Racial Envy Once Again

More on racial envy.

The Hutu have always resented the tall, imposing, attractive Tutsis, who had dominated them on-and-off since the 15th century. When Hutus picked up machetes to slash to bits nearly a million of their Tutsi neighbors in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, they were, on a deeper level, contends Richburg, “slashing at their own perceived ugliness, as if destroying this thing of beauty, this thing they could never really attain, removing it from the earth forever.”

That is very similar to what I’ve written about before on racial resentment and racial envy. The bottom line is that much of anti-White animus has its genesis in envy of Whites, White accomplishments, and White characteristics. Separation would help, but with globalism, there’s probably no way for non-Whites to fully escape feelings of racial inadequacy.  But at least Whites won’t have such resentful and embittered people living amongst us.

Advertisements

SLC News: 1/18/18

More, more, more.

Wow, what an “alpha!”  Cue Roissy’s fawning admiration.

Remember when Roissy predicted that Bezos was going to turn “hard right” politically because he was working out?  

Der Movement in all its forms – always wrong.  Ted Sallis – always right.

As far as The Good Shepherd goes, see this.

It’s interesting, and ironic, that generational warriors with their rage against “boomers” behave like stereotypes of jackass Millennials.  The bible verse about motes, eyes, and beams comes to mind.

Optimal diplomatic relations along the Silk Road.  Get some!

Contrary to the Asian supremacist-White omega male yellow fever sexual masochism fundamental dishonesty of the Silkers, the reality is of Jewish-Chinese collaboration against White interests.

U.S. officials warned Jared Kushner earlier this year that his friendship with Wendi Deng Murdoch could be used as a conduit by the Chinese government, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

Unnamed sources told the outlet that counterintelligence officials had warned Kushner that Murdoch, a Chinese-American businesswoman who was married to News Corp. founder Rupert Murdoch, could leverage her close relationship with Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, to push the interests of the Chinese government. 

The Wall Street Journal is owned by News Corp.

Among U.S. officials’ reported concerns was a proposed garden in Washington, D.C., funded by the Chinese government. The $100 million project has reportedly been declared a national security risk due to a tall tower that’s part of the design, which intelligence officials worry could be used for surveillance.

Note also how the Chinese utilize their women to influence White and Jewish males to help “to push the interests of the Chinese government. “  Sound familiar?


Not a Romanian.  Surprise!  Who has been warning you about the Asian invasion?

Sallis right again, and again, and again…endlessly, until the rightness of Sallis overcomes Der Movement and Silker lying mendacity.

Genetic Structure and Altruistic Self-Sacrifice

A more precise accounting is required.

We are all aware of Haldane’s oft-quoted assertion that he would lay down his life for two brothers or eight cousins, the genetic payoff of such altruistic self-sacrifice being the equivalence – as measured by ”bean-bag” genetics – of the numbers of gene copies between these sets of relatives.

In general, I am in broad agreement with the sentiment, although as we shall see, it requires modification.  Even more broadly, those on the Far Right invoke this paradigm to support the idea of altruistic self-sacrifice in favor of larger numbers of an ethny, in defense if ethnic genetic interests.  Likewise, I support that as well, with the proper modifications as with the smaller-scale examples of familial relatives.

Even though at first glance, Haldane’s reasoning seems sound, likely most people would be hesitant to follow that advice.  In large part, this is the natural impulse of self-preservation, but there are other reasonable objections that can be made.

One could argue, all else being equal, that judging between two sets of equivalent genetics, it’s better to preserve yourself for reasons of control.  A person concerned enough with genetic continuity that they would consider such altruistic self-sacrifice is someone likely to start a family, care for children, and properly actualize the continuity. Can you be sure your two brothers would do the same?  Why are they in the position that they need your sacrifice to begin with?  Are they stupid?  Reckless? Are you sure they’ll act in support of your (in this case indirect) genetic continuity with the same vigor you would do for yourself?  So, to be safe, maybe you need to raise the bar for self-sacrifice to three brothers or ten cousins?

A more important reason, and one that may be intuitively sensed by most people even though they wouldn’t be able to explain it, or likely even articulate their feeling about it, is that there is more about kinship than mere numbers of gene copies.  Genetic structure is important – what genes are coinherited and, to the layman’s eye, what phenotypic traits (derived from those genes) are inherited together.  Of course, family is going to be more similar here than (co-ethnic) strangers, but similarity is not identity.  Even with siblings (apart from identical twins, which are a special case), recombination and independent assortment will ensure that your brothers will have a distinct genetic stricture from you.  Now, granted, these same processed, even with a co-ethnic mate, will ensure that your children will also have a different genetic structure than you, but, all else being equal, your brothers’ children will be more unlike you, with respect to genetic structure, than your own children, as the “starting point” (you vs. your brothers) is already different. So, when genetic structure is taken into account, two brothers are not really your genetic equivalent.  Apart from an identical twin, you have no genetic equivalent, just degrees of relative similarity and difference, even after numbers of gene copies are accounted for.  Then how many brothers are sufficient for self-sacrifice?  This requires a more rigorous analysis, which will be dependent upon accurate measures of genetic structure, and that’s not something we can expect SJW population geneticists are likely to do. However, while the overall Haldane argument – and its Salterian extension – makes sense the numbers given based on “bean bag” genetics is going to be an underestimation of where you need to draw the line in sacrificing yourself for others.  On the other hand, the reverse is true – if you have to choose between your brothers and strangers, or between co-ethnics and non-ethnics, taking genetic structure into account means that helping your brothers and your co-ethnics is even more important than before, because in comparison to more genetically alien peoples, genetic structure amplifies how much more close you are to your brothers and your co-ethnics.  It’s a double-edged sword: it makes your own preservation a bit more important, but it also makes the preservation of those more similar to you more important than those more distant.

