Much of history is recorded in the epitaphs of nations that have perished because of their internal weakness and schisms. For when a people become more preoccupied with narrow self-interest and family quarrels than with their national good, they fall easy prey to the enemy outside their gates or crumble under the stress and strains within.” ~ The American Heritage editors
Nationalism draws its strength from numerous roots, such as the love of one’s people, customs, traditions, culture, ethnic tribal-gods and homeland. Nationalism also stimulates an instinctive drive to better oneself and their nation as a whole. Folkish nationalism fills a people’s heart with pride and instills the urge to attain a unique sense of being through self-betterment, traditions and a heightened conscious awareness. One of the key elements of nationalism is that it works to unify its people under a healthy mutual ethnic aim. A strong nation leaves little place for any potential enemies to insert their claw. Unlike Marxist socialist societies, Folkish nationalism does not work against its people’s freedoms, subvert their thinking process or strive towards making them dependent upon the state. True Folkish nationalism does not put political interests or corporate interests before the interests of the people.
Men make history, but the destinies of peoples are forged by the creative force of dominating ideas. Through the genius of inspired men they perceive the light of the world and reveal that which slumbers deep in the soul of the peoples. Great ideas are like milestones on the path of humanity, they are the platforms of human progress. The torch of the spirit, born by bold men, has always illuminated the path of humanity. Such inspiring ideas, which once more bring back the laws of life itself into the conscience of the nations, have at all times decisively influenced the development of the European cultural nations, they have elevated them when they were young and promising, and thrown them to the ground when they were weak and aged and had outlived their time.” ~ Dr. Otto Dietrich
From out of the great Euro-Tribe nations were produced the eight wonders of the world along with countless exquisite works of cultural arts, science and engineering. A never-ending stream of genius and creativity. Nations, too—as Mother Nature has ordained—can only take their place in the world in proportion to their capacities and their achievements for the world. In the competitive struggle between the nations, only the best nations can occupy pre-eminent positions on the strength of their achievements and capacities.
Among a strong nationalistic system, there should be no need for secret societies, media propaganda or a government to spy, or work against its own people. The people and the government should work together in harmony with one-another. Some like to think of nationalism as a political movement, or a folkish movement, a race or cultural movement, but it must not be narrowed down to any one single direction, it should always remain a process of numerous progressive elements all combined towards the better good of the Nation at large. Tantamount to the structural strength and vitality of a nation, is its mythology. Myth is a moving and shaping-directive power and the very glue that binds a people together in unity as a folk. It resides in the person exclusively because he or she is a part of their specific race and culture. An ethnic nation is unthinkable as a purposeful group without its myth, it simply cannot survive for too long a time without it. Myth is a foremost element to the process of a folkish awakening. As Carl Jung so very aptly stated, “For a race to live without its myth is suicide!”
A nation without a vital myth drifts aimlessly throughout history. Myth gives purpose and meaning to nationalism. Myth shapes the race so that the race may fulfill the potential of its individuals. The myth reminds us that we are unique as a race and contributes towards elevating our spiritual and ethnic consciousness, and that we are not simply an arbitrary, purposeless, ill-defined conglomerate of men and women.
No one factor accounts for a myth. It is a part of one’s whole heritage. It is born in each individual. Even if a person becomes a part of another culture he is called, deep down inside, by his own myth. It is a sum total of the culture, mores, folkways, customs, art, traditions, legends, history, experience and will of his own particular race, and it is even more than these things. It is the embodied vital will of great men. It is the contributions, defeats, failures, hopes, aspiration and accomplishments of the ethnically-related members of the group.
Here, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The myth is the scaffolding, the superstructure on which all these other things are constructed. It is the skeleton around which the organic body is built. It is the framework which is covered over by a whole beautiful building. It is the form upon which, bit by bit, piece by piece, yard by yard, a people develop. But without the ordering of a myth, the people are merely a helter-skelter collection of all these various facts and facets.” ~ Alfred Rosenberg
All nations, even great and mighty nations, ultimately perish once they become degenerate, and it is only a matter of time until they do if a nation and its people let itself become weak. America was once a proud nation of strength, unity and seemingly unlimited willpower but over the last half century, it has become increasingly more degenerate and its will more weakened with each and every year. In a strong nation there is no place or the tolerance for degeneracy, and yet today in America, degeneracy has become a badge of honor! A nation virtually dies upon that day when the primordial race-unit becomes so broken up and swamped by the influx of foreign elements, that its effective qualities have no longer a sufficient freedom of strength and action. It will not, of course, absolutely disappear, but it will in practice be so beaten down and enfeebled, that its power will be felt less and less as time goes on. When a people give into degeneracy lose there their nationhood of folkish unity and even the concern for their own self preservation, they are done for! The race enemies of that nation will swarm over them like a plaque of locusts! Nationalism is not just some definitive name, it is an actual living organism which assures the very preservation of its people and their homelands! Even common animals in Nature understand this!
Public opinion always worships the herd instinct,—i.e., the instinct of the weak,—while he, the strong man, fights for strong ideals.” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
To most of the world nationalism appears to be an unsavory word affiliated primarily with racialism, and yet, most if not all of the races of the world are nationalists! Jews are nationalists, blacks are nationalists, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Arabs, American Indians and Latinos and etc.. The White Race seems to be the only people that are scorned for even mentioning the idea of nationalism for the best interest of their people.
Unlike state nationalism which rules over its people, folkish nationalism grows up from the grass roots of the people. National heroes and heroines are honored and praised, while anything of universal interest is viewed with little concern. Firmly grounded in Rousseau’s doctrine of popular sovereignty, ‘folkish nationalism assumes that the proper forum for the exercise of the general will was provided by the national or ethnic community, not by the artificial frontiers of the existing states.’ Under folkish nationalism, one’s people and homelands are key, and the concept of ‘Blood and Soil’ are strongly valued and adhered to. The Folklore, or Volkskunde of a nation works towards joining the modern world of today with its most ancient cultural roots.
All of the Euro -Tribes over thousands of years passed through the phase of compiling, romanticizing, and creating the folklore and traditions of their individual nations. Rivers of blood have been spilled to preserve it. Without all of these key elements within the vibrant structure of nationalism, here discussed, we are left with only the humiliation of a defeated and soon to be extinct species. It is well known within the law of Nature that only the strong survive. The very moment that an individual or a collective people or tribe let their guard down, they become an instant target of prey to any of the many predators that choose to come in for the kill.
