Bronski Paper on Leftism

Passably reasonable HBD.

See here.

Abstract

The US has seen a linear decrease in the proportion of conservatives in each generation for at least 90 years. Sarraf et al. [5]  have suggested that this is related to increases in mutational load due to relaxed selection pressures on humans in industrialized environments. We provide additional evidence for this hypothesis: leftists have older fathers than non-leftists, and those with older fathers are more likely to be leftist. Since male gametes acquire about 2 mutations per year, while female gametes mutate much more slowly, traits that are changing due to mutational pressure are expected to be more common in offspring from older fathers. Additionally, we show that older fathers themselves are not more leftist than younger fathers, suggesting that the paternal age effect is not due to differences in breeding patterns between leftists and non-leftists.

The paper was reviewed by two pseudonymous individuals.  Well, given that I am reviewing it here pseudonymously, I should not make an issue of that, but then my blog does not pretend to be an academic journal.  As someone who has reviewed, in real life, many hundreds of papers, for more than 150 different academic journals, I will make some comments about the Bronski work.  As Dutton has already mentioned it, and as HBD is not an area of interest to me apart from criticizing it, I will make this brief, and concentrate more on the side issues I find more relevant. You can, and should, read the paper yourself and come to your own conclusions.  As it is written in a simplistic style (see below), it should be understandable to those without a STEM background.

This, a minor point from my STEM perspective is with the writing.  The style is aimed at a general, layman audience; it is not written in the typical style of an academic scientific paper, and some of the explanations given, particularly at the beginning, are obviously aimed at people with little understanding of biomedical science (HBDers?).  Also, the punctuation at times seems off, but that may be more of a British, rather than American, style.

Executive Summary – I believe that the author is on to something; I believe the effect discovered is most likely real. The author should be commended for this work.  However, it is flawed in some ways; see below.

Methods

If leftism is related to mutational pressure, we expect for there to be a paternal age effect for leftism. In other words, leftists should have older fathers on average. The object of this study was to test the hypothesis that leftists have older fathers. We also wanted to see if older fathers are more likely to be leftist, to rule out older fathers simply having more leftist genes, without de novo mutation playing a role.

It was discovered that leftists do have older fathers and that older fathers are not more leftist, favoring the de novo mutation hypothesis.

Conclusion: 

Based on the results, we conclude that there is compelling evidence for a paternal age effect for leftism. The next step is molecular confirmation. Studies which confirm the role of de novo mutation in being more leftist than parents, as well as studies which show increasing polygenic scores for leftism associated traits like openness and individualizing through time can molecularly confirm the role of mutational load and genetics more generally in the rise of leftism. The decline of asabiyyah seems to be a general feature of empire decline. We propose that the mechanism of asabiyyah decline is in fact mutational load increasing leftism in a population, potentially alongside immigrant gene flow. Further quantitative studies investigating the universality of the rise of features of leftism like feminism (decreased fertility, increased female driven sexual selection), homosexuality, and mass immigration of foreigners can further confirm this view. 

I agree that the data are consistent with the conclusion.  But let us consider some limitations of the paper, both those cited by the author and some I note.

Limitations

Key limitations of this study include the treatment of leftism and paternal age as a binary variable, and the lack of data on potential confounders like religiosity and birth order effects.

Those are valid, and moderately serious, limitations.

Also, some claim theories of more or less complicated mechanisms of environmental effects of ideas on behavior. The present author does not find this framework generally supported or valid…

Is it up to him to say?

…and therefore is not generally concerned with measuring religious participation as an important variable, but it is relatively common and other researchers (Rutherford, 2020) who seriously believe in it will want to rule out environmental hypotheses.

That is bizarre from an academic STEM viewpoint – dismissing an alternative hypothesis by claiming that you do “not find this framework generally supported or valid” and then telling others who “seriously believe” in the alternatives should test it. It would have been better to have spelled out, in detail, why the author “does not find this framework generally supported or valid,” followed by proposing tests of the various hypotheses.  

