3,137 words 
In this essay I’m going to lay out the evidence for something perhaps surprising even to nationalists, but pleasantly so. We of the Dissident Right are usually loath to fight according to the rules of engagement the Left dictates for their enemies—and then disregards for themselves; we have a visceral (and quite healthy) disgust for the tactic of trying to punch while keeping your head firmly kowtowed to the ground, a la Democrats are the real racists and other such nonsense. But in this case I do suggest that we, while giving only scorn to their antinationalist premises, fight the Left—and completely rout them—on the terrain of their choice.
For when it comes to trade and immigration, it is actually the case that protectionism and extreme immigration restriction by the white and East Asian nations actually raises the standard of living not just of those countries but of the entire world.
Seems counterintuitive, I know, but it’s completely, logically, and empirically true. How do I know? Well, let me walk you through it. To start with, we need to ask, what determines a nation’s standard of living and what makes it increase?
Part of it is natural resources, though that’s obviously not the whole story: if it were, the resource-laden nations of Africa would have much higher standards of living than Hong Kong, which is basically a desolate rock, but the polar opposite is true. And before the arrival of the colonists, America’s living standard was stubbornly stuck in the stone age, despite its having every desirable resource since time immemorial. What did the colonists bring with them that allowed the nation to make the jump from prehistoric lifestyles to ones rivaling those of the wealthiest nations (at the time) on earth in a little over two centuries? Basically, physical and intellectual capital and the desire and ability to use the latter to increase the former per capita. In other words, the more we can increase the number of machines, tools, and devices relative to our numbers—plus a little genius here and there to improve our technological techniques and achieve a multiplier effect on that accumulation—the more our standards of living are going to rise. And the opposite is true as well, i.e., increasing the population relative to the amount of capital will see a decline in those standards.
What in turn is required for capital accumulation? Well, having a good number of STEM types relative to the population and a robust savings rate; or to put it another way, you need a people with high average IQ and low time preference. And as I said, a few geniuses, whose intelligence is not always as measurable as IQ, here and there provide a good accelerant, but even without that x factor, a high IQ/low time preference population alone would be able to increase living standards, just not as quickly.
And what’s true on the national scale is no less true on the world scale. The more high IQ/low time preference humans as a percentage of the world’s population, the higher the standard of living will be for everyone, other things being equal. As I’ll show in a moment, this will happen regardless of the intentions of the white or East Asian countries.
While slight variation is seen from country to country, the average IQ of the white nations is 100, the average of the East Asian ones is 105, and both have relatively high saving rates when compared to other peoples (I’m excluding Ashkenazim Jews from the discussion despite the 112 average IQ and high savings rate because of how infinitesimally small their numbers are compared to the world population). So if the world population’s proportion of whites and East Asians were to increase, you’d have more STEM types and geniuses—whites actually lead in that regard, as they have greater numbers both above and below their average intelligence level relative to East Asians—as a percent of the total, meaning a greater potential for increasing the amount of capital per capita.
When looking toward the future, consider the above in light of this graphic I put together showing IQ vs fertility rate: read it and weep—or at least, reach for a stiff drink. (To see just how screwed the world is unless something changes, just eyeball the lines connecting a country’s ranking on the first list (fertility ranking, high to low) versus the second (IQ ranking, high to low): if the world were to be getting smarter on average or at least staying the same, most of those lines would be horizontal. The more vertical the lines, the dumber the world will be getting on average relative to now.)
The most fertile and highest IQ countries at the top of the X of (Demographic) Doom are:
And those nations’ corresponding fertility rates and IQs at the bottom of the X of (Demographic) Doom are:
As you can see, the STEM powerhouses are either declining or stagnating while the STEM deserts are exploding relative to the total.
The graph might be labeled the confluence of globalization and biology. Long story short, as the US, Europe and its former colonies, and to a lesser extent Japan began outsourcing manufacturing to the lower income countries, the real incomes of the working and middle classes either declined or slowed relative to their potential, while the real incomes of the nations outsourced to went through the roof—as did their population numbers in most cases. As the graph makes clear, the once-poor high IQ nations South Korea and China put their newfound wealth into increased capital and let their birthrates decline, while the low IQ nations put theirs into funding a population boom, as seen in this graph of the world’s most populous countries.
Once below the population of Germany (with an average IQ of 100), both Indonesia (average IQ of 80) and Nigeria (average IQ of 68) have left Deutschland in the demographic dust using the wealth born of the West’s capital export (and in Africa’s case, with Western aid and charity as well).
