Category: plagiarism

Durocher in Der News, 7/10/17

Der Movement marches on.

An analysis of race, nation, and culture in the writings of Herodotus could in theory be an interesting exercise, albeit one not directly relevant to actualizing our goals in our present (and future) reality.  Durocher’s Part I didn’t set off any alarm bells, but I knew it would just be a matter of time. Here we have Part II.  Let’s look at this self-contradictory paragraph, with the offending sections highlighted:

I would argue that Herodotus’ observations are eminently compatible with a scientific and evolutionary perspective on race/genetics and ethnicity. Race is, especially in geographically contiguous land masses, typically a clinal phenomenon, with gradual change in genetic characteristics (i.e. allele frequencies) as one moves, for instance, from northern Europe to central Africa. While intermarriage tends to spread genes, gene flow is slowed by geographical and ethno-cultural boundaries, leading to significant racial-genetic clumping and differentiation.

First, “northern Europe to central Africa” is not a “geographically contiguous land mass” – being interrupted by that thing usually called “the Mediterranean Sea.”  Further, while Africa itself is “contiguous” the Sahara Desert can impede gene flow.  So, “northern Europe to central Africa” is hardly the best choice for any discussion of clinal changes in gene frequencies.  Then he shifts gears and talks about factors causing “clumping and differentiation” including “geographical…boundaries” – which would actually be something to cite Europe-Africa about, rather than for clinal differences.  So: clinal or clumpy?

Which is it?  Answer: genetic differentiation tends to be more clinal within continental populations and more “clumpy” between such populations, although in some cases there could be some “somewhat clinal” clumpy differences within continental population groups and “somewhat clumpy” clinal differences at the edges separating some such groups.

Consider this from Durocher:

The birth of a nation, ethnogenesis, occurs when linguistic, cultural, and possibly genetic drift leads a particular population to acquire an ethnic identity distinct from its neighbors. Cultural chauvinism and ethnic sentiment work together in this, magnifying one another: cultural traits such as language and customs become more and more similar within the in-group, while differences with out-groups become more and more marked. Thus, a point on the genetic cline is hardened into a more-or-less discrete ethno-cultural node and genetic cluster: a nation. The degree of nationhood is defined precisely by the population’s level of genetic and cultural commonality.

Where did we ever read that before?  Oh, here:

Thus, over time, genetic boundaries can become ever-more-aligned to political and cultural boundaries, particularly when those boundaries are fairly impermeable, distinguishing quite distinct national, political and socio-cultural entities. 

Panmixia is NOT required for a better alignment of European genetic interests with actualization of a High Culture.  Given a strict “in/out” barrier, over time, given natural processes of low-level gene flow within both “in” and “out” coupled with drift and selection increasing distances between “in” and “out,” the relative genetic distinctiveness between “in” and “out” will increase, and any potential areas of genetic overlap between “in” and “out” will no longer exist. 

We have gene-culture evolution becoming gene-High Culture evolution as well as gene-political system evolution. 

Hence, the association between genes and political boundaries goes in both directions.

How about this from Durocher:

One does not need a population with an absolutely “pure” lineage for ethnocentrism to be evolutionarily adaptive. On the contrary, one needs only sufficient genetic and cultural similarity for the members of the community to form a common identity and become a solidary in-group, and there must be greater average genetic similarity among individual in-group members than there is between individual in-group members and the members of out-groups they come into conflict with.

That sounds familiar as well:

However, regardless of how modern gene pools came to be, people are not genetically identical – there are differences in genetic kinship and hence in genetic interests, and it is there that we need to focus our attention. 

Premise 1 is false. Race does not depend on “purity.” Race can be defined different ways, but is essentially a genetically distinct subpopulation that is characterized by a suite of heritable (i.e., genetic) phenotypic traits distinguished from other such groups. There’s nothing in any reasonable definition of race that includes the idea that a race has to be a hermetically sealed group, absolutely isolated from all other groups from the beginning of time. Thus, racial preservation deals with races and their gene pools as they actually exist today, “warts” and all. The possible existence of past admixture does not in any way suggest that future admixture is inevitable, necessary, or desirable. The ethnic and genetic interests of any group are forward-looking, based on the present and looking toward the future. How the group came into existence – including via admixture – does not change the interests that group has in its continuity and preservation today. 

Of course, the concept of ethnic genetic interests (EGI) represents an argument against future admixture, particularly against admixture across wide racial lines; i.e., across a large genetic differentiation. EGI is forward-looking. Genetic interests are considered in the present, to influence decisions that affect the future. Admixture in the past affected the genetic interests of the people at that time. We cannot go back in time and alter decisions made by past peoples that created the ethnies and individuals that exist today. 

Today’s peoples are what they are, with genomes that are what they are. We cannot change that. We can only change what future generations will be like, what their genomes, and consequent phenotypes, will be. Genetic interests always look forward. So, again, any individual or ethny today, with whatever ancestral mix, has genetic interests, regardless of how their genomes came to be.

