An email arrived in my inbox today from that indefatigable chercheur de la vérité, he of the lion’s claw.  It announced a new addition to his website, titled The Math Sex Gap revisited: a Theory of Everyone.  It features Prodigy eviscerating two papers that have appeared in 2008, both of which found cultural bias to be the cause of the gap, then introducing his own Theory of Everyone which accounts for race, culture and geography.  Culture, you ask?  Only this much:-

We should all be grateful for the thought of La Griffe and all his like.  Without their contribution there would be no counter-argument besides commonsense to those who do their best to undermine intellectual salience for no better reason than it is white and male.  Or as Prodigy says to his feminist audience, “I always enjoy visiting La La Land where a gap-free society defines the goal of human striving.”

By Diamed

Suppose everything you say is true. Do you take satisfaction in it being true? Does it make you happy? Or do you wish it weren’t true and wish it could be some other way?

This is an interesting question, which gets down to the nub of why, exactly, are we crusaders for the race.

My response to this question is I wish what I believed weren’t the case, and that it could be some other way. I have been forced into my beliefs by necessity, resisting the implications mightily as I’m dragged through goalpost after goalpost.

There’s plenty of room for condemning evil in this world, without having to go around looking for categorical foes who we can smash with unrelenting fury, all the way down to the infants in their cradles. However if we spare an entire city of evil-doers because ten innocent nice infants are crawling around in it, it is our innocents, our good people, our women and children who are ravished and pursued with unrelenting fury. In a struggle for survival that has reached the highest pitch, we don’t have the luxury to sort out the good from the bad. Life must come first, justice later. Do I want it to be this way? Am I glad that I can smash infants in cradles and still be moral? That I could bayonet a pregnant woman and still be moral? I’m not glad about it. And yet there it is.

Am I glad that I have 140 IQ and am living in a world average IQ of 90 or so? That a greater IQ gap exists between me and africans than africans and dogs? Not really. Am I glad that life is easier for me, that I can do things others can’t, that ultimately all wealth, power, prestige, and even good health and long life belong as a birthright to me and not to anyone else due to a different arrangement of genes? Not really. The things I love most in life, I wish everyone could have. It takes nothing from me if another person reads the same book as me, listens to the same song, or admires the same mountains. I miss the lost camaraderie. I don’t have any special need to rule others, the only particular benefit is more leisure time. Machines could serve that role much better. I’d rather the world were much, much smarter. I feel like then we could sit down and reason issues out like civilized men. I feel like we could all understand reality a little better, and treat each other better, and treat ourselves better. I’m not happy that nature has dropped the ball and populated the earth with mostly primitive savages and that there is nothing I can do to make them smarter or better (once they are born) because it’s all genetic. How could I be?

The same on a larger scale. Am I glad whites are the best at everything and no one equals us, am I glad the rest of the world is largely a sanctum for the BEAST, a ravening satanic force that unmakes everything it touches and specializes in every living being carrying as much suffering, starvation, disease, stupidity, cruelty, hopelessness and helplessness as it can? No, I’m not glad. I wish all races were free of the horrible fatse they bring upon themselves. I wish they were free of the genes that make them that way. I wish they had the genes that make us like who we are. That’s why I wish the whole world were populated with whites, with genes like ours, so that sort of suffering, that level of misfortune, can’t happen again.

And of course, I am not happy with whites either. It seems to me, we would all be happier if we were elves. Am I happy that there are no elves in the universe to supplant us at the top of the totem pole? Am I glad we have unchallenged mastery of the earth because we are the only half-sane gene combination on earth? No, it’s rather sad. If only elves existed, such flawed, truly wretched beings as the white race would no longer have to carry the burden of our existence. I’ve lived long enough to see that everything about humans, including whites, is so full of evil, that I could wish anyone, anywhere, to replace us, if only they could do better. The cheating, the vulgarity, the needless anger and conflict, the lying, the fickleness, the selfishness, the hypocrisy … how could I be happy that we, we flawed vessels, are the best? Who could be?