Let me quickly show you the mechanics of the betrayal of the Western working and middle classes by the globalists and how the damage done not only to them but to the country and indeed world, is even worse than it first appears. To sum up the way the initial and most obvious damage, that is, to the First World’s middle and working classes, plays out, we simply use what you might term the globalization of Say’s Law: just as Say’s Law says that the production of product A creates a demand for product B (so, a cobbler’s shoes produced and sold create the demand for the various goods he buys with his income), my version states that companies will offshore production until the decline of real incomes from diminished production in the once-wealthier nations meets with the rise of real incomes from increasing production in the once-poorer nations, ending any profits to be had from offshoring further. Let’s look at it from the standpoint of an individual company, with this graphic showing its total costs and total sales which—subtracting the former from the latter—determine profit: the left part represents the plan to produce it in America, the right the plan to do so via offshoring—and as you can see, the right has a greatly enlarged profit margin, hence, why companies initially rush to offshore.
Of course, for that differential to work, the company needs its US buyers to have the same real income. The reason the company loves those third worlders as workers is the same reason it hates them as customers: unless we’re talking about food and maybe something like a cell phone, there’s no way the man who puts in an entire day to earn what an American worker would make in an hour is going to buy the company’s product for the same price. But as offshoring continues apace and throws more and more American workers out of their manufacturing jobs and into wage competition with other US workers, both real and nominal incomes decline and those workers’ inability to buy the offshoring companies’ products reduces its sales and hence their profit margins from above at the same time that rising real wages of the third world workers begin to reduce those profits from below. This will keep going until it seems as if the two economies fuse and all things interchangeable, including labor and incomes, are mixed and evened out, to the great detriment of the West’s middle and working classes.
For a quick look at the macro effects of this, consider this brief tale of two economies.
List of characteristics:
Country A:
Total population: 120,000 (100,000 working; 20,000 nonworking)
Total incomes: 100,000,000.00
Workers:
20,000 STEM-types (they earn collectively, 30,000,000.00)
30,000 semiskilled-types (they earn collectively 30,000,000.00)
50,000 unskilled (they earn collectively 40,000,000.00)
Country B:
Total population: 120, 000 (100,000 working; 20,000 nonworking)
Total incomes: 10,000,000.00
Workers:
100,000 unskilled (they earn collectively 10,000,000.00)
Country A-B fused economy:
Total population: 240,000 (200,000 working; 40,000 nonworking)
Total incomes: 110,000,000.00
Workers:
20,000 STEM-types (they earn collectively, 30,000,000.00)
30,000 semiskilled-types (they earn collectively 30,000,000.00)
150,000 unskilled (they earn collectively 50,000,000.00)
Prefusion per capita earnings:
Country A:
STEM-type: $1,500.00
Semiskilled: $1,500.00
Unskilled: $800.00
Postfusion per capita earnings:
Country A:
STEM-type: $1,500.00
Semiskilled: $1,500.00
Unskilled: $333.33
As you can see, Country A is something like a Western nation, with a good percentage of the workforce made up of capital-creating-and-maintaining STEM-types, along with many semiskilled workers and unskilled workers earning pretty decent wages—largely as a result of the capital accumulation and maintenance that the STEM-type and semiskilled workers allow. Country B, on the other hand, is something like an impoverished African nation with virtually no capital and no STEM-type or even semiskilled workers (think something along the lines of The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s natural resources grown and harvested via primitive techniques by a population resembling Sierra Leone’s with its average IQ of 52). Abundant natural resources alone allow Country B to earn one-tenth the national income of Country A, and when they “fuse,” only the interchangeable unskilled workers of both nations are affected income-wise, with Country A’s STEM-type and semiskilled workers doing just as well, as there are no Country B workers who can compete with them for wages. What happens is essentially that manufacturing facilities in Country A shut down and ship out along with their STEM-type and semiskilled workforces (who will be getting a bit more in pay to compensate for the relocation, etc., but I’m painting with a broad brush here, and the pay of all of Country A STEM-type and semiskilled workers would not go up by that much from this) to Country B to utilize its unskilled dirt-cheap workforce; and in the process all those Country A unskilled workers laid off in manufacturing move into whatever job niches they can find, lowering the wages of unskilled workers in Country A overall.
Though the details would be far more complex in real life, this is, broadly speaking, what happens in globalization and free trade (and unchecked immigration produces a similar effect with the additional burdens of rising crime, diminishing social capital, etc., within the wealthier higher-IQ countries). So in the case of its fusion with a country such as India with its low average IQ overall (77) but its vast reserves of high-IQ Brahmin types thanks to its overall massive population, even Western STEM-types would begin to feel the pressure, with the only overall winners at least from the perspective of Country A being the globalist oligarchs financing the whole thing. So basically, while offshoring seems like a sweet deal to those who take advantage of its initial effects, in the end, the only possible true winners are those of the poorer, lower-IQ nations—and even for them it’s a Pyrrhic victory in the long run.
