Tuesday, January 18, 2022

Andrews’ Democratic Multiculturalism

Food for thought.  In all cases, emphasis added, except where indicated.

See this.

We need to remember what Salter wrote in On Genetic Interests, that the only thing worse, from the perspective of a majority being replaced, than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does work. Democratic multiculturalism is a tool to use to ensure that a multiculturalism that does not work. What is democratic multiculturalism?

I have previously written about, and advocated for, Salter’s idea of “Democratic Multiculturalism” – that White majorities should demand a seat at the multicultural table and use the System’s mechanisms of multiculturalism to advocate for White interests. Multiculturalism is defined (as Salter reminded us) as a system in which minorities are empowered and are encouraged to mobilize for their interests, while majorities are disempowered and demobilized. If that is so, then forcing the multicultural system to allow for majority mobilization will, by definition, make that system untenable, destabilize it, and heighten the contradictions, and lead, eventually, to its demise. There is a saying – “if everyone is my brother, then I have no brother.” Likewise, if every group tales advantage of multiculturalism, then there is no multiculturalism.

Always remember Suvorov’s Law of history – revolutions do not typically occur during the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed. That is why it is imperative to put pressure on the System, at its weakest points, to force concessions and force relaxation of the repression.

See this.

See this.

See this.

See this.

Some work by Salter.

Those essays defend the idea behind democratic multiculturalism and answer some criticism of the concept. Back to Andrews:

Peaceful coexistence of different ethnic groups within one state is certainly possible if none of the groups need fear the domination of others, more generally if none finds itself in a situation of interethnic competition. This is best achieved when each group owns its own land and enjoys sovereignty over its own affairs as is the case in Switzerland. — Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt

True enough, but if you are going to go that far, how about different states?  At least for groups that are highly racially and culturally divergent?

Erecting walls that separate ‘us’ from ‘them’ is a necessary correlate of morality since it defines the scope within which sympathy, fairness, and duty operate. The chief wall is the family/clan/village, but during certain historical periods ethnicity defines the wall.The great achievement of Western culture the Enlightenment is to make many of us peer over that wall and grant some respect to people outside it; the great failure of Western culture is to deny that walls are inevitable or important. — James Q. Wilson

True.

I wish to address the question of how a homeland for Whites can be created on the North American continent. I shall not address the demographic problems of Whites in Europe and elsewhere, since their solution requires an entirely different approach.

Fair enough.

Before stating my proposal, however, I must put my readers in a receptive mindset. In the 1930s, in the midst of the National Socialist revolution, a Berlin Rabbi, Joachim Prinz, wrote the following:

We want assimilation to be replaced by a new law: the declaration of belonging to the Jewish nation and the Jewish race. A State built upon the principle of the purity of nation and race can only be honored and respected by a Jew who declares his belonging to his own kind . . . [Italics in original]

Jewish nation?  Jewish race?  But I thought they are HuWhite?  Whither Taylor?

Rabbi Prinz escaped the slaughter

Slaughter?

…of the European Jews and later became head of the American Jewish Congress. In America, Rabbi Prinz adopted a diametrically different view of the ideas of national and racial purity. Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of this is the speech he gave immediately before Martin Luther King, Jr. took the podium to deliver his famous “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. This was the high point of American assimilationism, when Nathan Glazer still believed that blacks could fully assimilate. Rabbi Prinz changed his tactics dramatically because times had changed dramatically. So must we.

Jews always do what they perceive is the best for Jews (whether they judge correctly is another issue). So must we. 

FROM ASSIMILATIONISM TO MULTICULTURALISM

For the first 350 years after the European (primarily English) settlement of the present United States, we insisted on assimilation for all new immigrants. Americans saw themselves as “modified Englishmen,” and all European newcomers were required to modify them-selves accordingly. Blacks were excluded because it was assumed that they were a special case and clearly impossible to assimilate into our society. Conversely, assimilation of non-English Whites was expected and often forced, as discussed by Benjamin Schwartz:

Sinclair Lewis recognized the melting pot, in Main Street, as a means by which “the sound American customs absorbed with-out one trace of pollution another alien invasion.” Americanization, then, although it did not cleanse America of its ethnic minorities, cleansed its minorities of their ethnicity.

Since 1965, however, the United States has opened its borders to massive legal and illegal immigration by non-Whites who, like American blacks, will not or cannot assimilate. Because of this, the spirit of the age has become multiculturalism and multiracialism.

OK, I’m not going to argue the main points, although one could quibble with details and emphasis.

TOWARD A MULTICULTURALISM OF THE RIGHT

Why then does the right oppose multiculturalism and insist on assimilation? 

Which “right” are we talking about?  Mainstream? Paleoconservatives?  Civic nationalists. Far Right racial nationalists?

The Left also formerly supported assimilation to create the new American citizen. Some leftists, like Todd Gitlin, lament the fact that multiculturalism is destroying traditional leftist universalism and warn that America is lost unless we drop our obsession with group differences.

If that’s the case, America is lost.  Consider how much the “obsession with group differences” has advanced since Andrews wrote this piece.

It is time for the right to discard assimilationism. First of all, it is not possible to assimilate non-Whites. 

Nor is it desirable, and that should be the major consideration- racial preservation, ethnic genetic interests, etc.

Second, the establishment is not even trying to assimilate them

True, but descriptive. Prescriptively, that’s irrelevant (but makes our job easier0.

Third, continuing to insist upon assimilation prevents us from focusing on stopping the flow of non-assimilable immigrants, while we wait for the establishment to insist on assimilation, which is impossible anyway

Again, desirability is more important than possibility – although in a sense Andrews may be conflating the two ideas, if he means that the impossibility is not only because of pragmatics and probabilities, but because attempting assimilation would be so destructive it is “impossible.”

Fourth, while non-Whites cannot assimilate our culture, Whites seem all too able to assimilate their culture, much to our detriment

True.

