About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. What do you make of Lou Dobb’s recent turnabout? The man now supports amnesty!

    “Former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, pondering a future in politics, is trying to wipe away his image as an enemy of Latino immigrants by positioning himself as a champion of that fast-growing ethnic bloc.

    Former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs reaches out to the Latino community, possibly ahead of a political run. WSJ reporter Peter Wallsten says Mr. Dobbs is even for legalizing the undocumented now.”


    What can we say? Dobbs really puts the CON in conservative…Or could it be a strategic move, that he’s just posturing like this to get elected?

  2. HW, having appreciated your considerable contributions to my WN education since the days of your Fade persona, I did not believe for one moment that it was you.

  3. I can only laugh at the prospect that uh is considered some kind of genius because he once read a social psychology text book and is capable of mimicking other’s writing styles. Read: Neither is that hard.

    Who called him a genius? NN?

  4. A bit off topic:

    Phil Rushton here,
    Two nights in a row of watching back-to-back TV dramas celebrating Darwin’s great works and its sequelae, including one on the Scopes Trial in Tennessee. The anti-science brigade are always no-nothing Christians and Richard Dawkins can always be counted on for a few more good kicks at the almost-corpse. But where are the Dawkinses in the push back against the political left who have done the most damage to Darwinism over the last 100 years?

    Great to see Ralph Holloway and Napoleon Chagnon still standing and wielding bloody cudgels against the Academic Left and the AAA. But “evolutionary psychology” and “anthropological ecology” are pale versions of the full bodied “human sociobiology” that might have been. Very little emphasis on behavior genetics and modern processes of evolutionary selection to be seen, perhaps in part because most evol psychs have very few children and thorioughly enjoy the bio-diversity brought about by mass immigration of people who do have lots of children. Even noticing this, of course, let alone mentioning it, is guaranteed to make one perceived as a racist.

    But then there was the item in the evol-psych digest that just came my way that made me want to throw caution to the wind again as it intersected with some data I’m analyzing.

    The item was on Making the Grade Isn’t About Race, its About parents and the story was that African immigrants to the US are supposedly doing better in school than African Americans because they have fathers who will kick their asses if they don’t succeed. Ah, so THAT’s the magic bullet? Not disagrreing with importance of ftahers or of selective migration, but, in general, what a hoot!

    The data I’m reviewing is of reading and math scores going back every year to 1962, and tomorrow I hope to go back to the 1930s and maybe even to post civil war when schools began. The bottom line is that every year since record keeping began, Blacks in grade 12 score like Whites in grade 8 or 9, that is 3 or 4 years behind. Yet, every year or two there is another flurry of explanations and magic bullets proposed (remember segregation in the 1950s? school bussing in the 1960s, head start programs throughout the 70s?). Well, Africans on international tests score even worse than do African Americans (who are, after all, 20% White, and get the benefits of living in a White majority country with all the nutrition, technology, schools etc.).

    Yet while all of this was acceptable to evolutionists for thirty and fory years after Darwin (who also knew and wrote about brain size differences) , it has all been made to disappear by the politically correct brigade who silence any alternative suggestion to “White racism” as the cause. Remember James D. Watson’s fall from grace?

    I wonder if Ralph and Nap think things are going to get better soon? The AAA after all did start up an evolutionary section recently, which they never would have a few years ago. And, in the labyrinths of academe at any rate, race realism and IQ studies do proceed apace.

  5. A backhanded defense from Kapn Kapusta!

    I wouldn’t impersonate anyone. But that troll did a good job on Soren, if anyone caught it. “Neither is that hard … “

  6. I can only laugh at the prospect that uh is considered some kind of genius because he once read a social psychology text book and is capable of mimicking other’s writing styles. Read: Neither is that hard.

    If we assume, as has danielj, that the Captain is here alluding to my own assessment of “uh,” we infer that the Captain is showing himself somewhat short of the gifts with which one assesses genius, on multiple counts. To see in uh’s contributions the mere reading of a text book and another’s consideration of him in terms of the same imputation is both middling-minded misapprehension and small-mindedly motivated. No offense intended – just a clinical observation of the obvious by someone who is not short of the suitable gifts.