To see why even the third world’s victory is somewhat Pyrrhic, we need to analyze why globalism’s damage is even more pernicious than you’d think, for two reasons. First, for what you might call the overqualified worker effect. Let me illustrate it with a graph[1] and a personal story. First, the graph, which is from Robert M. Hauser of The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Center for Demography and Ecology:
As it shows, there’s a pretty wide IQ range within the various fields, with some of the high-end workers in stereotypically middling- and even low-IQ professions having a number higher than the low end of the high-IQ professions—yeah, it even shocked me to see some in the janitorial line of work come out ahead of the dimmer STEM-types, but I guess that’s life, as my personal story illustrates (in a slightly less extreme way). In the early 1900s, my mother’s grandfather emigrated from Germany to the US and settled in Nebraska as a farmer. He had eight kids and took on seasonal help from other German immigrants. When the dust bowl came, he left Nebraska for Ohio where he worked in a factory doing what was de facto engineering work: constructing dies, repairing and calibrating equipment, often doing the math required mentally or just with paper and pencil. Some of his German hired help was that smart as well. So for various reasons, including circumstances, temperament, etc., there are many with STEM-level IQs (119 on average according to a 2009 article by Jonathan Wai et al [2]) who remain in fields for which they are overqualified. While they might not directly contribute to the pool of STEM workers, their earning enough to raise large families—a thing made impossible when mass immigration pits them against low-IQ, low-wage workers who are just barely qualified for their jobs—helps ensure enough at least potential STEM types in the next generation.
Also, consider this. Per conventional genetics, when you have a population of the same type of organism in which a trait is highly prevalent but not necessarily present in each individual, it’s far more likely for members of that group that don’t themselves show the trait to produce offspring that do than would be the case with the don’t-show-the-trait members of a population in which the trait occurs but is very rare. To put it in human terms, if white or East Asian working-class couples with 90 IQs are earning real incomes that allow them to have four kids each, its far more likely that they’ll produce at least one of STEM-level IQ (which is about 119 on average) than a Hispanic or Black couple with IQs of 90. And as the middle and working classes tend to have more kids than the high-average-IQ upper classes, this provides an extra support for keeping STEM numbers up.
For both of those reasons, those who wish to maintain a modern economy and the standard of living it allows MUST stop forcing the lower and middle classes of heritage Americans into cutthroat wage competition with workers from low-IQ nations who meet just the minimum qualifications for their positions.
How do we stop this process of globalist-induced world immiserization? By having the West embrace true economic nationalism: put an immediate cap on all third-world immigration, including all H-1 types (a true nationalist ought to wish them to stay and help grow the wealth of their own nations); close the border and actually deport the illegals; stop making our smartest and most productive citizens pay for the dimmest and least productive to breed; and end the tax incentives that reward offshoring and replace them with what I like to call veraprotectionism (or true protectionism) consisting of equalization tariffs tied to the difference in costs of labor and environmental regulations between the US and other nations.
That last part’s especially important. We need true economic nationalism, not crony capitalism: let the pols set the individual rates by industry or some such scheme and you’ll turn the whole thing into a vast, seething caldron of corruption and waste; set it for all countries based on the different average costs of labor etc., and then sit back and let consumers decide which products are best for their costs—without having to worry that choosing the foreign made will impoverish unseen workers in some part of the nation.
This while you do help the workers of other nations—but only after you’ve helped your own, in the same way that your main duty is to your family: this being the essence of genuine nationalism, which sees true nations as families, united by blood, culture, and law, writ large. See, because all that capital requires complimentary factors in order to use it, including labor, at some point the high-capital-production country reaches a saturation level where it can’t utilize its capital in domestic production, the tariffs having no way to and no intention of stopping this. At that point two things happen: 1) there develops a very strong incentive to push for more extensive automation and better capital that can do more with the same amount of labor, and 2) you get a spillover effect whereby capital begins to flow to the third-world nations whose own standards of living then rise even faster. I say even faster as the increasing efficiency of white/East Asian capital and consumer goods enriches the rest of the world as well: either by the obsolete-to-us-but-not-to-them equipment they get or by the increasingly advanced and low-cost goods that we make (how many rural Africans had a phone in the land-line era vs now when there are inexpensive cell phones that use satellites?). And as I’ve said, all that capital accumulation and technological advancement depend entirely on keeping the number of high IQ/low time preference and genius individuals high relative to the overall population, be it on the national or world scale, a condition the Great Replacement is uniquely designed to undo.
