Category: moral turd

Derbyshire, Child Porn, and VDARE

Derb the moral turd.


First, note that Derb implicitly tries to associate himself as similar to Bukovsky as heroic “awkward squad” truth-tellers. In reality, Derbyshire, opponent of White nationalism and proponent of miscegenation, is, to borrow a phrase from another HBDer, “a pillar of the Establishment.” More importantly, Derbyshire, father of two, makes this rather remarkable comment: 

Why should it be a crime to have child porn on your computer?

Let’s see, Derbyshire, you stupid bastard: consumers of child porn create the demand for it. That demand in turn motivates scum to produce that filth for profit, often resorting to the sexual torture of young children, and always involving sexual exploitation of children. Understand, you morally obtuse turd? 
I must say: many years ago, a foreigner, observing the number of White male-Asian female couples, noted to me that “yellow fever” among White males may be sublimated pedophilia, given the neotonic nature of Asians, particularly Asian females (on average small, with muted secondary sexual characteristics). Yes, the Derb states that enjoying child porn is “weird and creepy” – but that is coming from a man who is a self-described (or, quoting his own mother) “awkward squad” and a man who is a proponent of inter-racial marriage, which most of us would consider “weird and creepy.” Despite being “weird and creepy,” Derbyshire apparently believes possession of child porn should be legal, based on his comment quoted above. Derbyshire has also written: 

Added to that sadness is the very unfair truth that a woman’s salad days are shorter than a man’s — really, in this precise context, only from about 15 to 20.


To put that in perspective, consider that a typical adult East Asiatrix is less sexually developed (i.e., secondary sexual characteristics) than is a typical 15 year old female of other races. 


One wonders what “Daddy Dragon” Brimelow thinks of Derbyshire’s opinions on this matter. If VDARE does nothing, says nothing, about this, then that’s a tacit endorsement of Derbyshire’s opinion. Conservative contributors to VDARE’s panhandling take note. 
Also: There are some who may accuse me of hypocrisy because I critique Derbyshire here, but have never commented on a Der Movement figure who’s been through the legal system over this issue. My rationale for not commenting on this other case is: (1) The individual in question has denied the charges and given an explanation of the guilty plea; (2) I do not have the full facts of that case so as to make an informed judgment; and (3) Unlike Derbyshire, that other individual has never publicly questioned the validity of child porn possession being a crime. Therefore, the issue here is that of Derbyshire, and not of anyone else.

On Plagiarism, Principle, Morals, and the Movement

VMI better than the “movement.”

I’ve written about the issue of plagiarism before, and now I would like to cite comments on that topic made by the Virginia Military Institute.  Thus I quote this website (proper credit given!), with the following excerpts (italicized bold emphasis added):

Plagiarism is dishonorable. It involves using the words, information, insights, or ideas of another without crediting that person through proper citation. Since authorship is ownership, using the intellectual property of others without credit is theft. Passing off another person’s work as your own is lying. You can avoid plagiarism by fully and openly crediting all sources used…

 …Parallelism means paraphrasing material but keeping a source’s argumentation and paragraph structure. This is not acceptable. Not only words and phrases and sentences require footnotes. If you borrow someone else’s ideas, you must also acknowledge the fact by a footnote. Even if you cite another person’s ideas in your own words you must indicate this with a footnote or it constitutes plagiarism. Give credit where credit is due. You wouldn’t want people to steal your property – – don’t steal theirs. You will have to use other people’s discoveries and concepts to write your paper, but build on them creatively. Do not compromise your honor by failing to acknowledge clearly where your work ends and that of someone else begins.

