|
|
|
A view of Brexit from Asia: Britain as a Pacific trading power in the 21st century.
An important distinctionAn article by John Morgan called ‘Alt Right versus New Right’ appeared at Counter-Currents Publishing on 28 Feb 2017. I tend to agree with the things that are written at Counter-Currents more often than I agree with things that are written elsewhere in the European nationalist sphere, and in this case what John Morgan was presenting was a very good article which I think all Majorityrights.com readers should also read. Here is what I think is the most important excerpt:
What John Morgan says there about the divergence between the Alternative Right and the New Right strikes me as being completely true and is perfectly in line with the experiences that I’ve had in Europe. It is also something that Alain de Benoist has talked about
quite a lot. The attempt by Americans to impose their understanding of
ethno-racial politics and their propensity to try to effectively
obliterate all intra-European differences through imposing their
concept of ‘Whiteness’ onto other regions quickly becomes unworkable.
It
simply lacks the appropriate level of sophistication and that
lack stems from the fact that many of the American White nationalists
who are generating these ideas, have neither lived in a European
country nor held any financial stake in the future of a European
country. Ted Sallis took exception to this in the Counter-Currents
comments section, because he is precisely the kind of White nationalist
that is being criticised. He responded by asking the following:
By asking those questions, he was basically trying to force John Morgan to either go around looking up examples of people who he knew were doing it but which he did not have ready to hand, or to retract his whole argument. Morgan responded:
To which Sallis fired back:
At this point I decided to jump in, because I actually had the answer to Sallis’ aggressive questioning. It’s a slightly lengthy comment but I’ll reproduce it in full nonetheless:
Greg Johnson told me it was a good response, saying:
And it really is excellent, if I do say so myself. Ted Sallis was of course having none of that. His rebuttal to the fact that his precious ‘Big Europe’ from ‘Lisbon to Vladivostok’ had just been been branded a ‘maximum autistic LARP’, was to respond with the absolute classic: “no, you!” It could be said that all of history’s best ethnic wars start this way:
I suppose this is what the time period 1854 to 1917 was like, at least in terms of rhetoric. Some may see that time period as being a kind of hell, others may see it as heaven, but whichever it is, we are going there; it’s geographically predetermined. Also, Ted Sallis obviously just hates me, doesn’t he? He seems to regard me with a special kind of hatred and I don’t even know where it’s coming from, because as far as I know I never actually did the things that he is constantly accusing me of all over the internet. I’ll use this article as an opportunity to address a wide cross-section of the issues that he keeps raising. As such I’ll be responding not only to the specific comment that he made, but to a selection of things that he’s said about my stances over the past eighteen months on his site as well, since there is considerable overlap. Not ‘dictating’ and not ‘seducing’
I don’t have any desire to ‘dictate’ anything to any Europeans. I simply offer my ear in sympathy and solidarity and I make suggestions that I think are good suggestions. At no point do I demand anything. I don’t even take that tone. My views at their strongest are merely firm recommendations. Sallis has previously suggested – or at least strongly implied – on his blog that I go around ‘seducing’ people into doing or saying what I want them to. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no ‘Asian woman privilege’. To imagine that it is so would be completely delusional and paranoid. I know that popular media makes it look like we tend to gain automatic admittance to any venue on the basis of charm alone and then destroy the place, but I can assure you that in reality it doesn’t quite work that way. It would be fun if it did work that way, though. So let’s dispel these fictions. If Asians had the fantastically manipulative social powers that Sallis constantly claims we have on his blog, then either the Chaebol-preferred candidate Jeb Bush or the Keidanren-preferred candidate Marco Rubio would have attained the GOP nomination, whereas the Mossad-preferred candidate Donald Trump would have been blocked from entry. In such a scenario the GOP also would have somehow come under the sustained lobbying sway of what are actually weak Asian lobbies in the United States. And if either Jeb or Rubio then happened to fail against Hillary, then it would have simply been a Hillary Clinton presidency, in which the status quo would continue but at least the Iran JCPOA deal would not have come under threat, and existing global problems would somehow not have been made worse by Americans choosing to conform themselves to Israeli policy preferences on the subject of Iran. There is no perfect solution because the United States is basically political hell, but one at least does what one can. Trump was the least-preferred candidate for Asian interests. Some of course may be asking what right I have to say anything about American politics, a question that White nationalists like to hotly ask me whenever I give my opinion on anything that they have done. The answer is that what happens in America affects everyone. All of the candidates were unacceptable in some way, but they existed and could not be wished out of existence or wished into a form that was different from what they were. Thus, it was necessary to prioritise what policy preferences were most important and do triage on that basis. This could not be done merely on the basis of statements uttered on the campaign trail, but rather, the network of institutions and people who the candidate is enmeshed with or beholden to, as well as the family and blood connections of the candidate also had to be seen as indicative of what that candidate may be likely to do if elected. The priorities looked something like this: 1. Maintaining the Iran JCPOA
Deal, To focus in on the top priority, which is maintaining the Iran deal, the reasons for desiring that the deal be maintained are as follows: 1. It would allow Iran the
ability to safely and reliably vend more of its gas to European
countries, which offsets Russian energy preponderance. Since Russian
energy preponderance is one of the key mechanisms that Russia uses for
political leverage in Europe, having Iran on tap as the alternative
would serve to erode Russian power in Europe. Needless to say, the ‘Donald J. Trump’ option would not satisfy any of those priorities. Since total withdrawal from the scene would have been pointless, Asian and European lobbyists and donors had to remain engaged in that form of electoral triage and stay close to America during the 2016 election cycle in the hopes that the outcome could be shaped in a way that is least disadvantageous to the participants. It is possible to model projections on the basis of past signals at previous cycles, combined with the new inputs that had arisen in the 2016 cycle and from that, it could be possible to construct a strategy for that situation. The past signals come from polls and social sciences studies which give people insight into how different cohorts in American society respond to various stimuli when elections are on. Consider it a form of electoral bandlimiting. But there’s a problem. The Heisenberg–Gabor limit. All real-world signals are timelimited.
To make a long story short, there is an extent to which all of this is a form of gambling. It was clear that Donald Trump’s network was the narrowest. Trump’s network was basically a collection of Israelis, real estate developers and construction companies, and former Goldman Sachs employees. The other candidates were much more multifaceted in terms of who they were allowing to influence them, and this would mean that in the case of the other candidates, there would be a greater chance for more diverse donors and lobbyists to exert influence to counteract whatever Israeli influence might be aimed at them. From that perspective, it made sense to throw as many resources as possible against Donald Trump’s campaign once it became apparent that he could be a serious contender, and to support others in their efforts to signal against Donald Trump’s candidacy. But it didn’t work out. What actually happened in the end of course was that no one, absolutely no one was able to prevent Trump from winning everything. As a result of Trump winning, Israel was able to walk away with basically all the prizes. More prizes than they’ve ever had before. It was the worst possible outcome. So this gameplan that Sallis is accusing Asians of trying out on America, is a gameplan which didn’t even work, did it? Asian state actors may or may not have literally come in and stacked Federal Reserve Notes to the roof at the US Chamber of Commerce, networked with the CATO Institute and many others on trade issues, while private citizens may or may not have gone around the other side of the right-spectrum and leveraged the ideological components of the HBD/ethnopluralist movement to raise Asian social status through repeatedly publicising the stories of academic high achievers – and then after all was said and done and spent, White Americans still got up, declared that Asian producer nations were somehow ‘the problem’, filed into the voting booths, and voted for the anti-Asian candidate: Donald Trump. Misplaced emphasis?The hyperventilating emphasis that Sallis places on exhorting White nationalists to combat Asian diaspora lobbies and the home nations, seems very strange to me, given that our primary opponent is not White people. The number one threat to the East Asian post-war success story is a United States and/or a Russian Federation which is controlled preponderantly by the state of Israel’s lobbyists. Our number one opponent in actual reality is Israel. Every time an Asian takes aim at the Israel lobby for whatever motive, people like Sallis end up jumping in the way to unintentionally shield the Israelis because some White nationalists tend to think it’s aimed at White people. For example, when someone engages in industrial targeting against companies which are controlled by people with blatantly Jewish names, people like Sallis who are in the anti-Asian camp always show up to sound the alarm by protesting about ‘the Asian takeover’. Americans and Russians inadvertently end up defending many of the existing Jewish Zionist oligarchs in their own countries from the machinations of everyone else’s oligarchs. Everything really hinges around what people’s priorities are. Is your priority to defend the structural integrity of the propositional nation called ‘the United States’ or ‘the Russian Federation’ or whatever? Or is your priority to counteract the power of the Jewish lobby which is firmly entrenched in those two locations above all else? The answer cannot realistically be ‘both’. Choose one. Or to put in the bluntest terms, are you primarily anti-Semitic, or are you primarily pro-‘Big Europe’ and pro-America? At Sallis’ blog I have actually seen him claim that the outworking of Asian interests are – in his view – a ‘greater longterm threat’ to White people than the outworking of Jewish interests are. It is frankly amazing to me that he could arrive at that conclusion. Also, he has repeatedly mischaracterised what I have meant by ‘collaboration’. By ‘European and Asian collaboration’ I have only meant moving toward the kind of détente where we agree to maintain the presently-existing trade and investment arrangements and that ethnonationalists on both sides should refrain from taking up protectionist stances and that both sides should avoid stoking communal tensions in their publications. I have never asked for anything else. It’s a request that didn’t even require White people to do or change anything, since that is a status quo position anyway. If someone said that it was anything beyond “don’t step on each other’s toes if you can help it”, then such a person is wrong, or is overly-enthusiastic. At any rate, a lot of the ‘harder’ stuff that I say to people about geoeconomic issues is done low key and non-publicly (as those people who receive the occasional email from me could attest to), I only have to defend myself like this if I’m basically accused directly of something, as Sallis keeps doing. So here we go!Sallis refers to my stance as being effectively ‘Asian imperialism’, but it remains a mystery as to where this ‘imperialism’ actually is. Accusing me of ‘British imperialism’ would be a misnomer too, but at least that would sound a bit more coherent with respect to what I’ve actually been writing, given that what I’m saying is all cast within the already-presently-existing British framework anyway. Or is he accusing me of promoting both Asian and British ‘imperialism’ at the same time? I think he needs to define his terms, since I don’t know what definition of ‘imperialism’ he is using. ‘Imperialism’ as contrasted with what? If I sell you a basket of products and then spend the money to improve our standing in the world, that is not ‘imperialism’. Also, even if it were ‘imperialism’, what difference at this point would it make? Next Sallis would be telling me that the fact that I continue to breathe oxygen is objectively bad in and of itself. Obviously from my perspective, if my breathing oxygen is ‘imperialist’ and anti-Russian, then I had better keep being ‘imperialist’ and anti-Russian, because oxygen is pretty sweet! Obviously no one could reasonably expect that either myself or the Britons would feel any kind of guilt about that. We can only step over it. It would do nothing to change the present situation on the ground, which is what it is. My stance simply boils down to speaking against economic protectionism, and guaranteeing the gains that were accrued after 1991 at the end of the Cold War and the economic defeat of the USSR. The new order which manifested after 1991, when the frontiers of Muscovy were mercifully rolled back on all sides by over fifteen thousand miles, became an order focussed on deepening global supply chains so as to cut costs while also battling the ‘loose ends’ of radical Islamic terror and migration crises. It is possible to attend to those above issues while also being aware of the racial issue: which is that the nation-state is the richest and most developed repository of historical experience and governmental best-practices, and furthermore it is the surest source of inner motive energies (call it ‘EGI’) which motivate people to fight and to strive for a better seat at the table and a brighter day in the sun. Sallis dislikes the supposed ‘inscrutables’ of ‘Beijing, Tokyo, and Seoul’ (and presumably New Delhi and the rest too), but how inscrutable can it be? It’s transparent that people do not want to be subjected to trade policies and foreign policies that are crafted by people in North America who seem to want to pretend that all North America’s problems are coming from Asia in the form of molded plastic and semiconductors. The idea that Britain should conform its foreign policy to satisfy those very American concerns also doesn’t make any sense, since European states have legitimate interests that do not mesh with those of the United States. It’s way past time that people should continue to pretend that the United States has identical geostrategic and geoeconomic interests as European states do, much less that the different European states all have identical interests. A thing America actually now didI mean let’s be real, the Americans just somehow non-ironically elected a guy who came out with a speech 120 hours ago where he advocated what? This hilarious list: a. 54 billion
more drunkenly spent on defence spending targeted at nothing, So there I was, watching that mortifying clown-car of super-horrible policies unpacking itself into the international arena and I was asking – while I was drinking white rum directly from the bottle – a single question. Only one question. “But Bernie—I mean, Trump, how are you planning to actually pay for any of this stuff, fam?”The answer arrived shortly thereafter! The ‘answer’ is apparently: a.
