Mar 4, 2016

Pygmy Split: Are Pygmies Anatomically Modern Humans?

via West Hunter

There are a couple of recent papers on introgression from some quite divergent archaic population into Pygmies (this also looks to be the case with Bushmen). Among other things, one of those papers discussed the time of the split between African farmers (Bantu) and Pygmies, as determined from whole-genome analysis and the mutation rate. They preferred to use the once-fashionable rate of 2.5 x 10-8 per-site per-generation (based on nothing), instead of the new pedigree-based estimate of about 1.2 x 10-8 (based on sequencing parents and child: new stuff in the kid is mutation).

The old fast rate indicates that the split between Neanderthals and modern humans is much more recent than the age of early Neanderthal-looking skeletons, while the new slow rate fits the fossil record – so what’s to like about the fast rate? Thing is, using the slow rate, the split time between Pygmies and Bantu is ~300k years ago – long before any archaeological sign of behavioral modernity (however you define it) and well before the first known fossils of AMH (although that shouldn’t bother anyone, considering the raggedness of the fossil record).

Logically, this means that Pygmies aren’t really modern humans. Or, perhaps, they’re the most divergent of all modern humans. If you want to say that the root stock had capability X in 100,000 BC, and so everyone today must also have capability X (which does not logically follow in any event, but we’re talking anthropologists, so don’t expect much) then Pygmies might not have it. Or if they do, it’s a product of convergent evolution. But of course in the real world the Pygmies have the capabilities that they have: you can’t logic any of them away or conjure new ones into existence.

The bigger picture is that this sure looks like a typical case of backwards reasoning: A implies B, which implies C, and so on, but Z is awful and so A can’t really be true. I don’t think this works, if by “working’, we mean getting at the truth.

A Sane Dane?

via EGI Notes

Some sense.

A Danish commentator, posting on the thread of the recent article by anti-White activist Durocher, makes some sensible points:

The big role mafia plays in Italy, suggests a weaker ethnocentrism to me.
I agree.  As I have written before, amoral familism is NOT ethnocentrism, more of its opposite.  Low investment in collective social goods, a pitiful military performance in 20th century history, a lack of interest in ethnic improvement (see the reaction to Rienzi and Mussolini) - all of that indicates low ethnocentrism in Italy, coupled to hedonistic individualism and amoral familism.
The many Danes joining the SS wiking and the Finnish Resistance during ww2 was not only motivated by fear of the soviets, but racial solidarity too. How would a whole nation like Germany be swayed by NS if it didn’t hold a strong sense of ethnocentrism to begin with?
Exactly.  But don't make these points to the HBD/TOO/Hajnal line/northern hunter-gatherers explain everything crowd. They have their dogma and reality must fit into their theory, not the other way around.

I´m not so persuaded by the idea that ethnocentrism is lower in the north, only that particular genetically based moralist survival mechanisms (trust) has rendered us more vulnerable to manipulation of our mechanical religious instincts.
Maybe.  I'd like to see more evidence on the trust issue.  But I have written on these topics before, speculating that the greater genetic heterogeneity in swarthoid nations selected against trust and investment in social goods (with physical appearance being a practical proxy for genotype) - if you are not that related (relatively speaking) to your co-ethnics, why invest in them rather than in your family, where kinship is more definite?  To put it crudely, why should a wop who looks like Giuliani invest in a wop who looks like Bin Laden?

On the Role of Women

via Thulean Perspective

To my fellow women . . .

Neo-Con Pointman, Bill Kristol, Prefers Hillary to Trump

via The Occidental Observer

Neo-con point man, Bill Kristol
As swarmy as ever
It’s always been obvious that Hillary as president is just fine with the neocons. After all, she voted for the Iraq war and was instrumental in the disaster in Libya. She supported sending arms to Syrian rebels and likened Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, to Hitler. She wholeheartedly backs Israel, and has her own set of rabidly pro-Israel foreign policy advisers, especially Robert Kagan who advocates military intervention and democracy creation throughout the Middle East as a moral imperative—exactly the ideology that led the US into the disastrous Iraq war. Clinton’s main donor is Haim Saban, a rabid Zionist who has said that his only issue is Israel. 

Obviously, Bill Kristol and the neocons would not lose any sleep if Hillary Clinton became president. 

In fact, I suspect they would prefer Hillary to any Republican candidate except Marco Rubio who has the ideal blend of subservience to neocon foreign policy and support  for liberal social policy on issues like immigration. Rubio is bought and paid for by the Israel Lobby (especially Paul Singer and Norman Braman) and is now the establishment favorite.

On the other hand, Donald Trump opposed the Iraq war, calling it a “complete disaster” and, even more amazingly, stating, “They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.”  Trump has also supported Vladimir Putin’s policy of propping up the Assad government in Syria. As is well known, Assad and Putin are very high on the neocon hate list. He has told the Republican Jewish Coalition that he didn’t want their money because with their money comes control and he has pledged to be neutral on the Israel-Palestine issue. 

Because of this blatant conflict with neocon foreign policy, neocons like Bill Kristol have been in the lead of floating third-party candidates to run against him should he get the GOP nomination.

