Featured Articles

The Pareto Principle In Racial Nationalist Activism

/1 Comment/in , /by

A concept of great utility for racial nationalist activism is the so-called “Pareto Principle” or the “rule of 80/20.”  Put briefly, the Pareto Principle states that 80% of effects come from only 20% of causes.  Although the specific 80:20 ratio, or an approximation of it, is often observed with various phenomena, we should not get too focused on the specific numbers.  Instead, focus on the general principle: the large majority of effects are the result of a small minority of causes, and the majority of causes result in only a small marginal increase in the effects.  The link above gives examples which illustrate the point quite well; for example, in business, one would expect to find 20% of customers being responsible for 80% of the sales.  I believe that this principle holds true for racial nationalist activism as a whole, and also holds true for specific issues within the wider scope of racialist activism.

Does most “movement” “activism” do any good?  All the blog posting and endless commenting, online debating and flamewars, ethnic fetishism, Gnostic traditionalism, esoteric nitpicking, Hitlerian hobbyism, etc. — does it actually achieve anything?  Do the majority of “activists” actually positively and productively contribute to the cause?  Or, is it more accurate to say that activist productivity is derived from the work of a minority, that the focused work of this minority produces what little progress the “movement” has, while the vast bulk of activity is irrelevant, or even counter-productive?

We have limited resources and are up against globalist elites and organized ethnics with enormous resources at their disposal.  In this mismatched battle, only high efficiency, smart tactics, thoughtful strategy, and a focused effort on productive activity can have any hope whatsoever of achieving our objectives.  It is clear, therefore, that the Pareto Principle applies to racial nationalism. A careful consideration of how to better and more efficiently apply our efforts will be all to the good.  Can we more effectively utilize our time, money, effort, and other resources to actualize our goals in the most productive manner possible? Read more

Samuel Goldman on Nathaniel Rich: “mild nepotism” or ethnic networking?

/in , /by

Jewish ethnic networking has been a theme at TOO, ranging from appointments to the Supreme Court (notoriously, Elena Kagan), admissions to elite universities, the world of art (e.g., Mark Rothko), literature (e.g., pro-Israel writers Shani Boianjiu and Risa Miller), and philosophy (e.g., Spinoza). Not to mention the intellectuals discussed in The  Culture o f  Critique.

Now comes an article by Samuel Goldman in The American Conservative “Mild Nepotism and the Illusion of Meritocracy,” the point of which is that the path of Nathaniel Rich to fame and fortune in the literary world has been greatly aided by having a “famous name and the connections that often go along with it.” Rich is the son of former New York Times columnist Frank Rich who has come to the attention of TOO several times, including for a piece of Jewish triumphalism in which, like the New York Times editorial page, he eagerly looks forward to an America with a White minority.

Goldman cites Margaret Sullivan’s comment in the Times:

It’s beginning to feel like Nathaniel Rich Month at The Times. The author’s new novel was reviewed in the Arts section on April 10, then again in the Sunday Book Review on April 14. Mr. Rich also wrote an essay for the Sunday Book Review, with many references to that novel, “Odds Against Tomorrow.” In addition, the Editors’ Choice section of the Sunday Book Review listed Mr. Rich’s novel second on its list.

Read more

The new immigration assault on White America: The hostile elite on steroids

/6 Comments/in , , , /by

In my research on the history of American immigration policy up to the watershed year of 1965, one thing that stood out was that the Jewish approach was that policy should not be tailored to meet the needs of the U.S. but to conform to the loftiest of moral principles—altruism by any other name. The testimony of  Simon H. Rifkind, who represented a very broad range of Jewish organizations in the hearings on the McCarran-Walter bill in 1951, says it all.

1. Immigration should come from all racial-ethnic groups:

We conceive of Americanism as the spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to people of different races, all religions, all nationalities. [This is an amazing statement given that the 1924 law restricting immigration and basically excluding Asians and favoring Northwest Europe was still in force.] Americanism is a tolerant way of life that was devised by men who differed from one another vastly in religion, race background, education, and lineage, and who agreed to forget all these things and ask of a new neighbor not where he comes from but only what he can do and what is his spirit toward his fellow men.

