Category: Salter

The Homosexual Question, Part I

Delving into a subject usually not discussed at this blog.

My general attitude toward homosexuality in the “movement” has been one of “live and let live” – not considering it a major issue or concern, as long as people were discreet. Perhaps I should have known better given some of my experiences back in the early days of Yahoo discussion groups.  I was aware of one homosexual WN group forming and I thought, well, if they want to do their own thing, but are sincere activists and concentrate on promoting White interests, fine.  Then one day I decided to go and read the posts at the group (at that time freely accessible to non-members) to better determine what was going on there. I found it to be a disgusting cesspool of campy Nazi play-acting, “leather Nazis” engaging in S and M, advertising sex acts to each other (“U piss, I drink”), etc.  I was, honestly, completely disgusted and at that time thought Pierce showed wisdom banning homosexuals from being members of the National Alliance.  Several years later, Salter’s On Genetic Interests came out, and that book, which had a profound influence on me, had a short section on homosexuals, essentially promoting a tolerant line – homosexuals actually should have even more invested in ethny (and of course extended family) since most have no children of their own, and has long as homosexuals support EGI, ethnic-based natalism, and traditional family formation then they should expect toleration of their sexual expression. So, one could (naively) think of the Yahoo experience as an aberration, and hope that the On Genetic Interests paradigm could serve as a way of going forward.

However, two other things occurred at around the same time, the early 2000s, of relevance. First, a (heterosexual) person of some importance in the “movement” at that time  – and who shall remain nameless here – warned me about a “homosexual clique” that had seriously undermined him. Somewhat later, another activist of long-standing informed me that a prominent “movement” personage – a “Mr. X” as we’ll refer to him here – was a homosexual, although one “in the closet” as Mr. X had made an effort to hide his inclinations (if the accusation was true).  Although I never heard anything else ever again about Mr. X in this regard, certain more recent incidents suggest to me that the accusation may have been correct, and that Mr. X may be involved, at least peripherally, in the aforementioned clique. These are obviously issues of concern – homosexual cliques undermining straight activists to replace those activists with homosexual counterparts, august personages “in the closet” with who knows what hidden agenda, etc. But, truth be told, I didn’t think much of it at the time.  My focus was solely on race and my own ideas and I didn’t care too much about what I perceived as peripheral issues.  And, after all, perhaps some of these accusations were mistaken, I thought at the time, or, irrelevant to the “movement” as a whole.  That was, of course, short-sighted on my part.

To further analyze this subject, let’s look at a more recent Salter essay.

A remarkable feature of the same-sex marriage movement, that has helped make it a juggernaut, is the solidarity of its disparate parts. Lesbian activists don’t mock gays before the general public, gay activists don’t ridicule bisexuals, bisexuals don’t disrespect the transgendered, and so on, presumably down the growing list of non-traditional sexual and gender orientations.

As an example of a pro-gay marriage piece from the “movement,” see this.  My riposte is here.  Note that while I oppose the main theme of that piece equating non-reproductive heterosexual relations with homosexuality, I take a generally tolerant position about homosexuality, a subject that I claimed at the time I had little interest in.  Thus I wrote:

I also agree that when considering homosexuality (a subject that in general I have little interest in), a “give and take” attitude can be constructive.  A degree of tolerance can be given to gays, in exchange for them to stop allying with the Left to wreck race and civilization, and an admission from their part that they are abnormal, analogous to a disability.  For example, I don’t hate people who are deaf, but if they attempt to declare deafness as normal, desirable, the same as hearing, if they also declare a “deaf culture” (and some do) and refuse treatments for themselves and (especially) their children (if deaf as well), then I do have a problem. The same goes for the blind, and also considers that accommodation can only go so far: we cannot have blind brain surgeons, taxi drivers, or airplane pilots, regardless of how “unfair” that is. Homosexuals need to accommodate the needs of the larger society in exchange for tolerance. They are abnormal regardless of how one wants to define that – either based on frequency or biological fitness.  But if they defend their family and ethnic genetic interests, that is all to the good. One can argue that homosexuals (and anyone who does not personally reproduce) have a relatively greater interest in their race’s genetic continuity (as well as that of their family), because that is all they have to work with to improve their inclusive fitness.  They also need to understand that many heterosexuals find the idea of homosexual relations repugnant and would – especially if they value genetic continuity – be greatly displeased if their children were homosexual and did not find some way to reproduce (as opposed to adopt). Of course, childlessness of heterosexual children would have the same negative effect on their parents’ fitness, but without the aesthetic disgust toward homosexual acts.

Having said all of that, better a homosexual racist than a heterosexual liberal.  Better gay than a race mixer.  I’ll take Ernst Rohm as a comrade over John Derbyshire any day.

Obviously, I’m now questioning that nonchalant attitude and will now examine Salter’s arguments.