Doubling-down on protectionist tariffs and incoherent ‘buy American’
sloganeering to socially reinforce it, a move which depends on the absurd
and not-ever-happening idea that Asian economies
will passively allow the United States to subject them to a
tariff regime designed by Gary Cohn which would literally grab money out of
Asian financial centres and reroute it back into the treasury of the
Zionist Occupation Government, Hmm! But that’s okay perhaps, since certain commodities stocks have spiked up since 09 November 2016, and maybe if the markets reorder themselves around that, those positions can continue to grow. People can make instruments which tap into that expansion, and then people and the state itself can borrow against those instruments using some very fancy mathematical formulas to predict their performance. Detroit and other Rust Belt disaster zones will somehow magically be rebuilt, and the African-Americans will somehow crank out billions of widgets while somehow not being at all socially-dysfunctional, so that all of the big spending will totally somehow pay for itself. The formulas may or may not have documentation associated with them. The formulas may or may not even be based in any kind of rational thought. Your children can then repay the money to Goldman Sachs about 35 years from now. And all of that is to be done so that the allegedly heroic America can finally defeat the allegedly undead East Asia. Wow, right? Really very much wow. I mean the whole Trump-style plan has literally never failed before except for like every single time ever. I guess you could say that I disagree with the Israel-backed Trumpist manchild plan, because my geopolitical stances are all anti-Semitic in one way or another. You could say that I disagree with the Israel-backed Trumpist manchild plan because I am of course an Asian woman, which is another factor that makes me very scary and perhaps ‘evil’. But I’ve never lied or swindled about anything in that regard. Separate destiniesTheresa May is the polar opposite of Donald Trump on those issues, and thank goodness she is the polar opposite. No false appeals by the usual suspects to ‘the White race’ and its supposed ‘unity’ are going to induce the British to make common cause with the American economic-protectionist suicide pact against their own interests, because – frankly – the British public are on average simply savvier than their American counterparts, just enough so to have deftly evaded the protectionism con-game, and to have correctly supported Brexit at the same time. Of course, there are some Trump-supporters out there who would say that this entire article could be summarised as being ‘an example of what the siren-song of globalisation sounds like’, but those people are not even capable of rigor in their analysis of anything because they’ve become ensnared by Donald Trump’s cult of personality and cannot help but senselessly parrot every one of his forced memes. I’m incredibly optimistic about Britain because everything the British people are doing recently is just great, and the interests being expressed in these isles are legitimate. I will therefore reiterate: Britain was forced to choose between the continent and the sea, and Britain chose the sea again. And there’s nothing wrong with that, that is an integral part of the identity of the British people as a seafaring trading nation with historical connections to Central, South and East Asia. If people such as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel don’t understand this, it is only because it is not in their national interest to try to understand it. But there is no reason why anyone should be held hostage to their trade preferences. Those who continue to oppose Britain will continue to do so no matter what we say. But the ways in which they do so will become increasingly subtle. It is one thing to have continental European or American allies – alliances imply cooperation between distinct groups – but it is absolutely a different thing entirely to have these people actually as part of our own groups, browbeating us because we won’t bend our knee to the Kremlin, Berlin, or Washington DC. Letting opponents of Britain shape the contours of how Britain should express its national interests is not ‘European racial solidarity’, it is subversion by hostile foreign groups whose interests do not align with Britain’s. It is perhaps no coincidence that Britain’s opponents are fully engaged in concern-trolling about supposed Asian ‘swindlers’ in Britain in the aftermath of Brexit, because Brexit is apparently not enough for the American and Russian concern-trolls. It is however quite enough for the British people who wisely voted to block the mass migration of Arabs and North Africans via the European Union into Britain, but are quite sensibly not willing to burn down the entire civil society and economy of Britain just to pointlessly antagonise Asians because some American or German or Russian enemy asked them to do so in the name of a non-existing ‘European solidarity’. You have to wonder if these people even understand what Brexit means. Do they know? It means ‘British Citizens Politely Exiting From Your Actual Disaster Zone’. It is literally the opposite of ‘solidarity’. There is no solidarity, nor should there be any solidarity in the present circumstances. Necessary tradeFree trade and the economic integration of Britain and the East is not an ‘Asiatic swindle’ as Sallis would allege, but rather, it is regions of the world exchanging goods and securing the world’s most important transit zones, for mutual benefit. It is a dividend arising from of forty years of work which was done by the previous generation of actors, and which we in the present have inherited. Our motives can be expressed in the material realm in a transactional way, and as such this expression eliminates the uncertainty that would accompany idealistic or sentimental reasons. For British Asians in the Brexit environment, our lives and our property are bound up with the fortunes and the flag of Great Britain, so it is only natural that we would stand with Britain against any and all opponents. We are not ‘loyal’ for just some kind of sentimental reasons alone. We are ‘loyal’ because everyone appreciates that Britain will now be well-placed in a secure position to participate more than ever in the ongoing process of global development in the places that need it most. Furthermore, Brexit would not be economically viable for Britain without the maintenance and expansion of trade relationships with growth regions in Asia to fill the void left by Britain’s departure from the European Common Market. The precise way in which that will manifest is presently a ‘blank page’ with a title heading over it in the Brexit plan, but the correct way of looking at the concept of there being a ‘blank page’ with a title heading over it is to recognise that as an opportunity for people to write something mutually edifying there. Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
Comments:2
Posted by DanielS responding to Sallis on Tue, 07 Mar 2017 04:14 | # Ted Sallis renders attacks on Majorityrights, Kumiko and I from his obscure blog called EGI Notes (where I never go, but I have been told); that is where he persistently takes our statements out of context and from there makes-things-up to vilify and obscure the otherwise clear ethno-nationalist motives that anyone will find who comes here, who engages us in good faith, if they wish. He is too much of a coward to come here with his accusations, because he knows that his lies would be exposed for what they are and that he would be quickly defeated: so he takes recourse to his blog - which I do not care about/have no interest in other than that he is trying develop angles against us there; but more recently, he has attacked us at Counter-Currents - a convenient place for him, because I cannot respond there [Greg Johnson banned me from commenting there for having the nerve to challenge Mark Dyal’s Whiteness] - Dyal strikes me as a Quadroon or Octoroon, or something like that - which, combined with his background and the direction that he is trying to advise for WN, led me to consider him suspicious - very. I make no apologies for that; on the contrary, believe that Counter-Currents and Renegade both should consider me as having done them a favor in taking him to task. But I digress. The point is, I can’t respond to Sallis’ attacks at Counter-Currents. So, I’ll respond here, and before long, we’ll collect the garbage that is Sallis’ accusations, show that nothing is there after the dirt is removed except for Sallis - recognized correctly as an enemy from the start, to be thrown in the garbage bin; his garbage will accumulate again, and we’ll take his garbage out again. Beginning with the last comment directed at me at Counter-Currents - again, I cannot respond there, so I have to do it here:
First of all, if a Captain-Chaos’ comment was closed for his having referred to Kumiko as a “Jap”, it wasn’t done for any censorious motive of mine to begin with - I did not even know that was a particularly insulting term; it sounded to me just like a shortened version of Japanese. Kumiko tells me that it has highly derogatory connotations for Japanese as it tends to be associated with negative American depictions of Japanese circa World War II. So, while I would not have deleted the comment (from what I knew), I may have closed it to make it clear that she would not take what she perceives as abuse. Second, there was only one time that I deleted a CC comment directed at Kumiko immediately upon what I knew. In addition to lacking worthwhile information, it was simply disgusting: “How do you get any good cock in England?” - something close to that. I could go back and find it, but ... Next, regarding Captainchaos’ comments about Greg Johnson, I was taking into account the context. Captainchaos had just been banned from Counter-Currents by Greg Johnson. Greg Johnson had been covering for and making excuses for Mike Enoch (Peinovich): there are no excuses for that, and I completely understand Captainchaos sense of rage. We have provided MANY reasons to not be associated with Enoch and could easily provide more. So, in the context of defending his race I wanted to make sure that Captainchaos felt welcome here to defend our people - taking occasion to emphasize that he was not going to be subject to trigger happy censorship or banning, particularly in light of his ban from Counter Currents; and that to be both angry and critical of what Johnson was doing was understandable. Besides the defense of Dyal as well, there are other people who Johnson associates with who are subversive to the interests of WN - Vox Day is one, many of the people in Robert Stark’s tent being other examples. So, I understood the anger with Johnson. As for accusations of homosexuality or “homophobia” (word that I don’t use) - this is trivia. Matt Parrott has come to Majorityrights, called me a “faggot” and I did not delete the post. I simply told the fat bozo to fuck-off in so many words. Yes, there can be too much of that stuff and there comes a point where you would delete but in this context, knowing that we could process it efficiently, there was no need to. As a rule, we prefer to engage rather than delete. If we delete, it is because what was said was foul enough or because the person has shown them self to be a clear waste of time and a diversion who will only persist to operate in bad faith - e.g., Silver and Thorn. Coming back to the CC comments, I believe the ones Ted Sallis is referring to are:
In the context of people defending Mike Enoch and other (((Alt Righters with suspicious motives))), I can understand an angry remark like that. No big deal. Next, CC said:
Again, I took at this in the context of understandable anger. I did not take “the rumor” seriously, and recognize that is not the essence of the matter. It wasn’t as if Captainchaos had refused to talk to Counter-Currents because James O’Meara is there or because Jack Donovan articles have been published. He was banned - from a site that has reach and impact on a significant audience regarding matters that Captainchaos is passionately concerned about. We can perhaps disabuse people of unnecessary and unproductively channeled energy that they might have in contempt for homos or for rendering accusations about things that don’t exist, and then turn focus onto people who are necessarily the enemy. At least captainchaos comments in good faith essentially about our people, while Sallis et al. try to keep discussions in good faith away from us, where not trying to encourage actors in bad faith (e.g., Silver) upon us. Sallis misrepresents what we say in an effort to divert attention, discussion and accurate understanding away from our platform, despite crucial matters being discussed here. 3
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 07 Mar 2017 06:52 | # Anyone who gets butthurt about shit people say about them on the internet needs to grow up. Bye the way, Greg Johnson has characterized Michael Ravioli as an “embittered, jaundiced old crank.” Lulz! Damn, that shoe sure does fit. 4
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 07 Mar 2017 18:20 | # Next, I probably should address Kumko’s response to the same comment by Ted Sallis over at Counter-Currents, because she commented there after I had already commented here and there are ostensible contradictions.