Fifth, the presence of large populations of unassimilable non-Whites increases miscegenation, i.e., genetic assimilation, which destroys all distinct races that participate in it. 

See above, on desirability vs. possibility.

Finally, the only way for Whites to preserve their cultural and racial distinctness in a multicultural society is to embrace multiculturalism and insist on our right to be and remain distinct.

Indeed. That’s an overt rationale for democratic multiculturalism, with the covert rationale being to destroy the System as described in my linked essays, above.

Embracing multiculturalism will have many positive consequences for White Americans.

Yes.

Multiculturalism promotes stronger group identities for those who perceive themselves as belonging to a specific group. Based on social identity theory, we should also expect increased group conflict and polarization.

Chaos and balkanization - all good.  Disrupt the multicultural consensus and destabilize the System.

Multiculturalism will also increase the desire for individual and group freedom from perceived oppression and control by more socially powerful groups. 

Right – but you will need to convince Whites that they are oppressed and controlled by others (or at least by hostile White elites allied with the others); thus, the “White Privilege” paradigm needs to refuted and delegitimized.

There will also be an increased desire by successful groups for freedom from blame and the costs of servicing groups that seem unable to participate in the “American Success story” without continued assistance. Once we stop thinking of America as a normatively White country, the backwardness of other groups will no longer look like a social problem we have to solve and more like a cultural difference we have to tolerate.

As I say, America is a dead country with no future. The sooner we convince Whites of that, the better.

The net result is that once we start thinking of ourselves as a distinct group with distinct interests, Whites will be more willing and able to hold our own in ethnic competition.

Note that the approach to attack Whites as such a distinct group is to question the existence of Whites as an actual biological-ancestral-cultural group and also constantly raise the “who is White?” question, dividing Whites against each other. The latter approach will, unfortunately, find allies among Nordicists and other ethnic fetishists in Der Movement, with their hostility toward White ethnics. Any successful pro-White activity, including democratic multiculturalism, needs to define the White Identity, and vigorously defend it.

FROM MULTICULTURALISM TO WHITE NATIONALISM

Another long-term consequence of Whites embracing multiculturalism is that it will contribute to the dissolution of the United States and the formation of a White homeland in North America. Consider these words from Ron Unz:

A social ideology that allots to blacks and Latinos and Asians their own separatist institutions and suggested shares of society’s benefits cannot long be prevented from extending itself to Whites as well. Especially as Whites become merely one minority among many minorities. Before it is altogether too late, those who support this status quo must realize that the diversity prescription contains the seeds of national dissolution.

Mr. Unz wrote that in the pages of Commentary and deplores the idea of national dissolution, but that does not affect the soundness of his analysis.

Yes, Unz is an enemy of White nationalism; this helps us to understand those alleged “White nationalists” who write for Unz’s site and enable Unz’s anti-White agenda.

THE POLITICS OF MULTICULTURALISM

What are the political options for multicultural societies? I suggest that there are only four.

Assimilation: The American tradition except for blacks. This is no longer viable due to the massive non-White immigration since 1965 and the failure of the once all-powerful Anglo-American majority to enforce assimilation or to prevent non-White immigration. Indeed, it is not even desirable given the current demographics of the country.

Domination: The American tradition with blacks under slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow. This is no longer viable due both to massive non-White immigration, the change in American sensibilities, and the loss of will by the Anglo-American majority.

Libertarianism: Basically this is just letting the chips fall where they may, what Michael Levin calls “The Clark Gable Solution.” Of course, it is not a solution at all, but simply an abdication of responsibility, the decision to let others deter-mine our destiny as a people. What are the chances that such a destiny will be anything but the short-run subordination and long-run destruction of our people?

Multiculturalism: Two forms of multiculturalism are possible. A) The first is what we have today: multiculturalism in which Whites do not recognize ourselves as a group and take our own side in struggles with other groups. The result is a transfer of power and assets from Whites to non-Whites. Given race differences, this will require a permanent imposition of Affirmative Action and a continued willingness by Whites to accept blame for black and Hispanic failure, until we exit the stage of power and influence entirely. B) In the second form of multiculturalism, some Whites recognize ourselves as a distinct group, take our own side, and hold our own against other ethnic groups. This should be our goal, because while all multiculturalisms are unstable and prone to breakup, at least this one will al-low us to participate in the breakup as equals or better.

This latter form of multiculturalism is akin to Salter’s idea of democratic multiculturalism.

Assimilation is no longer desirable, domination no longer possible, and libertarianism concedes the game. That leaves only multiculturalism, which, if we embrace it and play our cards right, will result in national separation, which is the desired goal.

This is particularly true due to Suvorov’s Law – successes achieved via democratic multiculturalism and concessions from the System will lead to both an increase in White morale and a delegitimization of the System’s hegemony.

A PRACTICAL PROGRAM

We must foster White ethnic self-consciousness. Some years ago Sam Francis pointed out that as a group we Whites exist objectively

See above.  The White group has been, and will be, challenged on an objective basis; indeed, and ironically enough, constant challenges about this come from Der Movement itself. That faction that defends a stable White identity will have an advantage over those constantly questioning “whiteness.”

…but not subjectively. This phenomenon is common for dominant groups in most societies and should change as we become less dominant. But obviously it would be better for Whites to become self-conscious before we reach minority status. How do we make that happen?

Acknowledging and defending a stable, coherent, objective White Identity would be a good place to start.

We must insist on the importance of biological, psychological, and behavioral genetics research to public policy, including the writings of Garrett Hardin, Raymond Cattell, and Frank Salter

That’s great.  Unfortunately, we have retards in Der Movement who actually question the work of Salter. Amazing.

We should discuss and promote the idea that ethnic and race competition and conflict are normal and predictable features of our evolutionary history and stress they will continue on some level — seen or unseen — no matter how much the preachers and politicos talk of universal love and brotherhood. Though now somewhat dated, the contrast between the visible emotional White and black response to the O. J. Simpson verdict as depicted in photographs in Newsweek and Time is a good example of what I mean.