Room of useful idiots sits politely as a racist #AntiWhite black woman explains to them that they are
1. not human
The whites shown in these now-commonplace videos are far from making the sanity cut at this point. Yes, there is also a brood of insane black enemies and traitorous whites, but what to do with the “Insane White Question”? These Traitors will be the enemy for several generations to come. For some, there may be longer-term hope in re-education, but the prognosis is grim, and they may need to be put down for their own good.
Many people think that racial populations are “equal” with respect to their genetic potential for cognitive traits. On this website, we look at a lot of data having to do with racial differences in various traits to assess the validity, or lack thereof, of this assumption. Sometimes, though, it is important to step back and recognize just how impossible the notion of equality truly is. If the races really are genetically equal with respect to most psychological traits, it is nothing short of an evolutionary miracle, and in this article, I will explain why.
We all accept that the races differ in various ways for genetic reasons. For instance, East Asians are shorter than Africans and Europeans. Certain body types were more likely to evolve in different climates. In response to environmental variables such as UV radiation, we evolved differences in skin color, hair color, hair texture, etc. Some historic populations had cows available to milk while others did not and, so, some populations are lactose tolerant while others are not. Some populations had to face malaria, while others did not, and this led to differences in our blood. The list could go on. This is all utterly uncontroversial.
The races also differ in brain size. This has been shown repeatedly, all over the world, dating back more than a century (Last, 2016). More recently, it has been shown that you can predict someone’s race by looking at the shape of their brain (Fann et al. 2015). Yet, it is supposed that, unlike the racial differences in virtually every other part of the body, these ones are due entirely to the environment. This is obviously a political move. Evolution doesn’t care that genetic differences in personality are politically controversial, it sees the brain as just another organ. If we evolved differences in all the others, we probably evolved differences in the brain too.
In fact, the brain is a more likely site for genetic differences between races than most other parts of the body are. Why? Because researchers have shown that genes involved in the brain are the ones that differ most between the races (Wu and Zhang, 2011) .
“Other genes that showed higher levels of population differentiation include those involved in pigmentation, spermatid, nervous system and organ development, and some metabolic pathways, but few involved with the immune system.” – Wu and Zhang (2011) (emphasis added)
Given this, if anything we should expect racial differences in the brain to be larger than other racial differences. The assumption that they are infinitely smaller, such that they do not exist, is not genetically plausible.
Ultimately, this is just common sense. Populations around the world had different food sources. They hunted different kinds of animals and picked different kinds of plants. They lived in different climates. They fought different diseases. These differences impact behavior. For instance, some animals require more group work to kill than others. Harsh winters require more pre-planning and delayed gratification (saving food) than more temperate climates. The more easily acquirable food is around, the less important working with the group is. The more predators and other humans are around, the more physical strength and aggression will be needed. The more pathogens are present, the more important cleanliness will be. This list could go on infinitely.
And maybe you think one of these explanations is wrong and an environmental difference will have the opposite effect of what I have said. That is certainly possible, but the idea that any one of these environmental differences, let alone all of them together, will have no effect whatsoever on the selective pressures for any mental traits is completely implausible.
And this is all before culture comes into the picture. Once that happens, these differences are magnified times a hundred. In some cultures, being smart is the best way to have lots of kids. In others, physical strength, or determination, or social intelligence, etc., will be the most effective way. The notion that in every culture every psychological variable has the exact same association with fertility, which is the logical implication of egalitarianism, is obviously insane.
That culture has sped up evolution is evident in our own DNA. By looking at our genome, researchers can estimate how the speed of evolution has changed over time. In 2007, a landmark paper was released showing that evolution sped up by a factor of 100 within the last 5000 years, suggesting that the development of civilization, which happened at different times and in different ways around the globe, had an extremely dramatic impact on evolution (Hawks et al., 2007).
Even more recently, we are starting to get some idea of how culture influenced evolution. For instance, a 2014 paper found that England’s “war on murder”, a time in which criminals were essentially sent to die for fairly petty crimes, had a significant eugenic effect on the population in terms of criminality (Frost and Harpending, 2015). And, after all, how couldn’t it? If you kill a ton of criminals every generation, genes that predispose people towards criminality are obviously going to become less common.
My pointing in bringing this up is not to suggest that England is especially non-criminal. Other countries no doubt had similar periods and England has had its share of crime problems in its history. Nonetheless, the “war on murder” is a vivid example of the fact that culture can, and in fact must, impact evolution. Anything that differentially impacts people’s probability of reproducing will. Given this, and given the enormous amount of culture diversity which has existed on earth for millennia, it is, once again, lunacy to suggest that this all led to every population on earth possessing the exact same genetic predisposition for every mental trait there is.
On top of all this, there’s the Neanderthals (and others). After humans left Africa they met, and bred with, other species or subspecies of human. These other humans had been evolving separately from us for a really long time and they are universally accepted to have been different from us physically, and mentally, due to evolution. Some populations bred with these groups more than others, and Africans didn’t breed with them at all. This has led to the races differing in their degree of Neanderthal admixture.
Moreover, Neanderthal DNA is associated with various traits, including mental ones. For instance, one researcher described their findings from early last year thusly: “We discovered associations between Neanderthal DNA and a wide range of traits, including immunological, dermatological, neurological, psychiatric and reproductive diseases.” Specifically, they found that Neanderthal DNA was related to traits like nicotine addiction, depression, and other mental traits.
How is it even possible, you might ask, for the races to differ in their level of Neanderthal admixture and still be “equal” if Neanderthals weren’t “equal”? It’s not. For this, and all the other reason’s laid out here, equality is, practically speaking, a biological impossibility.
Exit poll data shows the dramatic effect this has had on American democracy: if White Americans were the only people that voted in presidential elections, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barak Obama would have never been president.
On this view, the question then gets moved one step back and becomes “Why do non-Whites have liberal political views”. Even this first step is a mistake. The blog The Audacious Epigone has recently demonstrated, via an analysis of data from the General Social Survey, that even self-described conservative non-Whites voted for Obama in 2012.
