Category: Parrott

An Ignorant Parrot Squawks

Nonsense spews forth from the parrot’s beak.

People aren’t going to make the sacrifices necessary to save Europa over a superstitious claim that their genetic data has moral pathos of some kind.

A person who believes in the juvenile “Big Daddy Sky God” superstition has the…let us say chutzpah….to assert that a deep (and ultimately emotional) concern (“moral pathos”) for one’s genetic interests – those interests being an objective quantifiable fact is  “superstitition.” 

Even the people promoting that don’t actually believe that.

What kind of insanely mendacious turd assumes to know the beliefs of ideological opponents. I DO believe that, you idiot.

If you woke up tomorrow as an Indigenous Australian, you wouldn’t suddenly begin doggedly defending your new genetic interests.


What kind of silly argument is this? Fantasies are not arguments. I’m not an indigenous Australian, but I do believe that they have every right to “doggedly defend” their genetic interests.

You’d find a new way to rationalize fighting for the White heritage and identify you’ve come to love and identify with on an abstract level, not as an instinctive genetic imperative.

It’s not “instinctive,” lying jackass. Salter openly states we are talking about rational thought mechanisms. Of course, we can become very emotionally invested in interests that we value highly, but no need to invoke “instincts” (or “genes for altruism”).

Advertisements

Trump Supported Amnesty and Colored Immigration

Has the White Knight fallen off his horse yet?

Read this.

Excerpt, emphasis added:

The Republican Party will continue to lose presidential elections if it comes across as mean-spirited and unwelcoming toward people of color, Donald Trump tells Newsmax. 

Whether intended or not, comments and policies of Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates during this election were seen by Hispanics and Asians as hostile to them, Trump says. 

“Republicans didn’t have anything going for them with respect to Latinos and with respect to Asians,” the billionaire developer says.  

“The Democrats didn’t have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren’t mean-spirited about it,” Trump says. “They didn’t know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind.” 

Romney’s solution of “self deportation” for illegal aliens made no sense and suggested that Republicans do not care about Hispanics in general, Trump says. 

He had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal,” Trump says. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote,” Trump notes. “He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.” 

The GOP has to develop a comprehensive policy “to take care of this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful productive citizens of this country,” Trump says.


Of course, people can change their minds, but perhaps all the heavy breathing, hands-moving-on-crotches, Trump-Onan crowd had better calm down and see what develops, rather than anointing “The Donald” as the White Messiah.

Essentially, we have:

1) The Trump-Onan cream-the-pants crowd, consisting of the likes of rabid anti-racialist HBD conservatives (Derbyshire), moderate pro-Jewish HBD-oriented racialists (Amren), and HBD-obsessed juvenile “gamesters” (CH/Roissy).  Note that the rabid pro-Trump group all have HBD in common.

2) The Trump-Skeptic crowd, consisting of radical (anti-HBD) national socialists (Sallis), nationalist traditionalists (Parrott), etc.

3) Folks who have moved from moderate enthusiasm to moderate skepticism (MacDonald).

I believe that in the long run, the skeptical groups 2 and 3 will be seen as more mature and prudent – even if (highly unlikely) Trump proves to be the “real deal.”  After being burned so many times, isn’t prudence...prudent? And if the other shoe drops on “The Donald” and the “movement” ends up having egg on its face as usual, you’ll know once again who shows good judgment and who does not.


