Depends who writes it, I guess.
Remember this essay? Remember the criticism the basic points received from the Nutzi peanut gallery?
Read this from Strom, emphasis added:
We have common ancestry with every living creature on this planet, if you go back far enough. So the old racialist idea of “purity” — meaning an unbroken, nearly identical lineage going “back to Adam” — was wrong from the start. Purity is the wrong word; those who used it were unaware of the ever-evolving nature of life. They were ignorant of evolution, which is a branching process; they didn’t know that all the races, varieties, subspecies, and species that ever lived are branches on one metaphorical tree — and that, going backwards in time, all the branches eventually converge into one at the root.
Question: Is the crazed mestizo “Chechar” going to accuse Strom of “sophistry?” Does Strom – long associated with radical Nordicists like Pierce – have a “Medicist” agenda? Or is he just talking hard science and plain common sense?
So: If Sallis writes it, then it’s bad. If Strom writes it, it’s acceptable. The exact same point, expressed by two different people, received in completely different ways. Does that tell you anything?
As the writer David Sims tells us, “Morally speaking, a flaw is anything that works contrary to survival. In any proper moral system, survival has the highest value. Why? Because nothing matters to the dead. Because neither truth, nor justice, nor freedom, nor prosperity have any value at all to extinct groups. Because only to something alive may anything else be good. If a moral system gives to anything but survival the highest place of value, sooner or later a conflict will arise between survival and whatever that other thing is.
Agreed, and that’s a point I was making long ago at Majority Rights, arguing against both the cognitive elitism of GNXP, and the aracial conservatism of John Ray. We care about various ideas, in the last analysis, based upon how they affect us as people, as evolved organisms, and an idea does not benefit a group if that idea contributes to that group’s demise, or even if it doesn’t positively contribute to that group’s survival.
Regurgitating obviously wrong ideas about an absolute racial purity, which is easily discredited by the Left, does not serve the cause of survival. A forward-looking emphasis on EGI and evolution (concepts that are not incompatible, by the way, regardless of “movement” lies that EGI favors “genetic stasis”) does enhance group survival – such arguments are proofed against an honest scientific critique.