That is odd because some categories, to be discussed, are noticeably absent from that list. Possible reasons for excluding them include the law, aesthetics, and morality. Legality can be immediately ruled out. Homosexuality’s illegality until recently has not prevented agitation for gay rights. Aesthetics can also be ruled out, because LGBTQI-rights activists have been pushing back against popular revulsion for decades. If they cited legality or aesthetics to justify excluding selected types of sexuality, consistency would demand immediate cessation of their own activities. No sexual or gender category can be credibly excluded from the LGBTQI fold for legal or aesthetic reasons.

Note that last sentence.  Salter makes the argument that the LGBTQI crowd has no legal or aesthetic rationale to exclude even the most horrific perversions from the fold – incest, bestiality, pedophilia (which some of them openly embrace), etc.

Morality is different. Morality is the only conceivable principled reason that some sexualities are excluded from the fold. Whether or not one accepts the morality of the alternative sexuality and gender movement, there are nevertheless some ethical principles associated with it. These include the rights to free expression and association. It is asserted that gender and sexual expression should be unconstrained when harmless and when entered into by mutual consent.

Free association?  Can gays be legally excluded from society?  Or must we bake wedding cakes for them?

These principles are sufficient to explain the exclusion of pedophilia from the LGBTQI platform. It seems the great majority of individuals of all orientations reject it. 

Well, “great majority” isn’t all. Interesting that most (all?) pedophiles among Catholic priests are molesting boys and not girls.  Coincidence?

Mary De Young has documented attempts by paedophile activists to normalize sex between adults and children from at least the 1980s in “The indignant page: Techniques of neutralization in the publications of pedophile organizations” (Child Abuse & Neglect, 1988).[i] A more recent study by O’Halloran and Quayle in “A content analysis of a ‘boy love’ support forum: Revisiting Durkin and Bryant” found that the trend has remained uninterrupted (Journal of Sexual Aggression, 2010). These attempts have failed to convince many people that children are able to give informed, prudent consent to sexual contact. It is true that educational packages such as the Safe Schools program sexualise children but that is not the same thing as advocating the legalization of paedophilia.

The fact is that some of these types have been trying to normalize pedophilia.

LGBTQI morality is not a credible reason for excluding all of the sexualities missing from that acronym. Consider polygamy, often called plural marriage. This was opposed by the Medieval Church and before that the Romans and Ancient Greeks, making Europe the only monogamous stratified society until the modern era.[ii] The law that enforces monogamy necessarily restricts the free choices of adults to participate in consensual polygamous relationship. If polygamy does not contravene LGBTQI moral principles, why is there not a ‘P’ in ‘LGBTQI? As Brendon Wynter noted recently on our public broadcaster (ABC Religion & Ethics, 24 March 2017) attempts to find a moral distinction between plural and same-sex marriage can lead to illiberal claims, such as that polygamy but not homosexual marriage is “bad or at least, trivial”.[iii]

A ‘P’ should be added to ‘LGBTQI’.

Very well.

Incest is also missing from the LGBTQI heading. From an LGBTQI moral perspective, why ban sex or marriage between any consenting adults? As the actor Jeremy Irons commented a few years ago, genetic disorders in the children of incestuous unions are only an issue with heterosexual pairs.[iv] LGBTQI advocates are not in a position to complain about incest on the basis of its being gay or lesbian. From their perspective, love and lust between consenting adults should never be condemned.

That last sentence follows from the gay agenda and can and will eventually lead to all sorts of grotesqueries – situations incompatible with the sort of healthy racialist state most WNs envision.

On what grounds could LGBTQI advocates object to marriages between mother and daughter or father and son, or object to them adopting? One ground that has been raised is a supposed categorical difference between those sexually attracted to close kin and those sexually attracted to members of the same sex. The former, it is claimed, do not belong to a distinct class of individuals but the latter do.[v] In the case of same-sex attraction, it is proposed, accurately, that homosexual orientation is sometimes inborn, and that as a result these individuals cannot change their same-sex attraction. Preventing them from marrying the same sex is therefore discriminatory. Incest is held to be different on the basis of the claim that it is a matter of free choice. For that reason, banning incestuous marriage does not constitute discrimination, and is therefore consistent with liberal ethics. This argument breaks down with the second premise, that incestuous desire is not inborn. The Finnish sociologist Edward Westermarck discovered that incest avoidance is a universal inborn trait that is triggered by close proximity during childhood. De Smet, van Speybroeck and Verplaetse investigated this theory in Evolution and Human Behavior (2014) and found that children raised together are usually averse to sexual contact during and after puberty.[vi] It follows that sexual desire for a sibling or offspring is in part or whole due to genetically-programmed developmental processes. The fact that incestuous motivation is produced when these processes go awry does not make them any less inborn. Thus incestuous motivation is not always a matter of free choice and in such cases, according to LGBTQI ethics, it is a right when consensual and harmless.