2. The total number of immigrants should be maximized within very broad economic and political constraints: “The regulation [of immigration] is the regulation of an asset, not of a liability.” Rifkind emphasized several times that unused quotas had the effect of restricting total numbers of immigrants, and he viewed this very negatively.

3. Immigrants should not be viewed as economic assets and imported only to serve the present needs of the United States:

Looking at [selective immigration] from the point of view of the United States, never from the point of view of the immigrant, I say that we should, to some extent, allow for our temporary needs, but not to make our immigration problem an employment instrumentality. I do not think that we are buying economic commodities when we allow immigrants to come in. We are admitting human beings who will found families and raise children, whose children may reach the heights—at least so we hope and pray. For a small segment of the immigrant stream I think we are entitled to say, if we happen to be short of a particular talent, “Let us go out and look for them,” if necessary, but let us not make that the all-pervading thought.

Looking at immigration from the point of view of the immigrant is, of course, an invitation for altruism. Considering the poverty of so much of the world and the lucrative benefits available to immigrants (see below), taking the view of the immigrant means dramatically ramping up immigration at a cost to the White majority. Read more

Dawkins’ Demon: The True Faith of Liberal Atheists

/3 Comments/in , /by

Men and Miracles

Here are four highly important Western thinkers. Please pick the odd one out:

1. St Thomas Aquinas (theologian).
2. Charles Darwin (biologist).
3. Stephen Jay Gould (biologist).
4. Richard Dawkins (biologist).

The odd one out is of course No. 2, Charles Darwin, because he didn’t believe in miracles. By contrast, supernatural intervention in mindless nature is central to the thinking of the other three. For example, Aquinas believed that a single conception in Palestine about two thousand years ago involved a miraculous suspension of natural law. The militant atheist Richard Dawkins scornfully rejects the miracle of the Virgin Birth. So, less scornfully, did the bio-Marxist Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002). Instead, their version of atheism mandates belief in a much bigger supernatural intervention involving billions of conceptions for thousands of years over most of the earth’s surface. By the standards of Dawkins and Gould, Christians like Aquinas are woefully lacking in metaphysical ambition.

This is because Dawkins, Gould and other liberal atheists believe in the Miracle of Human Equality: namely, that all human groups, despite their superficial physical differences, are equal in average cognitive ability – equal, in fact, on all psychological variables. In short, there is only one brain: the Human Brain. And all groups have an equal share in it. Okay, the actual physical brain of different groups varies in size and structure, but that doesn’t make any difference to brain function. Metaphysics trumps mere matter, for heaven’s sake. Or rather: not for heaven’s sake. Liberal atheists don’t believe in heaven, but they do believe that Black women are capable of the same high intellectual achievement as Chinese men. It’s true that no Black woman has ever won a Nobel Prize for Physics or made fundamental contributions to mathematics, but that’s because racism and sexism have held the soul-sisters back. How do we know that? Because the undoubted genetic differences between those two groups have no effect on the brain. That is the central dogma of Neuro-Miraculism, the super-scientific creed of liberal atheists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. Read more

The Jewish ethnic roots of Anglican Canon and left-wing media star Giles Fraser

/4 Comments/in /by

When it comes to shameless self-promotion few can hold a candle to the Church of England’s most high-profile progressive cleric, the Rev Dr Giles Fraser.

Seconds after staggering over the finishing line of the London Marathon the Anglican cleric was tweeting to the world that he had helped raise money for a theatre project in the slums of Ghana that would teach prostitutes to leave their pimps through the medium of dance role-play.

