Several points. Saying that you are what you do is not meant to ignore the importance of innate characteristics for EGI and civilizational identity. It is focused instead on issues of personal worth; a ranking of traits and accomplishments - I am tired of those types who believe that they were born as inherently personally superior and that they get a permanent lifetime "pass" when they lurch from one catastrophe to another.
The main point is that the affirmative action program of Der Movement has to end. I remember the days of the EAIF and when there was an online background whisper campaign against the leadership of Lou Calabro - who helped found the group (!!!) - on the basis of his "impure" ancestry. I in contrast was a supporter of Calabro. In any case, Calabro was a bastion of competence compared to the Quota Queens.
What is your argument? Where do you draw the line? You seem to harshly condemn race mixing, and mock people who try to have nuanced discussions about mixed race identity etc, but then defend including mixed race people in the movement. What then is your actual position?
Do you support race mixing and mixed race leaders in a pro-White movement? How do you define a useful pro-White movement when you seem to hate the pro-White movement because itv isn't perfect enough in your eyes.
You need to be able to sum up the answer to questions like these in a single paragraph, or you haven't really thought about it and don't really understand it yourself.
Someone shouldn't have to read through years of your blog posts, filtering out all your vitriolic hate and vulgarity, your irrelevant personal grudge match noise about Jared Taylor and HBDers, etc... and reconcile all your incoherent positions to define what your actual position is.
(Since last I knew you muted me for pointing these things out, you probably won't even see this, but at least others might.)
obviously, the implication is I disagree with the opinion that Calabro was impure, and am critiquing a "movement" that rejects Calabro but employs Jamaicans
Again, agreed. But the scare quotes don't clarify why you disagreed with the “impure” claim. Whether it was because you reject the notion “southern Europeans aren't White”, or because you don't agree that minor admixture would exclude someone. In this case it was the former.
"What is your argument? Where do you draw the line?"
Italians are White. Jamaicans, Indians, and Arabs are not. You are entitled to disagree, but I am very clear where I draw the line and it is not "incoherent."
“On September 22, 1989, Louis Calabro, a white male and a lieutenant in the San Francisco Police Department…”
I had correspondence with Lou when he was in charge of the EAIF and he was a good man and White in my book. And told such to the vermin who were going behind his back to depose him simply because Eyetalians were insufficiently "pure" by their standards.
"If you seriously believed in the Pro White cause, then you would clearly see Jared Taylor & Greg Johnson for the scammers they are."
Thank you. Someone gets it. 35 years of Amren. 15 years of Counter-Currents. Hundreds of thousands of dollars flushed down the toilet for damned nonsense accomplishing NOTHING.
I want to steer this back toward something constructive, because this keeps drifting into grievance recycling.
I understand why you’re angry at Jared Taylor and Greg Johnson. If you believe AmRen burned 35 years accomplishing little, and Counter-Currents burned 15, that frustration is at least intelligible. Critiquing effectiveness is fair game.
But that does not mean they were not pro-White, and it does not make it productive to use the WhiteDate failure as a proxy cudgel against them. That move collapses intent into efficacy and turns a concrete failure into a personal score-settling exercise.
WhiteDate failed for very specific reasons:
* catastrophic technical incompetence
* atrocious security practices
* ideological incoherence (outsourcing core infrastructure to non-Whites while claiming racial seriousness)
* lack of basic operational discipline
Those are real lessons. They deserve to be analyzed on their own terms.
Liv Heide’s motivations were not insane or malicious. She was attempting to create pro-White infrastructure for dating, family formation, and networking—goals that are entirely legitimate. The failure was not the goal; it was the execution.
A productive response would ask:
* What governance standards should any pro-White platform meet?
* What minimum security practices are non-negotiable?
* How do you protect users in a hostile environment?
* What OPSEC norms should participants follow (e.g., stripping EXIF data, compartmentalized identities, zero trust assumptions)?
* How do you align ideological consistency with operational reality?
Those are questions that actually help people avoid repeating the failure.
Using this incident primarily to mock, deride, or settle long-running personal grudges does not move the ball forward. It just ensures that the next attempt will fail for the same reasons—while everyone congratulates themselves for having been right after the fact.
If the goal is fewer catastrophes and fewer harmed Whites, then post-mortem analysis beats schadenfreude every time.
Finally, to be explicit: we agree on almost all of the underlying issues. The conflict here has not been over biology, boundaries, or goals, but over miscommunication driven by assumed shared background knowledge.
I came into this field through evolutionary biology and human population genetics, not through decades of intra-movement politics and personal disputes. I don’t carry the same implicit assumptions or tribal shorthand that you do, and neither do most people newly entering these discussions. Writing as if readers already know who “Sammy” is, or what long-running personal grievances exist, guarantees misunderstanding—and misunderstanding is not bad faith.
There is nothing unreasonable about people lacking decades of insider history, and there is nothing illegitimate about asking clarifying questions when references depend on that history. If every request for clarification is treated as hostile intent, then the result is not ideological rigor—it’s the routine alienation of people who are otherwise closely aligned.
If the goal is fewer failures and more competent advocacy, then clearer communication and constructive post-mortems will do more than attacking the very people most inclined to agree with you.
I never said that "Liv" was not sincere. But if you carefully sift through her writing, she seeems to take much pride in her tall, North German Nordic ancestry and phenotype and defines "Whiteness" through that lens. OK, you may say, fair enough if that is her opinion.
She then outsources her site and its security to India and Arabs, resulting in a catastrophic collapse.
Do I as an inferior Med need to tell Milady Ubernensch that, maybe I don't know, a pro-White site with personal user information shouldn't be using non-Whites for the webmastering and, further, not to use members of groups routinely derided in Der Movement for technical incompetence.?
Please note I am not assigning blame for the technical aspects of this scenario as I do not know the details; however, from an "optics" standpoint, it is what it is. She publicly described who she hired and the poor outcome is also public knowledge.