    I’m satisfied with this interpretation: Hunter Wallace provides valuable contributions to the intellectual development of racialism, Punter Walleye comes to terms with his own (self perceived) inadequacies by throwing monkey wrenches in the gears of that process.

    Inadvertently performing a service, thus, in disabling the racialist intellectual machinery, to the pathetic and unproductive operation of which racialists are obsessively dedicated.

  7. @CC:
    From VNN front page archives.

    Marshall Lentini Says:
    16 May, 2007 at 10:21 pm
    An interesting question. It is tempting to assert that women transcend such epithets as “Western”, “Islamic”, “Christian” — meaning that a greater natural lassitude of character, and shallowness of mind, are not strictly amenable to any cultural form which is not close enough to the race of the female to leave no room for error, or better yet, errancy. The Hebrew often serves as a watermark of racial character and ideological commitment, and indeed, one observes in the Hebress a generally quite faithful member of the race, other qualities aside. Chinese females perhaps have a greater advantage in that certain cultural norms were in place while our own ancestors were everywhere in their cultural infancy. In light of the antiquity of these two races, then, Western, Christian, and Islamic cultural norms suffer from both the opposition of the female biological character itself (which is to say, the extent to which her biological existence determines – limits – her psychological existence) which ultimately cannot support or contribute to the cultural constructs of the male, and a certain youth and chaos which here & there succeeded in breeding morals into the female, but could not, owing to the dispersion of ethnoi and its consequences, as well as technological revolutions, sustain her at the primitive level of absolute identification with racial norms of which she is merely a part in the case of the Hebrews or the Chinese. While the position of the female under Shari’ah is subservient, operationally speaking, it is nonetheless a late cultural form and in any case only exaggerates (where it does not overturn) pre-existing cultural norms of the Arabian peninsula; it is safe to say that liberal ideology, stemming ultimately from the aristocratic idealists of the French Revolution, and carried hither by poor Anglo-Saxon imitations, has become the foil by which Shari’ah – and all frankly authoritarian cultural and political systems – appears to the female, and those who identify with them, as oppressive, brutal, etc. Face to face with the expectations of Shari’ah (and all moral systems), woman senses a decrement to her own selfishness established by liberal and Jewish ideology, that is to say, she is face to face with the specter of her own chastisement. Worse: she cannot possibly understand this, being too primitive and selfish mentally; and logically speaking, if she could understand that her insistence on “freedom” is in fact an assertion of her own petty selfishness unleashed, she would be under the logical responsibility of acknowledging the latter — which is logically impossible given that her selfishness is a factor at all. This applies to virtually all women today who fall within the orbit of modern urban culture, and increasingly to those without. The White Nationalist female presents to the shallow eye a seeming contradiction: she is obligated by the nature of the (quasi-) ideology which she adopts (which is however more often only the ideological trappings of a scene or aesthetic) to relegate herself to a precisely-defined, fetishized subservience: the wife. Yet this very conscious self-relegation to the domestic sphere, which would not even concern her if she, like many Western women today, enjoyed a measure of success in the corporate sphere, or were not jilted by a low position or failure therein, or could rely on good looks to keep her afloat in a vicious free-market society, is nothing more than role-play, the forced and heavily qualified adoption of a politicized cultural fetish which has no value to either party politically or culturally; that is to say: the conceit of the modern female finds yet another refuge in a self-consciously subservient role which is operationally antithetical to the now victorious paradigm and woman’s role therein. The pushy, almost “butch” quality of the White Nationalist female is, I am sure, familiar to most males who read VNN. She is no less bossy, mean, presumptuous, alienating, etc., than females of many other social groups; and to make matters worse, she is part of a fringe social group with an essentially hostile worldview (where it has not been watered down by inclusivity to the point of innocuousness, as with Stormfront), which draws on both violent subcultural fetishes (skinheadism, redneckism, guns, death metal, Nazi imagery, etc.) and propagandistic, quasi-cultural narcissism (”Aryan”, “Norse”, “heathen”, “Celtic”, wolf, fairy, dragon, unicorn fetishes), all of which greatly increase her own narcissism and selfishness. This is the origin of all your Aryan angels, princesses and goddesses: basically narcissistic modern females, with no capacity for ideology or political conscience, usually inferior aesthetically and socially, adapting to yet another masculine cultural trend. It is not insignificant that a few older single mothers are attracted to White Nationalism, which provides a sort of masculine placebo for the husband/mate they were unable to keep (without implication of fault) and will perhaps prove unable to get. — All of this is just to say that women cannot rightly be called “Western”, “Islamic”, “Christian” or anything else, for cultures which gave rise to these epithets arose from masculine genius; she may partake of their cultural norms, she may have been genuinely stamped by them at certain times, but she does not partake of their essence, because they did not arise from her essence. A woman could as well be a harlot as a Christian, as we see in the case of Mary Magdalene; that leaves the unique destiny of Christ himself — a man’s destiny unfolds, a woman’s merely follows. The only sense in which white women raised in the West can be securely classed as “Western”, apart from that very circumstance, is racial: she is said to be of “European” descent. And just here lay a great confusion among White Nationalists, who, under the same idiotic pretext as the equalitarians they claim to oppose, say all “whites” are of value. Not only is this fatally untrue in terms of subrace, it is so sexually. White equalitarianism is White Nationalism’s biggest ideological failure, arising from the desire to gain adherents at the expense of racial quality, when in fact neither numbers or quality have any bearing, strategically, against the Jews. But, the White Nationalist objects, we uphold the traditional roles of male and female — again, this is mere roleplay. A few WN couples manage to play out that “tradition”, but it is meaningless culturally and politically. Man and woman are both leveled and corrupted by modernity; WNs may spend their lives playing a role, as do many other social groups, but this does not touch the essence of the concepts “Western”, “Aryan”, etc. At most this “lifestyle choice” – and that is really all it is – may be called “Christian” in the tame sense of monogamy and domestic cleanliness, but to mistake such innocuousness, and the being it is designed to protect, satisfy, and in modernity aggrandize, woman, for adequate markers of CULTURE is simply false, and where attempted, only “modern” liberality with concepts to accommodate an inferior portion of the great cultural equation. The woman receives, the man gives. One must always bear that in mind.

