McCulloch Partially Addresses the Johnson Question

Let's take a look.

Readers of this blog know I admit when I'm wrong. So, my previous characterization of McCulloch as dishonest and/or incompetent, re: Johnson's embrace of multiracialism, was wrong (assuming that the second part of his essay was written in its present form before my post of earlier today). If that assumption is correct, then I do apologize for "jumping the gun" so to speak, and this is a lesson to wait for the entirety of a work to be published before commenting. 

That said, my criticism of McCulloch's lack of understanding of population genetics methodology and interpretation still stands, and, as we shall see, he ends his essay in such a way as to mostly invalidate what good he does in critiquing Johnson.

Here's some of McCulloch's criticism of Johnson:

This is where Johnson seems to falter and backstep on the program he advocates elsewhere. That is, he accepts “multiculturalism” (by which he means multiracialism, the real object of our concern, because without multiracialism there would not be enough multiculturalism to be concerned about) in a reduced degree with pro-White modifications to make it work better for Whites. He thus adopts a Fabian or “creeping” approach to eventually achieve an ethnostate. This is supposedly to minimize the difficulties and opposition entailed by a complete and more abrupt racial separation. In the previous essays in this volume Johnson has built a strong case for complete racial separation to attain his elsewhere expressed desire for what he calls “a nice white country,” as he did in his previous manifesto. However, in “Uppity White Folks” he materially deviates from that position.

Yet to gain their support Johnson proposes to accommodate their current ill-informed and misinformed racial, political and moral beliefs and values, however false and harmful they may be, by abandoning preservationally-sufficient 100% White nationalism in favor of preservationally-insufficient 90% White nationalism.

What would be the final goal, the final numbers or proportions of Johnson’s proposed solution, or how much would the non-White population have to be decreased to reach the solution? He addresses that question in the sub-section titled “Ninety-Percent White Nationalism.”

If an American identitarian movement were to propose reversing the demographic decline of white America, they would need a target number. If the public is not yet ready for homogeneously white ethnostates, that target number must be somewhere under 100%. As an American, I would choose 90%.

As for the ethnic breakdown of the non-white percentage, … I would … make it clear that it could contain representatives of all currently existing non-white groups. This is important to reduce opposition.

[M]any whites who are ready for some form of white identity politics will not accept it unless you leave some room for “based” minority outliers, mail-order brides, indigenous minorities, hard-luck groups like refugees and the descendants of slaves, and the purveyors of their favorite ethnic cuisines. (pp. 142–143)

Including non-Whites in our country because they purvey some Whites’ favorite ethnic cuisines? Johnson has elsewhere dismissed this objection to racial separation as petty compared with the White interests involved. Indeed, it is on a par with such objections as “who will pick up the trash” or “who will cut the grass.” Why is he now not just taking it seriously but actually accommodating it?...

…Here Johnson returns to his position in the first 136 pages, and again uses multiculturalism as a euphemism for multiracialism, as references to “white majority” and “suicide” make sense in the context of race but not of culture. But isn’t the idea of 90% White Nationalism nothing more than Whites being gaslighted into an even longer and more drawn-out suicide, and distracted from non-suicidal alternatives?..

…If we allow that Johnson’s target of 90% White Nationalism is achievable, whether desirable or not, the question then is how would it be maintained, or is it even realistic to assume it could be maintained, other than by a permanent continuation of the draconian measures which would probably be required to attain it.

OK, so far so good. Once again, if that was written before my earlier post - mea culpa, I was wrong. Now, here is where it goes "off the rails"- 

Johnson is to be commended for addressing the subject of solutions to our racial problem, something too few do. He might sometimes seem to get ahead of himself and neglect specifics that would clarify his multiple proposals, but this is all to the good as it both stimulates and provokes thoughtful, constructive, and hopefully fruitful discussion of this vitally important matter.

So, Johnson proposes an incoherent and racially destructive plan (and one McCulloch picks apart), but he's to be "commended for addressing the subject of solutions to our racial problem."  I recall McCulloch not being so gracious with Dr. Michael Hart; indeed, Hart was (justifiably) sharply chastised by McCulloch and, again if I recall, Hart was accused of an ulterior motive for sabotaging genuine racial preservationism.

The problem is that Hart's solution wasn't materially different from Johnson's in its broad outlines.  Yes, there are differences in detail, but Hart proposed a multiracial, majority White ethnostate, exactly as does Johnson.  Yet, Hart was labelled as some sort of "chess player" plotting moves to negatively affect preservationism, but Johnson is praised and commended. Yes, I suppose Jew Hart's armenoid phenotype may have offended the racial aesthetic sensibilities of McCulloch, while founding stock American Johnson is suitably "Nordish," but to attack Hart while commending Johnson seems to me the height of hypocrisy.