To get a closer look at this phenomena, I examined how people voted, by race, according to how they answered questions about the size of government and wealth redistribution (economic views) and gay marriage and abortion (social views). In 2012, non-Whites who were pro-life and pro choice, for and against gay marriage, for smaller and larger government, and for or against wealth redistribution, all voted for Obama with the exception that Hispanics, who were against wealth redistribution broke for Romney by 6 points.
Even this Hispanic exception is not reliable. See, for instance, this data on the 2008 election:
(And yes, the Black patterns stays the same when you look at pre-Obama elections.)
Thinking that the government should be smaller had the largest impact on the Black vote. Because of this, I decided to look at Blacks who self-identify as conservatives and who think the government should be smaller. They still self identified as democrats. (I switched to party ID because the sample size of Black conservatives who think the government should be smaller is not very large and party ID was asked for decades. By contrast, questions on elections are only asked for 3 waves of the GSS.)
Demographic variables follow a similar pattern. Pew data shows that Non-Whites at every level of education and income, and of both sexes, are more likely to identify as democrats than republicans.
Political ideology and demographic data strongly predict how White people vote. To many White people, I suspect that it is almost incomprehensible that these things would not be the major factors determining who someone favors for president. And yet, for non-Whites something entirely different is clearly going on.
Some might suppose that this other factor is racial tribalism and, indeed, measures of racial tribalism do predict how strongly Blacks favor the democrat party. But even Blacks who do not think, for example, that government assistance to Blacks should be increased, or Blacks who think that the republican party is better than the democrat party for Black people, prefer the democrat party.
Similarly, Blacks who do, and who do not, feel that they have been discriminated against because of their race prefer the Democrat party.
In fact, Blacks who both want smaller government and think that government assistance to Blacks should be lower prefer the Democrat party.
Measuring ethnic tribalism among Hispanics is a little less straightforward, but immigration views seem like a reasonable proxy. On a 6 point scale of party affiliation, with 0 meaning strong republican and 6 meaning strong democrat, Hispanics who want immigration increased by a lot had an average score of 3.6 while Hispanics who want immigration decreased by a lot had an average score of 3.3. Both groups of Hispanics preferred democrats, and to roughly equivalent degrees.
All this is not to say that demographics, political ideologue, and ethnocentrism/perception of racism have no impact on non-White voting patterns. The data above shows that they do. However, there is some other factor which biases non-Whites strongly in favor of the democrat party so much so that even with these other factors removed non-Whites would still vote democrat.
I’m not sure what that factor is.To my knowledge, neither is anyone else. This makes the prospects of getting non-Whites to vote republican especially abysmal. First, we would have to figure out what this mystery factor (or factors) is (or are). Then we would have to deal with this factor, racial tribalism, and the fact that non-Whites are mostly liberal. In short, courting non-Whites to the republican party is a pipe dream.
Previously I wrote an article that just looked at the net budgetary impact of whites and non-whites. Here I decided to break down the black and hispanic numbers as well.
The most recent year with good data on everything is 2014. So that is the year all of these numbers are from.
Before getting into the methods, I’ll first show the final impact of this so you can see what a big deal this is:
Budgetary Impact of Whites, Blacks and Hispanics in 2014
White Per Capita
Black Per Capita
Hispanic Per Capita
This takes into account taxes paid and government services consumed at both the State and Federal level. The “Equal Military” column treats military spending as a service consumed equally on a per-capita basis between blacks, whites and hispanics. The “Static military” assigns all military spending to whites.
On net, whites generate a $249.52 billion surplus, or $1,260 per person if you assign 100% of military spending to whites. If you just give whites a proportional share of military spending, their surplus goes up to $553.52 billion total and $2,795 per capita.
Blacks, by contrast, run a budget deficit of $389.71 billion, or $10,016 per capita. If 100% of military spending is assigned to whites, blacks STILL run a $306.53 billion deficit, or $7,700 per capita.
Hispanics run a budget deficit of $411.95 billion of $7,289 per capita if military spending is proportional. If 100% of military spending is assigned to whites hispanics run a deficit of $291.3 billion, or $5,160 per capita.
Race and Tax Revenue
So regarding the methodology, I first looked in several places to figure out how much each race paid in taxes, as the government doesn’t keep such statistics. However, there are statistics collected by the tax foundation showing how much each income bracket pays in taxes.
And the census has data on income for each race and the proportion of brackets they are. And so using this, we can deduce how much each racial group pays in taxes:
Race and Tax Payment in 2014
% of taxes bracket pays
% of bracket is white
% of bracket is hispanic
% of bracket is black
% of taxes paid by whites-in-bracket
% of taxes paid by blacks-in-bracket
% of taxes paid by hispanics-in-bracket
This comes out to $4529.52 billion paid by whites, $528.30 billion paid by hispanics, and $485.67 billion paid by blacks.
Race and Government Use
So how does that compare with services consumed? Well for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Welfare I was able to find racial breakdowns. But what about state spending? Roads, schools, trash pick-up, police? For all of that I lumped into “equal government” and assigned the cost of it on a population basis.
Race and Government Use 2014
White Use %
White Use $
Black Use %
Black Use $
Hisp. Use %
Hisp. Use $
So as it happened, and this is something I thought going in, the race differences in government consumption are not a very big deal, and the real cause of the budgetary impacts of races is the difference in tax payment. I also found some data showing that whites made up 75% of millionaires, and I thought “ya know, based on this, whites overall probably pay around 75% of the taxes” – and I was correct.
Wage Impact of Racial Diversity
One thing people will say in response is that white wages are jacked up by having non-whites around. This doesn’t appear to be true when you look at regions in the US:
Median Income and Proportion of Popoulation of Whites by Region
Median Income of White Males
Median Income of White Females
So a big impact doesn’t just pop out at you. And if there is a correlation between median white income in a state, or county, and the proportion of blacks and/or hispanics in that state or county, well then the next step would be to show causality.
Another interesting thing to point out is that a Dutch meta-analysis of 384 studies on the impact of immigration on native wages in the United States and EU countries found that a 1% increase in immigrants as part of the labor force was associated with a 0.119% reduction in native wages.
But one thing to consider is correlation and causation. Just because a 1% increase in immigration is only associated with a 0.119% decrease in native wages doesn’t mean that the actual impact is that small.
So we’re looking at a small negative impact on wages, not the big positive impacts you would need for the libertarian story to hold water. I mean it’s not stupid to believe in the absence of data; lower-skill people come in, earn wages, white people are freed for higher-earning labor. But it doesn’t appear to be actually happening.