In my opinion Kumiko is treating Ted Sallis as being more importantly representative than he is. What Sallis represents is a troll more or less defensive of Russian-Jewish interests, and therefore trying to divert prejudice onto Asians instead. Kumiko continues:
Good point.
There are many things to defend about Greg Johnson and it is clear that he is, on balance, nowhere near being un-worthwhile for whatever mistakes he’s made and, as such to be ostracized from any collaborative ruminations on WN.
Ok, its good tact; since Kumiko has access to comment at Counter-Currents that she should pursue the matter in such a way that would not put Johnson completely on the defensive so as to ban her from commenting there without pursuing the matter further.
They were both using the most derogatory terms for homosexuals (and Jews too). As a rule that may not be a good idea, and GW certainly doesn’t support it - it is better to rely on rigorous argumentation - but I saw this as a crisis situation where people blocked from addressing the problem could be legitimately pissed-off enough to use epithets - I see the ability to use them at times as important to overcome “soft totalitarianism”...first of speech, then of mind and conceptual organization of patterns (“stereotypes”), and finally of action in self defense. So, if Kumiko believes that these words should not be used as a rule under normal circumstances, I agree. However, occasionally…well, she apparently agrees. If nothing else the legitimate grievance or inaccuracy that is held in the slur or the epithet can be addressed. Kumiko likes to approach people in a way that will not alienate them and so will come across as a pure liberal in order to bring them around. This is good of course, but has drawbacks, in that it can both turn off people who’ve already been saturated with that stuff and fail to signal relief in alternative, that we are willing to address some of the urgent, legitimate grievances of those who are being devastated by liberalism. Nevertheless, that’s only a problem with this tact and it is a tact which doesn’t contradict our platform (I’ll show you why not in a moment)
Now, Kumiko could not simply go onto Counter-Currents and tell Greg Johnson that he is a flaming asshole for defending Mike Enoch and that that was completely unacceptable as I have said. It was surprising to me that she would extend her tact quite that far given that her vitriol for Enoch was second to none and her disrespect for those who supported him was enough to list them for public flogging. So, I can forgive myself for not quite anticipating that treating them in a fundamentally different way from Enoch, even if I did remember that particular remark in the maelstrom of that controversy, that I would not anticipate it taking quite such a 180. I take for granted that cooperation with Enoch should be taken into firm account, even for those who, in the grand scheme of things, you’d like to keep on your side or get more on your side. Nevertheless, while Kumiko’s tact and my tact conflict ostensibly, I was not taken aback by her comment - that she’s “completely open to explanation of things we might not be seeing” - seeing it as just that, good tact: because essentially it is good to have Greg Johnson on our side and to remain on our ethno-nationalist side. I take that for granted too. It is not my purpose to drive a wedge against Greg Johnson per se.
Yes, Ted Sallis is disingenuous; the only complaint that I have with Kumiko in regard to the issue is that she does not more simply relegate him to the category of troll on behalf of Russian/Jewish interests. We can deal with him at our leisure but shouldn’t treat him before onlooking audiences as someone arguing in good faith or someone who represents White interests in good faith. He’s a troll and it is his purpose to harass, disrupt, dis-inform and demoralize as much as he can (not much) those who oppose his Russian-Jewish interests.
Yes, and that goes along with the kind of argument that I have been making, viz., that people who do not have children and marginals otherwise can be and are a part of human ecology and systemic homeostasis.
Yes, and it just goes to show how cynically they would adopt an argument they figure would appeal to a large, stupid audience.
Indeed.
The operative phrase here if you want to disabuse people of any ostensible conflict with me is this: “the single most liberal person on sexual politics in the ethnonationalist sphere.” In other words, she is very liberal within ethnic bounds, but between groups, not exactly.
Their capacity for organization may be over rated, as much as they over rate their verbal skill’s capacity for improvisation on behalf of Jewish interests, however…not only is it more than a little suspicious that Ted Sallis would be so hysterical about our platform here at Majoirtyrights, but it becomes clear that he is part of a rough interest group who are hostile for reasons that cannot be justified from a White Nationalist/ethno-nationalist standpoint - his objecting to Silver’s being encouraged to go elsewhere is one heavy clue. But then! to be devoting copious blog posts to defending the enemy and enemy infiltration as he has and accusing us of being the bad guys, its just so stupid that well, I am grateful to Sallis for exposing himself: Ted Sallis may as well be standing on a table and raising his hand in sworn oath before us all, proclaiming himself the enemy:
Sallis has made his agenda so flagrant at this point that I am satisfied to dismiss anybody who would take him seriously at all.
“The Silk Roaders” he calls us - it is the same kind of forced meme that the Jewish marketing firm that supplies TRS would bandy. Sallis wants people to seriously believe that our opposition to Jewish power and influence is a mere smokescreen for our own special, not alliance, but “Asian supremacism”; he’ll just assert that out of whole cloth. It apparently doesn’t matter to him and he does not want you to note that there are volumes of evidence here that speak to the contrary, that we absolutely oppose the imposition of Jewish power and influence and any kind of supremacism (upon Europeans and yes, not upon our Asian allies either). What Sallis really can’t handle is that an alliance between European peoples and Asians really is a threat to his Jewish friends and other supremacists. He is the enemy and anybody who believes him is a fool. Since he sees it as his job somehow to churn out disinformation about us and he is liable to continue to do so in profusion, despite his farce being easily discerned, there is only so much time that should be devoted to what is an unnecessary tedium of taking out the garbage that he dumps; thus, I will do so only at my leisure, the dump that is his blog being of no real interest to me; inasmuch as I see that it might be garbage day and instructive to note to people why some of the garbage that he managed to dump our way is now on its way out, I might provide labels as to why his arguments have been labeled as trash and sent there for future reference for those who might want to immunize themselves against his kind of nonsense (to not be bothered with his garbage). 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Mar 2017 22:05 | # It is a singular fact of nationalism in the West, maligned and excluded from the public round as it is, that its advocates tend to include a percentage of renegades, a non-trivial fraction of whom are downright bloody-minded and perpetually fired-up people. It’s easy work for anyone seeking to stall the creation of a unified movement to generate internecine warfare. Maybe that is part of what’s going on. But there are also plain and simple personality issues. Mike could be a very impetuous, short-tempered guy during the period of our cooperation, and rarely held back from saying exactly what he thought. He certainly became pretty hostile to MR after he left us, though he was not hostile to me personally, I think. Obviously he is now. In general, I would say Mike is attracted to conflict, but always in the cause of his dearest attachments, which are Italian, Mediterranean and European, in that order. I would never associate him with Jewish interests. But his pan-European interest could lead him to connect to the Moscow-Berlin-Paris axis, and find therein a dislike of alternative strategies. Knowing Mike, that dislike would be extreme. 6
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 07 Mar 2017 22:32 | # Kumiko doesn’t like “homophobia and misogyny.” I have a quite simple solution to these problems. Women are to be kept barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Fags are to be kept in the closet or else dangling from a noose. And all Asians will be shipped back to Asia. Lulz. How do you like them apples? 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Mar 2017 22:43 | # Why would you execute homosexuals, apple man? The usual line of attack is that extreme hostility to homosexuality betrays repressed homosexual desire. Now, normally I wouldn’t have any truck with that dirty trick because, after all, homosexual acts are profoundly maladaptive behaviours, and we are all hard-wired to view them with contempt or derision. But in your case, CC, given that you are so determined to shock, I might turn to my shelf of psychiatry books and check for the contiguity and incidence of attention seeking + a domineering mother figure + latent homosexual impulses; each element operating to support the other either by proxy or directly. Whaddya think? Interesting complex? 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Mar 2017 23:07 | # “Michael Ravioli” is very funny. I’ll give you that. Isn’t he becoming more a case, though, of Unravioli? 9
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 08 Mar 2017 03:02 | # So, after this article has been up for just a short while, it seems that Ted Sallis was already prepared to give me a response of some sort over at his blog, EGI Notes. The response however seems to skirt around the actual substance of my article, and is instead an unsourced rant about various things other than the article. So let’s begin. It’s definitely a case of ‘unraviolli’:
Because that is totally what is about to happen. Right?
I assume that the ‘moronic attack’ part is supposed to be referring the article I’ve written. He only sounds slightly butthurt! Another feature of his butthurt is that whenever I write something on Majorityrights and Sallis decides to criticise it, he will never actually link to the article he’s criticising, which is usually a sign that he’s upset with me. The tantrum continues:
He’s actually serious right now. Rather than addressing the article that I’ve written, I’m instead asked to explain or justify a comment made eleven million years ago by DanielS, a comment which was in that very thread made in a humorous way designed to raise his ire in the first place, and was later clarified so as assuage the concerns of the actual idiots who thought that Daniel really meant to bring a foreign military into European countries. Don’t be an actual idiot, Sallis. In reality DanielS was in fact referring to the situation in Djibouti as it is used as a multinational basing location. Djibouti is in East Africa. You can stop hyperventilating now. Not only does the cooperation already exist, it’s happening in a place that is nowhere near you, and yet it is keeping your borders safe as a secondary effect. On a serious note, this is why I keep telling people at Majorityrights.com to be precise in their language and to definitely not make any jokes or ask any provocative questions at all. Things may be funny in the moment, but someone will always take statements and use them in stupid ways, and Sallis is the king of taking statements and using them in stupid ways. For example, if I were trying to be stupid on purpose like how Sallis is, I would now use this as an opportunity to argue that Ted Sallis must be actually a supporter of Al-Qaeda, because he is seemingly against multinational cooperation against their operations in Africa. But I won’t say that, because that would be stupid.
