Sunday, April 26, 2015

More On the Amren Debate

More Derb.

Here we see Derbyshire discuss the Amren debate (complete with a picture we all could do without). Note that the debate was framed in spectacularly substandard terms - "solving the race problem" is defined as HBD + freedom of association; in other words, all our problems will be "solved" if we are taught that Jews and East Asians are master races to whom Whites should grovel, and we should have the "freedom" to "associate" with such cognitive masters, avoiding those no-good Negroes (hence, "solving the race problem" is conflated here with "avoiding Negroes").

I also note that there is some disagreement in HBD circles about the land of the gods, China. The dominant view, espoused by White-hating Asiaphiles such as Derbyshire and Lynn, is that the future belongs to China, given that the Chinese are high-IQ superhumans and they are racialist, nationalist, with a relatively homogeneous population.  On the other hand, the minority HBD opinion is that of Frost, that great actor on the stage of history, who gnashes his teeth in anguished agony about the growing sub-Saharan African population in certain Chinese cities, and about the general trend of East Asian nations to increasingly embrace some of the dangers of multiculturalism and alien immigration.

These HBDers really need to get on the same page on this. Don't they know that HBD is a fossilized dogmatic memetic construct designed to justify the enslavement of Whites to Jewish and Asian interests?

Then we have a Youtube video of Derbyshire speaking at the 2014 Amren conference. Note that the introduction to his talk, outlining his expertise on the subject of China and the Chinese, leaves out one particularly important fact.  Doesn't the audience deserve to know about potential conflicts of interest of the speakers?

Here's a thought experiment. Imagine a conservative White woman, married to a Negro, with mixed race children, and who is a promoter of miscegenation.  Let's assume this woman has written "racially aware" critical articles on the dangers of, say, Hispanics. Would such a woman be an honored guest at the same conferences that embrace Derbyshire?  Why or why not?