I also do not know what security protocols they had in place, but clearly they were insufficient. As AI says:
".. there are various tools available for testing website security against hacking attempts, such as vulnerability scanners that can identify weaknesses and potential exploits. Some popular tools include Nmap, Metasploit, and specialized website vulnerability scanners that can detect specific vulnerabilities like SQL injection and cross-site scripting."
I am skeptical that the "virtual fort" was sufficiently "fortified."
What am I supposed to say? Oh, poor, poor "Liv" who was married to a Jew, or half-Jew, who prides herself on her Germanicness but hires Indians and Arabs, and had her site publicly deleted, but not before thousands had their personal info stolen?
By all means she was a retard. Good intentioned in part, but idiotic in who she chose to work with, her bleeding heart desire to do cumbaya nonsense and "all get along" etc... usual feminine "big tent" thinking, etc.
My point is simply that I did not see the relevance of using her abject failure as a means of attacking Taylor and Johnson yet again.
It would seem to have been more productive to establish first the fact that we SHOULD be trying to figure out how to build such tools for our people. But that the way SHE did it was obviously moronic on multiple levels.
IF we were going to discuss Taylor and Johnson at all, it would be to look at the problem with people in the movement promoting ideas that might look appealing to people who are not as smart or technically savvy etc.
For example in this case you have two older guys who probably aren't familiar with IT security etc. Or who simply have a broader view of pro-White that included more of Liv's stupid ideas, and which we could fairly criticize as such. Or in the case of something like Return to the Land, which sounds good to people who don't really think about it or know the real world legal context. And so you get people setting themselves up for financial disaster and potential prison time.
I don't know how we fix that, because many people just aren't that smart. They know there's a problem and they want to see dating sites that don't promote race mixing, or business contact sites that focus on our own people, or intentional communities that Whites can live in and not have to be exposed to diversity, and so when they see someone start doing something to that end, they cheer and promote it because they see it as activism helping our people. They don't dig into it beyond that or understand what some of the real risks and consequences are.
So that's where I would start. State what the problem is so that at least people know what danger signs to look for going forward. And if possible provide guidance to that end about where we might do it better next time.
I also didn't know Liv was married to a Jew. Again, I really do not follow this stuff. I stick almost entirely to the science side of this, and what little I have learned about "the movement" came through Harold Covington and the Northwest Imperative. Not from reading AmRen or Counter Currents or whatever it is. And I'm not saying I agreed with Harold on everything, just that his tellings of the history of the movement from his perspective are all that I'm even remotely familiar with.
"Someone shouldn't have to read through years of your blog posts, filtering out all your vitriolic hate and vulgarity, your irrelevant personal grudge match noise about Jared Taylor and HBDers, etc... and reconcile all your incoherent positions to define what your actual position is."
If you don't like my "vitriolic hate and vulgarity" you can very simply ease your suffering by muting or blocking me.
I have ZERO "incoherent" positions. It is perfectly coherent. I support an Ourselves Alone Whites only approach to activism. At the same time I reject Nordicism and consider "Whites" to include all Europeans, including those from the South and East that many in the "movement" despise.
I also critique "leaders" who embrace non-Whites.
How is any of that incoherent? If you disagree on my definition of "White" that does not make my position "incoherent."
What IS actually incoherent are Nordicists who embrace Coloreds. You see, I am NOT the one employing Jamaican writers and I am NOT the one having Indians and Arabs running my websites.
On a side note, I did wonder what you hated so much about the AmRen article by Liv Heide about the mixed race people in a pro-White movement.
I thought it was a valid question, even if I disagreed with some of it.
We do need to draw a line somewhere to define what is White. That means addressing corner cases, and I prefer to do so objectively rather than based on vibes.
For example people often mention the White populations in South America, like Argentina and Uruguay.
Uruguay is around 85%+ White. However, that population has around a 10% baseline Native American admixture from the original settlers having children with native women while they were wiping out and expelling the natives.
Does this "White" population count as White?
We should be able to answer that question as objectively as possible and explain our reasoning.
I would argue that they still are, as they phenotypically are, and if they still fall within the European genetic cluster in a PCA graph, which I believe they do.
However, would I prefer no admixture? Yes. I'd be lying if I said otherwise. So then how to reconcile that value difference if and when it came to issues of who would be allowed in an ethnostate?
I think these are entirely reasonable intellectually honest questions.
You are strongly pro-White in the Salterian sense, but we have to know exactly what you mean by White.
in my writing I emphasize geneaological ancestry from Europe and clearly outline why "testing" is not accurate enough for any hard percentage. If you say "95%" what about 94.9 or 95.1? No way "testing" is accurate and precise enough for that. Here I am talking about low levels of Old World admixture. Geneaology though can be more directly assayed. If there are unknowns, yes, "testing" can be done but with flexible parameters. New Wolrd admixture is a different speces of animal. Amerindian admuxture for example is not part of Old World European ancestry (that may have low levels of Afro-Asiatic). Many people in Latin America have defined geneaological admixture at the level of grandparent or greatgrandparent. For these people, if they "test" as 25% or 12.5% Amerindian you can be confident that's real and meaningful. I myself would be hesitant about accepting that as "us".
Small numbers of such people may not be a big issue. But I'm not going to sit back as others do and just say "Argentinians" are all "White" when clearly many are admixed.
I would say then if someone can trace back their geneaological ancestry wholly to Europe- OK. If not, has to be examined on a case-by-case basis.
Realistically, how many Uruguayians are there in USA or Europe? They can decide to form their own ethnostate where they are.
I brought it up as an illustrative point. I've seen it raised from time to time in our circles when people realize just how many "White" people there actually are in South America. They suddenly realize there are countries down there with ostensibly a far higher percentage of Whites than remain in the USA for example. As though there's a time capsule of life as it was 40 or 60 years ago.
They suddenly think that's the place they need to move to, or that South America is the future of our race as the rest of the Anglo-Sphere is lost to mass migration and rapid demographic replacement.