If you want to argue that the presence of blacks and hispanics around white people drives up white wages, that’s not something that is immediately obvious from the data, it’s only intuitive if you to hold very pro-market priors. You need more than just “ideas that make sense” and connect-the-dots / painting-by-numbers economic narratives that libertarians like to spin, and then act as if they’ve actually discovered something.
The negative fiscal impact of blacks and hispanics is significant. All of this discussion of a “national debt” and “deficit” is primarily of function of blacks and hispanics. Without them, we would be running budget surpluses today, even when keeping the military the same size.
The most basic fundamental of life is struggle. All lifeforms, by their very nature, are engaged in a constant campaign to thwart the omnipresent threat of nonexistence. Even the most primitive amoeba struggles for each and every moment of its seemingly—to us—meaningless existence to resist re-absorption into the void of nonexistence from which it sprang at the moment of its inception. Life is struggle, every moment of it. Whether or not you are aware of it, a countless number of tiny cells within your own body are—right now, as you read—currently engaged in a heroic and nonstop battle to preserve your body and its vitals against the destructive and disintegrating forces of the entropy-laden Universe. Societies and cultures—although not alive in the same sense that plants and animals are—also struggle to persist and maintain themselves amidst the chaos of our realm. And we humans, like the cells within our own bodies, are the ones who maintain such cultural entities via our collective actions. When the members of any given society play constructive, positive roles within that society, the society in question thrives, grows, and prospers. However, when the members of a society acquire goals or interests that are unrelated to—or worse, run counter to—the success of their society, that society will disintegrate just as surely as the body whose cells have turned cancerous will die.
There is and has always been ONLY one solution to the threat we face, you may not like it, you may hate me for saying it, you may even cry yourself to sleep and call me crazy for even suggesting it.
The New Nationalist (TNN) has contended from the get go that Donald “Red Queen” Trump will be taken down as a role actor in a Trojan Horse operation. We also have stated numerous times that the “far right” would be set up for a major demonization attack.
The ultimate irony is that the final trigger for this was Trump’s fair and balanced statement about the troubles at Charlottesville. Incredibly after a year of non-stop red queening weirdness and setting up the country to be looted, suddenly the snakes in his own pit turned on Trump with righteous pontificating. Amazing. Once again you decide for yourselves where this one ranks among Trump’s bizarre streams of consciousness. Not very high is TNN’s verdict.
Among the parasite guildists to set the stage for the Trump end game was (((Jamie Dimon))) and the members of the President’s CEO Strategy and Policy Forum. They signaled their final outrage with Trump’s C-ville “racist” stance by disbanding. The parasite guild and lugenpresse are adopting all the Anti-Fa code words and smear script.
Talking head and empty suit (((Larry Summers))) came on CNBC with this little gem: “President Trump is endorsing white supremacists, he is ‘uncomfortably close’ to white supremacists… our President is supporting racists.”
Trump advisor, former vampire squid and Goldman Sachs minion (((Gary Cohn))) was on stage rolling his eyes like a crocodile and “looking appalled” as Trump bantered about who was next on the replacement of history list — slave owners George Washington and Thomas Jefferson? (((Sources))) further confirmed ol’ Gary was disgusted.
Gary Cohn said to be deeply upset by last few days, per multiple sources. Not leaving admin but not happy
TNN has surmised the Red Queen will say or tweet something to blow up the markets. It could be that is being arranged behind the scenes with or without the Red Queen. Hardly noticed in the faux outrage yesterday were statements from the Federal Reserve:
Warnings of “elevated vulnerabilities” from high asset prices.
Balance sheet to begin reduction starting in September.
Friday on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh said given the state of affairs in the country, particularly in the wake of last week’s events in Charlottesville, VA, it could be said the country was on the cusp of a second civil war.
Limbaugh insisted much of the angst was being driven by forces from the outside wanting to see the United States cease being a “super powerful nation.”
America is under attack from within. Our culture, our history, our founding are under the most direct assault I have seen in my life. And I’m sure it’s the same with you. We haven’t seen anything like this. You might even get away with saying that we are on the cusp of a second civil war. Some of you might say that we are already into it, that it has already begun. However you characterize it, though, we are under attack from within. And it’s being bought and paid for by people from outside America, in addition to inside.
I’m thinking of people like George Soros and any other number of international financiers whose objective it is to take the United States out and down as a superpower, to literally erase the United States as a powerful or super powerful nation.
Now, folks, in order to defend America, which I believe is incumbent upon all of us, in order to defend America, you have to begin knowing our history. If you’re gonna defend the United States of America, you have to know our history. You have to know the purpose of the United States of America. You have to know unequivocally and proudly the United States’ place in history. And that is why erasing and distorting our history is crucial for the left to succeed.
None of this that is happening on the left is random. None of the riots, none of the protests. They are not the result of the left being offended by individual acts. Antifa didn’t show up in Charlottesville because they found out something was going to happen that offended them. They showed up in Charlottesville to create mayhem and cause hell. They showed up in Ferguson, Missouri, to do the same thing.
They showed up in Baltimore to do the same thing — and wherever they show up today and tomorrow and next week, it’s by design, on purpose, has an objective and an agenda. And that agenda is to erase American history. That agenda is to distort, erase, and impugn our history. It is crucial if they are to succeed. Because, you see, if enough Americans can be persuaded that America, as founded, is unjust — if enough Americans can be persuaded that America as founded is inherently racist and immoral and illegitimate — then it will be all that much easier to erase America as founded.
The two go hand in hand, which is the objective of all of these groups on the left. Whatever they’re called and wherever they go and however they organize and whatever their day-to-day purpose, their objective is to erase the history of America. It’s to restate it, to recharacterize it in such a way as to convince a majority of Americans that their country is illegitimate and has been from the get-go — is unjust and racist and bigoted and has been from the get-go.
If enough Americans can be persuaded of all of that — that America is inherently racist, that America is and has been a lie — then it’s over. That is the objective, and we are in the midst of it. Sometimes you’re so close to the forest you don’t see the trees. That’s what we are in the midst of here: An ongoing effort to erase America by discrediting the entire premise of our culture, our history, our founding. The objective is to create in as many American minds as possible that America as founded is not worth defending. Serious times.
