Category: populism

Welfare Chauvinism?

Various issues.

Laugh at this.

“Welfare chauvinism” has been a particularly potent trend among far-right parties in recent years, combining xenophobic rhetoric with promises of lavish social safety nets. Such parties often claim, for instance, that too much immigration puts a strain on welfare resources and they promise more spending on “deserving native” voters if borders can be closed to “non-deserving” migrants. Our findings lead us to think that neurotic voters could end up being a key target for such tactics. Neurotics, after all, do seem to take social policy very personally.

That’s typical leftist pathologization of rightist dissent and nationalist-populist politics.

How about this – leftist politics is a real psychological pathology since it is objectively maladaptive from the standpoint of biological fitness, causing Whites to be demographically replaced by other peoples, destroying the genetic continuity of the ethny of the White leftist while increasing the fitness of genetically distant competitors. That’s suicidal masochism – let’s have some studies on that.

Let’s see – what is more biologically adaptive – to use your state’s resources to support the well-being, continuity, and reproduction of your own people, or to import genetic aliens and to use the resources to support them at your own expense?  The Left thinks that the former is ”neurotic” why the latter is perfectly normal and admirable.

And do you know who else uses “neuroticism” to pathologize opponents – HBDers like Dutton (e.g., re: “Vegan Gains” [*] – my own labelling of Dutton as “neurotic” is mocking him for his antics in that regard).

Isn’t it nice to have all these “Arctic Alliance” “cognitive elitists” living amongst us?

The subjects of the checks appear to be members of the public who were unlucky and got too close to the man, a 30-something local resident who went to Wuhan to visit relatives.

But, hey, a vast pandemic is a small price to pay so that “awkward squad” omega White males can get laid with Asiatic females who have the secondary sexual characteristics of prepubescent boys.

Not a lot of sexual dimorphism there, huh?

How to stay safe from the Wuhan Plague?  Quarantine China.  Repatriate all individuals of Chinese descent living outside China to China. Derbyshire weeps.

Criticizing the Alt Right diet from 15:47 to 17:30.  Pepe weeps.  Kek puts down the milk jug.

The short-sighted:

Greg Johnson
Posted January 23, 2020 at 5:23 am | Permalink
I think the internet has largely made printed pamphlets obsolete, and online censorship is not so severe that people cannot find our sites with a little effort.

Yeah…those printed pamphlets are obsolete up until the point that online censorship reaches the same point payment processing deplatforming is today.  Having a hard copy analog capability is simply sound contingency planning (something the Quota Queens are abysmal at) and, even today, demonstrates a real world presence that tells folks that the “Far Right” is not just a bunch of guys sniggering like Beavis-and-Butthead in podcasts.

*I do not support veganism nor “Vegan Gains” but that’s not the point.  The language used by ‘Vegan Gains” is just typical Millennial posturing.  If that’s “neuroticism” then the majority of your wonderful Alt Righters are neurotic as well. Also, no doubt, the fellow was (justifiably) triggered by Dutton’s typical HBDer behavior – obnoxious arrogance, absolute moral certitude while stating factually incorrect nonsense, insulting comments, and the pathologization of opposing opinions and ideas.

Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark

Another failure for mainstreaming.

Sallis: Mainstreaming doesn’t work, one reason for that is that the Center-Right can co-opt your lukewarm positions and scoop up your votes as the “safe” alternative.

But the situation is even worse than I had written – Denmark shows that even the Left can co-opt weakly moderate “anti-immigration” positions – and of course later betray those positions, leaving the stupid hoodwinked voters high and dry and leaving the Far Right out of power (as usual). If you cannot even distinguish yourself from Social Democrats, then isn’t that the most searing indictment of mainstreaming possible?

The riposte will be that in Europe, with their “hate speech” laws, more aggressive campaigning is not possible.  Even there, Sallis is right once again:

Some will object – what about Europe?  They have repressive speech codes and aren’t the national governments there considered legitimate by the people?  First, I can’t speak for rightist Europeans – it is very possible that the growth of populism there is indicative of a growing element that does indeed consider the System illegitimate. And, second, the USA, with its particular history of, and alleged commitment to, free speech, is expected to exhibit a much stronger association between free expression and political legitimacy than do nations that have histories of kings, dictators, strongmen, and laws against lese majeste. What about the argument that European nationalists have had success despite the speech codes there?  What success?  In some nations, there has been a temporary slowdown in the degeneration, which can be quickly reversed by any subsequent leftist government; at best, there have been victories by civic nationalists and moderate petty nationalists. The “grand success” in Europe is a figment of the Nutzi imagination. And I can turn the argument around – imagine how much more successful the European Right could be if they could actually express their real views without fear of being fined or jailed?