So I dug into the studies of the actual admixture, demographic breakdowns, historical trends, etc to get a feel for the real issues there.
I'm sure it will continue to come up as such.
Also, the point about genetics is that it is actually quite accurate these days, broadly speaking.
If you have a large data set for West Eurasians and others, you can plot a specific confidence interval and objectively state whether or not someone falls inside or outside that cluster. If you then get a really borderline case, you can decide on a case by case basis by looking at the indvidual and deciding if they're phenotypically indistinguishable, have good personal qualities etc that would be a benefit to us. If they look mixed still, or have less than stellar personal traits, then pass on them.
Genealogy might be good for quick rough guessing, but that's VASTLY less reliable due to "non-paternal events", family lore, etc. That and the general deep ignorance of most Americans of their ancestry past MAYBE their own grandparents.
For example ask 100 Americans what their grandmother's maiden name is. What percentage do you think could answer it correctly?
"Surveys show many Americans struggle to name all four of their grandparents — e.g., around 47–53% of U.S. adults couldn’t name all four grandparents in some polls. "
That's not looking good for relying on genealogy to define who should or shouldn't make the cut in a White ethnostate when doing immigration policy.
DNA testing everyone would certainly have its own hurdles, but just speaking as to defining who is or isn't White, it certainly provides a far more objective and clear cut line that can be drawn without relying on vibes or the accuracy of family stories about identity.
That latter point reminds me of the pervasive family myths of descending from cherokee princesses in the US. It's by far one of the most common family myths, and Cherokee are the most common tribe mentioned. In reality less than 2% of Americans have any Native American ancestry, and the majority of people making that claim, when tested, turn out to have ZERO Native American ancestry. Such was literally the case with my wife's step-dad. He LOOKED like he could have had it, but we actually got him tested at Ancestry (one of the best) and he had none whatsoever, likely stemming from a family myth where his grandmother got pregnant and claimed some native guy raped her rather than admit to whoever the dad was. I don't remember the details, but it was something shady like that.
Anyway, the point is that genealogy is notoriously unreliable, especially the further back you go, and most Americans have very little knowledge of their own ancestry beyond their own parents, having trouble even naming their grandparents.
So if I were in control of immigration to an ethnostate, I would first simply look at people. If they look mixed, don't even bother (because it's almost always right, and even if it isn't, the appearance of it would erode trust and cohesion anyway, so just avoid it.) Then look at the remainders, and do a basic background check, those that pass that stage, then do a basic PCA check to see if they have some significant admixture that knocks them out of the European cluster.
If you get borderline cases, assess on a case by case basis.
If you can't test, then we could fall back to eyeballing and genealogy checks along with background checks, etc. But the further we move away from objectivity, the more wiggle room there is for later "gotchas" etc... Jews, mixed race people, erosion of coherent identity and trust, people mocking us for letting them in when they weren't even White, or getting in and keeping it secret and then agitating from within (again, Jews, etc)
I feel like the minute we start leaving the definition of "White" up to less rigorous factors, we end up with vibes based "looks White, acts White, is White" and Nick Fuentes being called White and the leader of modern White Nationalism, etc. (Who then, being mixed race, defines White like other Latinos do, based on identity and culture rather than race, and allowing heavy admixture, etc.)
Basically you end up with Jared Taylor, who has no problem with Jews being called White and being part of "the movement."
A DNA test and look at whether they identify as such would settle that point much more clearly. If they're genetically non-White, end of discussion. If they're genetically White but identify with a hostile foreign tribe, no point in letting in a subversive.
I think all of this is really just to say that at some point we realistically have to define what White means, and agree on it, and act on it. And I think both you and I agree that Southern Europeans are undeniably White as they are undeniably part of the European genetic cluster, and more closely related to other Europeans than even to any other Caucasians/West Eurasians, and that other groups who might be "White passing" like Georgians, Armenians, Iranians, etc... clearly fall entirely outside the European cluster and are not even close. Even Jews fall almost entirely outside it on a basic PCA cluster analysis of only the first 2 principle components, and once we move beyond that they are clearly distinguished and excluded as well, having a dinstinctly different population history.
And really that was in part to say why I didn't think it was unreasonable to have conversations similar to what Liv wrote on AmRen about the quarter Korean asking about what they did. We should think about it, understand it, and have a clear, objectively defensible response.
That's really where I'm at and where most of my thinking is. I just really don't follow Greg Johnson or even Jared Taylor because they don't think this way and have looser feelings based definitions of what it means to be White. I don't think they're anti-White, I just agree that they're not rigorous enough and aren't pushing for the hard goals.
That's where I'm at. Trying to figure out how to reconcile these hard genetic facts with a viable path toward an ethnostate. What gets us to a solution that secures the existence of our people and a future for our children? Even if some people's actions may be imperfect, are they doing more good than harm in their pro-White advocacy? Can they be persuaded to update their understanding of what "White" means, and why genetics and preservation of our actual people are important, and not just a more vague cultural identity?
Again, I don't have decades of intra-movement history and detailed memory of all these interpersonal squabbles and foibles and drama. They don't really factor into my daily thinking much if at all. So when I ask questions, it's because I do not have your tribal knowledge. I don't know all your personal shibboleths about Sammy, Der Movement, etc and all the personal baggage you have tied to those shibboleths. Sammy to me is just Jared Taylor and the basic knowledge of his White advocacy. "Der Movement" is just a reference to pro-White advocacy. There is nothing else there for me like there is for you. Your references do not convey anything further. They do not fill in a bigger picture or magically import a bunch of meta-data that alters the discourse.
NOBODY who hasn't spent the time in the trenches that you have for decades, in THOSE SPECIFIC trenches at that, is going to have any clue what you're talking about with those shibboleths.
I would be nice if you wouldn't assume they did, or act as though they should.
Find what parts you agree on, identify where you don't agree, and explain why you think your position is the better one, as it most likely is. That doesn't make the other person retarded or evil.