Kristol’s efforts are starting to gel, the latest being a plan to deny Trump the nomination even if he has a plurality of delegates. In the aftermath of the Super Tuesday results, Kristol had this to say on the Morning Joe show with Joe Scarborough as reported by John Nolte at Breitbart:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: The fact of the matter is that you know there is no historical precedent with someone doing as well as Candidate Trump did yesterday — winning New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, [losing the nomination] has never happened before, and as you know there is a momentum, a forward progress–
BILL KRISTOL: Right, so we have to stop the momentum, I totally agree.
SCARBOROUGH: So that’s my question. There’s no cheering here. I am looking at facts.
KRISTOL: To your credit, you have correctly seen that this was not going to be the historically normal year, and it’s not, so maybe we go–
SCARBOROUGH: So how do you beat him?
KRISTOL: You have to beat him in Florida and Ohio, the first two winner-take-all states, which means there has to be a de facto agreement between the opposition candidates — between the resistance to Trump, which I am proud to be a part of, because I think he’d be a terrible nominee and a terrible president…
SCARBOROUGH: You have the authority to broker that deal right now?
KRISTOL: Well, they need to. They need to defer to Rubio in Florida and probably to Kasich in Ohio, and say, or imply, that if you are a Cruz voter in Ohio, and if you look up the day before the primary and it’s Trump 42%, Kasich 35% — vote for Kasich. And the truth is if Trump doesn’t win Florida and Ohio, it remains very much of an open race. …
Donald Trump [so far] has 35% of the popular vote and 47% of the delegates. That’s a lot better than having 24% of the popular vote and 25% of the delegates, granted. …
JOHN HEILEMANN: Just to go a little further on this topic of what Bill’s advocating: As you talk more and more to Republicans, who will say to you privately and sometimes publicly, that they would rather vote for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump, [these are the] people who are going to try to stop him — their attitude is: We know that would happen at a contested convention if we took the nomination away from a Donald Trump [who has won through] a plurality of delegates.
What would happen is that we would likely alienate his supporters and we would likely lose the presidential election. But their position is that it would be better for us to lose the [general] election than to have Donald Trump tear the Party in half as the nominee.
Now you can say that’s suicidal, but that is the posture of people [worried] about the negative effects down ballot.
KRISTOL: And [Trump] would still lose the election. And shouldn’t win the election, So, yeah, I agree.
So the main thing is to deny Trump the nomination, even if it costs the GOP the election and results in four more years of the left being in charge. Four more years of not sealing the border, and four more years of maximizing legal immigration and the numbers of “refugees.” Four more years of unbridled political correctness in the media and in universities, and aggressive BLM-type protests against the police.

And four more years of liberal Supreme Court appointments, which would likely result in a revolution in the law on the First and Second Amendments and in many other areas, starting with replacing Antonin Scalia with a liberal. Intellectual rationales for curtailing speech critical of the multicultural ideal are already common in liberal academic circles, awaiting only one more liberal appointment to the Supreme Court. Hillary Clinton would be only too happy to make that appointment.

Neocons like Kristol are proud to call themselves “principled conservatives” but what kind of principled conservative could open the gates to the disaster of a Hillary Clinton presidency? What conservative principles could possibly survive a Hillary Clinton presidency? Kristol is proposing a nuclear option of denying the most popular GOP candidate the nomination—an option that would destroy the GOP as millions of Trump supporters stay home seething in anger, waiting for the next populist moment. Or they would vote for Donald Trump running as a third party candidate because, as Trump would likely argue, the machinations of the GOP elites denied him a nomination that should rightfully have been his. In either case, Hillary Clinton is the next president.

Kristol is just fine with a Hillary Clinton presidency because fundamentally the neocons do not have any conservative principles at all. It’s always been a sham and a masquerade. Since their origins in the Democratic Party, they have always been on the left at heart when it comes to social policy, and any deviation from that is only the result of strategic decisions, not principle. They are completely unprincipled, and the Trump candidacy has brought this to the fore. This is from my review of Jacob Heilbrunn’s book on the  neocons, The Knew They Were Right:
It is noteworthy that neoconservatism produced no revolutions in domestic policy, only in foreign policy. Heilbrunn’s book reflects this, since he spends a tiny percentage of the book on domestic issues, the rest on foreign policy. There is little question that from its beginning, foreign policy was the area that excited the passion of the neocons, with domestic policy pretty much an afterthought. And it’s quite clear that Heilbrunn doesn’t even believe that the neocons are sincere about many of their stated beliefs on domestic issues.
Indeed, the general impression one gets is that the neocons adopted positions on domestic policies in order to win influence within the Republican Party and then used their influence to further their foreign policy agenda. As a result, domestic policies were never the focus of the intense pressure that neocons were able to muster for their foreign policy initiatives.
For example, Heilbrunn notes that Bill Kristol “made it a particular point to attack homosexuality, even participating in a conference at Georgetown University about ‘curing’ gays of their supposed pathology. It is hard to imagine that Kristol himself harbors any real prejudice against gays. Politically, however, it remained a highly effective wedge issue” (p. 213).
Similarly, although not mentioned by Heilbrunn, the neocons jumped on the bandwagon when illegal immigration became an issue, although they certainly did not originate this issue. As John O’Sullivan noted regarding Kristol’s activism on an amnesty bill, “Kristol, representing many neoconservatives disposed to favor the bill, came out against it. He did so in part because it had serious drafting defects but, more importantly, because it was creating a bitter gulf between rank-and-file Republicans and the party leadership. That in turn was imperiling Republican objectives in other areas, notably Iraq.”[13] Peter Brimelow says it best: “Kristol will return to immigration enthusiasm once he has helped persuade Bush to attack Iran.[14]
Obviously there is a similar situation here. The GOP rank and  file are worried about immigration first and  foremost, as well as trade policy and political correctness generally. Kristol might be willing to hold his nose on at least some of this, just as he did with homosexuality and some of the times when illegal immigration became an issue. But he would only do that if Trump was absolutely solid when it comes to neocon foreign policy.

But Trump is most definitely not in solid on neocon foreign policy. So Kristol is willing to jump ship and get what he really wants all along — a president who is somewhere between radical left/liberal to cuckservative right on social policy, but gung-ho on Israel and the rest of the neocon foreign policy agenda. What he wants is a race between Hillary and Marco Rubio, and if he gets it, the only downside of Hillary compared to Rubio is that fewer of his Republican friends would get top policy positions.

I suspect that, without saying it explicitly, Kristol has the fear of so many Jewish writers that Trump might turn out to be a fascist — i.e., specifically Jewish fears about Trump arising from his statements on Muslim immigration and refugee policy. Recent Tweets have confirmed this:

This tweet was in response to another neocon comparing Trump to Hitler, by none other than National Review editor Jonah Goldberg:

To which yet another famous neocon, Jennifer Rubin, responds:
Comparisons with the 1930s and World War II are psychological reflexes with neocons. Kristol condemns conservatives for passively accepting Trump, as Austria accepted Anschluss, while Goldberg emphasizes Trump=Hitler=invader of Poland, and Rubin compares Joe Scarborough to the collaborationist Vichy regime. A trifecta of National Socialist imagery.

No question about it, Trump elicits images of National Socialism for neocons, and many other Jews. With attitudes like that, for the neocons, literally anyone in the Republican or Democrat field would be preferable to Trump.