An ‘I’ should be added to ‘LGBTQI’.

Thus, according to Salter’s argument, the homosexual agenda has an ethical underpinning that would justify incest.

Bestiality also presents difficulties for the brevity of ‘LGBTQI’. On which grounds can advocates condemn sex with animals? As already noted, legal and aesthetic distinctions are unavailable. The rule against cruelty is also unavailable most of the time. Cruelty is wrong, and sex with animals can be cruel but so can sex with humans. The fact that animals cannot consent is not relevant because they do not, as a rule, possess human rights. In Australia and many other countries animals are protected against cruel treatment, but that does not include protection against being killed and eaten. Apart from militant vegetarians and vegans, most feel justified eating animals, so it is not obvious why, without invoking traditional moral or aesthetic standards, sexual contact that does not inflict suffering can be considered immoral.

The bestiality category is not an empty hypothetical. A recent academic study by Earls and Lalumiere titled “A case study of preferential bestiality”, published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior (2009), indicates that it is not as rare as previously thought, and shares many of the characteristics of other atypical sexual interests.[vii] Likewise, a recent report in the Australian online edition of The Guardian by Mona Chalabi, “Bestiality: which animals are most at risk” (22 June 2017), describes the online zoosexual movement that advocates the rights of the bestially inclined.[viii] The most preferred species appear to be dogs and cows, but cases are reported involving horses and even snakes. Woody Allen might add sheep.[ix]

There is a human dimension to the issue. Members of what we might reluctantly call the zoosexual community feel they are treated unfairly by the mainstream, which includes the LGBTQI movement. Some feel trapped in human relationships, such as the man who felt that sex with his (human) wife was “wrong” and during marital acts closed his eyes to better pretend she was a horse. Earlier this year an article in The Independent reported that animal sex tourism became such a problem in Denmark that in 2016 the country criminalized bestiality.[x] The journalist hinted that bestiality usually conforms to the harm principle: “[T]he studies published over the last 15 years using non-clinical samples report the vast majority of zoophiles do not appear to be suffering any significant clinical[ly] significant distress or impairment as a consequence of their behavior.”

Surely most LGBTQI people will share the generally-held opinion of bestiality. Many will be disgusted by the very thought and wish it never to be depicted or praised in public. They will wish that it never be part of their social environment and certainly not that of any child’s.

However, if LGBTQI activists believe the position they urge on the public, consistency demands they not only tolerate bestiality but treat it as possessing equal rights to human-centric sex. Otherwise they are guilty of the illiberal prejudice of claiming that their kind of love is superior to others they deem deviant. And if even the proponents of LGBTQI rights were to admit the legitimacy of privileging one sexual or gender orientation over another, then their main defence against hetero-normativity would collapse.

An extra ‘B’ should also be added to the acronym.

Thus, according to Salter’s argument, the homosexual agenda has an ethical underpinning that would justify bestiality.

Other initials could be added. Why not an ‘R’ for love of robots and dolls? Blow up dolls and simple silicone mannequins with recorded voices are primitive compared to the pleasure model “replicants” depicted in the science fiction classic Blade Runner. Nevertheless, they are beginning to compete for men’s affections.[xi] This is a rapidly growing industry feeding insatiable demand. The Third International Congress on Love and Sex with Robots is to be held in London in December 2017.[xii] Professor Noel Sharkey, chairman of the Foundation for Responsible Robotics, points to guilt-free threesomes as a potential use of sex robots.[xiii] He and colleagues predict that many humans will have sexual relationships with robots. Evidence is already emerging of men feeling embarrassed about seeking sex and companionship from artificial women.[xiv] Women might also suffer embarrassment when robot gigolos become feasible. From the perspective of LGBTQI morality it is wrong to shun or mock people just because they are turned on by machines.

An ‘R’ should be added to ‘LGBTQI’.

Gays should therefore welcome their new robotic sexual overlords.

One suspects that pragmatism is a big reason why LGBTQI activists want to keep polygamy, incest, bestiality and sex robots in the closet. Activists do not want to openly associate with these categories because that would increase opposition. The public might wonder about the implications. If exotic gender identities and same-sex marriage are to be taught in schools as equal to the heterosexual types, why not polygamy, incest, bestiality, and sex dolls? Citizens would be more likely to resist demands for full legal equality until the slippery slope were shown to have principled limits.

LGBTQI campaigns assert that love is equal, yet they help marginalize attachments and acts they find repugnant or inconvenient. The activist community should acknowledge all types of sexuality and marriage that meet their professed moral standard. They should not deceive the public by selectively applying their morality.