Some additional limitations I observed:

The author only looks at male offspring.  Perhaps that is done to eliminate the sex variable, but it does leave out half the population, which happens to be, on average, the more left-leaning half.  

Then:

These were not the fathers of the first group, which we do not have access to. Instead, they are meant to be a representative sample of fathers from, approximately, the generation that produced the individuals from the first sample. The main hypothesis for the second sample is that fathers who had children at older ages were not more leftist than fathers who had children at younger ages. Given that the fathers of the first sample come from the same population as the fathers from the second sample, this would show that older fathers of the first sample are not more leftist.

I see this as a major flaw. The measurement of the political views of the “fathers” (and their wives, presumably the mothers of the offspring) were done on a different group of men than the actual biological fathers of the offspring analyzed.  The author did not have access to the actual fathers and I cannot criticize the lack of data, given the limited resources of the study, and I understand that the author attempts to justify the use of the “mock fathers” by stating they come from the same population as the unknown real ones, but they are not the same people. The “mock fathers” may in fact be a good representation of the real ones, and an Occam’s Razor view would find that plausible. But from an extremely strict, scientifically sound, control all the variables, viewpoint, this is, as stated, a major flaw. The “fathers” and “sons” data sets were not actually genetically related (except for the possibility of a few overlaps by chance). It is theoretically possible that the real fathers and the “mock fathers” are different in some significant manner that would affect the results.

Participant age increasing, of course, predicts decreased leftism, since older people are less leftist. The odds ratios were 1.012 for each year of paternal age and 0.979 for each year of participant age.

It may be interesting to track leftism of offspring over time, to see if there are differences between leftism vs. age for people with younger or older fathers.

There is also the issue of confounding variables that have not been controlled for.  One example would be socioeconomic status (SES). It is reasonable to speculate that men with higher SES become fathers later in life than those with lower SES, as the former group may be busy when younger with higher education, career, etc. The latter, lower SES, group would be expected to have a “fast-life, r-selected strategy,” consistent with younger parenthood.  As a theoretical example, conservative fathers may have invested time in their younger adulthood building a business, establishing a lucrative professional career, etc. and then had children when older, in the context of enhanced personal wealth and a higher standard of living. Their sons growing up in the midst of inherited wealth and an easy life, protected from the harsh social realities extant today, would then be more liberal than their fathers, flitting around in college in the “humanities” and getting on the road to a hardcore leftist worldview.  If this sort of scenario is common in one form or another, it could explain the trend in the absence of the mutational mechanism.  I suppose if one were to spend time pondering the issue, other such confounders could be theorized.

Another point is that if the mutational hypothesis is correct, one would expect the leftist sons to have more physical/health problems than their rightist fathers (controlling for SES, etc.). And as the author says, molecular conformation ultimately will be necessary.

In summary, the findings are likely based on an underlying reality, but I wouldn’t classify the data and the conclusions as “high confidence.” It would be optimal if an academic with resources followed through on this idea, but I am not optimistic given academic bias.

Side Issues: 

Those who study empire decline have argued that the lack of certain selective pressures contributes to behavioral change in a population over 10-40 generations (Turchin, 2018). This behavioral change is marked by a decline in asabiyyah, a term introduced by Ibn Khaldun which roughly translates to “groupishness.” Khaldun theorized that asabiyyah declined following an increase in wealth. Peter Turchin theorized that it increases through prolonged exposure to “meta-ethnic frontiers”, areas of ethnic tension, over the course of 10-40 generations. He claimed that high asabiyyah predicts empire formation, and rots after a race becomes a successful imperial ethnicity with a lot of wealth. In support of this, he showed that empires form more than 90 % of the time in meta-ethnic frontiers, and that empire decline tends to last about 20-40 generations (Turchin, 2018). Multi-level selection theory lines up with research on “moral foundations” which attempts to predict political views from deeper sentiments. These sentiments, of course, are highly heritable (49 % – 66 %), meaning there is a lot of potential for genetic change (Zakharin & Bates, 2023). Leftists have been shown to have depressed “binding” sentiments and increased “individualizing” sentiments (Graham et al., 2009) relative to conservatives. Binding sentiments essentially map onto “groupishness”, as they include group loyalty and sexual morality.