But this is a dangerous game. If Trump is denied the nomination and the presidency as a result of third party runs or manipulation of the convention, the anger against the establishment that Trump is tapping into will just continue to become worse — more immigration, more disastrous trade policy, more restrictions on free speech, not to mention the rest of the agenda of the  radical left. And there will be more fear and anger among Whites about their future as a minority in a society dominated by other ethnic groups — an anger that no matter what their legitimate grievances, the oligarchy always wins.

There is a morally righteous anger in much of White America that Trump is tapping into, and sooner or later this will have cataclysmic consequences. As this anger builds, Republican voters may begin to realize that the Jewish identities and interests of the neocons were the fundamental problem that destroyed the Republican Party and their chances at deliverance. And they will understand that the people who accomplished this were not at all motivated by allegiance to sacred principles of freedom and the Constitution. They will understand that their best hope to achieve their very real, very legitimate interests has been shattered by very powerful people with strong Jewish identities and a sense of specifically Jewish interests. Neoconservatism is, after all, a Jewish movement.

This is how revolutions begin.

You Can’t Have a Constitution without a Nation to Go with It

via traditionalRight

You can tell it’s an election year, because the Republicans are all of a sudden talking about the Constitution again.  Not that I mind, of course, but it seems that they only start paying attention to it when the generally more conservative and constitutionalist Republican primary voters start paying attention to them.  So suddenly, the political realm is filled with talk about what the Constitution says about every issue, from abortion to xylophone maintenance.

The problem that I see with this, however, is that at the same time as they are claiming their love and devotion to our founding document, most of these same politicians are pursuing policies relating to demographics and national sovereignty which are completely at odds with the perpetuation of the diluted remains of constitutional government.  Put simply, the mainstream Republican pursuit of amnesty, open borders, and massive immigration (both legal and illegal) works to destroy the very Constitution they profess to be so concerned about.

We must consider the following as a truism: There is no such thing as magic soil.  What I mean is that a person’s culture and upbringing do not change simply because that person occupies a new geographical location.  An immigrant (regardless of their legality) will not automatically possess a new set of fundamental political, social, cultural, and moral attitudes, simply because they occupy a place on American soil, or even have gone through the extended process of formally attaining American citizenship.  To see them acquire an American outlook to go along with their American residency requires time-consuming, extensive, and (in an ideal world) mandatory acculturation to our society and mores.  In days gone by, our society and government both worked to try to make that happen (with a fairly good success rate).  Unfortunately, our government has completely absconded (and is, in fact, hostile to) its responsibility to assimilate immigrants, and political correctness is increasingly tying the hands of anyone else who would seek to encourage immigrants to become genuine Americans in more than just a formal sense.  Diversity–the death-knell of any advanced civilization–is becoming the norm, rather than just an unfortunate but temporary exception.

That, of course, greatly affects our political climate, which in turn affects the reverence for (and consequent adherence to) our Constitution.  I believe that we can look at American history and see a steady erosion of our founding principles and constitutional government that goes hand in hand with our absorption of more and more immigrants from abroad.

Broadly speaking, there are three general “peak periods” of immigration to the United States.  The first occurred roughly between 1830-1860, and was primarily made up of British and Irish workers and German political refugees, most of them fleeing the crackdowns after the unsuccessful revolutions of 1848.  The second wave occurred between approximately 1880 and 1920, and was made up of large number of workers from southern and eastern Europe, though its early years also had a large Scandinavian component as well.  This is the immigration that most people have in mind when they fetishize Ellis Island and “coming from the old country”.  The third wave began with the liberalization of our laws in the early 1960s, and continues to this day.  This wave is characterized by a much greater proportion of immigrants coming from non-European nations, primarily south and east Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and especially Mexico and Central America. 

The first two waves of immigration were markedly different from the third.  In those waves, the immigrants were largely from Europe, and came from cultures that were at least distantly related to America’s prevailing Anglo-Saxon culture.  At the same time, there was pronounced encouragement of these immigrants to become Americans.  From official government entry policy down to the social assumptions of the man on the street, our attitude towards immigrants was guardedly welcoming, but on the supposition that they would make the effort to fit into our culture, rather than expecting us to cater to theirs.  There were no ballots printed in 75 different languages in those days.  Immigrants learned English (if they didn’t know it already) or they starved.  They were expected to be patriotic and to operate within our political and social norms.  No “honor killings” or shari’a law would have been tolerated back then.   

Despite this, we still see that these waves of immigration had a profound (and negative) impact on our political culture and constitutional fidelity.  In the decades closely following each wave of immigration, massive changes were made to our government and political realm as the immigrants began to take their places in the pool of available voters.

The first wave brought with it a combination of unprecedented political corruption combined with German radicalism.  It was on the heels of this wave that Tammany Hall really broke wide open as a political machine cultivating and controlling the votes of Irish immigrants in New York.  It was also in this time period that the newly-formed Republican party adopted its radical turn at the behest of the many Germans in America, during whose dominance America essentially was changed from the federal representative Republic she was founded to be to the sort of increasingly majoritarian and unitary democratic state that bodes so poorly for individual liberties and states’ rights. 

The second wave saw large numbers of immigrants come in from countries with authoritarian traditions–especially those from various areas in the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires.    Almost none of them came from countries with genuine traditions of individual liberty or some form of constitutional rule of law.  As a result, these immigrants brought in with them the cultural preconception that government should both be obsequiously deferred to and looked to as a paternalistic provider.  It was this wave of immigrants who provided fertile grounds for advancing and then cementing the so-called “progressive” movement that looked to technocratic government for all the answers to our problems, and which eventually culminated in Roosevelt’s New Deal. 

In spite of the damage done by these waves, America still retained some of its original pristine constitutional purity in the 1950s and into the 1960s.  Free speech, freedom of religion, and the rest of the Bill of Rights were still largely in place.  Notwithstanding the rampant abuses of that document, the average citizen was still largely free to live as they pleased.

And then came the third wave of immigration to America. 

This wave has featured, and continues to feature, huge numbers of immigrants who have absolutely no connection to limited government, no understanding of constitutional restrains on government, and no concern for natural rights and individual liberties.  Indeed, in many cases, these immigrants come from places completely outside of any definition of Western civilization, and cannot be expected in any way, shape, or form to understand what American culture and society are really all about.