This is a very, very serious effort that is underway. Sadly, it has a lot of allies. It has a lot of people helping it that ought to be opposing it, but they are choosing what they think is the path of least resistance, which is defined by the media. You’ve got several Republicans who I believe are unwittingly participating in the effort to cast America as indefensible, particularly with Donald Trump as president. Trump as president is, in their view…
The attacks on Trump, the characterization of his presidency, is designed to show how really flawed America is. That somebody like this could be elected, that means it’s time to get rid of the Constitution. That means it’s time to get… Whatever made Trump possible, it’s time to change it and get rid of it. This is very, very serious stuff happening here, and it has the aid and support of the media, which means it has the aid and support of the worldwide left and the Democrat Party.
America’s profound morality, kindness, widespread prosperity, and design for equal opportunity should be self-evident. But that assumes that factual, historically accurate reporting in education is taking place, and we know that it isn’t. It is a shame and a near crime that the profound morality and greatness and kindness and widespread prosperity and equal opportunity that is America isn’t known. It is a crime that those characteristics of our country are in the process being recast and erased. We are getting hysterically inaccurate reporting.
We have been in the midst of hysterically inaccurate education for generations. America is unique. America copied no other country. Every other country was a copycat of others, with governments that denied individual freedom, denied opportunity, denied sovereignty. That’s what was copied. Tyranny was copied, nation to nation, people to people. That is the history of humanity: Living in tyranny, living under authoritarianism, living in poverty, living in sickness — until the United States came along, which copied nothing.
The United States and its founders rejected all of that tyranny, oppression, poverty. In America, the individual was the supreme power. That is being erased under the premise that the individual is corrupt. The individual is likely a racist or a transphobe or a homophobe or some other ill-prepared sack of humanity, and so we need to overcome the corruption that is the individual, that incomparable embrace of humanity that is the United States of America.
There’s no place on this planet that human beings would rather be than the United States of America. And yet people born and raised in this country have been persuaded that America is a sinkhole, a hellhole, a sewer, a garbage dump, or a dungeon, and they’re in the process of actually creating all of that — under the guise that civil rights, equality, and liberty. The incomparable embrace of humanity that is the United States is under attack. Leftists, Democrats seek control over 100% of the population. They accomplish this with lies, such as the Affordable Health Care Act.
They accomplish it with one lie after another. The lies being told today are the lies designed to convince people their country is not worth maintaining as it is, their country is not worth maintaining as founded because it was founded as racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic (you know the drill), immoral and illegitimate. Ignorant people will not remain free for very long. The media is working on a path parallel with school systems to actively and passively distort information to wipe out from the vestiges of our history and our memory any collection of stories that testify to the greatness of America and her people.
Audio Version: To listen in a player, click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”
White Nationalism is the inevitable reaction of whites who are being ethnically cleansed from our homelands. Of course most people are not so vulgar as to explicitly call for the ethnic cleansing of whites. Instead, they use euphemisms like “diversity” and “multiculturalism.” Whenever a business, a church, a school, or a neighborhood becomes more “diverse” or “multicultural,” that simply means fewer whites and more non-whites.
Replacing non-whites with whites is never lauded as diversity or multiculturalism. When it happens in a non-white neighborhood, it is decried as “gentrification.” When it happens in a non-white country, it is condemned as “imperialism” and “colonialism,” or even “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide.” Non-whites get to keep their spaces, but whites don’t. What is theirs, they keep. What is ours, is negotiable.
Since diversity means nothing more than the replacement of whites with non-whites, which is ethnic cleansing, and all the leading institutions of our society are actively promoting diversity, obviously a reaction was inevitable.
To appreciate that fact, we don’t need to go into the arguments for or against diversity. We don’t need to talk about biology, history, sociology, or economics. We don’t need to know which side is right. All that can come later. Right now, all we need to recognize is that whites, like any other healthy animal, will fight back when we feel that we are being attacked.
When whites become aware that we are being attacked as a group, other political issues — including the most contentious issues that divide us — seem less important. Conversely, what we have in common — our racial and ethnic identity, the target on our back, which we can’t pull off because it is part of us — becomes more important.
In a homogeneous society, politics is about differing conceptions of the common good, because in a homogeneous society, citizens have a great deal in common. We often take this for granted. Indeed, we seldom even notice it until diversity and multiculturalism are thrust upon us.
In a multicultural society, the only thing that people have in common is a territory and a political and economic system, in which organized groups that do share a common identity fight against one another for power and resources.
White Nationalism is identity politics for white people, and it will inevitably arise when formerly white societies become multiracial societies. It will only cease when multiracialism is replaced with racially and ethnically homogeneous white societies again.
White Nationalism, at minimum, is white identity politics within the context of a multiracial society. Whites will inevitably organize to preserve our wealth, power, and communities from non-white depredations. Such White Nationalist politics need not even be explicitly racial. In fact, when White Nationalism first emerges, it is seldom willing to directly confront the taboo against racial identity, so it embraces civic rather than racial nationalism and pursues white interests under the guise of universal principles like rights and legality. Nevertheless, even the most sheepish and bashful, even the most self-contradictory and self-defeating White Nationalist sentiments were powerful enough to carry the Brexit referendum and propel Donald Trump to the US presidency. Indeed, such implicit White Nationalism is the animating principle of the growing populist-nationalist movements across the white world.
As White Nationalists rack up victories, we will inevitably move from implicit to explicit racial advocacy, and we will switch from defense to offense. We will not just halt white dispossession, we will reverse it. We will replace anti-white ethnic cleansing with pro-white ethnic cleansing. We will demand nice white neighborhoods, schools, businesses, communities, and countries — and getting those requires replacing non-whites with whites.
At this point, White Nationalism will come to a fork in the road. The left fork will preserve multicultural societies, but put whites firmly in charge and restore white super-majorities. This is the white supremacist option, to which civic nationalists are logically committed, because to them the right fork is morally and politically frightening.
The rightward route embraces the deepest meaning and impetus of White Nationalism. It rejects diversity entirely in favor of the idea of the “ethnostate.” It is willing to move peoples and borders to create racially and ethnically homogeneous homelands for all European peoples who aspire to self-determination. This is the ultimate aim of White Nationalism as I conceive it.