Here, Salter is essentially accusing the LGBTQI community of hypocrisy and cherry-picked moral standards. This is not necessarily a problem for LGBTQI White activists, unless they openly promote some or all of the LGBTQI agenda.

Alternatively, activists should abandon their artificial solidarity and the morality they deploy to justify it. They should admit that not all sexual desire and acts and types of marriage are equal. Many will join with the straight binary community in rejecting the appropriateness of polygamy, incest and bestiality. In so doing they might view their own orientation with humility and ponder whether insisting on complete normalisation is good for society.

That includes attempts to normalize this agenda within the confines of White racial nationalism; people who prioritize the interests of their sexual preferences over the good of the race, and who use pro-White activism as a vehicle to promote a particular sexual agenda.  To actually use racialist meetings as homosexual pick-up opportunities, with same-sex sexual harassment, is obviously completely unacceptable. There shouldn’t even be heterosexual activity of that nature at meetings, that is unprofessional and uncalled for, but at least such activity would be consistent with the majority’s normal and reproductively sound healthy sexual preferences.  To promote abnormal sexuality at meetings, to defend it, laugh it off, and/or minimize it in any way, is beyond the pale.

Until LGBTQI activists admit the radical implications of their morality, the spelling of ‘GBTQI’ and its variations should be contested. Rearranging the extra letters discussed, consistency demands an extra ‘B’, ‘I’, ‘R’ and ‘P’ (at least). In addition, the rainbow flag deserves a jarring additional stripe standing for the arbitrarily excluded categories as well as the hypocrisy of LGBTQI activists. Such as honest inclusive symbol would also serve to inform the public of where the arguments of the radical sexuality and gender movement logically lead.

Once again, Salter labels members of the gay movement as hypocrites who arbitrarily draw lines for acceptability to include their own preferences, but excluding those of others who, by LGBTQI ethics and logic, should have the same fundamental rights.  

Let us add ‘BIRP’ to ‘LGBTQI’ until activists apply their arguments consistently. When they do, they also will adopt the extra letters and perhaps some other besides.

“Others besides.”  The mind boggles.

So, at this point, what do we have?  It depends if you accept the legitimacy of Salter’s arguments. I essentially do so accept them and all they imply about the ethics of the hmosexual agenda, which is of course directly relevant to the issue of homosexuality in the “movement.”  Is this essay by Salter necessarily incompatible with what he previously wrote in On Genetic Interests? I do not believe it is, although it may be an evolution in thinking, based on various factors, including perhaps the increased “in your face” militancy of gay activists. The compatibility between the two works would be if one accepts a baseline of tolerance for homosexuality predicated on practitioners of that preference respecting core features of an EGI-based approach to society: heteronormalization, marriage for heterosexuals only, pro-natalism, respect for traditional family formation and values, as well as the usual interests in immigration control and racial preservation.

At this point, my fundamental viewpoint of minimal tolerance, as outlined at the beginning of this essay, and which existed before this Salter essay, remains, but with some important clarifications.

Thus, at this point, I would still maintain that homosexuals can play a role in the racial activism, providing:

1. They are not in the top leadership. They can be prominent members and important contributors, but not at the top of the hierarchy, as all of the various moral, social, ethical, etc. issues outlined by Salter and others come into play at the highest level.  

2. Homosexuals in the “movement” who are playing an important (albeit not top leadership roles, as stated above) need to be open about themselves and their preferences.  This will prevent blackmail and other pressure from the System/Left and avoid unpleasant “surprises” for the rank-and-file later on.

3. Most importantly, homosexuals in the “movement” should, as explained above, respect “key features of an EGI-based approach to society: heteronormalization, marriage for heterosexuals only, pro-natalism, respect for traditional family formation and values, as well as the usual interests in immigration control and racial preservation.”  They should not be pushing homosexual apologia, promoting homosexuality in general, defending gay marriage, or enabling and/or condoning homosexual harassment/pickups at pro-White meetings.

While the points above can allow for minimal tolerance, it does not seem like they have been followed.

In Part II, we will look at Andrew Joyce’s objections to tolerance and consider if the viewpoint I promote here needs to be adjusted based on Joyce’s arguments.

Advertisements

Rackete is Guilty of Crimes against Humanity

And what did they to such criminals at Nuremberg?

First Norwegians were doing it, now Germans (emphasis added):

German captain Carola Rackete, who sparked international headlines by forcibly docking in an Italian port with rescued migrants, faces questioning by an Italian prosecutor on Thursday over allegedly aiding illegal immigration.

The captain of the Sea-Watch 3 is expected to be questioned in the southern Sicilian town of Agrigento from 10 am (0800 GMT).

Rackete was arrested on June 29 for entering Italy’s Lampedusa port despite a veto imposed by far-right Interior Minister Matteo Salvini, and knocking a coast guard boat out of the way to land 40 migrants after over two weeks blocked at sea.