Hence, ironically, in battle between true nationalists and globalists it is we, we who merely seek to defend our peoples and nation, who are unintentionally fighting to increase the wealth of all nations while those opposing us, nominally in the name of humanity as a whole, are fighting for its impoverishment. Although we ought never to apologize for looking out for our own peoples and nations first, I hope that after today we can feel confident that, even if we lack the smug arrogance to do so, we would be wholly justified in demanding that those claim to oppose us out of love for the world’s teaming masses thank us for our efforts.
Notes
[1] 1. Rodrigo de la Jara, “Modern IQ Ranges for Various Occupations,” IQ Comparison Site, accessed March 22, 2024, https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx. This graph was adapted from Figure 12 of Hauser, Robert M. 2002. “Meritocracy, cognitive ability, and the sources of occupational success.” CDE Working Paper 98-07 (rev). Center for Demography and Ecology, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. The figure is labelled “Wisconsin Men’s Henmon-Nelson IQ Distributions for 1992-94 Occupation Groups with 30 Cases or More” and is found at http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/98-07.pdf.
[2] Jonathan Wai, David Lubinski, and Camilla P. Benbow, “(Pdf) Spatial Ability for STEM Domains: Aligning over 50 Years …,” ResearchGate, November 2009, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228627975_Spatial_Ability_for_STEM_Domains_Aligning_Over_50_Years_of_Cumulative_Psychological_Knowledge_Solidifies_Its_Importance.
22 comments
The open borders people never address the harm to the country an emigrant originates from. It takes some initiative to make the trek. These people show an ambition if not just a slightly higher IQ than their average countrymen they leave behind. Their nation needs them.
Open borders policies should be opposed as human resource strip mining of former colonized nations. It might pay to convince them they are still being exploited.
Trickle down economics?
Not exactly. For trickle down to work the rich would have to be denied the mechanisms that allow them to increase their share of the economic pie without increasing its size. As long as they have the Fed’s ability to create money out of thin air and steal from the rest of us (and can get away with their other immoral tricks) it doesn’t work as it backers say. My argument, rather relies on the simple–but unquestionably true–formula: higher average IQs = more capital per capita = greater national wealth per capita. The more the dimmer nations can keep of the right side of their bell curves, the better off they’ll be.
Why don’t you capitalize White? You capitalize East Asian. Given that the entirety of European peoples are the sole peoples on earth who are white, and given that the entirety of our people are targeted for territorial, representative, professional and cultural dispossession and targets of cultural and racial genocide by people who define us as white and characterized as having, whiteness, shouldn’t we, capitalize our skin color as a description of our people and race? We capitalize Asian, as a race even though there are dozens of countries, races and ethnicities across all of Asia. Why don’t we show ourselves the same respect? If you are going to refer to Chinese, Indians, Hmongs, Vietnamese … … as Asian with a capital why don’t you refer to all Europids synonymously as White with a capital W?
This is a great start on engaging on the economic argument battlefield. I bet there are quantifiable areas you can cover next. The cost of dismantling White legal systems and replacing them with far higher corruption. The cost of dispossessing non-White countries of their cognitive elites and their high-work ethic people’s constructive energy. The cost of demoralizing and degrading White people through all aspects of their dispossession: property/territory; legal/moral frameworks; beauty standards; hope for a future and prospects for survival; genocidal hostility from states favoring outsiders and others … … …
I think this would be good to share with Elon Musk.
As far as White vs white, I just prefer to stick to the traditional form from before that Black time of the recent Floyd-catalyzed lunacy. As far as the potential to do more essays like this, this one is just the start. I plan to do several more showing the defense of white nationalism from the standpoint of both national stability and longevity (the micro, which add up to macro, of why nations always outlast empires) and long-term economic performance, which together add up to national power–which in THEORY even the amoral deep state legions would care about, though the Jewish elements among them will still push for a weakening of their host society, the ultimate consequences be damned. Many essays will give more quantitative evidence than is common on our side, which I feels suffers slightly from an overemphasis on culture alone–just my guess, but I think it’s from a combination of it being severely neglected prior to us and our associating rigorous economic analysis with the color-blind Mises-type libertarians (who are partly or fully right about many aspects of econ, such as how fractional reserve banking leads to business cycles)–to the neglect of econ. My series is an attempt to shore up our side’s position on utiltarian and econ grounds (given how our position on cultural and ethical grounds is so strong already).
My next piece will show why it is absolutely essential, even for purely economic (long-run) reasons, to prevent the replacement of the white working class.
Thanks for reading, Arminius, Good work in Teutoburg Forest, by the way!