Europe is the motherland of our race. Until the aftermath of the Second World War, it was the exclusive homeland of our race. No other race has any legitimate claim on it. Thus there is absolutely no reason why the nations of Europe should not remove all non-whites. In the case of the United States and other European settler societies, fairness demands some accommodation for the remnants of indigenous peoples and the descendants of black slaves, preferably by giving them autonomous homelands.
In the case of the US, I am willing to entertain civic nationalist approximations to the ethnostate as temporary, expedient compromises with political reality. For instance, I believe that White Nationalists should seriously promote a new immigration/emigration policy that aims to return to the ethnic status quo of 1965, which was in many ways the peak of American civilization. The goal would simply be to erase the catastrophic error of opening our borders to the Third World. This transformation could take place gradually, with 2065 as the target date for completion. This sort of proposal could even meet with the approval of many non-whites, because it gives a place to their kind in America’s future. As long as whites had complete freedom to disassociate with other races, the result would be a de facto White Nationalist society for the vast majority of whites.
But there is no guarantee that such a racially segregated society would not eventually grow complacent, then delusional and profligate, repeating all the mistakes that are destroying us today. Thus White Nationalists will have to keep moving the goalposts toward the complete realization of the ethnostate. There’s no reason for us to ever stop extolling the idea of a completely homogeneous society, because even the most timid civic nationalists know, in their heart of hearts, that America would be a better place with no blacks or Mexicans or Muslims whatsoever.
Whether White Nationalism ultimately leads to segregated, white supremacist societies or homogeneous ethnostates in North America and around the white world depends on historical contingencies that cannot be predicted or controlled. It is also possible that White Nationalism will fail entirely in some countries.
But we can say that White Nationalism is inevitable, because it already exists, even though its ultimate victory is uncertain. We do not appeal to pseudo-scientific notions of inevitable historical progress, like Marxists. And although many of us take inspiration from Traditional and Spenglerian cyclical views of history, we also believe that it is our duty to fight for a Golden Age rather than to give in to decline or to count on historical forces to do our work for us.
In the beginning, White Nationalism is as inevitable as an abused dog biting its tormentor. Beyond that, victory is only as inevitable as we make it.
There is good reason for optimism, however, simply because racial and ethnic diversity within the same society are sources of disunity, conflict, and the erasure of distinct identities. Anti-white ethnic cleansing can only be maintained by lies and moral blackmail — and, when these fail, by intimidation and outright violence. One can flout reality for a long time, as long as you can make other people pay the price. But eventually, multicultural regimes lose their strength through division and chaos and their legitimacy through lies and broken promises.
By contrast, since White Nationalism is in harmony with reality, our strength will only grow, because we understand that it arises from unity, and our credibility will only grow, because it is based on speaking the truth. Indeed, because the best evidence of our superiority will be provided by the system itself, White Nationalism will in essence feed off the system’s decline. Eventually the trajectories of their decline and our rise will cross, and when our rising power exceeds their declining ability to control us, then we win.
Ethnonationalism for Normies
(Or, “On the Sense of Coming Home”)
I want to run my household one way. My friends Travis and Kyle each want to run their household a different way. For example, I may prefer to wash my dishes immediately after I’ve finished eating, and resent ever seeing a dish left in the sink; Travis might prefer to leave one set of dishes in the sink, and wash them again immediately before each use; and Kyle might like to let the dishes pile up for a week, and then wash them all at once on the weekend when he’s done with work.
Forcing the three of us to live as roommates wouldn’t cause us to become better friends; it would simply create conflict where no conflict need exist, because when we’re forced to live in the same room in the same house, only one of us can have things our way at any given time — at all times, one of us wins while two of us lose. Either Travis and I are resentful of how many dishes are always in the sink, or else Travis and Kyle are resentful of how often they’re forced to wash dishes, and only one of us is ever temporarily happy.
If we live as neighbors rather than roommates, however, then each of us can live however we’d like within our own home. We can all be happy with how things are being run — and we can eliminate an utterly unnecessary obstacle to our continued good-will and friendship. If everything that I’ve just said above is obvious common sense, then why is ethnonationalism so controversial?
As one person I floated the above paragraph to said in reply, ethnonationalism is controversial “because not all black/white etc. people do their dishes the same.” True — but that hardly demolishes the case for ethnonationalism.
I grew up around a side of my family that, unbeknown to everyone but my mother and maternal grandparents until I was informed in my late teens, I wasn’t biologically related to. Yet, long before I ever knew this fact, it couldn’t have been clearer that something was “off.” There was no open antagonism between us; it wasn’t that we disliked each other — it just never felt “like family” in the way that, say, spending time with my grandmother (who I was biologically related to) felt “like family.”
I also felt attracted to one of my female cousins, and once when I was talking to a male cousin about girls at the school we went to and I let a small comment to that effect slip out, I was blindsided when the tone of the conversation changed because he was repulsed by the idea that I was even ranking how attractive I thought she was — but it hadn’t even occurred to me that there could possibly be any difference; after all, for me, there wasn’t.
When I finally made contact with the side of the family I was related to, the connection was instant. One cousin looked like the “Mario” version of me (squished vertically and stretched out horizontally); the other looked like the “Luigi” version of me (squished horizontally and stretched out vertically). Though of course we didn’t agree about everything, the conversation very naturally progressed into discoveries of common feelings about a whole range of different topics and experiences. What mattered for creating this feeling of “kinship” was not whether or not I shared a life’s worth of childhood experiences growing up with them; what mattered was that I was biologically related to them.
One of the most striking illustrations of this phenomenon can be seen when identical twins who were separated at birth reunite with each other as adults. Invariably, they discover that they share the same odd habits (like never using a toilet without flushing it first), prefer the same styles of dress (often literally identical), and more — even if one was raised Jewish and the other became a Nazi. These people don’t feel like they’re just encountering a member of the population who happens to look like them; there is an immediate and deep lasting significance to these relationships—and the one and only reason for that significance is genetics.
Last but not least, studies have recently confirmed that people form friendships with people who are, on average, about as genetically related to them as fourth cousins.
What all of this shows is that genes matter. In general, we can say that any gathering of people will be defined by a feeling of “kinship” in proportion to how genetically similar the members of that gathering are. This is true for families, and it is true for friendship. I felt closer to family I was actually kin to than I did to “family” I had spent far more of my actual upbringing around. Identical twins feel closer to their rediscovered twins than they do to other friends they’ve spent their whole lives around. And all of us are finding people genetically more like ourselves than average nearly every time we form any friendship at all.