What’s worse, there is now (official or unofficially) no effort to assimilate these immigrants to American culture and civilization.  In many cases, there is not even the expectation that these immigrants will contribute positively to American society even in a purely economic sense. Witness the many who come to America solely to partake of our “entitlements” largesse.  Because no effort is made to assimilate them, the American polity continues to balkanize, the “melting pot” model giving way rapidly to the “rocky road ice cream” model where in the underlying substrate must make room for increasingly large and undissolved chunks of foreign objects. 
It is coincident with this third wave that we have really seen the rise of undiluted, raw socialism in America.  “Progressive” politicians have realized that it is advantageous to themselves to discourage the Americanization of immigrants, since this makes them less likely to reject the politicians’ offer of “free” goodies in exchange for votes.  Because these immigrants largely have no understanding of or care for things like individual liberties or constitutional government, they are not in the least concerned that the giving of these goodies will require the loss of liberty and the destruction of constitutionalism.  In other words, when you bring in millions of foreigners from socialistic countries with no real tradition of limited, constitutional government, you’ll eventually end up with a socialistic country with no more limited, constitutional government.  When that happens, the government is free to take away every liberty you have, regardless of what that dusty ol’ Constitution has to say about the matter.

And that’s what the Democrats (as well as the establishment Republicans) want – a government that they can use to milk the hard-working people of this country for money and power. 

This is why it is vitally important that the flow of immigrants into this country be halted, and those who are here be required to Americanize and assimilate, or else be asked to return to where they came from.  America is not simply a geographical or political entity.  It is a nation with its own unique culture, traditions, mores, and history.  Like every other nation on Earth, America deserves to be able to defend and preserve her own traditions–one of which was limited constitutional government designed to safeguard liberty and prevent the rise of tyranny.  If immigration presents a threat to that, then that immigration needs to be stopped until such a time as the “indigestible nugget” can be absorbed. 

In other words, if you want to preserve (and maybe even restore) the Constitution, you need to make sure that you have a population that understands and believes in its principles to go along with it.

Nation of Islam: A Model for all Nationalists?

via TradYouth

Earlier this week, I received a bit of unwelcome media attention after helping the crowd eject an aggressive and disruptive protester from a Trump rally. While I usually enjoy exploiting media attention to raise awareness of our organization and our cause, this incident played right into the asinine myth that Donald Trump is some kind of closeted racialist. That myth harms both his campaign and our own.

I’m not the least bit concerned about aggravating the Black Lives Matter and SJW hucksters, as their escalation and polarization plays right into our own hands. I did nothing to the adult woman that she didn’t do twice over to the innocent women, old people, veterans, and children in her path when she and her mob threw the violent tantrum which got her ejected. I don’t have one iota of “chivalry” for a criminal gang of cop killers, thugs, and anti-White hatemongers.

Black Lives Matter’s strategy is disastrously misguided, based on a presumption that Whites will be bullied and guilted into “racial justice” within a multicultural framework. The opposite is the case, and every BLM success is met with an even greater awakening of White racial identity. However, not all pro-Black organizations are as ignobly manipulative and self-defeating. In fact, some Black Nationalist projects are more disciplined, intelligent, and productive than any White Nationalist projects, including my own.

Black Lives Matter ought to be confronted and defeated, but not all pro-Black organizations ought to be. Some of them deserve our respect and cooperation. I would say they deserve your support, but they don’t want your support, …White man. They belong to the Garveyite school of self-reliance, Black Pride, and separation. Unlike the BLM project which is a Black dog wagged by a Jewish and White Leftist tail hellbent on forcible racial integration, some Black Nationalists think for themselves.

Their struggle isn’t the enemy of our struggle. They’re our natural allies in the global struggle against Jewish oligarchs and global capitalist subversion of faith, family, and folk. Jewish billionaire oligarch George Soros has invested tens of millions in the Black Lives Matter rent-a-mob phenomenon, but you won’t see a dime of global financier money invested in the Nation of Islam. Not that they would ask for or accept it.

Could it Be Any More Obvious?
Could it Be Any More Obvious That Black Americans Are Being Conned?
One of the first things one realizes as a Traditionalist and a Nationalist is that our principles not only apply to all peoples, but that all peoples are under attack. As the White population falls more and more away from the faith of our fathers and our traditions, one cannot help but also see the same situation happening in other ethnic communities. Perhaps the hardest hit community in America by the effects of modernity has been America’s Black community.

In the wake of segregation, the Black community has faced a new cultural onslaught. When segregation ended, in many areas the Black middle class and small business owners went out of business or lost significant amounts of their market share, due to Black residents now being encouraged to patronize White-owned businesses.

The Black community suffered a double blow when the middle and upper class of Blacks moved into multiracial areas, away from the Black community they had previously worked in and led. Overnight the Black community lost many of its most talented, wealthy, and influential citizens to the lure of gated communities, “good schools,” and social approval. The Black middle and upper class did the same thing that the White elites did; cut themselves off from their people and communities and instead embrace the capitalist and global cosmopolitan dream of the elite America.

Decapitated by the Left of their organic local leadership, the Black community was easy picking for Jewish-run Hollywood to promote degenerate, violent, and anti-social culture of degeneracy and greed. Black Americans have been the canary in the coal mine of subversion and community destruction. We White Nationalists would do well to think twice before mocking Black dysfunction, as our own people are just a generation or so behind.

Remember when “baby daddies” and routine out-of-wedlock childbirths were just a Black thing? A people who is enslaved to drugs, poverty and who is disconnected from their culture is easy to manipulate and dominate. The same plans the Jews are using against White people today, has been used against the Black community for decades.

In the age of Black hucksters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who care more about their finances than actually helping Black people, there is one group that has steadfastly fought for the best interests of Black people for generations: the Nation of Islam.

Originally founded in 1930, the Nation of Islam has been a pillar of the American Black community for over three generations. As an Orthodox Christian, I have huge differences with the theology of the NOI. I believe there is no salvation outside of Christ’s arms, but I also respect that there’s a righteous ecumenism of mutual respect we’re called to engage in with those outside of our denominations, faiths, and identities in pursuit of good works. The fruit of the Nation of Islam speaks for itself, with a wealth of good works for their own people, in stark contrast with #BlackLivesMatter’s record of antagonism, rhetoric, rioting, and Jewish subversion.