Leaving it lower case plays into the idea that the only thing different between us is skin colour, which is false. We are referring to a distinct race of beings. The habit may have originated with leftists, but I think it works to our advantage as it forces Whites to identify themselves. It also gives us dignity. The European diaspora is spread globally, and for better or for worse, we are known as White people. Since it is now our name, we should start capitalising it. It’s our language anyway; if we need to adjust a rule to respond to a new need, then we should.
I agree with Wifewaffen, capitalize White.
And for any timid writers, without having to be racially, politically, or religiously savvy whatsoever, the standard rule, since at least the 1980s, in writing guidebooks was– what you do for one people group or language, you do for another.
It was “blacks & whites” for a long time, but now we have Blacks, so to coordinate we also have Whites (& laughably, ‘Browns’ which is really disliked by everyone who is brownish Indians, Latinos, etc. ) How long until we see “Yellow” (Oriental) supremacy in print?Interestingly, The Washington ComPost even capitalizes White, because it is a parallel to Black.
Side question: Do the charts in this article appear blurry to others besides me? (Or could my eyes, glasses, laptop screen, be at fault?)
Right on. I appreciate the explanation. But, you still capitalized Black. If you are going to refute the AFE (After Floyd Era), then you should lowercase all racial/skin color references.
I will counter you on this. We are always losing because we engage on their terms when we shouldn’t and we disengage when we should engage on their terms but win. I think we sometimes outsmart ourselves and sometimes we just lack confidence.
Leaving the psychology behind, I think we should engage on their terms. We should embrace being White and we should capitalize it. They are very clear on the terms of engagement – race. We didn’t choose it. They did. We should be confident and embrace it and we should do it by being White. The capitalization of all skin/races but ours is another form of iconoclasm in the cultural genocide. Capitalizing White is akin to raising and protecting our statues and raising and defending our flag.
I go farther. I capitalize White and and don’t capitalize any other group as I write on my soil in my homeland. We are to be elevated and respected on Our soil above all others. It is the position of primacy or it isn’t our land. Similarly, to keep things clear, I don’t say African Americans, I say blacks in America. It makes clear what they are saying and how they are behaving.
I appreciate the respectful dialog.
Normally I capitalize all races, not just geographically-named ones. That makes sense, given that races are groupings of related nations. The times that I don’t do so are because I’m adhering to the style guide. I try not to be a big pain in the neck for the editor.
Since the death of St. George of The Holy Overdose and the new rules with only White left un-capitalized, I always capitalize White(s) and never capitalize black(s). Given the advanced stage of the cultural genocide, it is one little thing that we can do to be provocative and spiteful. It seems petty, but I think rousing our people to defiance is not petty. Any act no matter how small may impart a healthier disposition in our people and reinforce in the already healthy that they are not alone. I also describe all of the other nations as x in America e.g. blacks in America; SouthAmerIndians in America (never “Hispanic”); Subcontinentals in America … …
The point being we are Americans and it is Our country. Everyone else is just in America. As The Regime has advanced the great replacement, largely to demolish the nation state, this language only becomes more accurate in its description. Language is important and I think we should be introducing succinct and accurate descriptions of who is who all across the homelands of European man.
I picked up on Yockey’s habit up lowercasing the names of people one has total contempt for which I’ve expanded on to include collectives. I always capitalize W for Whites, never for blacks, muslims, or jews. They absolutely notice the difference and take it personally as intended. These grammatical jabs Mr. Marinetti would’ve approved of Futurism demolishing restrictive rules expected to be obeyed by the masses just cause. Philosophizing with hammers against walls. I hope you don’t mind me stealing ‘holobunga’ for my own amusement though I can’t think it without hearing Michaelangelo say ‘cowabunga, shredhead!’
I prefer to stay consistent and let the others look petty, like that Space Lizard at Associated Press who started the trend. If I want to be unpleasant to our enemies, I have quite a few things I can call them!
As for “Holobunga”, I can’t claim credit, since this comes from some caveman memes.
‘We of the Dissident Right are usually loath to fight according to the rules of engagement the Left dictates for their enemies—and then disregards for themselves’. Great piece and great early point. The Left shifted the battlefield to language and its rules of engagement – and we are losing! We are supposed to be better at that stuff.
Thanks, Mark. So much of the problem is that the DR (currently) lacks institutional control, which give ideas (good, bad, or just insane) teeth. I just sent Dr. MacDonald an essay on that. If he approves it it should be up soon. Take a look if you want. I enjoyed your recent TOO essay, Immigration as Provocation, by the way. Sometimes I think they intentionally do petty and gratuitous provocations for the same reason a Komodo dragon hisses at a dying water buffalo: to test whether its prey still has some lethal kick left in it before it truly begins to feast on it.
