Thursday, May 15, 2014
Monday, April 28, 2014
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
tWn - The End
For the reasons described in My Mistake, I have decided, without consulting with or seeking Carolyn Yeager's consent, that The White Network will no longer be used to record or broadcast any new programs. There will be no further posts or comments. I will not allow her to abuse the system I constructed to undermine the purpose for which it was constructed and for which she originally agreed to use it.
I expect Carolyn Yeager will continue publishing at carolynyeager.net. I will continue at Age of Treason. I have not decided what to do with AoTR. Carolyn informed me yesterday that Paul Hickman had already decided to move to Renegade Broadcasting. I wish him good luck. His decision has made my decision about tWn much easier. I thank Ray Goodwin and Hadding Scott for their contributions here.
Though I have always managed the server itself, Carolyn has always managed the donations and bills and thus has control over the hosting account and domain name. I would like this site to stand as an archive for as long as possible, so I request that she use whatever funds remain, or new funds come in, to continue paying the bills. Whether this actually happens is Carolyn Yeager's decision and responsibility.
Monday, April 07, 2014
“April is the cruelest month,” wrote T.S. Eliot (the one line I always remember). And we at The White Network may very well be cruel to our enemies when we gather for our 2nd group show of this year. Tanstaafl, Paul Hickman, Ray Goodwin and I will talk about moral legitimacy for Whites, the Ukraine situation, the Jonathan Pollard situation, and other aspects of the jewish problem. Don't miss it.
Friday, April 04, 2014
Who Celebrates Lawrence Auster and Why
Recalling Lawrence Auster, Nicholas Stix asks:
In a land of almost 314 million “residents,” how important could one old, crotchety, heterosexual, white Christian man have been?
Only the most vile sycophants of this self-professed jewish fifth columnist continue to celebrate him. Tellingly, they do it either by ignoring or distorting what he really was or what he really cared about.
Lawrence Auster was a jew whose most fervent passion was sniffing out and denouncing "anti-semitism".
For years, he argued what I considered to be a mistaken position, that the Left believes in “egalitarianism,” “tolerance,” and “non-discrimination.” In fact, as I have pointed out for years, the Left actually believes in power—and is willing to accept the most extreme inequality, intolerance, and discrimination.
Auster meticulously cultivated a constant but superficial discussion of symptoms, most of which he attributed to "liberalism", a vague catch-all for anything Auster disliked but didn't more specifically identify as "anti-semitism". He disapproved of terms like "the Left" because he wished to obscure the jewish source of anti-White animus, not expose it. For this reason his view of race was similarly cartoonish. He usually maintained that jews are "white", and "whites" are doing everything to ourselves. When push came to shove he not only saw the difference, he sided with the jews against Whites.
It was because of this position, and in spite of any prickliness when challenged on "mistakes", that Auster attracted worshippers like Stix - a motley assortment of jews, crypto-jews, quasi-jews, wanna-be jews and jew-firsters who see "white" judeo-Christian "conservativism" as their greatest strength. They could imagine clarity and truth in their guru's dissembling and dissumulation because in that guru and his double-talk they saw themselves.
Lawrence Auster: First Anniversary of His Death on March 29, 2013, at Saber Point, offers this synopsis of Auster's early life:
Lawrence Auster was no stranger to controversy and aimed his criticisms not only at obvious targets on the left but also at those on the right whom he saw losing one battle after another. After Pope Benedict XVI apologized for his 2006 speech in Regensburg, which criticized Islam, Auster wrote, “As long as our own principles are liberal, as long as such liberal values as pluralism and tolerance, rather than traditionalist values such as nation and civilization, are our ultimate governing values, we will not be able to oppose liberalism and the liberalism-assisted takeover of the West by the Other. Mainstream conservatism is itself largely liberal. Only a belief system that is non-liberal at its core, namely traditionalism, can save the West.”
Mr. Auster was born in Union, New Jersey in 1949 to Sean Irving Auster, an early electronics whizkid, businessman, and real estate investor, and Charlotte Auster, a homemaker. From the age of 11 he grew up in South Orange, New Jersey, where his older siblings introduced him to classical music and Bob Dylan, both lifelong passions, along with poetry. He attended Columbia University for a year and witnessed the student riots in 1968. He did not like the Ivy League university, which he found too impersonal. He also attended Bard College for a semester before deciding that he needed to educate himself on his own before completing a bachelor’s degree.
In the 1970s, he lived a bohemian life in Aspen, Colorado, playing guitar, reading great works of literature, working at a book store, and, it amused him to recount later, wearing a sandwich board through the streets of Aspen with the menu of a local restaurant. For a while, he was a professional astrologer. He then earned a bachelor’s degree in English at the University of Colorado in Boulder. For a time, he was a follower of the Indian spiritual leader Meher Baba, traveling to India to visit his center there.
He then moved to Manhattan, rented a spartan studio apartment on the Upper West Side in which he lived up until his final weeks, and began an often frustrating search for the right career. He attended law school for a year, but decided he would never make a good lawyer. He worked as an administrator at a private school, drove a cab, read lots of books and worked as a temp. He referred candidly to his “odd and eccentric life.”
“I’ve never had any mainstream “moves” in my makeup. I’ve been a solitary intellectual seeker and spiritual seeker all my life, and a misfit in mainstream society,” Mr. Auster wrote, late in life. “I’ve never had a normal career. Even if I had wanted to, I could not have had a mainstream career as a writer, because writing for money or fame or whatever was simply not part of my makeup. Everything I’ve written, I’ve written because it’s been intensely important me to say something that I had to say. I can’t write any other way.”