As we forge the Traditionalist Worker Party to be a voice for White Americans, I hope we can learn a great deal from the Nation of Islam on how to promote healthy culture for our men and women, …advocating politically, economically, and socially for our folk. Far from the supremacist goon who mindless despises Black people for the color of their skin that I’m portrayed as by the anti-White (and anti-Black) mainstream media, I have an attitude of admiration and respect for the Black leaders who are setting an example to emulate of community service for their kinsmen.

For the uninitiated, the Nation of Islam is a Black nationalist movement; originally founded by Elijah Muhammad, to organize the Black community behind a religious, social, and political vision. The NOI has built up an impressive amount of community aid, mentorship for young men and women, a highly read newspaper, and other resources to promote Black culture, Black self-sufficiency, and a Black political voice for their folk. While the Black elites abandoned their communities, the Nation of Islam dove directly in to help Black people where they were at.

The only “answers” that the kosher civil rights campaigners offer are for struggling Blacks to get into White neighborhoods, to get into White schools, and to get hired at White businesses. What Shaun King and his allies offer is an encrypted form of White Supremacy where Black progress is defined in terms of how much White culture they can emulate and how much White stuff they can get their hands on. Not all Black Americans can achieve The Blind Side’s dream of being adopted by a White family, and many of them find that “answer” insulting. Because it is.

On a variety of issues, we’ll disagree with the Nation of Islam, of course. We as advocates for our folk disagree with some of the rhetoric and proposed policies of the NOI. However, I believe we have more in common than most people would assume. Nationalists love their people and their culture, regardless of if you are White or Black. With respect for one another, nationalists can work together to take care of the concerns and issues of their respective communities, without needing to agree on everything.

We must find a way to work together. No single nation can take on the globalists alone. Anti-globalism is a global project, and it will require uniting multiple cultures against multiculturalism. We must arrive at an integrated response to forced integration, with Blacks and Whites overcoming a Black-and-White approach to racial antagonisms. These people must be doing something right, or they wouldn’t already be standing in solidarity with us on the ADL and SPLC’s rogues gallery of groups they hate: “hate groups.”

In the age of glorifying degenerate “celebrities”, promoting miscegenation and the rise of globalism; the Nation of Islam has stood against all of these poisons. The NOI promotes healthy relationships between strong Black men and women, to then raise healthy and culturally attuned Black children, all contributing to the overall Black culture. A stand against racial intermingling is one that has had the Nation of Islam receive horrific attacks in the media by Jewish and Leftist groups, but the NOI has stood strong behind the view that as nationalists, they must ensure healthy and homogeneous communities and to build the next generation to carry on their culture and Identity.

The NOI promotes modesty among both men and women within the Black community
The NOI promotes modesty among both men and women within the Black community

Minister Louis Farrakhan and other NOI leaders have also actively promoted Black run communities, up to and including the modeling of a Black Homeland here in the United States. Minister Farrakhan said on the subject that “Separation would be the solution to our race problem.

The creation of a Black Homeland would allow the Black population to govern themselves, support their culture, and possess true self determination. As a nationalist who wants this for my people, I wholeheartedly endorse the NOI’s policy on the subject of building up their people to the point where they can have their own self-governed sovereign homeland in North America.

The power of economics is one of the ways that the Jewish power-brokers subvert and control communities and individuals. The Nation of Islam has been a huge proponent of setting up and growing both official NOI businesses in Black communities and supporting members in starting small businesses.

Malcolm X famously said,
“The economic philosophy of Black Nationalism shows our people the importance of setting up these little stores and developing them and expanding them into larger operations. Woolworth didn’t start out big like they are today. They started out with a dime store and expanded and expanded and then expanded until today, they’re are all over the country and all over the world, and they get to some of everybody’s money.”
White Nationalists should follow the NOI example and begin building ourselves businesses to employ our members, redevelop our economically failing communities, and invest in the manpower and talent of our people. Economic self-sufficiency is the mark of a free people, and getting ourselves out of the position where the System can call our employers to have us fired for Thought Crime, is a solid path forward to helping not only grow our movement, but set us on a positive course.

Within the NOI, there is also a program of supporting agriculture for the Black community. The NOI has over 1,600 acres of arable farmland that produces 400,000 pounds of watermelons, 12,000 pounds of vegetables, and 100,000 pounds of wheat annually. According to the NOI these “products and other goods are delivered to 35 cities and jobs have been created in the area.” This self-sufficiency feeds into NOI businesses and promotes Black men and women being able to regain a tie with the soil, something the modern world destroys. And of course as with many of its endeavors, this farm project helps fund NOI activities.

Mentorship within a community is crucial to bringing up the next generation of men and women. Along with providing community meetings, education resources and other local aid; the Nation of Islam also heavily promotes masculinity to its male members and Traditional femininity to its female members. The NOI’s male security wing is known as the Fruit of Islam and it provides security for NOI events and works within the Black community.

Until the Jewish led Anti-Defamation League petitioned Congress to cancel the contracts, the Fruit of Islam provided security in Black housing projects throughout the 1990’s. This is a model that all should support because instead of having non-Black cops patrol the streets, communities should be patrolled by members from that same community. This reduces tension between the community and law enforcement while empowering the men of the community to take charge of the protection of their ethnic brothers and sisters.

The Fruit of Islam also promotes physical health, intellectual growth and a willingness to defend their Faith, Family and Folk to all of its members. Likewise, the Traditionalist Worker Party should put into place an avenue for dedicated young men to become strong in mind, body and spirit to take charge in their communities, to mentor the young, and to protect our homes and people in times of need.

The Fruit of Islam providing security at an NOI march
Add caption
Throughout the organization, the NOI promotes modesty in dress, abstinence from drugs, and healthy social behavior for its members. This is a shining example of how a movement can work to lift up its members to be better, stronger and healthier; rising above the poisonous dregs of Modernity.

Minister Farrakhan encourages Black artists and celebrities to invest their wealth and talents into the Black community to strengthen it financially and spiritually. Also the Minister has spoken out against Black rappers and singers turning Black women into mere sexual objects in their music and instead to promote healthy social values to lift up men and women alike through positive messaging. From providing jobs, to teaching Black culture, to securing their neighborhoods and building a plan for a Black Homeland; the Nation of Islam is a positive force for Black’s in America.