So, no, the pathetically flimsy “successes” in Europe – which in any case have limited relevance to the American situation – in no way disprove the thesis put forth here.  Given the concerns of White nationalists, the situation in Europe remains dire. Demographic replacement is still “baked into the cake” there. Can European nationalists freely and frankly discuss these concerns?

Der Movement argues how wonderfully the ethnonationalist heroes, with their carefully worded mainstreaming, are doing in Europe.  Sallis argues that this vaunted success is an illusion and that mainstreaming is a disaster, and that without the ability to speak freely – that for the most part European nationalists do not even have as a part of their political platforms – nothing significant can be accomplished.

Sallis – correct; Der Movement – wrong.

But that’s OK, keep on supporting the Quota Queens, those empty vessels who have all the depth of a piece of tissue cut by a microtome and all the heft of a rotifer.  Affirmative action and all that. Meanwhile, enjoy the fruits of mainstreaming in Denmark.

And then we have America:  Trump will be monitoring the situation.  Stay tuned!

I’m fair-minded, and will praise Der Movement when it is warranted.  Thus, in the midst of the horrendous pile of written garbage that now passes for Counter-Currents is a thoughtful essay that I believe has real value – see here.  This attitude, to be actualized into reality, will require community activism, focusing on real social and economic problems instead of nonsense about “Kali Yuga,” and will require an adoption of populist “lefist” economic positions instead of “conservative-libertarian” posturing about “sweet business deals” (the latter coming, perhaps not coincidentally, from the pro-Jewish HBD side of the “movement” aisle).

Youth and the Left

Whither idealism?

Why are young White people (in the West, or whatever is left of it) typically leftist?  One argument is that it is youthful rebellion against parents, who are themselves typically more conservative due to the effects of family formation and increasing responsibility (and general experience with life and the realities of human nature). It is interesting that this scenario always seems to work in one direction – the children of leftist parents never seem to rebel by moving to the Right, if anything they may become even more radically leftist than their parents are.  So, it can’t be simple rebellion against parental authority.  Is it rebellion against a conservative society?  Well, today, the System is so far to the Left and so anti-White, that actual rebellion would mean that young Whites should all become neo-Nazis; “movement” fantasies about “Generation Zyklon” aside, that is not happening.  Is it because System propaganda portrays itself as exhibiting “systemic racism” and the youth perceived a Far Left System as being Far Right?  Is the rebellion against a perception rather than against a reality?

Or maybe it is not just rebellion – youth are by nature idealistic, and the Left traffics in idealism, as opposed to the stuffy, reactionary Right, which stupidly advertises itself as “standing athwart history yelling stop.”  What an inspiring image!

The reactionary Right needs to be displaced by the revolutionary Far Right and an inspiring ideology and worldview needs to be promoted.  By the way, “traditionalism” “snug in one’s hobbit hole” is not such a worldview.

Sunday News

In der news.

All together now: Cuckadoodledoo!

Didn’t I warn you that this guy is a buffoon and a fraud?

The last chance for White America!  The God Emperor!

Spencer is correct: Trump as any sort of “change agent” is finished.  I could have told you that (and did) three and more years ago, but, hey, better late than never.

Hey, Ann, I could have told you all of that back in 2015.

Once again, Sallis is right.  Mainstreaming always fails because your more centrist position can always be co-opted by the System and/or by other, more moderate, populists.  If you stake out a radical position that truly represents what you are (or should be) about, then one of two things happen – either you distinguish yourself from the opposition and thus stand alone or you force the opposition to shift toward you, moving the so-called “Overton Window” in the proper direction.  As to the cries – “oh, you won’t’ win” – please tell me about the success of President Le Pen.  You should win or lose standing on principle, rather than lose as a compromised fraud.  At the very least, if you stand your ground, you know that any success is authentic and due to shifting people toward you, rather than vice versa.

Note to micks who still identify as “liberal Democrats” and who spite WASPs by identifying as “oppressed Hibernians in solidarity with People of Color.”