READ MORE...

Last February, by way of an introduction, I put up a post about the great German jurist Carl Schmitt.  He is a highly useful guide to the ways of Power.  His elucidation of the theoretics of state power in extraordinary times established the framework employed by many, and probably most, thinkers in this, let’s say, increasingly topical field.  In particular, Schmitt’s concepts of the decision and the state of exception open up the operation of total power for examination like a dead butterfly on a display board.

As Tom Sunic wrote in Homo Americanus: child of the postmodern age:-

Carl Schmitt ... realized an age old truth; namely, political concepts acquire their true meanings only when the chief political actor, i.e. the state and its ruling class, find themselves in a sudden and unpredictable state of emergency. Then all former interpretations of “self-evident” truths become obsolete. One could witness that after the terrorist attack of 9/11 in America — an event that was never fully elucidated — the ruling class in America used that opportunity to redefine the legal meaning of the expressions “human rights” and “freedom of speech.” After all, is not the best way to curb real civic rights the adoption of abstract incantations, such as “human rights” and “democracy”?

What just about everyone with a triple-digit IQ understands is that the events of 11th September 2001 and the subsequent War on Terror have been ruthlessly exploited throughout the West to advance a profoundly undemocratic and disturbing domestic security agenda.  Whether a true state of exception ever existed is highly doubtful.  But Power decides what is moral and what is, in a vulgar sense,  true.  It has decided that its officers shall usurp the legal code at will, and shall stipulate on their own authority the terms under which its citizens go about their business.

READ MORE...

I’ve uploaded a video blast-from-the-past showing one small example an analogue of Leif Erickson’s discovery of Vinland, or the Apollo Moon landings:  Midwest computer networking.

Click here to watch it.

As for what might have been: Imagine the Internet arriving in the home 15 years earlier than it did, completely bypassing Bill Gates and the standalone computer.  Imagine a Midwest able to retain its educated boomers who might have been able to afford families there.  Imagine independent engineering leadership breaking free from NASA’s stranglehold on industrialization of space, not in the 21st century, but in the 1980s.

As I previously wrote for VDARE:

A Reader Reminds Us That It Wasn’t Immigrants Who Invented The Computer Industry

Re: Norm Matloff’s Tamar Jacoby–”Silicon Valley Would Not Exist Without Immigration.” Wrong!
James Bowery .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) wrote:

Matloff ignores the obvious fact that Silicon Valley would not exist without the Midwestern middle class WASPs. As Tom Wolfe documents in his Forbes article:, Robert Noyce and His Congregation,[August 25, 1997] virtually all of the essential inventions upon which Silicon Valley was founded were created by the much-derided, non-“vibrant”, “white-bread”, “middle class” of “fly-over country”. Last month I asked the aging Bob Johnson—former CTO of Burroughs Corporation when it was a leading mainframe company in Minneapolis where he developed the magnetic ink you see on the bottom of your checks—what he thought caused the loss of the Midwestern high tech leadership to the coasts, and he said it was the financial dominance of the coasts. That squares with what I observed while at Control Data Corporation/Cray Research, Inc. The reason Bill Norris and Seymour Cray were able to start CDC thence Cray Research was because they violated SEC regs and went around selling stock at PTA meetings, making a lot of middle class people retire very comfortably. My late father bought some Cray stock early on which helped greatly with his retirement. When I was at CDC in Arden Hills, MN attempting to deploy the mass market version of the PLATO network with Internet-like capabilities (the system that Ray Ozzie (Bill Gates’ replacement at Microsoft) cut his teeth on) in 1980 the primary resistance was from a middle management that, due to the financial press’ hostility toward Norris’s vision of a society disintermediated by computer networking, small high-tech farms and locally produced and consumed essentials—had itself grown hostile to Norris. My proposed solution is simple to state but will perhaps require a war to institute:

Replace all taxes on economic activity with a tax on net-assets, assessed at their in-place liquidation value, at the risk free interest rate (which according to modern portfolio theory is the short-term US Treasury rate) so as to extract all economic rents from the private sector, and then, to prevent public sector rent-seeking in pork-barrel politics, disperse those funds evenly in a dividend to all citizens, as the beneficiaries of the land-trust called the United States. That will not only stop the vicious centralization of power in the private and public sectors, but it will clarify the role of immigration—it is a dilution of the benefits intended for the Posterity of the Founders of the land trust called The United States of America. James Bowery’s previous letter is here.

