Answering Criticism, 2/26/17

Answering criticism.

Ted Sallis, in full embittered, jaundiced old crank mode, comments on Alt Right. Give it a rest Ted. If you can’t say something constructive, try saying nothing at all. Take a look at the stuff from your site that I have seen fit to reprint, and use it as a model.

Greg, you may or may not approve this through moderation, but I will nevertheless point out that perhaps you should share some of my concerns about the broader Alt Right.

Wallace writes:

A ton of people who were Alt-Right or White Nationalists voted for and supported Ron Paul.

In a past interview you stated:

Yeah, they’ll have sound money for the brown people. That’s what he stands for, and I think that’s madness. It irritates me to no end, and I’ll say it right now. I’m going to write something about this someday, but I’ll just get it out there on the air now. I am going to socially shun any White Nationalist I know from now on if I find out he donates another dime to Ron Paul.

A large portion of the current Alt Right are (ex?) libertarian Ron Paul supporters, precisely the types you didn’t want anything to do with.  Your attitude about that was quite correct – support for Paul is indicative of a mental weakness, poor judgment, and an ideological vacuity that makes such people suspect.  The Alt Right was in large part constructed on a foundation of those people you rightfully rejected.

My point is, and remains, that the Paul thing is indicative of an underlying problem with the Alt Right.  I have re-read my analysis and I can’t see anything there that is unfair.  I can also point out that you have fairly recently sharply criticized Spencer’s judgement over “Hailgate” (something that I didn’t think was that big a deal, although I agree it did exhibit a bit of poor judgment).  These things in general (forget about our different perceptions of specifics like “Hailgate”) are problems.  In general, I have supported Spencer and his ideas and I think he’s a sharp guy with a solid future in activism – but the Alt Right is inherently flawed.  You can only go so far on millennial snark, trolling, and the like. Unless the Alt Right matures and sharpens up, it’s going to flame out.

Better sharp criticism from someone like me from the Far Right, who is in broad agreement with the Alt Right, than having those guys go down in flames and take all of us with them.   I’m not criticizing for the sake of criticizing.  I’m criticizing because I see warning signs and I want the Alt Right to change course before they drive right off the cliff.  I’ve seen Far Right projects collapse before (e.g., the implosion of the post-Pierce NA, the hopping of Duke from one failed organization to another, the fizzling out of the EAIF, etc., etc.) and it isn’t pretty.

I’ll add something else not in my original comment: I write for my own blog. Whether it is reproduced somewhere else is something I have no control over, or, better said, something I don’t want to have control over.

My focus has changed over the years as a result of a natural evolution. Observers tracking, for example, the field of population genetics may have noticed that not many (or any) (important) papers on European or Jewish genetics have been produced recently by academia.  That’s because all of the “low hanging fruit” (available with current methods) has already been picked AND that leftist academics do not want to do assays of global genetic kinship or analyses of human genetic integration/structure (after all, the findings would undoubtedly support WN ideas).  And, as well, I’ve said all I need to say about studies that have been already conducted.  And as I’ve said as well, constant navel-gazing about genetics at this point is missing the forest for the trees.  Everyone has chosen their ingoup and we need to move into politics, broadly defined.  I’d like to point out I never really had much interest in talking about population genetics; my work there was mostly to answer stupidities written by academics, leftists, and Nutzis. 

EGI is far more important – it is fundamental (and the only political utility of population genetics is to generate the raw data to use for genetic kinship analyses) but unless critics come up with new stupid attacks I need to refute or unless Salter comes up with additional analyses, there’s not much more to add (although who knows, I may think of something). 

I can’t keep on “beating a dead horse” forever.  Contra Silver, my purpose is not to be an “EGI maven.”  I have always had real political objectives; discussion about racial science and EGI was to inform the public/”movement” about these issues in order to further those objectives.  I still want to popularize EGI, but that is a tool, not the objective.

And, let’s be honest.  Most of my work on those subjects has been a complete waste of time and effort.  Population genetics?  Even if we were to say that the subject is relevant (which I would at least partially dispute), the fact is that both the Left and the Right continue to cherry pick, distort, misrepresent, and misunderstand such studies in order to promote their particular Narratives.  It may be nice to have refutations on hand to use against such stupidity, but it doesn’t really help if no one wants to listen.

EGI?  The neglect of Salter’s important work by the “movement” has been criminal.  And to the extent that a few people have paid attention, they’ve typically cherry picked and distorted EGI as well.  So, years and years of effort have been for what?  The only satisfaction has been effectively answering mendacious critics like GNXP and Jayman (although such trash would never admit they’ve been refuted and so the satisfaction is merely personal).

The point is, it’s time for actual real-world politics (which include metapolitics).  After Trump has broken the “glass ceiling” of right-wing populism, to ignore actual real world political objectives is race treason.  Part of that is reconstructing racial nationalism to get the job done and I will continue to pursue that objective.

My summary of the Alt Right was:

The Alt Right is a callow, superficial, moderate, intellectually and ideologically shallow version of pro-White activism; lacking seriousness and depth; oriented toward millennial snark, trolling, and social media; taking breathless excitement over discovering “rightist” truths that the rest of us knew long ago and which to a large extent are nothing more than plain fact and common sense; marked weakness with respect to science and other forms of empirical thought; prizing style over substance; and prone to exhibit, often in an enhanced form, all of the fossilized dogma, bizarre fetishes, and poor judgment of the “movement” as a whole.

If that is wrong, how so?  It may be “jaundiced” and “cranky” and a reflection of some old fart’s lack of understanding of youthful millennial energy and exuberance, but in what way is it actually wrong?  Factually wrong?

More to the point, I cite Greg Johnson here:

Second, in the battle of ideas, there is no sense in demanding that we present a united front, particularly on issues where there are real disagreements of principle. Again, our aim is the hegemony of pro-white ideas. We wish to change the whole cultural and political spectrum. Which requires that we engage the whole cultural and political spectrum. Which means that we cannot agree with each other on every issue, nor can we hide our disagreements. Indeed, declaring our disagreements is how we differentiate our approaches before the public.

It’s unclear why airing disagreement is wrong only when I do it.  It would seem that:

1. Only certain types of folks have “the right” to speak their mind, a state of affairs which would actually confirm some of my criticisms of American racial activism.

2. It is said that I criticize too much. There may be some truth to that. Although my disagreements are usually about ideas and direction, and much of the “movement” infighting I observe revolves around personality, envy, and/or squabbling over limited (financial) resources.  Note: as regards the latter, I would suggest focusing your ire toward the Alt Wrong, which has been soaking up most “movement” money these days.  As I’ve said before, the money would be better spent going to Johnson and Spencer (despite my disagreements with them [and with each other]) than to the “happy penguins” of VDARE or to the huWhite Jewish crowd.

3.  My criticisms hit too close to home, strike too deeply at the heart of “movement” dogma, and so are resented that much more.  I also understand that there is much invested in the “Alt Right brand” and there is a natural tendency to resist criticism of that brand.

By the way, I’m not personally offended by being called a bitter neurotic or a jaundiced old crank. I’ve been called far worse (another example of one-sided criticism, by the way), and I actually find it amusing.  There is some truth in these ad hominem attacks.  I don’t know about “neurotic” but I am certainly bitter (in my opinion, with justification), and my criticisms can be considered “jaundiced.” I am older than most in the Alt Right, and I am cranky.  So, why be offended about the truth?  That doesn’t change whether or not my criticisms of the Alt Right are valid or not.  The criticisms are either valid or they are not, independent of who makes them, or how old, cranky, and jaundiced such an individual is.

Advertisements