But if genes matter, then that means that race matters for just exactly the same reasons it means that families matter — because “race” is nothing other than one’s very extended family. Just as personality traits and tendencies ‘run’ in families (which are really just collections of individuals), so it necessarily follows by definition that they must ‘run’ in racial groups (which are really just collections of families). For example, anyone with eyes can observe that Asians are far more introverted and conformist than other ethnic groups. I say “Asians are . . .” rather than “people from Asian cultures are . . .” because we now know that these traits, like practically all others, are in fact heavily influenced by heredity.
We even have an explanation of how these traits evolved into Asians more frequently than they evolved into other non-Asian populations: the wheat farming that Western society evolved from enables individuals to strike out on their own and succeed, thus fostering individualism; the rice farming that Asian societies evolved from require far more interdependence and co-operation in order to work at all, conversely fostering the evolution of collectivism. Thus, not only are Asians much more introverted on average than non-Asians, they are more introverted for reasons that basically boil down in everyday common language to “because they’re Asian.”
So when my friend says that ethnonationalism is controversial because “not all blacks and whites do their dishes the same way,” the question that this actually translates into for our purposes is: would a very introverted black man get along better amongst more introverted Asians than he would amongst more extroverted blacks?
Maybe. But this misses the point: the point is that very few blacks, if any, will be as introverted as the average Asian — for reasons that essentially boil down to “race.”
The solution to political diversity is, in my opinion, the same as the solution to racial diversity: let’s separate, with mutual respect, into life as tolerant neighbors rather than irritated roommates. Give liberal whites liberal areas to live in, and give conservative whites conservative areas to live in, and establish the norm that people who don’t like the policies of the region they’re in should move to the one made for them.
Does this contradict the idea that race is of central importance in society? Doesn’t it show that ideological belief is more important than biological inheritance?
Well, actually, no. In the United States, we’ve faced years of attempts to promote the (mis)understanding that “race” represents nothing other than “skin color.” The meaning of “race” isn’t defined by “skin color” any more than my membership in my immediate family is defined by common hair and eye colors (although these do come along for the ride). This hasn’t just obscured our understanding of the differences between whites and non-whites; it’s even obscured our ability to understand whites.
An invaluable book from David Hackett Fisher called Albion’s Seed can help us restore some of the knowledge we’ve lost. The book describes the four waves of British immigration in which the early Americas were settled: first, the Puritans came from East Anglia and settled in New England. Second, defeated supporters of the king and the Established Church of England (referred to as “Cavaliers”) settled around Virginia and Maryland. Third, Quakers came from the English midlands and landed in the Delaware Valley. Finally, the “Scotch-Irish” came from north England, lowland Scotland, and Ulster, settling the Appalachian backcountry, the Carolinas, Tennessee, and Kentucky. Throughout American history, the Puritan- and Quaker-settled regions have represented progressivism; the Cavalier- and Scotch-Irish-settled regions have represented traditionalism. To a very large degree, then, establishing “red states” and “blue states” would actually mean splitting “whites” up by ethnic origin. To put it another way, much of the conflict in American political life today is actually between “whites” of different ethnic origins. It turns out that “race” is explanatory even here.
Incidentally, we also already know from entirely unrelated studies that there are biological differences between liberals and conservatives. In fact, these differences are so significant that you can flash a single picture of something disgusting or threatening at someone and have a really good guess at whether they’re conservative or liberal, simply based on how long they stare at the photograph. We also know that political views are heritable (which, in short, means that children with liberal biological parents who are adopted into conservative homes will actually end up more liberal like their biological parents than they will conservative like their adoptive parents).
And again, in many cases, we have evolutionary explanations of how these hardwired differences could have come about. The Jamaican-American race realist blogger known as JayMan has written a brilliant series of in-depth articles on what he calls the “pioneer hypothesis.” In short, when some regions of the United States were settled, conditions favored those who would reproduce the most quickly and therefore spread out into the new territory fastest. Meanwhile, other regions were settled by populations that had lived for a long time in densely populated urban areas situated around relatively fixed resource bases, who are inclined to limit their fertility until they have possession of the resources to try to raise children with. Unsurprisingly, the descendants of the latter populations feel favorably towards things like abortion and gay marriage that limit one’s fertility, while it is overwhelmingly the descendants of the former populations that condemn them.
So there is an evolutionary explanation for the social and political conflicts that exist between whites in the United States today, too; and establishing ethnonationalist states for whites and then dividing them up between conservatives and liberals would largely entail separating whites by their specific ethnic origins as well.
The ethnonationalist ideal, then, might end up looking roughly like a world where most people live within about 20 blocks from their first cousins, within about 40 blocks from their second cousins, within about 60 blocks from their third cousins, and so on and so forth. While the conservative focuses on giving ideological support to the two-parent monogamous family in isolation, the ethnonationalist wants to encourage creation of a world where the familial sense of community is palpable everywhere. But being realistic, he sees that this simply can’t be done unless we arrange ourselves so that our differences don’t become a source of conflict. And that means not only encouraging the family to stay together, but encouraging families to stay together — that is, to concentrate in common geographical areas. Just as the case for why I want to live in a house with my family and stay out of the house where you live with your family is one that I can make without saying a word about why I hate your family, so the case for ethnonationalism can easily be made without saying a word about what one dislikes about races other than ones’ own. In fact, because “race” is nothing other than one’s very extended family, the two are just shy of being literally the same case.
In an ironic twiswt, because by concentrating people around people who are much more “like them” than average it would allow peoples to express their differences with much less conflict from the immediate society around them, the implementation of this ethnonationalist ideal just might lead to the most “diverse” world of all. Local cultures could evolve and take their own path, and no one would ask them to assimilate into a wider culture, because no one would need to; everyone would have their own “home.”
President Trump’s controversial chief strategist Steve Bannon is leaving the White House, in another major staff shakeup announced at the close of another tumultuous week in Washington.
The White House confirmed in a brief statement that Bannon, a hardcore populist who often sparred with his West Wing colleagues, would make Friday his last day — just over a year after he joined the Trump presidential campaign.
“White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve Bannon have mutually agreed today would be Steve’s last day,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement. “We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.”