I don’t have to speculate on it at all, since I was there and I can tell you. The mentality underlying that comment was called ‘mirth’. Is Sallis ever going to address the article that I’ve written? How much Styrofoam am I going to wade through in order to get to that, I wonder?
This summary that Sallis is making now assumes that there is a unified group called ‘Whites’ who have a unified ‘White world’ foreign policy on what the economic role of Siberia—also known as ‘the Russian Far East’—should be, and what the geopolitical boundaries of that region should be until the sun expands into a red dwarf and extinguishes all life in this solar system. Needless to say, that is a pretty LARPy assumption, one which is invalidated by simply looking at the fact that no one in the European or American world is actually in any kind of agreement on that. Just to use the example of America alone, Sallis is holding the position which is presently in vogue among the denizens of the Wilson Center and the Kennan Institute, whereas I am holding the position which is presently in vogue among the Trilateral Commission and the Jamestown Foundation. So you can see that even within America there was a split within their establishment.
That’s a weird question which seems to have arisen out of nowhere, but the answer may be the latter in the year 1935, and the former in the year 1914 and the former again in the year 1946, and the former yet again in the year 2017. I guess what I’m saying is that the answer depends on what’s actually happening on the ground and what the time period is.
That comes as a surprise to no one. I mean, Hoffmeister literally supported the Soviet Union and claimed that the Soviet Jews were ‘the custodians’ of White EGI in the the face of hostile Asians during the time period of its existence. In some weird way that does resemble Sallis’ affection for its successor state, the Russian Federation. Hoffmeister is the essential reason for why Cannabis has to be a banned substance, and he may also be why ‘helicopter rides’ exist. You should never smoke the Herbal Jew. Not even once.
No sign of Sallis getting at all flustered here, is there? That was almost Alex Jonesian. He should be more creative with his epithets though. Has he considered trying ‘Satanic warmongering New World Order globalist oriental vampire’? It would fit in just fine with the fact that the American Alt-Right now exists in a ‘high energy’ (read: irrational) nexus somewhere between Donald Trump’s personality cult, Breitbart News, Lyndon Larouche’s people, the John Hagee Today Show, and Alex Jones’ Infowars. Gotta cover all the bases for all the diverse elements of what it is to be crazy!
How dare I speak the truth, I guess? Where is this European solidarity, Sallis? I was looking for it for a long time, and then I realised that actually Brexit was the only answer. Brexit is the rational response to the fact that European solidarity does not exist. Maybe it can exist one day if continental Western Europe ever decides to become competent at governing itself. When Germany and France actively threatened to send hundreds of thousands of migrants to Britain against Britain’s will, that is not what I would define as ‘solidarity’. If you think that I’m the problem for having pointed that out here at Majorityrights, then I don’t even know what to tell you.
If Counter-Currents happens to believe in the existence of thing that actually demonstrably does not exist, and advocates taking up policy preferences that take for granted the existence of a thing that does not exist, then yes, I guess there would be an incompatibility between Majorityrights.com and Counter-Currents on that issue.
Apparently advocating that Britain should make common cause with European countries who wanted Britain to accept about 500,000 migrants (+/- 10 billion), is now ‘the very foundation of White racial nationalism’ according to Ted Sallis, and I—a non-white ‘invader’—have violated this supposed guiding principle. I would say that Ted Sallis would have to be drunk to come out with such a ‘summary’, but he is American and American alcohol is mostly undrinkable piss-water so I’m sad to say that he probably doesn’t even have drunkeness as an excuse on this one. Actual summary: Ted Sallis actually was probably sober when he basically claimed that I am ‘anti-white’ because I supported Brexit and when he claimed that I am ‘anti-white’ because I won’t endorse his absurd Russophilic world view.
Actually true. I am in fact continually running attack pieces against Russia and Israel, and it is indeed deliberate. Yes, some of the concepts I push are somehow vectored across ‘fashy’ RSS feeds, and sometimes get vectored to Reddit, and even to 4chan.
I’ve never attacked Greg Johnson. I’ve also never attacked Richard Spencer, although I’m aware that DanielS has some misgivings about Spencer’s personality and strategy. I did run four really good attack pieces against Michael Enoch though. None of that can be seen as ‘vulgar’ though, unless you consider exposing a lying liar as a liar to be ‘vulgar’. My favourite one is the third one.
I actually do experience a kind of savage joy every time I see the actual pain and hurt that people have been experiencing as a result of their idol Michael Enoch getting his nose bloodied. That doesn’t make me vile, it just makes me human.
The what and the who? I have literally no idea what all that was about, as I hadn’t joined the Majorityrights team yet. I bet you it will still be my fault somehow, though.
I actually have the answer to that question! See here:
Oh. I don’t need to even supply a commentary on this one, do I? That’s the answer to how Eisenhower, Roosevelt and Grant resemble each other. I can just move on, right?
Ah, you see, Sallis has already taken my likely response into account in advance. He knew I would say something anti-Semitic in response, and he’s already prepared a talking point for that. As always, I’ll be accused of using ‘an anti-Semitic smokescreen’ to ‘cover’ over my allegedly ‘Asian supremacist’ motives.
Hear that, everyone? Taken to its logical conclusion, if I point out what the Jewish diaspora and the Zionist lobby more generally are doing to move you close to a ridiculous war in Iran or elsewhere in Asia, that is—according to Sallis—a mere distraction, and you would have to be the worst kind of Nazi to actually be ensnared by my evil Nazi rhetoric. I guess if Trump decides to send your children to die in Iran within the next 8 years or so, Sallis would see that as a totally logical extension of the civilisational rivalry between Europeans and Asians, and any attempts by me to point out that Israel is actually behind it would be classified by him as but a mere ‘distraction’ or ‘smokescreen’, which is of course designed by me to protect Central Asian population groups (of which Iranians are a member) from being harmed by Europeans. I don’t really need to explain or describe the mindset behind that viewpoint, right? I can just move on to the next quote, right?
Apparently it also doesn’t register on the memetic map of your American hero Madison Grant, but I don’t see you letting that get in your way.
I despair. So apparently, criticising Donald Trump for being up to his eyeballs in Zionism is an ‘invalid’ criticism, but criticising him for reaching out to African-Americans is a ‘valid’ criticism. What if they are both valid criticisms, and what if actually I did both criticisms? To quote the article which I wrote, which Sallis chose to only partial-quote:
So actually it turns out that I do indeed criticise Donald Trump for his ridiculous outreach to African-Americans. That said, it is also convenient for me to do that because I know full well that Asian diaspora communities in the United States do not have a very good relationship with the African-American so-called ‘community’, so by the logic of Sallis, this probably doesn’t really count because it is an issue on which there is some utility to be found in Asians taking it up, which of course should never be allowed if he had his way. Fuck me if I should happen to derive any kind of benefit from the positions that I espouse, I guess.
Britain in a post-Brexit environment. It’s happening as we speak.
But Sallis isn’t British, so it’s not even his call to make. 10
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 08 Mar 2017 07:55 | # Sallis seems to have run into quite an interesting problem here. Not only is he lagging behind in his responses to me, he’s also having difficulty with the fact that different domains have different communication rules, and so when he writes some super-aggressive ‘abusive’ response to an empty and vacuous PR post that I make over at Counter-Currents, it’s going to look pretty comical once I start dismantling it over here. So, he did overreact a lot, and now I’m going to respond to that overreaction. There’s technically not much there aside from him trying rather transparently to psychologically neg me into giving him command of the dialogue (which will never happen), but inbetween the negging attempts there are some de facto concessions and other interesting admissions that he’s made, so here it is:
I don’t think Greg Johnson wanted Sallis to answer anything, I think he just wanted Sallis off his site in general. But okay, check it out. Guys, do you suppose that Sallis is trying to see if I’m insecure enough to waste time demonstrating that when he calls me stupid, that “he is so wrong”? I’m actually disappointed because if he’s going to neg me he should at least be sophisticated about it. The general rule is that it can never work if it’s boldly visible in the title of your post and in the subheading. Don’t be all like, “I think you and your entire racial group are stupid, prove me wrong!” That’s not even exciting. It’s way too obvious. If he was going to do it properly, he should’ve subtly talked down at me through the entire response in the hopes that it would induce me to get all tangled up in trying to ‘re-validate’ myself. That still wouldn’t have worked either because I still would not have cared, but it would have at least shown that he was making a bit more effort. I would have respected the effort, at least.
Ever heard of the concept of ‘creative destruction’? That’s what’s happening here.
Even if I knew that, I’d have simply pretended that I did not know it. So I don’t even see what the point is.
Nope. You would still have written that anyway, because that would have been convenient for you to have written. Why should I presume that you were going to be an honest broker in Counter-Currents’ comments section? You can’t even link to me in context when you quote me, and you think I’m going to take for granted that you will honestly deal with me in any other way?
The accusation I was making was that you might come to Majorityrights and re-post it yourself. I didn’t need to prove that you would do this, since that cannot be proven. I only needed to establish that hypothetically you could have come back and re-posted Captainchaos’ comment if I had removed it. In other words, all people had to do was use their imagination.
Okay. But I haven’t removed the comment, it will never be removed, and I’m never going to deny that it was there. Stop being paranoid.
I proof read everything!
I’m slightly amused at the fact that you think that the comments by Captainchaos and Ned Flanders, neither of whom are on the Majorityrights team, are somehow part of “MR perfidy”.
Do you need a handkerchief? Because this is pretty whiny stuff.
Occam’s razor should actually lead you to the conclusion that I’m simply trying to wind you up at this point. The claim that you are somehow a key component of whatever moderation problems we may or may not have here, has just about as much validity as your claim that I am somehow responsible for the things that people write in the comments section. Which is to say, none. Yet you still said what you said, and I still said what I said. It’s almost like we are both trying to play with each other’s head, except what I’m doing to you is totally working on you, and what you are trying to do to me hasn’t worked at all.
Okay, so now we are actually learning something. Apparently Ted Sallis doesn’t have any actual connection to Michael Enoch, and he doesn’t even like TRS. So this really may be just petty-moralistic whining from him. Guys, my treatment of Mike Enoch was ‘repulsive’! I’m a mean person, who does mean things to people because I enjoy it!