I'm a STEM PhD biologist (and someone who has delved into the testing realm) and I can tell you that the commercial ancestry testing is absolute horseshit, at least the supervised admixture analysis. It is inaccurate, imprecise, etc.
PCA is more promising but is widely misinterpreted:
overlap does not equal identity, although that if someone does NOT overlap that is an issue; in other words, if someone falls into a "White PCA" space they may or may not be European, but someone who falls outside is not. Some Jews have sufficient Eastern European admixture that they fall within the Southern European cluster even though the ancestry is not the same.
If people don't know rheir geneaology back 4 generations then they are idiots. I'm no asking more than that.
As regards genetics I'm more of a fan of genetic kinship. What groups is a person most similar to? Obviously if they are most similar to Iraqis of Nigerians they ain't White.
But what some people do onlune trying to parse perecentage points is idiotic. They do not understand how supervised admixture works. If you don't have sufficient parental populations you inflate admixture. If you do have such, they you just confirm what is already known about ancestry. Unsupervised is likely better but no one does it commercially.
You really are a retarded MFer. When did I defend having mixed race people in pro-White activism? The point about Calabro is precisely that he is - or was, maybe he's dead now, I don't know - not "mixed" by my standards at least. Calabro is/was a wop and was being attacked in a cowardly "stab in the back fashion" by do-nothings because he was a wop, and they wanted to remove him from leadership from a group that he himself founded.
The point is that inept Nords purity spiral against Southern and Eastern Europeans and then turn around and employ Jamaican writers and Indian and Arab webmasters.
I muted you because you are one of the dumbest idiots I've encountered on Substack and it seems that muting doesn't extend to post comments so here you are, adding a dollop of imbecility to the discussion.
If you don't like Coloreds involved in pro-White activism then address your complaints to Greg Johnson and "Liv Heide" not me.
I came into this field through evolutionary biology and human population genetics—initially through the scientific literature (Lynn, Rushton, Jensen, etc.), not through decades of movement history, factional disputes, or personal grudges. Until relatively recently, I had almost no exposure to intra-movement politics at all, and even now my knowledge of that history is limited.
Because of that, when you referenced Calabro being attacked for “impure” ancestry, I reasonably inferred mixed ancestry—not an old Nordicist vs. Southern European dispute. That context was not explained, and it is not common knowledge for newer readers. Had it been explicit, I would have agreed with you immediately.
To be clear, as you’ve now stated it, I agree with you on nearly all substantive points:
* Whites = all Europeans, including Southern and Eastern Europeans
* Nordicist purity spirals are destructive
* Italians are fully European
* Non-Whites (Jamaicans, Indians, Arabs) have no place in pro-White activism
* The movement has suffered from incompetence and hypocrisy
* Calabro was unjustly targeted despite being competent
That is not disagreement—that is alignment.
The issue was never biology or boundaries. It was ambiguity plus the assumption that readers must already know decades of internal history and drama. Asking for clarification in that situation is not bad faith or stupidity—it’s normal, especially for people entering from a scientific rather than movement background.
I’m perfectly willing to admit ignorance where it exists. What’s unfortunate is that requests for clarification are consistently treated as hostile intent rather than as what they actually are. Had this been explained rather than escalated, we would have been on the same page from the start.
“Pro-White” describes orientation and intent, not guaranteed effectiveness. You’re free to argue that certain styles of advocacy were ineffective, misguided, or strategically insufficient—but it does not follow from that that the people involved were not pro-White.
Jared Taylor and Greg Johnson have spent much of their adult lives explicitly advocating for what they understood to be White interests, often at real personal cost. Whether one thinks their approach worked is a separate evaluative question.
Disliking a strategy, or judging it unproductive in hindsight, does not magically negate intent or reclassify it as anti-White. That move collapses definition into personal preference and makes the term “pro-White” meaningless.
Critique effectiveness all you want—but don’t pretend that disagreement over tactics retroactively erases decades of explicit advocacy.
Their ideology being IQ fetishism and/or Nordicism? Seems more the former, but that also seems tied to the latter as there is in fact an IQ gradient from North to South in line with the theory of adverse environments selecting for higher IQ and different behavioral traits. A point I'd been meaning to ask your opinion on if the temperature of the discussion allowed it.
I just don't want to assume what you mean by "their ideology." (We've been over it somewhat, but there was a lot of noise in those comments about HBD, rather than clear breakdown of what they have right and what they're clearly wrong on, objectively and subjectively.)
I'm finding this endless dribbling tiresome when I have a whole history of writing on this.
Briefly, Taylor is a HBD race realist, not a kinship-based White nationalist. He loves Jews, considers East Asians superior, and attacks "White ethnics." He basically is a race-aware capitalist conservative who doesn't want unruly Blacks around.
Johnson, besides being an unpleasant person with a certain "preference," supports petty nationalist ethnonationalism and is on record of stating "biological whiteness is a dangerous concept." He has stated that Yockey is an "enemy." He employs non-Whites as well.
Neither individual supports the Pan-European WN I espouse.
There may well be a slight IQ cline in Europe. I do not believe it is as great as the HBDers claim. The idea that European nations have IQs in the 80s or low 90s I find ludicrous.
Several points. Saying that you are what you do is not meant to ignore the importance of innate characteristics for EGI and civilizational identity. It is focused instead on issues of personal worth; a ranking of traits and accomplishments - I am tired of those types who believe that they were born as inherently personally superior and that they get a permanent lifetime "pass" when they lurch from one catastrophe to another.
The main point is that the affirmative action program of Der Movement has to end. I remember the days of the EAIF and when there was an online background whisper campaign against the leadership of Lou Calabro - who helped found the group (!!!) - on the basis of his "impure" ancestry. I in contrast was a supporter of Calabro. In any case, Calabro was a bastion of competence compared to the Quota Queens.
What is your argument? Where do you draw the line? You seem to harshly condemn race mixing, and mock people who try to have nuanced discussions about mixed race identity etc, but then defend including mixed race people in the movement. What then is your actual position?