I could cite more, but sifting through my old writings to find either:

1) Ideas generated later regurgitated by the “movement” or

2) Any of the endless series of predictions I’ve made that have come true

Is a tiresome exercise.  Not as tiresome – predictably tiresome – as Der Movement, Inc. is though.

Race in the News, 7/20/16

Liberal hypocrisy, “movement” stupidity, and something for Derbyshire.

The liberals are getting all breathless about Melania Trump’s alleged plagiarism.  Very well. When when will they denounce Martin King for the same?

The gothic is a quintessentially European aesthetic. Moreover, it pertains and appeals more specifically to those of North-West European descent and is to be found in various modes and tropes throughout North-West European culture and contrasts with the Classicism of Southern Europe.


It’s true that Gothic culture was most strongly focused in NW Europe, and in the popular mind is associated with Northern France and Germany.  But there is this and also this and also this.

But that’s not the major problem with the above quote.  The problem is in its use of the present tense: “pertains” and “appeals.”  Yes sir, dem Krauts of today are all going into medieval Gothic themes (that is, when they are not welcoming axe-wielding refugees and supporting Merkel more than ever), while dem Wops are all flocking to the works of Aristotle (when they are not ship captains jumping off sinking vessels they ran into rocks or behaving like hedonistic jackasses).  And, certainly, your typical German-American loves dem dere Batman movies and those movies’ Gothic themes, while your typical Italian-American eschews Batman and prefers Clash of the Titans (release the kraken!).  What utter stupidity.

In 55 Days, one of the Marines, Captain Andy Marshall (Jerome Thor), has a mixed-race daughter, Teresa (Lynne Sue Moon) who he has left at a French Catholic orphanage. Teresa becomes a complication for Captain Marshall and Major Lewis as the story plays out. Even though she is rescued by Major Lewis in a dashing way with epic music playing in the background in the final scene we know she is not going to really be at home in Illinois after being raised in a Chinese orphanage. In my personal life, I know a great many people whose father was a career military man and whose mother is from the Far East, usually Korea. It seems to me that about half the kids of those combinations fail to launch, there is drug abuse, poor personal and career decisions, and other issues. Recently, several spree killers, such as Elliot Rodger, came from such a background.[2] 

Moviegoers also learn that Baroness Natalie Ivanoff (Ava Gardner) has had an affair with a Chinese General, causing her husband to commit suicide. She is now alone in the world with a valuable necklace her only wealth. She is haughty to her in-laws angry at her infidelities, but one can see her haughtiness is empty bravado. The Baroness is in dire financial straits and irredeemable social trouble. By the end of the movie she has pawned her necklace. The Baroness’ problems are solved by her death in the siege. 

In The Sand Pebbles, the problem of personal, intimate involvement with Third World People is fleshed out more deeply. The deep personal involvement has three different layers. The first is institutional. On the USS San Pablo, the Captain, Lieutenant Collins (Richard Crenna) organized a group of Chinese as coolie labor on the riverboat. The Chinese coolies turn part of the ship into their living quarters and a no-go area for whites. The coolies cook the meals, launder the clothes, clean and paint the ship, and service the engine. The Americans do little but drill in their perfectly laundered clothes, argue over trifles, and drink. This institutional organization brings about serious problems as the plot of The Sand Pebbles thickens. 

It is in the bars where the problems start to crop up and the second layer of problems arises: intimate sexual involvement. When being shown around the ship, Frenchie (Richard Attenborough), tells Jake Holman (Steve McQueen) that the Pharmacist Mate is the critical person to know, as many of the men are getting venereal diseases from visiting the Chinese prostitutes. Normally, sailors visiting Far Eastern prostitutes is not a big deal. In fact, such a thing is often a rite of passage for many young men in the military. However, Frenchie takes the situation further when he becomes involved with a Chinese woman named Maily (Marayat Andriane) who works at the bar the sailors like to patronize. The woman is at the bar because she is burdened with debts that she manipulates Frenchie into paying. 

Far Eastern morality is also clearly shown. As soon as Frenchie has the money to pay Maily’s debts, her Chinese creditor seeks more money by auctioning off Maily’s virginity. Additionally, the Chinese Republicans simply lie about who killed who, declaring Holman a murderer although the Republicans themselves were responsible for most of the killing.

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.


More Plagiarism

The Aryan ideal?
An individual bereft of character writes:

Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, South West Africa (Namibia), Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and Siberia (Russia-in-Asia) should all be fully reclaimed by, and reserved exclusively for, whites as part of a Greater Europe or White Imperium, with the exception of set-asides for native inhabitants such as Amerindians in North America and Aborigines in Australia.

That’s great.  You know, if I wrote something like that I would, out of decency, mention that Norman Lowell has been proposing a virtually identical White Imperium for years and, of course, then there’s Yockey.
But that’s me.  Others apparently take a different view of questions of decency.