Sounds good, but how to do so?  We can’t even get people on the Far Right to agree on this.

We should promote white Americans as a specific group with specific interests and contrast those interests with the interests of other groups.

OK, but see all of the problems above.

We should acknowledge as valid the legitimate group interests of other groups and show where and how their interests are often incompatible with our interests. Kevin MacDonald’s works should be a guide for similar approaches to explaining White/black and White/Hispanic conflict.

MacDonald's work on the Jews, not the later work.

We should attempt to redirect social/cultural pressures such that “social justice” will include justice for our group of Americans.

We should use Jews as an example of a group that desires both biological and cultural survival. Given their recent history, is it difficult for most people to call them Nazis or racists because they wish to preserve their biological peoplehood. It will be hard to argue that what is positive for Jews would be a bad thing for Americans.

OK.

We should support and promote the following issues, ideas, and programs — some of which some of us now oppose:

Because of the differential demographic impact of abortion, all who can should support it.

We should support bilingual education.

Black and Hispanic history.

Ethnic Studies and departments. Any type of traditional historical/cultural activities, whether real, such as Scottish Games, or fabricated, like Kwanza.

Any type of exclusionary organization, process, or activity by any group whether White or non-White. For example, Bill Gates’ billion-dollar scholarships scheme for blacks and Indians despite its anti-White bias. In fact, we should support any activity that increases group polarization that does not otherwise weaken us.

We must enthusiastically support the first attempt at a breakaway state. I suspect it will be either Hispanic/Mexican or Hawaiian. We should support that precedent in a fashion that will make our own separation less difficult.

We should continue to oppose certain programs:

Accepting blame for minority failure.

Non-White immigration (let’s keep as much as we can).

We should create an organization and begin planning a new Declaration of Independence entitled something like The New Americas: A Manifesto for the Survival of Freedom and Tolerance. In addition, it should contain a proposed master compact for a new federation of sovereign nation-states and a suggested upgrading of the existing Constitution for our specific new America which will take into consideration what we have learned over 225+years of constitutional history.

A new organization - what?  More of the same failed organizations led by the same failed Quota Queens?

Granted it is a bitter pill, but if indeed multiculturalism is the most potent force available, then we must swallow it to move on to create a homeland exclusively for Whites on this continent.

Those suggestions are reasonable, but only a start.

As regards more immediate practical advice for the individual interested in helping to get this process started, I’d suggest that any time you have the chance to express complaints about anti-White discrimination via anonymous means – such as surveys, complaint lines and sites, etc. – do so, as often as possible (making sure it is based on real data and is plausible).  Of course, if you are in a position to make open, overt, live complaints, that is much better, but comes with more potential costs of course.  Everyone has to judge their own situation. One can do both as well – anonymous and overt – as each situation suggests.  In addition, the more people who make the same complaints at the same entity, the better, and the “strength in numbers” strategy makes open, overt complaints and activism somewhat safer and more feasible. In addition, while a single complaint and complainer can be easily dismissed as an outlier and a crank, multiple such actions become much more difficult to dismiss. Document everything in writing – your complaints and actions and the responses (or lack thereof can be noted).  You can expect that most likely complaints about anti-White discrimination, etc. – no matter how real and well documented – will ultimately be dismissed without effective action to remedy the complaint, and that lack of an effective and reasonable response needs to be documented, and could always be used in any future legal action or publicizing of the issue. Getting legal advice and assistance may (eventually) be necessary, at least for the overt actions.

The education system/academia is a particularly fruitful arena for such actions.

I have tried some of these approaches myself, mostly as a lone individual, with the expected lack of effective remediation, but all has been, and will be, well documented for future reference.  If nothing else, such complaints force entities, institutions, HR departments, etc. to at least formally go through the motions of addressing them, which not only takes time and effort (that they would otherwise use for unsavory purposes) but causes upset, chaos, and disrupts the smooth running of the multicultural apparatus. If well documented, it lays the foundation for, e.g., future legal action. Even if alone, the actions may prompt others to speak out as well – someone needs to “break the ice” – why not you?  Just be careful to judge your situation, and do it openly or anonymously, as the situation warrants.  Always be truthful and have everything well documented.  

You can not only do such negative democratic multiculturalism (e.g., complaints), but positive as well, such as organizing within the multicultural apparatus with respect to White identity and mobilization.  That will be more difficult and will almost certainly require you to be overt. It is possible the negative complaints can lay the foundation for the positive work.  In the unlikely event the complaints are taken seriously, one remediation may be offering Whites a “seat at the multicultural table.”  That can be leveraged as the essays by Salter and I describe.

Sunday, January 16, 2022

Odds and Ends, 1/16/22

In der news.

Happy Saint Martin Day (for tomorrow).

Seeing this article, you just know that Sallis' Law - as much a law of the universe as is gravity - will be invoked.  And you of course would be right:

Jack Ryan IstvanIN 

If they are allowed to stay they and their grandchildren will become "Italians" same as Arab Moors in Sicily became Italians. Many or even most Sicilians are dark, hairy, swarthy - they don't look like Black, Black blue gum Black Africans, but they don't look White - they look like Arabs, because they are descended from Arab Moor conquerors, rapists.

This was discussed in the classic best ever race realist movie - "True Romance".

Check out the scene "Sicilians".

IstvanIN Jack Ryan

That was then this is now. These North Africans need to be repatriated.

Jack Ryan IstvanIN 

Ok, but White race realist then also thought and said the Arab Muslim Moor invaders, occupiers, rapists in Sicily needed to be deported back in the day. They weren't deported and the destroyed the White gene pool then. Attempts to convert the Arab Muslims to Catholic Christianity was all that was done and religious conversions don't make Arabs, or Black Africans in to White Europeans. It doesn't change the race blood. Just as the "Magic Dirt' of Sweden doesn't make mountain Muslim tribal people from Afghanistan or Albians [sic], or Algerians in to good-looking well behaved Nordic Swedes.