We as White nationalists extend a hand of friendship and respect to the NOI and their goals, all while working to create a similar movement. Our political Party is not just about elections, it is about becoming a revolutionary force to rebuild our families and our people as a whole to once again embrace the concepts of Faith, Family and Folk.

We must be economically and socially independent of the globalist machine, building our own “State within a State” where we create jobs and opportunities for our people while we help them rebuild from the degeneracy of the modern age. While we won’t be at the level of the Nation of Islam for some time, our Party can easily become a sort of White version of the NOI for our own people in modern America. Our people need leadership and a movement to fight for them. Black Americans have the Nation of Islam, White Americans have the Traditionalist Worker Party; and together, nationalists of all races can work to dismantle and destroy the globalist hegemony that plagues all free peoples.

The Luncheoneers

via BUGS

Horus has only made one Luncheoneer comment to me. I’m sure he has forgotten it and I am sure he has outgrown it.

The Luncheoneer comment was when I said interviewers were AFRAID to interview me.

Horus gave me that look I have seen on a Thousand Luncheoneer faces, and said, “Now, Bob, I think you’re overestimating yourself.”

No, they are just plain scared of me. And Horus has known that quite a while.

I call this twisted lip look The Luncheoneer look because it is the standard reaction from people who say, “I had lunch with President Reagan or “I had lunch with Donald Trump.”

These are the very people for whom power-brokers in Washington put on their Deepest Southern Accent.

The Luncheoneers ALWAYS fall for it.

My prime example is the late Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina.

Ervin USED — I repeat USED — a Southern accent that would have seemed excessive in Hattiesburg, Mississippi.

Ervin’s favorite lead-in was “I’m just a country lawyer from North Carolina.”

Howard Baker of Tennessee was Ranking Member on the Senate Judiciary Committee in a period when Ervin was Chairman, and once when Ervin pulled that “country lawyer” line out Baker lost his temper and said, “Goddamnit, Sam, You are a summa cum laude graduate of the Harvard Law School!”

Sam leaned back in his Chair and replied, “Yea, Howard, but nobody is ever going to know it.”

Sam was right as usual.

The people who live by who had lunch with Kissinger or Trump, the Luncheoneers, just like the Celebrity Fart folks today had not the slightest idea who real power was exercised with.

And they didn’t CARE.

Power is complicated and hard to put into a simple press release.

And when it comes to power, you will note I am giving this explanation only to BUGSERS, and nobody else would WANT it.

My picture of a Luncheoneer is someone who is a bit like Superman:  He looks like his coats and tie are an outfit PERFECTLY made for him as a child, and which he has worn all his life.

In the evening he just puts his collar on a coat hanger and sleeps in his closet until dawn.

The Luncheoneer reports the world as he sees it and as his readers want to see it: A place where the Power Players are the ones who had lunch with or call the President by his first name.

Not only do I not object to this, it was a major source of my power.

My only problem is when I am honestly trying to judge the effect of my latest power play and the person I am talking to turns, however briefly into a Luncheoneer.

You see, the problem with Luncheoneers News was that which I did never showed up in the news.  I have had a hundred “white genocides” that went viral before the Internet but the whole point was nobody CAUGHT them.

So I depended on the few people in Washington who understood real power.  They were few and VERY far between.

So when people like Horus, however temporarily, gave me the old “You are overestimating yourself” with the curved lip, it was a serious problem.

Dugin on Trump: To My American Friends on Our Common Struggle

via Radix

Factual and Practical Realism

via Gornahoor

As Rene Guenon often pointed out, there can be no conflict between science and religion as long as they remain within their respective domains. In particular, esoterism agrees with the findings of science. For example, science may claim that man has no free will, that he is subject to various unknown inner forces, and so on. Of course, esoterism asserts the same. The difference is that esoterism offers a way out: man must learn to become free, he must discover those hidden forces that direct his life. We recently discussed the esoteric nature of Darwinism. Now we will see if evolutionary biology offers us any further clues to human nature.

As the “new atheist” movement develops into a hardcore ideology, it begins to fragment into dissident groups. For our purposes, we can distinguish between two such groups:
  • The Brights. They assert that science produces objectively true knowledge, and moreover, is the only source of knowledge. They interpret religious claims as equivalent to scientific claims about the empirical world. They then take an often hysterical “moral” stand against those claims under the principle that any belief that is not supported, or at least potentially supportable, by science as immoral.
  • Evolutionary Biologists. They take a more nuanced view. Brains evolved to survive in the world, not to create objectively true theories. Furthermore, religions likewise evolved and persist because of their survival value. Hence, it would be incorrect to describe religions as simply immoral.
Since the brights are more widely known, philosophically unsophisticated, and very simple to understand – it shouldn’t take you more than 30 minutes or so to become a bright – we will explore what the biologists say about it. That position is much more subtle, since it incorporates a wider range of biological phenomena. For example, the bright position is reductionist since it is overly focused on the “gene”. However, genes alone can explain neither the organism nor its group behavior. David Sloan Wilson provides a useful summary of this position in This View of Life.

The Argument from Reason

First of all, Wilson undercuts the intellectual basis of the brights:
As for the canons of rational thought, to the extent that brains evolved by natural selection, their main purpose is to cause organisms to behave adaptively in the real world–not to directly represent the real world.
Some of you may recognize this as a form of the Argument from Reason made famous by C S Lewis. The fundamental point is that if human reason or rationality arises from nonrational causes, then it has no validity of its own.

Wilson makes a less ambitious distinction between practical and factual realism. A belief is real in the practical sense if it leads to effective action, while a factually real belief corresponds to the external world. There is no question of an independent reason in this distinction. Not just religious, but also ideological and political, beliefs depend on what is practically rather than factually real. For example, what are called “politically correct” beliefs are often practically real, but not factual.

This is actually a very useful distinction and I’m certain that Gornahoor readers can find many examples. A dead giveaway is the repetition of simplistic slogans. I’ve read one prominent political leader who claimed that most people cannot understand something that won’t fit on a placard.

Unfortunately, many debates end up in frustration since one side is committed to a practically real belief and the other to factually real beliefs. However, no quantity of facts will be persuasive in that exchange. Practical realism is usually accompanied with an intense emotional investment which would make a conversion to the factually real quite difficult psychologically.