We of the Dissident Right are usually loath to fight according to the rules of engagement the Left dictates for their enemies…
—
“We”? Why not we pro-Whites? Why fight at all with those enemies of our unique, noble race who identify themselves as Leftists? Our message should only be for our own people.
Today the terms “left wing” and “right wing” are used as symbolic labels for liberals and conservatives, but they were originally coined in reference to the physical seating arrangements of politicians during the French Revolution… The divisions only continued during the 1790s, when newspapers began making reference to the progressive “left” and traditionalist “right” of the French assembly. The distinctions later vanished for several years during the reign of Napoleon Bonaparte… Source: History.com
Isn’t it about time White racial nationalists drop the silly left-wing (liberal) vs. right-wing (conservative) nonsense. Are right-wingers for conserving the White race? Hardly.
—
ArminiusMaximus: December 31, 2024 Why don’t you capitalize White? You capitalize East Asian. Given that the entirety of European peoples are the sole peoples on earth who are white [sic], and given that the entirety of our people are targeted for territorial, representative, professional and cultural dispossession and targets of cultural and racial genocide by people who define us as white [sic] and characterized as having, whiteness [sic], shouldn’t we, capitalize our skin color as a description of our people and race?
—
Good questions, Arminius. We should capitalize the word White when referring to our race and do so consistently.
Wifewaffen: January 1, 2025 [Capitalizing White] gives us dignity. The European diaspora is spread globally, and for better or for worse, we are known as White people. Since it is now our name, we should start capitalising it. It’s our language anyway; if we need to adjust a rule to respond to a new need, then we should.
—
Thank you, Wifewaffen.
—
Beau Albrecht: January 1, 2025 Normally I capitalize all races… That makes sense… The times that I don’t do so are because I’m adhering to the style guide. I try not to be a big pain in the neck for the editor.
—
Capitalizing all races does make sense, Beau, rather than trying to be cute or obedient by writing jew or black while only capitalizing White when referring to our own race.
You’d do well as a subservient “journalist,” following the Jews’ guidelines so as not to rock their respectable mainstream “industry” boat. Fuck the Jews’ guidelines. We, as Whites, make and follow our own standards, our own guidelines for our interests, not theirs, thanks. It’s easy. Write as a devoted man of your race, adding “legitimacy to our beliefs.”
AP says it will capitalize Black but not white | AP News
The AP said white people in general have much less shared history and culture, and don’t have the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color.
Protests following the death of George Floyd, which led to discussions of policing and Confederate symbols, also prompted many news organizations to examine their own practices and staffing. The Associated Press, whose Stylebook is widely influential in the industry, announced June 19 it would make Black uppercase…
“We agree that white people’s skin color plays into systemic inequalities and injustices, and we want our journalism to robustly explore these problems,” (((John Daniszewski))) [Biography: John Daniszewski | Worth a Thousand Words: The Associated Press and Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard], the AP’s vice president for standards, said in a memo to staff Monday. “But capitalizing the term white, as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs.”
Columbia Journalism Review, the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News and Chicago Tribune are among the organizations that have recently said they would capitalize Black but have not done so for white.
I was referring to the style guide of this website, and the relevant standard says to capitalize geographically-named races and not color-named races. This is not identical with the AP/MSM standard, which is to capitalize races based on Mr. Daniszewski’s opinion of them – something I’ve mocked a number of times here. In my writings elsewhere, I capitalize all races since that makes sense to me.
As for calling me a subservient journalist, that was a little much. Please note that my outspokenness here and elsewhere means that despite my years as a columnist, I don’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell getting hired on by Townhall or National Review, much less some shitlib MSM fishwrap. (That’s perfectly fine by me, since I’d prefer to play piano in a brothel than write for Buzzfeed.) That said, I certainly can’t fault you for your enthusiasm, but diplomacy is helpful too.
Beau Albrecht: January 2, 2025 I was referring to the style guide of this website…
—
I hadn’t seen C-C’s guidelines so searched for them and found this from 2010:
Commenting Guidelines:
5. Proofread your comments. I do not like to publish comments with missing capital letters, misspelled words, bad grammar, diction errors, etc. I will correct these if I think a comment is substantive enough, but I just don’t have time to fix everything that comes my way.
9. Don’t attack the white [sic] race as a whole or white [sic] racial subgroups and nations. There is a whole internet out there doing that. We intend to be a refuge.
I’m not the only C-C commenter who has pointed out violations of every guideline in #5 by know-it-all JayeRyanOD. C-C makes it easy to proofread a comment and edit to correct missing capital letters, misspelled words, bad grammar, etc., after sending. That boy is simply lazy, stupid or both, or just refuses to go along with reasonable guidelines.