So Natalie Shook, a young and not unattractive, not-Jewish psychologist at Ohio State University, specialises in ...

exploring prejudice reduction through intergroup contact. Specifically, I am interested in how automatically activated racial attitudes are affected by successful interracial relationships, and vice versa.

Natalie may or may not be room-sharing with her gris eminence, Russell Fazio, but she certainly likes to work with him.  His research ...

centers upon the study of attitudes. ... We have proposed a model of attitudes as associations in memory between the attitude object and one’s evaluation of the object. Our concern has been with the likelihood that such evaluations will be activated automatically from memory upon the individual’s encountering the attitude object. ... In particular, the research has focused upon (a) the influence that accessible attitudes have upon attention, categorization, judgment and, ultimately, behavior, and (b) the functional value of such attitudes. The implications of this view of attitudes are currently being examined in the domain of prejudice. The role of both automatic and more motivated, controlled processes, on race-related judgments and behavior are under investigation. We also are conducting research on the implicit development of attitudes via classical conditioning, attitude formation via exploratory behavior, and implicit measures of attitude.

So what these intellectual lovebirds are setting out to do is prove that white prejudice is learned and can be unlearned.  Their latest two papers, which relate to studies conducted in 2001 and 2002, are:-

Shook, N. J., & Fazio, R. H. (2008). Roommate relationships: A comparison of interracial and same-race living situations. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11, 425-437.

Shook, N. J., & Fazio, R. H. (2008). Interracial roommate relationships: An experimental test of the contact hypothesis. Psychological Science, 19, 717-723.

However, ISO’s press office marketed the Shook-Fazio papers thus:-

READ MORE...

