Orange man bad, Yellow man… good?

Universal Basic Income, Chinese social credit and the coming National Socialist ethnostates. Where’s the intersection here?

With every Tom, Dick and Andrew talking about Universal Basic Income (UBI) it must always be mentioned that you don’t get something for nothing, especially from a state. A thousand dollars a month could definitely help many people, but at what cost?

China has recently introduced the idea of social credit, where citizens are given ‘points’ based on the amount of positive things they say about the state. Points can also be lost, not just for saying negative things but also for saying nothing. Points lost can mean less access to work, or state benefits, it can mean prison in the worst cases. And all of this is enforced with cameras and audio devices everywhere monitoring and recording the words and behaviours of the citizens in that glorious Communist utopia. One is being trained to say nice things about ones country or state to the point that not saying anything is seen as a bad thing. One must interact with the official policies of the nation or become an outcast, or a prisoner, where probably even more persuasive methods will be used to enforce conformity to the ideal.

National Socialism and Bolshevism are often criticised (incorrectly in the case of National Socialism) for having forced citizens to adhere to its states in similar ways. But the pre-war socialists could have only dreamed of the power China currently holds over it’s people.

In general, National Socialists were loyal to their state because it offered them so much, and because it had returned to them much of what had been lost in the years prior to National Socialism. Loyalty to the state was built on mutual love, not one way antagonism.

As power inevitably shifts from the West to the East those who are ready to embrace National Socialism will inherit the countries of our people once again. Despite the initial reticence of many in the West, some great things can be said of China. They do not embrace globohomo, nor doctrinous religion and most importantly they do not have a private central bank, and they understand the reality of race. China will want the West to become the West again, not necessarily the power the west once held, but at least the people and their unique mindset will not be disrespected. They at least, in no way like our current leaders, recognise our inherent strengths as Europeans, and so they recognise our innovative skills needed to create the things that they manufacture for the world. China aknowledges the racial reality of our countries, and when their power and influence increases to the point that they are able to return what is rightfully ours back to us – and remove the hobbling blocks of Political Correctness, Progressive Liberalism and Cultural Marxism – they will have unquestionable loyalty from the people.

Shitlibs, traitors, lefties, anti-fascists – the whole gamut of globohomo conformist people currently responsible for the destruction of the West have no loyalty to their countries, so will not receive UBI, which will be doled out based, as in China, on ones loyalty to the state, not to ones loyalty to an idea, such as Communism. China, unlike our own countries, does not wish to destroy us, or impose upon us fickle mental retardants but merely to use our ingenuity and inventive nature, which they understand comes from our people and not simply ideas or doctines. Their outline for our states will be what is best to achieve their aims, and they are definitely intelligent enough to see that the greatest – and most natural system for Aryan achievement and loyalty is National Socialism.

Right-Wing Enlightenment

The accusations thrown at those who lean Right politically are usually that they are ignorant, ill-informed, primative and the like, in contrast to the apparently enlightened stance of the modern progressive. For this to be true one of two positions must be held by liberals.

The first is the belief that being Right-wing is somehow unintelligent. If we are to accept what the liberal says on face value, then they have only come to their position through education, implying that they too were once an unintelligent, racist, bigot. Of course, this also implies that the Right-wing position is in fact the natural position we are all born with, and only through education does one learn to not be Right-wing. This supports our belief that we are all born with preferences, born unequal etc, and therefore there is actually nothing wrong with being that way. If the liberal was to admit he may have previously held contrary beliefs he would then also have to show some compassion for his fellow men and women, rather than the scorn and violence he does now, otherwise, he has learnt nothing.

The other position they may hold is that we are all born completely equal, devoid of any preconditioned responses, and so therefore liberal. But they must then question that if everyone is born like them, if everybody starts out equal, if there are no genders, if racism is a learned behaviour then it is they who are uneducated, for they didnt reach their position through studying the facts in front of them, they have always just been a blissfully ignorant social animal, a progessive liberal, free of the sin of prejudice, but also bereft of any ability to think beyond their basic programme. In this case, it is those on the Right who are the educated ones, who have broken free from the thoughtless prison of the base human reactive mind.

