distinctions than those simply of traditional right and left.

When I was growing up, people like my dad were conservative; and that meant economically and socially. Today, many such voters don’t fit that old stereotype. They may be pro-private enterprise and conservative on economics in traditional terms, but they’re also socially liberal — in favor, for instance, of gay rights. And there are those who used to vote left, but who are culturally illiberal and now don’t mind voting for parties of the wealthy.

Although they sometimes go under other names like ‘Western values’, it’s race and identity that are now naturally and rightfully emerging as the critical fault lines. Old stereotypical notions of left or right, were indeed once relevant in the near mono-racial era of Tony Blair’s father when everyone was white.

Today, a distinction that often matters more than traditional right and left is open vs. closed. The open-minded see globalization as an opportunity but one with challenges that should be mitigated; the closed-minded see the outside world as a threat.

Make no mistake, black violence, Muslims blowing themselves up and raping white children are a threat. The sewage of diversity is a threat. The debasing effects of diversity on white institutions is a threat. Unteachable schools, ‘no go zones’ are a threat. Laws to facilitate and protect diversity and to facilitate white displacement are a threat. And white genocide is a very big, very real threat. The ‘open-minded’ people pushing these policies do so exactly because they are a threat, while ‘progressive’ gentile whites who support these policies, or claim to, are damaged goods, hate themselves or are simply not grown up enough to deal with the reality of the world as it is. So their views cannot be accepted as having a legitimate basis. Like it or not, they have to be denied any political say at all.

This distinction crosses traditional party lines and thus has no organizing base, no natural channel for representation in electoral politics.

Again, because it’s racial. It’s much more fundamental.

So this leaves a big space in the center. For the progressive wing of politics, the correct strategy is to make the case for building a new coalition out from the center. To do so, progressives need to acknowledge the genuine cultural anxieties of those voters who have deserted the cause of social progress: on immigration, the threat of radical Islamism and the difference between being progressive and appearing obsessive on issues like gender identity.

It’s not enough to ‘acknowledge the genuine cultural anxieties of voters’, you actually have to STOP doing things that injure them. If you refuse to stop, you will be stopped.

The politics of the progressive center has not died, but it needs reinventing and re-energizing. For liberal democracy to survive and thrive, we must build a new coalition that is popular, not populist.

‘Popular’ means it’s manufactured, spun and where a corrupt media can be relied upon to issue favorable propaganda. But no it has died. It’s died morally and ideologically. The ‘progressive center’ basically means a Jewish and oligarchical center having a disproportionate influence over the policies of white governments to suit their own interests. It means pushing immigration, diversity and selling degeneracy to whites to distract them while it’s happening. The ‘liberal democracy’ Blair espouses, which has to a large extent become an elite ‘dog-whistle’ for white genocide, doesn’t deserve to survive. It deserves to die.

But you know what ? I think it’s great Blair has put himself forward as a champion of ‘liberal democracy’ and left-centrism. It just shows how completely morally bankrupt the mainstream Left is if they will tolerate this soiled wretched perverter as their spokesperson.

This was the same problem that dogged Hillary Clinton in the election. A large swathe of liberal America just couldn’t accept that she was not actually electable. So they told themselves ‘she was the lesser of two evils’. Fuck off.

If I was Blair, I would would be genuinely concerned about this new populism. Last time, when I said the right place for Blair is hanging from a lamppost, I wasn’t being flippant. Blair’s concerns about where this new ‘roaring’ revolt may lead are quite real. If the forces that are protecting and promoting Blair are sufficiently overturned, Blair will inevitably be hanging from a lamppost.

Greg Johnson counter-currents interview with Radio Evropa

Another illuminating interview with Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents.com, who always succinctly communicates the key political issues the world faces.

I’m very optimistic about the future. I think that the future really belongs to nationalism, and especially to ethnically defined nationalism because what we have in the United States, what we just inaugurated in the form of Donald Trump is, at best a civic nationalism. And civic nationalism is basically the idea that you can have a multicultural society that’s unified by laws and by common values, and we don’t believe that’s a very stable form of society. In fact it’s a form of society that’s based on telling lies about differences in human nature.