Now, one can argue that after several generations of recombination and independent assortment – even assuming endogamous mating within the ethny – genetic structures derived from your posterity and those of your brothers will be more or less the same, converging on the common pool of ethny-specific genetic structures.  So, while in the first generation, your offspring and that of your brothers may be distinct with respect to genetic structure, that difference would be attenuated over time and, as long as endogamous mating is maintained, your posterity and theirs would reflect similar genetic structures.  But there are problems here.  First, a rigorous analysis is required; perhaps some differences would continue over at least several generations; even if these differences are small, they nevertheless would need to be accounted for.  Second, if it is true that familial genetic strictures would tend, over time, to converge on more generalized ethny-specific structures, then why bother favoring two brothers over two random co-ethnics?  The brothers would share more of your genes, yes, and be more similar as far as genetic structure, but if one invokes “long term intergenerational effects” with respect to questioning the need to account for structure in modifying Haldane’s argument, then one can use the same “intergenerational effect” to directly question Haldane’s original premise.  The answer I believe is that one must do the best they can at a given time in maximizing their genetic payoff, and hope that subsequent generations do the same. In the absence of the required analysis, one can simply argue that looking to the next generation, differences in genetic structure are important and, hence, two brothers are not quite the genetic equivalence of yourself.  Your structure is different from theirs and the genetic payoff of your reproduction is greater for your than both of theirs combined.  So, maybe you need to hold out and sacrifice for three (or more) brothers instead, including for the other reason outlined above. Note that these fine points deal with very close genetic similarity.  When we are talking about racially alien peoples, the genetic distance becomes even more amplified with genetic structure, and in the absence of panmixia, ethny-specific patterns of genetic structure are broadly stable over evolutionary time (we can see that the Iceman is genetically more similar to Europeans than to, say, Asians  of Africans, as one example).

In the absence of the sort of careful quantitative analysis that population geneticists won’t do, from a qualitative standpoint, it would be prudent to require more of a genetic payoff before engaging in Haldane-style altruistic self-sacrifice.  On the other hand, when considering a choice in investing between two genetic entities, picking the group genetically closer to you is even more important when considering genetic structure.  So, when the choice is between self vs. family or family vs. ethny, genetic structure will require a larger genetic payoff before agreeing to sacrifice the interests of the former for the latter. However, when considering a relative choice between ethny one vs. ethny two, genetic structure means that choosing the more similar-to-you ethny is even more important than with “bean-bag” genetics.  

The overall Salterian imperative remains the same as before, once these adjustments are made.

The Alt Dumb

More stupidity

First, it’s “castor oil” not “ricin oil” – the latter would do something else than simply give someone the “runs.”  Ask Georgi Markov about that – oh, wait, you can’t – he’s dead.

Second, the Dominican Republic is mostly mulatto, not mestizo.  There is no doubt some Amerind blood there, but most of the non-White ancestry is Negro. Are these frat boys ignorant about everything except alcohol?

They dared criticize Scandinavians?  Blasphemy!  These guys are going to have their Der Movement membership cards revoked!  For shame! What will Hermansson think?

We’ll see what Trump does, but, yes, the ONLY good thing about The Cuck Emperor is causing chaos and balkanization.

And it seems to be that The Fat Emperor is simply pushing on both sides in order to see where he can get the best deal.  After all, that’s what a good businessman would do and Donald is, of course, a stable genius.  Pushed by the System, he floats the idea of a DACA amnesty, with a full illegal amnesty as a further possibility. Will the base accept it?  Could he take the heat?  He then gets massive pushback, with his mental status questioned by Mudshark Annie (who apparently has an order or magnitude more testicular fortitude than Der Touchback himself) and so starts his usual routine as Backpedaler-in-Chief.  The man has no innate ideology or convictions of his own, other than his own ego and self-aggrandizement

I didn’t hear the word “Jew” in this otherwise excellent video.  I guess it was all those nasty hora-dancing Romanians who invented the entire “abolish the White race” meme.

None Dare Call It Hypocrisy

Well, actually, I dare.

