Madness, it's folly and madness.
At Amren, a "White Advocate" commentator writes:
My understanding is that many AmRen supporters hold that both Jews and North Asians are more intelligent that gentile Whites. While the term Jewish supremacist won't work for a whole boatload of reasons, let's experiment with North Asian (or Oriental) supremacist. Imagine inviting the press to a North Asian Supremacy conference only to have them stumble in to a room full of white guys.
Paging John Derbyshire! It's time for some "measured groveling" to our Asiatic masters! If I wrote the above quote as a parody, some would think that I was going too far; unfortunately, that's a real comment and no parody. And it's reasonably consistent; after all:
He claims to be a "yellow supremacist" because he has theorized that Asian people are the most advanced humans (in evolutionary terms), followed by white people and those of African descent.
And it's not just that site. A more radically WN site has recently been commandeered by an aggressively domineering East Asian female, who has got the henpecked White males there agreeing to a "Euro-Asian alliance" so as to "inflict pain on Russians" (you know, the most populous ethnic group in Europe) and to colonize the West with Asians so that Western borders can be defended by Chinese girls with guns. Again, that's not a parody of their position, it's the actual position itself.
People wondering why I am so adamantly opposed to HBD can perhaps begun to discern the direction that HBD/race-realism inevitably leads us: worship of Asians, a "movement" based on "Oriental supremacism" with subaltern Whites groveling before the more "evolutionarily advanced" Asiatics. In some cases, Whites are to grovel before Jews as well; in other cases, "movement" fears of "Jewish infiltration" never for some reason extend to the danger of infiltration by yellow and brown Asians.
Recently, the "movement" - including some of the pro-Asian sites mentioned above - has been harshly critiquing Roosh and the PUA stupidity. While that criticism has been richly deserved, a question that goes unanswered is: why is being race cucked by a Chinaman any better than by a Persian?
And all talk about "alliances" is doubly ludicrous. First, because we have all sorts of grand alliances being proposed by small groups of powerless bloggers, the sort of "fascist delusion" mocked by the likes of Roger Griffin (*). Second, because it should be obvious that alliances should never be formed from a position of weakness. In the mid-late 1990s, there was much chatter among the "movement" about forming "alliances" with Black nationalists. To which more sane people queried: and what do we offer them? Negroes under Farrakhan had just marched en masse onto the nation's capital, while White neckbeards have continuously proved unable to march down a side street without being out-numbered by crowds of hostile protesters. Why should anyone form an "alliance" with the losing side (Whites)? Such an "alliance" would be nothing more or less than the terms of surrender by Whites, negotiating from a position of perfect weakness.
But, then, the "movement" always knows better. With such fine merit-based leadership, who could ever doubt their wisdom?
*Nothing wrong with proposing ideas. But when it "jumps the shark" into grandiose designs complete with multiple maps and empty bombastic rhetoric then we have moved from reasonable advocacy to fever-dream delusion.