He discovered his main subject when he was walking through Manhattan one day and, looking at the people around him, suddenly realized that whites were on their way to becoming a minority in America. He said that since he was so firmly convinced of the essential humanity of all people, he felt suited to writing about the controversial subject of race and challenging the crippling plague of white guilt.
How absurd and yet how stereotypical that this ex-hippie, this wandering jew, had the arrogance to proclaim his jew-first moralizing and pilpul "traditionalism", not to mention deliver it from the very epicenter of cosmopolitan jewry, that Other who has taken over the West, whose poisonous influence he mostly pretended not to see.
Auster never challenged "the crippling plague of white guilt". That would have required acknowledging the distinction between the Whites being guilt-tripped and the jews, like himself, who perpetrate it. If Auster's traditionalism meant anything, it meant only a reform of White guilt, redirecting and refocusing its benefits back to the jews alone. What irked Auster was not that Whites defer to anybody, but that Whites defer to anybody but the jews.
To commemorate Auster's death his most vile sycophant, Laura Wood, excerpted a speech he delivered at the 1994 American Renaissance conference. The War Against White America captures Auster's early posturing. It is notably less vague than the later, more superficial positions Stix mistakes for mistaken:
So before we recoil in horror or embarrassment from speaking explicitly about race, let us remember that America’s current politics is already a race-conscious politics, only it’s a politics based on lies about race. It’s a politics directed against whites and their civilization. And it pretends that it’s not about race at all, but that it’s race-neutral and universal. So instead of today’s race-conscious politics, which is based on lies about race, let us have a race-conscious politics based on truths about race.
These truths include the following propositions:
- Long-term harmonious relations between a racial majority and racial minorities are possible only when the minorities do not exceed a certain percentage of the population.
- While individuals of different races living in the same society can get along on a basis of equality and mutual recognition, entire races, living in the same society, cannot.
- In the right circumstances, individuals or small groups of one people can be assimilated into a host culture of a different people, but there are limits to such assimilation. Certainly if the entire people associated with the host culture is displaced or swamped by a different people, the host culture will also disappear. Even smaller shifts in numbers can be enough to delegitimize the host culture and produce chronic cultural conflict.
- Therefore, the culture, identity and traditions of white America and Western civilization cannot survive in any community or institution that becomes multiracial or white-minority.
- Because of the greater attractiveness, prosperity and openness of white Western societies, nonwhites will keep moving into them as long as they can. Therefore white America can survive demographically and culturally only if it recognizes itself as a threatened ethnoculture; if it ceases or drastically reduces, on a national scale, all non-European immigration; and if it assures, on a local scale, communities where its own institutions may survive.
- The large and enduring differences in average intelligence between blacks and whites mean, first, that blacks on their own can never be expected to maintain a modern, democratic, civilized society; and second, that blacks can never be expected to achieve collective economic equality and other kinds of parity with whites. The forced attempt to achieve such collective equality, through affirmative action and through endless attacks on white racism as the supposed cause of existing inequalities, can only break down all the institutions and standards of society and lead to race warfare.
- There are therefore only two sane options for black-white relations in this country. Either blacks accept the above facts; accept a society where white Western standards of law, behavior and intellectual life are dominant and where advancement will be open for blacks only on an individual, not a collective basis; accept their status as an ethnic minority and be grateful to be living in a white society where they have goods and opportunities undreamed of in a black society; or else, if blacks are not willing to accept these things, then to avoid race warfare there must be peaceful separation between the races.
These propositions have nothing to do with any notions of race-hatred of the other, or of race-worship of one’s own. White people are just as sinful and imperfect as any other people. Unlike ideologies such as Afrocentrism and Nazism, which are based on the deification of one’s own people and the demonization of others, this new politics is based on a Christian recognition of our human limitations, namely that we do not possess the godlike power to create a perfect world where everyone is equal, and where differences don’t matter. If there is any arrogance to be seen today, it is in our current immigration and affirmative action policies, which are among the greatest examples of hubris in the history of the world.
There are only two sane options for black-white relations in this country.
The irony is that whites are terrified that non-whites will hate them and even start a race war if whites stand up for themselves, while the truth is that many nonwhites will begin for the first time to respect whites. Currently minorities don’t respect whites because whites have defined themselves ideologically as nothing while, in personal terms, they still try to protect their self-interest. Whites thus seem both weak and hypocritical and therefore despicable, and nonwhites just keep moving into the vacuum left by white surrender. But when whites begin to assert their own civilizational and racial identity and their desire to preserve it, not in a hateful way but in a calm, intelligent and firm way, then nonwhites will begin to see whites, not as the “oppressors” of left-liberal demonology, but as human beings who have the same basic interests and concerns for their people and culture that the minorities have for theirs.
Classic. Auster discussed blacks and Whites and other Others in terms he literally found unthinkable to apply to jews. He spoke of "minorities" and "oppressors" and "left-liberal demonology" as if it is all a figment of the imagination of Whites and had nothing whatsoever to do with the jews.
The irony is that so many Whites are terrified that jews will hate them, even though jews already make their contempt plain enough. Auster went against that grain by advocating a "white" racial identity, but of course, it was only to the extent that he thought that would best serve the interests of jews, not Whites. Auster's importance, if anyone wishes to recall it accurately, was in being even more condescending and less honest than usual for a jew.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Anti-White is Not Code for Anti-Jew
Embedded in Gawker's snarky White Man March Happens, Nobody Cares I found this twit:
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, but this one, which captures one of the major themes of the hostile reaction to the White Man March, reduces to just two - anti-White whine. However, with just a little work I thought it could help prove a point:
Sure enough, I touched a nerve:
Seriously, Report as Spam this worthless bigot asshole: @TanstaaflAoT— Brian Stuart (@red3blog) March 20, 2014
If anything illustrates the jewish origin of the anti-White zeitgeist, it's right here. As anyone can see, all it takes to turn humor into hate is to mistake jews for Whites.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Anti-White Animus on Parade
Whatever else was accomplished, the White Man March succeeded in flushing out some hostile anti-White reactions, helping put the lie to the "White privilege" meme. The same media and academia which demonstrates a practically infinite capacity to somberly and soberly indulge the slightest, most deluded concerns expressed by jews and other "people of color" have a completely different attitude about concerns expressed by Whites.