    ML Says:
    28 February, 2007 at 11:26 pm
    Sex, in Marxist thought, is used as an instrument in the class warfare as a means to equalize everyone.

    That strain of Communism was more Engel’s influence. Communists always procreated and always had families, despite The Origin of The Family, Private Property, and The State.

    I find it useful, though. White Nationalism is hung up on family, and all these bourgeois values most of its adherents cannot attain. Nor should they. I say throw out the wife and sharpen the knife. Marriage is ownership however you look at it: whether you have a nauseatingly self-conscious “traditional” wife who wants to be “obedient” for “her man”, in which case one is owned simply by her negative will, or an arrogant modern gal who asserts herself at every opportunity, or damaged good that need caring for, etc. What you allow yourself in amenities is taken out of what you dare to do in other areas.

    Probably the only Communists who did not procreate, or did not restrict themselves to sedentary life even if they did, were Jewish radicals. The Jewish female was for a while the most dangerous element of Communism. She didn’t want children, men couldn’t stand her, she was more cutthroat than thou when it came to everyday politics: in short a great asset to the Communist cause, if utterly monstrous, speaking in human terms.

    People are just to hung up on “nice” things. Woman, home, community. It’s all pining and sighing. Le sigh, the family is dead.

    Well then, forget the family, and do something monstrous!

    The German National Socialists hounded the Frankfort School out of Germany (and into America). Why?

    I don’t know if you’re serious, here. Because they were meddlesome Jews. Why else?

    Examine the style.

  8. I haven’t posted any of these stupid messages on Majority Rights. Honestly, why the fuck would I post something there and come here and deny it?

    It is not my fault that any troll has the ability to sign as anyone there. JW Holliday complained about the problem ages ago. It was never fixed.

    Cap’n picked the wrong day to fuck with me. I was already in a bad mood. He’s finished at OD.