I see it as highly hypocritical that the same “movement” “leaders” – all the quota queens – endlessly complain about being “deplatformed” (and use that as part of their equally endless tin cup panhandling), while at the same time these “leaders” behave the same way with respect to racialist dissidents who honestly critique the “movement” and its “leaders” – “ban” them, essentially “deplatform” them from the central media centers of (what passes for) “movement” discourse.

It is important to clear up some matters lest I be accused of hypocrisy or inconsistency.  First, I do agree with the argument – made, for example, by Bowery at Majority Rights when he and I were both participating at that blog – that freedom of association trumps freedom of speech.  I further made the argument at my own blogs that freedom of speech does not obligate anyone to host any specific type of speech at their own forum; again, freedom of association is above freedom of speech, as long as that speech has somewhere else to go. So, yes, I agree that a blog owner can “ban” anyone they want from their site, and that “banned” person can go and set up their own blog and do their own thing elsewhere on the Internet.  After all, that’s ultimately why this blog exists (and, if I remember correctly, for example, Majority Rights was established after its founders were essentially declared persona non grata at Gene Expression).  I have also argued, in like sense, that a blog can be viewed as a form of political warfare, and so why should political soldiers benefit their enemies by facilitating those enemies’ dissemination of their ideas?  There is no obligation to host your enemy.  Very good, but is a fellow racial activist really an “enemy” because they criticize some of your ideas and actions?  Because they state that you should be held accountable for mistakes (according to your own declared standards of behavior)?  Are fellow activists the functional equivalent of SJW leftists?

It is also true that there is a difference between being banned from a blog (or a set of blogs) and having a major (albeit privately owned) company, which is functionally equivalent to a public utility, banning its use by an entire class of people based on, for example, their political views.  However, the “why should you assist the enemy?” argument cuts both ways here.  The owners of Amazon, Twitter, PayPal, etc. can argue – why should they be obligated to support their enemies?  Oh, you say that they are so successful that they are equivalent to public utilities and so they must be obligated to serve everyone.  Very well.  Imagine the same principle is turned inward to the “movement” – some “movement” blogs, sites, groups, and organizations are so successful (within the “movement” itself) that they are equivalent to “movement” “public utilities” and so they must be obligated to serve all racial activists, even those they disagree with.  I’m sure that violation of freedom of association would be rejected, even though in principle the argument is the same (adjusted for scale between society-at-large and the “movement”).

I’m not making a legalistic argument in this post; instead, I’m making a moral one, based on principles, and based on character and integrity (or the lack therefore in Der Movement).  The basic truth is that these “leaders” are endlessly whining about being deplatformed by private companies, and they behave the same way to racial activist dissidents they do not like.  The scale is different, but the basic principle is the same, and most of the arguments as to why private companies should be obligated to interface with, and serve, the “movement” as a whole can be made to argue that the “movement” as a whole needs to interface with the dissidents within its ranks.

Basically, I see the behavior of the “leaders” as being one of cowardice – fear of engaging with dissident critics and those critics’ ideas – as well as the prima donna sense of entitlement that derives from being products of the “movement’s” affirmative action program – how dare anyone criticize them!  Why should they stoop to answering critics?.  Low character hypocrites: behold the Type I Quota Queen “Leadership” of Der Movement: fearfully hiding from those who would critique their flawed ideas and those who would hold them accountable for their failures.

Note: Someone may point out that my own blogs have traditionally never had comments sections.  That is true.  First, I’m not a fan of such sections, the signal-to-noise ratio is poor; most “movement” comments threads of full of asinine Type I activists, trolls, fetishists, defectives, and “antis.”  Second, and even more importantly, unlike our “fearless leaders,” I am not a full time professional activist (living off of supporters’ donations). I’m merely a part-time amateur; I simply do not have the time to deal with comments; to my mind, it is more important, and more prudent, to invest my limited time in producing new content.  However, our heroic leaders are indeed full time activists with free time aplenty, they are people who believe that comments sections have value, so there is obviously a difference between my blog and theirs in that regard.

American White Nationalist Definitions

Definitions of WN.

Beavis-and-Butthead White nationalism: The American Alt Right.

Silk Road White nationalism: The idea that Whites should be an enslaved subaltern low caste serving the interests of their Asian overlords.  Asians will colonize the West, and the borders of the West will be guarded by Chinese girls with guns.

Yarmulke and Chopstick White nationalism: HBD race realism. The Alt Wrong.

Tin Cup White nationalism: Most of American White nationalism; Der Movement in general.  This is best represented by the Happy Penguins and the Ethnonationalist ethnic cleansers.

Poolside White nationalism: Hello, Roissy.  Nihilistic hedonism, with a bit of race-mixing thrown in for good measure.  “Game” – pure “pussy pedestalization.”

Sieg Heil and Pass the Beer White nationalism: Nutzis in general.  “White nationalism 1.0” for the most part. Type I activists.