Watch this.  Of course, Greg Johnson was telling us it was really a “win” for Trump (and, implicitly, I suppose, for all of us), because those wonderful Republican “didn’t lose as badly as they could have.”

Reality here – not delusional debate about “when we will win our victory.” Things are bad and getting worse.  I assume the mindset of the “optimism crowd” – if we assume that they are sincere and not merely boosting their egos and cash flows – is that despair will lead to inaction and surrender, so we have to give people hope. Unfortunately, constant disappointment, and constantly dashed hopes, leads to disgust, and, yes, despair and inaction; falsely inflated hope that “all will be well” also can lead to inaction as people believe that “it’ll all work out in the end regardless of what I do or don’t do.”  Reality is best.

Kevin, if you are going to talk about gravity, it is churlish not to mention Einstein and General Relativity.

I’m no fan of Einstein or his ethny, but fair is fair.

“I’m not surprised you’ll get different results from different companies,” Dr. Jennifer Raff, Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Kansas told TechCrunch back in September. “They have their own proprietary info based on those samples. If one of them has lots of individuals from a particular region and the other company does not, you’re more likely to show up as having ancestry from that region whereas if the other company doesn’t have that data represented in their database, it’s going to show up as a different population.”

What the parental populations are is going to significantly affect the results.

This reminds me of a personal anecdote. A family I know – normies not Nutzis – asked me to take a look at some confusing ancestry data they got from a company that shall remain nameless.  No problem with paternity – child has 50% chromosome match with father as well as mother, etc.  The ancestry percentages for the child are very crudely plausible based on the parents. So far, fine as well as it goes.  But the chromosomal fragments do not match.  Thus, for example, the child inherits some percentage of ancestry “X” from the mother and not the father (who lacks it, according to the test). But, the mother’s “X” is on, say, chromosomes 3, 5,and 6 (I don’t remember the exact details) and the child’s “X “is on, say, chromosomes 10 and 16. That of course is at the lower confidence levels.  At the highest confidence level, all of those chromosome fragments are “unassigned.”  So, putting aside a historically novel medical finding of mass chromosomal translocations resulting in a normal child (a probability roughly equal to picking one specific atom out of all those in the observable universe), we are left with the reality that the chromosome fragment identifies at the low confidence intervals are being assigned with the precision of a coin flip.  A fragment may be “X” but very likely could be “Y.”  Or maybe the father actually has “X” – and this is where the child is getting it – but the father’s chromosome fragment is instead labeled “Y” at the low confidence interval and “unassigned” at the higher.  Thus, maybe it is really the father who has “X” at the chromosome fragments that would match the child but the test is assigning those fragments to a different ancestry, while perhaps the mother has little or no “X” at all. If you take the low confidence level data at face value, then this all makes no biological sense at all. Recombination normally takes place between homologous chromosomes, not between non-homologous ones.

These companies would be better served to just estimate ancestry from SNP frequency data and/or genome-wide correlations of SNP frequencies (genetic integration) rather than making low probability guestimates of chromosome fragment identity.  However, the latter method is I suppose better for telling crazed cat ladies that they are descended from Pocahontas, so there’s that.

In addition, the companies’ “timeline” estimates are ludicrous, and cannot be used to “time” admixture, even if the admixture is real and not artefactual.  Putting aside the question as to whether the chromosome fragments are properly identified to begin with, and whether the boundaries between purported different ancestral fragments are also properly identified, an important point is being missed (many academic population geneticists make the same possibly incorrect assumptions).  In a large panmictic population, certainly over time you’ll have sufficient scrambling of ancestries so that in an individuals there will be sufficient possibility for meiotic recombination to mix fragments between homologous chromosomes and this breaks up ancestral blocs over time, allowing for an estimation of the arrival of the intrusive elements. But if a small population was interbreeding in isolated communities, then it is possible to have individuals with very high ancestral proportions of the original intrusive stocks, and given mating over time between such individuals any exchanges of chromosome fragments would likely be between fragments of like ancestry.  So large blocs of a given ancestry can be maintained over time, and only start degrading in size relatively recently, given increased human movement.  But let’s not have real life possibilities interfere with the business model.  Send in the shekels!  Pocahontas awaits!

 

How any of this is any better than DNAPrint (was flawed as well) is unclear to me.