Diversity, whether it’s racial diversity, or ethnic diversity or religious diversity within the same system leads to conflict, and often to bloodshed and civil war. Or at best the conflict sort of wears away all the differences between the peoples who are forced to live together so they just become some homogenized group that has lost their cultural distinctness. And neither of those outcomes is a desirable thing. And the best way to prevent either ethnic strife or warfare, or just bland homogenization and the destruction of distinct identities is for distinct peoples to have distinct states -sovereign homelands.

What should happen to Dylann Roof ?

Dylann Roof

I haven’t seen that much written about Dylann Roof lately on the Right, who’s now been sentenced to death for the Charleston Church shooting. It’s almost as if people want to distance themselves from his fate.

I suppose one can understand that, as any glimmer of reasoned consideration to Roof could be seized upon by the media as a kind of endorsement. (The conspiracy theorist in me has niggling questions in the back of my mind about the shooting as well). But in any case, I don’t think it’s realistic, appropriate or fair to simply ignore Roof’s situation, pretending he doesn’t exist.

Taken at face value, Roof is somone who’s used violence to change politics. That would make him a terrorist by any standard definition, yet he was clearly never presented, let alone tried as one. There’s no mention of terrorism in any of the Washington Post articles about his trial, nor in his Wikipedia entry, but there are of course many references to the word ‘hate’. Consider the original federal charges against him:

…a grand jury had indicted Roof on 33 federal charges: nine counts of using a firearm to commit murder and 24 civil rights violations (12 hate crime charges under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act and 12 counts under a second hate-crime statute that prohibits using force or threatening the use of force to obstruct a person’s free exercise of religious beliefs), with 18 of the charges carrying the federal death penalty

Despite that fact that Roof’s political grievances were entirely real, apparently seeking to defend white people -through violence in this case, does not even count as an authentic political motive. It’s purely ‘hate’ and can be trivialized as such. (Compare to blacks killing cops at a BLM rally)

My personal view, is that after the ‘hate’ dimension is thrown in the trash can where it belongs, Roof’s actions –and any punishments, should be seen in the context of a racial conflict that has been imposed on white people, and where white people are overwhelmingly the victims of horrendous violence against them by blacks –and increasingly other imported groups, which is remorseless in nature. This remorselessness is inextricably a part of blackness and the laws as they stand are completely useless in dealing with black crime.

The media encourages this violence by constantly denigrating whites, and presenting attacks on whites as a victimless crime, –by simply lying about the conflict, painting whites as a group as the privileged supremacist oppressors, while blacks as a group are perpetually elevated as the ‘pious oppressed’. Day in, day out savage violence against whites by negroes is routinely explained away as a conflict between the ‘haves and have nots’, the ‘racist majority against the minority’, denied or outright justified.

The federal government in the United States is also fully aware of racial crime statistics and that they are putting white people disproportionately at risk of serious violence and death by forcing them to coexist with blacks.

So Roof has used violence to impact politics –to try to change a dire and oppressive political situation, but is himself a victim of partisan ‘hate’ laws that simply negate his motives. His politically true understanding of the situation and his authentic political demands need to be formally recognized.

Roof should not be executed to publicly cleanse the ‘sin’ of white racism – so white cucks and liberals can self-flagellate, worshiping at the altar of diversity, venerating blacks as some kind of religious icon to signal their piety to other white cucks and liberals, and their (((masters))).

Nor should Roof be executed to ‘send a signal’ to other potential white racial terrorists or to uphold the broken lying system that created him in the first place.

And Roof should not be executed because he responded to whites being killed by blacks.

In fact Roof should not be executed at all. He should be isolated to a place for white political prisoners until some formal acceptance and reconciliation is reached with the US government over the realities of racial conflict, that takes into account: the government and media’s own role in fomenting and facilitating that conflict, and that whites are overwhelmingly the victims of that conflict. He should then be conditionally released as part of a brokered deal in resolving and ending the conflict by racial divorce.

Millennial Woes video

Pleased to see an update from Millennial Woes a few days back:

If I’ve understood him correctly he describes an event where, for very good reasons, he needed to make himself and his channel known to the police prior to his recent doxxing. I can’t help wondering then, if it was actually someone in the Scottish police who gave his name to the newspapers or Antifa types. (The conspiracy theorist in me also wonders if he could have been set up into having to call the police out.)

In any case, I agree with those who say the doxxings must empower our cause and be turned into opportunities. They are going to happen, and the more they happen the less effective they are, and the more our enemies are exposed as nothing more than a hate-filled pile of shit.