Magic Dirt doens't [sic] work anywhere - take the worst Black welfare underclass from Chicago and move them to Section 8 housing Kenosha WI or Ferguson MO and they act the same way as they did in the ' Hood in the West Side of Chicago.

Meanwhile, the Autright blog will tell us that my complaints about Nordicism in the "movement" are just responding to mild criticisms of Southern Europeans, while Greg Johnson will tell is that there is no such thing as "movement" affirmative action - indeed, an Italian American of Sicilian ancestry will be accepted as a "movement" leader as readily as Taylor, Johnson, Pierce, and Spencer, and don't you forget it!

Meanwhile, racially superior High Truster purebreds can learn how to spell.

With respect to the spectrum of European and MENA genetic variation, in reality, looking at the PCA, the red triangle Sicilian samples aren't even individually visible, as they are all clustered among the mainland Southern Italian red diamonds as well as some of the Central Italians. Why aren't they all the way on the left, with the MENA samples, if Der Movement is correct?

Prediction:

1/12/22

Ted Sallis

@tedsallis

Today's "hot take" -

Prediction - if WN 3.0 continues, John Derbyshire will one day be a guest on a Counter-Currents livestream (if he lives that long, given his health problems)

See this on covid. Indict Fauci and Collins.

See this. That this is going on yet Der Movement continues to fail to attract White Americans proves its utter failure. And have you noticed that none of the Republican politicians who are grandstanding about vaccine mandates and masks dare to complain about White Americans being racially denied covid treatments?

Certainly, Donnie Trump is more concerned about Black unemployment rates than he is about his own White supporters being murdered by omission by the medical establishment.

Meanwhile, with all of the "conservative legal foundations," where are the lawsuits about this issue? Why aren't state governments, and the federal government, being sued?

And as regards Der Movement, they'll tell you not to worry, since viruses don't exist and covid is merely a hoax to get Jew doctors to administer toxic killshots.

Face it, Whitey, you're screwed.

This is American Renaissance:

JohnEngelman Floridaman2001

A Conversation with Arthur Jensen

American Renaissance, August and September 1992

Jared Taylor: Well, it seems to me that if there are two racial groups that can live side by side in harmony, it appears to be whites and Asians.

Of course Jared Taylor means Orientals, but not Muslims.

In my ideal country there would be about 45% whites. Of course I include Jews as whites. There would be about 45% Orientals. There would be enough Hispanics, East Indians, Thais, Ethiopians, etc. to operate ethnic restaurants and to have ethnic festivals.

Rosie and the Kids!

Interesting American Renaissance comments:

HT 

Obviously there is an aspect of Howard Zinn, one of the key wreckers of our education system, that we are not supposed to mention. But it's just another one of those coincidences I'm sure.

Xanthippe2 HT 

I understand how AmRen wants to focus the discussion on certain issues, but this can get tedious. It is very much like seeing that so many smash and grabbers are Black, but not mentioning it because "it doesn't really mean anything."

HT Xanthippe2 

Reality is reality. Not wise to ignore any of it. America's dive into self hatred has a source.

Danesovic Xanthippe2 

Lol great point. I love it when Jared Taylor complains about the left ignoring and obfuscating overrepresentation of blacks in crime statistics yet he's doing the same in regards to another group

Negative comments about Italians, Romanians, and Hungarians are A-OK at Amren though.

The Alienist. What you’d expect – evil and corrupt White men, noble Jews and Negroes, heroic feminists, tragic yet lovable transsexual boy prostitutes (Alt Righters?), all in the year 1896.

When was the last time you say a show or movie that had the slightest semblance of racial and/or historical accuracy?

And before Der Movement whines that producing its own material would be too expensive, remember that the highly regarded independent science fiction film Primer was made with a budget of only $7,000.

Remember that the next time you flush your money down the toilet by giving D’Nations to “movement” grifters.

Some thoughts on the Hood livestream. I enjoyed Johnson speaking on behalf of red state America vs. blue state coastal elites - what do you think YOU are? When's the last time you've lived in a red state, or even a "purple" rust state? Then Johnson stays silent when Hood says Trump didn't lose because of election fraud (be he said it later, but not confronting Hood). Then, Johnson makes a stupid anecdotal comment that people he knows who are vaccinated got sicker with Omicron more than unvaccinated heroes like himself. That's a silly, irrational, female argument - not surprising coming from the likes of him. Johnson also supports the idea of non-Whites - including Asians of course - running as candidates for "pro-White" interests. Rosie and the kids! Much of what Hood says about electoral politics is more or less reasonable, although I don't agree with everything. At this point, I can't stand listening to Johnson's voice any more, so I'm ending my analysis now.

Saturday, January 15, 2022

Kosher Covid

An analogy.

One can make an analogy between covid and the Jewish Question (JQ), and not only because Jews can be modeled as a disease within the Western organism.  We can consider the reaction to each, and how a Manichean schism of extremes emerges.

With covid, opinion is split between those who treat the disease as the second coming of the Black Death, a plague that requires the most stringent and hysterical reaction and public health measures. On the other hand, we have the flubros who consider a disease that has killed millions worldwide as a hoax and the vaccine for this disease as a “toxic killshot” designed to ensure mass genocide. God forbid anyone take a more reasonable and balanced intermediate position that the yellow monkeys of China unleashed a serious pandemic on the world, albeit one that is not an existential threat, and certain measures should be taken against the pandemic, as long as those measures are not more damaging to society than is the disease itself.

