This always beats me about white nationalists: white people are expected to be in top positions of society because they've got high IQ. This is cheered and seen as one reason to why one should become a white nationalist. But when someone points out that Ashkenazi Jews also are leading within science, economics and politics because they've got a general IQ of 112-115, which is 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the European average, it's supposedly because Jews are evil and are trying to take over the world. Yeah, right.

Why don't we just face the scientific facts? Eastern European Jews are highly intelligent, as a group even smarter than East Asians, and have a culture of intellectual discipline and excellence. They're supposed to be on the top. White nationalists additionally suggest Jews are on top to destroy Europe. But if you take a second look, white Europeans are generally leftist-oriented, vote for liberal socialism, believe in some soft form of multiculturalism, and love American Hollywood culture. Europeans believe in self-destruction, because that's been the dominant paradigm since WWII. All of our current leaders praise this development. Since Western Jews, both American and European, are liberal-oriented, they're going along with that meme, just like the average whitey is.

European white nationalism is an expression of how deep we're in this shit now. We're so neurotic that we blame a small "Jewish" (Israel is almost as multicultural as Russia) island for our own problems, and call it nationalism. The truth is that Israel, apart from American support, is completely alone in its struggle for survival and couldn't be in worse condition. That's why it breaches UN agreements and vote in extremists in office. In Europe many Jews don't dare to go out in public, in case a leftist gang accuses them of being Nazis or a group of Arab Muslims harass them for...well, being Jewish.

Whitey, your problem is not a Jew, but self-destructive behavior and a lack of civil confidence. Clean your house or shut the hell up.

What about it? I think it's safe to say that it'd be both ineffective and unrealistic to reinstate race laws in any Western country at this time. The governments in Europe have proven ineffective only at trying to raise birth rates, so how are they going to make Italians only to marry Italians, Danes only to marry Danes etc.? We don't even know how effective racial propaganda was in Nazi/Fascist nations, because at that point in history nations were more isolated, conservative and culturally homogeneous. We see little if any signs of racial propaganda working anywhere in Europe right now.

I'm of the opinion that race is important and should be taken into account when creating social policies. Science proves race matters more than what our progressive governments would like for us to believe. But I'm also of the opinion that you cannot address race directly as a political issue and at the same time run a successful party. If you can create a community where civil society and cultural traditions gain ground, you'll probably do more for the "race issue" than any nationalist party in Europe has ever done since the end of WWII. So why aren't we?

Cless Alvein recently wrote this column at the Spearhead about love and race in America. If you haven't read the Spearhead yet, I recommend you to do so, where alpha-misanthropic Ferdinand Bardamu also features some of his posts. I have a few problems with Alvein's ideas, so I'll simply get right to it.

With love as a motivator, one can see why I’m averse to combat dating and the casual-sex market: there’s no love in it. There isn’t even luke-warm “like” in it. It’s more like a real-life flame war than a process of growth and discovery, combining the nonchalant mean-spiritedness of 4chan and the confining status obsessions of Autoadmit. When two people are trying to assert and to assess each other’s status, there’s no chance for genuine friendship, compassion, and love to flourish. Pouring battery acid in a garden, proving one’s “status” to the earth, doesn’t bring flowers to blossom. It kills them.

I agree that the promiscuous culture is really boring and soulless, but I don't think love can escape the eternal struggle of social status. Status matters and people will always assess each other. Romantic love is a pipe dream, nothing more. It doesn't exist. If you lose your job, screw up friendships, sit at home and drink beer, your girlfriend is likely to either cheat on you or leave you.

Many of us will look elsewhere to find love, dating internationally and interracially.

Funny. Where I come from, it's the complete opposite. Native Swedes who have their shit together get together with native Swedes, especially if they're middle or upper class. Only the garbage of the community is into interracial relationships, and usually they become welfare cases. In cities it's more common with multicultural relationships, but most people stay away from them.

Carrie Bradshaw’s “Mr. Big” had to be a blue-blooded white man. By contrast, a person who is seeking love above all, like myself, can marry a woman of any nationality and racial background.

She's Jewish (probably in the show as well) and Jewish women prefer mating with men of white-oriented background. Love above all else is a curious phrase, because what does it really say, other than that you believe in some fairy tale notion of reproduction? Love may stand above all in an ideal world, but only on certain premises, most of which are evolutionary. One of those premises is tribal psychology. People generally look for mates that are similar to themselves, unless they're insecure in their own identity. There is room for exceptions, but in Sweden you won't see a lot of Swedish women chasing black or Asian men any time soon.

Of white men who date Asian women, the scared white girls argue that we seek submissive housewives, or that Asian women just have low standards. Also wrong. Second- and third-generation Asian immigrants are as free, under the law, as any other American women, and they strongly prefer egalitarian relationships.

They are free under law, but that doesn't say anything about their cultural behavior. Asian women are submissive, unless they become Westernized, which I assume is what he's referring too. Sure, but then we also talk about Western women, even if their racial background is non-European. Asian women "prefer" equality since that's what's hot in the West right now, but if you'd play dominating, most of them would probably fall back into their old cultural patterns.

I know there are great white women out there, but a white man unwilling to date outside of his ethnicity is putting himself at a severe disadvantage– there aren’t enough good white women “to go around”, so to speak.

I think this is where his main thesis rests. I think it's bullshit. There are plenty of lovely women within any native European population--enough for every European man. In America the case may be different because of its multicultural history, I don't know. It sounds peculiar that white men should have to think internationally about the dating market just because feminism is popular at the moment. I don't buy the argument. What is there to fear? Most women, even if they believe in feminism, behave like women always have done. If you can't master them, you're probably just out of your league.

The reason to why I wrote a longer response to this post, even though it contains a few good points (don't stare yourself blind on race, love is more than casual sex), is to emphasize what me and Martin often talk about. Romanticizing things is unproductive. It makes you see fluffy images that don't correspond to reality. Love is not some pink fantasy dream where all races come together. The reality is that ethnic groups don't really mix that well, and love cannot exist without a lot of social factors, including appearance and status. Race, status, class, cultural background--all of these things matter. Weep weep to any liberals reading this who have yet to face to these facts. Reality wins, as always.