This achingly trendy cause, almost beyond parody, was par for the course for the Giles Fraser whose busy and lucrative career as Britain’s foremost left-wing media priest has made him the highest profile churchman in the country

It is hard to get away from the Rev Dr Fraser and his left-wing views in the British media these days. From his many pulpits in the Guardian, Evening Standard and ubiquitously across the BBC,  he preaches the gospel of political correctness in support of gay marriage, lesbian bishops, multiculturalism or bemoaning that some remaining London neighbourhoods are still too White.

While the scriptural content of his sermons is diluted to almost homeopathic levels, editors still love him for they know that when it comes to sticking to the narrative of of the left-liberal political consensus the Blessed Giles will always deliver. Read more

Jim Goad on “a specific minority Who Must Never Be Named Under Threat of Eternal Damnation”

/2 Comments/in , /by

Jim Goad has a noteworthy comment on TakiMag on the liberal Jews David Sirota and Tim Wise who took the opportunity presented by the Boston bombings to complain about “White privilege” while exempting themselves from any taint of Whiteness  (“Let’s Hope the Next Bomber is a Liberal Journalist“). (This was such low-hanging fruit that I couldn’t resist taking a shot myself.) Sirota’s column got a lot of attention by mainstream conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity, but of course they never mentioned that Sirota was a Jew and had therefore exempted himself from White guilt and White privilege because, after all, he is a member of minority persecuted by those evil Whites.

Goad hits all the right notes, particularly the hypocrisy of these anti-White crusaders. You have to read the whole thing, but I can’t resist quoting his comment on Tim Wise:

Wise kinda-sorta claims to be white in an apparent quest to score self-flagellation points, but not really, since he says his Jewish ancestors were only able to achieve success by slyly passing as white. So if I’m understanding him correctly, even though he insists he’s white and that white guilt is a real thing, don’t try and pin any of the bad stuff about whiteness on him, because he’s not really white. This, apparently, is how he’s able to feel justified in plotting the “destruction” of the “conservative old white people [who] have pretty much always been the bad guys” while he refers to Jews as “my people.”

Fuck me with a dreidel if that “destruction” line doesn’t sound somewhat genocidal, Uncle Tim. But what the hell do I know—I’m rendered deaf, dumb, and blind by “white privilege,” right?

Although the Boston bombings had nothing to do with whiteness, Wise immediately squirted his shopworn “white privilege” meme all over the blood and guts in Boston. Read more

Non-Jewish media owners: Hope for the future

/1 Comment/in /by

It’s clear that the biggest hurdle faced by White advocates is lack of access to the mainstream media. It’s no secret that media ownership is largely in the hands of Jews with all that that implies in terms of opposition to White interests and favoritism to Jewish causes such as Israel.

And it’s no secret that Jews are very good at using their financial power to advance their ethnic interests. One of the biggest problems for European-Americans is that wealthy non-Jews seem far more interested in funding the opera or getting their name on a building at the local university than in helping their people. A good example is the Chandler family who formerly owned the LATimes. They had no interest in the media, and the company is now controlled by Sam Zell, who is Jewish. The family remains wealthy but in general seems dedicated to finding fun and interesting ways to spend their time (one of them flies around the world to attend the opera; another is into building outsize model trains) rather than influencing the world.

However, I call attention to some glimmerings of possibility, none of which promise much in the short time, but are possibly quite important in the long term.

The NYTimes reports that the Koch brothers are interested in bidding on a group of high-profile newspapers, including The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Baltimore Sun, The Orlando Sentinel and The Hartford Courant. The Koch brothers are billionaires with a history of supporting libertarian causes (Wikipedia says that Charles is the 6th richest person in the world, with a fortune of $34 billion). Unfortunately, libertarianism as an ideology of radical individualism is a far cry from believing that it’s important to preserve the U.S. as a European culture with a European racial base. (This article unconvincingly claims the Koch brothers are anti-immigrant.)

The NYTimes article also mentions that two Jews, billionaire Eli Broad and Ronald Burkle, are also interested in bidding for the LATimes. They are well-known supporters of liberal causes and the Democratic Party, donating around $585,000 to Democrat causes in the last election cycle. Read more