Does this help answer the Italian Question – why Italians are, in general, atomized individualists who exhibit a propensity to ethnic self-abasement, why the tend to be lazy hedonistic cowards, and why when grouped together in a large group (i.e., Italy and Italian institutions) they tend to be catastrophically inept?  I have previously speculated that the Italian stock became exhausted because of the Roman Empire, and the loss of Italian asabiyyah could also correlate to Frost’s concept of “genetic pacification.”  Thus, as a result of the Roman state, 2,000+ years of genetics, and historical exhaustion, the depleted Italian stock is low in asabiyyah and is genetically pacified.

By the way, the asabiyyah metric is not a reason to favor ethnonationalism over Pan-Europeanism, despite the “empire” connection to declining asabiyyah.  First, a Pan-European Imperium would not be an empire per se, but a voluntary confederation of nations.  Second, “meta-ethnic frontiers” would exist between “the West” and “the Rest” so that asabiyyah-boosting “ethnic tension” would certainly exist.  Third, asabiyyah has been in free-fall in the individual nations of “the West” independent of empire, so empire is not the most relevant factor. Any decline in selective pressure, such as “Western” wealth and standard of living, and particular cultural aspects (favoring the weak and botched over the strong; a culture of de facto and de jure Bioleninism), could be responsible.

There is also E. O. Wilson’s idea of the “multiplier effect” (Wilson, 2000). “A small evolutionary change in the behavior pattern of individuals can be amplified into a major social effect by the expanding upward distribution of the effect into multiple facets of social life. Consider, for example, the differing social organizations of the related olive baboon (Papio anubis) and hamadryas baboon (P. hamadryas). These two species are so close genetically that they interbreed extensively where their ranges overlap and could reasonably be classified as no more than subspecies. The hamadryas male is distinguished by its proprietary attitude toward females, which is total and permanent, whereas the olive male attempts to appropriate females only around the time of their estrus. This difference is only one of degree, and would scarcely be noticeable if one’s interest were restricted in each species to the activities of a single dominant male and one consort female. Yet this trait alone is enough to account for profound differences in social structure, affecting the size of the troops, the relationship of troops to one another, and the relationship of males within each troop.” In other words, there is ethological reason to believe that political behaviors are the most sensitive to changes in the genome. Minor changes in behavior can result in large changes to the aggregate social structure. Civil rights, feminism, and gay marriage may seem like radical steps that are hard to explain with small mutational pressures, but the multiplier effect can in theory make small individual changes result in huge aggregate changes to a society.

This would also explain and answer the Italian Question as well. The collapse of Italian asabiyyah and resulting sociopolitical consequences do not need to be due to large genetic-behavioral changes, nor necessarily traits exhibited by the vast majority of the population.  Consistent small effects, exhibited by a large fraction of the population, exerted over long time periods by large numbers of people, influenced by historical events, could result in significant differences in ethnic mass social-cultural behavior, such as what we observe with The Inadequate Italian.

The multiplier effect is a double-edged sword. This, it makes degeneration occur quickly and such degeneration can be induced by small (genetically-encoded) cognitive and behavioral changes.  However, it also means that minor changes for the better with respect to cognition and behavior can be multiplied over mass society to effect positive societal-cultural-civilizational outcomes. Of course, given the role of sociopolitical and sociobiological entropy in civilizational sociopolitical thermodynamics, degeneration is always easier than regeneration; the civilizational free energy change favors a tendency toward easier, more spontaneous, higher-entropy degeneration.  

But if one puts in the effort, if one puts in the energy, one could move in the direction of lower-entropy societal regeneration.  Eugenics can assist in this regard. Thus, Italians, or any other group, could exhibit marked group improvement by shifting heritable mental traits in a direction of higher asabiyyah and lower genetic pacification (and higher IQ, etc.).