With respect to the Jews, many in Der Movement focus obsessively on Jews and the JQ, and consider all problems of Whites to derive from the Jews, who are elevated to the status of negative supermen. Jews are considered the source of evil under the standard “movement” approach. The opposing view is to relieve the Jews of most or all responsibility for the downfall of White interests, to mock and ridicule those who focus on “the Jew thing” and to ascribe White problems to “modernity” or “White liberals” or to some other non-Jewish cause.  They accept the Cofnas default position while the “anti-Semites” accept MacDonald’s thesis. 

So, it’s either it is all the Jews, and we are all Julius Streicher, or the Jews are innocent scapegoats for historical processes for which they have no responsibility. A balanced view would be that the Jews are an intelligent, intense, highly ethnocentric, and very influential minority group whose interests are incompatible with those of the White majority, and whose actions deeply harm those White majority interests.  They are necessary but not sufficient for what has happened to Whites; dealing with the JQ is necessary in order to solve our problems but by itself is not enough. The problems would exist even without the Jews (although it is debatable whether the problems would ever have gotten to the current dire point without the Jews), but it is also true that we cannot effectively address those problems without a full accounting of the JQ. We need to put the JQ in the proper perspective and accord it the importance it merits, no more and no less, and use formulate a response commensurate to the problem; again, no more and no less.

Yockey made an immune system analogy – a fever helps to fight a disease but the fever itself is not healthy.  Anti-Semitism and an obsession with the JQ may be necessary to deal with the JQ but is itself not beneficial to a movement or to the broader society. Thus, we need an appropriate dose to treat the disease. Remember, the dose makes the poison, what can be a helpful drug at one (lower) does can be a poison at another (higher) dose.  We need just the right amount of anti-Semitism and a focus on the JQ to deal with the problem, too little will not solve the problem but too much can be counter-productive as well.

In his trilogy on the Jews, MacDonald noted that the Spanish Inquisition was a response to the conversos being cryptic ethnocentric (practicing) Jews, but that the Inquisition damaged Spanish society. That is an example of how the response, if not carefully calibrated, can be worse than the disease. It is therefore important for us to properly gauge the degree to which the JQ is a problem and the degree to which a response should be actualized.  A personal anecdote provides another example of this.  Back in the mid-late 1990s, I had a conversation with a prominent “movement” leader who shall remain nameless, and the topic of the fall of communism on the USSR and Eastern Europe came up. I expressed the opinion that this historical event was, on balance, a good thing, freeing the people from Marxist tyranny and opening up the eastern half of Europe to racial nationalism. The Grand Poobah disagreed, expressing the opinion that he hoped that the communist party would return to power in Russia.  Why?  It was because the leader of the communist party – Zyuganov – was “anti-Jewish.”  I remember thinking to myself – “What an idiot. By that criterion, you may as well have the Nation of Islam rule America.” For the sake of politeness, I kept that opinion to myself and just changed the subject.  But you can see how a monomaniacal focus on the Jews can lead one to promote destructive ideas. Of course, the opposite is true as well, ignoring the very real problem of the Jews can lead to destruction as well. It is important to keep a balance, just as we today need to be rational and balanced in our approach to the covid pandemic.

Wednesday, January 12, 2022

The Perfidious Yeastbucket

Behold the female. In all cases, emphasis added.

See this site. A Gab correspondent who is a friend of this blog brought that site to my attention.

See this.

Looking at that basic composite structure of matter - the atom, we cannot help but notice its similarity to the family or "nuclear family" as it is called. The nucleus of the atom contains the "female" protons that passively aggregate together along with the "children" (the neutrons,) which add an element of stability to the atom as children add stability to the family. The "male" electrons actively form a "social" hierarchy as they fill orbitals of different size and shape that surround the nucleus. Also, due to their peripheral location and lesser attachment to the nucleus, they are "free" to become involved in a greater variety of interactions related to the formation of more complex structures (e.g. molecules.) Though electrons have the active roles, it is the protons and neutrons that are the focal point of the atom, it is "they" that the electrons are forced to revolve around. A person unfamiliar with the invisible attractive forces of the protons could easily misinterpret the inner workings of the atom. Here is the way a feminist might have explained things; "Those chauvinistic electrons circle around all day while keeping the protons confined to the nucleus along with the neutrons. They fill up all the orbitals while denying the same opportunities to protons. And whenever they feel like it, they abandon their nucleus and go flying off after some other protons." Fortunately for us, feminists did not establish the laws of physics and chemistry, if only we could say the same about today's social legislation.

See this.

The chief passions that women control begin with sex and expand into sexual love. A strong state of sexual arousal causes the conscious faculties of men to be shunted off - to be literally brainwashed, leaving the void to be filled by manipulative women. The mere anticipation of intercourse produces a tension and craving that has been compared to drug addiction, draining the wealth of men and putting it in the hands of women.

That is why we cannot depend on homosexuals to moralize to us about male-female relations. Only the heterosexual man, subject to “biological sexual harassment” attacks by women, have a complete and comprehensive understanding of the behavior of the perfidious yeastbucket.

Of related interest.

Bettina Arndt is an Australian analyst who has included biological factors in her discussions of sexuality since the 1970s. Her most recent book, What Men Want (2010, chapters 3 and 4), is based on interviews and refers to research in evolutionary psychology, neuroscience and sexual physiology. In a recent article Arndt discussed women’s tactics in attracting men, such as dressing to show breasts.[ii] Her story, appropriate titled “Busted: The Politics of Cleavage and a Glance”, combined anecdote, interviews and behavioural science. She drew on research on male–female differences in sex drive to argue that women who dress sexily in public are flaunting their sexual power

Meanwhile, homosexual white knighters are more interested in male “Aryan youths in rainbow thongs,” so what do they know about any of this?

See this.