If this scum was so worried about the poor delicate migrants, she could have taken them to Libya or, perhaps more fittingly, instead of floating in the Mediterranean for two weeks, sailed past Gibraltar, up the Atlantic coast, then around to the North Sea, and disembarked at Hamburg.  Why not? 

Really, when is the rest of Europe finally going to stand up to these endlessly pushy, arrogant, and annoying Germans? First, they wrecked Europe with their fanatical hegemonic ultra-nationalism, and now they are doing it with their fanatical, hegemonic, pathological altruism. Enough is enough. That entire nation is in dire need of psychotherapy.

And can you imagine if this was the reverse? The fetishists of Der Movement would be screeching about an “omnidominant Med plot” – but with this, it is “move on, move on, there’s nothing to see here.”

Rackete should be put on trial for crimes against humanity – promoting genocide against the Italian people through the forced settlement of alien invaders. Since she is obviously guilty – no one (even Rackete herself) disputes what she has done as described above – after a guilty verdict, she should be publicly hanged in Rome by Italian officials.

The sheer arrogance of these types is incredible and no different in its fundamental origin than the behavior of Deasy, Munro, and Farrell. Deasy is traumatized by Bulgarian faces (“they take getting used to”) – in Bulgaria. Munro oozes with racial contempt for Romanians – while living in Romania with sexual access to a Romanian woman.  Farrell, while living in Italy with an Italian woman, mocks what he perceives as Italian ineptitude. You see, your NW Euro “ethnonationalist” lords and masters will live where they damn please, in your countries, with your women, while mocking you, defaming you, and criticizing the way you look (again, in your own country). Just like Norwegians and Germans who view Italy as a dumping ground for their migrant pets.

I know I have some readers from Italy.  Can someone there please – please – get Salvini to read Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests?  Or at least read this.  If you can make a better translation of the original, please do so.

How about someone in Italy inviting Salter to give a talk about EGI and migration – and make sure Salvini is in the audience?  These guys need to know what’s really at stake, and they need to know why scum like Rackete are guilty of crimes worthy of the supreme penalty.

A Duel of Wits

Between unarmed opponents.

See this.

There is some good here, but also considerable nonsense. If the characterization of Richard Spencer’s racial views is correct, then Johnson’s racial views are sounder from an empiricist-materialist standpoint. However, there is much lacking here from a more hardcore scientific standpoint (the wages of “Traditionalism” I suppose). 

The whole “transplanted brains” scenario is absurd and meaningless intellectual masturbation.  What could one do? There are racial – and subracial (cue Durocher’s heavy breathing) – differences in brain structure that can be identified via imaging methodology.  If one were really determined to obtain a definitive identification, a small brain biopsy can yield DNA to assay for genetic ancestry and thus prove whether or not the brain tissue was of Negro origin. As far as the ridiculous question as to why build a community on race instead of other characteristics, I point both interviewer and interviewee to Salter’s On Genetic Interests. Adaptive fitness is the ultimate interest of evolved organisms (such as humans), and any group that promotes their ultimate interests will outcompete and replace those who do not. And, after all, one can always form these narrower communities within your racial group while preserving EGI, but the opposite is not possible.  One can form your little group of Tolkien fans among Whites in an all-White ethnostate, but a multi-racial Tolkien group that is not stratified by race (by definition, if it is multiracial and stratified only by Tolkienism, it will not be stratified by race) will constitute a loss of genetic interest.  Smaller groups within a White ethnostate will retain the advantages of a concentrated EGI; on the other hand, smaller groups of Whites in, say, a multiracial Tolkien Fanboy state, will suffer as a result of a loss of EGI, itself a consequence of the multiracialism of such a state. In the latter case, the situation can be retrieved only by racial separation – so why not  divide on the basis of race to begin with?

Stupidity about gender-specific nations also fails – I remember Bowery writing (correctly) long ago that gender/sex is not a genetic interest.  A man has more genetic commonality with female relatives and co-ethnics than with male non-ethnic strangers. One could subdivide a racially pure state by gender (for what purpose?) but the racial stratification must come first if one is concerned with biological fitness. If you are not concerned with fitness, fine, but that’s not an evolutionarily stable situation. You’ll end up in the dustbin of genetic history, replaced by more ethnocentric others. These are reasonably obvious arguments.  I would also point out that sexual reproduction has evolutionary advantages via increased genetic diversity. No doubt that a sufficiently advanced technology could artificially impose independent assortment and recombination on a single-sex artificial reproduction regimen, but, again, for what purpose?  While eliminating the yeastbucket requirement would no doubt be advantageous in many ways, what would be the sexual outlet for such an all-male society?  Widespread homosexuality?  I’ll take a pass on that. There are probably some things best left unchanged in human nature and the division between two sexes for reproduction is likely to be one of those.