For years this media and academia have pathologized and demonized the deracinated supporters of the Republican party and Tea party for their Whiteness. Naturally, a handful of Whites speaking more directly in favor of our race can only be regarded as all the more insufferable.
One of the longer and more clearly articulated anti-White reactions has come from SUNY-Oneonta professor Mike King, in The White Victim Charade on Parade, published at CounterPunch on 17 March 2014:
The use of racialized scapegoats to explain American decline, and its effects on white Americans, has clearly been successful. Reading reports and studies of white public opinion, alongside the White Man March’s call to unity – a clear and thick overlap is present. It is a story of white victimhood, a baseless but widespread belief that there is systematic societal and governmental discrimination against whites – a growing belief steeped in anger, fear and ignorance.
The Postmodern White Man Wants “His
Colonialism(um, I mean) Country Back”
In the existing ahistorical, astructural political culture, white people, especially white men, have increasingly claimed “reverse racism” – a concept that is only intelligible when we have erased history, social structure and power. In an imagined nation that has no history, and a postmodern society that has no structural forces, everyone has “identity politics” and everyone can position themselves as a victim. In this milieu, claims of “reverse racism” in relation to affirmative action have been somewhat successful because the cultural and political terrain is now defined by a total absence of an analysis that looks at the legacies of white supremacy and their contemporary structures. It is on this ahistorical and astructural landscape that declining white wages and a cornucopia of scapegoats have produced this emerging racial formation of aggrieved whiteness – a politicized white identity politics. This stretches beyond pronouncements of a “post-racial” society, to one where the language of discrimination, racism, and oppression is not erased, but politically inverted. What has been produced is a policial subject that is materially and historically absurd in-itself, yet nonethless a current historical agent-for-itself – the “racialized white victim.” This current political manifestion of white supremacy does not deviate from previous incarnations – lacking a legitimate grounding in reason and fact, while still producing very real social consequences.
The Tea Party, Glenn Beck (who has repeatdly called for a “White Civil Rights Movement”) and the White Man March all articulate their politics in the language, imagery and myth of the founding fathers. The articulation of reclaiming “my” country in a racially coded discourse, and appeals to the founding fathers and original Constitution, are instructive. The origins of the nation, the country they want to return to, was one dominated by landholding, adult, white men (who were not keen on paying taxes). Women were not allowed to vote or hold property and people of color were either annihilated, robbed or enslaved.
Eric Foner argues that the course of American history has largely been a conflict over who “We the People” refers to. Suffragettes, Civil Rights marchers, and myriad others have steadily broadened the exclusionary vision of the founders, while hitting barriers when trying to expand beyond formal and partial equality under the law. The White Man March, the Tea Party, and the aggrieved whiteness project more broadly, are clearly pushing for a narrower definition and a reclamation of ground they feel they have lost over prior decades and generations of struggles for social justice. The fact that discussion as to whether we want to go back to this past is not only on the table, but now on the top of many agendas, should be more than cause for concern. We need to begin to more forcefully highlight historical injustices that manifest in contemporary inequalities, in a way that avoids simple, liberal victimhood, and invokes history and social facts in order to challenge the “good old days” trope of the Right, while also grounding a structural analysis of today’s white supremacy, why it is emerging as it is, and what needs to be done about it.
Abolition-Democracy or Barbarism
“Today there is still the white problem – its expectations, its power, its solidarity, its imagination. Even after the civil rights movement, whiteness stands at the path to a more democratic society like a troll at the bridge. The political task, I have argued, is to chase the troll away, not ignore it or invite it to the multicultural table.”
- Joel Olson The Abolition of White Democracy
“The fascists are the vanguard of the white race; however, the big problem right now is not the white vanguard but the white mainstream.”
- Noel Ignatiev
It is clear that the White Man March politics are not fringe at all. Racist, anti-democratic, backwards, intellectually baseless…? Surely. But, fringe? Unfortunately not. What does this mean? Should we be content that the skinheads can’t turn out as many New Yorkers as Occupy? Should we conclude that the white working class are just modern Archie Bunkers and hopeless simps? I don’t see how any person who believes in creating a just society can say “yes.” How to fix this is a lot more complicated, and needs to be a strategy pulled together by the variety of people and groups challenging white supremacy on a daily basis. Instead of being outraged about the expression of such anti-democratic and hateful extremist politics in public, we should take a closer look at how these politics have already been mainstreamed, and figure out a way to effectively counter this situation.
It is clear that if the social order were to somehow be destabilized today, the fascists are not only better prepared militarily, but have been steadily winning hearts and minds for some time. If we are clear about what needs to be done and vigilant about tendencies that would hold us back, we can start to build a different world up out of this mess. Barbarism is a lot closer than we think.
King's anti-White narrative is an extension and variation of the jewish narrative - the hallmark being the inversion of reality, most tellingly by describing Whites (rather than jews) as having power and solidarity and a self-image based on victimhood.
In the jewish narrative Whites serve as the "racialized scapegoat", the people who present a "big problem" and need to be "abolished" to create a "just society". King is aware that Whites have grievances - he simply dismisses them as imaginary. King does not deny the significance of race or racial conflict - he sympathizes with non-Whites in direct opposition to Whites.