Funding the Movement: Three Practical Problems

Three of the biggest problems.
In the latest Counter-Currents debate between Johnson and Parrott, re: conferences, Johnson made the reasonable point that money wasted on conferences could be used directly by activists (such as himself) to hire staff and get things done. I would like to comment on the issue of funding the “movement” via supporter contributions. This should not be construed as any sort of attack or criticism of Greg Johnson himself who, insofar as I know, has put contributions to good use. Nor do I expect any sort of “movement reform” – I stand by my call that the (American) racial nationalist “movement” – The Old Movement – needs to be completely destroyed and replaced by something new.  With all of that, I would still like to present what I see as three major problems that many potential contributors would have with funding the current “movement.”  I will assume that the supporter has the fiscal means to make a contribution (not true in many cases) and that there are no major areas of ideological disagreement (but see Point 3).
Point 1: The support will be wasted.  The “movement” has a terrible track record of “accomplishment” using the resources it has already been given.  This does not instill confidence that future contributions will be put to effective use.  The best example of this is Pierce and his National Alliance. Over many years, a significant amount of money (and time and effort) went into supporting the Alliance and its “home office” in the mountains of West Virginia.  And what was the outcome of that investment? When Pierce was alive, nothing substantial was accomplished, certainly nothing commensurate with the level of support given. After he died, the entire enterprise disintegrated over the course of the following decade, with much lost, until the organization was hollowed out and is now the subject of an attempt at “rebuilding.”  Regardless of what happens with this “rebirth,” it is clear that the Alliance was a black hole that absorbed a significant portion of the “movement’s” limited support, and, for the most part, wasted what it was given.  Other examples abound that need not be discussed now.  Indeed, we can turn it around: instead of cataloging “movement” failures, we can ask for a list of definitive success stories – examples of where contributor input was put to good use and accomplished something lasting of value. The list for America: NOTHING.
Point 2: Lack of security that will compromise any potential success.  Related to point 1, the “movement” has a terrible record of internal security. They pose as “dissidents in a totalitarian state” but behave as if this was all a video game. Infiltration by government agents and/or by NGO “anti-racist” groups is routine and relatively unopposed.  The slightest degree of common sense of groups with their lists of “members” and “contributors” does not exist. The “movement” is unable and unwilling to even resist “cognitive infiltration” by obvious trolls and infiltrators in online forums, so there is little confidence of any foresight, discipline, or self-awareness anywhere else. “Loose-lips” on online forums and at (infiltrated) meetings abound. I will not go into specific details about things I have seen, since that would obviously be an example of the “loose-lips” principle I am criticizing. However, I suspect that anyone with experience in the “movement” knows that Point 2 is a big problem.
Now, I don’t expect activists to openly discuss the details of their security measures, which would defeat its own purpose, and would of course itself be prima facie evidence of poor security. But we should be able to see outcome-based evidence of security considerations. We should be able to see the overt practices and outcomes (lack of breaches) that would begin to instill a bit of confidence. We could see a hard line against “Sunsteinism.”  We can see if prudent advice is dispensed.  We can see an absence of the “loose-lips” phenomenon.  We can see an absence of defective characters and suspicious activities.  That would be helpful.
Point 3: EGI blindsiding.  Some activists – with good reason (experience) – are justifiably suspicious as to whether they will get “blindsided” by animus toward their ethnies from individuals/groups that they have heretofore supported.  Consider activists of certain European ethnic origins who supported Pierce and the Alliance, later to see their suspicions confirmed by publication of Pierce’s screed, Who We Are.  It seems obvious that Pierce must have had an ethnoracial animus toward some of his own supporters.  Or, for example, we have certain Amren supporters getting a slap in the face from the “Hippocrates” incident.  There have been plenty of cases of individuals/groups/journals/sites that have made the pretense of being “pan-European” or “pan-Aryan” or “White inclusive” to maximize support, and then the mask falls off and one sees that there was always a more exclusivist (and dishonestly hidden) subracial agenda all along.  I really don’t see any American grouping that I would consider pan-European by my standards. 
Now, it is one thing to ask people to be relatively ethnically (and personally) disinterested for the common (racial) good.  It’s something else entirely to ask them to fund and support attacks against their own narrower genetic interests.  It’s hypocritical as well, since the “movement” would, I am sure, vigorously oppose the idea that Whites should be racially disinterested and support anti-White activities for the “greater common good of humanity.” Any honest racial nationalist movement (no scare quotes) would support the genetic interests of its members through the entire spectrum: personal, familial, ethnic, subracial, racial.  You cannot ask people to completely sacrifice one level for another while at the same time criticize the System for asking Whites to sacrifice their racial interests for humanity.
Any precinct of the “movement” asking for support had better be honest, transparent, and consistent about who it is they represent.  I haven’t seen that in America.

Answering Parrott on Conferences

I strongly disagree.