In today’s corrupt, Judaized society, I’m sure that these principles, the invocation of honor, will be met with eye-rolling and snarky scorn.  The same will hold within the “movement,” which is as Judaized as anything else (indeed, some plagiarizing writers who are the most critical of Jews tend to be the ones who themselves display Jewish-like behavior).  In the “movement” we see the same lack of principle at work as we see in the general society – a society that the “movement” allegedly opposes: short-term convenience over long-term principle, doing what’s easy over doing what’s right, tactics always considered and strategy ignored, and a mocking attitude toward principles of behavior such as honor and loyalty that which were, at one time, essential components of White European Manhood.
There will be excuses of course.  One can imagine it: “We are in a fight for survival!  We can’t play by the rules when the Jews and Leftists do not!  We can’t sacrifice White survival on the altar of honor!”  Yes, indeed, one can imagine that very well, since we’ve all read it and heard it before.
But do codes of honor, such as what applies at military academies, really preach that behavior should be so rigid that one should choose national destruction with “honor” over survival depending upon more questionable behavior?  No.  Let’s not confuse means and ends.  For a military officer, the End, the Objective, is (or should be) winning the war, defending the nation. So, yes, when the ultimate objective is at stake, when the prize is nothing less than what one has become an officer to defend, then one does, at that point, what’s required to achieve that objective.  That’s a moment of supreme decision, a moment that you would want someone of sound character making that ultimate decision (more about that in a moment).
But, let us be honest.  All the steps toward that ultimate objective are not “life or death” decisions.  At each step, the individual will almost certainly be able to choose between two alternatives, BOTH of which would enable the individual to advance toward the goal.  One alternative would consist of doing the right thing, being honorable, and displaying sound character, even if it takes a bit more effort.  The other choice is taking the easy way out, the convenient short-cut, the more dishonorable way, sacrificing character for expediency.  And let us be honest again: the “movement” today is far from the point of making supreme decisions for White racial survival, the “movement” today is in fact at the point in which “activists” engage in the daily decisions leading toward the far-away final objective, those every day steps along the path in which choices exist between doing what’s right and doing what’s merely easy and convenient.  There’s no existential racial crisis at stake today in “movement” politics or in blog posting.  Let’s be realistic, shall we?
Putting aside then the pompous blowhard excuses of “anything is required for racial survival!” we then ask: why do military academies put such an emphasis on honor, integrity, and character?  Is that just some sort of antiquated nonsense of “dead White males?”
Actually, these academies train for, and select for, character as much as, or more, than they do for intelligence or military skill.  And here is the reason why. An officer will need to lead men, including leading men into battle.  An officer will be making life and death decisions.  An officer will often be tempted between doing what’s right, what’s best for his men and for his country, or doing what’s easy, what’s convenient, what’s personally expedient and privately useful.  An officer will need to distinguish between a brief, fleeting tactical advantage and long-term strategic goals.  An officer may be faced between winning a battle and gaining personal glory or winning the war and safeguarding the nation.  In more extreme cases, an officer will be faced with a choice between maximizing personal comfort, wealth, and security by turning traitor or sacrificing oneself for the nation.  It stands to reason that you absolutely require officers of sound character, of firm moral principle – men who can be trusted to do the right thing, even if doing the right thing is more difficult than to cut corners when it is personally convenient.  Who wants to be led into battle by the morally defective?  By the disloyal? By the dishonorable?  By the weak, who can’t be trusted to sacrifice a bit of effort to do things the right way?  And, finally, when a supreme decision needs to be made, when survival depends on a possibly “unethical” action, who is better qualified to make that decision and to live or die by its consequences – the man of honor or the morally corrupt and selfish weakling?
Military academies value honor and integrity because, all else being equal, the honorable officer is the better officer, the more trustworthy, the one who has the moral stamina to survive the crucible of war without breaking, without committing treason for expediency, the one who will do the right thing, and display clear-thinking and courage in a crisis.  The dishonorable officer, who “did what I had to do to get by,” will be the one to collapse under pressure, to turn traitor, to panic, to sacrifice long-term advantage for immediate gain and glory.

The same applies to the “movement.”  Which is why it is so troubling that the despicable moral turd Andrew Hamilton is allowed to be an active and valued participant on “movement” forums.  Well, I’m sure it’s convenient to plagiarize, and I’m sure it’s expedient to have a popular writer on staff despite continued questionable behavior.  But it’s not the right thing to do, it’s not an existential issue of racial survival – footnoting articles is an issue of personal moral character, not of racial extinction – and there’s simply no excuse for it.  And this is all relevant to “ethnic genetic interests” and racial nationalism, because it is this culture of convenience, the attitude of corner-cutting expediency, which has contributed to the failure and dysfunctional nature of the “movement” and has put our EGI in jeopardy.

Franklin and Hemphill

No excuse for plagiarism.

A certain plagiarist discussed at this blog recommends the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin.  No doubt one reason is Franklin’s defense of the plagiarism of the preacher Hemphill, discussed here.

The question is whether it is better to have an excellent plagiarized speech or essay, or mediocre originality.  Franklin (and, presumably, Hamilton) sides with the former view.  But this is a false choice.  If a person, like Hemphill or Hamilton, recognizes their lack of originality, and wants to use the work of others, fine, but why can’t they cite these others? The issue is not with a lack of originality – not everyone can be original.  The issue is a lack of character.  Yes, if you must, use others’ work, but have the decency and integrity to cite that fact. Thus, for example, I’ve based much of my own ideas on the work of Salter and Yockey, but I’ve always cited them and given credit where credit is due.  I’ve been one of the leading defenders and extenders of Salter’s work, but have always made clear that EGI is Salter’s idea, not mine. Further, even when I’ve added original permutations to the EGI concept, such as the importance of genetic structure, I’ve also frequently mentioned that others – such as James Bowery and Ben Tillman – also independently came up with similar ideas at around the same time.

That’s why Franklin was wrong.  Hemphill could have used the sermons of others to his heart’s content, but he could have avoided the completely justified criticism of his character by admitting that the work was from those others.  

The “movement” has a character problem.  This issue is one manifestation of that problem. Defective characters should be eschewed from the “movement.”  Of course, I realize that would result in the loss of, say, 99% of “movement activists,” but quality is more important that quantity, no?

One more thing.  The plagiarist makes a point of addressing his reading suggestion to people who comment anonymously on the Internet”  – note that the inclusion of “anonymously” seems to imply something negative in contrast to those who, like, say, Taylor or Duke or MacDonald, etc., comment openly.  The comment indirectly and slyly leaves the impression to the reader that the author of that comment is himself not an anonymous or pseudononymous commentator. Of course, he can’t directly come out and say that, since it’s not true, as we can see from the TOQ website (emphasis added):


Andrew Hamilton is the pen name of a widely-published author on the science and politics of race.


Yet another anonymous/pseudononymous Internet commentator.  Here is some more recommended reading for Internet commentators.


Those who have heretofore hosted the writing of this plagiarist need to carefully consider whether they want to be associated with these ethical lapses and this obvious lack of integrity.