There are hundreds of professors like King, paid by universities and corporations to literally profess the same sort of anti-White narrative he does. However much this narrative already predominates, in King's mind it isn't enough. His proposed solution to the "White problem" is ever more anti-White propaganda and indoctrination.
In this respect, I agree. I think the more loudly and openly anti-Whites profess their beliefs, the more plain they make their racial animus and power. The more plain their charade, the closer its end.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
White Man March - 15 March 2014
White Man March WorlWide at LiveLeak.
This video was originally posted at YouTube, but was quickly "removed as a violation of YouTube's policy prohibiting hate speech".
As march organizer Kyle Hunt points out in the video, "diversity" is White genocide. YouTube is simply making it clear (for Whites who don't yet understand) that opposition to White genocide is "hate".
#WhiteManMarch on Twitter.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Takes a Kicking and Keeps on Licking
Mel Gibson's Career -- Why He Deserves Another Chance In Hollywood, by Allison Hope Weiner, Deadline|Hollywood, 11 March 2014:
As a journalist who vilified Gibson in The New York Times and Entertainment Weekly until my coverage allowed me to get to know him, I want to make the case here that it is time for those Hollywood agencies and studios to end their quiet blacklisting of Mel Gibson. Once Hollywood’s biggest movie star whose film Braveheart won five Oscars and whose collective box office totals $3.6 billion, Gibson hasn’t been directly employed by a studio since Passion Of The Christ was released in 2004.
For those who are skeptical, I understand. For the longest time, I disliked Gibson and thought he was a Holocaust-denier, homophobic, misogynistic, racist drunk. I wrote as much in articles for EW and the NY Times. And whenever I wrote about him, I would get irate calls from his representatives saying I didn’t know him.
It developed into something that felt like friendship, which doesn’t often happen with investigative journalists and the subjects they cover. Odder still was that it happened with a man disdained by my colleagues, friends and my family, who, like me, are observant Jews. At this point, Gibson’s career had gone all kinds of wrong, starting with that 2006 DUI arrest, when he told that cop that “the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.” Four years later, he sounded positively unhinged and racist in surreptitious recordings of an angry phone exchange between Gibson and ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva — the mother of his infant daughter. The whole world heard him shout abusively at her and make racist remarks.
Since then, I’ve gotten to know Gibson extremely well. I thought it would be difficult for him to have a friend in the media, but he has been surprisingly honest and trusting. As a lawyer-turned-reporter, I have no problem asking tough questions, even of friends. Gibson never wavered or equivocated when I confronted him, whether the subject was his drinking, his politics, his religion or his relationships with women. It soon became clear that my early journalistic assessment of him wasn’t right.
This crystallized when we met each other’s families. It was hard to blame his family for being skeptical of a journalist, but the issues with my own family were more challenging. Gibson asked to meet them at my son’s bar mitzvah celebration. Imagine the scene: A room filled with Jews. In walks the person who, in their minds, might be the most notorious anti-Semite in America. Gibson attended alone and I can only imagine what was going through his head when he walked into the party.
Before the evening was over, he was chatting with many of my relatives, who saw a funny, kind, charming guy and not the demon they’d read about. Gutsier still, he attended our Yom Kippur break fast dinner. Anyone who has attended such a gathering knows there is nothing more imposing than making friends in a room full of Jews who haven’t eaten in 24 hours.
I’ve discussed the Holocaust with Gibson and whether his views differed from those of his father. Just as he refused to condemn his father in that TV interview with Diane Sawyer, Gibson refused to discuss his dad with me. Similar to what he told Sawyer, Gibson told me that he believed that 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. “Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenseless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do; absolutely,” he told Sawyer. “It was an atrocity of monumental proportion.” In our conversations, I took that a step further. Why, I asked him “did you say those things about the Jews starting all the wars? Where did those unkind things come from?” Gibson thought for a moment, then answered that he’d been terribly hurt by the very personal criticism of him from the Jewish community over The Passion Of The Christ. He said that while he’d been criticized for films before, this was personal and cruel. He said that when he drinks, he can be a mean drunk and “Stuff comes out in a distorted manner…” His own faith led him to make his version of Christ’s story, and he found himself being attacked for making a film that might get Jews killed, and that he was insensitive that his depiction of Jews as Christ’s killer could inflame religious tensions. He was called names by numerous Jewish leaders and a few people literally spat on him. “The criticism was still eating at me,” he told me. “This was a different kind of hammering. A very personal attack.”
Based on my exchanges with Gibson and my own reporting on his transgressions, I’ve stopped doubting him. He worked in Hollywood for 30 years without a single report he was anti-Semitic.
In his second apology on the anti-Semitic statements, Gibson promised to reach out to Jewish leaders. Gibson followed up by meeting with a wide variety of them. He gave me their names when I asked, but Gibson asked me not to publish them because he didn’t want them dragged into public controversy or worse, think he was using them. The meetings were not some photo op to him, he told me, but rather his desire to understand Judaism and personally apologize for the unkind things he said. He has learned much about the Jewish religion, befriending a number of Rabbis and attending his share of Shabbat dinners, Passover Seders and Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur dinners. I believe that effort, along with our conversations, helped him understand why Jewish people reacted as they did to The Passion Of The Christ and why there was Jewish support for the Second Vatican Council. Gibson has quietly donated millions to charitable Jewish causes, in keeping with one of the highest forms of Tzedakah in the Jewish faith, giving when the recipient doesn’t know your identity.
Gibson went well beyond a mea culpa tour. He came out of that experience determined to film the Jewish version of Braveheart. He set at Warner Bros a film about Judah Maccabee, who with his father and four brothers led the Jewish revolt against the Greek-Syrian armies that had conquered Judea in the second century B.C. That seminal story is celebrated by Jews all over the world through Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights.