I would like to respond to Parrott’s essay at Counter-Currents, answering Greg Johnson’s original piece about “White nationalist conferences.”  Two points to begin with.  First, with respect to the actual debate, I agree with Johnson as regards the situation today; however, if at some point in the (hopefully not distant) future, pro-White activism sufficiently expands, then real-world analog conferences would be a good thing. So, I agree with Parrott regarding all the advantages of such conferences (and Johnson admits these as well), the problem is that as they exist today, such conferences do no good. And some do more “no good” than others. Second, similar to what Johnson wrote in his piece, none of this should be construed as being an attack against Amren or any sort of personal attack against Taylor. Amren/Taylor have done a lot of good over the years for pro-White activism. I appreciate Amren/Taylor for publishing a fair number of my own essays, particularly those that brought the work of Frank Salter to the attention of a wider audience. That’s all to the good. However, to answer Parrott, some honest and dispassionate criticism of Amren will be required, although this criticism is mostly aimed at Parrott’s misrepresentation of the facts. Emphasis added:
American Renaissance has been, and will hopefully remain, a tremendously useful ecumenical event where the ever-divergent and alienated factions and subcultures within White Advocacy can converge in one physical space for one magical weekend and network. Jared Taylor is an institution in himself, a unifying figure who even the most avid anti-semites and milquetoast mainstreamers respect.


This is absolutely incorrect. As someone with years of experience in pro-White activism, as someone familiar with all the intra-movement “flamewars,” how could Parrott write something so absurd?  There are a number of prominent “anti-Semitic” activists who have been extremely harshly critical of Amren/Taylor, up to and including the use of personal invective.  Parrott surely disagrees with those viewpoints, but it is the height of dishonesty to pretend they do not exist.  Many other activists are displeased with the perceived pro-Jewish outlook of Amren, although these others either keep silent and just ignore Amren, or express their views using more mild language.  On the other hand, some of the “milquetoast mainstreamers” (e.g., Auster, Jobling) have been sharply critical of Amren/Taylor for being insufficiently pro-Jewish.  In my case, I ended my association with Amren after the “Hippocrates” controversy and my perception that Amren was becoming a HBD, rather than White nationalist, enterprise.  For all the good that it has done, Amren has been as much a divisive and controversial entity as a “unifying” one.  The idea that Amren conferences are such an “ecumenical” event was reasonably refuted by the events of the 2006 conference and its aftermath.  Things were never the same for Amren after Hart’s vulgar tantrum; subsequent events, such as the Jobling split and the “Hippocrates” disaster, just added to the division.

And that’s why AmRen is so valuable. I’m fearful that the year he stops organizing AmRen (hopefully many years from now!), all of our disparate factions will file off into our respective Christian crusader, pagan revivalist, philo-semitic, dorky HBD, and wonky mainstreamer corners, never to converge and unite around White Identity in quite the same way again.
What fantasy land does Parrott live in?  All these “disparate factions” are completely divided today, and Amren conferences have had absolutely zero effect on breaking down these divisions. There is certainly no convergence or unity among these factions, inside or outside of such conferences.  They attacked each other at the 2006 conference. After that, the hardcore anti-Semites stopped coming and then the extreme philo-Semites broke away. It’s now more or less a “mash-up” of southerners, HBDers, and mainstreamers.  There is no longer any sort of general representation of the “movement” there, certainly not among the speakers.  And are all the attendees, never mind the speakers, converging and uniting around “White Identity?”  Is that what Derbyshire does there? Really?
Greg proposed that we shift to a more localized and specialized model of meeting up. That’s all well and good, but it didn’t take the commenters on the article long to vividly describe from first-hand experience what a boondoggle that proves to be in practice. AmRen’s expensive and stuffy atmospherics and basic filtering for cranks (hopefully, I’ll still be allowed this coming year!) guarantee a safety and sanity which can’t be guaranteed in smaller regional venues.
Yes, tell Michael Regan all about the “safety.”  Tell the attendees of the 2006 conference about the “sanity.”
We belong to a broad array of subcultures, social classes, and ideologies, and that often devolves into a circus.
Er…didn’t Parrott just tell us how wonderfully unified we are all due to having Amren conferences?  How are the conferences helping to bring us together then?
AmRen is, to my knowledge, the only platform where a Zionist Jew, a professor with an Asian wife, a homosexual pagan revivalist, and a guy more comfortable in a Skrewdriver t-shirt than a dinner jacket can all converge on the same room to discuss racial issues without Yackety Sax background music.
And this is good how?  This demonstrates an identity crisis.  Are Amren conferences “HBD/race realism” meetings?  White nationalist get-togethers?  Both?  Neither?  Maybe one reason why things never got accomplished at the meetings is that they used to mix together disparate and non-unified groups, often hostile to each other, with nothing in common. Dedicated anti-Semites with Zionists? Radical national socialist racialists with miscegenating White nerds and their Asian wives?  Traditional Christian conservatives with homosexual pagans?  “Wine and cheese” elitists with “chips and beer” skinheads?  That is all better than more narrowly defined local meetings how?