Nevertheless, Wilson cannot resist making a normative claim:
We need respect for factual realism as never before to arrive at practical solutions to life’s complicated problems.
That is a good point with the proviso that esoterism considers the study of inner states of consciousness as fundamental to factual realism. This is what Julius Evola called “metaphysical positivism”.

Another point is that Wilson’s claim has a goal: viz., “practical solutions”. Yet, this gives us pause since most people are committed to practical realism. How would the factual realist motivate the practical realist, if not with the “noble lie”?

Stealth Religions

Wilson defines a stealth religion as a factually incorrect belief system that functions like a religion. Specifically, its main purpose is not to describe the main world but rather to motivate a suite of behaviours. The difference is that a stealth religion does not accept the existence of anything transcendent.

Wilson asserts that the real world involves “messy tradeoffs”; for example, the effects of an action may be beneficial, harmful, or a mix of both for the parties involved. A stealth religion evades those tradeoffs by turning them into absolutes, either good or bad for everyone, anytime.

Now even animals know facts, but what is truly human is the intellectual capacity to grasp the concepts, or eternal ideas, that explain the facts. That is the definition of rationality. The argument from reason denies, then, that rationality per se is a “natural process”. That puts Wilson in an intellectual bind. If legitimate religions are the result of evolutionary forces, then so are the stealth religions. But which intellectual system is not a stealth religion by his definition?

Certainly multiple political theories cannot all be true, i.e., all, or in the best case, all but one, of them are stealth religions because they arose arbitrarily and must be factually incorrect in part or in whole. Just a quick survey of the news today reveals slogans like, “I am a progressive who gets things done,” without specifying any such thing. Or “People will respond to the message of hope,” but hope for what? Nevertheless, they persist, since they are reflect group cohesion, as we shall see later.

So either reason is transcendent to the world, or, as a natural process, it can only create competing and incompatible belief systems. This, however, is not the lesson that the atheists will learn from Wilson.

The Proud Atheist

Wilson defends himself from being a stealth religionist by claiming to be a “proud” atheist. I have no idea what pride has to do with it. In particular, he is proud because he does not believe in people sitting on clouds intervening in natural processes. If that is his actual view on religious beliefs, then it is impossible to take him seriously as a scientist competent to explain religious phenomena.

Nevertheless, Wilson is even-handed as he points out how pseudo-sciences like the New Atheism, strident forms of environmentalism, and probably other beliefs that he doesn’t dare express, act as stealth religions. By pseudo-science, I mean a belief system that claims to be based strictly on science but is actually a stealth religion.
NOTE: Wilson’s understanding of God is no better than that of folk religion. However, there are more sophisticated versions of folk religion that go by the name of “theistic personalism”. I would agree with Wilson were that the only alternative. However, the Traditional understanding, sometimes called “classical theism”, is the only correct one. For a brief discussion of this, please listen to this lecture by David Bentley Hart.

Proximate and Ultimate Causation

Wilson makes a distinction between ultimate and proximate causation is evolutionary theory. This is what he means by them, although this is not his own explanation. Neo-Darwinism recognizes two primary factors: one is the characteristics of the organism and the other is the environment which acts as the selector, choosing the winners among the organisms. Both causes are necessary to understand “evolution by natural selection”.
  • Ultimate Causation. This refers to the environmental factors. For example, flowers bloom in spring because it is the optimal time. (Any earlier, then frost might kill it, later, then the autumn frost may thwart its development.)
  • Proximate Causation. This refers to the organism. To complete the example, the flower has a physiological mechanism that causes it to bloom in the spring.
Wilson then notes the similarity of these concepts with the vertical and horizontal dimensions of religion. The vertical dimension refers to the believers’ relationship to God or the transcendent, and the horizontal dimension refers to their relationship to each other, i.e., the community.

Religion as a Natural Phenomena

Wilson proposes six possible naturalistic explanations, of uneven plausibility, for the origin of religions. He more or less likes them all, but in the end settles on the explanation he calls the “Superorganism Hypothesis”.
If you could say only one thing about religion, it would be this: Most enduring religions have what Emile Durkheim called “secular utility.” They define, motivate, and coordinate groups to achieve collective goals in this life. They promote cooperation within the group and bristle with defenses against the all-important problem of cheating. Using the terms that I introduced in part I, they score high on practical realism, no matter how much they depart from factual realism along the way.
So how exactly does the individual benefit? Wilson dares to tell us:
With respect to the individual benefits of religion, suppose that you discover a grand mansion, better than anything that you could have constructed on your own, with a sign on the door that says “Welcome! Move right in!” You would be a fool to refuse, and your decision might be purely selfish, with only your own welfare in mind.
Nevertheless, Wilson decides to be a fool, but a “proud” fool.

So the group forms a superorganism that motivates group behavior in beneficial ways, even if its empirical claims are not factually real. The hypothesis explains the horizontal dimension of religion, but Wilson conveniently forgets the vertical dimension. The real problem is specificity: why this religion and not another?

It is one thing to claim that a particular religion arose due to natural processes, but how did it take a particular form? That can only be explained by the vertical dimension, i.e., a revelation from above.

NOTE: We will say more about the “superorganism” in the near future, based on Vladimir Solovyov’s lecture on August Comte.

Religion as Factually Real

Scientists tend to approach religion as if it were a scientific theory that tries to explain empirical facts. In that respect it must seem to be absurd. That may be true for folk religions, but not for the deeper understanding of religious texts. Gregory of Nyssa explains:

**if one does not read scripture in a “philosophical” fashion one will see only myths and contradictions.

This is the Protestant legacy with its sola scriptura doctrine understood literally. The cultured despisers of religion then rely on the literal interpretation rather than the philosophical, or allegorical, interpretation. For more on this, you can listen to this lecture by David Bentley Hart.

Noble Lie

Wilson is in an odd position. If, as a scientist, he realizes that a religion promotes group identity and mutual cooperation, not to mention individual benefits, then is he morally obliged to remain silent about its real (according to him) origins? What if the promotion of atheism brings about social turmoil and decadence? How can he know that a group commitment to atheism will serve as a new social glue? Given the time spans involved in evolutionary theories, it would take generations for the full effects of a belief system to unfold.

In other words, if all opinions are arbitrary and bigoted, then only a Noble Lie will enforce one of them over the others.