WDR42 and Odds and Ends

WDR42: Why I Oppose Them.

Listen here.

Odds and Ends:

The utter and complete ineptness of the Italian.

The migrant crisis can be ended immediately. Thus:

1. Repudiate all immigration/migration/refugee treaties.

2. Treat the invaders exactly like you would an invading military force. Sink the damn boats. If any manage to land – how did Germans treat the amphibious landing of the Allies on D-Day? Did they welcome them, feed them, and distribute them throughout Germany to live off the fat of the land? No, something else was done. Use lethal force to repel the invasion. If any surrender, they are POWs.

3. The countries from which the migrants have originated have de facto declared war on the receiving nations. The latter should declare war on the former and take military action to stop the invasion at is source.

More from Italy.  It’s possible the Nordicists were always right about Italians in a general sense, they just didn’t have the specific nature of the criticism correct. Above all, it is a character issue, which of course could have a genetic basis. I do not blame the Italians for Meloni’s betrayal, but I do blame them for not doing anything about it.  An Italian stereotype is of constantly collapsing governments; you’d think that this is a perfect time for the Italian penchant for (political) instability to manifest itself. But, no. An ethny addicted to self-abasement and characterized by lazy hedonistic cowardice does what it always does in a crisis – lazy do-nothingness leading to pathetic failure.  Time to sing on balconies!

Stable genius Adonis Dutton criticizes others, see here. I’ll need to read the Bronski paper referred to by Dutton. However I note this from Dutton:

I argue that rising mutational load is part of the explanation. It led to more and more selfish, individually-oriented people until a tipping point was reached, probably around 1963, causing society to rapidly become left-wing.

Possible? Sure. But note the year 1963. Coincidence? The Kennedy assassination was a major psychological trauma for the American nation (with ripple effects throughout the “West”) and can be viewed as the breaking point between the end of the cultural 1950s (that is, 1960-1963 in America was not culturally very different from, say, the late 1950s) and the beginning of the hard left 1960s counter-culture, which started in 1964 and ended in the early 1970s (say around Watergate). That is coupled with the constant rise of Jewish influence, the accumulated sociopolitical capital built up by the Left by their “long march” through the institutions (unopposed by the Right), as well as the LBJ-Democrat strategy to use Blacks and other non-Whites as building blocks for a new political coalition (hence, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Immigration Act).

I am not surprised that HBDers want to reduce all to genetic determinism secondarily influenced by environment, coupled with giving a “pass” to the Jewish-Anglo alliance in undermining America.

And was this mutational load to leftism restricted to the “West?”

Dutton:

However, it is true that an element of these relationships could be environmental. Perhaps having these kinds of traits makes people feel excluded or inferior. This makes them bitter about the world, which makes them want to tear down all of its power structures and traditions…

But today, society and its power structures and traditions are solidly leftist. Does that mean dissatisfied mutants will now be found on the Right in the ranks of, say, HBD or Der Movement?

I’m re-reading Robert Griffin’s One Sheaf One Vine and two quotes so far stand out.  Eric Owens states: “…I couldn’t get anybody to do anything.”  I certainly empathize with that.  Linder quotes Sobran as observing that “..it is all just a game to conservatives, just a way to make a living.”  True.  But can’t we say the same about some in Der Movement?

Odds and Ends, 4/9/24

In der news.