Thank you for that concession! It was really obvious from the start, though. I have no problem with gay people.
I’m not accountable to you. I don’t care what you think, because everything that happened at Counter-Currents surrounding the supposed ‘homophobia’ business was an elaborate theatre performance started by you and finished by me, so go fuck yourself. 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 08 Mar 2017 14:10 | # Mike Rienzi, quoted by Kumiko:
This is true, and it was a major cause of why Mike did not feel able to continue proselytising for Salterism here (which was highly influential and valuable). However, the site was never set up to operate as a mouthpiece for a single worldview, not even nationalism. Its function was not discussed at all by me until after Mike had left, though I did write to him in the aftermath to try to clear the lines. Up until the end of 2007 the function of the site was to model a contest of worldviews which were, respectively, nationalist or conservative; into which I wanted to sow certain seeds and observe what, if anything, grew. It was, and had to be, an eclectic, free speech blog. Neither I nor Phil Peterson, who was involved in the planning and blogged with us for the first couple of years, wanted to collapse the experiment by sliding towards the JQ-focus common to almost all the WN world. However, free speech couldn’t hold that particular line once wintermute and ben tillman, in particular, came here and broke the spell. That blew it, basically; and made it uncomfortable to impossible for the conservatives. When Mike arrived there was already a fairly confrontational atmosphere. He fitted right in. The whole thing then became personalised, and from my position extremely annoying. I cut some people out, which Mike never acknowledges. He left anyway, and did so with an idée fixe about the inadmissability of contrary opinions - including the contrary opinion that opinions to the contrary are testing chambers for one’s own opinion. It would be tempting to conclude that the difference between us was that Mike had matured his personal worldview, whereas I was still actively refining mine. But that wouldn’t be accurate. Mike followed up by stating his interest in synthesing Yockeyism and Salterism, something I considered quite impossible, and told him so. The other day I read the wiki entry on Freeborn John ... John Lilburne, whose roistering life embroidered the England of the Civil War years. The entry ends with a few lines of comic poetry from a work on his life, which was published in 1657:
We do need our Lilburnes and Rienzis, irascible and impossible though they be. 12
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 08 Mar 2017 14:41 | # He is neither mature nor honest. We don’t need him at all. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 08 Mar 2017 14:44 | # Without him, Daniel, would you be (not always correctly) using the Salterian concepts and language? 14
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 08 Mar 2017 14:48 | # Why not? Did he invent Frank Salter? Did he invent his forebears, EO Wilson and Hamilton? EGI is a rough term as I (correctly) use it, to already acknowledge that distance theory is not enough. I remember reading about this (genetic distance, its predictability and unreliability * at times) long before Majorityrights existed.
15
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 08 Mar 2017 15:04 | # As I understand it, OGI was originally published in Germany in 2003. It was Mike who recognised its timeliness and import and introduced it to WN, initially through Amren (I believe in 2004) and through MR (from 2005). I am sure there will have been a great deal of other useful work done elsewhere. But Mike is the guy to detail that history. He was always a stickler for the precise, accretively reproductive use of the term ethnic genetic interest, as set out in OGI. He invariably reacted with scorn to its casual use. I remember one conversation I had with him when I tried - unsuccessfully - to stretch the point to the demotic “ethnic interest” (I think on the grounds that people would begin to grasp the reproductive component through familiarity with it). He wouldn’t have it. But then, he made a point of mailing me one time to quote from a thread debate I’d had with the mischling Guy White, in which, apparently, I had managed to use EGI correctly. 16
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 08 Mar 2017 16:12 | # Ok, so you acknowledge that he did not invent the term EGI. I acknowledge that I deliberately use the term to suggest group interests to a broad audience. I do not care if he takes offense to that. So he came upon the matter so recently as 2003 to bring “light to the ‘WN world” from the kosher summit of American Renaissance…i.e., to discuss an elaboration of ideas that were actually present in EO Wilson decades before - which accurately described some ambiguities to the distance aspect: e.g., Jews and their neighbors were closely related genetically, but could hardly be said to get along for their lack of distance. Graham Lister noted that Salter may have performed a disservice in removing the ambiguity of contexts where distance is not the overriding factor in antagonism: “In a liberal society, siblicide can be a winning move.” I believe your (over) sympathy toward Rienzi in this context has to do with the fact that you haven’t gotten over wailing modernity. Majorityrighs was something like a site where nothing was granted suspension of disbelief but rather subject to a free for all of utter skepticism and attack from everyone under the modernist assumption that those attacks would not side track (at best, if not destroy indefinitely) worthwhile ideas/hypothesis; and what would inevitably result would be foundational truth. This is obsolete philosophy. While it would be completely predictable that some good ideas would pass through, as their advocates tried to test them out against a tough, critical group, it is also predicable that if they ever came to a post modern position, i.e., a position where putting resources at risk constantly for the sake of “universal truth” is no longer needed - a situation we have - but have rather revealed the need for a post modern turn to European group interests (and other ethno-national alliances): that Jewish and liberal trolls would not let the project go forward as such, but would attack and subvert it in any way that they could. Do you realize the vicious, ignorant and dishonest attacks that Rienzi has levied against Kumiko and I for months? Our platform makes sense. What Rienzi does is cut and paste things out of context while attributing utterly false motives to us in order to misrepresent our platform. We don’t need this and inasmuch as creeps like him are some sort of modernist barium that a post modern position must show itself capable of holding up against, we have done that: our position will prevail. Our true and just positions will prevail over his lies and distortive misrepresentation of our efforts. Mike Rienzi won’t come here because he will be defeated. He will be shown to be dishonest, to be defending what should not be defended and attacking what should not be attacked. 17
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 08 Mar 2017 18:53 | # When DanielS first met me, I was already interchangeably using the terms ‘ethnic genetic interests’ and ‘ethnic nepotism’ without having ever encountered any of Ted Sallis’ writing. In the first conversation I ever had with DanielS in 2013, I tried to bend his ear (using the most politically-correct language possible while doing so) toward my stance by showing him the concept that there is a sliding threat scale to one’s interest that is caused by mass migration, and that the most dangerous threat of all to Europe was the threat of mass migration from Africa. I was using the ‘chart of FST distances between 26 selected populations from Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994 p. 75’, which had been used by Salter. I also told him an anecdotal story about unnamed British civil servants who are aware of it and have tried to tilt the tables as much as they could reasonably do so within the confines of the presently-existing laws. Of course, it turned out that DanielS already knew all about that concept and didn’t need to have his ear bent by me in the first place, for reasons that would soon become really apparent. It was like one of those “Are you thinking what I’m thinking” moments, except rather than receiving the comical answer that Michael Howard received in the election 2005 which was “Actually no” on a mass scale, the answer was “Yes, and I’m more extreme than you.” Which is always interesting. Also, in my writing here you can detect its influence, my approach is always to try to illustrate it using ‘a story’ rather than simply stating the theory by itself. My article on Peter Sutherland’s violent family history and the merits of Brexit, was an example of that approach. 18
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 08 Mar 2017 21:24 | # Some people may be wondering, if Sallis never links back to the articles that he’s criticising, and if it is entirely possible to shut his criticisms out by simply not drawing attention to them, then why do I consistently choose to draw attention to them, effectively piping his criticisms into the comments sections of my own articles, as though to undermine my own messaging? The answer is because it’s interesting, and because I want people to make choices after considering all sides of an issue. As a note that is worth mentioning, Sallis refers to me as ‘an invader’, which is ironic given that my career path partly involves preventing the very kind of ‘invasive’ actions which he accuses me of perpetrating. I guess the people in his camp would see that as more evidence that Britain has real problems, though. Regarding my particular narrative and ideological line here at Majorityrights, I don’t demand that anyone should agree with me, and in fact I approach life from a total state of flux. Life is to some extent a gamble, and if you are a visible minority there is always a chance that something like the “Los Angeles Riot of 1992” in a more systematic and expropriative form could happen. If—hypothetically—the anti-Asian viewpoint of Sallis were to become the predominant stance in Britain, then I would ‘cut, sell, and leave’ immediately with all my assets and go somewhere else. The cost of fighting to stay in a place where I am not wanted in a hypothetical scenario where the British people decided to retreat into protectionism and ‘full’ ethnonationalism, would be greater than the cost of just leaving and going to a place where it’s safer. Furthermore, if Britain were to hypothetically take that anti-Asian path, I would think that it is a stupid thing to do, but it would be fully within the sovereign right of the British people to take that path because it is their country and they are the majority in it. Freedom of association is a thing that I actually think makes good sense. I have no desire to force my presence onto anyone, and if White British people decided that they actually hate our cultures and that they hate the products and services we provide, there is nothing that we could do to force anyone to behave or feel otherwise. British Asians as a whole comprise roughly 7% of Britain’s population and are concentrated to a few areas. If this should ever be seen as so disturbing to the majority that they rise up and demand that everyone who is genetically from any part of Asia must leave, then it would mean that obviously they dislike Asians so much that we had all better leave. So far no one has even suggested this would happen, but if it did happen, then so be it, all of us would probably be better off leaving in such a scenario, rather than hanging around in a place where people feel that way. In such a case I’d probably feel no particular way about it, and I’d amuse myself by going on a regional casino tour to fluff my socialite credentials, or something else quintessentially nihilistic like that. Sallis once again has some complaints, so I’ll respond to these ones as well:
No, it’s a historical reality stemming from Britain’s history since the year 1650. Britain collaborated with and utilised the services of various Asian population groups during the expansion of liberal-capitalism around the globe, and in the process found itself in various scenarios where it effectively ‘created’ the category “British Asian” as a financially and militarily mercenary ethnic class of people. Britain’s present demography was not something that was made up one bright—or perhaps dark—day out of whole cloth. It had an economic utility and it has to be understood in that context.
The perpetrators who were responsible for Rotherham were indeed all Pakistani South Asian Muslims from Mirpur and so-called ‘Azad’ Kashmir. Mirpur and ‘Azad’ Kashmir are the most socially-conservative areas of South Asia and they never ought to have been invited to Britain. It also emerged that they had created a system of financial relationships that penetrated the local government of Rotherham and which they had leveraged to cover up the crimes that they were committing. People like myself were warning people about the dangers inherent in that particular community almost a decade ago now, but White people non-ironically would say that my warnings were ‘prejudiced’ or ‘giving air to racism’. I’m sure that by the time we reach the end of your post though, Sallis, you’ll somehow be blaming me for Rotherham, the very manifestation of the phenomenon that I—and many other Asian women—had in fact pointed out was ‘probably happening’. The reason we knew to sound these warnings, by the way, was because the Mirpuris and Kashmiris had tried to attack women and girls from other Asian population groups in Britain before they had moved on to trying to attack White women and girls. No one listened.