It has been 15 years since Greg established C-C’s guidelines, but perhaps the time has come for capitalizing the word White when referring to our race. Like wise Wifewaffen wrote a couple of days ago, “it gives us dignity” and “It’s our language anyway; if we need to adjust a rule to respond to a new need, then we should.”
—
As for calling me a subservient journalist, that was a little much… That said, I certainly can’t fault you for your enthusiasm, but diplomacy is helpful too.
You’ve got me there, Beau. Diplomacy is not my strong suit. I apologize since I wrongly assumed the style guide you followed was AP’s anti-White one. Hopefully, at least some at C-C have considered dignifying our race by capitalizing White when referring to our people. It is our language, after all.
While searching for C-C guidelines I also found this from 2016: Dealing with Doxers
Any movement person who doxes another movement person must suffer the social equivalent of a death sentence: they must be completely shunned. They must be expelled from all movement organizations, barred from all movement gatherings, and blocked on all social media.
Their friends must be forced to choose sides. It is no deterrent if doxers are shunned by strangers. They must be disavowed and shunned by their friends. And if their friends stick with them, they must be shunned in the same way.
It’s one thing to say that, another to enforce it.
Wouldn’t it be nice if one could actually dictate such a wise policy across the greater “movement”? We cannot. Defamation standards in the U.S. are rigorous and difficult to meet, especially against so-called publishers, that Harold Covington claimed he was. Libels online are considered gossip, not enforceable at all in court, neither, certainly, is internet doxing.
Example: I would stay at my mother’s house, the home I grew up in, when I was in Raleigh. “Big Lie” Covington, who resided in Raleigh at the time (1995), using his given name instead of one of his many sock puppet names, posted my mother’s street address to several WN and Skinhead Usenet groups, telling them that I needed to be “terminated with extreme prejudice” — a clever way to say murdered,
I could do nothing about that because Usenet, which was an early social medium, was just so much internet bullshit. But when he wrote explicitly in his pissy “Resistance” newsletter that I was a “deep cover FBI Special Agent and mass murderer Tim McVeigh’s handler,” and snail mailed that to third parties with intent to cause me harm, knowing that was a deliberate libel, that was actionable. I showed that to my old Raleigh friend who happened to be Chief Superior Court Judge for Wake County at the time. I showed him Covington’s newsletter as well as his Usenet nonsense, telling him that if I could not get legal relief from the asshole that I was giving notice that I would kill him myself — what I called a justifiable homicide. He believed me and said, “Do not kill him, Will. I’ll take care of this.” I had already consulted with a few attorney friends who would not help me with such a case even though it was cut and dry, rock solid.
A couple of days later an attorney called and represented me pro bono in the successful defamation case Williams v. Covington. I had Dr. Pierce’s blessing if I could retain an attorney, serve the SOB, then prevail. I assured I could meet all three conditions. He paid for the man who served HAC,
It was the Usenet crap, doxing my mother, more so than the outrageous libels in Covington’s newsletter that convinced the judge to help me. My exceptional attorney was a legal bulldog and had to suffer being called the “Nazi lawyer” around the Wake County courthouse for representing me. He did not care. Covington needed to be reeled in by the court.
What disappointed me was that once I proved conclusively that Covington was an enemy of our cause, he wasn’t “completely shunned’ much less did he “suffer the social equivalent of a death sentence.” His fans were not “forced to choose sides (between what’s right and what’s wrong),” and his friends, the handful that he may have had, certainly did not disavow him, except for maybe Pastor Martin Lindstadt to his credit. Fans of his fiction cared not a whit for the proven sabotage he had wrought against our noble cause for decades.
Lesson learned for C-C fans of his fiction: character counts.
Beau Albrecht: January 2, 2025 I was referring to the style guide of this website…
—
I hadn’t seen C-C’s guidelines so searched for them and found this from 2010:
Commenting Guidelines:
5. Proofread your comments. I do not like to publish comments with missing capital letters, misspelled words, bad grammar, diction errors, etc. I will correct these if I think a comment is substantive enough, but I just don’t have time to fix everything that comes my way.
9. Don’t attack the white [sic] race as a whole or white [sic] racial subgroups and nations. There is a whole internet out there doing that. We intend to be a refuge.
I’m not the only C-C commenter who has pointed out violations of every guideline in #5 by know-it-all JayeRyanOD. C-C makes it easy to proofread a comment and edit to correct missing capital letters, misspelled words, bad grammar, etc., after sending. That boy is simply lazy, stupid or both, or just refuses to go along with reasonable guidelines.
It has been 15 years since Greg established C-C’s guidelines, but perhaps the time has come for capitalizing the word White when referring to our race. Like wise Wifewaffen wrote a couple of days ago, “it gives us dignity” and “It’s our language anyway; if we need to adjust a rule to respond to a new need, then we should.”