While talent including director Roman Polanski (drugged and sodomized a minor, and fled), Mike Tyson (rape conviction), Chris Brown (beat up ex-girlfriend Rihanna), T.I. (weapons charge), and many others are repped by major agencies, no agency has touched Gibson since Emanuel discharged him as a WME client after those tapes surfaced and he used the “N” word. Gibson has been shunned not for doing anything criminal; his greatest offenses amount to use of harsh language.
Weiner knows that Gibson's "greatest offense" isn't "harsh language" aimed at women or blacks, and they aren't responsible for his "quiet blacklisting". Weiner identifies herself as a jew and dedicates the bulk of her words to Gibson vis-a-vis jews exactly because she understands that it is jews who have not-so-quietly blacklisted him.
The demonization and blacklisting of Gibson is a reminder that in jew-run Hollywood, talent, popularity and profitability aren't the primary considerations - jewish sensibilities are. And Gibson will continue to be blacklisted as long as jews collectively regard him as "the most notorious 'anti-semite' in America". Weiner's explicit appeal to jews, to attempt to convince them otherwise, only calls attention to their power.
Weiner describes Gibson's grovelling, trying to please and befriend the jews who despise him, as "gutsy". Yet it is quite the opposite. Even Weiner's own version of Gibson's story comes across as serial gutlessness: Lashing out in drunken rage, Gibson bit the hand that fed him, and ever since has been licking the boot that kicks him. Weiner's suggestion that Gibson's problem is alcohol, or anger, or both, is also disingenuous. Though he has far more fame and fortune than most of the rest of his race, he has the same main problem. The jewish problem. He could fund and direct some wonderful films about that, but instead gives his love and money to the enemy. Whether such pathological behavior is fueled by Christian beliefs, greed, ambition, or even alcohol - it certainly isn't guts.
As usual, the jews have tried to make themselves out as the ones who have been harmed. And as usual, this serves to distract from the harm they have done to others. In this case, their handwringing about whether Mel Gibson is or isn't good for the jews is a distraction from the monstrous harm done by the lies, filth and poison delivered by the judaized media.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
The Science of Race as Clusters Rooted in a Biological Continuum
Tracing Ancestry, Researchers Produce a Genetic Atlas of Human Mixing Events, by Nicholas Wade, New York Times, 13 Feb 2014:
Having sampled genomes from around the world, they found they could detect about 95 distinguishable populations.
Though all humans have the same set of genes, their genomes are studded with mutations, which are differences in the sequence of DNA units in the genome. These mutations occur in patterns because whole sets of mutations are passed down from parent to child and hence will be common in a particular population. Based on these patterns, geneticists can scan a person’s genome and assign the ancestry of each segment to a particular race or population.
The Myers group has posted its results on a web page that records the degree of admixture in each population. The English, however, known to be a rich medley of Celts with invaders such as the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes and Norwegians, carry the notation “No strong evidence of admixture.” Dr. Myers said his method cannot yet detect genetic mixing between very similar populations, as was the case with the English and their invaders from Scandinavia and Northern Germany. He said he hoped to distinguish all these groups in a separate project on British ancestry.
The semitically correct emphasis is on admixture/mixing, though a closer look reveals the reality of race.
A genetic atlas of human admixture history, "Companion website for "A genetic atlas of human admixture history", Hellenthal et al, Science (2014)", lists the 95 "target populations" they distinguished:
Adygei, Armenian, Balochi, BantuKenya, BantuSouthAfrica, Basque, Bedouin, Belorussian, BiakaPygmy, Brahui, Bulgarian, Burusho, Cambodian, Chuvash, Colombian, Cypriot, Dai, Daur, Druze, EastSicilian, Egyptian, English, Ethiopian, EthiopianJew, Finnish, French, Georgian, GermanyAustria, Greek, Hadza, Han, HanNchina, Hazara, Hezhen, Hungarian, Indian, IndianJew, Iranian, Ireland, Japanese, Jordanian, Kalash, Karitiana, Lahu, Lezgin, Lithuanian, Makrani, Mandenka, Maya, MbutiPygmy, Melanesian, Miao, Mongola, Moroccan, Mozabite, Myanmar, Naxi, NorthItalian, Norwegian, Orcadian, Oroqen, Palestinian, Papuan, Pathan, Pima, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Sandawe, SanKhomani, SanNamibia, Sardinian, Saudi, Scottish, She, Sindhi, SouthItalian, Spanish, Surui, Syrian, Tu, Tujia, Tunisian, Turkish, Tuscan, UAE, Uygur, Uzbekistani, Welsh, WestSicilian, Xibo, Yakut, Yemeni, Yi, Yoruba
"Population genetics" research like this is a form of race science, with "population" serving as a rough euphemism for "race", because in a broad sense a race is a cluster of relatively closely-related people. The clusters at the coarsest, continental scale are the ones most commonly associated with the word race today - the White, black, yellow and red races. But at the ethnic/national scale there are more clusters, like the 95 groups identified by this atlas. An even closer examination of the DNA would tease apart even finer distinctions, resolving larger clusters into sub-ethnic, clan and family strands, right on down to positively identifying an individual's parents or siblings.
The propaganda that race is a social construct based on superficial attributes such as skin color, is a big lie. Race and racial distinctions are deeply rooted in biology. Though there are many clusters, at different scales, and the boundaries of those clusters are fuzzy, they are not arbitrary. As the article notes, "geneticists can scan a person’s genome and assign the ancestry of each segment to a particular race or population". The same clusters people can distinguish with their senses alone correspond to the distinctions determinable by DNA alone.