Race and Stress

via Alternative Right

One of the non-genetic arguments used to explain racial IQ gaps is evnironmental stress. The idea being that blacks and Hispanics are more stressed than whites, and this releases stress hormones, which depresses IQ scores.
1. Race differences in stress hormone levels
So the first obvious thing to do would be to figure out how much “stress hormones” people actually have. One study did this looking at 3 stress hormones in male, female, white, black and hispanic urine samples, controlled for age:
Hormone (ng/dl)MaleFemaleWhiteBlackHispanic
Epinephrine156.6697.4107.44159.57113.87
Norepinephrine2830.182073.892157.92921.62261.87
Cortisol1099.79904.431101.61963.091062.74
Another study looked at cortisol levels in whites, blacks and hispanic adolescents throughout the day:
Another did the same, but for people aged 48-90:
And so the studies show that whites have higher cortisol levels in general, but lower norepinephrine and epinephrine levels. Now this makes a claim that these differences are due to environment implausible – because environmental stressors always raise all three of these hormones.
And so for whites to be higher in one but lower in two heavily suggests that these differences are primarily due to genetic differences.
But the big takeaway is that these differences are very minor, and moreover, the effect of different levels of these “stress hormones” may be different on average for the races, with blacks and whites responding differently to different levels of cortisol and norepinephrine / epinephrine.
2. The effect of stress on IQ
Another thing to consider is that a certain amount of stress, at least in the short term, probably raises IQ.
There have been dozens of animal studies all confirming that increasing cortisol improves memory performance. This formed the basis of the Yerkes–Dodson law, which posits that cognitive function is improved by arousal up to a point, after which function declines.
I only know of one study on this in humans, and in it men and women responded positively to a memory test by spiking their cortisol levels up to an extra 400ng/dl, after which additional cortisol made them have worse memory.
Of course the negative effects on IQ are said to be from chronic stress, not short-term stress; but as shown above, the races probably don’t differ to any significant degree in their chronic stress levels. And if they do, it’s even possible that whites have more negative IQ impact from stress than hispanics or blacks do.
3. Context
One study took men and had them perform public speaking and math in front of an audience, and afterwards measured their urine cortisol levels. One group was given sugar (glucose) before the speech, one was given fat, one was given protein, and one was given water. These there the results:
Compare this to the first chart in this article: the glucose group had cortisol levels that peaked at around 2,300 ng/dl – more than twice that of the white group. This is what “high stress” is like – a situation that elicits stress, plus a high-carb diet.
A bit of a tangent, but it does put the race differences in stress hormones in context.

With Every Day that Passes Trump Is Being Proved Increasingly Right

via BNP News

He could well be America’s last hope before the damage is irreversible and it ceases to be a first world country at all.

I hope that his success will encourage the European right to stop being de facto cultural Marxist socialists.

The liberal mindset. If you vote left wing you are clever and therefore allowed a voice. Vote right wing and you are a moron.

Well, what about Obama? Generally regarded in the US as one of the worst presidents they have ever had. A college lecturer of middling talent but the right skin colour to play the race card well.

He tapped into a need of the left to appear to be non racist. The fact he was and is not good enough isn’t a consideration in the liberal mindset.

The problem isn’t Trump – despite his barbed and targeted remarks – is a highly successful businessman. Not just by playing the stock market but by actually making things.

That takes brains regardless of the sound bites. But, as long as he offends the misplaced sensibilities of the left wing he has an awful man and anyone who votes for him is a moron.

Donald Trump is hated by the Establishment because he’s a successful businessman unlike the political class who have never done a day’s work in their lives, and have about as much experience in the real world as a herd of lambs.

When politicians elected by the people on both sides of the Atlantic continually ignore the wishes of the people is it any wonder the people look for alternative representation to those who are saying what millions of us are thinking.

Democracy proves that the aggressive angry PC media is controlled by a minority group that’s only interested in their own world view.

That has stopped reporting the news and has been and is using the media as propaganda.

It’s the arrogance of the liberal elite who think they can disenfranchise all those who disagree with them by abusing them and calling them names.

Stronger, Safer, Better Off – Out!

via Western Spring

After a great deal of huffing and puffing, of late night dramas, of last minute crises, of shirt sleeved “battling for Britain”, Mr. Cameron got his “deal”, just as we always knew he would; and it was an empty husk just as we had always known it would be. But it may be enough to deliver him the victory which he craves for he is undoubtedly an effective campaigner, and he has on his side not only all the forces of the establishment but the very natural tendency of people to vote, however reluctantly, for what they know.

But for us as nationalists it can never be a matter of opting for the familiar because Britain’s membership of the EU will bring about the end of our country as the homeland of a recognisable people. This existential crisis arises from the very purpose for which the EU was founded – to replace existing nations with a new one, a United States of Europe, and from the mechanism which will bring that new nation into being, the free movement of people.  There are half a billion people with a right as EU citizens to live in our country and they are doing so at the net rate of 200,000 every year. It is already the case that more than a third of the children born in England and Wales each year are non White British and the Office for National Statistics has calculated that White Brits will be a minority among under eighteens by 2037 – just twenty one years from now.
Of course, the EU is not the only source of our dispossession – if only it were! To the shame of successive governments similar or greater numbers come from outside the EU, but that immigration could be halted and reversed by a government with the will to do it; the only way to halt the fifty per cent of immigration which comes from the EU is to leave.
We now have the opportunity to take our country out of the EU at the forthcoming referendum, and it is an opportunity which we must not fail to take because it will not return. Our position as British nationalists is different from that of the Scottish nationalists because they have youth on their side; although they failed in 2014 they know that they have every prospect of success should there be another referendum at any time within the foreseeable future. We do not have youth on our side – every opinion survey shows that opposition to the EU, and opposition to immigration more generally, diminishes rapidly as one goes down the age groups; a recent survey of attitudes to patriotism showed that in the youngest age group those who defined themselves as “very patriotic” collapsed from 32% in 2003 to 20% only ten years later – a change attributed to the expansion of university education.
Brexit 5

The stark truth is that without the young on our side we have no future. That is why none of the work which we do is more important than that which we do with young people.  This work will bear fruit in the future and will ensure that not only will something survive of our race and nation, but that in the long term all will be recovered. One thing is certain, however, and that is that the road back to a healthy all White, all British Britain will be a long and hard one made immeasurably longer and harder by our membership of the EU. That is why we must leave – safer, stronger and better off OUT!