1. Except in self defense or enforcement of this agreement, no one may willfully kill, disable, or permanently disfigure another. No one may secretly restrain another. No one who has reached the age capable of procreation may physically force upon another any offensive, sexually-oriented act; nor engage in any offensive, sexually-oriented act with any person who has not reached the age capable of procreation even when no force is involved. An open (not secret) majority vote of all sovereigns assembled as set forth In 3 below shall be the effective determination as to whether the alleged act took place and whether the act was offensive and was sexually-oriented. Any degree of participation in group force that results in violation of this point of agreement regarding offensive, sexually-oriented acts makes every participant fully guilty of the result, along with the person actually performing the act.
2. No man shall force the act of procreation on a woman. Rape Is hereby defined as an act of procreation without the involved woman's deliberated consent. Any man who engages with a woman in an act of procreation without her formal, publicly-proclaimed deliberated consent may be found guilty of rape. In the absence of a formal public acceptance, the individual woman involved Is the sole judge of whether an act of procreation was rape. If a woman who has not made advance formal acceptance of a man prior to the act of procreation, formally accuses him of rape within three months after the alleged act, and if a majority of sovereigns assembled as set forth in 3 below vote that the man engaged in the act, then It shall invariably be construed as rape - even though it may clearly be shown that the woman Invited, or even persuaded, the man to engage In the act. A woman may revoke formal acceptance of a man at will by giving formal notice of such revocation.
3. Any individual, either sovereign or shielded, or any group of Individuals, may restrain persons suspected of breaking these agreements for a period of not to exceed fifteen days, conduct a trial for them at a specified, easily accessible place on a date, time, and place publicly and formally announced three days In advance, and penalize (in person or by proxy or proxies) those deemed guilty by an open (not secret) majority vote of all sovereigns at the trial who are permanent residents of the community. (The composition of "community" and the meaning of "permanent resident" is to be defined by those entering into this agreement.)
4. No one shall be required to give testimony at a trial but it Is agreed that one found guilty of perjury by formal trial, as set forth In 3 above, shall be subject to the penalty set forth In 7 below.
5. No additional agreements that give a group's decisions effective power over individuals shall be made. Any group of two or more individuals who make other agreements giving a group decision effective power over Individuals, or who fail to abide by these agreements, shall be deemed a conspiracy against Individual freedom. All acts against them by an Individual or a group of Individuals who have entered into this agreement shall be construed to be self-defense. — Further explanation: Anyone may bring interpersonal problems before a voluntarily convened formal open Forum structured after the manner of a traditional court of law. In such a Forum opinions regarding the interpersonal problems, and deliberated recommendations for settling differences, can be formally given, but such opinions and recommendations will not be binding on those Involved. Those who bring problems before the formal Forum may, if they choose, make personal agreements congruent with the Forum's recommendations after the recommendations have been made. Those found guilty of making agreements to be bound by the Forum's recommendations before the recommendations are made are guilty of making agreements giving a group decision effective power over individuals.
6. Any sovereign may challenge another sovereign to formal combat for any reason. The following are the conditions for such formal combat:
   1. All combat shall be one sovereign individual against one sovereign Individual.
   2. A challenger shall give formal public notice three days prior to combat and a formal public declaration of reasons therefor.
   3. There shall be at least a one year interval from the time one Is engaged in formal combat as the challenged before one may again be engaged as the challenged.
   4. Subject to the following provisions, the conditions of formal combat shall be established by a majority vote of all sovereigns of the community who assemble after three days public notice. The intent shall be to give challenger and challenged the equal opportunity they would have In Nature — if no human society existed. Terrain of the combat ground shall be varied and extensive enough to permit strategy and to give the physically weak the chance that Nature gives them. Combatants shall have equal weapons and clothing. Weapons shall be a sword or knife with a blade not to exceed 25 cm (approximately 10 inches) plus a 15 meter (approximately 50 feet) length of strong cordage. All previous agreements between challenger and challenged are automatically suspended during the period of formal combat. There shall be no rules within the combat ground. Challenged and challenger shall enter combat ground from opposite sides. No one but challenger and challenged shall be within the combat ground. No one shall attempt to aid, hinder or observe what happens. It Is intended that only one shall return alive from formal combat. When two return alive one shall forever be shielded by the other. The relationship must be announced jointly by them before they are permitted to leave the combat ground. Two are not permitted to return alive if one has been permanently disabled or disfigured by his opponent.
   5. No sovereign who has an unanswered challenge pending may leave the community, refuse combat, or relinquish one's sovereignty.
7. Guilt for breaking any point of this agreement shall be determined according to Item 3 above. The invariable penalty for anyone found guilty of breaking any point of this agreement shall be death within twenty-four hours.

My thanks to Welf Herfurth for circulating this link to a left-field but, for all that, pretty well-informed article on the European survivalist movement generally and on National Anarchism in particular.  It provides a topographic survey of several significant components of the nationalist scene not only in Europe but in America, and certainly told me a thing or two I did not know before.  I will reproduce it in full below the fold.

But, first, there is a caveat.  The site, PublicEye.org, is that of Political Research Associates which describes its mission as “Researching the Right for Progressive Changemakers”. 

As we know only too well, the left is obsessed with race.  It needs to believe that there is freedom - meaning racelessness for Europe’s peoples - and there is immoral, illegitimate, oppressive fascism.  There is nothing else, nothing in between.  The obvious absurdity of this position - one which it applies to no other people -  is never explored.  For a “free” individual, the liberal-leftist is curiously disinterested in challenging his own inconsistencies and illogicalities.  That is something for others to do.