One White House aide told Fox News the departure was a long time coming, and that Bannon actually submitted his resignation in writing two weeks ago.
In this photo taken April 29, 2017, Steve Bannon, chief White House strategist to President Donald Trump is seen in Harrisburg, Pa. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
This would have been just days after Kelly joined as chief of staff. Kelly was said to have been the driving force in the ouster of former communications director Anthony Scaramucci, and speculation swiftly centered on Bannon as the next one to go.
Sources say Bannon has become increasingly isolated in the White House. Adding to the pressure, some critics also publicly attacked Bannon in the wake of last weekend’s Charlottesville violence, in which a counter-protester was killed at a white nationalist rally. Trump came under intense criticism for his response to that violence, and some blamed Bannon for the tone — though it’s unclear how much influence he had in Trump’s remarks.
Bannon formally joined Trump’s team last summer, when the former head of Breitbart News was tapped as chief executive of the campaign. After Trump won the presidential race, Bannon was appointed to a senior adviser role at the same time Reince Priebus was named chief of staff.
The Drudge Report first reported Bannon’s exit, saying he could return to Breitbart.
Earlier this week, Bannon gave a candid interview to a liberal magazine where he slammed some of his adversaries inside the administration.
Speaking to The American Prospect, Bannon contradicted the administration’s statements on North Korea. He said despite threats to attack the regime, “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it.”
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Thursday rebuffed those remarks.
Bannon has long been a target of mainstream Republican ire – and until now had survived even as top Trump lieutenants like Sean Spicer and Priebus have resigned.
Trump briefly addressed the speculation about Bannon’s future during a wide-ranging Q&A with reporters at Trump Tower on Tuesday afternoon.
“I like Mr. Bannon, he’s a friend of mine,” Trump said, while downplaying his impact in the 2016 campaign. “I like him. He’s a good man. He’s not a racist … but we’ll see what happens with Mr. Bannon.”
The departure eased criticism of the administration only slightly.
The Democratic National Committee reacted to the news by saying there “is one less white supremacist in the White House, but that doesn’t change the man sitting behind the Resolute desk.”
Some conservatives expressed worry in recent days about Bannon’s potential departure.
WE ALL KNOW WHO WILL BE CALLING THE SHOTS NOW IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
TRUMP WILL LOSE 2020, THE POLITICAL STRUGGLE IS OVER
ITS TIME WE GET READY TO REDRESS OUR GRIEVANCES THROUGH WAR
Night Of The Digital Knives: Silicon Valley Launches Biggest Internet Censorship Purge In History
As of this writing, numerous right-wing websites and personalities have been banned from PayPal, Twitter, Paypal, Stripe, Facebook, Instagram, Mailchimp, Soundcloud, Uber, and countless other platforms. To make matters worse, domain registrars and website maintenance companies such as CloudFlare and GoDaddy have no-platformed The Daily Stormer, keeping the site offline since Sunday. It’s clear that ideological dissidents are going to have to change their tactics in order to keep their websites and other platforms online.
Dozens have been purged
I got banned from Facebook suddenly. I hardly even post there, I can't imagine what I could have done to get banned.
Even before the Charlottesville rally, right-wingers had been targeted for no-platforming by leftist-converged social media and financial platforms. Since Donald Trump’s election, we’ve witnessed a flurry of attacks from Silicon Valley, from the mass demonetization of politically dissident YouTube videos to the banning of individuals such as Hunter Wallace, Davis Aurini, and ROK publisher Roosh Valizadeh from PayPal.
To make matters worse, leftists have begun attacking web hosts, domain registrars, and other infrastructural services that right-wingers rely on to keep their sites online. Rootbocks and Hatreon, two free-speech alternatives to GoFundMe and Patreon, respectively, have been forced to switch domains and webhosts after being banned due to their unwillingness to ban right-wingers. Free speech Twitter replacement Gab has been subjected to several DDoS attacks for the same reasons, and the Alternative Right blog was deleted from Blogger last night.
Imagine if we got to do the last 15 years of internet business over, on a slightly smaller scale but brand new? #AltTech
What’s astounding is that alt-left-controlled tech organizations aren’t even hiding their desire to purge right-wing organizations. For example, anti-DDoS service CloudFlare banned The Daily Stormer solely because their CEO woke up in a “bad mood,” which he admitted in a company-wide email:
Let me be clear: this was an arbitrary decision. It was different than what I’d talked talked with our senior team about yesterday. I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet. I called our legal team and told them what we were going to do. I called our Trust & Safety team and had them stop the service. It was a decision I could make because I’m the CEO of a major Internet infrastructure company.
The purge has swelled to the point that Lauren Southern—who is completely unaffiliated with the alt-right and was not present at Charlottesville—was nearly banned from Instagram, despite her account there being completely apolitical. As Hamish’s Tweet above shows, these are far from the only examples of right-wingers being purged, no-platformed, censored, or merely harassed. Others, such as Social Matter’sRyan Landry and AltRight.com/Arktos’ Jason Reza Jorjani, have chosen to leave the alt-right altogether.
Where do we go from here?
While the purge of right-wingers from mainstream financial and social media platforms appears to be slowing down somewhat, it is clear that the right can no longer rely on these services to promote or finance their operations. The fact that previously neutral platforms such as domain registrars and DDoS protection systems such as CloudFlare are also booting right-wingers is a chilling development, because it means that alt-tech platforms such as Gab, Rootbocks, and Hatreon are at risk of being no-platformed as well.
While I believe that nationalism will ultimately triumph over globalism, it is clear that right-wingers will need to take drastic measures in order to safeguard their First Amendment rights. In addition to minimizing or eliminating their dependence on mainstream platforms, right-wingers will also need to eliminate their use of Nazi imagery—even as a joke—and tone down their criticism of Jews. Much like how Roosh was able to maintain his relevance despite no longer being able to talk about rape, the dissident right can maintain its relevance without turning into Hollywood Nazis.
Additionally, the dissident right cannot look to President Trump for protection from the alt-left. While Trump has made his displeasure at the alt-left publicly known, his lack of action against them—and against the no-platforming of his right-wing supporters—indicates that he either doesn’t understand the problem or doesn’t care. For the moment at least, we are on our own.
ARE YOU READY TO FIGHT BACK? CAUSE THEY ARE COMING FOR YOU.