The following is an important distinction between WN 1.0 and WN 3.0 (and WN 2.0 to a degree as well).  Whatever else I may think or say about my time as an analog IRL WN 1.0 activist, one of the major “perks” was that everyone I interacted with, one way or the other, directly or indirectly, was White. If I went to a meeting, get-together, or some other activity, everyone was White.  Visiting The Great Man on the Mountaintop, everyone was White.  The written material, the audios, the videos, all were produced by Whites. That built trust and community; even if there were some people whose ideas or behaviors you disapproved of, at least they were White. That was a powerful attraction, above and beyond the ideological and political reasons for involvement.  WN 3.0 squanders that advantage. In today’s “multiracial White nationalism” you can have Jamaican Negroes preaching to you to abandon WN in favor of HBD, you can have half-Desis badmouth WN in favor of “Southern Nationalism,” you have to have COLOR rammed in your face just the same as you have with the general society.  Both Der Movement and Da System expose you to COLOR; you no longer have any refuge from diversity.  And given Putnam’s work on diversity, one can expect the multiracial WN 3.0 “movement” to exhibit less trust, less community, and less organic solidarity than the White WN 1.0 version.  With respect to WN 3.0, to quote Raging Bull in a different context – “It defeats its own purpose.”  Far Right alternatives to Der Movement should strictly hold to an all-White, “ourselves alone” paradigm, which would provide one significant advantage over WN 3.0 in attracting Whites who have had their fill of COLOR.

I am not a mind-reader and should not definitively state what others are thinking, just as I do not want them to do with me.  However, I will present a hypothesis for your consideration.  This is something I have mentioned before, but I will present it in more detail here. Consider your Quota Queen Fearless Leaders, I hypothesize that at least some of them had an epiphany as follows – it could have been a gradual realization over time or it could have been a “lightning flash” realization:

Oh, shit!  What have I done?  I’ve painted myself into a corner; what are my options? I’ve thrown away a chance for a normal life, I’ve thrown away my career (or potential career), what kind of future can I have? How will I live?  How can I support myself?  How will I support myself in old age? Retirement?  Medical care? What’s going to happen with me long term?  I foolishly threw it all away. And for what?  A race that can’t even recognize its own interests, much less defend them?  For a pathetic freakshow “movement” full of inept defectives? For “supporters” who I can’t motivate to do anything effective politically?  What have I accomplished?  Nothing.  What can I accomplish with all of this crap?  Nothing. I sacrificed my future for a dead-end “movement” that has zero chance of accomplishing its goals, a “movement” aimed at preserving an ungrateful people who hate the very activists who are trying to defend those people.  I need to start looking after number one!  What can I do?  Well, if I cannot motivate my supporters to actually do anything useful for the cause, maybe I can hoodwink them into sending me money so I can live, so I can support myself.  I’ll trick those losers into thinking that sending me D’Nations is somehow “doing something” for the cause, I”ll feed into their delusions that “we’re winning,” I’ll feed into their hobbyism in exchange for fundraising donations. I need to boost my pageviews; the more people come to my site, the more likely some of them will donate and/or pay for special “privileges” on the site. I’ll provide the entertainment; they’ll pay for it. I don’t care if the crap I now run at my site is vulgar low brow stupidity; as long as it generates pay views and money then my “brand” is successful.  It’s not like being “intellectual” is going to accomplish anything.  Nothing accomplishes anything, except to make money for myself.  That’s the ticket! Speaking of tickets, I need to go to the movies, so it’s time for more fundraising!

The real reason why the US and Russia are mutually hostile is that they are competing for the same niche space. They are too much alike. They are both anti-nationalist authoritarian multiculturalist states hostile to the EGI of the majority population. The US takes an ultra-woke neo-Marxist approach to this ideology, while Russia peddles a socially conservative civic nationalist form of multiculturalism.

Killing Italians with impunity:

One of Brandywine’s pitchers was Wilmington native John “Sadie” McMahon, who played in four contests and would have appeared in more if he had not been charged with the May 7 murder of a peanut vendor, Carmen Malacalza, on the Forepaugh Circus grounds in Wilmington. McMahon allegedly fractured his skull with a stone, causing his death. McMahon was taken into custody on May 23, was denied bail ten days later, and stood trial on October 1. According to the Inquirer, “The evidence against him proved so meager and contradictory that the trial came to an abrupt end … by the state abandoning the case.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I have previously criticized those on the Right (to a large extent, HBDers) who themselves criticize “credentialism” and will do so here again.  Of course, credentialism in its pure form can and should be criticized; any idea, fact, hypothesis, or paradigm needs to be judged on its own merits, and not depend upon the credentials of those promoting the ideas, facts, hypotheses, or paradigms.  Very well.  But we should not throw the baby out with the bath water and go to the (reverse snobbery) extreme of dismissing the relevance and importance of expertise, which can at least be partially established by “credentials.”  It is certainly true that we cannot say that “X” is right or wrong dependent on the (alleged) expertise and credentials of the person making the evaluation of X.  But the expertise/credentials of the person is not completely irrelevant either.  It can tell us whether or not the person likely has the background and knowledge to potentially give an informed statement on the matter. Note the words “likely” and “potentially” – nothing is definitive.  But one must weigh all the factors. If you want to know about the inheritance of some sort of genetic disease, then, likely, you will potentially get a better answer from a medical geneticist than from a bum on skid row. But of course the expert can give you the wrong answer, but so can the bum (or anyone else) to an even more likely degree. An expert may simply be wrong, or they be biased for political, personal, or some other reasons. When it comes to issues or race (and sex), experts will often intentionally provide false information for political reasons (but they have the knowledge and the training to provide the truth if they were inclined to do so). But dilettantes can be wrong or biased as well, equally so, and they also have the additional problem that they may be ignorant of the subject matter and unqualified to effectively discuss the issue at hand. So the former issues with experts in no way alter the even greater potential problems with the latter issues with dilettantes. Therefore, dilettantism is at least as big as a problem as credentialism, if not more so.  I also note that some individuals who critique credentialism are hypocrites, because if they want to promote the trash of the execrable Richard Lynn they’ll state what a wonderful scientist he was with his credentials, or mention their own credentials (such as they are, academic appointments, degrees, affiliations, etc.) if such exist.  I suppose that credentialism is only a problem when one’s opponents do it.

See this. Yes, and what does that mean? It means your “movement” has been a catastrophic failure in not being able to take advantage of that potential pool of support, it means that “White Republican Voters” are feckless cowards if so many believe that and yet do nothing, and it underscores the lazy ineptness of pro-White activists who more strongly believe in The Great Replacement but sit around with zero effective activism and for whom trying to stimulate them into activity is less successful than if it were tried with a slab of concrete.

Odds and Ends, 3/14/24

In der news.

Vomit from this.

I’ve been avoiding Counter-Currents recently, but this is just too much. If you want to get a full understanding of the danger of Johnson/Counter-Currents, as well as the reality of WN 3.0, read that piece, and pay particular attention to what I am stressing below (emphasis added):

In fact, I started my podcast because mainstream YouTubers were reluctant to interview people such as Jim Goad and Greg Johnson.

Both were affable guests, and the latter is always willing to put me in contact with other dissidents when I ask. He also ensures that I am paid on time.

Am I reading this correctly? Johnson not only is promoting Negro Lipster among the Dissident Right but is actually PAYING him? If I am misunderstanding this, please correct my misunderstanding, but it seems clear enough.

More:

…not even vile anti-feminists want to hear Nick Fuentes degrade women. 

So – anti-feminists are “vile,” and we we must not “degrade women.” What about women degrading men? The women in question are White, who else are the Dissident Right focusing on? Hmm..does the Lipster have a particular interest in White women?

Nick’s followers might be a little smarter, but they are primarily emasculated guys who salivate over his hysteria. They are men who want to be engaged in a movement, but just as they are unable to get a woman, they are too lazy to do real work. They assume that shouting on Twitter/X or normalizing the incel cult…

Counter-Currents hosts a male Negro mocking White incels, while supporting milady. Need any more evidence of my idea about homosexual White Knighting as a passive aggressive spiteful attack against heterosexual White men?

White Nationalists should rebrand themselves as human biodiversity advocates, and when their new publications acquire some esteem, they must infiltrate the mainstream with dissident ideas. Saying that you are a White Nationalist is a losing strategy, since people don’t want to be associated with a movement they equate with hate. But one can be a human biodiversity advocate without being a White Nationalist.

So, we should abandon WN and instead promote anti-White HBD, which divides Whites against each other while pushing a Jewish/Asian supremacist agenda of replacing kinship-based racialism with a ranking of traits favoring Jews/Asians. What can go wrong?