This uncomfortable position may go a long way to explaining why the left is so violent, emotionally and physically.  Well, there is a sense in which Roger S Griffin’s widely-accepted definition of fascism as “palingenetic ultranationalist populism” feeds that violence.  It can contribute to the transferability of the fascist meme. 

This little phrase has a certain Gott der Vater ring to it.  Its three elements are nicely interlocking.  The nation of the people (recast by Mussolini as the all-enveloping state) and the good of the people are served through renewal of their racial spirit.  And that’s … fascism!  But in his book simply titled Fascism Griffin amplifies this thesis thus:-

If fascism is defined in terms of a core ideology of ultra-nationalism that aspires to bring about the renewal of a nation’s entire political culture, then the picture changes. The features so firmly associated with it in the popular historical imagination cease to be definitional. Instead they can be seen as external and time-bound manifestations of the central ideological driving force that is its only permanent feature: the war against the decadence of society and the struggle for national rebirth.

The “features so firmly associated with it” include those stigmatised excesses I’ve mentioned before.  Freed from its “time-bound” goods of no currency today, this “fascism” takes on a very convenient elastic quality.  The writer of the article here, a man going under the soubriquet of Spencer Sunshine, can describe “reactionary counter culturalists” and BNP members as White Nationalists, and White Nationalists as “traditional fascists”.  There is no escape, and presto, he alone is a moral man.  Obviously.

Mind you, it’s a game two can play.  How about this as a core-definition of another extreme political philosophy?  Hyper-moral individualist elitism.

Now try this for size:-

If liberalism is defined in terms of a core ideology of hyper-individualism that aspires to re-engineer the West’s entire political culture, then the picture changes. Those features like political correctness and anti-racism that are so firmly associated with it in the popular imagination cease to be definitional. Instead they can be seen as alien and only recent perversions of the central ideological driving force that is its only permanent feature: the war against human nature.

The difference here is that I am not constructing an untruth about Spencer Sunshine’s peculiar politics.  That really is liberalism, folks.

Anyway, just remember that if you don’t meet the definition of fascism I’ve extrapolated from Griffin’s little phrase, complete with the upward striving spirit of race, the total state, the Volksgemeinschaft et al, you are not a fascist in any meaningful sense of the word.  You are not a fascist simply because Spencer Sunshine needs to say so.

READ MORE...

In 1993 the US Catholic Conference established the following formulation in respect to use of force and Just Cause:-

Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, ie, aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations.

The most basic right of any human population is the right to exist.  This is what is denied European peoples throughout the West.  The Jew, the African, the Moslem of any race is accorded that here in Europe, but not the European.  We are just required, basically, to go away.  This is contrary to natural justice.

In any normal age, of course, a serious and ongoing threat to a people’s existence would be addressed immediately and with all due vigour by the properly constituted authority.  But throughout the West the properly constituted authorities are a principal party to the attack on the European people’s right to exist.  Ethically, a state of exception has been created by this flouting of natural justice.  This authority - this Establishment - has relinquished its claim to legitimacy.  Indeed, the Establishment now stands full-square in the firing line, along with all its servants in political and cultural life, and those elites whom its members themselves serve.

The right of self-defence adheres - the people may, by whatever means, constitute their own revolutionary authority to initiate and conduct the appropriate corrective and retributive actions.  These may vary from waves of street protest such as that seen in Greece over the last days to a full-scale waging of civil war.  Under the new state of exception, the precise nature of action is the decision of the revolutionary authority.

All this is pretty straightforward.  But then we come to consideration of the use of force against the biological weapon which the “authorities” deploy against us.  Is force ever justified directly against race-replacing populations which are not employing direct physical violence themselves?  Yes, I think, to the extent required to contain and resolve the existential threat they pose.  The very act of invading another’s living space is an aggression in itself.  To transverse from ethics to law for a moment, since the invading minorities freely respond to the Establishment’s invitation to come and, once here, are a willing beneficiary of its coercive policies of race legislation and anti-racist practise, they are accessories before and after the fact of Establishment treachery.  The ethical path is free from obstruction.

READ MORE...