Simply breathtaking. So now I am ‘morally responsible for Rotherham’. You know, this conversation would have turned out quite differently if you had asked me about this issue before smearing me on your blog. By the way, are you aware that under the Mayist coup government (yes, that’s what enraged liberals are calling it now), Pakistanis who are caught doing these things actually have their citizenship stripped and are deported to Pakistan? Because that’s what’s happening. That’s the new reality, and it’s a reality that is entirely good, and it is one which will accelerate as everyone is finally coming together to take out the trash. Taking out the trash did not need to involve propagating broad-brush anti-Asian memes, and in fact, propagating such memes would have been singularly unhelpful. If you really care about White British children and are not just using them as a political chess-piece in for your anti-Asian LARP, you should accept that the strategy of ‘narrow-focus memes’ which is promoted by people like me, is actually the correct strategy. The same applies in the case of Brexit. Brexit was achieved largely because people refrained from using explicitly broad-brush racist memes. Instead, narrow-focus was used in which the racial messaging was all about ‘North African and Arab migrants’ who were ‘going to get permanent residency in Germany after five years’ after which point they would ‘be able to come here’. It worked. People voted Brexit, and dodged that bullet, a bullet which would have fatally wounded the White British population had it been fired into Britain, and they were able to dodge that bullet.
There is no such tag team. I described DanielS’ intent as far as I understood it. If he thinks that I am in fact misinterpreting him or that I was seeing humour where there was no humour, and if it is the case that he really does somehow want to obligate the armed forces of Asian countries to contribute to border patrols taking place at the actual borders of European nations, then there is indeed someone at Majorityrights who disagrees with that notion. The person who disagrees would be me. I would disagree with that notion, freaking obviously. It’s part of why I find your accusation to be absurd in the first place, Ted. Asians are not obligated to bail continental Europeans out of the mess which continental Europeans themselves let manifest. That’s what FRONTEX is for. Maybe you all should try funding and equipping it properly, instead of drowning it like the proverbial Reaganite baby in Norquist’s proverbial bathtub. Also, Britain is quitting the European Union because Brexit happened, so soon from now there will be no Asians, neither British Asians nor Asians holding any other kind of citizenship, who will ever be obligated to do anything for continental Europe in terms of border enforcement. Ever. The proponents of a ‘Big Europe’ from ‘Lisbon to whatever’, can surely find some limited amount of solace in that. The removal of Britain from the European Union pretty much removes most of the area’s Asian population since most of Europe’s Asian demography is neatly contained inside Britain in the first place. 19
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 08 Mar 2017 22:53 | # For me, ethnic genetic interest is a particular phenomenon, which is structured genetically in a nesting form, one interest inside another; and which, literally speaking, is: the number of copies of genes of any random individual present in the world outside his family. The nesting is characterised by investment. The issue of genetic distance and the costs attached thereto are addressed quite ingeniously by Salter (lost child equivalents). But that is a secondary issue. Further to EGI as a personal, natural investment, it also has a relational aspect to a very few non-genetic factors such as territory, which is the guarantor of group existence, and significant proxies such as the sovereign form, the established faith expression, and the social capital; which factors cannot be nested, of course, but tiered. So this is not merely a construction got from Fst. It is not philosophy in a creative sense. It is ethics. It is not defunct. I have no animus against Mike Rienzi. I am very glad to have known him, in that manner of speaking which describes people made colleagues over the internet, as I am glad to know you, Daniel, and Kumiko, and many, many others, including wintermute and ben tillman, including Daniel A (who I met and count as a definite friend), Tom Sunic (likewise), James Bowery, Graham, Morgoth, my friend from Max Planck who blogged here as Dasein, Phil Peterson, and many others. They are all good people and defenders of our kind. We are not at war with any of them. We may have disagreements over ideas. But that should be addressed as a test of our good nature. Daniel writes:
In my role as a nationalist ogre of the internet I eat people daily who take it upon themselves to attack our arguments - or even try to defend their own. But, as Kumiko says just above, I do not respond to people who comment at a personal level. Whatever judgement people make of me they will make. They may be right or wrong, that is not my concern; and my advocacy of my own opinion is in no way dependent upon it.
MR, in its early phase, provided for the opportunity to quietly order arguments by an alternative hierarchy of value. As to what that might be, you would have to look again at the Transit. For example, you could examine it for the fate of modernist values, as unconsciously exercised qualities of the personality. On post-modernity, to me it is a word on its own; and will remain so until a positive intellectual agent of change is extant and operative. 20
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 09 Mar 2017 00:22 | # You are a wailing modernist still, GW. White Post Modernity is operative; your friend Daniel A, like other right wingers, thinks that respect if not reverence for Jesus, Hitler and scientism are a help in forging our way forward, they are not (nor his conceited wish to take MR back for other Jew fools like Uh). Like many right wingers he insists on remaining wedded to frameworks convenient to the YKW, as they would have it. .... In response to Kumiko’s discussion of Ted Sallis’ shrill reaction to a comment of mine way back: I made a comment - comment (not main post, not edict to be received and acted upon) that I meant to suggest as rough hypothesis for discussion: to the effect that there could be, say, representative forces of Asia (China, in the specific example) and Europe encamped strategically within and along the Silk Road - a cooperative concern of Europeans and Asians; and that these cooperating encampments could have an additional purpose of lending force to manage native population and EGI - not to attack them, as Sallis/Rienzi (asshole that he is) no doubt invariably reverses the meaning: The idea which was that strategic encampments could be placed along the borders as well - always in number and equipment such that could be managed by the greater European forces but nevertheless on hand to maintain to assist in missions along the border when called upon or for rounding up those who need to be deported who are already in the interior. These camps would always be kept to a minimum in number and military capacity - because it is almost exclusively a detail concerned with alien (what are technically) civilians - the camps could look quite a bit like the China towns of New York and other cities in order to make them comfortable for both Europeans and Chinese - it would be part of a quid pro quo that would have to be developed through time - i.e., how to get it so that it would be worthwhile and non-threatening for both Chinese and Europeans would have to be worked-out. This is vastly different from automatically negatively assuming the worst inferences as Sallis does (or as Kumiko may quickly look at it from a military standpoint). The reason why I chose the picture of Chinese women troops with guns was indeed meant to be a bit humorous and scary (to our enemies) at the same time: as is the analogy - “you may have Muslims, Jews and black (ants) on your side, but we have 1.3 billion red army ants on our side.” (red army ants defeat black ants). Ok, so, my casual depiction of literal Chinese troops may have been somewhat misleading of my intent and the purpose of the encampments, as the equipment of a modest number of troops with guns would be about the extent of military equipment that I had even meant in sketch of forces tasked to assist in civilian population/alien management - because again, it was a sketch, a comment meant to be commented on and refined in turn - not seriously ready for full implementation and not to be hammered on repeatedly by asshole Rienzi/Sallis; as if I were insisting upon something to the detriment of Europeans and unwilling to change it (this is typical of his dishonesty) - on the contrary, it was a comment to be discussed and corrected. In the planning stage of any such quid pro quo arrangement, you’d have to calculate the quid pro quo - how European and (e.g.) Chinese camps are both deriving benefit and non-threatening to each other. In this sense, Kumiko’s querying of whether I intended this to be “obligatory” or not is a bit too worried about obligatory requirement: it should be a good career and business option for both sides: and as far as civilian populations and the quality of life of native populations, that is exactly the point: these camps would be tasked and deployed (at the behest of native population management) only to the extent that quantities and qualities of the natives were threatened. The moment the native population of a given European nation were restored to an agreed upon number and quality, then both the deployment and delegation of the Chinese would recede to a minimum - its numbers would be accountable as are the native populations. Kumiko points out that Japan already manages its native population! Exactly, then they wouldn’t need help from allied nations/camps to remove alien peoples from their ethno-state. The cooperation would occur more at a distance, from distant camps along the Silk Road and in other ways that they deemed a sufficient reward for their cooperation. It doesn’t always have to be a literal qualitative and numerical exchange of troops: but the fundamental purpose that I have in mind is maintaining EGI and their homes, i.e. ethnostates. Finally, as for Kumiko’s apparent concern that I might be suggesting new obligations of British Asians, redundant to loyalist obligations that they already have, that would be a misunderstanding too. First, that is not looking at the optional (not obligatory) nature of the kind of detail that I have in mind: we have quotas of Asian deployment to fulfill in European border and population management - you don’t have to choose this detail, but you might want to as a good career move and an enjoyable situation overall. And, it would be less dangerous in its downside than normal military deployment as the primary purpose would be to assist in the management of civilian populations (granting that as small percentage of them would be terrorists or otherwise dangerous). Second, the Asians that are here in a given European nation and are legal to stay would be of an already agreed upon percentage and quality, thus under no additional obligation of service than they already have: The only new obligations would be that there would be more means of accountability to maintain theirs and the native populations as distinct, and in explicit quantities and qualities - e.g. no interracial marriage certificates or citizenship of children, particularly interracial, beyond an allotted maintained percentage against the natives (and those that are granted are by contrast to certain numbers and quantities of the natives having ben fulfilled to ensure their maintenance).
21
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 09 Mar 2017 01:55 | #
Daniel, assigning to the human personality a few desired qualities of freedom from Time and Place does not constitute an actual change (in the consciousness) of said personality. It constitutes a failure on your part to take seriously the question of the human condition in general and the condition of European Man in particular. You reduce this mighty question to fashionable sociological buzzwords. “Modernity” bad. “Post-Modernity”, no ... “white Post-Modernity” good. As if modernity is not in large part a product of our nature, and quite impossible for us to simply, lightly turn away from! As if some historicist hand is at work, guaranteeing something called “the turn” to Post-Modernity! This is not even derivative thinking. It is not really thinking at all. It is little more than cutting a few ideas out of picture books. It still requires a huge effort to be opened out into something that might be of value as a historical commentary. But even then it will never be philosophy. It does not matter how often you wave your hand over the words “white Post-Modernity”, there will be no real-world effect. Whatever events transpire in the world do so not because you have cut some ideas out of a picture book, but because the world is turning and the life of Man turns with it, for good or ill. So, what might it take to give some depth to these pictures? What questions must be asked of the assumptions you have made concerning them? For example, when did modernity begin? What did it replace, and where did that go? What does our psychology represent of modernity? What else is in there which is formative of us? What is its relation to industrialisation and urbanisation? What is its relation to the massifying ideologies of our age? What are the particular qualities of the model of Man which you propose to survive it? And so forth. If I put my mind to it I could probably raise two or three times that number of pertinent questions. And that is before we begin to look at the mechanism - however that may come into being - which purportedly leads out of modernity and into “white Post-Modernity”, and before, of course, we examine the actual content of that latter. You want to be taken seriously. Don’t operate from such mechanical presumptions. Look to the human condition and let its dictates work through everything, because that really is how understanding is won. 22
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 09 Mar 2017 06:09 | #
It is indeed, and it will happen whether you continue to ignore it or not.
