Proximate White Race Interests?

It’s wrong to emphasize the proximate.

Let’s consider this again.  I object to basing pro-White arguments solely on proximate issues of Whites being better with respect to some traits.  See my arguments here (at TOO of all places!):

…that what’s it is all about is race and genetic interests, not about legality, IQ, economics, the environment, or what have you.  It’s about White vs. non-White demographics in America, and all the rest is a smokescreen obfuscating this key point…Summary: It is about Race, or the Race-Culture; it is about genetic interests, and these are things that can be, in the long run, defended only by Explicit Whiteness. If we can’t talk about racial interests as Whites, we can’t win. All these other arguments are ultimately meaningless if they don’t serve ultimate interests.

It is inherently dangerous to center the debate about White interests on proximate issues. After all, one can always make arguments that other groups manifest the positive traits in question and in some cases may manifest these proximate positive characteristics better than do Whites.  To put it crudely, only Whites can be Whites, but Asians can be “high-IQ and law-abiding.”  Which then is the more stable and directly definitive argument in favor of White interests: White uniqueness as a people in the sense of a distinctive extended kinship family or arguments that Whites are better than other groups in certain ranked traits?

By the way, remember Senator Vaile’s defense of the Reed-Johnson Act:

Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the "Nordic" race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer … that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has … a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.

What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But … [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.

We are determined that they shall not … It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves."

-Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922

Thus, kinship-based arguments independent of claims of superiority, have already been successful in American history for appealing to the high trust northern hunter gatherers.  Why then use HBD proximate arguments that can be hijacked to promote the interests of Jews and Asians?  Unless of course that is the real intention.

This reminds me of Ian Jobling, whose “activism” on behalf of Whites was motivated by his belief that Whites were the only group capable of prompting the liberal democratic universalist values – including Rawlsian ethics of all things! – that he espoused; essentially he thought Whites embodied the leftist egalitarian creeds hastening our destruction.

A problem with basing pro-White activism on proximate values is that it legitimately smacks of the very sort of “White supremacy” that kinship-based White nationalists are unfairly accused of.  Indeed, if you are going to argue that Whites are important to you precisely because they are better at X,Y,Z than are other groups – and in some cases claiming that Whites are unique in being the ONLY group capable of manifesting these positive traits and creating the desirable societies resulting from such traits – then how else will that be construed other than overt White supremacy?  Such an approach will likely repel Herrenvolk Whites even more than a simple kinship-based “we are all one big extended family” approach to the problem.

But, hey, maybe I’m wrong.  This can only be determined empirically.  If the MacDonald-Duchesne school of thought is correct, then they should achieve success in using their strategy to push Whites toward the “ethnicized individualism” they envision.  Does anyone truly believe they will achieve such success?  Hasn’t all of these proximate arguments already been made – and failed spectacularly?

Now, those are comments about the prescriptive components of the MacDonald thesis.  I’ve already commented and critiqued the descriptive.  I’ll say only one thing.  How about trying to demonstrate the validity of genetic-based ethnic behavior by examining whether these behaviors are stable in novel environments – like the USA?  Can differences be observed between, say, Anglo-Americans and Swedish-Americans on the one hand, and Italian-Americans and Russian-Americans on the other?  Here I talk about people of unmixed ethnic ancestry, whose families have been in America for 100+ years.  If the traits are inherited, it should be stable in the New World.  If the argument is that the differences are an emergent trait of having communities of these peoples, instead of isolated families, then I suppose you can compare Swedish-Americans in Minnesota to Italian-Americans in New Jersey.  Of course, the same approach applies to non-European peoples as well.

Laugh at this.   MacDonald doesn’t seem to comprehend that by his own theories (!), the Herrenvolk ancestry of those two is precisely the reason why they support the Left, and will continue to do so.

If one wanted to adopt a top-down approach as part of their overall activist strategy, targeted White elites, particularly wealthy White elites, then the optimal approach would be to target individuals for which there was at least a slight possibility of sincere conversion to the cause. In contrast, Bezos and ex-wife have very clearly demonstrated that they are committed enemies of White interests, with no indication whatsoever of being susceptible to change.  To the extent that their “northern European extraction” is relevant here, then – according to MacDonald’s own theories – that would make them less, not more, likely to accept pro-White arguments and to be converted to promoting White interests.

MacDonald’s tweet merely demonstrates the strong hold Nordicism still holds over Der Movement (Nordicism here defined in its broadest sense, by ancestry, since if we consider phenotype, then Bezos resembles a cross between a Jew and an earthworm).

It is baffling how the author of the Jewish trilogy – an important piece of serious scholarship – can descend so far as to make such childish Type I tweets.

In any case, that tweet is a perfect example of the dogmatic fetishism that has led the “movement” to decades of unremitting failure.  Instead of focusing on the “low hanging fruit” of (allegedly) “modestly collectivist” Southern and Eastern Europeans, your “leaders” fixate on wealthy Herrenvolk who have an objectively documented history of giving hundreds of millions of dollars to fund your racial enemies.  At what point are the rank-and-file going to wake up and realize how they are being so badly misled?

But, hey, Bezos is of great benefit to all humanity and we need more men like him!

Competent wops?

Read this.

You may have never heard of Frank Borzellieri, but from 1993 to 2004, he was the most famous local politician in the country. He first ran at age 30, and was releected three times to the school board in the Bronx, New York. He blasted anti-white bias and the idea, that, in his words, “white Europeans are to blame for all the historical troubles of man.” He caused a huge stink and he got more of the vote every time he ran. He lost reelection only because all the school districts in New York City were rolled up into one giant one. He influenced and inspired countless people. If you are smart and energetic, you can do the same.

And he ended up having his life ruined because of his pro-White activism.  To his credit, Derbyshire did direct attention to Borzellieri’s plight and asked people to help, but in general, Frank was abandoned by Der Movement (do we really need to wonder why?).

And then we have:

…it may be that the most important thing you can do is give money to people and organizations doing work you respect. Every activist organization needs money; without contributors they die.

“D’Nations!”  Maybe Der Movement should first demonstrate concrete positive achievements with the millions of dollars they have already received before they ask for more.

They’re “cute.”  T level = zero.

He’s HuWhite.

Here’s something for Andrew Hamilton to enjoy.  See this as well.  But, hey, keep on whining about the odd Egyptian in Napoleon's Imperial Guard.