Do you support race mixing and mixed race leaders in a pro-White movement? How do you define a useful pro-White movement when you seem to hate the pro-White movement because itv isn't perfect enough in your eyes.
You need to be able to sum up the answer to questions like these in a single paragraph, or you haven't really thought about it and don't really understand it yourself.
Someone shouldn't have to read through years of your blog posts, filtering out all your vitriolic hate and vulgarity, your irrelevant personal grudge match noise about Jared Taylor and HBDers, etc... and reconcile all your incoherent positions to define what your actual position is.
(Since last I knew you muted me for pointing these things out, you probably won't even see this, but at least others might.)
did you note I put "impure" in "scare quotes"
obviously, the implication is I disagree with the opinion that Calabro was impure, and am critiquing a "movement" that rejects Calabro but employs Jamaicans
Again, agreed. But the scare quotes don't clarify why you disagreed with the “impure” claim. Whether it was because you reject the notion “southern Europeans aren't White”, or because you don't agree that minor admixture would exclude someone. In this case it was the former.
"What is your argument? Where do you draw the line?"
Italians are White. Jamaicans, Indians, and Arabs are not. You are entitled to disagree, but I am very clear where I draw the line and it is not "incoherent."
Agreed.
Calabro:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4039-8062-5_6
https://openjurist.org/934/f2d/1092/officers-v-civil
“On September 22, 1989, Louis Calabro, a white male and a lieutenant in the San Francisco Police Department…”
I had correspondence with Lou when he was in charge of the EAIF and he was a good man and White in my book. And told such to the vermin who were going behind his back to depose him simply because Eyetalians were insufficiently "pure" by their standards.
Thanks for the clarification.
What exactly is this Pro White movement you reference?
If you seriously believed in the Pro White cause, then you would clearly see Jared Taylor & Greg Johnson for the scammers they are.
Endlessly wailing about what harms Whites but doing nothing other than continually asking for Money isn't benefiting Whites at all.
When has either offered actual solutions or implemented anything?
The lame meeting, speech & dinner with themselves has never achieved anything at all.
"If you seriously believed in the Pro White cause, then you would clearly see Jared Taylor & Greg Johnson for the scammers they are."
Thank you. Someone gets it. 35 years of Amren. 15 years of Counter-Currents. Hundreds of thousands of dollars flushed down the toilet for damned nonsense accomplishing NOTHING.
I want to steer this back toward something constructive, because this keeps drifting into grievance recycling.
I understand why you’re angry at Jared Taylor and Greg Johnson. If you believe AmRen burned 35 years accomplishing little, and Counter-Currents burned 15, that frustration is at least intelligible. Critiquing effectiveness is fair game.
But that does not mean they were not pro-White, and it does not make it productive to use the WhiteDate failure as a proxy cudgel against them. That move collapses intent into efficacy and turns a concrete failure into a personal score-settling exercise.
WhiteDate failed for very specific reasons:
* catastrophic technical incompetence
* atrocious security practices
* ideological incoherence (outsourcing core infrastructure to non-Whites while claiming racial seriousness)
* lack of basic operational discipline
Those are real lessons. They deserve to be analyzed on their own terms.
Liv Heide’s motivations were not insane or malicious. She was attempting to create pro-White infrastructure for dating, family formation, and networking—goals that are entirely legitimate. The failure was not the goal; it was the execution.
A productive response would ask:
* What governance standards should any pro-White platform meet?
* What minimum security practices are non-negotiable?
* How do you protect users in a hostile environment?
* What OPSEC norms should participants follow (e.g., stripping EXIF data, compartmentalized identities, zero trust assumptions)?
* How do you align ideological consistency with operational reality?
Those are questions that actually help people avoid repeating the failure.
Using this incident primarily to mock, deride, or settle long-running personal grudges does not move the ball forward. It just ensures that the next attempt will fail for the same reasons—while everyone congratulates themselves for having been right after the fact.
If the goal is fewer catastrophes and fewer harmed Whites, then post-mortem analysis beats schadenfreude every time.
Finally, to be explicit: we agree on almost all of the underlying issues. The conflict here has not been over biology, boundaries, or goals, but over miscommunication driven by assumed shared background knowledge.
I came into this field through evolutionary biology and human population genetics, not through decades of intra-movement politics and personal disputes. I don’t carry the same implicit assumptions or tribal shorthand that you do, and neither do most people newly entering these discussions. Writing as if readers already know who “Sammy” is, or what long-running personal grievances exist, guarantees misunderstanding—and misunderstanding is not bad faith.
There is nothing unreasonable about people lacking decades of insider history, and there is nothing illegitimate about asking clarifying questions when references depend on that history. If every request for clarification is treated as hostile intent, then the result is not ideological rigor—it’s the routine alienation of people who are otherwise closely aligned.
If the goal is fewer failures and more competent advocacy, then clearer communication and constructive post-mortems will do more than attacking the very people most inclined to agree with you.
I never said that "Liv" was not sincere. But if you carefully sift through her writing, she seeems to take much pride in her tall, North German Nordic ancestry and phenotype and defines "Whiteness" through that lens. OK, you may say, fair enough if that is her opinion.
She then outsources her site and its security to India and Arabs, resulting in a catastrophic collapse.
Do I as an inferior Med need to tell Milady Ubernensch that, maybe I don't know, a pro-White site with personal user information shouldn't be using non-Whites for the webmastering and, further, not to use members of groups routinely derided in Der Movement for technical incompetence.?
Please note I am not assigning blame for the technical aspects of this scenario as I do not know the details; however, from an "optics" standpoint, it is what it is. She publicly described who she hired and the poor outcome is also public knowledge.
I also do not know what security protocols they had in place, but clearly they were insufficient. As AI says:
".. there are various tools available for testing website security against hacking attempts, such as vulnerability scanners that can identify weaknesses and potential exploits. Some popular tools include Nmap, Metasploit, and specialized website vulnerability scanners that can detect specific vulnerabilities like SQL injection and cross-site scripting."