I don’t assign to the “human personality” ...that is your psychologistic framework.
You insist on projecting these liberal motives on to me that don’t exist. Post modernity exists as a fact to conserve people against modernity and it exists as a fact though some people (such as yourself) are inarticulate of its fact and practice in alternative to modernity - being inarticulate of its fact is usually the condition of a wailing modernist - they simply don’t know what else to do.
Consciousness of “said personality” is going to be reinforced and re-directed from maladaptive practice by adaptive social rules - e.g., a growing promulgation of the rules pf post modernity and thus awareness of its necessity to save a group from a continual putting at risk of resources (as the rule structure of modernity does).
On the contrary, it is an utter failure on your part.
This is yours and Bowery’s hyper competitiveness speaking through you at once.
No, that is how you (and Bowery I guess) stupidly treat it: as sociolgical buzzwords. GW, but that’s not what I’m doing, never has been.
I didn’t say that Modernity is bad, I said that modernity has serious problems and that is true. And indeed, White Post Modernity as I describe it has much crucial utility in remedy.
I didn’t say it wasn’t and that it is all bad. It has crucial good aspects to be incorporated.
It’s happened with the awareness of modernity’s limitations and why those limits should be observed. It will continue to be a fact whether you like it or not.
You are the one not thinking. In fact, you don’t even bother to know what I’ve said.
When you were an embittered teenager and crawled out covered with grease from underneath a car that you were working on, you might have dreamed that something witty to say to someone who had the nerve to take a humanities course.
It is here, you just won’t give credit where credit is due, apparently.
There already is real world effect and will grow with effectiveness as people finally have an accurate understanding as it exists in not many other places beyond where I have untangled the matter here. GW, your puerile competitiveness against your straw man foils of “academics” is a habit you should reconsider. You are just going to completely ignore and never consider the value in anything I’ve said, no matter how important.
People shouldn’t make and agree on laws and rules, because whatever happens, happens by nature and we should just adjust? Ridiculous.
I cannot take for granted you have the remotest understanding of “the assumptions” that I make, because you take a strictly adversarial and contentious position from the start - it is more than likely that the assumptions that you attribute to me will be straw men - just like your exaggerated Wittgensteinian “picture” thing that you attribute to me. Will you use the term topoi or a working hypotheses to refer to what I say, as I would? I guess not.
The general consensus is that the epoch called Modernity began with the Enlightenment but clear roots go back to the Greeks and Christianity. All you are doing is making me repeat things I’ve said a several times. It just goes to show that you are ignoring what I say where you are not addressing it in bad faith.
In the west, it replaced more “traditional” ethnocentric societies..though there were modernist aspects and primitive aspects at play at the time as well (including “modernist” aspects evolved by Northern Europeans, especially, in relation to cold environment, as MacDonald, McCullough, Bowery and you would hasten to point out)... there are still modernist aspects at play ...when you ask where it went? - its still here, is and should remain, as I’ve said repeatedly.
“Our psychology?” ...well, there is a field called “social psychology” but I would not expect you, of all people to want to go there. But what “our psychology” represents of modernity is not a question that interests me - psychology is your thing. To sketch an answer, our psychology takes from the rule structures of what modernity values - which I outline in White Post Modernity - and I am not going to continually repeat. At its worst, the psychology of modernity manifests as a kind of neurosis that nothing is ever new enough, nothing of what we’ve inherited is ever foundational enough, but must be continually put at risk to testing. It also manifests a belief in universal foundations such that other ways are opaque (Unlike traditional/ethnocentric society, it is narcissistic, ignoring important qualitative differences between people, e.g., in its quest for pure truth) and therefore not only puts its own resources at risk but runs rough shod over other cultures and people as “the cost of progress.”
There is much in modernity that is formative of us and good (to repeat, “modernist” aspects evolved by Northern Europeans, especially, in relation to cold environment, as MacDonald, McCullough, Bowery and you would hasten to point out); that is why I rebutted Brett Stevens and Henrik Palmgren when they suggested that Modernity was a mere blip soon to be finished. It was a profoundly important epoch, profoundly a part of us and will continue to be so. I think that Bowery’s hysterical reaction to my criticism of modernity probably had to do with his being misled by Brett Stevens-like Jewish criticism of Modernity ...and I imagine your hysterical defense of it has to do with much the same Dark Enlightenment, Neo Reaction and otherwise Jewish academic take. I.e., you are projecting that foil and what they would do onto me. You should stop that and bother to understand what I’m saying (you didn’t read the Brett Stevens article by the sounds of it).
It makes sense that urbanization would increase with industrialization.
It should be clear though many things that I’ve said now. To put it one way, the massifying of its own culture would be an upshot of ignoring differences that make a difference for a predominant valuation instead of the category of quantity and progress in pursuit of foundational truth; while it would massify other peoples by being narcissistic - projecting its universal values onto them and not respecting their differences.
It is disconcerting that you present these questions here as if I’ve never considered these matters and have never supplied any answers to such qualities - an appreciation for human ecology, our systemic maintenance and social capital along with accountability to these qualities as being the norm, not something that is disingenuously treated as “unnatural” by the sociopathic aspects of modernity.
The issues will be taken seriously, whether you want to or not - but if you want to begin application in good faith, you might drop the Boweryesque bullshit line and recognize that a careful hypothesis of what ought to be in order to maintain a system is not a mechanism, nor for that matter detached from what is ...rather, it is of a pattern, more intermittent than everything that is, showing how things happen when the pattern holds together and therefore what ought (or ought not) to be if it is to hold together. I wish that I could trust your to proceed in good faith, but seeing as you have not bothered to understand what I’ve said a number of times, all I can prepare for from you is more contentious attacks, in a wish to destroy things you misrepresent as worthless academic talk to be replaced by just more modernity. I hope you will finally adhere to one Modernist rule - change: Change to one who can adjust to the fact as you’ve been confronted by what effectively serves as foundational discourse for the human condition of our negotiating our people’s survival in the mix of other peoples as it must necessarily be coordinated. 23
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 09 Mar 2017 07:42 | # I’ve had a look, for the first time, at EGI Notes, and see that Mr Rienzi reacts to my suggestion on this thread that his interests run Italian- Mediterranean - European. Apparently, I am “a liar” for suggesting the “Mediterranean” interest, which he says he does not even understand as a concept. So, not mistaken, not misinformed ... I am “a liar”. Now, Mike has obviously forgotten the emails to me in which his contempt and dismissiveness for Richard McCullough personally and for his Nordicism ideologically was made very plain indeed. “A shoe salesman” was the descriptive reserved for McCullough. Likewise, the Aryan vision of Arthur Kemp came in for some particularly cutting criticism. Well, maybe it was deserved. But the fact remains that these themes reject a pan-European and/or pro-Italian advocacy at the level of the sub-race. They are a specific rejection of Mediterranean (and Slavic) inclusion in the salvatory vision, and I know Mike was very exercised about the perception of “the dirty WOP” he felt underlay that rejection. In advocating against Nordicism on the grounds of investment in genetic interests, Mike would not simply be advocating at the level of the Italian or the European. Interests nest, and it is the integrity and commonality of the structure - basically national GI, regional GI, racial GI - which has to be proposed. The level of the sub-race cannot be conveniently omitted. We are not talking about Norman Lowell’s idealistic political vision here, in which a two-level scheme operates. We are talking about the equality of genetic interests as we, as individual men and women, possess them. So, sorry Mike, but you, as a European-American of Italian and Mediterranean descent, don’t get to elect or define your genetic interests. They define you. You might ignore them. But you can’t wish them away. That is my understanding, and if it is mistaken, so be it. I will stand corrected. But shouting the word “liar” is itself a mistake, it seems to me, and demonstrates the intemperate nature of the man. I have said many times that the standard operating procedure of the revolutionary socialist - “no enemy to the left” - holds a stark lesson for us. We have to find the possibility of treating one another with grace and in good faith, so that criticism is not grounds for a divorce. We are nationalists advocating for the natural right of all peoples of the land, without exception, to live sovereign and free, by their own hand, in their own ancestral house. That’s the basis of our political unity. Is it so hard to advocate it together? 24
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 09 Mar 2017 08:02 | # GW, I agree with that whole hearteldly. Having time from your busy schedule to actually to look at what Sallis/Rienzi is saying, you then see what we mean. 25
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 09 Mar 2017 08:07 | # Michael Ravioli would like to see a world in which the mixture of greasy, tomato-sauce encrusted swarthoids with Nordics is both commonplace and accepted. PS. “Biological scientist” my ass. Ted Salid (and breadsticks) is most likely a swarthoid dishwasher at the Olive Garden. Lulz 26
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 09 Mar 2017 08:18 | # Well, Mike is probably guilty of dragging the ethical aspect of Salterism into the factual sphere of the peoplehood and relatedness which underlies that and gives it meaning. I can’t think why else such an intelligent man would get it so wrong and speak so harshly, beyond the fact that his personality is quite aggressive and his better judgement on occasions quite overwhelmed. It would still be inadvisable on our part, and unnecessary, to return his aggression and impetuousness in kind. I trust you will find in that statement a principled nationalist and not a “weeping modernist”. 27
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 09 Mar 2017 08:54 | # Captainchoas, you should not be so critical of Italians. For one thing, they are more R1b (same dominant haplogroup as the Germans, though not as big a percentage) than anything else, even in the South. Secondly, they are not so inclined to rationalize-away theirs and with it the rest of our EGI. The Kraut-aloof “logic” often seems to take them on a leave from their senses - blacks are not so bad, Merkel is not so bad, zillions of Syrian immigrants, not so bad…give away Helga? They’ll rationalize that too in the ubersicht. ...the choice between Schulz and Merkel, not so bad.. They are actually quite progressive. You can have a good living as a sandal-maker there. Muslix! 28
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 10 Mar 2017 07:11 | # I’m adding this paranthetical phrase to the defense of my position in comment 22 There is much in modernity that is formative of us and good (including “modernist” aspects evolved by Northern Europeans, especially, in relation to cold environment, as MacDonald, McCullough, Bowery and you would hasten to point out). I simply had forgotten to specify that because I’d taken it for granted, having written about it several times before (in agreement with just about everybody that these are generally positive attributes, that come with some problems; not that these abilities are to be bred-out of existence). I’ve even talked about how to protect these qualities; but I have to add it explicitly here because GW might not remember that I’ve talked about it; and if I do not focus on these qualities alone it is apparently going to cause Bowery to encourage him to say that I am not “deep enough” and failing in service to “Euroman.” And if I look at a working hypothesis that our race and its subcategories (taxonomical groupings of genus and species) are real and argue the value of its defense a such…if I take my eye off of individuality for one moment, we are apparently going to evolve into insects in the course of one generation. That is of course nonsense; as I am concerned at once with defending the various qualities of Europeans along with our numbers - that is why the White genocide argument was never a prime motivator - qualities under threat are. For what should be obvious reasons, I am more focused on group defense - anti-racism (a group attack) being what we are up against; there should be no threat to “feral” northern White Euroman of Bowery’s dreams out there in the wilderness finding his mate; the only “artifice” would be territorial bounds that would assure that in in some places, his natural habitat especially, being White is looked upon as natural and normal; antagonism to Whiteness per se, not normal. While it is true that I am interested in the tendons and arteries that connect European peoples as relational beings with shared systemic interests, I am not interested in trying to control them. Accountability and accounts requested are a different matter than tyranny. I am looking for ways to defend them and keep accounts requested to a minimum and primarily for the sake that a certain amount of accountability of the individual is good for them as it helps them to develop their understanding. I have not failed, those who value individualism above all, they have failed. 29
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:34 | # Lest it get buried in the acrimony of comments or other detail, there is a stark reversal of justice observed in the article that I want to highlight:
In other words, Gary Cohn is making an arrangement wherein Asians are being taxed in significant part to pay for blacks to be on welfare, have babies ... ...or, what is tantamount to the same thing, to take well paying jobs with good benefits - jobs that are backed by the government (either private or literal government jobs) that in truth, they are not needed to do….and that’s at best. But, they are “American”, just like the Trump voting Alternative Right, so I guess it’s supposed to be ok then. 30
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 12 Mar 2017 01:39 | # Ted Sallis has a new post up in which he complains about the apparent fact that Asian criminal networks have worked with Her Majesty’s Revenues and Customs to defraud the European Union of 2 billion euros between 2013 and 2016, on imports of various items manufactured in China and sold in shops run by basically any and everyone. This is patriotism in action, but Sallis is furious! I have been laughing about this for a while because the EU will never ever be getting that money. Sallis seems to think that Asians should actually be made to pay the money back so that the European Union via Germany can take that money and use it to arm Zionist Israel against Iran, support mass migration of Arabs, and fund mass interracial sex with Arabs and Africans:
WOW, TED. HAHAHA, FUCK YOUR ENTIRE ADMINISTRATIVE EDIFICE IN BRUSSELS (REALLY, BERLIN THOUGH) YOU FUCKING CUCKHOLD.