For reasons too numerous to list here, I believe that we are born with the political views we hold, that is, the political system of Left versus Right is a product and expression, or externalisation of the human mind. Through social subversion we have been persueded, or coerced into acting against our best interests. With the removal of the social control mechanisms we would find that the majority of Europeans had a similar worldview, which is that nationalism and conservation of ones race is our default mindset, and our acceptance of this nature the enlightened mindset.

Sure, some Europeans are born liberal, but in the past these low numbers were outcasts, or quietly removed themselves. Over time, through continued patriotic wars the most vocal (and Right-wing) of our people were taken out of society until it was possible for a small group of naturally Left-thinking people to gain enough influence socially to shift political thought, and more importantly, direct our education (to divert our natural tendencies).

Fear not, as current generations are now bringing the pendulum back towards the Right, in large part thanks to the internet breaking the monopoly on education and information that had been put in place. Time is now ticking for the Left, and in many ways the outcome is inevitable for white people. White nationalism is the only position that will lead to our next renaisance. Ignore the social program and embrace the future.

​The Race Question

The Race Question was a report put out by UNESCO in 1950 to decide once and for all whether man was one species, or many sub-species. Of course the result was a foregone conclusion, as UNESCO were dedicated to combating ‘racism’, and (((Post-war Socialism))) – preached by the remaining cowardly intelligentsia who had managed to hide from the bloody and protracted fighting of the Second World War – would put forward the idea that all differences in the races were a result of purely environmental factors, such as economics, geographical location and cultural norms.

With this big idea, they would attempt to erase any sense of belonging or heritage in the races of men, and reduce them to amnesic wanderers with no history, no borders and no national allegiances. This misguided social engineering experiment would instead lead to the very dangerous place we are in currently, where Europeans – whose wicked ‘nature’ is apparently exempt from the environmental argument of sociologists – are being blamed for every problem in the world, and no other race can take responsibility for their own actions. Corporations are exploiting this plot hole as a way to enslave us all in what is fast becoming a totalitarian Global Socialist world.

By way of supporting this argument, I’ll take a look at some of the noted authors of this report, as I think they each merit a brief mention for their own interests. The full report can be found here.

The main rapporteur, or appointed investigator, of the report was Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu. Montagu was born in London as Israel Ehrenberg, and studied at the London School of Economics, where he became one of the first students of Bronisław Malinowski, who was an influential social anthropologist.

Juan Comas was a Communist Spanish Republican exiled during the time of Franco, who wrote many titles on social anthropology. He was also a recipient of the Bronislaw Malinowski award in 1978.

Luiz de Aguiar Costa Pinto was a Brazilian sociologist who specialized in race relations in Brazil. Brazil had long held to the idea that racial integration and mixing was the way forward. Particularly in São Paulo, the dominant idea was that national workers were unable to develop the country, and that only foreign workers would be able to work in a regime of “free” (i.e., wage) labour. The goal was to “whiten” Brazil through new immigrants and through future miscegenation in which former slaves would disappear by becoming “whiter”.

Edward Franklin Frazier was an American sociologist and author. A successful graduate of the then segregated US school system, his 1932 Ph.D. dissertation was published as a book titled The Negro Family in the United States (1939); it analyzed the historical forces that influenced the development of the African-American family from the time of slavery to the mid-1930s. The book was awarded the 1940 Anisfield-Wolf Book Award for the most significant work in the field of race relations. It was among the first sociological works on blacks researched and written by a black person.

Morris Ginsberg was a British sociologist, who played a key role in the development of the discipline. A Talmudic scholar, he later found his way into the London School of Economics, working under the professor Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse. Hobhouse was a leading internationalist of his day and an early proponent of Social Liberalism.