I am skeptical that the "virtual fort" was sufficiently "fortified."
What am I supposed to say? Oh, poor, poor "Liv" who was married to a Jew, or half-Jew, who prides herself on her Germanicness but hires Indians and Arabs, and had her site publicly deleted, but not before thousands had their personal info stolen?
Where's the accountability?
By all means she was a retard. Good intentioned in part, but idiotic in who she chose to work with, her bleeding heart desire to do cumbaya nonsense and "all get along" etc... usual feminine "big tent" thinking, etc.
My point is simply that I did not see the relevance of using her abject failure as a means of attacking Taylor and Johnson yet again.
It would seem to have been more productive to establish first the fact that we SHOULD be trying to figure out how to build such tools for our people. But that the way SHE did it was obviously moronic on multiple levels.
IF we were going to discuss Taylor and Johnson at all, it would be to look at the problem with people in the movement promoting ideas that might look appealing to people who are not as smart or technically savvy etc.
For example in this case you have two older guys who probably aren't familiar with IT security etc. Or who simply have a broader view of pro-White that included more of Liv's stupid ideas, and which we could fairly criticize as such. Or in the case of something like Return to the Land, which sounds good to people who don't really think about it or know the real world legal context. And so you get people setting themselves up for financial disaster and potential prison time.
I don't know how we fix that, because many people just aren't that smart. They know there's a problem and they want to see dating sites that don't promote race mixing, or business contact sites that focus on our own people, or intentional communities that Whites can live in and not have to be exposed to diversity, and so when they see someone start doing something to that end, they cheer and promote it because they see it as activism helping our people. They don't dig into it beyond that or understand what some of the real risks and consequences are.
So that's where I would start. State what the problem is so that at least people know what danger signs to look for going forward. And if possible provide guidance to that end about where we might do it better next time.
I also didn't know Liv was married to a Jew. Again, I really do not follow this stuff. I stick almost entirely to the science side of this, and what little I have learned about "the movement" came through Harold Covington and the Northwest Imperative. Not from reading AmRen or Counter Currents or whatever it is. And I'm not saying I agreed with Harold on everything, just that his tellings of the history of the movement from his perspective are all that I'm even remotely familiar with.
exactly
it's also amusing that I'm accused of defending mixed race and non-White people in the "movement" when that is precisely what I'm critiquing
unless of course someone thinks Lou Calabro was colored because he's a dago
"Someone shouldn't have to read through years of your blog posts, filtering out all your vitriolic hate and vulgarity, your irrelevant personal grudge match noise about Jared Taylor and HBDers, etc... and reconcile all your incoherent positions to define what your actual position is."
If you don't like my "vitriolic hate and vulgarity" you can very simply ease your suffering by muting or blocking me.
I have ZERO "incoherent" positions. It is perfectly coherent. I support an Ourselves Alone Whites only approach to activism. At the same time I reject Nordicism and consider "Whites" to include all Europeans, including those from the South and East that many in the "movement" despise.
I also critique "leaders" who embrace non-Whites.
How is any of that incoherent? If you disagree on my definition of "White" that does not make my position "incoherent."
What IS actually incoherent are Nordicists who embrace Coloreds. You see, I am NOT the one employing Jamaican writers and I am NOT the one having Indians and Arabs running my websites.
"your irrelevant personal grudge match noise about Jared Taylor and HBDers,"
my opinion of Sammy Taylor is the same as that as the late great Alex Linder and HBDers are trash
I completely agree.
On a side note, I did wonder what you hated so much about the AmRen article by Liv Heide about the mixed race people in a pro-White movement.
I thought it was a valid question, even if I disagreed with some of it.
We do need to draw a line somewhere to define what is White. That means addressing corner cases, and I prefer to do so objectively rather than based on vibes.
For example people often mention the White populations in South America, like Argentina and Uruguay.
Uruguay is around 85%+ White. However, that population has around a 10% baseline Native American admixture from the original settlers having children with native women while they were wiping out and expelling the natives.
Does this "White" population count as White?
We should be able to answer that question as objectively as possible and explain our reasoning.
I would argue that they still are, as they phenotypically are, and if they still fall within the European genetic cluster in a PCA graph, which I believe they do.
However, would I prefer no admixture? Yes. I'd be lying if I said otherwise. So then how to reconcile that value difference if and when it came to issues of who would be allowed in an ethnostate?
I think these are entirely reasonable intellectually honest questions.
You are strongly pro-White in the Salterian sense, but we have to know exactly what you mean by White.
in my writing I emphasize geneaological ancestry from Europe and clearly outline why "testing" is not accurate enough for any hard percentage. If you say "95%" what about 94.9 or 95.1? No way "testing" is accurate and precise enough for that. Here I am talking about low levels of Old World admixture. Geneaology though can be more directly assayed. If there are unknowns, yes, "testing" can be done but with flexible parameters. New Wolrd admixture is a different speces of animal. Amerindian admuxture for example is not part of Old World European ancestry (that may have low levels of Afro-Asiatic). Many people in Latin America have defined geneaological admixture at the level of grandparent or greatgrandparent. For these people, if they "test" as 25% or 12.5% Amerindian you can be confident that's real and meaningful. I myself would be hesitant about accepting that as "us".
Small numbers of such people may not be a big issue. But I'm not going to sit back as others do and just say "Argentinians" are all "White" when clearly many are admixed.
I would say then if someone can trace back their geneaological ancestry wholly to Europe- OK. If not, has to be examined on a case-by-case basis.
Realistically, how many Uruguayians are there in USA or Europe? They can decide to form their own ethnostate where they are.
I brought it up as an illustrative point. I've seen it raised from time to time in our circles when people realize just how many "White" people there actually are in South America. They suddenly realize there are countries down there with ostensibly a far higher percentage of Whites than remain in the USA for example. As though there's a time capsule of life as it was 40 or 60 years ago.