Let us look at the interrelationship of power and voting to understand why only men voted in the past. Before civil society began, men were controlled by "The law of the jungle"; those exerting superior physical force out competed, and often killed, those with inferior abilities. As populations expanded and men were forced to live in closer proximity to each other much of their right to use physical force was transferred to the government. To the extent this was done voluntary, and therefore justly, those men then partook of this power transferred to the government by use of their vote. Physical force is the domain of men, that is the fundamental reason why they should vote and not women. Women never transferred their natural advantages to the government, their power is still used privately, to allow them to exercise 53% of the voting power is to allow them to exercise greater use of physical force than men. Rousseau wrote how some of the feminists of his time being "not content to secure their rights, lead them to usurp ours; for to make women our superior in all all the qualities proper to her sex, and to make her our equal in all the rest, what is this but to transfer to the women the superiority which nature has given to her husband?" The 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote is one of the greatest usurpations in the history of the human race, yet there are few people living in this country who perceive things that way, such has been the persuasive power of women.

For those of you that who have managed to retain a little common sense, who still have even a few brain cells that have not been obliterated by feminist propaganda, I will ask you to consider two things. First, if women were "powerless" as feminists claim by not being allowed to vote, and men being oppressive patriarchs and opposed to this right, then how did women manage to acquire this right in the first place? Does not the fact that they did acquire the right suggest that they had means at their disposal more powerful than what men had to oppose them, and does not that imply that women already possessing greater power should not have had their power added to by acquiring the right to vote? Secondly, if the sole, or overwhelming criteria for acquiring one's due from society was from the right to vote, than the condition of children should be lower than the worst slave who ever walked in shackles upon the face of the earth. For not only do they not vote, but they even lack any basic measure of physical strength or knowledge in order to feed and defend themselves; in the feminist way of thinking they should be completely helpless and die of starvation shortly after birth. Nothing of course could be further from the truth, children are not only well taken care of, but they are often afforded protections that even adults do not possess.

That is a cogent analysis of the voting question.

To understand how this can be we observe that in the hierarchical chain of human society, children stand much in the same relation to their mothers as women do to their husbands. Whoever is in need of another to supply their material wants has emotional, and other immaterial power, to compel the delivery of their requirements. Plutarch tells us that the Athenian Themistocles once told his son that he was the the most powerful person in Greece because "The Athenians command the rest of Greece, I command the Athenians, your mother commands me, and you command your mother."

Very true.

See this.

Having addressed things at the most fundamental level we now move to incorporate that quality which separates us from the animals, namely, reason, which is notably pronounced in a patriarchal society and reaches its peak under a republican government. As this type of government displays a marked hierarchical arrangement, which involves a series of  pyramidal lines or "chain of command," it is true that along those lines a strong force is exerted. A more feminine society lacks such a strong hierarchy with its lines of command as the association of individuals in such a society is less rigidly organized, yet, such looseness permits a closer  association among individuals, and association is inherently related to influence, and influence to power. To use a graphic example to illustrate which is more oppressive, consider which circumstances you would prefer to find yourself, in a body of water with a Great White shark or a school of piranhas. With the Great White, no matter how big or how hungry, you have a chance to evade or fend it off, because it is a single animal with a single line of attack at any given time which you can respond to with some hope of success, but the piranhas attack you at a hundred different places at once, and even though their bite is smaller, the collective effect will be almost certainly fatal. What if you were under water without air, which would offer you the least hope, the piranhas or the prospect of drowning? While the piranhas are almost certain death, drowning is even more certain, because the water, even though it offers no violent contact, is everywhere and all around you, like "the absolute will of an entire people" there is no escape. Even on a private one-to-one basis without the all powerful collective effect of numerous individuals, we see that, while a man may occasionally hit his wife, a wife may incessantly "hen-peck" and "smother" her husband, as to which is worse, ask any husband - or piranha.

Seeing now the the two opposite tendencies in men and women, and in their politics, we may now recognize familiar complaints; the male complains that his freedom is being denied to him, while the female complains that she is being "abandoned" by the male exercising his freedom. If legitimate government is by "the consent of the governed" then the female complaint is unjustified, for a man should be allowed to "abandon" any situation that he feels does not sufficiently address his interests, just as women have granted themselves the "right" to do. The proper remedy for women should be to see to it that the "social contract," as with their personal relationships, sufficiently addresses the interests of men, so that they will voluntarily wish to participate. Yet, just as women - as women, have little respect for freedom because it is a quality they do not possess in abundance, so too does their lack of a sense of justice - which is derived from reason, allow them to sufficiently address the interests of men.

We can now view a patriarchal society vis-a-vis the "War of the Sexes"; since a greater population density forces people to associate, and because allowing women to rule would mean certain tyranny, men must assume patriarchal roles as a means of self defense. Consequently, women's claims for "liberation" from the patriarchal state are really their desire to oppress men further then men would be oppressed assuming patriarchal roles, so men are then forced to choose the lesser of the two evils and "oppress the oppressors."

On the abortion issue:

See this.

And this.

And this.

We know that the Fourteenth Amendment, like the Thirteenth, was created with the intent of remedying racial discrimination against black people in this country. Since the Fourteenth Amendment has been extended to cover sex discrimination, then by the same "logic" the Thirteenth Amendment would have to be extended as well.  Therefore, it is illegal for a member of one sex to subject a member of the other sex to involuntary servitude. One must wonder whether people will one day look back from the future and wonder how such a thing as alimony and child support could ever have happened; will they finally learn that slavery is wrong no matter who it happens to.

And this.