Claude Lévi-Strauss was one of the founders of ethnology and leading theorist of structural anthropology. He was born to French Jewish parents in Brussels, and during WW1 lived in Paris with his maternal grandfather, who was the rabbi of the synagogue of Versailles. He also stayed for some time in Brazil, where he served as a visiting professor of sociology at the University of São Paulo. Later, during WW2, he moved to New York, whilst his former wife stayed to work with the French resistance.

The report was revised by Ashley Montagu following criticisms submitted by various ‘great minds’ of the day, some of whom are listed below:

Hadley Cantril, a researcher of public opinion, and the main author of The Invasion from Mars, an academic study of Orson Welles’s 1938 radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds, which caused widespread panic.

Dr. Gunnar Dahlberg, a Swedish physician, eugenist and geneticist, and one of the signatories of the ‘Eugenics Manifesto’, a manifesto published in the journal Nature in 1939, titled Social Biology and Population Improvement.

Theodosius Grygorovych Dobzhansky, a prominent Ukrainian-American geneticist, evolutionary biologist and fellow signatory of the aforementioned ‘Eugenics Manifesto’.

Julian Huxley, whose name precedes him, was the first director of UNESCO, a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund and the first President of the British Humanist Association, as well as a eugenicist, and internationalist. He was also a signatory of the ‘Eugenics Manifesto’.

Otto Klineberg, who was a Canadian psychologist. His work in the 1930s on the intelligence of white and black students in the United States and his evidence as an expert witness in Delaware were instrumental in winning the Supreme Court school segregation case Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

Herman Joseph Muller, an American geneticist and educator, who amongst other things loved the USSR and helped edit and distribute an illegal leftist student newspaper in the USA, The Spark.

Karl Gunnar Myrdal, a Swedish economist, sociologist, and politician. In 1974, he received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences with Friedrich Hayek for “their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena.” He is best known in the United States for his study of race relations, which culminated in his book An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. The study was influential in the 1954 landmark U.S. Supreme Court Decision Brown v. Board of Education. He was also presented with the Bronislaw Malinowski Award in 1975.

Curt Jacob Stern, a Jewish German, whose teaching and 1949 textbook were instrumental in re-founding human genetics on a non-racist basis.

I will leave you with the closing paragraph of the report, which reads like an SJW manifesto:

‘biological studies lend support to the ethic of universal brotherhood; for man is born with drives toward co-operation, and unless these drives are satisfied, men and nations alike fall ill. Man is born a social being who can reach his fullest development only through interaction with his fellows. The denial at any point of this social bond between man and man brings with it disintegration. In this sense, every man is his brother’s keeper. For every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main, because he is involved in mankind.’

taken from –

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Montagu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronisław_Malinowski

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Comas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luiz_de_Aguiar_Costa_Pinto

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Franklin_Frazier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Ginsberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Hobhouse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Lévi-Strauss

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_Cantril

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnar_Dahlberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_Dobzhansky

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Klineberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Joseph_Muller

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnar_Myrdal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Stern

The Skeptics and the Spirit of Gravity

For those of us on the alternative right, the stakes are high. It’s easy to be caught up in the hopelessness of the seemingly inevitable demographic collapse of Europe and North America, to bemoan the entrenched factions of globalists and progressives against whom no man can publicly stand without having his personal life destroyed. We dash ourselves against the walls of a sinking ship, raging against the dying of the light by “redpilling” new converts, protesting publicly, and all manner of other means by which we try with all our strength to reverse the fatal direction in which the West has turned.

But every once in a long while, we get a break from all that. We get a chance to clash with a group other than the ideology busily engaged in flooding our lands with third world migrants. And recently, just such an opportunity for rhetorical fencing arose in the form of the so-called “skeptic community” and their crusade against the encrouchment of race realist thought amidst their ranks.