And what’s with this obsession with Rushton and Lynn?  Look, the broad theories of both of them are likely true, but that’s as far as it goes. R-K theory on race (that I independently came up with in the 1980s after reading an ecology textbook) is undoubtedly true on the general level of – Blacks and Browns have more offspring and invest less in them; Whites and Yellows have fewer offspring but invest more in them. And, as well, Blacks and Browns have faster life histories (earlier maturation and reproduction and earlier death) than do Whites and Yellows. If Rushton had stuck with that, instead of trying to shoehorn every racial characteristic (including penis size) into the formulation, he’d be more respected today. Likewise, Lynn is likely correct that there is a general association between national IQ and economic productivity (as measured by GDP) and general accomplishment; the problem occurs when he falls too much in love with his theory (as did Rushton with his ideas) and tries to fit every data point into the pattern, with ludicrous “estimates of IQ,” racial history fairy tales about admixture, and hand waving “just so stories” to explain anomalies. The problem, I suppose, is that the broad theories are a bit too obvious and common sense, plain to any reasonably intelligent and honest observant individual, and so there isn’t much “intellectual prestige” in merely stating the obvious.  Therefore, ego-driven “intellectuals” have to build castles of sand to demonstrate how very clever they are.

Counter-Currents commentary:

Craig
Posted July 1, 2019 at 8:07 am | Permalink
Yang was a joke who never should have had any support from the Dissident Right in the first place. Those who did have made public fools of themselves.

Craig, meet Greg Johnson. And Richard Spencer. And many more.

Also, what’s the big deal about Gabbard? Oh she’s good on foreign policy. But so is Trump. He not once, but twice, averted war by outmaneuvering the warhawks in DC. First with Syria and now with Iran. He’s the peace candidate you should be voting for.

There’s no reason to pay attention to any of these clowns with a (D) in front of their name.

Craig, meet David Duke.  And Richard Spencer.

Then there’s John Morgan:

John Morgan
Posted July 1, 2019 at 6:33 am | Permalink
Rep. Gabbard seems to be the least bad (notice I’m not saying good) of all these people. It’s also worth mentioning her connections to/support of Hindu nationalist groups in India like the BJP and RSS (since she is a practicing Hindu herself). This doesn’t necessarily equate to sympathy for nationalism for white people, but it suggests she may at least have the vision to not be completely averse to it. In practice that may not mean much, however. But as Mr. Hampton wrote, she has no chance of getting the nomination this time around, anyway.

You know she supports reparations for Negroes, right?

A one, a one, a one two three….

Ted Cruz at least spoke up about this.  Antifa Don Trump, The God Emperor?  Silence.

MAGA!  Pepe! Kek!

Readers of this blog know that I am no apologist for homosexuals (of either sex) but I’m no apologist for hypocrisy either.  I mean, really….  Apparently, “homophobia” – “vile” or otherwise – is perfectly acceptable in the service of “movement” feuds.  Perhaps, Antifa can be critiqued in other ways than their penchant for sending gay Asians to the hospital.

Simon Says and Salter Speaks

Of interest.

First, John Simon posts an “apologia” – emphasis added:

So let me start with the serpentine view of me, most conveniently promulgated on the basis of my satirical remarks about something which the poor actors could not control. But are not performers in shows and movies supposed to be appealing, indeed exemplars of something all of us strive for, or do we go to the theater and cinema to look at unsightliness? Except, of course, where the latter is predicated, or do we want the witches in “Macbeth” played by or acted as gorgeous women?

The old Hollywood dedicated to glamour knew what it was doing all right, even if its notion of beauty wasn’t always of the subtlest kind. This has changed, with populism insisting that it would rather look democratically at a homely Zoe Kazan or Jessica Hecht than romantically at a Laura Osnes, Laura Denanti, or Katrina Lesk. And yes, if we desire sets and costumes—again with meaningful exceptions—to be beautiful, why not the faces and figures of performers? Are they not part of the spectacle? Or do young women aiming for stage or screen careers grow up yearning to be Barbra Streisands? Heaven help us, maybe they do. Still, I would like to think that, however unavowedly, they would rather be a Jane Fonda or a Sharon Stone.

Salter video from 2002 on ethnic kinship. Keep in mind that this was an early permutation of Salter’s thought.   The refined theory of EGI does not require – repeat, not require – “the evolution altruism,” the evolution of ethnic nepotism,” or “group selection.” However, the comments about Hamilton and his 1975 paper though are as relevant today as they were back then.

Genetic clustering is real, but in general genetic boundaries are fuzzy and clinal, not disjunctive. Phenotype as well.  It is when the biological characteristics are merged with genealogical descent from historically defined ethnies, culture, and other aspects of Identity do you achieve a practical disjunctiveness.

The Yang Problem and Other Issues

In der news.