A woman who has taken a vow to "love, honor, and obey" her husband "until death do us part" can violate every word of her marriage vows and still make a man pay alimony and child support. When a contract is mutually broken the contracting parties return to their original positions, to make one party continue to honor their contractual obligations while the other party is required to do nothing is a clear interference of "the obligation of contracts."…

…It should be further observed that in a marriage or similar relationship the rewards are different for men than for women; in general, there is more of a material reward for the woman and more of an emotional reward for the man. Within the sphere of material rewards the duties of men tend towards public life as the provider, and for women as the homemaker with its array of domestic duties; cooking, cleaning, etc. as well as such intangibles as love, companionship, and sexual relations. If it had been acknowledged in the past that a woman had a right to support from her husband, it was also acknowledged that the husband was entitled to "wifely duties" consisting of the domestic and intimate matters mentioned above and going under legal expressions such as "consortium" and "society."…

…Someone might wish to point out that forcing women to fulfill their roles from a distance the way men are required to do would involve great difficulty. For an ex-wife to come over every day to cook and clean might well be impractical, particularly if she lived at a distance. As for the more personal side, will an ex-wife be required to have sex with a man she hates; will he even want her to walk in the front door? What would be feasible then, shall the ex-wife be required to pay another woman for such services, or perhaps pay the government to provide her ex-husband with such benefits. I suppose the idea of a "sexual welfare" program might sound rather amusing, but then politicians have no problem prostituting themselves for women…

The fact that there are complications does not justify ignoring the rights of men, if the government cannot provide equitable relief for both sides then it must step aside and allow people to work out their problems on a private basis. The government has been very creative in finding ways to satisfy women, if it made similar efforts towards men I doubt if it could not achieve similar results.

That is a very interesting argument. Most divorces are initiated by women; they are openly violating their marital contract. Then some of them demand alimony and child support on top of that.  The perfidious yeastbucket, indeed.

Tuesday, January 11, 2022

Competing Identities

Left vs. Right

Let’s consider the role that identity plays in human behavior.  Now, let’s compare Da Left vs. Der Right as part the competing rigid belief systems, representing competing identities that each group must accept in order to fit in with its chosen group identity.

Da Left

1. Race does not exist.

2. When Der Right and Trump were worrying about covid, then covid was nothing and any concern about it was racist xenophobia. Once Der Right and Trump started downplaying covid, then it became an existential crisis worse than the Black Death.

3. Covid vaccine is good, covid treatments are dangerous.

4. The atomic bombing of Japan was a racist war crime.

5. The moon landings were a White racist waste of money that could have been spent on BIPOCs.

6. Italian-Americans are a particularly racist form of bigoted Whites who hate Blacks.

7. Fauci is a rare good wop.

8. Ancestry tests are useless because…see point #1.

9. Homosexuals are good.

10. The Great Replacement is a conspiracy theory, and let’s celebrate White minority status and all of the consequences of that!

11. Eat vegan and die from kwashiorkor and vitamin B12 deficiency.

12. Ideal (heterosexual) marriage is Black male-White female.

13. Asians are oppressed people of color.

14. Hey, Whitey – freedom is being forced to live next door to a Negro drug dealer and to have your kids terrorized in integrated schools by feral Coloreds.

15. Preach diversity while living in expensive White neighborhoods.

16. Racist Whites killed Native Americans by giving them blankets infected by the smallpox virus.

Der Right

1. Viruses do not exist.

2. When Da Left was downplaying about covid, then it was a serious concern.  Once Da Left started worrying about covid, then it was a hoax, the sniffles, a cold, just the flu.

3. Covid vaccine is a toxic killshot bioweapon, covid treatments are good. Bring on the bleach!

4. The atomic bombing of Japan was a hoax; it was just napalm and mustard gas.

5. The moon landings were a hoax filmed by Stanley Kubrick. The moon does not exist; it is a hologram. The Earth is flat.

6. Italian-Americans are Black.

7. Fauci is the devil incarnate.

8. Ancestry tests are 100% accurate and precise (at least if you get results you like), regardless of the fact that results can radically change every time the parental reference population database is updated.

9. Homosexuals are bad, except for Counter-Currents.

10. The Great Replacement is true, but it is much less important a problem than getting a boo-boo on your delicate deltoid from the toxic covid killshot.

11. Eat the carnivore diet and die from heart disease and colon cancer.

12. Ideal marriage is White male-Yellow female.  Measured groveling!

13. Asians are gods. Ms. Wei Fuk Yu will give a White male HBDer a high colonic before sodomizing him with a colonoscope-sized strap-on. Measured groveling!

14. Hey, Whitey – freedom is being forced to live next door to a Negro drug dealer and to have your kids terrorized in integrated schools by feral Coloreds.

15. Gibber about how wonderful cold and snow are while living in warm regions of the American South or West.

16. Since viruses don't exist, smallpox was not an infectious disease - it was simply a syndrome caused by poor Victorian hygiene (a real argument, by the way).

Sunday, January 9, 2022

Odds and Ends, 1/9/22

In der news.

I am intrigued by Brimelow's proposal of retroactive removal of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. I have a particular HBDer's family in mind. In any case, Brimelow's proposals are completely unrealistic simply because the GOP has no real interest in most of it.

Treason:

SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.

HBDers give "Aid and Comfort" to the government of China, when those HBDers promote Chinese government propaganda about covid.

See this.

Jared Taylor: Well, let’s see ... I think Asians are objectively superior to whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society.

Jared Taylor: Oh, I think European Jews are Europeans, sure.

See this.

Jared Taylor, who runs the white nationalist website American Renaissance and is one of the most avid hawkers of racist IQ theories, expounded on the “good culture” of East Asians in an interview with Splinter. Taylor spent the first 16 years of his life in Japan and speaks fluent Japanese. He told me that “if whites are to be replaced by some populations other than themselves, it would be better that they be replaced by Asians.”

See this.

Jared Taylor: If Europeans are to be replaced, I would far prefer that we be replaced by Asians than by Africans or Middle-Easterners and, certainly, by Muslims. I hope, of course, that Western civilization will survive, that white people will carry their civilization and their biological substrate forever into the future. I hope that’s what happens. But, if we are—if we really are—to be bred out of existence, or if we do not reproduce ourselves, if the continent of Europe becomes non-white, if North America becomes increasingly non-white, I would prefer they became Asian rather than African, Middle Eastern, or Latino. Asians are a high IQ group, and they would organize superior societies, whereas if the United States became populated by people like Guatemalans, Haitians, Syrians, then the United States would become a Third World mess.