They suddenly think that's the place they need to move to, or that South America is the future of our race as the rest of the Anglo-Sphere is lost to mass migration and rapid demographic replacement.
So I dug into the studies of the actual admixture, demographic breakdowns, historical trends, etc to get a feel for the real issues there.
I'm sure it will continue to come up as such.
Also, the point about genetics is that it is actually quite accurate these days, broadly speaking.
If you have a large data set for West Eurasians and others, you can plot a specific confidence interval and objectively state whether or not someone falls inside or outside that cluster. If you then get a really borderline case, you can decide on a case by case basis by looking at the indvidual and deciding if they're phenotypically indistinguishable, have good personal qualities etc that would be a benefit to us. If they look mixed still, or have less than stellar personal traits, then pass on them.
Genealogy might be good for quick rough guessing, but that's VASTLY less reliable due to "non-paternal events", family lore, etc. That and the general deep ignorance of most Americans of their ancestry past MAYBE their own grandparents.
For example ask 100 Americans what their grandmother's maiden name is. What percentage do you think could answer it correctly?
"Surveys show many Americans struggle to name all four of their grandparents — e.g., around 47–53% of U.S. adults couldn’t name all four grandparents in some polls. "
https://www.ancestry.com/corporate/newsroom/press-releases/new-survey-ancestry-shows-more-half-americans-cant-name-all-four
That's not looking good for relying on genealogy to define who should or shouldn't make the cut in a White ethnostate when doing immigration policy.
DNA testing everyone would certainly have its own hurdles, but just speaking as to defining who is or isn't White, it certainly provides a far more objective and clear cut line that can be drawn without relying on vibes or the accuracy of family stories about identity.
That latter point reminds me of the pervasive family myths of descending from cherokee princesses in the US. It's by far one of the most common family myths, and Cherokee are the most common tribe mentioned. In reality less than 2% of Americans have any Native American ancestry, and the majority of people making that claim, when tested, turn out to have ZERO Native American ancestry. Such was literally the case with my wife's step-dad. He LOOKED like he could have had it, but we actually got him tested at Ancestry (one of the best) and he had none whatsoever, likely stemming from a family myth where his grandmother got pregnant and claimed some native guy raped her rather than admit to whoever the dad was. I don't remember the details, but it was something shady like that.
Anyway, the point is that genealogy is notoriously unreliable, especially the further back you go, and most Americans have very little knowledge of their own ancestry beyond their own parents, having trouble even naming their grandparents.
So if I were in control of immigration to an ethnostate, I would first simply look at people. If they look mixed, don't even bother (because it's almost always right, and even if it isn't, the appearance of it would erode trust and cohesion anyway, so just avoid it.) Then look at the remainders, and do a basic background check, those that pass that stage, then do a basic PCA check to see if they have some significant admixture that knocks them out of the European cluster.
If you get borderline cases, assess on a case by case basis.
If you can't test, then we could fall back to eyeballing and genealogy checks along with background checks, etc. But the further we move away from objectivity, the more wiggle room there is for later "gotchas" etc... Jews, mixed race people, erosion of coherent identity and trust, people mocking us for letting them in when they weren't even White, or getting in and keeping it secret and then agitating from within (again, Jews, etc)
I feel like the minute we start leaving the definition of "White" up to less rigorous factors, we end up with vibes based "looks White, acts White, is White" and Nick Fuentes being called White and the leader of modern White Nationalism, etc. (Who then, being mixed race, defines White like other Latinos do, based on identity and culture rather than race, and allowing heavy admixture, etc.)
Basically you end up with Jared Taylor, who has no problem with Jews being called White and being part of "the movement."
A DNA test and look at whether they identify as such would settle that point much more clearly. If they're genetically non-White, end of discussion. If they're genetically White but identify with a hostile foreign tribe, no point in letting in a subversive.
I think all of this is really just to say that at some point we realistically have to define what White means, and agree on it, and act on it. And I think both you and I agree that Southern Europeans are undeniably White as they are undeniably part of the European genetic cluster, and more closely related to other Europeans than even to any other Caucasians/West Eurasians, and that other groups who might be "White passing" like Georgians, Armenians, Iranians, etc... clearly fall entirely outside the European cluster and are not even close. Even Jews fall almost entirely outside it on a basic PCA cluster analysis of only the first 2 principle components, and once we move beyond that they are clearly distinguished and excluded as well, having a dinstinctly different population history.
And really that was in part to say why I didn't think it was unreasonable to have conversations similar to what Liv wrote on AmRen about the quarter Korean asking about what they did. We should think about it, understand it, and have a clear, objectively defensible response.
That's really where I'm at and where most of my thinking is. I just really don't follow Greg Johnson or even Jared Taylor because they don't think this way and have looser feelings based definitions of what it means to be White. I don't think they're anti-White, I just agree that they're not rigorous enough and aren't pushing for the hard goals.
That's where I'm at. Trying to figure out how to reconcile these hard genetic facts with a viable path toward an ethnostate. What gets us to a solution that secures the existence of our people and a future for our children? Even if some people's actions may be imperfect, are they doing more good than harm in their pro-White advocacy? Can they be persuaded to update their understanding of what "White" means, and why genetics and preservation of our actual people are important, and not just a more vague cultural identity?
Again, I don't have decades of intra-movement history and detailed memory of all these interpersonal squabbles and foibles and drama. They don't really factor into my daily thinking much if at all. So when I ask questions, it's because I do not have your tribal knowledge. I don't know all your personal shibboleths about Sammy, Der Movement, etc and all the personal baggage you have tied to those shibboleths. Sammy to me is just Jared Taylor and the basic knowledge of his White advocacy. "Der Movement" is just a reference to pro-White advocacy. There is nothing else there for me like there is for you. Your references do not convey anything further. They do not fill in a bigger picture or magically import a bunch of meta-data that alters the discourse.
NOBODY who hasn't spent the time in the trenches that you have for decades, in THOSE SPECIFIC trenches at that, is going to have any clue what you're talking about with those shibboleths.