Wade's remark about the English reflects the clash between the jewish "nation of immigrants" narrative and the reality of Northwestern European genetic homogeniety.
Curiously, the atlas includes EthiopianJew and IndianJew but not the more numerous Ashkenazi and Sephardic clusters. Wade reported on the clustering of jews in June 2010, Studies Show Jews’ Genetic Similarity:
The shared genetic elements suggest that members of any Jewish community are related to one another as closely as are fourth or fifth cousins in a large population, which is about 10 times higher than the relationship between two people chosen at random off the streets of New York City, Dr. Atzmon said.
Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews have roughly 30 percent European ancestry, with most of the rest from the Middle East, the two surveys find. The two communities seem very similar to each other genetically, which is unexpected because they have been separated for so long.
The research this NYT report discusses, Abraham's Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry, concludes:
This study touches upon an issue that was raised over a century ago by Maurice Fishberg, Joseph Jacobs, and others about whether the Jews constitute a race, a religious group, or something else.29,30 In this study, Jewish populations from the major Jewish Diaspora groups—Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi—formed a distinctive population cluster by PCA analysis, albeit one that is closely related to European and Middle Eastern, non-Jewish populations. Within the study, each of the Jewish populations formed its own cluster as part of the larger Jewish cluster. Each group demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry and variable admixture with European populations.
Whatever you want to call them, the point is that jews can be distinguished by their DNA. In fact, though neither Wade nor Hellenthal et al mention any jews in the "rich medley" of England, it's not because finer analysis is required to detect them there, or anywhere else in Northwestern Europe. Finding "Lithuanian" and "Palestinian" admixture in the English, as illustrated by the attached image, seems to be a way of detecting the jews without noticing them.
Sunday, February 09, 2014
On the Significance of the Neo in Neo-Reaction
The Neo-Reaction, in my opinion, has several characteristics that make it similar to Neo-Conservatism.
Neo-Cons: liberals, disproportionately Jewish, “mugged by reality”, not pro-white, eventually honeycombing the right and driving out old hard rightists (example, ironically, Paul Gottfried). Eventually everything is done for the Jews.
Neo-Reaction: libertarians, disproportionately Jewish (MY SUSPICION ONLY), “mugged by reality”, not pro-white (boy, they really hate blacks, though), To Be Determined….
It’s the “neo” thing. Irving Kristol: “Ever since I can remember I’ve been a Neo-Something.”
Interesting parallel between the neo-cons and the neo-reaction. I remember back in the day the “neo” in “neo-con” was often noted to be practically synonymous with “judeo.”
I don’t even like the term “reactionary” to be honest – it’s a communist term. There’s the Marxist Revolution, than the Reaction from the bad guys (nationalists, capitalists, conservatives, religious, racists, etc.) I assumed that the “Dark Enlightenment” and “neo-reaction” were just labels slapped onto the emerging internet consensus among non-leftist types, a mix of race realism, sex realism, and scepticsm of utopianism. I prefer “Aryan Skynet” myself. The argument against democracy, for example, is intellectually interesting, and fun in a devil’s advocate sort of way, but 12 years after the Diebold Voting Machine scandal of 2002, kind of a moot point, isn’t it? Noam Chomsky from the Judeo-Left used to quote Walter Lippman about this in the 1990s, all about the “crisis of democracy” and the use of mass media to “manufacture consent.”
One thing I’ve noticed, YKWs have a lot of time on their hands to write all sorts of articles and comments. I can see a few enterprising YKWs doing what they have always done, as described by Kevin MacDonald, set up little cults-of-personality based on a guru and co-opt various intellectual trends into some “movement” or “ideology,” give it a catchy name, then ruthlessly purge the “anti-semites” and otherwise repurpose the movement to whatever benefits jews.
Indeed. The reaction is to judaization. Neo-reaction is the judaization of the reaction to judaization.
Monday, February 03, 2014
State of The White Network Tonight
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
What's Flipping Yid Lids Today: Tom Perkins on the 1% and Kristallnacht
In a short letter to the Wall Street Journal, Progressive Kristallnacht Coming?, Tom Perkins, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist, retired founder of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, expressed a simple-minded concern which appeared not at all out of step with the thoroughly judaized contemporary political discourse:
I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its "one percent," namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the "rich."
This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendant "progressive" radicalism unthinkable now?
The response from outraged jews was swift and venomous. Undeterred by Perkins' wealth, power and love of jews, jews big and small have taken to their soapboxes to insult and lecture him. The gist of it all is to self-righteously inform Perkins, and any other uppity goyim who might be under a similarly mistaken impression, that only jews are permitted to invoke the jewish narrative.
To illustrate I've selected a few of the clearer examples of jews getting so carried away with their attempts to describe what Perkins has done wrong and condemn him for it that they effectively end up describing and condemning themselves and their tribe.
As someone who lost numerous relatives to the Nazi gas chambers, I find statements like this revolting & inexplicable
Then this one:
Rather shocking that Tom Perkins seems to embrace Nazi Germany's stereotype that Jews were Europe’s rich 1%
Perkins' mistakes are hardly inexplicable. It's jews who have filled his head with nonsense. He has internalized jewish myths. He has misunderstood jewish self-pity and self-concern as applying more generally to wealthy minorities.
What Greenhouse is revolted and shocked about is Perkins equating the merely rich to the jews. Greenhouse knows there is no such equivalence. His hysterical overreaction probably has less to do with events decades past and more to do with the "stereotype" of jews in the 1% of the right here and now.