HBDers weep.

Herman 

Usual reply:

If Asians are so smart why do they immigrate to a White Christian country?

JohnEngelman  Herman 

They immigrant to the United States for the same reason your ancestors immigrated here from Europe.

Let’s consider Engelman’s response.  Two types of Europeans came to America. First, there were the settler colonists, who took the land away from the Amerindians and founded a new nation. Is that what Asian immigrants are doing to White Americans?  Second, there were the Europeans who immigrated to an already established USA – Europeans immigrating to a nation founded by Europeans.  That is not the same as allegedly superior Asians immigrating to a nation founded, and majority-populated, by an allegedly inferior and different race.  Thus, Herman’s question remains and Engelman’s answer is either self-defeating (in the first instance) or incoherent (in the second).

Affirmative action.

Looking at the anti-vaxx question from the purely political/metapolitical standpoint, the Counter-Currents position fails because:

  • 1. They over-estimate opposition to the covid vaccination among "normies" (and commentators have to resort to conspiracy theories about numbers of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated to convince themselves otherwise).
  • 2. They falsely believe that all potential recruits are fungible, while the more educated, professional elements, definitely the STEM elements, are repulsed by Der Movement's lies and hysteria. They are catering to the lower elements among the White population.
  • 3. They fail to understand that the masses are conformist - the anti-vaxx as much as the pro-vaxx and that the proper role of leadership is to lead, not to follow, to persuade, not to jump on whatever bandwagon is most convenient at the time.

That is all independent of the biomedical question, which is up for debate. On the one hand, I'm sharply critical of the flubros and the anti-vaxx hysterics. On the other hand, the following is also true:

  • The behavior of Fauci and Collins has been horrendous.
  • Reasonable dissenting voices (not the "viruses don't exist crowd") have been silenced.
  • It is uncertain why schoolchildren and other young people need to be vaccinated, particularly with omicron. It is also questionable at this point keeping children out of school.
  • Cloth masks don't really do much against omicron (but may be helpful against other diseases?).
  • The natural immunity vs. vaccination immunity needs to be determined. American authorities tout vaccination immunity but there are some who assert natural immunity is better. That's not to say getting covid is preferable, of course not, but if it has happened, does such a person require endless boosters?
  • Pfizer and Moderna should not be dictating vaccination decisions.
Brownster videos of interest:



I don’t regret my vaccination or booster, but I’m old.  Younger people can take all these things into perspective.  Younger people, particularly males, may be best served avoiding Moderna.  For people my age, Moderna, which may give better protection, may be better. I’m skeptical of the DNA-based vaccines.  Note that many of us, both the young and the old, were forced to get vaccinated, because of work or school.  But if you have a choice as to which one to take, then choose wisely. This all does not change the underlying fact that Der Movement is hysterical and crazed on this topic.  I agree with this:
Lord Shang January 8, 2022 at 3:27 am
Not to go totally off topic here, but Covid is exploding in LA and San Francisco. This is not a “narrative”. My friends there, including one who’s a very smart doctor, tell me in absolutely no uncertain terms that everyone is noticing huge differences in the outcomes experienced by the vaccinated as against unvaccinated. The former are doing better, period. What is wrong with rightists that, speaking of empiricism, they have such a hard time accepting widespread evidence? In a way, Right Covid-denialists are as obtuse as Left race-denialists. The only admirable position is one which rigorously deduces from the available data. The West invented science, the best mechanism for piercing veils of superstition. We should be the ones most publicly identified with it. On Covid, we’re not. Given the extreme reliance of white nationalism on empirical evidence of racial group differences, this dichotomy is going to return to haunt us someday.
It will haunt Der Movement; educated people, particularly in STEM, are disgusted by Der Right’s lies.

From Jack Vance's Rhialto the Marvellous we read the following insight into the female character:
[a woman states the following to Rhialto, who is a male magician]: If you had treated me shamefully, and ravished me to your desires, at least I would be left with my pride. Your courteous detachment leaves me with nothing.
I suspect that all of the MeToo complainers would be even more embittered if men afforded them no interest at all. Indeed, others (the Roissy crowd) have observed that charges of sexual harassment are typically not because of the deed itself, but because it comes from the wrong men. Thus:
  • No male interest - the woman is offended and left "with nothing."
  • Interest from non-alpha males - the woman is left with her pride, which stimulates her to anger against being so bothered.
  • Interest from alpha males - the woman is left with her pride AND is satisfied with the quality of the men in question.
Perhaps the optimal behavior is from the magician Tchamast from the same book, described thus:
morose of mood, an avowed ascetic, whose distrust of the female race runs so deep that he will allow only male insects into the precincts of his manse.
Is that the insane and paranoid Ted Sallis as well?

This contrasts with EOW’s description of Ruth Hubbard, another Harvard professor who rejected his work:

I always thought of [Hubbard] as burning with a pure fire. She believed all of this. She was dedicated in an honest way to all of this. She was doing other things, too. She was putting herself into civil rights movement, she was an early environmental activist. She was on the wrong side of the problem that culminated in [Napoleon Chagnon’s] difficulties, but at least she was sincere.

Hubbard seems to have been the sort of WASP idealist discussed extensively in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition (Chaps. 6 & 7)..."

 When High Trusters are anti-White fanatics, then they are "idealists."

The Jewish reaction to MacDonald's paper confirms everything he says about their ethnocentric intensity. They would have been better served ignoring it, calmly refuting it, or laughing if off with ridicule, Sallis-style. But Jewish hysteria is easily provoked, which may be their biggest weakness and one that can be leveraged against them. They cannot control themselves. The tragedy of Jewish history is that they themselves with their behavior are responsible for the anti-Semitism they claim to fear.