Category: White ethnostate

Reductio ad Absurdum

Identity and separation.

Aside from all my other criticisms of the testing companies, and the idea of using imprecise data with wide error bars for “cutoffs,” there is a more fundamental problem with the idea of any definitive defined cutoff, and one shared with phenotypic rankings such as McCulloch’s “Nordish scale.”

Any ranking cutoff – typically arbitrarily determined – that would result in “blood” members of the same monoracial family being “binned” into different polities is logically absurd and untenable and would almost certainly (and rightfully) be rejected by the population. Let’s indulge in a bit of reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the point.

Imagine a White family, an extended family wholly of European descent. Let’s make the example even starker – let us assume they are all of the same ethnic group.  But, alas, brothers Jim and Tom differ by 1% on some component of an (likely imprecise) ancestry test,  and this crosses a cutoff threshold, so Jim goes to one ethnostate and Tom to another – and these are full brothers of a monoracial and monoethnic family. The same principle applies if Jim has a “Nordish rankling” one point different from Tom. And what about the rest of the family?

Mom goes to one state, Dad to another. Siblings, parents and children, husbands and wives – all could be placed in different ethnostates based on arbitrary cutoffs on rankings derived from genetic ancestry testing or based on someone’s subjective analysis of physical appearance.

The (weak) counter-argument would be “Well, the same principle holds for racially mixed families – under any racialist plan, they would be separated, they would object, and if they wish, they can go to the outgroup ethnostate, away from us.”  

How can you compare the two sets of circumstances? They are qualitatively and quantitatively different.

On the one hand, you have Mary Sue Mudshark marrying Tyrone Carjacker; on the other hand, you have two full brothers of a monoethnic family who differ by percentage points on an ancestry test.  On the one hand, you have John Omegashire marrying a Chinatrix; on the other hand, you have someone deciding that two family members of the same ethny differ by one point on their “Nordish ranking” and so must be separated – or the “in” person has to decide to follow the “out” person and leave the ethnostate. It’s not the same thing at all. Racial identity is at the core of racialism, it is its entire meaning, and racial intermarriage abrogates that – but arbitrarily drawn cutoffs on fuzzy genetic testing or on subjective phenotypic rankings do NOT define racial identity.

You can make exceptions based on family relationships – but then that conflates to ethnic ancestry.  So, the only logical, consistent, and reasonable policy – and one that has the greatest chance of acceptance by sane people – is to “bin” people based on their ethnic ancestry and overall racial identity, and only use those other determinations for cases in which ethnic designation is unknown (e.g., adoption).

It is one thing to separate people based on their racial and ethnic identity; i.e., separating different races and ethnic groups from each other. It’s another thing entirely to separate members of the same race or even the same ethnic group from one another based on arbitrarily determined criteria. This latter situation leads to the absurdity of separating members of a monoracial or even monoethnic family from each other based on those criteria. Solving the problems inherent in the latter situation inevitably leads to the former situation – simply separating people based on determined identities based on historically established ethnic groups and the major racial groups to which those ethnic groups belong.

I imagine that some would then try to invoke a leftist argument here – “Ethnic and racial groups are also arbitrary,” but that is objectively false and goes against the entire meaning of racial activism (and ethnonationalism for those interested in that). There are historically determined ethnic groups that have a biological basis, and race can be similarly determined.  Some may argue that looking from a purely genetic and biological basis that there are some “fuzzy” boundaries for race and ethnicity.  But this is the nature of biological reality – and even non-biological reality as well (define color, define location, etc.).  But, even so, particularly at the level of continental-scale population groups (races), there is good clustering, and, even more importantly, racial and ethnic identifies have components in addition to the purely biological (although that is the most important), and all of these components together create distinctive ethnic and racial identities even if any one component in isolation is fuzzy.  Read more about all of that here.

This would seem to be common sense, but I’ve been arguing against the idea of arbitrary cutoffs that would cut across racial, ethnic (and family!) lines since the early 2000s, and it is still necessary to do so today.


Twitter and Free Speech

Hypocrisy of democracy.

The crazed leftist view on free speech issues is here:

Twitter has discovered what many proponents of democratic society already knew: censorship is not the opposite of free speech. In fact, so-called free speech can actually be used as a weapon to silence the vulnerable and dispossessed. Ironically, to maintain its position as a platform for free discourse, Twitter must censor its users. 

My first riposte to that stupidity is to state that the “vulnerable and dispossessed” are precisely those people who are having their speech silenced through Twitter censorship. 
And that’s not just an abstract and logical objection, and it is not merely specific to the Twitter case. In the “West” those groups alleged to be “vulnerable and disposed” – minorities of various kinds for example – are allowed to say and do whatever they please, they are allowed to organize in an identitarian fashion to pursue group interests, and their relative proportion of the population is increasing. Those groups – the majority for example, particularly heterosexual men – who are considered “privileged” and “powerful” are those whose speech is censored and in some cases criminalized, who are not allowed to organize on a group basis, and whose proportion of the population is, not surprisingly, declining.  Indeed, for the latter group, complaints about these issues are themselves censored, leading to a negative spiral of disempowerment.
That sort of puts into perspective “vulnerable and dispossessed” doesn’t it?
A commentator at that article expresses the following view (spelling corrected):

I am sorry, but that’s one of the most idiotic claims ever made in ars Technica. 

By definition, censorship is the suppression of speech, which makes speech less free.  

The so-called “hate speech” criteria are one of the reasons why the German and international media engaged in self-censorship about the Cologne sexual attacks resulting in unwillingness to properly report the events. 

In reality, the world isn’t one big liberal-arts college campus, you know?

And my own “free speech primer” is here.
Question: Should a White ethnostate allow free speech to its ideological opponents?  The answer is: no.  Yes, as I outline above, free speech is extremely important. But:

1. Those who deny free speech to others to facilitate the genocide of those others cannot expect the courtesy of free speech extended to them.  Their ACTIONS – not speech – have criminalized them. 
2. In a White ethnostate, any such people would either be no longer under the jurisdiction of the state or they would be put on trial and the slowly tortured to death as punishment for the crimes committed under the present regime. So, the entire question is irrelevant.
3. The sort of White ethnostate I envision and promote would not be a democracy and would not make a pretense of being one, or of hypocritically speaking of “freedom” while denying such freedom to its majority citizens.  It is the current regime – that bases its legitimacy on “freedom” – that has the obligation to free speech.  An openly national socialist regime has no obligation.

4. The only thing that trumps free speech is freedom of association, championed by a White ethnostate.  The current System denies its majority freedom of association, and uses censorship of speech as a weapon to silence opposition to that policy.

A Valid Question for 7/19/15

A different immigration flow.
Re: this article, a question: if the migrants invading Europe were predominantly Chinese (and other East Asians), would “the Derb” be writing critical articles about it?  Or would such an invasion be lauded as “increasing national IQ” as part of an “Arctic Alliance” between big-brained Orientals and cringing Europeans?
My vision of a future White ethnostate: where all the HBDers are put on trial for race treason, and then publicly executed by being hanged from meathooks with piano wire.  And escape overseas would not help in this scenario, as I envision – similar to the Israelis with Eichmann – commandos hunting down the HBDers and bringing them to the ethnostate for trial.  In this vision of a better and brighter future, no place on Earth would be safe for the HBDers, there would be no place for them to hide from the justice meted out by outraged and long-suffering Whites.