I would be nice if you wouldn't assume they did, or act as though they should.
Find what parts you agree on, identify where you don't agree, and explain why you think your position is the better one, as it most likely is. That doesn't make the other person retarded or evil.
Enough rambling from me.
I'm a STEM PhD biologist (and someone who has delved into the testing realm) and I can tell you that the commercial ancestry testing is absolute horseshit, at least the supervised admixture analysis. It is inaccurate, imprecise, etc.
PCA is more promising but is widely misinterpreted:
https://archive.org/details/wdr-35-more-jewish-pca
overlap does not equal identity, although that if someone does NOT overlap that is an issue; in other words, if someone falls into a "White PCA" space they may or may not be European, but someone who falls outside is not. Some Jews have sufficient Eastern European admixture that they fall within the Southern European cluster even though the ancestry is not the same.
If people don't know rheir geneaology back 4 generations then they are idiots. I'm no asking more than that.
As regards genetics I'm more of a fan of genetic kinship. What groups is a person most similar to? Obviously if they are most similar to Iraqis of Nigerians they ain't White.
But what some people do onlune trying to parse perecentage points is idiotic. They do not understand how supervised admixture works. If you don't have sufficient parental populations you inflate admixture. If you do have such, they you just confirm what is already known about ancestry. Unsupervised is likely better but no one does it commercially.
"when you seem to hate the pro-White movement because itv (sic) isn't perfect enough in your eyes."
perfect enough? it is barely sentient
You really are a retarded MFer. When did I defend having mixed race people in pro-White activism? The point about Calabro is precisely that he is - or was, maybe he's dead now, I don't know - not "mixed" by my standards at least. Calabro is/was a wop and was being attacked in a cowardly "stab in the back fashion" by do-nothings because he was a wop, and they wanted to remove him from leadership from a group that he himself founded.
The point is that inept Nords purity spiral against Southern and Eastern Europeans and then turn around and employ Jamaican writers and Indian and Arab webmasters.
I muted you because you are one of the dumbest idiots I've encountered on Substack and it seems that muting doesn't extend to post comments so here you are, adding a dollop of imbecility to the discussion.
If you don't like Coloreds involved in pro-White activism then address your complaints to Greg Johnson and "Liv Heide" not me.
What a clown.
I came into this field through evolutionary biology and human population genetics—initially through the scientific literature (Lynn, Rushton, Jensen, etc.), not through decades of movement history, factional disputes, or personal grudges. Until relatively recently, I had almost no exposure to intra-movement politics at all, and even now my knowledge of that history is limited.
Because of that, when you referenced Calabro being attacked for “impure” ancestry, I reasonably inferred mixed ancestry—not an old Nordicist vs. Southern European dispute. That context was not explained, and it is not common knowledge for newer readers. Had it been explicit, I would have agreed with you immediately.
To be clear, as you’ve now stated it, I agree with you on nearly all substantive points:
* Whites = all Europeans, including Southern and Eastern Europeans
* Nordicist purity spirals are destructive
* Italians are fully European
* Non-Whites (Jamaicans, Indians, Arabs) have no place in pro-White activism
* The movement has suffered from incompetence and hypocrisy
* Calabro was unjustly targeted despite being competent
That is not disagreement—that is alignment.
The issue was never biology or boundaries. It was ambiguity plus the assumption that readers must already know decades of internal history and drama. Asking for clarification in that situation is not bad faith or stupidity—it’s normal, especially for people entering from a scientific rather than movement background.
I’m perfectly willing to admit ignorance where it exists. What’s unfortunate is that requests for clarification are consistently treated as hostile intent rather than as what they actually are. Had this been explained rather than escalated, we would have been on the same page from the start.
It doesn't take much effort to look up Calabro, but whatever.
I will say that if you believe all of the above you may want to take another look at people like Taylor and Johnson.
WhiteDate now listed as URL:Blacklist and blocked
more aryan superiority!
This is a category error.
“Pro-White” describes orientation and intent, not guaranteed effectiveness. You’re free to argue that certain styles of advocacy were ineffective, misguided, or strategically insufficient—but it does not follow from that that the people involved were not pro-White.
Jared Taylor and Greg Johnson have spent much of their adult lives explicitly advocating for what they understood to be White interests, often at real personal cost. Whether one thinks their approach worked is a separate evaluative question.
Disliking a strategy, or judging it unproductive in hindsight, does not magically negate intent or reclassify it as anti-White. That move collapses definition into personal preference and makes the term “pro-White” meaningless.
Critique effectiveness all you want—but don’t pretend that disagreement over tactics retroactively erases decades of explicit advocacy.
it is not only effectiveness, I disagree with their ideology
Their ideology being IQ fetishism and/or Nordicism? Seems more the former, but that also seems tied to the latter as there is in fact an IQ gradient from North to South in line with the theory of adverse environments selecting for higher IQ and different behavioral traits. A point I'd been meaning to ask your opinion on if the temperature of the discussion allowed it.
I just don't want to assume what you mean by "their ideology." (We've been over it somewhat, but there was a lot of noise in those comments about HBD, rather than clear breakdown of what they have right and what they're clearly wrong on, objectively and subjectively.)
I'm finding this endless dribbling tiresome when I have a whole history of writing on this.
Briefly, Taylor is a HBD race realist, not a kinship-based White nationalist. He loves Jews, considers East Asians superior, and attacks "White ethnics." He basically is a race-aware capitalist conservative who doesn't want unruly Blacks around.
Johnson, besides being an unpleasant person with a certain "preference," supports petty nationalist ethnonationalism and is on record of stating "biological whiteness is a dangerous concept." He has stated that Yockey is an "enemy." He employs non-Whites as well.
Neither individual supports the Pan-European WN I espouse.
There may well be a slight IQ cline in Europe. I do not believe it is as great as the HBDers claim. The idea that European nations have IQs in the 80s or low 90s I find ludicrous.