This is affirmative action on display.  Sigh…the point is not that there are “strings attached” if an activist receives his $1000 per month handout (but after all the recent deplatforming, and the direction this country is going in, you’d be foolish to think that the UBI would never be cut off to public activists). The point is that Yang’s plan is meant to buy off White anger (to the extent that this anger exists or will exist in the future) over their dispossession. The point is not that Yang’s plan poses a danger to activists, but instead that his plan is a danger to the ability of activists to recruit from the White masses The point is, a la Salter, that we want multiculturalism NOT to work, not make it work more smoothly through “a minority-majority America is A-OK as long as some of my tax money is funneled back to me (and to the endless stream of invaders Yang supports) via UBI.”

“Movement” leaders are as “deep” as a piece of tissue cut by a microtome.

Of course, it has crossed my mind that the immature frathouse boys are merely trolling us, that it is just more Beavis-and-Butthead “lulzing.”

Others think so:

Bernie

Posted March 11, 2019 at 9:45 am | Permalink

Gotta say, I was bewildered and disappointed by all the dissident right support for Yang. After all, the guy is a fairly standard leftist and anti-white on all the racial issues. But now I see it is (mostly) a joke/meme and have learned to laugh at it (a bit).

Then again, maybe not.  Remarkable.  Guess what, Richie, back in 2016, Trump was “worthy of support” because he was going to build dat dere wall, and he was possibly going to crack down on “legal” immigration as well.  Wha’ happen?

Either way, it is bad.  These guys are either demented as regards judgment or they are imbecilic immature idiots.

Should salaries be winsorized?

I am reading Crime and Punishment, and it is amusing that there is a male Russian radical character stating the belief that woman are equal to men in every way, including physical strength.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This here does not in any way change the genetic interests of the English people; EGI is forward looking and how current genepools came into existence is not the issue.

Why I despise White people, particularly White males (not men).  Yes, international sales contributed, but the bottom line is that if Whites, particularly males, boycotted it, it would tank.  These are the people who are going to bring us Total White Victory (+/- 50 years)?

Whites are a hopeless omega race – lower than omega, the leucosa race.

But if they hate Whites (and they do) – that’s A-OK!  MAGA!  Pepe!  Kek!

Trouble in Colored Paradise.  It’ll all be good when Whitey is not around to kick around any more, right?

Eggroll?  Sounds familiar.  As for the meme itself, well…

Roissy: What’s the common thread?  Gee, I don’t know Beavis…maybe, cuck naggers?

How’s that “last chance for White America” thing coming along?  If the Quota Queens had any character whatsoever, they’d leave racial activism and go retire to some place they’d be comfortable (Israel or China are two prime destinations).

Behold the wopess – this couldn’t happen to a more deserving person. The Left devours its own.  I also enjoy Warren making noises about “breaking up” the Big Tech SJWs. Excellent.

Look at this nonsense, while remembering this written previously.  And this. Two points from the main piece.  First, this fellow claims to be middle-aged.  I always imagined him to be a Millennial, given he writes like a callow youth.  Second, note the part about gays, particularly that “committed” homosexuals should find an opposite sex gay person to reproduce with.

You see, gay apologists like to stress that “it’s biological.”  OK.  So, if it is biological, then by reproducing, they’ll be passing it on. Does a “White Ethnostate” need more homosexuals?  Also, if a man is a “committed” non-bisexual homosexual, meaning he is only sexually attracted to men, how is he going to “get it up” with a woman, much less a lesbian?  So, is it really “only biological” in that case?  And if this is the case of a man who can “perform with anything” in a Negro-like fashion, is that what we want reproducing?

I suppose this can be with artificial insemination – “turkey baster babies.” That’s great!  What a wonderful family unit!  Dad jacks off to gay porn and Mom has that semen placed into her fetid yeastbucket.  What tales they can tell “junior” about his (or her) conception!  Traditionalism!  Is that what a “White Ethnostate” should be about?  

Lots of deep thinkers among the current crop of Counter-Currents writers, of that we can have no doubt.  

His riposte would no doubt be: “I have personally seen it happen more than once.”  Interesting people this individual associates with.  His anecdotal claim then brings us back to the same questions and comments made above.

Then there’s the comments:

Madison Grant never had kids. Adolf Hitler never had kids. Were they losers? Were they failures?

Do I really need to answer that?

…the Movement is made up of and attracts men who are weirdos and spergs…

True.

…saying to young WN men that we should get married and have kids is advice that’s dead on arrival. And to be clear, I’m not saying that nerds and spergs should be catered to or coddled (truth be told, we should submit to voluntarily sterilization after we create the White Ethnostate.

