Category: citizenism

Stupid Derbyshire: 10/11/17

Another incoherent quota queen.

Read this nonsense.

Just like Derbyshire debated Taylor on miscegenation (it’s all good, according to the Derb, at least for him, and if you don’t like it, come to his house and he’ll punch you in the face – his essential position), he is now opposing Taylor on racial separation: No Sale, says Derb, it’s impossible, simply impossible.

Hmmm…why would a White male (not man) married to a Chinese woman with half-Chinese children, oppose the idea of people in America actually separating, in a political sense, on the basis of race?  Just like we can productively speculate why such a person would be so opposed to criticism of miscegenation.  Just like we know why he insists the major racial dividing line is Blacks vs. non-Blacks as opposed to Whites vs. non-Whites.  We just can’t acknowledge the bizarre alien nature of Mrs. Derbyshire and the kids now, can we?

Anyway, and predictably, Derbyshire’s self-interested position is incoherent.  He’s all for “freedom of association” don’t you know (so, we can be free to eschew him and his family?), but actual separation is “no sale” because Blacks need Whites

Derbyshire:

Of that fraction of blacks with something on the ball, all but the most saintly and self-sacrificing will decamp to the nearest nonblack area, as you see happening today across the Mediterranean. Jared’s white enclaves are going to need some very serious border control. His proposed multicultural enclave, where people who want diversity can enjoy it, will get way less diverse really fast. It’ll just turn black.
There is simply no stable solution here. Whites don’t need blacks, but blacks need whites, if they are to have any kind of civilized life.
Jared’s second clip is similarly flawed, even setting aside the mayhem that attended the breakup of Yugoslavia. The racial gap in what was formerly Soviet Central Asia is nowhere near the size it is between American blacks and nonblacks.
So, sorry to Jared and those of his followers who emailed in, but on the matter of separation: no sale.
I do, though, fully agree with Jared on the desirability of striking down all legal constraints on private freedom of association. Forced racial integration is an outrageous assault on our liberties.
With freedom of association restored there would, I believe, be enough voluntary separation to lower the racial temperature and ease us forward to the calm acceptance of reality that the race issue so badly needs.

Look, if Blacks need Whites, and if we cannot have racial separation because there is no way to keep Blacks out (but doesn’t Derbyshire think that Europe can and should prevent the migrant invasion?), then how can we have freedom of association?  Blacks are going to want to live in the “non-Black” areas formed by “voluntary separation.”  How are you going to keep them out?  You can strike down “legal constraints on private freedom of association” but you still need some way to ENFORCE that separation.  If Blacks start coming into Derb’s pristine White-Yellow neighborhood paradise, what’s the solution? Call the police?  The National Guard?  Will law enforcement be segregated as well?

The other incoherent aspect of Derbyshire’s stupidity is his idea that we can have racial peace if we can all just accept HBD race realism and enjoy our voluntary separation and “cool down the racial temperature.”  As if Blacks, with their militancy and low intelligence and inflated self-esteem (all HBD-approved factoids, no?), will just accept being viewed as dumb and violent sub-altern Americans and if they would just accept being eschewed by “voluntary separation.”

Just like Sailer’s citizenism fails because it is no more realistic than racial nationalism (Trump’s citizenism didn’t last past the election) and won’t accomplish anything, Derbyshire’s idea that acceptance of racial differences and freedom of association will solve the race problem is ludicrous.

Derbyshire’s position is self-contradictory, and is reflective of his personal situation, his cognitive deficiency, or both.

Advertisements

Citizenism and Mainstreaming Failure

More fails.

Trump so far has illustrated the underlying flaws of Sailler’s “citizens” (warmed over civic nationalism).  While Trump proved that, under the right set of circumstances, there was a narrow electable window for citizenism to come into power, he is also proving how utterly useless citizenism is – and will be – once elected.  Citizenism is “weak sauce” – half measures, compromises, furtive implicitness, which at its best would only slow the decline and delay the inevitable day of reckoning.  However, the Left – nay, the entire Establishment – views citizenism as equivalent to neo-Nazi White supremacy, and thus they oppose and sabotage even the most modest citizenist initiatives of Trump. Thus, while citizenism has proved electorally successful – at least this one time, with a very unconventional candidate – it is inherently doomed to fail, caught as it is between two pincers.  On the one hand, it really cannot solve the Race-Culture problem, because that’s not what it meant to do; on the other hand, it triggers the whole Establishment the same as if it really could effectively deal with Race and Culture.  It’s the worst of both worlds – not radical enough to actually achieve the required outcomes, but just radical enough to trigger a vociferous opposition that prevents even the most modest outcomes from being achieved.

Meanwhile, the “label Antifa as a terrorist organization” has passed the required number of signatures to be considered by the White House.  The ball is in your court, Mr. Trump – as is the question why you have to be forced to consider it (assuming he actually does, and doesn’t blow it off) rather than just doing the right thing to begin with.

I can’t think of a more wonderful test of Trump’s “God Emperorness” than this.  At what point will the sweaty homoerotic fanboys give up on their hero? This is something he should have done after the Inauguration riots.

They never learn.  Electoral failure, inability to appease opponents, unlimited ability to disgust the base. Mainstreaming is a perfect example of what happens when adherents to a plausible hypothesis refuse to give up that hypothesis even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

That applies to almost everything about the “movement,” by the way.

Rotten Orange News and Sailer the Cuck

Two morons.