RageAfterStorm, former skeptic

Let’s recap some recent events:

A young, attractive, female YouTube star going by the pseudonym RageAfterStorm had developed a significant following for her standard Skeptic™ content: picking the ever-present low-hanging fruit of Islam, Feminism, and general SJW mockery. Such channels have for some time been appreciated (if not particularly lauded) by Alt Right commentators as ideological gateways, stepping stones on the road to further disillusionment with the progressive frame.

And in this case, oh dear, how right they were.

After numerous blasé videos which earned her some 90,000 subscribers, Rage made a momentous decision. She uploaded a video entitled “Race is Real”. The contents were nothing new to the alt right; some basic IQ data on blacks in the US and Africa, some statements on genes related to “abstract” thought taken straight out of Rushton and Murray, and some general pro-white sentiments expressed throughout.

For us it was, in the words of Van Jones, a “nothingburger”. Encouraging, perhaps, that yet another skeptic had trod the road of hard facts all the way to rudimentary identitarianism. But nothing more than that.

For the skeptics, however, this was nothing short of earth-shattering.

A young female member of their community, who had fully ingratiated herself to them and firmly established her place amongst them, had sent a lightning bolt of heretical truth right through the beating heart of their movement. This truth, the hard reality of racial disparities in intelligence, could not be allowed to gain a foothold. Such ideas could lead to acknowledging group collective interests, shattering the radical atomized individualism that lies at the core of skeptic thought.

So, grim-faced and sure in their resolve, they donned the mantle of SJW behavior and set about the destruction of Rage’s online persona. They mass flagged her videos, leading to takedown notices and the deletion of her channel. They swarmed her social media accounts, dozens threatening to dox and kill her, leading to the deletion of those accounts as well. And of course, the coup de grâce was prominent members of the skeptic community, such as Jeff Holliday and the infamously petulant manchild Kraut and Tea publicly bashing her as a racist, bigoted, xenophobic traitor to the cause.

Cuck and Tea

This display has nauseated the Alt Right and, for the moment, drawn our attention away from the ongoing drama in the Trump administration. So let us at long last take a look at the so-called “skeptics”, what they believe, and why they ought to be opposed.

I doubt anyone could put it better than Morgoth did when he described the skeptic community as “a bunch of bullshitters who believe in nothing”; all the same however, I shall endeavor to try.

The notorious Nietzsche

In Nietzsche’s infamous magnum opus, Also sprach Zarathustra, there is outlined a concept termed the Spirit of Gravity. This is the force which governs and subdues the untermensch, which dictates to them the doctrine of self-loathing and weakness. Overcoming the Spirit is the great trial of the protagonist, and the means by which the Nietzschian ideal is illustrated.

At its core, the Alt Right is a desperate yearning for greatness in the European people, a desire to raise them out of this malaise of self-destruction and into a new chapter. In doing so we have to preserve our life against the enemies who seek to destroy us, embodied in the hordes of nonwhites given the opportunity by the modern Left. But there is another group in play here, another faction with its own role to play, and they are the true untermensch, the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut, the men for whom any attempt at self-love and self-actualization offends their sensibilities: the Skeptics™.

Carl Jung, psychologist and philosopher

The archetype of the skeptic is young, atomized, and nihilistic. He feels no connection nor sense or commonality between himself and his ancestors. He sees no reason to respect their wishes for how their descendants ought to live, or more importantly, that their descendants should live at all. He feels no love or loyalty for his race – in fact he likely holds them in contempt, for the crime of conquering and defeating other peoples, something done ironically for the sake of these very ungrateful, petulant descendants. He closes his eyes to the reality of other races’ tribal behavior, only turning to his own folk and saying “Do not defend yourselves, do not cling to your own life and land. Don’t you know that you have visited evil on the rest of the world?”

He is ruled absolutely by the Spirit of Gravity, that lowest of instincts which tells a man to lie down and die rather than face the truth. He is worthy of contempt.

Afterword: I highly recommend watching Millennial Woes discuss the ongoing debate between the skeptics and the alt right here, and reading Morgoth’s excellent analysis of the situation here. Thanks for reading my very first post, more to come!