Sallis cites a story in which supposedly Asian organised crime backed by Asian states is also being protected by the British government, and Sallis thinks he’s going to waltz into Britain and take the money back so that he can give it to Juncker, Lofven and Merkel? Fucking jokers. If you want the money, come here and try to take it.
It’s not only 2 billion that the EU will not be getting, the other 60 billion is what the EU will also not be getting. 31
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 12 Mar 2017 09:54 | # More pain for the European Union over the past week, the top three articles in my view:
This is what strength looks like.
Still not paying! Watch as literally everyone gets away with literally all of this! Why? Because this is what strength looks like. After beating the continental European negotiators near senseless, the psychological effect of that should make any agreements with the Commonwealth countries particularly easy, and they will definitely be taking Britain seriously at that stage. The fact that business owners are already thinking about this is a positive sign as well. 32
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 14 Mar 2017 03:58 | # Catching up with our favourite enemy Ted Sallis again, he’s still mad about a lot of things. This time he presents us with a mini-rant which is beyond parody. He tries to characterise the series of trade wars (by literally everyone, regardless of race) against the doddering old Qing Dynasty as a war of ‘White solidarity’, as though he thinks that this will offend me in some way. Unfortunately for Sallis, I was good at history and geography – as all the most dangerous people on this planet tend to be – and so his little troll-attempt really just presents me with a chance to talk about the fact that I am actually glad that the Qing Dynasty was brought down. Let’s see it:
I think the title of the article is the funniest part. In Josiah Tattnall’s entirely subjective view, he believed that “blood is thicker than water” was somehow the appropriate explanation for the fact that his soldiers chose to assist the British and French during the naval action he participated in around Chinese waters. I would suggest that the correct assessment – if we look at the whole range of events that had been taking place over a fifty to one hundred year period – would be actually be, “opium, coal, oil, tobacco, and tea are thicker than either blood or water.” The fact that Tattnall and his subordinates couldn’t see that, is just a sign of their own limited scope, but at least they kept themselves in high spirits by imagining that it was about ‘White solidarity’. Nevertheless, despite his own subjectively ridiculous view of the situation, Tattnall was able to serve an objectively progressive function in history, by siding against the reactionary and stagnant Qing Dynasty. So I’m okay with whatever floated Tattnall’s boat, no pun intended. The eventual fall of the Qing Dynasty was a necessary precondition to the arrival of modernity in China, which in turn was a necessary precondition to a greater expansion of productive forces which were necessary to raise global living standards and provide savings for consumers the world over. International relations are anarchic and Darwinistic, and the pressure that was brought to bear against the Qing Dynasty caused social transformations to take place in China which led to the collapse of that system of governance and the rise of the Chinese Republican movement in 1911. That is creative destruction and it is progress, because literally any modern form of governance was going to be better at making the most of the labour and natural resources in China than the Qing Dynasty was. So for the first time, myself and Sallis are in agreement on something, although not for the same reasons. “All Hail Tattnall!”, I guess, or something like that.
Impractical and unnecessary, because Britain has already shaped the region in a way that is conducive to its interests. Study upon study have shown that Hong Kong performs the function of acting as an offshore banking centre on pure inertia, and does not require British people to be there in military uniforms to make that happen. Regarding the Republic of India, nothing has structurally changed there since the ‘end’ of the British Indian Empire. India is structurally the same as the Raj was, it’s just that now it is run by the administrative class of bi-lingual Zemindars directly. And let’s face it – if the average Indian between 1650 and 1790 had to choose between being an associate or subaltern of Clive of India on the one hand, or alternately being a vassal of a bunch of insane Muslims led by Aurangzeb, I’m pretty sure they’d choose Clive of India and in fact the revealed preference is the most important productive centres in South Asia did choose the British Indian Empire over the Mughal Empire. So, history doesn’t fit nearly into the racialist box that Sallis is trying to cram it into. Race is an important facet of history, but it is not the only important facet and in his zeal to paint up an image of a fundamental rift between all Asians and all Europeans, Sallis is forgetting that.
Yep. At least at the present moment there isn’t any. Angela Merkel is still demonstrating that fact right now. Feel free to tell me when the economic nexus of continental Europe stops being run by a collection of actual lunatics, and maybe I’ll revise my outlook on that day.
Depends on the context and the interface. Across Central Asia and at the borders of Europe, all Asian state interests are effectively cohesive in the present historical period. However, within South Asia specifically or in the areas of the tangled overlapping claims in the South China Sea it’s more like barely-contained anarchy which is only being restrained by economic integration at a supra-national level (ie, no one wants to pay the costs to sacrifice the peace, and rightly so, because the potential gains would be minimal) – so that integrative process is a task which is working itself out and is not yet completed.
The reason not to do that would be because it would be economically absurd for everyone involved. Another reason to not do that, would be that it would make Brexit non-viable, which would obviously be against Britain’s interests. No one is going to support putting prices through the roof and decimating the composition of the basket of goods that the average consumer can buy (which then would exacerbate social problems and strain the treasury as the resulting economic slowdown would reduce the amount of VAT revenue HMRC can collect), just so that Ted Sallis and his friends can fulfil their weird LARPy anti-Asian dreams.
Yes. And so now we have additionally learned that Sallis is non-ironically the kind of person who actually seriously says “F-Bomb” because he doesn’t want to say the word “fuck.” I guess since he has no argument besides basic-bitch racial bigotry, his last resort is going to have to be to start putting on airs and graces and chiding me about language and tone. I really don’t care. In summary: Brexit is going to be an economic and political success story. There will be no Bataclan-style attacks in Britain because the borders will be protected, the native British demography in Britain will be maintained and protected at the level it is at presently, racial strife between Whites and Asians will not be stoked by outside actors, we are going to win at everything, trade relations with the biggest growth regions in the world are going to flourish, and everyone is going to go shopping and enjoy prosperity. Those are the only things that matter, and if ‘the movement’ doesn’t like the Theresa May programme, then guess what? ‘The movement’ is wrong and it needs to either get with the programme or fuck off. 33
Posted by Cohn face palms and resigns on Wed, 07 Mar 2018 23:36 | # Gary Cohn becomes the 34th Trump admin to resign ...with face palm over Trump’s tariff policy
Cohn resigns as Trump, the “successful businessman” (i.e., the man propped-up by Jewish/Russian oligarch/mafia money), doesn’t even know how run a Jewish, feudalist exploitation racket of Asia to prop-up the American economy. Yes, we’ve got to protect our diligent and productive African American workers of Detroit, they’re sure to out-compete them Koreans. ...and a 10% tariff on raw materials will help to do just that - ??? 34
Posted by Ichan dumped stocks before tariff announcement on Thu, 08 Mar 2018 00:31 | # The Project for Government Oversight is calling for The Securities and Exchange Commission to launch an insider trading investigation into why billionaire Trump associate Carl Ichan sold 31 million dollars in steel related stocks in the days before Trump publicly announced the new tariffs. Ichan sold-off more than a million shares of the crane manufacturer Manitowoc Company which is heavily dependent on steel imports. The company’s stock prices went on to fall after Trump’s public announcement of the 25% tariff on steel. Carl Ichan served as special economic advisor to Trump before he resigned in August after the New Yorker magazine raised concerns about conflicts of interest; including Ichan’s heavy lobbying for a rule change that effected profits of his Texas based petroleum refining company. Post a comment:
Next entry: Jez Turner being persecuted for saying what Alan Dershowitz says that Jews should be proud of.
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Mar 2017 00:37 | #
Very entertaining post, Kumiko. How do you see AI and and the second wave of robotisation feeding into the global trade picture over the next decade or so? Japan and, possibly, South Korea aside, the south, south-east Asian and east Asian economies are all labour-focused, and look highly vulnerable to me, both socially and economically. Britain and the other Western economies are too, in so much as they are engaged in short-term, immigration-centred thinking (we cannot yet be certain that non-EU immigration will be controlled post-Brexit). But the West at least has the possibility to send out the unwanted labour, assuming that the nationalist pendulum continues its swing. It will take a new approach to work and pay based on trust and social capital to adjust the present socio-economic/work dispensation to this new source of instability and change. Nationalism, of course, is the only logical political framework within which a just dispensation could be arrived at, because no other socio-economic system respects these essentials.