The Rotten Orange: The fat slob moron is now saying that we need to make trade concessions to China in order to get the Chinese to “help” deal with North Korea’s nuclear program.  Can we think of anything more Neocon cuck-like than that?  Look, Fat Don, if the Chinese, who share a border with North Korea, cannot be bothered to deal with this on their own initiative, for the own self-interest, then perhaps America, separated from these Asiatic aliens by an ocean, shouldn’t get so worked up about it?

Yes, we’ll be told that America is still technically at war with North Korea, while China is their ally; to which I say: it’s time to sign a real peace treaty with North Korea and let the South Koreans fend for themselves. The South can develop their own nuclear deterrent, and Japan as well, and America can worry more about Americans, defending our economic interests from voracious Asiatics, and defending our borders from Colored invaders.

And, yes, true, an ocean of separation doesn’t make a difference to ICBMs and SLBMs, but, you know, the missiles can fly in both directions. Ultimately, we cannot dictate to other nations what their military can be; we need to build our own nuclear arsenal, make clear that any attack against the USA will met with a devastating response, and let Asians take care of their own business.

We see Sailer continuing to promote the anti-White ultracucking of “citizenism” and then we have this:

My contribution perhaps is to explain the inevitability of identity politics and to recommend prudent policies for moderating their impact.

That is exactly the opposite of what we need.  Moderate the impact of identity politics? No, no, no!  Instead we must do everything to exacerbate identity politics, we need to promote group animus, and we must have more division, more hatred, more chaos, more balkanization, and more extremism.

Do we need any more evidence that Sailer is part of the System, and that the Alt Lite/Alt Wrong is an enemy and not an ally.

What The Cuck?

Roissy weeps.

Trump crows: Cuckadoodledoo!

It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag.

And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator.

 
That’s pure unadulterated cuckservatism.  Sure, the beginning of the speech was some good (albeit aracial) red-meat right-wing populism, but then it degenerated into “let’s rally around the flag” unifying civic nationalism – exactly the opposite of what we need.
 
Thankfully, the Left isn’t buying it and are doing – through their idiotically short-sighted protests – the balkanizing that Der Touchback should have been doing himself.
 
And all the WNs who have been worshiping Trump’s inflated citizenist paunch are going to really have to endure at least four years of  major-league beta race cucking.  We are all in for a bumpy ride.

Racialist Expected Value, Process, and Results

Economic-based analysis.

Listening to some financial podcasts about ‘wealth building” I noticed some analogies to racial activism (perhaps not surprising since child equivalents of EGI can be transformed into financial impacts based on estimated “values” of a human life, e.g., for insurance purposes).

One point made was that calculating probabilities is not sufficient; one must also estimate the potential value obtained from each outcome.  Thus, outcome A may be more probable than outcome B, but if the payoff of B is far greater than that of A, it would be most prudent to invest in B rather than in A, since the “expected value” of B-oriented scenarios is greater than that for scenarios oriented around pursuing A.

This is one of the points I’ve previously made about Breezy’s “citizenism.” Yes, it may be that civic nationalism is more probable as an achievable outcome than racial nationalism (see: Trump, Donald J. as an example). Nevertheless, the potential outcome of racial nationalism is so far superior to anything achievable from civic nationalism (perhaps infinitely greater if one supposes that civic nationalism in America following current demographic trends would result in the White race replacement that racial nationalism would prevent), then it is obviously more prudent, form a cost/benefit ratio to pursue approaches leading to racial nationalist outcomes.

Another point made by financial analysts and advisers is to be process-driven rather than merely results-driven.  An example given is to imagine a process in which there is 55% probability of success and 45% probability of failure, with equal relative outcomes of gain/loss respectively (and assume there are no other approaches that would give a higher expected value than pursuing this 55:45 advantage).  A person who is purely results-driven, if they had lost after the first try, would give up, saying: I tried it and lost.  A process-driven person would realize that, over time, this approach would yield value, given a sufficient sample size of attempts.

That’s very simplistic of course, and is not an argument against considering results – after all, if you attempted this approach 1,000 times and kept on losing, those results would inform you that the process was flawed.  After all, you need feedback to judge whether the process is as effective as you originally thought.  Further, you may not have the resources to keep on losing waiting for the process to work; there are many considerations where results are important.  So, perhaps it is best to say that you should be BOTH process-driven and results-driven, not one or the other.  At the beginning, it is best to emphasize process over results, to generate sufficient sample size so that the results become relevant.  Later, the importance of a results-driven approach increases, but should never rise to the level of completely excluding process.  Indeed, process can be refined based upon results (and of course results are driven by process, modified by probability).

I’m critical of Der Movement from the basis of BOTH process (which I find stupid and wrong-headed) as well as results (decades of failure represent a sufficient sample size to judge the lack of efficacy of process).

Brimelow Exposed

Admits the truth.

Brimelow admits to being a civic nationalist and a “citizenist” in this interview here.  I’m curious if the Alt-Right is going to explicitly reject the likes of Brimelow, Sailer, and Derbyshire – the Alt-Wrong – or does the endlessly self-congratulatory (*) Alt-Right lack the character to do so?

We’re watching.

*”Hillary talked about us!  We’re ‘made men’ now!”

Exposing Ben Shapiro

Nothing surprising here.


I don’t see why anyone is surprised that a Jewish Neocon is hysterically anti-Trump, is hypocritical about ethnonationalism for Jews vs. Whites, tries to conflate genuine racial nationalism with fraudulent Sailerian citizenism, runs to a liberal newspaper to attack those on the Right while posing as a “conservative,” promotes aracial policies for America, and is an out-and-out mendacious hypocrite.

It’s in the blood, as they say.

Example 1,001 in the case exhibit on how Jewish interests are incompatible with those of Whites.