—
As for calling me a subservient journalist, that was a little much… That said, I certainly can’t fault you for your enthusiasm, but diplomacy is helpful too.
—
You’ve got me there, Beau. Diplomacy is not my strong suit. I apologize since I wrongly assumed the style guide you followed was AP’s anti-White one. Hopefully, at least some at C-C have considered dignifying our race by capitalizing White when referring to our people. It is our language, after all
While searching for C-C guidelines I also found this from 2016: Dealing with Doxers
Any movement person who doxes another movement person must suffer the social equivalent of a death sentence: they must be completely shunned. They must be expelled from all movement organizations, barred from all movement gatherings, and blocked on all social media.
Their friends must be forced to choose sides. It is no deterrent if doxers are shunned by strangers. They must be disavowed and shunned by their friends. And if their friends stick with them, they must be shunned in the same way.
It’s one thing to say that, another to enforce it.
Wouldn’t it be nice if one could actually dictate such a wise policy across the greater “movement”? We cannot. Defamation standards in the U.S. are rigorous and difficult to meet, especially against so-called publishers, that Harold Covington claimed he was. Libels online are considered gossip, not enforceable at all in court — neither, certainly, is internet doxing.
Example: I would often stay at my mother’s house, the home I grew up in, when I was in Raleigh. “Big Lie” Covington, who resided in Raleigh at the time (1995), using his given name instead of one of his many sock puppet names, posted my mother’s street address to several WN and Skinhead Usenet groups, telling them that I needed to be “terminated with extreme prejudice” — a clever way to say murdered,
I could do nothing about that because Usenet, that was an early social medium, was just so much internet bullshit. But when he wrote explicitly in his pissy “Resistance” newsletter that I was a “deep cover FBI Special Agent and mass murderer Tim McVeigh’s handler,” and snail mailed that to third parties with intent to cause me harm, knowing that was a deliberate libel, that was actionable. I showed that to my old Raleigh friend who happened to be Chief Superior Court Judge for Wake County at the time. I showed him Covington’s newsletter as well as his Usenet nonsense, telling him that if I could not get legal relief from the asshole that I was giving notice that I would kill him myself — what I called a justifiable homicide. He believed me and said, “Do not kill him, Will. I’ll take care of this.” I had already consulted with a few attorney friends who would not help me with such a case even though it was cut and dry, rock solid.
A couple of days later an attorney called and represented me pro bono in the successful defamation case Williams v. Covington. I had Dr. Pierce’s blessing if I could retain an attorney, serve the SOB, then prevail. I assured I could meet all three conditions. He paid for the man who served HAC for me.
It was the Usenet crap, doxing my mother, more so than the outrageous libels in Covington’s newsletter that convinced the judge to help me. My exceptional attorney was a legal bulldog and had to suffer being called the “Nazi lawyer” around the Wake County courthouse for representing me. He did not care. Covington needed to be reeled in by the court.
What disappointed me was that once I proved conclusively that Covington was an enemy of our cause, he wasn’t “completely shunned’ much less did he “suffer the social equivalent of a death sentence.” His fans were not “forced to choose sides (between what’s right and what’s wrong),” and his friends, the handful that he may have had, certainly did not “disavow him,” except for maybe Pastor Martin Lindstadt to his credit. Fans of his fiction cared not a whit for the proven sabotage he had wrought against our noble cause for decades.
Lesson learned for C-C fans of his fiction: character counts.
I do recall some of “Hubba Hubba” Convington’s keyboard warrior stunts back then. If memory serves, he claimed that you were “John Doe #2” in a desert tan, right? Anyway, stuff like that convinced me that Harold was a loose cannon on deck, at the very best. Those who are fighting against their own side more than their enemies are doing something wrong. I also found it telling that the people he was putting down the most were those who were the most effective.
I haven’t read any of his books, so I can’t say one way or another about his literary merits.
Beau Albrecht: January 3, 2025 Those who are fighting against their own side more than their enemies are doing something wrong. I also found it telling that the people he was putting down the most were those who were the most effective.
I haven’t read any of his books, so I can’t say one way or another about his literary merits.
You didn’t have to read his shitty novels, looking for “literary merrit,” to see that he was the enemy of our cause. As a respected columnist it’s never too late for you, when you see something like what he did, to say something. There’s a well-documented story there for our side that has barely been told.
Our side did not have the authority yet to punish an enemy such as Covington as he deserved. I resolved my issues with him legally, but movement dilletants and dabblers ignored what I exposed about him, more interested in his <cough!> literary merits. Fact!
Great article. I will be dealing with some of these issues as well..
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.