Keep on supporting Counter-Currents and WN 3.0, all you numbnuts out there. Meanwhile, I’m banned and blacklisted and get minimal support. You all deserve your fate.

A good comment responding to Lipster’s screed.

HBD is a dead end. No one who hates White people gives a crap about ‘science’ that doesn’t reaffirm their hatred of White people. All that HBD does is smuggle in a bunch of pro-non-White ideas (like jewish and asian superiority) into ‘racial thinking’ for Whites. No non-White cares one iota about HBD unless it serves their ethnic interests.

HBD is just another form of liberal rear-guard action against North American liberalism’s only real political opposition: White Nationalism.

By the way, this is what Lipster writes for other audiences, when he’s not peddling HBD to gullible White nationalists. It’s all geography and the tsetse fly, folks, not Negro IQ:

In general, we are not implying that Africa’s challenges are impossible to solve. However, due to its unique geography, the region requires policies that account for its peculiar condition. As such, primacy should be accorded to improving transportation networks and reducing barriers to trading. Solving the problem of a harsh geography demands bold thinking and surely Africans are up to the task.

Uh huh.  HBD is for YOU, White man, so you reject kinship-based racialism, scorn your fellow Whites, and embrace Jewish/Asian supremacism. For Blacks, we’ll read that: “Solving the problem of a harsh geography demands bold thinking and surely Africans are up to the task.”

The White Man always loses. Let’s consider the fundamentals of the Russia-Ukraine war:

1. Slavs are killing each other.

2. The Russian side is led by an authoritarian multiculturalist, now a vassal of China, who opposes “Nazis” and is repopulating occupied parts of Ukraine with Asiatics.

3. The Ukrainian side is led by a Jew (*) controlled by anti-White America and Western Europe, and the long-term plan there is mass alien immigration to replace dead Ukrainians.

4. Meanwhile, Der Movement takes sides in this war, as if anyone outside of the Dissident Right cares what Nutzi freaks “think” and as if either side is even remotely compatible with long-term White interests.

See what decades of Eloi White leadership – at all levels – has brought you?

* A Jew leading Ukraine is historically analogous to an ethnic German leading Israel.

Another gift from the Eloi. The Eloi are dangerous. The Eloi should not have leadership positions in ANY field, including, obviously, academia .

Some more diseases for female Eloi bioethicists to consider: For women, the disease of menstruation. Bleeding every month? Bloating? Cramping? Mood swings? Disease! Cure – be either pregnant or breastfeeding throughout the entire reproductive period. For heterosexual men, the mental disease called marriage. Voluntarily associating with a dangerous, vicious exoparasite that inflicts significant morbidity. Disease! For bioethicists – life. What? Don’t you experience pain and other disorders? Don’t bodily function decay? Life is a disease for you; what steps will you take to remediate?

One objective of my IRL foray into democratic multiculturalism – akin to my Dissident Right activity – is as a test of sorts. Yes, most of my “colleagues” are rabid leftists, but I do not believe that all of them are. What of the others? If I publicly speak out, put myself “out there,” and declare that “the emperor has no clothes,” will those others become emboldened to speak out themselves? Will they “pass the test” and show some response if someone else takes the risk to pave the way for them? So far, predictably, the answer is a resounding no. The fearful and indolent stay silent, suppressed by social pricing, fright, and inherent do-nothingness. I’ll say this though – those who speak out today when others stay silent should be the leaders of tomorrow when those others become so desperate that they are finally forced to act.

European nationalists like to pose as superior to the “Amerimutts” but they still haven’t grasped the basic concept that it is difficult to politically deal with an issue if you are not allowed to talk about it. Of course, it is possible that if Europeans ever did get official free speech, then social pricing would ramp up, as exists in the USA. There needs to be both legal free speech and a solution to social pricing. Europeans need to fight for free speech while preventing the rise of social pricing; Americans need to fight against social pricing while preventing the rise of speech laws.