And he just proves his own self-characterization.  Gee…yes, let’s sterilize all the intellectual introverts, so the whole population will be strutting around like Vince McMahon and sniggering like Beavis and Butthead within two generations. The Alt Right/Game Idiocratic Ethnostate!  I support eugenics, but one has to be careful, since traits are linked.  It would seem to be a good thing to select against manic-depression, neuroticism, anxiety, introversion, etc. – until you end up with an uncreative, laid-back nation of Negrified psychopaths.  Selecting solely for intelligence may leave you with a nation of autistic soyboys. At least promote the breeding of well-rounded and accomplished individuals by suppressing the lowest dregs, without being too narrow in your criteria.

Might as well get it out of the way early on: I’m a young white man with an Asian wife.

American Renaissance awaits!  VDARE embraces you!  What’s the problem? Hail Derbyshire!

Question: Then why doesn’t this person support the Sallis groupuscule, which has been telling the truth about Trump for more than three years?  Do I really need to link to that affirmative action YouTube song video again? Let’s just pretend I did.

Roissy continues to be insanely deluded:

Trump, do something useful this week for your base. Direct your AG to declare the SPLC a hate group which should be monitored nonstop by the FBI.

What is far more likely is that Trump will write a big fat (like him) “D’Nations” check to the SPLC, while tweeting about how the Democrats are so terribly “anti-Semitic.” 

Weasel-faced Roissy still doesn’t get it.  Hey, Roissy – your “God Emperor” (by his actions and inaction, forget the bombastic blustering) supports the SPLC.  He supports Antifa. He betrays his base on a now-almost-daily basis.  Can you give up your sweaty homoerotic fervor for this obese clown?

And now it is all because “Bannon left and was replaced by ‘Javanka.”  Newsflash to the Trumptards: If your obese “God Emperor” was actually a serious right-wing populist and not a blustering buffoon, then Bannon would still be there, wouldn’t he?  Isn’t Trump the masterful alpha male billionaire “Art of the Deal” (ghostwritten) hero leading us into glory?  Is he going to be manipulated by his praying mantis-headed daughter and her skinny Jew husband?  What gives?

Der Movement’s Spenglerian Cycle

Welcome to the Interregnum.

WWII was a dividing line in American Far Right activism – all that went before (KKK, America First, Silver Shirts, etc.) was swept away in their old forms and all had to begin again.

Can we outline a Spenglerian cycle of the post-WWII Far Right activism?  The following is a crude outline.  Of course, there will be overlap; persons and groups do not fit neatly in only one era, but instead we will consider the period when the person or group and their ideas was dominant, or at least representative of the broader “civilizational” scope of that era of “movement” history.  And, of course, there will be overlap between American and European activism, as Yockey straddles both. And here I refer to racialist groups, not merely anti-communist hyper-nationalist groups like The John Birch Society or the Minutemen (the latter of which were interesting in their own right).

Spring: Francis Parker Yockey and Imperium.  The European Liberation Front. Post-war Mosely – Europe a Nation. From the end of WWII to Yockey’s death. New creative forms of racial-civilizational nationalism. An abortive attempt for Type II domination of activism.

Summer: Rockwell and the American Nazi Party.  The National Renaissance Party reaches its peak. The National Youth Alliance.  The rise of Carto. Evola – Ride the Tiger. From Yockey’s death to the full ascendance of William Pierce and the formation of the National Alliance from the ashes of The National Youth Alliance. The Type Is take charge permanently.

Fall: Pierce and the National Alliance. The original American Dissident Voices broadcast with Strom and Pierce. The rise of David Duke. Taylor begins American Renaissance. MacDonald’s trilogy. On Genetic Interests. The abortive attempt to renew a Type II Spring and Summer with Legion Europa.  From the early 1970s to the early 2000s. The death of Pierce – harbinger of the end. Type I domination with some Type II rebellion.  

Winter: Spencer, Johnson, the rise of “game” and the “Alt Right.”  Beavis-and-Butthead White Nationalism. Demented sicknesses like Silk Road White Nationalism. VDARE.  Derbyshire and Sailer.  The HBD menace.  Fossilized “movement” dogma. Arthur Kemp. A lack of any memetic originality coupled with contending self-interested leaders squabbling over scraps. Trumpism. The Interregnum we are now in. The Dark Ages for the “movement.” Type IIs to the monasteries to preserve civilization from the sniggering barbarian retardates.

Rethinking Horizontal Race

Yockey.
More commentary on this and related topics will be forthcoming, as a major focus of my work will be to formulate a scientifically-informed Yockeyism that incorporates Salterism into Yockeyist thought (and vice versa?).
While I will still deconstruct the “movement” when appropriate, a constant monitoring and critiquing of every single stupidity of Der Movement is a waste of time, for many reasons, not the least of which is that the “movement” is not redeemable, and all of the Type I Nutzis are never going to change their ways. It is time for the Type IIs to plan on making their stand.