Between unarmed opponents.
There is some good here, but also considerable nonsense. If the characterization of Richard Spencer’s racial views is correct, then Johnson’s racial views are sounder from an empiricist-materialist standpoint. However, there is much lacking here from a more hardcore scientific standpoint (the wages of “Traditionalism” I suppose).
The whole “transplanted brains” scenario is absurd and meaningless intellectual masturbation. What could one do? There are racial – and subracial (cue Durocher’s heavy breathing) – differences in brain structure that can be identified via imaging methodology. If one were really determined to obtain a definitive identification, a small brain biopsy can yield DNA to assay for genetic ancestry and thus prove whether or not the brain tissue was of Negro origin. As far as the ridiculous question as to why build a community on race instead of other characteristics, I point both interviewer and interviewee to Salter’s On Genetic Interests. Adaptive fitness is the ultimate interest of evolved organisms (such as humans), and any group that promotes their ultimate interests will outcompete and replace those who do not. And, after all, one can always form these narrower communities within your racial group while preserving EGI, but the opposite is not possible. One can form your little group of Tolkien fans among Whites in an all-White ethnostate, but a multi-racial Tolkien group that is not stratified by race (by definition, if it is multiracial and stratified only by Tolkienism, it will not be stratified by race) will constitute a loss of genetic interest. Smaller groups within a White ethnostate will retain the advantages of a concentrated EGI; on the other hand, smaller groups of Whites in, say, a multiracial Tolkien Fanboy state, will suffer as a result of a loss of EGI, itself a consequence of the multiracialism of such a state. In the latter case, the situation can be retrieved only by racial separation – so why not divide on the basis of race to begin with?
Stupidity about gender-specific nations also fails – I remember Bowery writing (correctly) long ago that gender/sex is not a genetic interest. A man has more genetic commonality with female relatives and co-ethnics than with male non-ethnic strangers. One could subdivide a racially pure state by gender (for what purpose?) but the racial stratification must come first if one is concerned with biological fitness. If you are not concerned with fitness, fine, but that’s not an evolutionarily stable situation. You’ll end up in the dustbin of genetic history, replaced by more ethnocentric others. These are reasonably obvious arguments. I would also point out that sexual reproduction has evolutionary advantages via increased genetic diversity. No doubt that a sufficiently advanced technology could artificially impose independent assortment and recombination on a single-sex artificial reproduction regimen, but, again, for what purpose? While eliminating the yeastbucket requirement would no doubt be advantageous in many ways, what would be the sexual outlet for such an all-male society? Widespread homosexuality? I’ll take a pass on that. There are probably some things best left unchanged in human nature and the division between two sexes for reproduction is likely to be one of those.
And what’s with this obsession with Rushton and Lynn? Look, the broad theories of both of them are likely true, but that’s as far as it goes. R-K theory on race (that I independently came up with in the 1980s after reading an ecology textbook) is undoubtedly true on the general level of – Blacks and Browns have more offspring and invest less in them; Whites and Yellows have fewer offspring but invest more in them. And, as well, Blacks and Browns have faster life histories (earlier maturation and reproduction and earlier death) than do Whites and Yellows. If Rushton had stuck with that, instead of trying to shoehorn every racial characteristic (including penis size) into the formulation, he’d be more respected today. Likewise, Lynn is likely correct that there is a general association between national IQ and economic productivity (as measured by GDP) and general accomplishment; the problem occurs when he falls too much in love with his theory (as did Rushton with his ideas) and tries to fit every data point into the pattern, with ludicrous “estimates of IQ,” racial history fairy tales about admixture, and hand waving “just so stories” to explain anomalies. The problem, I suppose, is that the broad theories are a bit too obvious and common sense, plain to any reasonably intelligent and honest observant individual, and so there isn’t much “intellectual prestige” in merely stating the obvious. Therefore, ego-driven “intellectuals” have to build castles of sand to demonstrate how very clever they are.
CraigPosted July 1, 2019 at 8:07 am | PermalinkYang was a joke who never should have had any support from the Dissident Right in the first place. Those who did have made public fools of themselves.
Craig, meet Greg Johnson. And Richard Spencer. And many more.
Also, what’s the big deal about Gabbard? Oh she’s good on foreign policy. But so is Trump. He not once, but twice, averted war by outmaneuvering the warhawks in DC. First with Syria and now with Iran. He’s the peace candidate you should be voting for.
There’s no reason to pay attention to any of these clowns with a (D) in front of their name.
Craig, meet David Duke. And Richard Spencer.
Then there’s John Morgan:
John MorganPosted July 1, 2019 at 6:33 am | PermalinkRep. Gabbard seems to be the least bad (notice I’m not saying good) of all these people. It’s also worth mentioning her connections to/support of Hindu nationalist groups in India like the BJP and RSS (since she is a practicing Hindu herself). This doesn’t necessarily equate to sympathy for nationalism for white people, but it suggests she may at least have the vision to not be completely averse to it. In practice that may not mean much, however. But as Mr. Hampton wrote, she has no chance of getting the nomination this time around, anyway.
You know she supports reparations for Negroes, right?
A one, a one, a one two three….
Ted Cruz at least spoke up about this. Antifa Don Trump, The God Emperor? Silence.
MAGA! Pepe! Kek!
Readers of this blog know that I am no apologist for homosexuals (of either sex) but I’m no apologist for hypocrisy either. I mean, really…. Apparently, “homophobia” – “vile” or otherwise – is perfectly acceptable in the service of “movement” feuds. Perhaps, Antifa can be critiqued in other ways than their penchant for sending gay Asians to the hospital.