  9. And to have not detected sarcasm in my critique – yes, intended to humble – is indicative of a tin ear.

    Or significant of recognition that “sarcasm” derivative of a crayola creation strikes one as does playschool graffiti, sounding less like sarcasm and more like childish petulance. Hardly humbling of anyone but the author.

    “Inadvertently performing a service, thus, in disabling the racialist intellectual machinery, to the pathetic and unproductive operation of which racialists are obsessively dedicated.”

    You seem to be imply here that you yourself believe Brad The Dean of Grif is up to something akin to his old tricks, e.g., reading and posting private messages associated with his old forum onto the forum proper. If you honestly think that is productive, instead of making explicitly what criticisms he intends to make (assuming there truly is a criticism implied, and not just another wet-noodle getting his jollies), then you are too clever by far, and therefore not really clever at all.

    Your premise, and by implication, your conclusion, are mistaken. The point was that an inadvertent disruption of racialist thinking might permit balancing considerations of class and culture to intrude. These considerations, however, seem to be emotionally impermissible, and uh then feels like throwing stones at the rock-headed, and I throw shit back at the monkeys.

  10. Why is there so much drama and intrigue here? Why do so many posters on WN blogs feel the need to have strange personae and pseudo-literary writings styles? Why can’t we discuss things like serious people? Lately, there has been more discussion of various trolls and weirdos than of substantive issues. If that isn’t “discourse poisoning,” what is?

  11. Jesus, CC, what’s so hard about accepting that your conspiracy theory re: HW and Uh is not accurate? As I’ve shown, as others have corroborated, ML and Uh are one and the same and that person is not HW. HW = Scimitar, FtB, prozium, etc. ML = uh, GR, genosnipe, sudaka, anti-euro, etc. Good God, the difference between the two is like night and day in terms of style.

    Too much time in racialist land I guess induces paranoid delusions.

  12. ML and Uh are one and the same and that person is not HW…Good God, the difference between the two is like night and day in terms of style.

    Style, shmyle – I yam poysonally acquainted wit da boat of dese two gentlemen – and I can say, witout feya of contradiction, dat day are not, in any way, shape, or foym, one and da same poyson.

  13. Welcome to my world, Fade. Impersonation is extremely aggravating and can lead to people getting piled on when they don’t even deserve it.

    Although not too much sympathy for that J W Holliday.

  14. “If that isn’t “discourse poisoning,” what is?”

    Anything to deflect the discussion from jewish culpability.

  15. I must say this whole thing has turned into a soap opera. Let’s all acknowledge there is a troll impersonating HW and get back to discussing serious subjects of interest to serious minded white people.

  16. I do think that “Uh”s VNN Forum piece on Constantin “Big Von” Hoffmeister was a work of genius: yes it was funny, but beyond that I thought it was genuinely insightful. I would love to hear his take on Alex Linder.

  17. Why is there so much drama and intrigue here?…Why can’t we discuss things like serious people? Lately, there has been more discussion of various trolls and weirdos than of substantive issues. If that isn’t “discourse poisoning,” what is?

    Anything to deflect the discussion from more practical matters: networking, organisation, politics, etc.

  18. A skilled computer network engineer of my acquaintance used to sign all his emails with a GPG signature. Below the code block was the slogan, “If I didn’t sign it, I didn’t write it!”

    I asked him about this and he explained that impersonation is very easy. Thus his signature gave him the ability to repudiate forged emails.

    Perhaps GPG or PGP could somehow be adapted to present needs. Sadly I am not a teacher in this field.

  19. I do think that “Uh”s VNN Forum piece on Constantin “Big Von” Hoffmeister was a work of genius: yes it was funny, but beyond that I thought it was genuinely insightful. I would love to hear his take on Alex Linder. (Greg Johnson)

    Coincidentally, I was reading that piece just yesterday.

    Yeah, Giles should definitely interview youthful genius, Marshall Lentini, on Linder, Renner, et al.

  20. god damn it, I wish they’d just purge all those kane123123 posts from VNN. Damn forum warfare always gets me to join places I shouldn’t in self-defense.

Comments are closed.