For a lecture about the jewish version of history, Greenhouse links a Salon article by Elias Isquith, titled Wealthy venture capitalist Tom Perkins says the 1% in America are treated like Jews in Nazi Germany:
For those who don’t already know: Kristallnacht was a giant anti-Semitic riot, organized by the Nazi government, that left nearly 100 Jews in Germany and Austria murdered and resulted in the incarceration of some tens of thousands more in concentration camps. It was an act of coordinated barbarism done in service of the Nazis’ ultimate goal, the expulsion (and, later, elimination) of Europe’s Jewish population.
Is it any mystery why accounts that differ from the jewish narrative go unknown or unheeded? Look how jews howl and bring to heel even someone rich and famous who tries to parrot their story in some way that doesn't please them.
For those who don't already know, there are other versions of history that don't excuse the jews. For example, Carolyn Yeager, based on the work of Ingrid Weckert, has made a convincing argument that organized jewry instigated and benefited from "Kristallnacht".
As confused and conflicted as Matthew Yglesias is about jewish identity, he is confident that Tom Perkins is nuts and that his letter "certainly proves you can get rich without being very thoughtful, perceptive, or intelligent".
Steve Benen, another ambiguous jew, aims his psychoanalysis more broadly, claiming the letter reflects "a persecution complex at the heart of conservative ideology" "that bordered on self-parody". For one thing, it certainly proves you can get a gig defending the jews at MSNBC without being very thoughtful, perceptive, or intelligent.
One of the more telling responses I've encountered so far comes from Mark Suster. If not for his overweening jewish superiority Suster would come closest to being a peer of Perkins. Suster's response to "this terribly insensitive and tone deaf letter", Putting Tom Perkins Comments into Context, begins:
People of middle or lower income families protesting the concentration of wealth in America is the same as a political party in Germany instituting a policy of systematically killing 6 million Jews and countless more who didn’t fit the model Aryan citizen?
It probably doesn’t take much more to explain how disconnected from reality Tom Perkins is.
Perkins, recall, referred to the jewish Kristallnacht myth, not their six million myth. It is Suster and his tribemates who are disconnected from reality.
Referring to a WSJ article in which Perkins claims others call him the king of Silicon Valley, Suster mocks:
Who says out loud that they are the king of anything?
I’m sorry, Mr. Perkins. You are now the bumbling dunce of Silicon Valley.
True enough. How much of a king can anyone be when the jews can so easily transform them into a bumbling dunce?
This is not a mere gaffe that people won’t remember in 3 years. Perkins will forever be associated with greed, insensitivity and lack of historical context.
Never forgive, never forget. Vex the jews and they will ensure that you go down in their history as the one who is greedy and insensitive.
And then there are the Jews of which I am one.
Mr. Perkins. Jewish people weren’t persecuted merely for their financial successes and it’s total mythology to believe all Jewish people are wealthy despite our population over-indexing in education, arts and wealth. Jews were persecuted for being different. The sort of mindless intolerance that I see lobbed today against Muslim people, African Americans, gay couples and others.
Jews followed their own rituals that made them seem “strange” to gentiles. Jews were excluded from trade guilds across Europe for hundreds of years which made it impossible for Jewish people to have a normal, stable income from the most important jobs of those era. Because they couldn’t have “normal” professions they become traders, peddlers, market makers and financiers.
Again we see Suster's disconnection from reality and arrogance in lecturing others about what is or isn't mythology. His account of the one-sided jewish version of history is quite typical. We're to believe Europeans somehow couldn't ever make the jews leave but could compel them to become financiers.
Jews weren’t persecuted for being rich. Jews were scapegoated whenever countries had economic problems simply because they were different and were an easy target for political leaders. It’s a societal consequence when times turn bad and people affected look for somebody to blame.
This too is a common jewish account of "scapegoating". What the financier jew is saying is that when there are economic problems the people shouldn't blame financier jews, they should instead blame themselves for blaming the financier jews, not to mention forcing the jews to become financiers in the first place.
Mr. Perkins. I am a member of the 1%. Yes, I earned it. But with a lot of help that many of the 350 million other Americans don’t have. I’m ok with you having extravagant houses and competing with the likes of Larry Ellison for extreme spending on Yachts and such. That’s your prerogative.
But when it comes for speaking for our great state or country. When it comes to speaking for Jews around the world. When it comes for speaking up for venture capitalists for which you are simply not a “king” I have but one bit of advice.
Not only is there no honor among thieves, in the minds of commissars like Suster only the jewish thieves should be speaking for anyone.
As illuminating as these examples have been, I've saved the most pompously self-unaware for last. Paul Krugman titled his New York Times op-ed Paranoia of the Plutocrats. He begins like Benen, by making it clear that his critique is aimed at a broader group:
You may say that this is just one crazy guy and wonder why The Journal would publish such a thing. But Mr. Perkins isn’t that much of an outlier.
Here's the punchline:
But every group finds itself facing criticism, and ends up on the losing side of policy disputes, somewhere along the way; that’s democracy. The question is what happens next. Normal people take it in stride; even if they’re angry and bitter over political setbacks, they don’t cry persecution, compare their critics to Nazis and insist that the world revolves around their hurt feelings. But the rich are different from you and me.
And yes, that’s partly because they have more money, and the power that goes with it. They can and all too often do surround themselves with courtiers who tell them what they want to hear and never, ever, tell them they’re being foolish. They’re accustomed to being treated with deference, not just by the people they hire but by politicians who want their campaign contributions. And so they are shocked to discover that money can’t buy everything, can’t insulate them from all adversity.
I also suspect that today’s Masters of the Universe are insecure about the nature of their success. We’re not talking captains of industry here, men who make stuff. We are, instead, talking about wheeler-dealers, men who push money around and get rich by skimming some off the top as it sloshes by. They may boast that they are job creators, the people who make the economy work, but are they really adding value? Many of us doubt it — and so, I suspect, do some of the wealthy themselves, a form of self-doubt that causes them to lash out even more furiously at their critics.
There you have it. The jews aren't normal people. They see themselves as somewhere outside and above normal. That's why they can think and write so critically about others without seeing how the criticism applies to themselves, without even thinking that they or anyone else could apply it to themselves.
It isn't self-doubt that makes the jews lash out furiously at their critics, much less at someone like Perkins, who grovels for them. It is an aggressive sadism. A hostility born of racial animus, enabled by a confidence born of racial solidarity. They see themselves having more in common with each other, rich or poor, left or right, than they do with any multi-millionaire goy.
Some jews no doubt fear their group's cover being blown, their depredations being revealed. Not the ones I've quoted here. These jews appear confident that they can say and do as they please, no matter how blatantly overbearing.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
The Interplay of Ideology, Biology, Guilt and Shame
In whatever happened to european tribes? hbd* chick posits that Christianity discouraged inbreeding, which in turn triggered the dissolution of European tribalism and consequent shift in emphasis to the nuclear family.
We can see in this the give and take between ideology and biology - the roots of identity are genetic, but memes, over generations, do shape the underlying gene pool. To the extent outbreeding produces a relative shift in identity rather than simply destroying it, this also provides a partial, biological explanation for why Whites tend toward both broader (nationalist, racialist) and narrower (individualist) forms of identity. An even more proximate and substantial cause lies in decades of anti-White propaganda, and it encourages more extreme shifts, whether outward into humanism or inward into solipsism.
hbd* chick has been writing thought-provoking articles about the nature and origins of Europeans for some time. This article on European tribalism is from 2011, part of her inbreeding in europe series. More recently she has written about what she calls the outbreeding project, a subset of her general theory of the west - all based on the realization that clannishness goes hand in hand with consanguinity.
Two of her more recent posts, more on the origins of guilt in northwestern european populations and the transition from shame to guilt in anglo-saxon england (and “core” europe), are a critique of Peter Frost's The origins of Northwest European guilt culture and Part II.
Frost begins Part I by noting the crucial difference between shame and guilt:
Shame is the primary means of behavioral control in most societies. If you are seen breaking a social rule, you will feel shame, and this feeling will be reinforced by what people say and do (gossiping, malicious looks, spitting, ostracism, etc.). Shame is much less effective if you break a rule without being seen or if you merely think about breaking a rule.
Guilt is more important in European societies, particularly those of Northwest European origin. It operates even when you act alone or merely think about breaking a rule. Behavior can thus be regulated in all possible situations with a minimum of surveillance.
Put more plainly, shame is the means by which more particularist/collectivist non-Whites maintain group cohesion, whereas guilt is the means by which more universalist/individualist Whites are encouraged to selflessly maintain a civil society in which everyone but Whites can thrive. Shame is something groups inflict upon themselves, for their own benefit, whereas guilt-tripping is a weapon of group warfare, used by non-Whites to discourage White group cohesion in any form between family and race.
Ironically, Frost cites Ruth Benedict on how shame compares to guilt:
Ruth Benedict first made the distinction between “shame cultures” and “guilt cultures”. Pervasive feelings of guilt are part of a behavioral package that enabled Northwest Europeans to adapt to complex social environments where kinship is less important and where rules of correct behavior must be obeyed with a minimum of surveillance.
Benedict helped establish cultural anthropology, which has since largely displaced physical anthropology, substituting jewish pilpul and narrative for the objective science developed by Northwest Europeans. If nothing else Benedict's cultural theorizing helps explain her own mindset, moved by her "guilt culture" to work with members of a "shame culture" - jews like her mentor Franz Boas, her colleague Gene Weltfish and a swarm of other social science activists who were more or less openly obsessed with advancing the interests of their own tribe.
In order to prevail these cultural anthropologists literally made up stories and falsified data. They shamelessly leveraged tribalist networking, using their power and authority to advance pseudo-science while denouncing, shunning, defunding and otherwise tearing down their opponents. What's more, they never expressed the slightest twinge of shame or guilt about it. They were far too busy feeling morally righteous about themselves and their cause.
The "behavioral package" of jews is adapted to parasitism. They do not empathize with their hosts. They will use shame, guilt, or any other mechanism they can in order to marginalize their enemies and hijack or hoodwink others into serving their interests. In contrast to Whites, who actually do feel guilt and shame each other mercilessly over "racism", jews feel guilt and shame each other for not being obsessed enough about what's best for the jews.
Frost argues that Northwestern European "guilt culture" predates Christianity. hbd* chick argues the origins are more recent, a consequence of the avoidance of cousin marriage. I'm intrigued by the subject and recognize some truth in both arguments. What leaves me vaguely annoyed is the calm Northwestern European detachment with which they discuss the subject. The "guilt culture" is only one facet of White pathology, the more general attribute of which is the absurd pretense that everybody is, or with enough effort on our part can become, "us". The affliction isn't unique to either Northwestern Europeans or Christians. It also, frankly, doesn't seem to be either shame or guilt which keeps Whites who are so intelligent and knowledgeable about history and science and conscious of Northwestern European distinctiveness from taking more notice of the jew elephant in the room.
The more I think about it, the more I think that the main mechanism lies even deeper in the psyche, below guilt and shame. In pain. In the fear of pain. In the fear of even mentioning those things we suspect might cause us pain. Here too I can see the interplay of evil thoughts and breeding. The dysgenic consequence of two centuries of fratricidal revolution and war selecting out Europe's most fearless and noble. The sterile fruit of parasite-fomented, parasite-serving materialism and "enlightenment".